I'm sure there is a long winded explanation for the lost job situation but the very short answer is some principals are looking at the cheapest way to fund postions. So cut the position held by an expensive, experienced teacher and buy a cheaper, newer teacher. The are a hundred pros and cons about this but if an experienced teacher is doing a good job and is cut then it is about money. WHERE is our union? we pay big bucks union dues for what??????

Why are teachers being let go when the schools need teachers? Something is wrong with this picture. Here school are already short handed and not they will be even more short handed trying to give these children a good education. Find some money to keep these teacher on the job.

What I find frustrating about this situation is that by the time the budgets do get formally approved, at least two job fairs would have occurred and many of the most sought after positions will be taken.

At many schools, the shortfall in special education funding alone will require that positions be cut. Administrators are caught either waiting for the SpEd budgets to be resolved, with the chance that they won't, or telling their staff that they may need to find different jobs, and then fielding complaints from the union.

I was new to the system last fall and have been let go from my current position, because it was abolished (as the letter stated). This is not just happening to older teachers but new ones as well. Learn your facts before you speak. This is the problem with this blod it is always balck and white never anything in between

Just for clarification teachers all cost the same regardless of how much experience they have Wise Educator. A 30 year veteran and a 1st year teacher cost the same.

The budgeting process is not as cut and dry as people may think. It is very fluid and each day North Avenue is telling principals that they need to add something to their budget and often that addition means cutting a position.

Budgeting is supposed to be a transparent process, ask your principal to see the budget, then you can see where the money is going.

I was under the impression that this year schools would have to pay the real cost for a person. If a teachers makes 50,000.00 plus benefits then that is the cost to the school. This was indeed part of the original plan but was held off by one year to allow schools to adjust to the new system. Has the board changed this policy/plan and do all staff regardless of experience and level of education cost the same?
Perhaps that is were this "rumor" of experienced teachers being laid off has come from.

@to BCT teacher, I know it has happening to new employees. It happened to me several times in my first years of teaching. Then a person gets some tenure(union) , excellent evaluations, and should have some job security.(assuming you are doing all the right things and are needed) Actually, I am not much of a union person but since we pay dues, let the union do it's job. My job is secure but I am seeing trends in several places I am familar with.I actually heard jobs discussed in context of cost/years of service/cut the position this year/add it back next etc.

@NWTeacher. You were correct about salaries until this year. I believe that principals are paying actual costs this year. Years of service, benefits etc. But I could be wrong.
Could abyone else elaborate? A first/second year teacher costs the same to a school budget as a ten year person? I am on the SIT(SFC) and have been working our budget for a while.

I am wondering why people can't blog without slinging insults at other bloggers?

BCTeacher, Honestly, I thought I knew my facts. And I have been a part of several discussions where cost to skill were the only criteria being considered. You say you are new. I was new,too. When you have done your best adn given your all in teh city(without bailing out ) for a few years you may understand how scary it is to think you could loose you job bases only on what you cost! I would happily do away with the union and steps and be paid on merit. I would be a well paid teacher. But that is not our system,yet. So I the meantime, fairness should prevail. I am truly sorry for you situation.All good tesachers need to support one another.

BCTeacher, Honestly, I thought I knew my facts. And I have been a part of several discussions where costs(not skill) were the only criteria being considered. You say you are new. I was new,too. When you have done your best and given your all in the city(without bailing out ) for a few years you may understand how scary it is to think you could loose you job based only on what you cost! I would happily do away with the union and steps and be paid on merit. I would be a well paid teacher. But that is not our system,yet. So in the meantime, fairness should prevail. I am truly sorry for you situation.All good teachers need to support one another.

I have not worked on budgetary issues this year but was given the impression by those who have that for 2009-2010 all teacher level positions would cost the same regardless of years of service. That being said, I know that I was told when I first came to MD that I would not be hired in certain jurisdictions as I was "too expensive" for the position to begin with. I do know, at my school, that we are keeping one teacher whom we would rather not based on seniority not necessarily expense. The problem in BCPSS is that we have overhired people in certain areas and are now stuck with them because of legal issues. And I totally agree--WHERE IS THE UNION???????? Not word one from them--at least not that I have heard about. Maybe they are talking to someone somewhere but those of us in the schools are not hearing the discussions or any stance being taken.

The fact is that schools pay the average cost for ALL positions. A teacher in every school is 76K, a special educator is 83K. Any other answer is just false. Name a position and it's the average cost that we had to use. Some of them are crazy, a social worked has a cost of 92K.

Choice on who to "surplus" out was not the schools. It's based on certification first, senority second and nothing else.

As a principal I get sick of the mistruths that other principals spread about the budget process to keep them from having a difficult conversation. The budget process sucks but you have to make choices. We based ours on the position and need, not the person.

What I feel is coming to the surface is weak leadership and ignorance; heck it could be a combination of both.

@Principal - please keep posting. Glad you put out that average salary information. I often think the principal voice is missing a bit in the blog chatter. I'm sure you're incredible busy, and it's tough to keep anonymous in the ranks of principals, but it's a great perspective to provide. We've gotta find a way to leverage teacher & principal voice in a structured way, and while the blog is incredible, it's not institutional enough (but at least it's a start).

@ Principal - The budget process is a little different for the contract schools (such as charters, partnership schools, etc). These schools get charged the actual salary for staff, with the one major exception being special education teachers. As of this point, SpEd teachers are only ones in the budget whose salaries are averaged.

I do think that it is ignorance guiding the miscommunication from principals. And by that, I don't mean willful ignorance - the budgets may have been drafted but according to Dr. Alonso, still have not been finalized. It makes everyone unsure about what is going to happen next. Isn't it better to let staff who are most at risk know that they may be cut and let them find more stable opportunities?

Wise: your concern over who gets cut and is it a function of cost is a valid one, but as others have pointed out, not an actual concern this go round.

Warren: Again, just to set the record straight, only charters pay actuals, not transformations or other contract schools. In fact we would save a significant amount if we went with actuals as we have a relitivly new to teaching staff. The push back from the union (and others) on this seems to make sense in that this might be the factor that principals begin to look at they have to make difficult decisions.

I know quite well how poorly school leaders (and central office) have handled the notification of staff that their positions were being cut. Many I ran into found out the day before the last fair (a few weeks ago held downtown) and that is just not acceptable. I also know that principals had an idea of what was going to happen before then even though budgets are not final. I even know of one person who was staffing their schools table at the job fair and was told the day before that her position was being cut. Ouch and not nice.

As we discuss cost, seniority is also a factor. Principals cut a position, the teacher with the least seniority goes. That is always the case in the employment world. As for charter schools, isnt it autonomy that they seek? You can not have it both ways. The benefits of our budget but the ability to do it your way? Doesnt sound logical, but thats just me. Oh, and for the record, any teachers budgeted through Title 1 use actual salaries, not averages! So creative budgeting can be used in Title 1 schools to retain more staff.

And in a country whose economy is so bad that despite billions of dollars in bailouts thousands of people lose their jobs, losing 25 positions is pretty good! I understand its not best for schools, but its a reality based on the current goobal situation.

Dr Alsonso stated openly, in public at a Union forum held in the Poly-Western auditorium (late March/early April) that he would not move to actual salaries in the budget process because he did not want principals to have to be in the position of penny-pinching over quality in the teacher staffing process.

What I find amazing is that so many in this blog discussion do not, apparently, participate in their schools' School Improvement Teams -- now called School Family Councils. Budgets are being seen by those groups -- get involved and know the truth. Average salaries are used. Let's not waste our time on things that are not the issue -- the issue is that North Ave still controls the purse strings, despite the illusion of school-based budgeting. North Ave froze spending at the schools in April -- money diverted by North Ave for what they see fit. It's all an illusion of control so that people feel empowered so that North Ave can be gutted and repopulated with mid-level administrators whom Alonso approves of...

Actually a smart plan...

CT: Yes, you are correct that IF a teacher comes though title 1 then they cost actual, but that is not the case for most positions and is true reguardless of a schools status as a contract or non-contract school. What I find unacceptable is the constant issue with contract schools being held up as somehow different when it comes to these issues. The amount of mis information is stunning and does nothing to move us forward. For example, Transformation schools get the same funding as the non-contract schools and in fact if our school was to go charter we would clear (after taking in to account the costs that would no longer be covered by the system) over 600,000 bucks. that's a nice piece of change for any school. The reason we don't is becuase we believe that change can come with the same funding and that the funding for ALL schools is not acceptable and that's what we all should be saying.

I heard that one thing impacting the situation is that certain employees who were under the North Avenue budget, and may have even been located at NA, are now at the schools and under the local budget. The effect being that teachers are replaced with administrators, while North Avenue can claim reductions in their area.

I'm not an employee of the City School system, so I can't say for certain this is the case. Can anyone who does know comment?

Thanks.

p.s. I think we *should* spend a billion dollars to make lower I-83 into a tree-lined blvd... that way, the unemployed teachers and uneducated students will have a place to park the carboard boxes they'll be living in. What is wrong with city schools...

@Ummmmmmmmm and concerned teacher,

As you can see from this blog, there are as many "expert" answers as there are bloggers! Typical of the city. And as many insults slung which is making me sick of the site.

I AM ON THE School FamilyCouncil. My school is a great school with a great principal. I HAVE seen the budget! So get over the preaching and get in your heads that what AAA says, what he presented, what some principals are doing, and what many folks are telling me are all different! If you have been in BCPS schools very long you know that what is publically stated, waht is policy and what really happens are three different things. @Principal, my main contacts are four terrific principals in a variety of "kinds" of BCPSS schools and all seem to have a different perspective . And all believe they are right!!!!

To the long term,loyal bloggers on Inside Ed. I am going to use my energies other ways. With Sara gone and with all the bloggers who would rather insult each other than discuss all issues folks have concerns about,I am done.

I used to be the SIT/Family Council chairman for three years at my school. I gave it up as I had other priorities. The meeting times, the agenda and everything else was totally controlled by the principal. Yes, WE, there are too many different perspectives on the same issue which is why the system has so many problems. I do think that others are insulting for no reason but not contributing does not solve the issue either. We all just need to step back and reflect on what this blog was intended to be.

@ wise educator--

You make a good point about the mud slinging and harsh words, and while I'd rather we avoid them I've found them unavoidable on every single public, anonymous blog I've read (whether it's bike riding, news, or education...).

I think abandoning this blog is exactly the wrong solution, and this is from someone who has read your posts frequently. The blog gives me a chance to hear what the real story is in cases like this, because I'm not getting honest answers at my school. I appreciate hearing from you and your SFC/SIT experience. I attended my school's SIT until it basically dissolved halfway through this school year. No one has seen a budget, and we are cutting probably about a quarter of our teaching positions AND zero-basing.

That was longer than necessary, but basically I want to say that there are people like me who really need the honesty on this blog, even though it may be blunt.

Wise:

Hope it's not true. While we don't always agree, I thought that was the point of discourse - to hear things you don't agree with, consider them and then respond. I agree that there has been some personal stuff tossed out which has no place here, but such is the case with any discussion.

And as for Sara being gone, I for one am going to give things a chance to settle before I do anything rash. I know Liz and believe that if she can dedicate the time to it, thinggs will be just as thought provocing as before.

Of course if you really stopped reading than this is not going to reach you, but may serve as a lesson to the rest of us.

Wise Educator,

I think you're being a bit rash with your departure. When Sara first started this blog it was not as thought provoking as it is today, she grew into a better reporter and the blog grew with her. Give Liz more than a couple of weeks to get into the groove! There was a lot of good info in her recent TFA article http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/education/bal-md.teach25may25,0,1460323.story, Sara normally took her articles and made blog entries out of them for discussion, I think that is a good idea to continue.

Of course you're right that the sniping is really frustrating, and I'm only responding because I really value your input here.

If we are unsatisfied with the topics being covered, why don't we do something about it? Perhaps we could have a guest entry of the week from one of our esteemed posters. Being the know-it-all that I am I have a bunch of ideas I think are worthy of discussion, and the other know-it-alls here probably have plenty to write about as well.

Whachu think about that WE?

WHERE is the mud-slinging and insults some of you are so upset about?!?! All I expressed (and saw in other posts) are intelligent, focused comments -- I thought that was what blogs are for -- are you really so sensitive that you can't take an exchange of information???

So sorry to have hurt your widdle feewings, big bwoggers...

I have been following this blog for a while but I just got the courage to post a reply. I have been an active member of the SFC for over three years in two different schools. The difference between the two is like night and day. In one school the Principal used the meetings as a private 'soap box'. Any ideas and suggestions that were made were just swept under the rug. Regarding the budget...the Principal of that school kept the whole thing under wraps and would not tell anyone what was included.
Fast forward to this year...The Principal of the school is transparent and has shared the budget with all parties that are interested in helping the school. That is the key, INTEREST. Many people do not care to sit in on the various meetings regarding a school budget. Faculty and community members who were invited to meetings but didn't want to take the time to come to SFC/SIT have not right to complain about decisions that were made.

The one thing that all of us must realize is that when jobs are threatened we become emotional.
All of us who comment on here have different schools, with different situations that lead us to comment on different perspectives of the school system. As a parent, a volunteer and an employee I have been on and continue to be on 3 fences. Depending on the situation that I personally witness, deal with etc. leads me to make the comments that I do.
This being said, that is how all of us feel, some of us are so frustrated with what is going on we vent too much and it is not personal to any one person on the site.
Leaving does not make the situation go away, the comments will continue and for every pro there will be a con to whatever we write about on this site.

@IO & Corey -
But Sara was figuring out things as she went along. There's a successful blog here now and Sara's interview on beatblogging.org kind of lays out what needs to be done and why. I'm not sure I understand why the transistion isn't more seamless... unless the time required and love of City Schools that Sara had is missing.

I can deal with the snarkiness (not without occasionally lashing out, I admit), but I can't see a future without more City School posts.

That said, I'm clearly still reading and posting, so I guess that means I'm giving the post-Sara era a chance. I'm not feeling as hopeful as the two of you though.

IO you should know better: You might "clear" more money by going charter but you would also add a bunch of expenses that you do not otherwise have as a Transformation School. The way you describe it here is way, way too simplistic. You can do better than this. Are you really suggesting that charter folks think change can't come with equitable funding?

@wise educator... i slung no mud nor did I attack anyone? but the implication that you are the only one one here who works with a budget or a SIT? I actually worked on 2 budgets for 2 different schools, which is how I found out about the Title 1 (i was not aware of that until i worked on this years budget). Being an expert, then you should recognize what i said as true. i not only work with the budget, but i am the one who inputs them as well. you are not the "only expert" and the implication that others on here are not is "mud slinging" as well.