The first is a reply to a comment I made at NYC Educator from Arthur Goldstein:
This is a comment I made on a story where the chancellor spoke and answered questions at the UFT Executive Board in a closed session:
James Eterno • 20 hours ago
I have written about the DOE grievance game. It is rather obvious that the broken grievance process came up with Chancellor Carranza. This is clearly a strategy from DOE to tie up the process that the UFT has gone along with by basically playing the game and treating the process as if it is legitimate. The union could easily take the DOE to PERB or court multiple times for tying up the grievance process to make it basically meaningless which is what is going on when the DOE denies obvious cases as was documented in this post and I have witnessed too. When Chancellor Carranza goes back to his people and tells them how upset the teachers union is about the broken grievance process, he will hear from his corrupt managerial class. Will he side with his teachers? I hope so however it's been sixteen years of Klein, Black, Walcott, Farina. Turning that DOE anti-teacher culture around without a real fight may not be so easy but I will remain hopeful. If Carranza's Office of Labor Relations turns down some obvious Step II's, will the UFT publicize it and take him to PERB/Court or simply continue to declare more union victories since they can win open and shut cases in arbitration?
Now Arthur's reply:
NYC Educator Mod James Eterno • 18 hours ago
I've got five obvious step twos about to go to arbitration. Probably six, actually. I have an APPR complaint hanging for a while now. Members are being made miserable through this wasteful and plainly disingenuous process. I would love to see it changed.
Grievance process totally broken as we have said. No fix in site.
Now this comment from a prior posting here in the ICEUFTblog. This is kind of wishful thinking about life as an ATR:
The ATR position is different in every school. I know it sucks in other schools but in my school it really is not so bad. The only con is that they have to cover different classes everyday. Which some people might see as a pro. They do get treated very poorly by the students. But then again, so do the teachers who are not ATRs. So, I count this as a neutral.
The pros are that they do not have any paperwork to do. They do not have to: project plan, unit plan, lesson plan, write student goals, write instructional adjustments for lessons, write out student improvement plans, communicate with parents, grade papers, use Skedula, keep student portfolios, write feedback, or do bulletin boards. They do not have any work to take home. They have no observations. They are in the building for 6 hours and 50 minutes and they are done for the day. They do not have a circular 6 assignment. Although they have to be in the school building, they do not have to attend meetings. They are not on grade teams, department teams, curriculum teams, inquiry teams, data teams, book study teams, leadership teams, discipline teams, safety committees, instructional leads, AP for All teams, Sp. Ed teams, or professional development teams.
I currently put in about 60 - 70 hours a week to get all my work done. I am tired. Making $100,000 for being a body in a school for 25 - 30 hours a week and having weekend and vacations with no school work, doesn't sound so bad to me.
James Eterno said...
If your union followed the contract, you would not be doing much of that stuff either 8:30. I don't know that project plan, student goals, student portfolios, instructional adjustments for students or any of those teams are contractually required. If administration tried to impose any of that in the schools I worked at, there would have been an immediate teacher rebellion.
You said ATRs do not get observed. Most have a field supervisor who observes them in classes where ATR might not even know kids or subject. It can be impossible to be satisfactory. Try that.
Do people in the schools just keep their heads down and take the abuse? When told to do something that fairly obviously is not contractual, do they just bow their heads and say, "Yes Ma'am," to the principal. "Just please make my Danielson score high?" I can't imagine myself or my wife or our friends ever, ever acting like that.
Now for something that came in my email yesterday morning:
I’m in a decent school in NYC. Principal and AP’s actually work with the teachers. Low turnover school.
I know of an award winning teacher in another school who is on principal’s shit list because she dared to go to union about something. She wants to leave. This teacher has 16 years in.
The school I’m in has two vacancies (common branch) on Open Market. I mentioned the teacher to my principal. Told her this teacher has won awards. Principal says, “She’s too expensive for me.” This is getting ridiculous.
The mistake this teacher made was contacting DR through the school’s gmail account. The principal at her current school monitors the emails sent and received.
Oh God it's worse than I thought in the schools. Are these just isolated examples?
Is our view accurate that your life at work depends on who your supervisor is?
I have a possible response for all of the places considered to be hellholes:
How about organizing into a union? Oh wait, we already have one. It is called the United Federation of Teachers. Nothing will change until the rank and file forces the union to be a real union.
We have the power to do that if we only organize and take it.
Even if everyone leaves the UFT after Janus, what will you do to fight back then? Bow your head even lower but be thankful that you can keep your dues?
Please tell us what is out there and how widespread the abuse is.