Yesterday, the NY Post wrote an article attacking deBlasio, Farina, Mulgrew, the UFT, NYC non-charter public schools, Randy Asher and ATRs. Here's the link for the article http://nypost.com/2017/01/18/why-parents-want-out-of-de-blasio-run-schools/ . I have to say the article made my blood boil. It's ignorant, insulting and uses several tricks in its attempt to persuade the reader. I could go through it sentence by sentence, but suffice it to say, it's the ATR comments I found most egregious, (I'm sure every group and person mentioned feels similarly).
"If the UFT still balks, expect City Hall to bend — because de Blasio always bows to its wishes. Hence the new drive to sneak “rubber room” teachers back into class.
Educators stuck in the Absent Teacher Reserve are those who’ve lost their old post but who no principal wants to hire. The rubber rooms embarrass the union, which pretends its every member is just great.
So Schools Chancellor Carmen Fariña named Randy Asher as her senior adviser tasked with clearing the rubber rooms. He says some in the ATR pool “are highly desirable” — but why didn’t he desire them as principal at Brooklyn Tech? Presumably, he’ll be pushing these teachers on less prestigious schools, with less demanding parent associations."
The Post doesn't define 'rubber room teacher', but understands the public's connotation to it. 'Rubber room teacher' is intentionally branded on the ATR. Then it sneaks in the definition of an ATR. Now the unsuspecting reader understands the definition of an ATR and that they are 'rubber room teachers'. A clever maneuver. The Post then tries to disprove the recent comment by Mr. Asher, that we are highly desirable, by asking why he didn't hire us when he was a principal. I don't know if Mr. Asher did or didn't hire ATRs, but I know one thing - if he didn't, it had nothing to do with us being desirable or sub-par - it would be because of cost. Even with ATRs being free this year, the branding that the NY Post is attempting to reinvigorate, stopped most principals from taking a chance on the far superior ATR candidate.
The Post doesn't define 'rubber room teacher', but understands the public's connotation to it. 'Rubber room teacher' is intentionally branded on the ATR. Then it sneaks in the definition of an ATR. Now the unsuspecting reader understands the definition of an ATR and that they are 'rubber room teachers'. A clever maneuver. The Post then tries to disprove the recent comment by Mr. Asher, that we are highly desirable, by asking why he didn't hire us when he was a principal. I don't know if Mr. Asher did or didn't hire ATRs, but I know one thing - if he didn't, it had nothing to do with us being desirable or sub-par - it would be because of cost. Even with ATRs being free this year, the branding that the NY Post is attempting to reinvigorate, stopped most principals from taking a chance on the far superior ATR candidate.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.
Disclaimer:
Stories herein containing unnamed or invented characters are works of fiction. Names, characters, businesses, places, events and incidents are either the products of the author’s imagination or used in a fictitious manner. Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events is purely coincidental.