GothamSchools — daily independent reporting on NYC public schools

I interviewed teachers from Open Market looking to become Guidance Counselors. I been told from HR that I can’t hire them as a Counselor b/c they are considered new hires. Kind of strange since many have been school teachers in the system for many years. If that’s the case, why did the Open Market hiring system allow them to apply in the first place? It is totally unfair to teachers that desire to advance their careers as counselors to support our children. Teachers can become AP’s and Principals and yet they are not allowed to become counselors. Furthermore, it is more embarrassing as a school leader to interview highly qualified individuals for counseling positions to later find out they are not hirable because of the undefined hiring freeze in place.

There seem to be a few misconceptions (well, more than a few, but two that I’d like to address) floating around here regarding new vs. experienced teachers and exactly what ATRs do.

I am looking at my second year in the ATR pool. I was excessed when the entire Literacy budget at my school was eliminated because all of our AIS students got a 2 or higher on the ELA. The whole Reading faculty (3 of us) were excessed because we DID OUR JOBS. I was the least senior, but I still have 9yr as a Literacy Specialist. One has since retired, the other is also looking at year 2 as an ATR. Early last school year, I was transferred to an elementary school where I was used for AIS Literacy instruction and Literacy evaluations almost every day. The principal changed my assignments on a daily basis so I would still look like a sub even though I was being used for AIS. This may have helped her on paper, but it didn’t help the kids who were struggling because there was no consistency in their interventions. I’d see a group for a few days, then groups were switched, then I had to cover preps and even had a few month-long stints as a Common Branch (not my license area) teacher when there were medical leaves. During this whole time, however, I WAS EXPECTED to keep a binder of daily lessons and logs, I was observed, my logs were checked and I had pop-in visits from the APs who looked at my plans and watched me in the classroom. I kept notes, did assessments, and in the case of the leave replacements, choreographed a dance routine for the Dance Festival, organized a field trip, gave assessments and had parent-teacher conferences. AT NO TIME was I allowed to stay home or “do nothing” in the building. There was work for me every day and while I didn’t have to write out report cards, I was not exempt from anything else I had done as an appointed teacher. I only had the indignity of constantly being shuttled around (I didn’t have a desk or place to hang my bag/coat and carried it with me all day) and referred to as “just a sub”. So there was no benefit to being an ATR. Other friends from my old school who are ATRs report similar experiences. I don’t know where the “ATRs get paid to do nothing” lie came from, but it is a complete lie. I’ve taught 5 hours straight (5 periods) with no bathroom break and was told that I was “just a sub” and had no right to complain. I was treated like an idiot by administration because “I’m just a sub” even though I have been teaching for about 13 years in total. So, believe me, I have put in for EVERY listed Literacy position I could find within a reasonable commuting distance and have attended several hiring fairs, and have gotten nothing. And even though I have “been around”, I still love my job and am enthusiastic and effective at it. I challenge any newbie to try to beat me at it.

Regarding seniority. I think the new teachers among us are forgetting that teaching is a civil service position, and in civil service, seniority rules. You don’t get to “just fire” teachers because state education law forbids tenured teachers from being fired without cause. Also, civil service vacancies are filled by seniority, with new hires placed only after ALL those already hired have been placed. That’s the way it is. Even if you “like” someone better, you have to take from the already hired first. Principal interviews 40 ATRs and doesn’t like any of them? Probably doesn’t like their tenure or salary step more than anything. And it doesn’t matter anyway – you pick one of them because you have to. The problem is that BloomKlein refuses to simply place the ATRs – as in, “You need a SS teacher? Well, here’s your SS teacher”, end of discussion. And when all the newbies are no longer newbies, but have their 30-plus differentials and are at Step 15 on the pay scale, they will be very happy that seniority rules because then THEY will be the ones with the targets on their backs.

I do sympathize with people who did uproot themselves in the hope of getting a NYC position, but they are not OWED anything. They took a risk. Risk sometimes don’t go the way you want. If anything, they should be looking at a class action suit against the City if they feel so wronged.

Each year, the DOE open market allows teachers to make so call transfers to other schools providing they have credentials in the area applying.

I know of many teachers who applied for Guidance Counselor positions using the Open Market Hiring System. These teachers interviewed by administrators. All had great interviews. To no surprise of the current administrative workforce, many didn’t receive any follow up calls. Others indeed had follow up calls. The follow up calls said they would be hired if they could, but they can’t be hired because they are a new hire. This is leaving many current teachers confused simply because they have many years of service with the DOE.

Why were they allowed to use the open market to apply for a transfer in the first place?

What is the UFT doing to help the many teachers that applied for Guidance Jobs on the Open Market only to hear they can’t be hired because they are considered a new hire even with many years of service in the DOE and paying UFT dues?