On Monday September 26, 2016, at a UFT Executive Board meeting, President Michael Mulgrew stated that discussions regarding ATRs took place with the DOE that day. He then added “They did not go well.” and then stopped. He did not say what didn’t go well and, as in the case of much of the information regarding ATRs, he kept the membership in the dark.
What didn’t go well? What does the DOE want and what is the UFT asking? What are the numbers?
During the UFT Executive Board meeting the week before, both Michael Mulgrew and appointed ATR liaison Amy Arundell, stated that they do not have the exact numbers, but they are “lowest they have been in a long time.” Most of us do not believe that and if they were lower, then why would two meetings go by without even an estimate? Note that the UFT also joins the DOE in fudging ATR numbers by excluding any ATR who is covering a short or long-term coverage.
For this statement to be true, the numbers would have to be below 837. On its face that is a lie, because of the ATR Alliance has an incomplete list of almost 1,200 ATRs from this September.
In any case, there are discussions going on and ATRs are left in the dark. There is no open discussion with ATRs, no meetings planned and the top down UFT leadership method continues.
As a Throwback Thursday, see the old DOE UFT ATR agreement from 2008 and respective PowerPoint shown to principals. Even if you quickly skim it, you will see that there was more emphasis by the old Bloomberg-Klein administration to push for the permanent hiring of ATRs than the current de blasio- Farina administration.
To contrast, the UFT and current DOE have touted record number of new hires in just the last 3 years. 5,700 this year, 6,000 last year and another 5,500 new hires the year before. All the while more schools have been phased out and closed and more schools are excessing.
UFT leadership, whenever you are ready to have ATRs be part of conversations about ATRs, please let us know. An article in the NY Teacher wouldn’t hurt.
See our current ATR Survey Statistics: