Comparing teachers' contracts
In reporting on the teachers union dispute in the city, I came across this interesting Web site that publishes the contracts for all 24 teachers unions in Maryland: http://www.mnsmd.org/. Check it out to see how they compare.






Comments
Quick glance... WOW! I had no idea. BCPSS teachers (and I did as well while teaching) complain about the state of affairs, especially when it comes to surrounding counties. Just a quick overview of what I saw when comparing Montgomery County to BCPSS. BCPSS teachers are required to work NEARLY 24 LESS DAYS than teachers in Montgomery County!!! 55 minutes less a day multiplied by the 190 school days required by the BCPSS contract! This is unbelievable and I really hope that the Sun writes a comparative article about this. The BTU is arguing about 45 minutes a week... Can you imagine, if God forbid, the BTU really wanted the options offered by the surrounding counties? Can you imagine the response if BCPSS teachers were asked to work 24 more days a year by contract obligation??? Not to mention... collaboration is a central tenant to the contract for Montgomery County teachers. Yes, their pay scale is higher and they are under VERY different situations, but they work 24 MORE days a year. This is over a month's worth of time (20 work days per month)! I certainly could be wrong because I only spent about 15 minutes running through the comparison. In any case, this is further evidence to show that the BTU is really a corrupt and painfully misinformed organization. What a shame... the BTU allows for personal gain and prominence to take a stance ahead of both children and teachers.
Posted by: Bill | October 15, 2007 5:05 PM
Bill's comments are directionally correct, but the difference I see is not as great. BCPSS teachers commit to 180 student days, with 10 additional days of professional development. MCPSS is 185 student days, with 10 days of staff development. But the language is "shall not exceed"-- any Montgomery teachers want to comment on this?? I believe that the required state mandate is 180. MCPSS may only be scheduling 180 days? Also, snow days built into the schedule may account for differences.
Posted by: VoiceForSchoolTruth | October 17, 2007 6:21 AM
I am a Baltimore City Teacher and I am sick of this union garbage, if they really cared about what was going on in the schools they would work on a way to find funding for discipline initiatives instead fussing over something as trivial as plan time. But alas, since we are stuck with two fools heading the BTU,who probably haven't been near a classroom since the stone age,its really all about them and there flunkies. I would rather donate my union dues to programs and supplies that my children need.($500 per teacher would go along way )
Posted by: N. Renae | October 18, 2007 10:30 AM
Bill, I think the comparison of Baltimore City teachers and their Montgomery County counterparts is like comparing apples to oranges. Montgomery County teachers make WAY WAY more than Baltimore City teachers. I am sure that Baltimore City teachers would not have a problem working to the contract requirements of the Montgomery County system if they were making the same pay. The state mandate is 180 days of school instruction. The additional 5 days for the Montgomery schedule are probably for weather related days that are built in the calendar. Every school system does it. My wife is in the Harford County system and their school schedule was structured in a similiar fashion. Because the system did not exceed the amount of weather days built into the schedule, school actually ended several days earlier.
Posted by: Big G | October 18, 2007 10:55 AM
Big G, as much as I would like to agree with your opinion, I'm just not convinced that the facts support your argument. I haven't spent enough time really analyzing the data, but it seems to me that it's likely that the compensation equation vs. contractual work-hours is skewed in the favor of City teachers. I'd have to spend some time on the math, but my gut reaction holds this conclusion. Also, I think that your "apples and oranges" analogy, while sympathetically powerful, is not realistic. Of course, city teachers are under very different conditions. But, I'm not convinced that all or most teachers in the system would be willing to work more hours so long as they were compensated. In fact, during my first year of teaching my city Principal tried to convince teachers to stay after school by offering money from the Fund for Educational Excellence. The results of the idea were poor at best (especially for teachers that had been in the system for a longer period of time), and way less than you assume in your argument. I wish it were the case, Big G, but I'm not convinced that the culture of the system is such that change would occur in the fashion that you describe - simply giving more money. Thanks for bringing up the idea, though, it was an interesting proposition to think through.
Posted by: Bill | October 18, 2007 2:21 PM
I have been watching this debate with interest. As a PG County teacher, and building rep for the union, I hear a lot of talk about how teachers are allowed to spend their time. It is an initiative in PG County to expect more collaborative planning...as the school's music teacher, I am personally responsible for over 75% of the school's population and would love to have someone to plan collaboratively with! I don't really understand why the idea of collaboration is that horrendous...wouldn't you consider it a great thing to have a guaranteed soundingboard, as well as an additional resource for students who are having trouble? Your teammates could be an excellent resource-almost a walking textbook!
However, the real question is, of the amount of time spent in school, how much is actual INSTRUCTIONAL time? That is where the real comparison needs to occur. With almost all academic areas now being required to teach the Voluntary State Curriculum (VSC), all school systems should be planning the same blocks of time for each subject. However, based on what I see in my son's school (he attends school in Baltimore County, where we live) and in my own school, this is not what is happening.
It would certainly open an interesting dialogue for the State teacher's union (MSTA) to move to a state contract, instead of leaving it to regional control. However, it (MSTA) is too busy raising money for incompetent/undereducated politicians to undertake such an idea.
Finally, not all schools accommodate inclement weather in the schedule. PG County doesn't...which is one of my great frustrations of working there. However, the pluses of that system greatly outweigh that frustration!
Posted by: Dara | October 22, 2007 8:34 AM