A large number of teachers who voted against the contract did so for the reasons stated in information provided. However, there are also a significant number who voted against it based on the past performance of the union. Why was the contract presented to the media before the members had a chance to vote or even read it?

Those of us who have been in BCPS for any length of time have seen the union sell out teachers time and time again. In the early 90's, we were told that we had to take furlough days or teachers would lose jobs. We voted to take the days and guess what--teachers lost jobs anyway. I, for one, have a difficult time seeing where all of this money will come from as the budget is going to pieces as we speak. The Race to the Top money will only go so far. What will happen when more teachers qualify for the additional monies than principals have budgeted for? Will there be an principal accountability?

I do agree that, for younger teachers (in experience not necessarily age), this contract is wonderful. However, for others, the benefits do not outweigh the additional work load or hoops that they will have to jump through. Maybe that is what Central Office and the Union are trying to do--get rid of more expensive teachers in the short term. If so, offer them a buyout option and be upfront about the whole thing. Other systems have done so and lowered their costs and revamped their schools. Just don't try to hide behind a "revolutionary contract."

If the Union and City Schools want to sell this contract, they will have to do more than just "explain" the contract in more detail. They will have to make it worthwhile for ALL teachers.

They can't explain the contract more clearly because it is purposefully vague.
When your pay is based on your evaluation, how can Alonso say it is shortsighted to want to know what it is?
Go rewrite the contract with specifics!

Teachers I spoke with were concerned about principals having such direct influence on their opportunity for pay increases. An excellent teacher with excellent student progress who is unfortunate enough to have a vindictive principal could still be given a less than proficient evaluation (meaning too few AUs to move to the next pay increment) simply because the principal doesn't like them. Only "unsatisfactory" evaluations can be grieved or have any negative consequence to the principal.

Related service providers were shocked to find that although they are considered teacher-level employees, they are excluded from grandfathering into the "model" pay scale and it's substantial benefits.

In year 2 teachers are moved from the current "step" system to the new pay scales resulting in unequal and arbitrary pay increases. If you look only at the "professional scale, some (i.e. step 16) move to a pay increment that is $22 more than their current pay (with a 2& COLA); others (i.e. step 6) move to a pay increment that is more than $5000 above their current pay (plus 2% COLA). These differences have nothing to do with competence, contribution to the school or system, or student achievement. We've been told that this difference is irrelevant because everyone who's base increase is less than $1750 will receive a one time stipend to give them a $1750 increase for year 2. The problem is that they will always be one pay increment lower than they would have been had the conversion been fair. When you look at lifetime earning potential that difference grows over time; it is never made up.

It would be relatively simple to fix these problems. 1. create contract language allowing teachers to appeal any or all unfair evaluations; 2 add related service providers to the list of individuals who can be grandfathered onto the model pay scale if they meet the qualifications laid out for teachers; 3 take another look at the conversion chart to make sure all employees' base pay increases by at least $1000 (+ promised COLA increases) when they are moved from their current "step" to the new system.

I take offense to Dr. Alonso calling many of my colleagues and me "shortsighted." Like many other teachers, I will never vote for an agreement that bases my pay on an evaluation system that has yet to be created. It would ignorant for me to do so.

Let's compare this to a similar situation. Did MSDE tell students that they must pass the HSAs to graduate before students knew what they were? At first, students needed to pass all four HSAs, then they could get a composite score of 1602, then BCRs and ECRs were removed from the tests, and finally bridge projects were allowed to be completed for students who still fell short. All of these adjustments took place BEFORE HSAs were part of a student's graduation requirement.

Dr. Alonso, school board, BTU: how about this, we wait for the evaluation system to be created and give it a few years to see how fair, accurate, and effective it truly is. Then we'll decide whether we want our pay linked to the evaluations system or not. But until then, we REJECT your agreement and will continue to do so.

Can someone please tell me where a librarian stands in the new contract? (17 year vetern)

I also take offense to the thought that the contract simply wasn't accepted by the majority of the BTU members because we didn't understand it completely. I understood what was presented to us and what is in writing in the tentative agreement and I do not feel that it is acceptable. Unless they are willing to put more details in writing, then there should be no change in the next vote. I think that many people completely understood what was being presented and felt that it was not in their best interest to accept it. It sounds as if the BTU is going to try to go around and try to convince teachers that it is good for them, which may involve a little bit of them telling teachers what they want to hear and not what is written in the agreement. Beware because this is what's coming. They were already trying it but they didn't fool enough of us.

SUGGESTED CHANGES TO PROPOSED BTU CONTRACT:

1) The content of an evaluation can be grieved, not just proceduralviolations during the evaluation process. This is particularly important because evaluations, in the proposed contract, have far greater repercussions than previously. Therefore, there needs to be a method of overturning favoritism by principals, and overturning instances of retaliation by principals against outspoken teachers.

2) Principals cannot – even with written approval by the CEO – involuntarily transfer an elected building rep out of a school.

3) Diminish the unfairness, competitiveness, inequality, and undermining of collegiality – inherent in “merit” pay – by re-instituting a base salary scale of step increases, outside the control and whims of principals and outside the control and whims of the CEO. If there are also to be salary enhancements – for a small minority of teachers labeled “Model” or “Lead” – which are based to a significant degree on principals’ opinions, those adjustments should be modest in size, comparable to a coach’s pay, at most.

4) The new contract should not be allowed to cause increases in class size. The cost of paying Lead and Model teachers at a higher rate may cause BCPS to hire fewer teachers overall, to stay within budget. In addition, the proposed contract may partially or wholly pull Lead teachers, Model teachers, AU Coordinators, and AU Teachers out of the classroom, causing other teachers to have to absorb the students from classes that would have been taught by those individuals. Having fewer teachers – and/or the partial removal of some teachers from the classroom – are likely to cause an increase in average class size, which is bad for learning. Therefore, the revised proposed contract should stipulate that each school’s average class size during the 2009-2010 school year WILL NOT be allowed to increase during any year of the new contract.

5) Expand the contract’s language – in Article XII, on Academic Freedom – to stipulate that no teacher will be bound by the national curriculum to using only prescribed pedagogical approaches, or to upholding just one mandated set of beliefs, or to studying only prescribed texts. Teachers will continue to be assured freedom of expression. As upheld by court precedent, teachers are encouraged to present all sides of arguable issues that relate to their course content.

6) Stipulate new procedures in the contract – and teacher protections during implementation of those procedures – in much greater detail.

NOTE: If any of these suggested changes are problematic in any way – regarding state law or decisions of the state school board – I’m sure our union’s legal counsel can undoubtedly figure out how to cleverly avoid any such issue through careful wording.

I think he's calling it shortsighted because there's no way that BCPSS could know how teachers are going to be evaluated, and no school systems or teachers in Maryland will be able to move forward with designing evaluations until MSDE moves forward. All anyone knows is that 50% of evaluations are tied to student achievement (According to Maryland) and that it will be many months before it's worked out. School systems are all waiting on the state of Maryland. They need to figure out how student achievement will be measured first, for one thing. Obviously information that the State of Maryland hasn't worked out yet can't be spelled out in this contract for Baltimore City teachers, now or in a month, so it's short sighted to vote for it on the basis that the evaluation isn't spelled out. But it would be crazy for Baltimore City to do a new contract for next year and not include evaluations as part of the contract.

In other words, he called you short sighted because you're being short sighted.

It's also at this point unreasonable to not connect teacher performance with our evaluations. BCPSS is essentially forced to do this because of race to the top. This is the direction that all school districts will move in.

While personally I would prefer the old system with steps, I realize that it's not going to happen, so the best I can do is try to learn as much as I can about this contract.

I also take offense to the "shortsighted" comment from Alonso. We are not shortsighted for wanting to know more details about the evaluation itself. I have many questions, and I feel that there are too many gray areas. For example, how will they ensure that evaluations have been done fairly for all teachers, and that principals aren't simply playing favorites? What will be expected from the teacher in the evaluation (aside from the test scores, which I know we don't have the info. about yet)? Will the evaluations occur only twice a year as they are now, or will there be 5 observations like D.C.'s new IMPACT system? How will we know that principals aren't just choosing their best friend in a school to be the lead teacher who makes the $100,000? Giving the principals this much power and control sounds very scary.
I need to know these details before I BLINDLY vote yes for a murky contract that puts my future livelihood at stake. I will not vote yes until these issues have been clarified.
How's that for shortsighted?

I think we have a unique opportunity to bring suggestions and ideas to the table. One of the reasons for the evaluation-pay link is the attempt to get good teachers to stay in the classroom for their careers. Are there other ways to do this besides higher salaries? Here are a few of my own ideas-- I don't know if they are unreasonable because I am not on the administrative side of things.

Change the fiscal year so it starts in May instead of July, allowing Principals to know by the end of the current year how much money they have for the next year. This would mean the summer could be spent planning the next year, rather than waiting on school/classroom assignments to shake out.

Require principals to give teachers their classroom assignments before they leave school in June.

Give all teachers unlimited paper and make a working copier for every 50 teachers part of the contract

Give teachers unlimited access to free buses for field trips as long as they can prove they relate to class

Give teachers free onsite daycare-- would incentivize teachers with families to stay longer after school, and make family life easier because teachers could check on their kids throughout the day, and not have to rush home at 4:30 or face $1 per minute fines. Also, school could become more of a community place, as many high school students with children could also bring their children there and attendance would not be compromised.

I like the idea of adding the cap on class size as part of the contract that's on the table. I know many many teachers who would refuse the extra $5000 if they could keep their classes under 30. Thoughts on what a reasonable class size cap could be?

Another thing I think is really important is allowing teachers a voice in their building, one for which they might not fear retribution. The School-Options thingy I think could be transformed to be just that if it was worded correctly. What is it that makes teachers so vulnerable to favoritism, retribution, etc. and how do we change the structure to prevent that? What are the ramifications of the School-Options part as it stands? I heard that is what Alonso wanted the most. If we could make that part attractive to both sides, perhaps we could go a long way with other things.

A very big issue for me is where the money comes from. Tampa FL just received a $100 million grant from Bill Gates to design a merit-pay system for teachers. In DC, the merit-pay system is paid for in part by Walmart, and the donors have the right to pull their money if they don't like Michelle Rhee's successor. This essentially takes the power over schools away from families and gives it to outside corporations. I think it's only fair to ask BTU and Alonso for an indepth analysis of where the money is coming from and what happens as this system gets more expensive. (which if it's successful, it will) What happens in 3 years when the Race to the Top money runs out?

The Union mostly sells it like this:
1) You will get a HUGE raise.
2) You are guaranteed a HUGE raise plus 1500 dollars just for being here.
3) We will have more control over principals.

This thing is a complete joke. People cant be bought for 1500 TAXED dollars. Keep bringing it to the vote, I am sure it will keep getting rejected. The people that voted NO to this contract are the ones who understand the politics, corruption, and innefective tactics of the Union.

I think City Teachers made a big mistake on this one. I was at the voting on Thursday and I was really embarrassed to be a City Teacher. I voted YES because as teachers we are suppose to increase student achievement! I do not understand why teachers don't get this. It doesn't worry me that the State has not developed the Evaluation tool yet, because a good teacher is a good teacher no matter what tool is used!
I urge the teachers of Baltimore City to stop complaining about your Principals and children coming from broken homes. All that does not matter if you do what you need to do in your classroom everyday. If you really feel that you should not be evaluated by the academic growth of your students you are in the wrong profession!

While I understand the request for more information about a new evaluation system, I am having trouble understanding why teachers react so emotionally to the prospect that a "vindictive" or otherwise biased boss will provide a bad performance evaluation. In the real world, employees have to deal with their bosses,the bosses' evaluations of how they do their jobs, and the effect this has on pay, promotions and other features of employment. There are great and bad bosses in every profession. Why should teachers be protected from this fundamental fact of life? Teachers, please spend more time thinking aobut how to do a great job and less time brooding over potential pettiness that has not yet even occurred.

I agree that class size -- actually, rather, class load (I've taught around 150 or more for several years in a row - imagine how hard it is to return essay in a timely fashion) -- should be part of the negotiations. [As an example, Kalamazoo Public Schools just agreed to a contract limiting Class Load to 120 at a time.]

Additionally, I'm uncertain why language about what constitutes a 'model teacher' and an 'AU' has to be left undefined. I understand why performance has to be a little undefined right now (we're waiting on the state), but AUs and model teacher status are both internal BTU/BCPSS contract details. Why not define them? The rep at my school said that "collaboration after school" could be an AU, but this seems fishy to me. These should be defined before we go back to the table; I think a lot of teachers would get on board if we knew exactly what this is. Teachers know that administrators can have vendettas, and now that their evaluation ties to our pay, we need assurances that we can still get our needed 12 AUs through other means (besides classes, which sometimes take us away from our jobs with the students).

@ Embarrassed: I am an excellent teacher and I've been around not too long to be jaded, but long enough to know that regardless of what tool is being used good teachers are not always recognized.

I've been in my end of year evaluation and been handed two different evaluations. One terrible, and one satisfactory. My principal (who is still working despite me reporting this) then said that if I was willing to write a glowing recommendation for them about how great a principal they were, I would get one evaluation. If I was not willing to, I would get the other.

I voted no. Not because I don't want change, but because the contract was not completed. Simply put, the language had too much passive voice and future tense. I submitted credits to the central office this year to renew my certificate, only to find out they lost my evaluations for the last three years.

For a "yes" I need to see how the AU's are tracked, who is tracking them, what these committees will do, how people can run for a position on them, and so much more. I wouldn't give a half finished assessment to my students, I expect the same from the BTU and the Central Office.

City Resident:

Is there another job where a boss can observe you once a year, declare you 'unsatisfactory' or merely 'satisfactory', and then not get a raise because of it? I'm not sure of one.

I've been observed by a principal only a handful (less than 5) of times in my 10-year career. I've never received a poor evaluation, but evaluations before now were pretty meaningless. I know I'm a good teacher and my evaluations always are proficient. But, because of politics and vindictiveness, I *have* had principals do petty things to me, like take away my classroom (re: make me a floater) or load me up with classes of nearly 40. Now that the evaluations mean the difference between a raise or not, it's a pretty big change - I think caution on this matter is important.

Do police officers get a raise or not based on evaluations? Fire fighters? Doctors? I'm honestly not sure. We're talking about a service providers where all those being served are not equal, so comparing this to the corporate/business world isn't accurate.

FINALLY SOMEONE THAT KNOWS WHAT THEY ARE TALKING AOUT! THANK YOU MW!

I think he's calling it shortsighted because there's no way that BCPSS could know how teachers are going to be evaluated, and no school systems or teachers in Maryland will be able to move forward with designing evaluations until MSDE moves forward. All anyone knows is that 50% of evaluations are tied to student achievement (According to Maryland) and that it will be many months before it's worked out. School systems are all waiting on the state of Maryland. They need to figure out how student achievement will be measured first, for one thing. Obviously information that the State of Maryland hasn't worked out yet can't be spelled out in this contract for Baltimore City teachers, now or in a month, so it's short sighted to vote for it on the basis that the evaluation isn't spelled out. But it would be crazy for Baltimore City to do a new contract for next year and not include evaluations as part of the contract.

In other words, he called you short sighted because you're being short sighted.

It's also at this point unreasonable to not connect teacher performance with our evaluations. BCPSS is essentially forced to do this because of race to the top. This is the direction that all school districts will move in.

While personally I would prefer the old system with steps, I realize that it's not going to happen, so the best I can do is try to learn as much as I can about this contract.

Whether we like it or not the new evaluation is coming. The state is still developing it and will be implemeting it very very soon. If you are a good teacher why not have your pay linked to your evaluation?? I ensure that my students learn everyday and I work damn hard doing it. I do think the union needs to address what would happen at the end of the three years but then again how many companies/organizations discuss wjat happens when a contract expires? That is what negotiations are for. How many people don't go to work and have their bonuses or pay based on their evaluation?? If your evaluation is poor thn maybe should be working else where! My main concern is for the teachers that feel they will receive unfair evaluation, but then again welcome to the real world! It would ease many employees if BTU could figure out a solution to this because it will cause a problem in thenear future. Not all teachers want to take courses to gain the AUs that they missed from their evaluation. Just saying...

(To "city resident", you cannot begin to understand how a singular person (principal) can do things to make your working life miserable with the knowledge that there are no consequences for their actions.)
Regarding the contract...the social workers who provide services for children with disabilities and bill for services so that the system gets millions of dollars were left out of the plan for advancement. If not included why should social workers except the contract.

@City Resident: The pettiness occurs every day, as does vindictive and abusive behavior. Scroll back in the logs of this blog, and you'll find multiple examples.

Teaching as a profession is in the "real world" as you put it. The difference between our job and an office job is our product can't be recalled and we're not trying to sell anything. What we do every day shapes a child into the person they will be for the rest of their lives. We have different rules than some corporate job because a school is not a corporation, nor should it be thought of one. There are more variables in play per student than a product from an office job.

Anyone who thinks we're don't like this contract because it will make us work, or some other nonesense, hasn't ever stepped into a neighborhood school in Baltimore. No "real world" job would accept an incomplete contract with variables left undefined. Why should we?

@Dana -
Doctors do get pay for performance. In a private practice this will relate to public perception and the number of patients that you serve. In a hospital setting it is not universal, but a quick google search turned up examples (here's one). I don't think it's a matter of service vs product jobs. I think pay for performance relates more to hourly vs. salary employees.

"Real world" jobs in the salary sector often have minimal and undefined contracts. The idea being that if there is a scarcity of a certain type of professional, different workplaces will be competing for these people, which in turn will minimize any workplace abuse. When the market turns and there is a surplus of professionals the abuse goes up. Not saying it is right or wrong, just saying that's the way it works.

To all who had questions about evaluations or contracts in professions other than teaching - please realize that the vast majority of jobs are held by employees "at will". That is, no contract governs the rights and obligations of the employee. So, Dana, there are a great many jobs held by people who are evaluated once a year and whose compensation depends on that annual review. I personally have knowledge of the finance and legal professions, where this is the case, There are many other job sectors in this category. In addition, many employees work in environments where performance standards are subjective. This is true for both high level professional jobs, and rank and file employees. I continue to believe that teachers have an unrealistic perspective on employment standards and practices. That is reflected time and again in the blogs, to which one poster referred in response to my initial post.

I'd like to correct three misconceptions that I hear a lot: 50% student achievement, principal control over Lead Teachers, and Race To The Top money.

MSDE declared that 50% of a teacher's evaluation must be tied to student growth, not straightup test scores. That is, if a student grows a year's worth of achievement from where they tested at the start of the year, the teacher has done their job. MSDE should be held to this commitment, but it's an important distinction.

Lead Teachers. Principals will have a very hard time picking their friends. The Ratification Summary outlines a process where Model Teachers meet certain requirements and then apply to a panel. If the panel approves, the teacher enters a citywide pool of Lead Teachers. Principals have no input there. With some restrictions, principals can hire Lead Teachers from that pool.

Race To The Top money. Everyone involved has stated repeatedly that the budget for this contract does not use Race To The Top money. There is some from the Jobs Bill, which is different, but leadership is telling us this contract is feasible through the traditional budget. If you think the finance people are lying, or that they aren't competent enough to know, then you've got a bone to pick. Otherwise, this contract isn't the house-built-on-sand that DC and others have made with private dollars. If the contract gets ratified, an investigative panel will have to agree that "BCPS has the resources
to implement and sustain the program." If they don't find those resources, everyone's off the hook and we start over.

There are plenty of great questions that should still be answered - many of them are posted here. But I want to make sure a good debate like this is based on the facts.

@Campbell: Marietta English herself has stated several times that the first three years of the contract would be funded through Race to the Top money and the Jobs bill. In both info sessions I attended, other BTU representatives (including a National AFT rep) also repeated this. If you know something different, you should share your numbers because as intelligent voters, we need to know them.

During the voting, I spoke with three BTU reps, (all of whom stated the contract would be funded with Jobs Grant money and RTTT money.) When I asked one of them "well what happens after 3 years?" the rep responded "who knows what happens after three years! We can't plan our lives thinking about three years from now. Otherwise we'd get nothing done." While it is true we should not be against taking a risk, we should be careful to ensure that we plan something sustainable. In Denver, their evaluation system had to pass a city-wide referendum and a tax hike before it was implemented. But to Denver's credit, all of this was part of a public discussion, and the citizens of Denver are fully responsible for (and aware of) what they have taken on.

If we are funding this with one-time cash, then we need to think about what happens when that cash runs out.

When I asked another rep about what would happen after three years, that rep mentioned a possible Bill Gates grant. So-- three years from now we sell the schools to Bill Gates? Or-- as in D.C. Walmart? That seems to me an issue for Baltimore parents to decide, not teachers.

In my opinion, we need good solid information from North Avenue, and we need an indepth breakdown of where the money comes from before we can rest assured that it exists and is sustainable.

Although pay for performance appears to be the right direction to go in, the truth is, no one really knows how student performance should be evaluated because there are so many variables. It sounds like the BTU wants to use a ‘tweak as you go approach’ where as teachers want to see the entire plan before they stick their toe in.