I have been thinking about this Fair Student Funding for some time and how it affects ATR's.On Monday, Chaz wrote a blog piece on how FSF "shortchanges students" and the DOE does diddly. As does the UFT. He used a recent Chalkbeat article that more or less explained how FSF came into being and how it works. Of course I take anything Chalkbeat blabbers about with a grain of salt but I have to admit, it was enlightening.
First, I am not buying the age discrimination angle some False Prophet dressed as a clown claims. Yeah, there might be some, but after reading the Chalkbeat article, in my opinion, proving age discrimination short of smoking gun, will be extremely, extremely difficult to prove. But alas, there are many followers that enjoy the Kool-Aid and will follow blindly until...well maybe there is no "until."
But here is a simple way to get ATR's hired that myself and The Crack Team put together.
Now as we know, an ATR making max salary (I forget what it is top of my head, but I am just going to use $100k for this post) is doing a damn fine job, likes the school and both the ATR and principal are in synch, and the principal really wants this ATR on board.
The ATR's salary will come out of the school budget. Now getting hired in the middle of the year is tough enough, what with the budget having already been spent. The following year, who knows? Will the school receive less monies? Maybe more but not enough monies?
The ATR at $100k is kind screwed. As well as the students and community of that school.
So the ATR is rotating to and fro not being able to do what they do best but rather be a glorified substitute. Just being wasted away.
But of course Tweed, in all it's glorified, illogical, infinite wisdom continues to pay this ATR $100k per year.
But the ATR can't be hired because the school lacks the funds to hire said ATR. Bear with me, I'm getting to the point.
The school gets it's monies from, care to guess? Yep, you are right. The school gets it's monies from Tweed. The same dolts that are paying the ATR $100k a year to do lunch duty, file papers, teach Latin when that ATR has a common branch license, etc... You get my point right?
Here is how we fix it. Kinda Charter School Style© (Just in case the UFT decides to use this idea. I, and The Crack Team, can get royalty checks).
The money follows the teacher. Tweed gives the money for that ATR's salary to the specific school. Case closed. Problem solved. Everyone is happy. Tweed reduces it's self-created embarrassment of ATR's, a principal gets a darn good teacher, the students get a darn good teacher, the ATR is happy, and there will be less teachers are anti-anxiety medications.
It makes sense. Both the school's budget and the money Tweed spends on ATR's comes from well. It's like when my wife tries to bet me money. She thinks I am wrong about something, she says, "I'll bet you $100." I say, "No, that's illogical. that $100 comes from our money. You or I have access to that $100 no matter what. Bet me breakfast in bed for a month or something like that." Can't tell you how many times I have had breakfast in bed. ;)
The Crack Team believes that this method is the best, and most adult, method to solve the inanity of this ATR issue.
34 comments:
Your post is based on a false premise. The goal of the ATR conundrum is to demoralize the teachers in the pool and it has been largely successful in this endeavor.
Abigail Shure
The only way to fix the problem is to stop hiring new teachers until the ATR pool is empty.
Is your crack team smoking crack? The goal is for us all to quit or retire. Even that brainless twit and his hominid know it.
The "Fair Student Funding" policy, which requires that the teacher's salary comes out of the school's budget, rather than the central bureau, was intended as a disincentive for hiring senior staff. This works in tandem with two other strategic policies: 1. The closing of over 150 large schools which had sizable senior staffs, replacing them with smaller mini & charter schools that had narrower curriculums, needing fewer teachers (& few specialized teachers), forcing the excessed staff to reapply for their jobs elsewhere. 2. The elimination of seniority transfer (a.k.a. "forced placement"), thus giving principals discretion in hiring. These policies are designed to remove the protections for senior staff and make it almost impossible for them to be retained, or rehired, which of course, was Tweed's objective in implementing them in the first place. Remember, when Bloomberg assumed mayoral control of the schools, he said (to the effect) that "we will do the job better & cheaper, with fewer staff."
This truly is a great post and I have said this years ago in that the DOE is playing a shell game with the money. Everyone gets paid from the same source in theory - NYC - so playing the shell game of my budget bla bla bla is such a crock of crap because again, everyone, and I do mean everyone including teachers, principals, counselors, etc. get paid from the same source and that is NYC. The shell game has confused people but the click mouse shell game puts money into each and every school which makes no sense at all but rather causing the system to go haywire in that teachers struggle and ultimately the kids are the ones who really suffer because we all get paid from the same mother ship. Peace.
For smart guy you are incredibly Naïve. This system was created and remains in effect to purge the system of high salaried teachers. All that has to be done is to go back to central funding. Once you’re an ATR for 5 or more years you’ll go nuts and quit. The UFT is in on it.
Lets try to be honest.
1 What percent of ATRs like the way things are right now?
2 Related to that, but not identical, what percent would retire the next day if all ATRs were force placed?
3 What percent are fine teachers who would do credit to any school?
4. What percent are people that are not (Im trying to be kind here) good.
Lets hear it. Label 1, 2, 3, 4.
How about a Big Fuck You for your false assumptions? Do you hear that? What percent of your brain is fried? What percent of your soul is filled with jealousy towards others? Let’s hear it.
I guess the last guy found a shoe that fit. I dont see that the question is sso bad. Anyway, Heres my guess
1. 35%
2. 25%
3. 60%
4. 25%
I guess you’re not an ATR or you would realize how offensive and assumptive 7:20 is being.
The two snowflakes dont like the question because its assumptive, whatever that means. So why not just answer like this and reveal your own assumptiveness.
1. 0%
2. 0%
3. 100%
4. 0%
Well cornflake, that’s being just as much of a jackass as the dude that asked the question.
For your further education:
assumptive - accepted as real or true without proof; "the assumed reason for his absence"
The first of the four questions is actually important and might arguably influence UFT policy. How many atrs prefer the status quo? That is a legitimate question. Not assumptive at all.
How would any individual ATR be able to answer that question? The assumption is inherent in the question .
As is the bias.
atr here
secretly like it and never met anyone in over 4+ years who want it to change- esp with the way things are.
I suspect not many would retire if forced placed but over 85% would be unhappy about it.
I know i would be a good fit anywhere and suspect 5o% would as well.
I don't know any ATR that likes it. No one would retire if forced placed. We were told repeatedly last year that we would be forced placed and give a $50000 incentive to retire or resign. Only 120 took it and were retiring anyway. I agree with the commentor that these questions are assumptive and indeed are inherently biased.
Let’s see. Am I better off as ATR or school at where I was shat upon??? Hmmmmmm
That's an entirely different scenario than what was asked. Most of us were not 3020a-ed - no disrespect intended.
ill take a flyby observation by a field supervisor(even with unknown kids) with s/u ratings over danielson with principal any day.
Being that only 60 atrs joined the lawsuit(out of 2000+)(less then 5% of atrs) the numbers show i am correct.
let the facts stand.
60 ATR’s are about to be extremely disappointed.
Not Atr here. If status quo is not acceptable, and forced placement (in borough,lets say) is unaacceptable, then what is acceptabe?
(btw, I also dont know why the last ques is unanswerable by an individual, or biased.)
Force place me, please. Anything is better than going into a different class of out of control kids daily. Unanswerable because it asked for percentages FYI. Biased because the questions are prefaced on the assumptions contained in the questions.
Tony Murphy
That proves nothing. I would have joined the suit (and many of would have) if I could prove that the positions I applied to in previous years went to less experienced and younger candidates. I don’t have access to that and neither does anyone else, but the union and DOE. I want to be placed as a teacher. I didn’t go through a termination hearing and am not happy working as a babysitter.
Could the less experienced teachers be over 40? How thence you prove age discrimination? Let’s say the cutoff point is not 40, but rather 48? A teacher that started teaching at the age of 22 and has 20 years in will be almost top salary yet 42 years old. There is too much nuance. There is no smoking gun.
This is just another failed ploy by Fuckface McClownstick. Everything Portelos is part of and touches dies.
The less experienced teachers are under forty. Most ATRs are over fifty. I don’t know Portelos or care about his involvement or lack of it. Because of the requirements from the law firm, I doubt the number will sixty - it’s far less. I like your blog, the constant obsession with Porty is - well obsessed.
No constant obsession. Just the truth. None different than someone’s vilifying Betsy, or me writing about e4e, Eva, or any bad actors.
But curious what are the requirements?
You have to be able to prove discrimination, i.e.
know the person that was chosen for a position over you was less qualified. Many ATRs stopped applying for positions because we were never even given an interview.
Which is next to impossible to prove. Again, False Prophet giving false hope.
I agree, which is why I dropped out. I didn’t know Portelos was involved in any way - my friends don’t either. It’s irrevalant and has nothing to do with our decisions.
This is ridiculous mumbo jumbo. The questions are simple, and the backlash here just gives more evidence that ATRs are a bunch of misfits and losers. This FSF argument is trash. One year, the DOE made ATRs virtually free and Principals still didn't hire. The problem is complex, but one piece of the puzzle is that there is a significant number of incompetents, weirdos, and mutts in the pool, and most of them dont want the problem solved.
You just proved your bias, dirtbag.
Post a Comment