The ATR is taking the job. There really is no choice. Suit will make life miserable if it is turned down. The union told the ATR to accept. There are no jobs out there for teachers the ATR's age.
The thing that disgusts me the most is the attitude of some of my colleagues. They don't see any further than the nose on their face and they see nothing wrong with Suit's attitude. "It's the contract", they say. "All principals are doing this." And, "There is nothing anyone can do."
What happened to the fighting spirit of the 60's and the 70's? We stood up for our rights and our colleagues. We walked the Brooklyn Bridge in protest. We went on strike and suffered Taylor Law consequences.
School gal was right. I work with a bunch of idiots.
These teachers will be the first to complain when this happens to them.
The thing that disgusts me the most is the attitude of some of my colleagues. They don't see any further than the nose on their face and they see nothing wrong with Suit's attitude. "It's the contract", they say. "All principals are doing this." And, "There is nothing anyone can do."
What happened to the fighting spirit of the 60's and the 70's? We stood up for our rights and our colleagues. We walked the Brooklyn Bridge in protest. We went on strike and suffered Taylor Law consequences.
School gal was right. I work with a bunch of idiots.
These teachers will be the first to complain when this happens to them.
17 comments:
Now I am totally confused.
Was this guy an ATR to begin with or a regular, licensed, appointed teacher in your school?
If the latter, he is an idiot!!!
The ATR was a teacher in the school that left to take a mentoring job for a few years. Now, there are no more mentors so the teacher is an ATR. Although the teacher worked in the school a while ago, being gone more than a year and a day did away with the right of return.
That's a whole different story.
I was under the impression he was an appointed teacher to your school, but once he gave up "right of return" you don't have the same rights.
When did he return?? If he returned last year and had a position and was put back on payroll as part of the regular staff, then he had a strong case.
But if he just returned this school year, I don't think he had a leg to stand on. That's why he took the deal.
The 60s and 70s are dead--even the 80s are dead. This is a society that is superficial in the worst way--no one cares about anyone's welfare but their own. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, unless it's about me, of course!
windhover
The fighting spirit is gone because we have been so beaten down that for some, the fight has been pummeled out of them. We are trying, in small ways, in my school to start slowly fighting back. We're starting with the small qualitiy of life issues, and we'll go from there. And even with that, there are any number of staff who would, if asked by the principal, to kiss her ass, they would say, "where?'
But really, if he missed the one year and a day deadline that has been in the contract for as long as I remember, he really could not claim retention rights in his school. However, had it not been for the '05 contract, he would have been placed somewhere else without having ATR status.
Let us not forget that this guy had 2 U ratings. One more is grounds for termination for a tenured teacher. Maybe this deal was a God send.
Had he been re-appointed to the school as a regular appointed teacher, heck, I would have called the union myself. But that doesn't seem to be the case.
This teacher has never been U rated. While the retention rights are gone, there still showld be some moral rights--no matter what the contract says.
This teacher left our school to become a mentor. To become a mentor a teacher must be a "master" teacher. Mentoring jobs are gone and so is the classroom for this teacher.
But didn't you originally write...
"Although things seemed to be going better for him last year, he got hit with his second U rating and he is very worried (with cause) about his future. He only needs a few more years and he will make it to 55/25."
Are we still talking about the same guy???????
That was a different ATR
Then I need a recap:
First case:
Mr. T is being forced to be an ATR even though he is an appointed teacher? That I believe is against the contract. Suit was too lazy to try to get rid of him by using legal means if in fact those U-ratings are accurate.
Second case:
The other teacher did not use the "right to return" as outlined in the contract? If so, I believe under the terms of the contract that would automatically make him an ATR. But was there an opening in your school that this former teacher applied for and was not given? Did that job go to a new teacher? That may well be a discrimination suit and the teachers should be rallying around him.
Your school is too confusing with all these ATRs :(
Anonymous--you got it right!
I still say they are both(ATR case 1 and 2) better off in da rubber room.
The spirit of the 60s and 70s is still alive in Venezuela, Brasil, Cuba, Holland, Denmark, Sweden and a few other places. It is certainly comotose in this country but give it time as more and more people are victimized by these heartless, ignorant and greedy Republicans and Conservatives. I belive this is the calm before the storm.
Hi,
That was me Schoolgal, not Anon.
With all the confusion, I forgot to sign in.
In case #2:
When do principals have to bear the cost of ATRs, because Suit is not saving any money by doing this if he is paying for both.
In case #1,
Did Mr. T. grieve or did he become an ATR. With only a few years to go before he retires, it might not be such a bad idea if he retires before the next contract.
Schoolgal
Mr. T is grieving and I agree, he might be better off as an ATR. He has a few more years left in the system.
ATRs do not come out of the school budget.
Interesting situation(s).
Regarding the ATR/Mentor: If he is teaching a full program, and that program is not being funded by the school's budget, your principal is essentially "stealing" (for lack of a better word) from central's funding.
Until principals are severely reprimanded for engaging in this type of financial theft, the ATR problem will continue to persist. When the ATR/Mentor left his position, your school was appropriated a sum equal to his salary when he left the service of the school under the "hold harmless" provisions. The school has already benefited once in terms of budget.
Principals must be held accountable for this type of financial duplicity.
Aren't teachers the most complacent group of people? One would think that if that could run a classroom they would have the sense to speak up for themselves and their colleagues. They are offensively complacent. I have seen it a million times.
But, what was her other choice? Being the target of an angry principal is no fun. It makes life and survival very difficult both in the school and once you leave it. I have the misfortune of teaching a class on the same floor of a new school in our building. That school's principal is a friend of my former principal -- not our legendary founding principal, but just our last principal of record who took over when our longstanding principal retired due to cancer. Not such good luck for me, is all I can say.
Post a Comment