I think they're crazy to vote on somehting effecting their livelihoods that they don't even know all the details about! The State hasn't even developed their plan to send to counties/city to use. Another issue is that the state is working on the test for the new Natioanal curriculum coming. It's my understanding that in the next few years students will have to take the HSA and National test. That will have a significant impact on students' scores, especially if the curriculum has not caught up. They're also voting on a contract that is based on Grasmick going above the legislature. Evaluations, by MD state law can account for no more than 35%. Vote no.

How interesting that it is a county teacher who is commenting. I think that the counties around us have their own problems. At least we in Baltimore City are working on legislatively improving our working conditions!

BTU did make a conscious effort to do better this time. The new evaluation is coming whether we like it or not or vote on it or not-we have no choice. This is our opportunity to get rewarded for all that we go above and beyond for.

The BTU is out of touch. They asked for suggestion and fixed nothing in this contract. The union and Alonso are hoping for teacher apathy to get this past. Same Contract, Same Vote.

@Bea: are you out of your mind? "Legislatively improving?" How about "ignoring democracy?" Personally, I think it's surprising that after being rejected with a 58% majority, the same contract is being put in front of us again. Wealthier jurisdictions are not facing this kind of erosion of democratic powers. If this is such a great thing, why DON'T we see places like Baltimore County, Montgomery County, Harford County, etc. adopting similar contracts?

This kind of shenanigan happens only where people think they can get away with it. This 're-vote' is a wolf in sheep's clothing. I hope teachers in Baltimore City have enough guts to hold the line.

I too am a(PG) county teacher but a resident of Baltimore and past BCPS teacher.
I urge members to vote against it. If it passes, it will be a model for the whole state, if not the country.
Easy, fast money in your pocket is a ruse.
Eliminating tenure, step pay, abrogating contracts within a school, and linking student scores to evaluation are part of the business model of education, which is very anti-union.

Pardon the pre-dawn mistake. I meant to say BCPSS.

@County Teacher: where did you get the 35% figure? the state law doesn't specify; it was the state board of ed that passed the regulation stating 50% (so that the state would qualify for federal race to the top funds - which we did receive). i agree the issues about national standards and the alignment of testing and curriculum remain to be resolved.

Most of the people on here are out of touch with reality. For the post saying this contract is the same and fixed nothing, read the contract. It put new content in bold and red type so its real simple for you. There is plenty of edits and clarifications. For the "I don't understand it" group, if you do not understand call your union rep and do the work to understand it. For the "I have a problem with the evaluation" people, the wording is REALLY clear there is no change in our eval process for this contract. That is a totally different fight and you need to take it up with your state legislature because they are taking that out of our hands and doing it legislatively. It has NOTHING to do with this contract at all. Finally, I wish some would say what their real problem is. Many in Baltimore City would rather make less money so long as they are not evaluated on their affectiveness as a teacher and do not have to work harder. They would rather turn down a raise if it comes with higher expectations and accountability. To the poster that claimed this is a business model and anti union, yes true and that is why it is a great idea. Offering monetary incetives to do a better job is a good idea. To the dinosaurs in our profession that seem to have a sense of entitlement and feel they are due more money because they survived another year and are still alive, I say please retire now so those of us that are still willing to work hard and do a good job can get a raise for it. In any other profession if you went to your boss and said I want to be payed for what I used to do not what I am doing now, you would be fired not given a raise. Consider yourselves lucky they are offering you anything. Some of the people on here make me dislike some of my co-workers because of the bad reputation they give all teachers.

@ S. Hofman - now I am not a teacher or a current BCPSS parent but if your argument is that teachers will be rewarded for working HARDER, does that not imply that all teachers have not been working hard enough.

If I had the magic measurement yardstick, I measure the best and ask them to do better instead of starting from the bottom. Therefore, if the "best" is the starting point and these teachers are already working as hard as they can, working HARDER may be impossible. Unless you surmise that, the best are also lacking. In addition, a recent study cited in this paper states that monetary incentives don't work.

@ overthetop
I do work in Baltimore City as a teacher and I can say that it is true there are many teachers that are not working as hard as they should. I think many did at one time, but have been in a broken system for a long time and are disillusioned and frustrated and have given up. Now it is just about collecting a pay check not trying to educate children to the best of their ability. I think this new contract doesn't necessarily ask teachers already doing their best to do better...it wants to reward those. It asks teachers who are slacking to pick it up, and that is where much of the resistance is coming from.

SAME CONTRACT. SAME VOTE.

"The main concerns were the evaluation as well as the peer review committee ,that has all been been clarified more clearly. "The evaluation that teachers will receive this year and next year will be the same that they had last year."Saying this contract is the same and fthey have fixed nothing,is wrong, read the contract.They put new language in bold and red type so it is easy to read the changes.
The present contract is continued with these parts as amendments to it so we did not lose anything.I agree with SHoffman's statements above.

I also agree with SHoffman and ladydmw. We asked BTU to go back to the table and clarify what we thought was vague and they did it. We asked them to communicate more with us and they are certainly doing that as well. The evaluation is a non-issue because it's going to happen anyway and will probably not be changed until maybe the last year of the contract. Some of the teachers who object to this contract are: 1) afraid of change; 2)unwilling to push themselves harder because of laziness or may disillusionment and 3) have their own political agenda which may or may not have anything to do with the actual agreement We're lucky not to be worrying out layoffs or furloughs and to be actually given the chance to earn more money for activities that we're already doing! I strongly support the tentative agreement and I'm grateful to BTU for doing this extra work and for listening to us!

To S Hoffman, You have some good points which I sadly overlooked as I was infuriated with your sterotyping of senior teachers. I have been lucky enough to be mentored by many experienced teachers in Baltimore City. Not only are they fine teachers willing to share their skills and experiences, they have stuck with the system when many excellent younger teachers have fled to the counties.For every older teacher ready for retirement, I can think of a younger teacher who does not have what it takes. We need to support one another and work to ratify the best and most thought out contract possible. I have four specific questions for my union rep and after three phone calls, I have yet to receive an answer.Without answers, I will vote NO.

Some things have been clarified, but the topics that many had issue with remaining vague.

For me there is still too much future tense here. A committee will be formed and the system for tracking and earning AU's will be developed by them... I'm uncomfortable with that. The intricate systems that will make this new style of school system run are what need to be carved in STONE before you get my vote. There are some additions, but I doubt this will be enough to sway any "no" votes to yes and is just enough to keep the "yes" votes in check.

All we will do over the next X weeks is argue, berate each other, have be a work force divided... why do you think we're not a functioning union as is?

In short, same contract... same vote.

As I read these comments, I wonder if this is turning into a young vs. old debate. I have seen several comments about lazy older teachers.

Ever dawn on the young bucks that they may just be more efficient? And that one day, if you stay with this long enough, someone will be saying the same thing about you?

You people really need to sit down, talk to each other and examine how this pay for performance works in the other world. Take it from someone who lives it every day, it ain't that simple.

@ Elisabeth, sorry for the stereotype some of what I said was harsh and put an unfair label on some veteran teachers. As you said for every bad older teacher there is a bad younger teacher. I had a few specific people in mind when I said what I did and projected my anger towards them onto others and that was not right. In regards to your questions, if you are unable to hear back from your Union rep, your best option may be to attend one of the meetings English is holding next week. She is attending a meeting every evening at a different school to discuss and talk about the contract. The schedule is posted on the BTU website, that is probably the most direct way to have discourse and get questions answered.

@ Elisabeth, sorry for the stereotype some of what I said was harsh and put an unfair label on some veteran teachers. As you said for every bad older teacher there is a bad younger teacher. I had a few specific people in mind when I said what I did and projected my anger towards them onto others and that was not right. In regards to your questions, if you are unable to hear back from your Union rep, your best option may be to attend one of the meetings English is holding next week. She is attending a meeting every evening at a different school to discuss and talk about the contract. The schedule is posted on the BTU website, that is probably the most direct way to have discourse and get questions answered.

At least we know what the new "no vote" slogan will be... "same contract, same vote" just as factually innacurate as the lies and misinformation that was contained in the flyers that group was passing out at the election 2 weeks ago. One flyer even advocated organizing a city wide workers strike to shut down Baltimore city. Are they even aware that is illegal and would get the organizers thrown in jail? Hopefully this time at the election site they will do a better job of not allowing electioneering to take place. What that group did last time was wrong. We should also recognize there is a very small but vocal population that is using this contract dispute as an opportunity to get their agenda across. Basically they are communists who see every contract dispute as an opportunity to try to strike or bring about a worker class uprising. They are just stirring the pot and using the other groups that have various motives to vote no to achieve their means. They will never vote yes, the key is eliminating their ability to sway others with false arguments, misconceptions, and fear.

@overthetop: actually no, it does not follow. The essential difference is not to penalize teachers that don't do more--and the contract doesn't. If they can maintain a proficient eval, they automatically gain enough au points to move up a "step." without doing anything else. What this process does do is allow for rewarding people who do more than that.

@ general readership: it is most decidedly NOT the same contract, either from the point of view of the last ratified contract we had or from the last proposal. I hope we can rise above pithy mantras that are not accurate.

Are there still things that will be flushed out? yes. Do we know enough about it to have an idea where we stand? yes. Do we have equal input with North Avenue on what the final product will look like? ABSOLUTELY--both at the highest levels and the AU approval levels.

My biggest issue is that of the AU accumulation. On this point, I feel that it has to be a work in progress. We teachers are very inventive and creative people--and our profession demands such. As such, we need to have a system that will allow us to present all the different things that we do for recognition by our peers. To ask for a cookie cutter table that somehow lists EVERY way that we help move student achievement is unrealistic to ask for and would most assuredly fall short. Let the process be flexible to reflect our own flexible solutions.

That's my 2 cents. Whether you agree or disagree, thanks for reading and for all that you do for students.

@ Steven

Flexible options for AUs is exactly what this contract agreement offers. Those extra ways for teachers to earn AUs will be determined by the Joint Governing Panel, which will be made up of 4 full-time employees appointed by the BTU and 4 by the Board.

Exactly. That's the flexibility and input that I like and the way I think it has to be.

@Elisabeth - If you haven't gotten a response from your field representative, write Marietta English and complain. You can do that at her email site or call the Union and ask the receptionist for Ms. English and leave a voice mail message if she isn't in. The field representatives work for us (they get their salary from our dues!) and if they don't respond, something should be done about it. And right now BTU is really putting forth an effort to communicate directly with us so don't let the fact that someone hasn't called back determine your vote. Make sure someone is responsive to you!

@S.Hoffman: as one of the people passing out flyers at the last election, I take umbrage at the idea that we are "all communists." What planet-- er decade-- are you on? It's my constitutional right to demand answers that I felt the BTU was not providing. It's also the responsibility of all of those who vote on this contract to understand its ramifications as we move forward. Much of this contract is still written in the future tense. The AU system has great potential, but in a system as disorganized as ours could easily become a logistical nightmare if it's not hammered out ahead of time. Also-- how do you feel about a collaborative profession such as ours being divvied up this way? To agree to something without reading the fine print-- or rather, allowing the fine print to be written AFTER we agree to it is sheer stupidity, regardless of the merit of its ideas.

On top of that, the money to fund this endeavor has never been explained. We have enough money through the Jobs Grant and Race to the Top for just three years. But salary increases are a decades-long thing. In Denver, where the first full-scale pay-for-performance system was instituted, the entire city had to vote for it, AND vote for a mill-levy to pass it. The system was instituted as a pilot first, and during the pilot stage, a huge number of problems were uncovered and dealt with. If we vote for this thing, we sign onto something that isn't even finished yet, as an entire SCHOOL SYSTEM. It's like pulling out all the materials for your science experiment after the kids have already arrived for class. (I knew I had that bunson burner somewhere around here... )

Baltimore is pretty fly-by-night about school policy, and one fad follows another in 3-5 year cycles. Look at the Neighborhood Schools, opened to replace the big high schools in 2002 with great fanfare. Those same schools are now shutting down (less than a decade later) in favor of charters and 6-12 schools. Did the big high schools have problems? Sure. But if the Neighborhood School idea wasn't the solution, why did we do it on such a grand scale all at once?

Most jurisdictions that choose to do something this radical, iron out the kinks with a pilot program first. To ask for prudence and deliberation and a democratic process is what I call good old fashioned Constitutional Rights.

Also-- a few things were clarified in the new contract, (wow! colors!) but the main problems-- future tense and vague wording, a failure to explain the accounting, a failure to allow for serious discourse on how exactly this will improve the lives of students, (if we have 190 lead teachers, does that mean we suddenly have 40-student class-sizes?)

A note-- there are extremely mixed reviews on Denver's system. It's been around since 1999, so it is old enough to have some real results. Merit pay (which this is, by the way) has been proven not to work at all in three other cities. Why then, when we know other things DO work, (like lower class-sizes, books kids can take home, heat and cold considerations, nutritious food, professional development that is useful, teacher-mentoring, enrichment activities) are we doing this?

If BTU can explain the logistics and the funding, and explain why I should absolutely LOVE the idea of paying the Principal's Pets in every school, then I'm much more amenable to the ideas. But if not, it just sounds like this is just something to make us look good to Arne Duncan.

@Robin Bingham - I'm a big fan. Keep it up- and thanks!

THANK YOU TO BESS AND LADYDMW

Some teachers do not want any extra responsibilty and would turn down anything. I've heard that first hand from a teacher at my school.And if that's the case, do the same thing you have been doing and get a measly 2 percent reaise followed by 1 percent. But to those who want to go the extra mile, here is your opportunity.

@Bea since you have so many concerns, have you made contact with Marrieta yet? I hope to hear your questions at the very first meeting next week in regards to this countract.

I know everyone is concerned about what is to happen after the contract but thats what happens contracts expire, otherwise what is the point of having it? I was told that salaries would not decrease after the three years regardless of what happens, but hopefully it is renewed.

I think this is a good opportunity to reward teachers for their outstanding work. We all would like to see the evaluation but we can't so we must deal with it. It is going to go into effect with or without us voting.

How many jobs out there do not have evaluation procedures? If you fail to live up to your duties then you get he boot regardless of where you work-which is how it should be. They did say there would be penalties for principals abusing their powers with he evaluations and I think that is a big concern for some -as it should be.

Lastly, a rep told me on Wednesday that if the contract does not work out then it can be canceled. Hopefully this is true and will be placed in the contract. But I am unsure on the specifics of this.

Marietta English said that BTU field representatives would be sent to schools to get input for the new tentative agreement. I teach at the biggest school in the city and no field representative ever came to my school. Where is Mergenthaler's input? It's evident that they are going to try to shove this thing down our throats until we give up. I say don't give up. Like somebody said before: same contract, same vote.

@ Robin Bingham
I called you a communist because if you believe what you wrote in one of your flyers that is exactly what you are. Your group handed our a flyer that said we should organize with other city wide unions like fire and police and organize a city workers strike to shut down the city. Your flyer advocated that we as teachers demand the government hire back other city workers that have lost their job in the last year. This was in your own flyer, not something I made up. If you do not like being called a communist, stop passing out flyers that advocate communist/socialist ideals. This is not some opportunity for a great worker class revolution its a contract negotiation for a better compensation system for teachers. That is all. As for your Constitutional rights, I teach government, and I can tell you that you got more then your rights in the last election. What you did, passing out innacurate statements at the location of the election while people were in line is not a right, its wrong. It is called electioneering and luckily I have heard that the next election will be handled more professionaly by an outside service that will not be allowing you or your group to be passing out any literature at the election site. If you want to post here, do interviews and send emails that is your right, to pass out lies and misinformation with the intention of misleading voters at the site of an election is not a right its you abusing the system. Lastly on this topic, are you aware that what you advocated in your flyer is illegal and would get you put in jail if you actually tried to organize a united city strike? Good luck with that, hope you have a good lawyer since you seem to think advocating breaking the law is a Constitutional right.

Issue 2, the AU system is flexible as Steven pointed out. It has to be. Education is a flexible and fluid profession and much of what we do is not black and white cut and paste. We need a system that is able to evolve and change to each situtation. You seem to be advocating for some kind of chart or rubric that is cut and paste on what is and is not an AU. That is a horrible idea and would become a complete mess. YOu know that though and that is what you want as your agenda is to kill this proposed change. We need a system where other teachers have input into what AU's should be and how they are managed. This gives us that and is the best possible way to implement the system. NOt perfect but the best we can do.

Issue 3 Pilot program, this contract IS the pilot program. That is why the current eval process remains intact for now. That is why there is a provision that if the district is unable to implement all of this contract successfuly we will revert to the old system. THis is the trial system, its not a permanent system, its a 3 year provisional trial period. So this is exactly what you are suggesting a pilot program.

Issue 4 Merit pay, this is NOT merit pay. Since you seem to not know what merit pay is I will explain. Merit pay is when teachers are pit against each other using subjective or objective measures and the teachers that do "better" then other teachers get bonus pay. Merit pay is where you say the top 10 percent of teachers on this or that test score will get additional bonus pay. It puts teachers against each other. This system in the contract is NOT merit pay. It simply is an acheivement based system where teachers can earn extra money through numerous opportunities. ONE such opportunity is student acheivement, but there is also through credits, profesional developments, extra curricular activities, and earning better evaluations. You are misrepresenting the AU system but you know that already.

Issue 5: "principle input" you say that this creates a system where the principles pets get to take advantage. This may or may not happen but we already have that in the current system. The fact is that principles are the bosses and guess what, if your boss doesnt like you it can make your job difficult. That is true in ANY job. If you are trying to write a contract that makes it impossible for a boss to impact the work of an employee they do not like good luck. We all know the problems with bad management but a contract can not solve that. A teachers contract is about our compensation for our work and protections against illegal actions against us by management. This is not about finding a way to make sure bosses we do not like can not make our job difficult. THis contract actually gives us more input on school management then we had before. Building reps have veto power over any structural changes that principles want to make. Principles have to attend mandatory professional development on management skills. Finally, there is a board set up to investigate if there is evidence that principles are not implementing the new system correctly. There is also still the greivance process. THis is a MUCH better process then we have now to check the power of the administration so I am not sure what your point is here.
Issue 6: money, you imply that because there may not be money after 3 years that we should not accept this raise. By the way that is what this is about, not student lunches, or parent input programs, or reading programs for the children. Those things are all good, and we all know they will help and work, but that is up to the school district. That is NOT something for a teacher contract. This contract dispute is about our compensation and that is IT. Stop trying to deflect that by bringing up ancilary issues that are not the main purpose of a teacher contract like better school lunches for students. To argue we should turn down a raise now because there may not be money later is crazy. If not for the funding we have now there would be NO money for a reaise. We would have to just accept a continuation of the previous contract with no extra COLA. This contract is an 85 million dollar raise over the last 3 years for teachers as a district. You are suggesting we turn that down because we may not be able to get as good a deal in 3 years. That is a problem for 3 years from now. It is very possible you are right and we may have to fight in 3 years to keep the raise. I would much rather fight to keep a raise then never get one at all. I am not turning down money now because I may not be able to get more money later. Not sure what logic you are using there.

Finally, you are deflecting and trying to frame this argument the way you want it. You are focusing on issues that are NOT the main ussue. YOu are making things insigificant that are huge and trying to make small insignificant or non relavent things a big deal. This is necessary becuase at the end of the day you are trying to use confusion and fear of change to get a no vote.

I hope those that are going to vote on this contract understand something. There are problems with our system we all know this. I am sure there will be problems that have to be dealt with in the new system also. However, public education is moving away from a seniority based system towards an acheivement based system, like it or not. Much of what is being implemented will be a reality in a few years. BCPS is offering us significant monetary compensation and a foot in the door of setting up this new system right now if we work with them. This gives us equal input in the new process and a raise in exchange for going along with the change rather then fighting it every step of the way. If we choose to go the route of resistance and opposition to every step in the process what will happen is they will implement this one step at a time and in a few years everything you are fighting against will be a reality anyways, but without our input and we will be making thousands less then we would have if we had gone alone with it and worked with them to bring about the changes. Basically a no vote will mean in 3 years our job will be harder, worse, and we will be payed less. If that is what you want, vote no, but please understand that is the reality of what will happen.

This divide is what's going to take us down. Nothing but exaggerated and accusatory comments here from members of the same union. I was/am anti-contract. I am not anti-contract because I am lazy, afraid of change, or any other judgement of me that is personal and unfounded. I am anti-contract essentially for the following reasons:

1. The contract is better but still vague and filled with uncertainties. Committees WILL be formed and processes WILL be decided post-vote. What if these committees and processes are not what we hoped for? Too late to change them. The system for tracking AU's (example) should be SET IN STONE pre-vote.

2. The contract change is unfounded. We are told that drop outs are down and test scores are up every year. If things are slowly getting better, why do we need a new incentive based contract?

3. The change is meaningless. As many of you have stated already there are old/new bad teachers who either chose the wrong profession or should retire. This contract does nothing to cut the proverbial fat from our workforce. These teachers will earn less money, sure, but no less than a new teacher currently makes now (a completely livable wage). This doesn't help remove bad teachers from Baltimore at all nor offer early retirement incentives for people who are in it just to get their X years.

4. Weakness. This contract weakens the Union. As it currently stands your building representative cannot be involuntarily transferred. You vote this through they can (with CEO approval). I was a building rep for 4 years, and went through several principals. One of them went to Roger Shaw and AAA and contested my validity as BR to try and have me transferred because I had an organized staff who didn't let him make demands that violated the contract. (He tried to make it mandatory to tell him why we were using our personal day 48 hours prior to using it, for example).

What we need to stop doing is arguing and infighting. We are a union of workers supposedly united by solidarity in our trade. As a union we democratically voted a contract down. What leadership should have done was petition its members for what we wanted to keep and remove from the contract and start there. What they did do was assume we just "didn't get it". By doing so Metro Drive has split us into two very heated groups. By doing so Metro Drive has weakened the workforce. Whether this "new-ish" contract passes or not has become a non issue for me now. I am much more focused on our need for new solidarity as a Union and (in this one person's opinion) new union leadership that is more involved with the union members.

In the end, we're only as strong as we the workers make us. We sent a message to North Ave & Metro Drive with our first vote. And that message wasn't "yes" or "no", it was we are involved and demand more from you. Demand more now as one force, not less from each other.

There is much information that we the public are not privy to concerning this contract. We need deep investigative journalism in order to acquire the knowledge needed to pass this vote. I for one, would like to know how this pilot contract fits in with the coming National Standards and No Child Left Behind. Fiscally, the city and state will be beholden to Federal mandates and funds. We need to see the bigger picture here folks. This is not about lazy old teachers and naive new ones. It is about Federal government control over local decisions. BTU, the media, and BCPSS have all jumped on the bandwagon, and in the process ceded our individual rights once again to big government and big business- the only real winners if this contract passes.

@S.Hoffman,
Below is the verbatim language I used on my flyer. Unfortunately the new contract addresses these concerns no better than the last contract. Let others judge for themselves whether or not it is wrong to ask these pertinent questions:
--------------------

Why can’t you Work out the Evaluation Process and Come Back to Us? The Evaluation Process is what determines whether it is a good contract or not.
(post-vote comment-- yes, education is fluid, but there is not even a clear delineation of what is expected of teachers. Best practices = good rubrics. Good rubrics guard against subjectivity, nepotistic practices and are simply what is fair.)

Where is the money coming from? Race to the Top and Federal Jobs Money is a One-Time Hand-out. What happens when this money runs out? (DC Teachers earn Merit Pay donated by Walmart, who gets to choose DC’s next Superintendent in exchange)

Independent Analysis using BTU’s Numbers says:
92% of Teachers will NEVER be LEAD or MODEL teachers because $60 million caps the number who can at 8%.
(my post-new-contract addendum: This is not a formal cap placed by Dr. Alonso-- it's just the math. We simply don't have the luxury of adding $60 million to our budget plus as much more as good teaching allows. It's gotta come from somewhere-- and I worry that it will compromise funding that makes our teaching possible-- books, paper, supplies, small class-sizes, ac and heat that works, etc. Either that or compromise our values and the democratic control of our schools.)

RUSHED VOTES MEAN SLOPPY POLICY.
Regardless of your political leanings, all of the following could have been better implemented given time and deliberation before voting:
Iraq War, Homeland Security, Financial Bailout, Federal Stimulus Funds,

A VOTE NO is a VOTE for a DEMOCRATIC PROCESS
---------------
So that is my flyer. I do hope someone speaks to my concerns, especially the one about the money. Without that question answered, I fear more and more that this is a shell game.

Also, Hoffman, -- you can't call a system-wide change a 'pilot program' unless you are saying that Baltimore will be the 'pilot program' for the rest of the country. Pilot Programs must run concurrent with existing programs in order to see if they make a difference. That's just science. I'd rather our students not be forced to be guinnea pigs for some rich guy's new idea. Performance Pay has been proven in many situations not to work.

Let's push for things that DO work: lower teacher case-loads; working heat and a/c; paper and books for every kid; working copiers IN each school; knowing our class assignments by May rather than the usual August 22 so we could plan over the summer; Principals knowing their budgets so that they can organize classes and plan the year, and so that teachers don't get excessed in October after everything has settled down; the right to give students the grades we know they earned and not have these changed every time we need to get our graduation rate up... these things might really help us give our students a better education, and would be as simple to implement as the proposed contract.

@ Steven: your feeling that we must have a flexible AU system to honor the fluid nature of teaching is a really good one in theory, but I feel that without a really clear delineation of what counts and what doesn't, it will be completely exploited. It could become a way for a Principal to reward old friends. It could be a way for teachers to bankrupt the system if the possibilities are too numerous. It could be a way for Alonso (or whoever his successor, good or bad) to control at the drop of a hat, how many people can get raises, just by making the AU list longer or shorter. (Budget cuts =only a few things on the list and everyone already signed up to do all of them September first!) We're essentially giving up a system that was very straight-forward, (whether or not it was good) for one that basically can be bent to the will of whoever has the most power.

My sense from the national mood is that unions (and the teachers they represent) will not be the ones with the power. So although I laud the sentiment of "Let the process be flexible to reflect our own flexible solutions," I think an undefined AU system is more like running a bank on the honor system. We need to be really clear about what you can earn money for doing, and what you can't. Otherwise, someone is writing blank checks.

1. there is nothing saying that what the committee starts with is set in stone. As a point in fact, since it is outside the formal wording of the contract, it is totally able to be reworked as much as we like--and demand it to be. Remember, we have have half the representation on any panel established to deal with this fleshing out. I refer to my first entry about needed flexibility. We cannot expect North Avenue to be able to predict every way that we come up with to improve student achievement--flexibility is a must.
2.so that the people who go above and beyond the usual can be rewarded for it? We always point out how teachers are so underpaid and overworked.....If we're going to be overworked, at least we can get paid better.
3. who said that was the goal of the contract? It might be an issue for North Avenue and the BTU to deal with, but it is not the point of this contract. It is not to penalize teachers who do less, but to reward those that do more.
4. building reps are not educational gods and I don't see why they should be untransferrable on educational grounds. In this case, the CEO is the ultimate check of a principal trying to get rid of a thorn. On balance, the contract gives the union and its membership a rather strong voice in the schools vis-a-vis approval of various major changes.

It may have been voted down, but 42% still liked what it said. That alone is reason enough to work on redrafting rather than starting over from scratch. So many of the comments on the news shows and articles were about not knowing enough. That doesn't mean throw it out...so they didn't. They adjusted it, set up a process for more people to hear about it, and will see how honest people were about voting no. If it gets blown out of the water this time--and people are willing to cite philosophical differences with the ideas in the contract like those people here have done--then fair enough. Until then, I will continue to advocate for the ideas inherent in the proposal. We're in the same union...we don't have to have the same ideas. People tend to advocate for solidarity around THEIR view point...not the opposition...lol.

okay, missed that last entry by Matt. My comment there is much shorter than usual: really? Really? The "what aren't they telling us?" argument? The "big bad government" shtick? Come on, man. What in this time limited contract gives specific control of BCPSS to the Fed? What individual rights do we lose?

Is it so impossible to accept that a large segment of our profession here in Baltimore is actually okay with using Fed funds to reward hard working teachers?

I'm not normally snide and I apologize, but this sort of commentary can be really frustrating.

Thoughts on the SAME CONTRACT, SAME VOTE Theme:

@MW, who said: They asked for suggestion and fixed nothing in this contract. The union and Alonso are hoping for teacher apathy to get this past. Same Contract, Same Vote.
One of the major complaints from City Teachers the first time around was that they didn’t know what was in the tentative agreement. The BTU is trying to fix this by doing far more outreach this time around. Also, please consider this: just because the members voice something, doesn’t mean the negotiation team is going to be able to get it. Remember, there are two sides to contract negotiations, and it’s possible that many things that teachers wanted in the contract weren’t accepted by management. Take a close look at this revised version, because chances are, if it’s stayed similar, there are reasons for that.

@Angry, who said: I think it's surprising that after being rejected with a 58% majority, the same contract is being put in front of us again. Wealthier jurisdictions are not facing this kind of erosion of democratic powers.

Closed door negotiations aren’t really a democracy, so while I understand your anger, the principles of democracy aren’t going to apply here. It may make sense to rally teachers for more transparency in the negotiations process, but right now, the system we have is set up to be efficient, not democratic. I agree with you that we need more transparent negotiations, and I think that talking to field reps and BTU Leadership is the way to go on that.

Finally, my thoughts on the “future tense” debates. We’re currently in a catch-22. The district isn’t going to spend time and money to develop the BPPSLP (Baltimore Professional Practices and Student Learning Program) until it is ratified and a reality, and many members won’t vote to ratify until they know the district’s detailed plan for implementation. That’s a stalemate.
In order for members to vote to ratify, they will have to make a leap of faith. The contract acknowledges this by providing safeguards that a) protect teachers and give them money if the new system doesn’t work out and b) gives the district a huge financial incentive to do this thing correctly. If the contract passes, but then the district is unable to implement it correctly, they’ve effectively wasted years, and millions of dollars. You had better believe people at the top, including School Board officials will probably be on the chopping block if that happens. So basically, if we vote to ratify the contract, we are the only people who don’t lose, and we (and our students) stand the most to gain.
Finally, I along with many of you have had papers lost by HR (now the Office of Human Capital). I’ve been very frustrated by their performance in the past. But I also believe in the power of technology, and in the sense of urgency that has been a hallmark of North Avenue in the past few years. I hope that they can fulfill this contract, I really do. But part of the reason I’ll vote yes is that under the contract I get a raise whether they can deliver or not.

If the goal is to get better teachers, then pay them a little more and you'll end up with more ambitious and intelligent people.

If the goal is to get rid of poor teachers--which drag down everyone--make it easier to fire them or raise tenure by a couple of years.

Why overhaul the system when a few tweeks will do?

@ Nadine-who are you? You are nowhere in the BCPS mail system unless you are using another name. I am wondering because you usually make sense but I need to know that you are legit. Transparency,please. Motives,please.I thought I read once that you were actually on the west coast? Just wondering.

@ Overly Complicated:

The goal of the TA is to get better teachers, and the new contract does seek to pay ambitious teachers more.

The goal of the contract is not to get rid of poor teachers. To my knowledge tenure decisions are made by the State, not districts.

On a related note, yesterday I was thinking about tenure and ended up wikipedia-ing it. (I know, not the most reliable source of information, but I wasn't writing a paper, I was satisfying my curiosity.) It's common knowledge that tenure was created to further the expansion of knowledge and protect professors who pursue unpopular research. But what I found surprising was that tenure is being phased out of colleges and universities. Currently, 68% of professors are non-tenure track. If tenure is no longer appropriate at the college level, that tells me maybe it's not long lived for us either. I think that Hoffman's comment earlier that a boss can make your job difficult, and that's just life is something that more people (especially non-teachers) are beginning to believe. I think the general public is going to have a hard time accepting teacher tenure when almost no other field has the level of job protection that we have. To my knowledge, tenure decisions are made by the MD General Assembly and MSDE, so they're beholden to the general constituents as well as the unions and school districts. It'll be interesting - keep your eye on it, and if you feel strongly, start lobbying now.

Regardless, I don't mean to take this discussion off topic. The tentative agreement is NOT about tenure. It's about pay, and it's a strong agreement with a higher level of protection and more earning opportunity.

@ Robin Bingham
1. The flyer you just quoted was 1 of 3 that your group was passing out. All 3 were given to me by the same person at different times while in line. There was a smaller sized flyer handed out that did advocate that 1. we should demand a team be assembled of teachers from every school to negotiate with the board. (yea you really think its a good idea to try to have hundreds of teachers try to come to a consensus and negotiate with the board?) 2. we should try to get the other city worker unions on our side by demanding raises for police and firemen. 3. We should organize a united city workers strike to shut down the city. (illegal so hopefully you do try to pull that off and end up in jail). 4. Demand that all city workers laid off in the last year get reinstated. That was one of the flyers your organization was handing out. Maybe not YOU personally but your group handed that out. Don't play games about it now. You have been called on it so now you must own your crazy. You put it out there for everyone to read, you can't try to deflect or run from it now.

2. The money being there is their problem. What you are essentially saying is this gives us too much money and we should turn it down because the city can not afford to pay us this much. Sorry I am not saying no to a raise because the city might have to work to find a way to get the money. Are you really arguing that we make enough money as teachers because that is your basic premise here, that they can not afford this contract and we should vote no because it gives us too much of a raise. It is up to the city to find a way to make the finances work, the contract is about getting us the best incentives possible for teachers.

3. You list issues that of course everyone would be in favor of like better lunches, and AC and lower class sizes, but no-where in there do you list the biggest issue that this contract is about. Our pay. The number 1 and 2 and 3 issues, in my mind, that this contract is about is getting teachers who work very hard and are grossly under payed a better compensation system. Recently teaching was rated as the lowest valued degree you can get for earning potential. That is pathetic. This is what the contract is trying to fix. School lunches and AC and class sizes are a problem but those are administrative issues that the board will never give up to the union. If we do push for all of those causes it will leave no money to get us additional compensation in this contract. Like it or not there are limited funds available for education. We all are in this because we want to teach and want what is best for the children, but that does not mean we have to accept lower pay everytime on behalf of the students needs. This time I say we take the money being offered then continue to lobby the district to find ways to provide what is necessary for the children. I do not accept that we must give up our pay increase so that the children get what they need.

Vote YES
a no vote is a vote for a socialist system
a yes vote is a vote for a better salary for hard working teachers.

@ Robin Bingham
BTW you are starting to become very transparent here. Your quote "some rich guys idea" spoken with such vehemence is telling. You obviously have some strong anti government and anti elite sentiments. Your "socialist" literature at the last election proves that as does some of your little comments thrown into your posts here.

I really hope everyone can start to see the motives of that group. Do not let this contract dispute become about a class struggle. This is not an opportunity for some great worker class uprising. This is not about better lunches for students or class sizes. The TA is about a raise for hard working teachers. Stop allowing groups with specific agendas to confuse, scare, and deflect the issues onto something else. Do not allow anyone to change the subject. This contract is about getting us fair compensation for the hard work we do as professionals. We are asked to have masters degrees, to continue our education with credits and professional developments. We are professionals not glorified babysitters and it is time we get payed like it. This is our opportunity for the raise we have been asking for.

There are groups with alternate motives that would like to use wedge issues to divide us and kill this opportunity. If you really feel that getting better lunches should come ahead of a raise for teachers in this contract then perhaps there is no way for us to agree. I do think our students should have better lunches but I do NOT feel it has to come from my salary. This contract is about our salary, NOTHING else. To Robin Bingham, stop trying to turn an apple into an orange.

VOTE YES
a no vote is a vote for a socialist system
a yes vote is a vote for better salaries for hard working teachers.

I wish we were that organized to have been one single group working against the first contract. We would have been a lot more effective if there really was just ONE group of us working together. Unfortunately, we were not. Hopefully, now that teachers are engaged in these big-picture policy decisions, one of which is this contract, we can organize a group of people to begin giving voice to those things which would truly improve our schools. Nationally, there is no real teacher voice, and sadly lots of education decisions are being made without us.

We are working to set up just such a group now. Anyone interested should write this email address:

teachersfordemocraticschools@gmail.com

I think a good outside voice might be useful here. Baltimore is not an island, and our contract is one part of the sweeping changes taking place across our country. Diane Ravitch was under-secretary of education under George Bush, and has written a huge number of books on education since the eighties. She recently wrote a wonderful critique of Waiting for Superman, which you can find here:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/nov/11/myth-charter-schools/

I also suggest anyone who is upset with the way our Union handled things to check out the following article on the Rethinking Schools website about Arne Duncan's hometown, where most of his reforms have recently been rejected, and where the Chicago Teachers Union now does all negotiations completely transparently. (They bring 50 teachers to the negotiating table.) It is nice to read about what is possible.

http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/25_01/25_01_petersonsokolower.shtml

Both articles are good background for anyone who wants to think about this contract critically and within the context with which it was written. Teachers are being villified and scapegoated across the country right now, and there is a huge amount of force behind the very transparent effort to break up teachers' unions.

While this contract has ideas that are far more teacher-friendly than some 'reform' contracts, it's a huge jump, and as such, it's extremely vague, and could be a colossal failure if we don't act carefully. Even Rochester, NY, where a similar contract was just ratified, is moving forward far more carefully than we are. There, the school system started the changes in ONE high school for a long period of time, in order to test them for use in the rest of the system.

At the end of the day, if we don't know where the money is coming from, we set ourselves up to be victims of the shell game played by those who would privatize the public schools, and take the decisionmaking process away from communities.

Or, conversely, we face the possibility of teaching 40-student classes so that one person per school can earn $100,000. Or, we all make more money, but then must spend more for supplies and books. My kids already don't have enough books to take home for homework. You are right, teaching does not pay the way sales does. But we get great benefits and great retirement. And frankly, we get a lot more money than most of the people in Baltimore. We need to be mindful of how this contract affects the city as a whole, our students, and our community.

I think it makes sense to step back from some of the intense rhetoric and remember that this contract is not about democracy or socialism. I think that both sides have legitimate concerns, and if we manage our tone we can address the issues and each other more effectively.

Robin – while Hoffman’s tone is hard to read through, I think his points are valid. Like him, I’d rather fight to keep a raise in 3 years than not get one at all, and I also agree that forgoing a pay raise time and time again because there are other needs in our district does a disservice to our profession. I think we can push for our needed reforms, and also reward teachers who are already working hard. It doesn’t have to be an either/or. But with all due respect, I think one of your fliers got it wrong. A vote no is not a vote for a democratic process. From what I see, many no votes have been based on fear, mistrust of the district, and unwillingness to change. Participating in a discussion like this, talking with your colleagues, and becoming informed are part of a democratic practice. Passing out inflammatory campaign literature while voting is taking place and voters have no way to verify your claims is morally questionable electioneering. If this were an actual election, those actions would be illegal because they rank right up there with voter fraud. I encourage you and the people you protest with to elevate the level of discourse through your actions.

Hoffman – I think you’ve become distracted by the fliers and what happened last time there was a vote. You claim the other side is baiting people and distracting people from the real issues, but then you’re taking the bait and letting the voting debacle distract from the content of the contract.

To everyone here, I encourage you to keep asking questions, and push people (respectfully) for answers, but know that at the end of the day, ratifying this contract WILL require a leap of faith. When you research it, though, you should find that we as teachers don’t lose anything by taking this risk. We only gain.

Do your homework, keep an open mind, and let’s keep the conversation going.

Also - in response to Elisabeth, I am a legit teacher but I'd rather not broadcast my bcps email to the entire interwebs. Maybe it's time for inside ed to host another commenter meet-up, and we can get to know each other outside of aliases?

@Robin Bingham

Don't worry about S. Hoffman. He will never see past the money. Continue your fight. It is definitely a noble one. Being a BCPSS teacher I think the contract is not a great contract. I really believe that this is becoming a young vs. old issue.

@S. Hoffman

I never knew opposition to contract meant automatic entry into the socialist or communist party. I guess all the years of voting and believe in my government mean nothing. It is funny how you and many others would be willing to sell your soul to the devil for pieces of silver. It is true everyone has a price.

Where are the other parts that are important like administrative accountability where administrators can be evaluated on their performance like teachers. As a government teacher, you should be open to the idea of checks and balances of all groups to ensure equal power and prevent abuse of power.

I thought that this contract was to benefit the children of our school system but you are talking about taking the money without regard to how this may affect the students. I think that the evaluation of the Effectiveness of teachers can be subjective and used as a means for personal vendettas. Many have not been in the system enough or at schools where this may happen but it happens.

We are teachers not business people and should be treated as such. Teaching is a profession that produces the best and brightest leaders in the world. I do believe that we should be valued and appreciated. We should be compensated but not at a price.

Before my "communist" days, I worked in business and saw how these type of contract can affect the morale of the company. You are not being rewarded for good work but pit some against others for the brass ring. Collaboration and teamwork were catch words but in reality it often rewarded the some whether it was ethical or not.

I know this may sound off-topic, but the point is that when you believe that management is looking to help make the lower level people happier, you are usually wrong. Management usually worry about the bottom line. Rules often change when you least expect and no one can do anything about it. And you and others are willing to sign a contract without all the details involved. I just hope you never build a house for yourself with an architect who draws plans on a napkin with crayon.

On the issue of young v old teachers:

I’m disappointed to see this conversation turn into young teachers on one side, and veteran teachers on the other. I think veteran teachers who oppose the contract are feeling attacked, because pro-contract people are accusing them of being lazy and resistant to change. Those accusations are hardly fair, because I don’t believe any truly lazy person can do our job for long.

But here’s the thing that the pro-contract teachers don’t understand. A veteran teacher who has worked for the system for 15+ years can no longer get raises under the old contract. They’ve been “stepped-out” and have reached the top of their bracket. Under the new TA, that teacher would be eligible for raises. Even if that teacher wasn’t interested in PD or accumulating AUs, that teacher would automatically get a raise two out of every three years just by maintaining a Satisfactory evaluation. Pro-contract people don’t understand why teachers who are currently not getting raises don’t want a system that would give them raises, so they assume (unfairly) that veteran teachers oppose the contract because they’re lazy. Veteran teachers, speak up, and explain to us again why you don’t want a system in which you yourself stand to earn more money for doing the same thing you’re doing now. Otherwise, people will assume the worst when it comes to your motivations.

Secondly, it doesn’t boil down to a simple new v old teacher thing. There are many young teachers who oppose the TA and many veteran teachers who support it. It really doesn’t have to do with age, so can we throw that idea out once and for all?

Mitch, I agree with you – disagreeing with the contract doesn’t make you a communist. And for the record, there’s nothing wrong with being a communist anyway. I fear, though, that anti-contract people are not being as open minded and logical as they could be. One such example would be your earlier comment, where you said administrative accountability should play a bigger part in the way our district is run. Administrative accountability is currently increased in the new TA. Maybe I don’t understand what you mean by the term, but the way I see it, more principal oversight (by both North Ave AND the BTU, mind you) is a part of this new contract. That’s what I mean about being illogical.

I also agree with you Mitch, that we aren’t business people. We aren’t college professors either, but we get tenure. We are a unique profession that needs its own set of standards and guidelines. But that doesn’t mean we can’t take ideas and practices from other fields. Will a wholesale business model work for us? Of course not. But will business principles like accountability do us some good? Yes. In small pieces, we can learn from other fields, like business. The tricky part is figuring out the right blend, because we’re so unique. The new contract keeps key educational principles (the importance of PD, the extra work that teachers do) and blends them with the type of accountability (and rewards) found in other fields. I don’t see how that can be a bad idea.

I totally agree with you and others that evaluations have been carried out inappropriately by administrators in the past. In fact, after I write this long screed that I am sure almost no one will ever read, I have to send a polite email to my AP telling that person why I object to the comments in her most recent walkthrough. In my experience, if teachers who are right know our contract and stand up for themselves, they can win. Principals, North Avenue and the BTU don’t take grievances lightly. The new contract doesn’t change anything with our evaluation process, but it gives teachers an incentive to make sure their principals are doing things fairly. If the new contract passes, the number of grievances will probably go up, and that’s a GOOD thing, because it means a brighter light is being shone on corrupt principals.

I need you to explain how this contract would pit me against my peers. If I wanted to move up a step, all I would need to do is accumulate 12 AUs. There isn’t a limited number of AUs out there, nor is my principals limited in the amount of Proficient and Satisfactory evals he can give out. In the new TA principals are monitored to make sure they give a consistent amount of Proficients, Satisfactories, and Unsatisfactories from year to year. But if everyone in my building steps it up this year, the Principal will be able to give more Proficients to the people who deserve them. He and the teachers would have to justify that to North Ave and the BTU to make sure he’s not actually just rewarding cronies with good evals. This means 2 things: there is really no limit to the amount of Ps and Ss a principal can give, and more oversight for principals. Even if I get a satisfactory, I can take a class and move up a pay step. I don’t see any opportunity there for competition between me and the teacher across the hall, because we can all move up. Similarly, if I wanted to move from a Professional grade to a Model grade teacher, I would need to go before a district wide committee. I would be given a rubric ahead of time, and it would be my responsibility to meet the standard in the domains outlined. Nowhere in the process am I being compared to another teacher – so how would I be in competition with them? Please explain, using an example, what you mean when you say the contract would pit me against my peers. (And please use an example that is widely applicable to most teachers. Special cases WILL happen, but they won't make up the majority.)

Finally, (and I do mean FINALLY) I want to talk about your comment here: when you believe that management is looking to help make the lower level people happier, you are usually wrong. Management usually worry about the bottom line. Your first comment shows that you have mistrust of management. That’s fine. But it’s not a good idea to vote based on emotion, especially emotions that come from past experiences. Vote on the contract in front of you, not based on what happened at your last job. Secondly, yes, management worries about the bottom line. But the hallmark of Alonso’s administration is that the bottom line is the kids. The kids need to know how to read and write and many other important skills. The kids need to be able to prove it. That’s his bottom line, and he probably thinks this contract can ultimately improve student outcomes, or he wouldn’t back it.

In summary, Mitch and Robin – please explain yourself and your arguments with more detail. They don’t make sense to me, and maybe to other people reading this blog who favor the contract. I sincerely, truly look forward to continuing this dialogue, and hope you will respond to this lengthy comment. Thanks!
Also – to Elisabeth. I don’t know where you read that I’m on the west coast. I am however, on the west side. :-)

@ Mitch and Bingham
It is hard sometimes to tell where you are coming from because you change the subject everytime we try to have open discourse about your issues. You said you had a problem with the evaluation process, we start to touch on that and you shift to the AU process. We talk about that and you want to talk about how this gives too much power to the federal government. If we talk about that you want to talk about school lunches and AC and class sizes (none of which has anything to do with a teacher contract). Now you are back on this distrust of the government rant and how we need to focus on limiting the power of administrators.... on and on and on. I am sure if I start to talk about these issues you will just shift again to some other topic from your laundry list of problems. You do not want honest open discourse, you are a moving target with one intention, to kill this proposed contract. If we add up everything you have brought up on this blog, school lunches, AC, class sizes, AU process, Evaluation process, adminitration power, government spending, government power.... you have a list of issues too long to possibly address. You talk about a democratic process but open debate in a democratic way can not take place when you change the topic anytime someone tries to engage you on an issue.

Your problem is with the reform movement within public education not with this contract specifically. You are deeply distrustful and paranoid of administrative and government power. You sound like you want the focus of this contract to be about limiting the power of the district and giving more control to teachers. That is actually in this contract. This contract has better checks on administrative power then the previous one. You admit within your own writing that this contract is actually better then most "reform" contracts, but you want to fight it simply because it is a reform contract. That is a problem because the same old thing is off the table. There are 2 sides to negotiating a contract and you fail to realize some of this is simply the best we can get. A seniority based system of pay is off the table. BCPS is not going for another contract like that. WHatever contract we end up with is going to be a "reform" contract. So why are you advocating turning down what you admit is a more teacher friendly reform contract then most others being proposed nationally. We have a good deal here compared to what is happening in other districts. You are trying to fight against the whole reform movement and using our contract as your personal stand. If you really want to fight the whole movement towards reform you will lose. This is the direction education is going and we can either help to be a part of the process like this contract allows us to, or fight it and have these policies instituted without our input and without better compensation to go with it. I would rather choose to have a say in the process and better pay then to vote no and have something shoved down my throat without any say and without a pay increase.

In regards to your comment about me not seeing past the money, DUH. Of course I wont see past the money, THAT IS WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. This is not a chance to fight against big government (go to a tea party rally if you want that). This is not a chance to fight reform or get better school lunches or reduce class sizes. Its not a chance to criticize where school funding comes from or how much control administrators have. This contract is about a better compenstation method for hard working teachers who deserve more for doing more. All of your issues are major philisophical issues that are not pertinent to the main goal of this teacher contract which was to get teachers that work hard and do extra a raise. Furthermore your philosophies are directly opposed to the entire idea of this contract. I just hope most do not feel the way you do about what our contract should be about.

@ Nadine,
Thank you for your thoughtful questions and open tone. It really helps to foster the dialogue that I want to have happen. I hope a more veteran teacher than I can weigh in on your first point, but I will weigh in with my own ideas.

The short and simple:
1. Since the AU list still is undefined, we leave it up to whoever is in charge to decide who wins AUs. Recent happenings in BCPSS point to the favoring of young, out-of-state teachers over older, native teachers. Inductive reasoning leads me to believe the undefined AU system will continue this trend.

2. Because there is a cap on the money to be spent on this, there is a cap on the number of points and AU’s to be earned. This doesn’t have to be written into the contract—it simply is a part of the budget. It is fiscally impossible for every teacher to earn 24 AU’s per year, (and yes I know that’s not going to happen anyway—I bring it up only to make my point.) So it is intellectually dishonest to imagine that we will all step it up and earn lots of raises, because even if we do step it up, there is not a bottomless bucket of money to give us raises with. In fact, Alonso does not even control the amount of money we have—this money comes from the state (and for the next 2 years, from the Federal government.) And, if we do exactly as they wish, from Bill Gates, Walmart, and other rich people who pretend to be doing something good. (Check out Bill Gates, by the way, for the break-up of Big High Schools in favor of Neighborhood schools. That solution didn't work instantly, so he’s since abandoned the idea, and the money that would fund its long-term success.) It follows—in my mind, that AUs are purposely left ‘fluid’ and undefined to allow for budget cuts (fewer ways to win AU’s) and expansions (more ways to win AU’s.) Since we keep getting budget cuts, it follows that the AU system must remain flexible—er—shrinkable.

3. “The new contract doesn’t change anything with our evaluation process, but it gives teachers an incentive to make sure their principals are doing things fairly. If the new contract passes, the number of grievances will probably go up, and that’s a GOOD thing, because it means a brighter light is being shone on corrupt principals.” Unfortunately, teachers already have lots of incentive to make sure principals are doing things fairly, but there is no avenue by which to do this, and the new contract offers us none. I like the idea of the BTU-North Avenue boards, but these are only to review applications for Model and Lead Teacher, and the grievance system we now have in place is reserved for teachers facing termination. There could easily be a stipulation in the new contract that allows a teacher to grieve content, (allowing a teacher to grieve a Satisfactory rating) or a stipulation that requires any evaluation that a Principal ‘forgets’ to file on time to revert to a Proficient Rating. But there is not. This allows a retribution-happy principal to simply ‘forget’ to evaluate anyone he doesn’t like, giving that person a Satisfactory rather than Proficient rating. Yes, teachers will be upset about it, and want to hold their principals accountable, but unless it is written into the contract, there will be no formal way to do this. What then, changes from the present state of affairs, where nepotism, retribution, etc. are rampant? Nothing except that our paychecks will be tied to that.

4. So here’s an example of how teachers might be pitted against one another. (And it’s hard to give one because it’s still unclear how teachers could win AU’s.) Say you and I want to join the School Improvement committee. We find out though, that only two people from each committee will get AU’s for being on the committee. I decide that I’ll just join the H S A Preparedness Committee instead, because there’s only one person on it, but you really have some great ideas for School Improvement, and you are a really hard worker, and think you can really add a lot to the school by being there, so you join the SI committee. The principal’s best friend from TFA days is chosen to be Committee Chair. She never shows up to meetings. You get mad, knowing that the Committee Chair is going to automatically be awarded AU’s. So at some point you blow the whistle on her. In revenge, she tells the principal that you never hung up your word wall, and your lesson plans are recycled from last year. There are a series of walk-throughs timed at terrible times (last period, day before Thanksgiving, etc.) and as a result, you end up getting a write-up in your file and a satisfactory rating for the year. You think—that’s ok. I still will get my 3 AU’s for all the work I did on the School Improvement Committee. But then you find out that during the last month of the school year, the committee (under your Chair’s leadership) quietly started meeting on Tuesdays instead of Wednesdays, and that you were taken off the committee because you ‘didn’t show up for meetings.’ The point here is not that you failed to get your 12 AU’s for the year, because yes, ostensibly you could rush off to take a class over the summer to make those up. The point is now you hate your Committee Chair, and vow to document every single meeting she misses of anything, and you hate your principal for being totally unfair and nepotistic.

5. You should not dismiss as ‘emotional’ the decision to take into account the fact that management’s main interest is in the bottom line. Nationally, this has been the gist of conversation. From a business point of view, like the one held by Bill Gates, a potential underwriter for our new contract, making teaching a post-college 5-year commitment makes a lot of sense: young teachers are cheaper, (even if you pay them $100,000 a year, you don’t have to pay them retirement if they leave within 5 years) So why not get a bunch of really smart college kids to come in and work their tails off for five years and then burn out, rather than having older teachers around? Advocates of ‘reform’ are brazen enough to state this pretty clearly. See Michelle Rhee’s comments about teaching being something you do for just a couple of years, or the union-busting statements of the group Democrats for Education Reform, which recently gave Negotiating Committee member and recent State Senator Elect Bill Ferguson their ‘reformer of the month’ award.

If the bottom line is really the kids, it means we look at solutions that have worked for the kids. Smaller class sizes have worked. Community Schools have worked. Stable Learning Environments have worked. (and by the way, teachers benefit hugely from these as well, and the mechanism to implement them is already in place) But rather than focusing on things that have been proven to work, Alonso goes for the teacher pay-scale, even though Peformance pay has not been proven to work ANYWHERE it has been tried. This makes me think the performance pay idea is not about the kids but about the money. The bottom line.

And the human element—a commitment to our city, a desire to know my students outside of school and see their education as a small part of a whole, a commitment to developing the entire child, rather than the test-scores of a child, a desire to build a tradition and a history with my students that their younger brothers and sisters can look forward to, is not valued in the new system. Neither is the fact I have a two year old, and need to make sure this job is actually sustainable, and that I don’t have to work more than the crazy hours after school and on weekends I already put in, to do it.

6. Even if you believe it's really about the kids, I find this contract really cynical because it is based on the idea that teachers only see the ‘money,’ and that we’ll do anything to get more of it. It is carefully written to favor the two largest groups (those just starting and those about to retire) while giving those of us in the middle very little. The idea here is to get anyone who is leaving in a few years anyway, (those close to retirement, and those who are just starting, 50% of whom will leave within 5 years) to sign on. If this were really about making teaching into a career, the people in the middle would be getting a lot out of this as well.

7. No one has explained how this will be funded long-term. If you say—as one BTU rep told me when I asked, “who cares about long-term?” then you really don’t care about how one action affects another. We need to think of this contract as part of a bigger whole. If I end up teaching a 40-person class so you can make $100,000, I don’t care how good a teacher you are. The large majority of average teachers will not be able to adequately teach 40 kids at a time to accommodate for your salary, and I myself will have a lot less fun teaching. I’d rather have 25 kids and a lower salary because I know I can succeed with 25, and I know that I can’t with 40. This has nothing to do with my teaching ability—this has to do with the human element, which is not addressed by bottom-line business-thinking. With that many students in a class, I simply can’t form the relationships with my kids that makes teaching worthwhile for me. Maybe it won’t be class-sizes that change. Maybe it will be books. Or AC/Heat. Or the already scarce field trip. Or science lab equipment. But any of the above makes the job that much less fun. Teaching in an impoverished school system is already difficult, and it’s not because of the salary. It’s because of the working conditions. We accepted the salary when we applied for the job—but what many of us would really like to see is an improvement of working conditions.

8. Speaking of what makes teaching worthwhile—for me, an English teacher, it’s the idea that I am opening the door for discourse with the larger world. I’d like to think I bring the tools kids will need to advocate for themselves, and engage with others across the power spectrum and engage with ideas and experiences across continents and across centuries. These tools are far more varied and profound than being able to read at grade level (which is step 1) or being able to use Standard English Grammar. (which is necessary in some circles—but not in others) I’d like to think we teach kids how to engage in a democracy. And we ourselves must therefore push for democracy in order to teach others how to do this. If we can’t demand even simple changes to this contract (like Teacher Case-Loads, a sample list of AU’s, a way to hold administrators accountable, being able to grieve an S rating, an explanation of the budget changes necessary to fund it) we are not engaging in democracy. A major problem I have with some of the comments on this blog are the tone of ‘it’s gonna happen anyway, so take this because it’s better than the alternative.’ What alternative? You mean the one pushed nationally by ‘reformers?’ The national conversation on education INCLUDES NO TEACHER VOICES. For us to accept a contract full of loopholes and vagueries means we accept our own silence, and agree to the recommendations of these national ‘experts’ without question. Why not push back and, as the true education experts we are, demand stipulations that would actually make this contract work BEFORE we sign it? Signing the contract as it is ends the dialogue before we ever get a chance to say anything.

@ Nadine,
Thank you for your thoughtful questions and open tone. It really helps to foster the dialogue that I want to have happen. I hope a more veteran teacher than I can weigh in on your first point, but I will weigh in with my own ideas.

The short and simple:
1. Since the AU list still is undefined, we leave it up to whoever is in charge to decide who wins AUs. Recent happenings in BCPSS point to the favoring of young, out-of-state teachers over older, native teachers. Inductive reasoning leads me to believe the undefined AU system will continue this trend.

2. Because there is a cap on the money to be spent on this, there is a cap on the number of points and AU’s to be earned. This doesn’t have to be written into the contract—it simply is a part of the budget. It is fiscally impossible for every teacher to earn 24 AU’s per year, (and yes I know that’s not going to happen anyway—I bring it up only to make my point.) So it is intellectually dishonest to imagine that we will all step it up and earn lots of raises, because even if we do step it up, there is not a bottomless bucket of money to give us raises with. In fact, Alonso does not even control the amount of money we have—this money comes from the state (and for the next 2 years, from the Federal government.) And, if we do exactly as they wish, from Bill Gates, Walmart, and other rich people who pretend to be doing something good. (Check out Bill Gates, by the way, for the break-up of Big High Schools in favor of Neighborhood schools. That solution didn't work instantly, so he’s since abandoned the idea, and the money that would fund its long-term success.) It follows—in my mind, that AUs are purposely left ‘fluid’ and undefined to allow for budget cuts (fewer ways to win AU’s) and expansions (more ways to win AU’s.) Since we keep getting budget cuts, it follows that the AU system must remain flexible—er—shrinkable.

3. “The new contract doesn’t change anything with our evaluation process, but it gives teachers an incentive to make sure their principals are doing things fairly. If the new contract passes, the number of grievances will probably go up, and that’s a GOOD thing, because it means a brighter light is being shone on corrupt principals.” Unfortunately, teachers already have lots of incentive to make sure principals are doing things fairly, but there is no avenue by which to do this, and the new contract offers us none. I like the idea of the BTU-North Avenue boards, but these are only to review applications for Model and Lead Teacher, and the grievance system we now have in place is reserved for teachers facing termination. There could easily be a stipulation in the new contract that allows a teacher to grieve content, (allowing a teacher to grieve a Satisfactory rating) or a stipulation that requires any evaluation that a Principal ‘forgets’ to file on time to revert to a Proficient Rating. But there is not. This allows a retribution-happy principal to simply ‘forget’ to evaluate anyone he doesn’t like, giving that person a Satisfactory rather than Proficient rating. Yes, teachers will be upset about it, and want to hold their principals accountable, but unless it is written into the contract, there will be no formal way to do this. What then, changes from the present state of affairs, where nepotism, retribution, etc. are rampant? Nothing except that our paychecks will be tied to that.

4. So here’s an example of how teachers might be pitted against one another. (And it’s hard to give one because it’s still unclear how teachers could win AU’s.) Say you and I want to join the School Improvement committee. We find out though, that only two people from each committee will get AU’s for being on the committee. I decide that I’ll just join the H S A Preparedness Committee instead, because there’s only one person on it, but you really have some great ideas for School Improvement, and you are a really hard worker, and think you can really add a lot to the school by being there, so you join the SI committee. The principal’s best friend from TFA days is chosen to be Committee Chair. She never shows up to meetings. You get mad, knowing that the Committee Chair is going to automatically be awarded AU’s. So at some point you blow the whistle on her. In revenge, she tells the principal that you never hung up your word wall, and your lesson plans are recycled from last year. There are a series of walk-throughs timed at terrible times (last period, day before Thanksgiving, etc.) and as a result, you end up getting a write-up in your file and a satisfactory rating for the year. You think—that’s ok. I still will get my 3 AU’s for all the work I did on the School Improvement Committee. But then you find out that during the last month of the school year, the committee (under your Chair’s leadership) quietly started meeting on Tuesdays instead of Wednesdays, and that you were taken off the committee because you ‘didn’t show up for meetings.’ The point here is not that you failed to get your 12 AU’s for the year, because yes, ostensibly you could rush off to take a class over the summer to make those up. The point is now you hate your Committee Chair, and vow to document every single meeting she misses of anything, and you hate your principal for being totally unfair and nepotistic.

5. You should not dismiss as ‘emotional’ the decision to take into account the fact that management’s main interest is in the bottom line. Nationally, this has been the gist of conversation. From a business point of view, like the one held by Bill Gates, a potential underwriter for our new contract, making teaching a post-college 5-year commitment makes a lot of sense: young teachers are cheaper, (even if you pay them $100,000 a year, you don’t have to pay them retirement if they leave within 5 years) So why not get a bunch of really smart college kids to come in and work their tails off for five years and then burn out, rather than having older teachers around? Advocates of ‘reform’ are brazen enough to state this pretty clearly. See Michelle Rhee’s comments about teaching being something you do for just a couple of years, or the union-busting statements of the group Democrats for Education Reform, which recently gave Negotiating Committee member and recent State Senator Elect Bill Ferguson their ‘reformer of the month’ award.

If the bottom line is really the kids, it means we look at solutions that have worked for the kids. Smaller class sizes have worked. Community Schools have worked. Stable Learning Environments have worked. (and by the way, teachers benefit hugely from these as well, and the mechanism to implement them is already in place) But rather than focusing on things that have been proven to work, Alonso goes for the teacher pay-scale, even though Peformance pay has not been proven to work ANYWHERE it has been tried. This makes me think the performance pay idea is not about the kids but about the money. The bottom line.

And the human element—a commitment to our city, a desire to know my students outside of school and see their education as a small part of a whole, a commitment to developing the entire child, rather than the test-scores of a child, a desire to build a tradition and a history with my students that their younger brothers and sisters can look forward to, is not valued in the new system. Neither is the fact I have a two year old, and need to make sure this job is actually sustainable, and that I don’t have to work more than the crazy hours after school and on weekends I already put in, to do it.

6. Even if you believe it's really about the kids, I find this contract really cynical because it is based on the idea that teachers only see the ‘money,’ and that we’ll do anything to get more of it. It is carefully written to favor the two largest groups (those just starting and those about to retire) while giving those of us in the middle very little. The idea here is to get anyone who is leaving in a few years anyway, (those close to retirement, and those who are just starting, 50% of whom will leave within 5 years) to sign on. If this were really about making teaching into a career, the people in the middle would be getting a lot out of this as well.

7. No one has explained how this will be funded long-term. If you say—as one BTU rep told me when I asked, “who cares about long-term?” then you really don’t care about how one action affects another. We need to think of this contract as part of a bigger whole. If I end up teaching a 40-person class so you can make $100,000, I don’t care how good a teacher you are. The large majority of average teachers will not be able to adequately teach 40 kids at a time to accommodate for your salary, and I myself will have a lot less fun teaching. I’d rather have 25 kids and a lower salary because I know I can succeed with 25, and I know that I can’t with 40. This has nothing to do with my teaching ability—this has to do with the human element, which is not addressed by bottom-line business-thinking. With that many students in a class, I simply can’t form the relationships with my kids that makes teaching worthwhile for me. Maybe it won’t be class-sizes that change. Maybe it will be books. Or AC/Heat. Or the already scarce field trip. Or science lab equipment. But any of the above makes the job that much less fun. Teaching in an impoverished school system is already difficult, and it’s not because of the salary. It’s because of the working conditions. We accepted the salary when we applied for the job—but what many of us would really like to see is an improvement of working conditions.

8. Speaking of what makes teaching worthwhile—for me, an English teacher, it’s the idea that I am opening the door for discourse with the larger world. I’d like to think I bring the tools kids will need to advocate for themselves, and engage with others across the power spectrum and engage with ideas and experiences across continents and across centuries. These tools are far more varied and profound than being able to read at grade level (which is step 1) or being able to use Standard English Grammar. (which is necessary in some circles—but not in others) I’d like to think we teach kids how to engage in a democracy. And we ourselves must therefore push for democracy in order to teach others how to do this. If we can’t demand even simple changes to this contract (like Teacher Case-Loads, a sample list of AU’s, a way to hold administrators accountable, being able to grieve an S rating, an explanation of the budget changes necessary to fund it) we are not engaging in democracy. A major problem I have with some of the comments on this blog are the tone of ‘it’s gonna happen anyway, so take this because it’s better than the alternative.’ What alternative? You mean the one pushed nationally by ‘reformers?’ The national conversation on education INCLUDES NO TEACHER VOICES. For us to accept a contract full of loopholes and vagueries means we accept our own silence, and agree to the recommendations of these national ‘experts’ without question. Why not push back and, as the true education experts we are, demand stipulations that would actually make this contract work BEFORE we sign it? Signing the contract as it is ends the dialogue before we ever get a chance to say anything.

@ Nadine,
Thank you for your thoughtful questions and open tone. It really helps to foster the dialogue that I hope can happen. I hope a more veteran teacher than I can weigh in on your first point, but I will weigh in with my own ideas.

1. Since the AU list still is undefined, we leave it up to whoever is in charge to decide who wins AUs. Recent happenings in BCPSS point to the favoring of young, out-of-state teachers over older, native teachers. Inductive reasoning leads me to believe the undefined AU system will continue this trend.

2. Because there is a cap on the money to be spent on this, there is a cap on the number of points and AU’s to be earned. This doesn’t have to be written into the contract—it simply is a part of the budget. It is fiscally impossible for every teacher to earn 24 AU’s per year, (and yes I know that’s not going to happen anyway—I bring it up only to make my point.) So it is intellectually dishonest to imagine that we will all step it up and earn lots of raises, because even if we do step it up, there is not a bottomless bucket of money to give us raises with. In fact, Alonso does not even control the amount of money we have—this money comes from the state (and for the next 2 years, from the Federal government.) And, if we do exactly as they wish, from Bill Gates, Walmart, and other rich people who pretend to be doing something good. (Check out Bill Gates, by the way, for the break-up of Big High Schools in favor of Neighborhood schools. That solution didn't work instantly, so he’s since abandoned the idea, and the money that would fund its long-term success.) It follows—in my mind, that AUs are purposely left ‘fluid’ and undefined to allow for budget cuts (fewer ways to win AU’s) and expansions (more ways to win AU’s.) Since we keep getting budget cuts, it follows that the AU system must remain flexible—er—shrinkable.

3. “The new contract doesn’t change anything with our evaluation process, but it gives teachers an incentive to make sure their principals are doing things fairly. If the new contract passes, the number of grievances will probably go up, and that’s a GOOD thing, because it means a brighter light is being shone on corrupt principals.” Unfortunately, teachers already have lots of incentive to make sure principals are doing things fairly, but there is no avenue by which to do this, and the new contract offers us none. I like the idea of the BTU-North Avenue boards, but these are only to review applications for Model and Lead Teacher, and the grievance system we now have in place is reserved for teachers facing termination. There could easily be a stipulation in the new contract that allows a teacher to grieve content, (allowing a teacher to grieve a Satisfactory rating) or a stipulation that requires any evaluation that a Principal ‘forgets’ to file on time to revert to a Proficient Rating. But there is not. This allows a retribution-happy principal to simply ‘forget’ to evaluate anyone he doesn’t like, giving that person a Satisfactory rather than Proficient rating. Yes, teachers will be upset about it, and want to hold their principals accountable, but unless it is written into the contract, there will be no formal way to do this. What then, changes from the present state of affairs, where nepotism, retribution, etc. are rampant? Nothing except that our paychecks will be tied to that.

4. So here’s an example of how teachers might be pitted against one another. (And it’s hard to give one because it’s still unclear how teachers could win AU’s.) Say you and I want to join the School Improvement committee. We find out though, that only two people from each committee will get AU’s for being on the committee. I decide that I’ll just join the H S A Preparedness Committee instead, because there’s only one person on it, but you really have some great ideas for School Improvement, and you are a really hard worker, and think you can really add a lot to the school by being there, so you join the SI committee. The principal’s best friend from TFA days is chosen to be Committee Chair. She never shows up to meetings. You get mad, knowing that the Committee Chair is going to automatically be awarded AU’s. So at some point you blow the whistle on her. In revenge, she tells the principal that you never hung up your word wall, and your lesson plans are recycled from last year. There are a series of walk-throughs timed at terrible times (last period, day before Thanksgiving, etc.) and as a result, you end up getting a write-up in your file and a satisfactory rating for the year. You think—that’s ok. I still will get my 3 AU’s for all the work I did on the School Improvement Committee. But then you find out that during the last month of the school year, the committee (under your Chair’s leadership) quietly started meeting on Tuesdays instead of Wednesdays, and that you were taken off the committee because you ‘didn’t show up for meetings.’ The point here is not that you failed to get your 12 AU’s for the year, because yes, ostensibly you could rush off to take a class over the summer to make those up. The point is now you hate your Committee Chair, and vow to document every single meeting she misses of anything, and you hate your principal for being totally unfair and nepotistic.

5. You should not dismiss as ‘emotional’ the decision to take into account the fact that management’s main interest is in the bottom line. Nationally, this has been the gist of conversation. From a business point of view, like the one held by Bill Gates, a potential underwriter for our new contract, making teaching a post-college 5-year commitment makes a lot of sense: young teachers are cheaper, (even if you pay them $100,000 a year, you don’t have to pay them retirement if they leave within 5 years) So why not get a bunch of really smart college kids to come in and work their tails off for five years and then burn out, rather than having older teachers around? Advocates of ‘reform’ are brazen enough to state this pretty clearly. See Michelle Rhee’s comments about teaching being something you do for just a couple of years, or the union-busting statements of the group Democrats for Education Reform, which recently gave Negotiating Committee member and recent State Senator Elect Bill Ferguson their ‘reformer of the month’ award.

If the bottom line is really the kids, it means we look at solutions that have worked for the kids. Smaller class sizes have worked. Community Schools have worked. Stable Learning Environments have worked. (and by the way, teachers benefit hugely from these as well, and the mechanism to implement them is already in place) But rather than focusing on things that have been proven to work, Alonso goes for the teacher pay-scale, even though Peformance pay has not been proven to work ANYWHERE it has been tried. This makes me think the performance pay idea is not about the kids but about the money. The bottom line.

And the human element—a commitment to our city, a desire to know my students outside of school and see their education as a small part of a whole, a commitment to developing the entire child, rather than the test-scores of a child, a desire to build a tradition and a history with my students that their younger brothers and sisters can look forward to, is not valued in the new system. Neither is the fact I have a two year old, and need to make sure this job is actually sustainable, and that I don’t have to work more than the crazy hours after school and on weekends I already put in, to do it.

6. Even if you believe it's really about the kids, I find this contract really cynical because it is based on the idea that teachers only see the ‘money,’ and that we’ll do anything to get more of it. It is carefully written to favor the two largest groups (those just starting and those about to retire) while giving those of us in the middle very little. The idea here is to get anyone who is leaving in a few years anyway, (those close to retirement, and those who are just starting, 50% of whom will leave within 5 years) to sign on. If this were really about making teaching into a career, the people in the middle would be getting a lot out of this as well.

7. No one has explained how this will be funded long-term. If you say—as one BTU rep told me when I asked, “who cares about long-term?” then you really don’t care about how one action affects another. We need to think of this contract as part of a bigger whole. If I end up teaching a 40-person class so you can make $100,000, I don’t care how good a teacher you are. The large majority of average teachers will not be able to adequately teach 40 kids at a time to accommodate for your salary, and I myself will have a lot less fun teaching. I’d rather have 25 kids and a lower salary because I know I can succeed with 25, and I know that I can’t with 40. This has nothing to do with my teaching ability—this has to do with the human element, which is not addressed by bottom-line business-thinking. With that many students in a class, I simply can’t form the relationships with my kids that makes teaching worthwhile for me. Maybe it won’t be class-sizes that change. Maybe it will be books. Or AC/Heat. Or the already scarce field trip. Or science lab equipment. But any of the above makes the job that much less fun. Teaching in an impoverished school system is already difficult, and it’s not because of the salary. It’s because of the working conditions. We accepted the salary when we applied for the job—but what many of us would really like to see is an improvement of working conditions.

8. Speaking of what makes teaching worthwhile—for me, an English teacher, it’s the idea that I am opening the door for discourse with the larger world. I’d like to think I bring the tools kids will need to advocate for themselves, and engage with others across the power spectrum and engage with ideas and experiences across continents and across centuries. These tools are far more varied and profound than being able to read at grade level (which is step 1) or being able to use Standard English Grammar. (which is necessary in some circles—but not in others) I’d like to think we teach kids how to engage in a democracy. And we ourselves must therefore push for democracy in order to teach others how to do this. If we can’t demand even simple changes to this contract (like Teacher Case-Loads, a sample list of AU’s, a way to hold administrators accountable, being able to grieve an S rating, an explanation of the budget changes necessary to fund it) we are not engaging in democracy. A major problem I have with some of the comments on this blog are the tone of ‘it’s gonna happen anyway, so take this because it’s better than the alternative.’ What alternative? You mean the one pushed nationally by ‘reformers?’ The national conversation on education INCLUDES NO TEACHER VOICES. For us to accept a contract full of loopholes and vagueries means we accept our own silence, and agree to the recommendations of these national ‘experts’ without question. Why not push back and, as the true education experts we are, demand stipulations that would actually make this contract work BEFORE we sign it? Signing the contract as it is ends the dialogue before we ever get a chance to say anything.

Robin,

You come across as an entitled elitist.

Most people would be thankful for anything, yet you niggle at every moment and take cheap shots as those of us in business, like myself.

You proclaim democracy and dialogue, but you vilify others as shortsighted and unable to see with your prescience.

You proclaim democracy, but only if it that democracy is limited to your sycophants.

You talk about your role as a teacher and cite articles that include statistics that teachers make very little difference (7.5%) in education.

You cite articles that degrade charter schools, but teach at one, it seems.

In short, the caricatures of haughtiness and pettiness that you ascribe to principals and anyone out of the public sector is what you've come to embody.

Tone it down, be more pragmatic and spend your time teaching rather than crusading.

You're smart, but probably not as much as you think you are.

Hi Robin!
Your comments in italics, my responses below. Forgive me where I cut out some of your words.

Since the AU list still is undefined, we leave it up to whoever is in charge to decide who wins AUs. Recent happenings in BCPSS point to the favoring of young, out-of-state teachers over older, native teachers. Inductive reasoning leads me to believe the undefined AU system will continue this trend.

The contract language is clear that in order to earn AUs, a teacher must attend PD or show contributions to student achievement, contributions to colleagues, or contributions to the school or district. There is flexibility in how you do those four things (that’s the key; think of it as flexibility, not ambiguity). So while a veteran teacher and a new teacher might take different paths to get there, if they can both prove to the panel that they did what they said, the panel should agree that the teacher has met the predetermined standard. But, you say, we leave it up to whoever is in charge to determine what that standard is, and if a person has met it. Well, the panel will be made up in equal parts of management and people from our bargaining unit. We will literally be at the table in this case – fighting for fairness. I think that’s a strong check against management trying to undermine teachers’ earning potential.
Because there is a cap on the money to be spent on this, there is a cap on the number of points and AU’s to be earned. It is fiscally impossible for every teacher to earn 24 AU’s per year, So it is intellectually dishonest to imagine that we will all step it up and earn lots of raises, because even if we do step it up, there is not a bottomless bucket of money to give us raises with. It follows—in my mind, that AUs are purposely left ‘fluid’ and undefined to allow for budget cuts (fewer ways to win AU’s) and expansions (more ways to win AU’s.)

I totally follow your logic, and what you say makes sense. However, your argument rests on the supposition that this new contract is actually going to be expensive for the district to implement. In the grand scheme of things, this new contract doesn’t cost the district that much money. The total cost of the three year contract to implement is 79 million dollars. That number assumes that each teacher moves up two intervals a year in years 2 and 3, which we know everyone won’t. So 79 mil is the district’s conservative estimate of how much the entire thing will cost over 3 years. Compare that to our yearly budget, which is 1.2 Billion. So assuming (erroneously) that our budget stays the same for the next three years, the total 3 year expenditures for BCPSS will be 3.6 billion dollars. Dividing the cost of the new contract by the total district spending reveals that over the next three years, the district is only spending 2% of its money on this, and that’s IF every person moves up two intervals every year in the last two years. So, while I completely agree that fact that the money’s not infinite, there’s a lot more money there than you think. The district can afford to do this without capping our earning, or taking away from student needs.
If someone has more accurate figures, or sees a flaw in my logic or math, please correct me.

I also want to point out that the money for the next three years has been set aside, so we’re good till summer 2013, when negotiations restart. So the possibility of AUs being limited for financial reasons couldn’t even theoretically begin until the next contract is negotiated. I foresee that in the next round of negotiation in three years, if this thing passes, the union will insist on more safeguards, if it is deemed they are necessary. The union has a strong history of fighting for teacher safeguards. They don’t always win those fights, but they fight them nonetheless.

(Way off topic, but why should Bill Gates be stuck funding something that doesn’t actually increase student outcomes? In cases where philanthropists have de-funded Neighborhood schools, students haven’t suffered because the level of funding has stayed constant, it’s just being applied differently. Gates funding has not decreased to the students it reaches, it’s just no longer being applied to school reformation. Now I think the flavor of the week is “teacher effectiveness.” Like that makes a difference. :-)

There could easily be a stipulation in the new contract that allows a teacher to grieve content, (allowing a teacher to grieve a Satisfactory rating) or a stipulation that requires any evaluation that a Principal ‘forgets’ to file on time to revert to a Proficient Rating. But there is not. This allows a retribution-happy principal to simply ‘forget’ to evaluate anyone he doesn’t like, giving that person a Satisfactory rather than Proficient rating.

It seems like you’re talking about two different situations: principals who systematically are unfair to multiple teachers in their schools, and principals who single out an individual teacher and are only unfair to that one teacher. In the first case, the version 2.0 of this contract provides increased accountability by requiring principals suspected of such behavior to undergo a process which would require that principals ratings be investigated to ensure that the evals are statistically valid and reliable. No other industry has that level of protection. No other group of workers in this country has the right to challenge their evaluation (on content, mind you) to ensure that their boss is evaluating them properly.

So now we have only to worry about principals who have personal vendettas against a single teacher or two in their school. For that minority of teachers across our district, the situation doesn’t get any worse under this contract, but you’re right, it doesn’t get any better. I’d like an ideal contract where everyone is protected, but I’m not sure that can ever be achieved. The one silver lining is that because the group with unfair evals would theoretically be smaller over time, those teachers would have more options when it comes to voluntary transfers because when it comes to placement they’d still have preference over new hires.

The idea of giving out a proficient because a principal messes up rubs me the wrong way. That’s not fair, because I earned my proficient. I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Maybe a happy medium would be that the teacher keeps whatever rating they were last rated at? I don’t know. But giving out a proficient based on so little devalues the ranking that many teachers work really hard for, in my opinion.

Regarding your very detailed scenario about how petty infighting in the SI team could derail my earning for the year:

The only thing you get an automatic AU for is district and BTU PD; everything else must get approval from the BTU/North Ave panel. So, If the SI team isn’t making progress because the committee chair isn’t doing her job, then she’s not going to be able to demonstrate to the panel that she deserves an AU and if the SI team can’t show results for the year, the chair isn’t getting that AU. So the chair has incentives to show up and get results, because her AUs depend on her performance, not her title.

It’s a leap to assume that only two people in the SI team would be able to get AUs.

Was that a subtle ding to TFAers being nepotistic?

“Gotcha walkthroughs” happen, but every time they do, a teacher can ask to be observed again to show improvement and they can specify the window in which they’d like to be observed. I’m doing that right now, because some lady cares too much about an objective on the board and not enough about thoughtful discussion. And that brings me to my final point:

I may think my administration is unfair, but they really aren’t as all powerful as you make them out to be. SI chairs have to be elected, and it’s in all SFC bylaws that meeting (including committee times) must be made public, and minutes from each meeting must be kept, so in this specific situation that you cited, there are at least four safeguards against corruption that you’ve overlooked.

From a business point of view, like the one held by Bill Gates, a potential underwriter for our new contract, making teaching a post-college 5-year commitment makes a lot of sense: young teachers are cheaper, (even if you pay them $100,000 a year, you don’t have to pay them retirement if they leave within 5 years) So why not get a bunch of really smart college kids to come in and work their tails off for five years and then burn out, rather than having older teachers around?

Bill Gates is not a potential underwriter for this contract. The money has already been allocated and comes from local, state and federal funds.

The people who make the argument that longevity should not be valued in teaching have data on their side. Apparently teacher effectiveness peaks between years 3-5. Even studies of TFAers student achievement data found that students were no worse off for having a teacher who is in their 1st or 2nd year and hasn’t studied education. So according to that camp you can get a lot of bang for your buck out of someone who only going to teach for a short time. I disagree with them, and feel that it is disrespectful to treat teachers as disposable. This contract doesn’t treat teachers as disposable, nor does it make teachers cheaper. It actually increases the pensionable salary for every employee by making contributions to base salary rather than paying people in stipends for PD, coaching, etc.

Basically, I agree with you that this anti-teacher tone exists, but I am not convinced that this contract is part of that rhetoric. The contract rewards us far too much for you to say that it devalues teachers.

If the bottom line is really the kids, it means we look at solutions that have worked for the kids. Smaller class sizes have worked. Community Schools have worked. Stable Learning Environments have worked. (and by the way, teachers benefit hugely from these as well, and the mechanism to implement them is already in place)

Smaller class sizes work, but they can’t be negotiated through a contract – that is MD labor law. Community schools work, but again, that can’t be negotiated in a labor contract. All those things that you cite should definitely be district priorities, but the fight for them can’t happen here, because the union has no actual control over those issues, especially in this context. Voting no on this contract based on this line of logic would be like refusing to vote for democrats because more people are moving to the suburbs – the two aren’t even connected.

For now I’ll give you the point about performance pay not being data based. I’m going to keep looking for info on that.

And the human element—a commitment to our city, a desire to know my students outside of school and see their education as a small part of a whole, a commitment to developing the entire child, rather than the test-scores of a child, a desire to build a tradition and a history with my students that their younger brothers and sisters can look forward to, is not valued in the new system.

First let me say, that the eloquent list of things you cite is of the utmost importance. But no system of teacher pay values and rewards the things you cite. Why would you expect this one to? The old system of teacher pay valued the fact that you hadn’t quit yet, not the actual impact you did or did not make. A system that values all the things you list is unrealistic. If you disagree, try to make one, and get back to me when you’ve got one that will work fairly and efficiently on the scale we need.

The contract is carefully written to favor the two largest groups (those just starting and those about to retire) while giving those of us in the middle very little.

I agree with you that there are several provisions in the contract that favor older teachers. But what precludes you as a mid-career teacher from taking any of the opportunities that are available to a young teacher under this contract? You say that family is a priority for you and you can’t work weekends. Well, it seems like you’ve been doing this long enough to probably do with greater efficiency the things that a younger teacher would do in order to earn AUs and become a Model Teacher. I don’t get why you feel slighted – mid-career folks actually have the best of both worlds: the experience to rapidly move to model and lead, and the time left in their career to move up an infinite pay scale within those categories. (As you know, in this contract, unlike in the last one, earning is not capped.)

No one has explained how this will be funded long-term. If I end up teaching a 40-person class so you can make $100,000, I don’t care how good a teacher you are. Maybe it won’t be class-sizes that change. Maybe it will be books. Or AC/Heat. Or the already scarce field trip. Or science lab equipment. But any of the above makes the job that much less fun. Teaching in an impoverished school system is already difficult, and it’s not because of the salary. It’s because of the working conditions. We accepted the salary when we applied for the job—but what many of us would really like to see is an improvement of working conditions.

Money has already been set aside for the entire length of this three year contract. The contract that the BTU negotiates in 2013 may look completely different. So asking how this contract is going to be funded past 2013 is moot – it may not even exist. But here’s what you probably can count on in 2013: personnel costs will probably still not make up more than 5% of the system’s budget. With us making up such a small number, the opportunity costs that would arise from keeping our salaries consistent are relatively small.

I want to reiterate again, the working conditions you cite, cannot, according to district policy and MD labor law, be negotiated as part of this contract. Fight that battle with other teachers and your union at the school board meeting where the total # of teachers is on the agenda, because bringing it up here does no good to your cause. I truly believe that we can push for change to better the lives of our students, but we have to work within the system that’s already established. Demanding that this labor contract address community schools, lunches, AC, textbooks, etc, does no good at all. You believe passionately in the power of education but in order to be effective you need to focus your energies in places where you’ll actually see a return on investment. Bringing those issues up here is in effect yelling at a wall. We need to use our union to fight for the things we care about, but those fights are separate from this one here.

I’m enjoying this back and forth, but I fear it’s becoming pedantic and over-analyzed. I also think the Sun blogs format is stupid – I don’t like the lag that results from the comments having to be approved, and I don’t like that the comments aren’t threaded. Do you know of a forum where we can continue this discussion in a more user friendly space?

Well said Robin.

@Nadine-- your cost analysis is the most detailed one I've heard or seen. Where are you getting it? It would be nice if BTU would offer up this type of cost analysis. Also-- funding is from Race to the Top and the Jobs Grant, which is Non-renewable money. My worry is not for the first three years, but for after that. Three years is a very short time. I fear we all get lots of perks NOW, but set ourselves up for much more difficult times in the future.

If this money was renewable, I'd be more amenable, but it's not. If you have heard differently, (which it sounds from your analysis that you have) please share. One of my biggest problems with the contract is that NO ONE discusses the way the budget will change, and this is extremely pertinent.

BCPSS has a history of jumping into big projects on a big scale, and then backing out and doing something else when the wind changes. This is because most of the time, these things are not well-planned, and therefore not well implemented. Pushing through a contract with good ideas but with huge holes and lots of hopeful future tense sounds to me like bad planning, which = bad policy.

Also, you say my ideas are inaccurate, but you never explain which ones. Can you use examples?

@ Robin Bingham
Her analysis of the budget is based on figures that are public knowledge. This contract is expected to cost the district 87 million dollars above what the previous 3 year contract cost. Without including COLA into the equation that is only a 2 percent increase in our pay when considered as a part of the total BCPSS budget. I personally feel I am worth a 2 percent raise, and if this 2 percent really causes that significant of a problem for the district with financing the problem is with how they are managing other financial responsabilities, it is NOT a problem with our salaries being too great. The solution is to demand the district better allocate its funds NOT to say we should turn down a significant pay increase because our district can not manage their fanances. This seems to be the crux of your argument and I personally take offense to the insinuation that teachers should take less money because our district cant figure out how to properly run its finances. I teach because I love teaching and I care about the children we teach, but I am tired of falling on my sword everytime there is a problem. For once I think we should take the pay we deserve and leave it up to the district to find a way to make it work. If you want to make demands...perhaps you should start with that demand, that they find a way to pay us what we deserve and still manage to have enough money for the students needs.

Your comment about the money from the federal government being non-renewable is fair and there is no answer to that expect to say that without the federal funding there would NOT be this money for a raise. We might get a small COLA and that would be it. Every other district in Maryland is not even getting a step increase this year. Salaries are frozen for most government employees right now in case you have not noticed. This is not the time to get picky about where the money is coming from when someone is offering you a raise. If we turn down federal funding because it is non-renewable we will have no raise on the table at all. It is very possible we will have to fight to keep this raise in 3 years but it is much better to have a raise and fight to keep it, then to never get a raise at all. This also would force the district to do a better job of allocating their funding. The problem with BCPSS is NOT the ammount of money they have it is how much of it they waste. Why not make the demands, since you love to throw around demands, that our district do a better job of managing its resources so that it can afford to pay us better wages and still have books and healthy food for the students?

As for your inaccuracies, I can think of a few off the top of my head. You were complaining about the evaluation process before, then after it was pointed out that this is being done legislatively and has NOTHING to do with a teacher contract you dropped it for a while, then brought it back up again even knowing it is not something we can put in the contract. You are very inaccurate with your statements about the AU process. Where you see ambiguity is actually flexibility. I know for a fact why the rubrics were not completed for the AU process. The teacher representatives that were on the negotiation team started the process of making an AU rubric but when they started to discuss what activities (like quest and PD's) would be worth AU's the union representatives felt we would have a better chance to get MORE AU compensation from the board we will set up then we would have if we tried to bargain AU's with the negotiators for the district in the contract. It was a decision made on our behalf by teachers. You continue to mis-represent that point on here. Your characterization of the union is also inaccurate. You imply the union is some group in league with the city that is out to get us or does not care about what teachers want. The reality is the union negotiation team was made up of city teachers for the most part. They cared very much what we want. The problem is 2 fold, the city has their agenda also and we can not get everything we want. We have no power to strike and that makes it difficult to make demands. Secondly, we as teachers have many different voices. That is evident just in this forum. What you want is not what I want. So they tried to take into account what teachers wanted but no contract would make everyone happy. It is not perfect, but it is the best they could get. Finally, you continue to bring up issues that are a total non factor in a teachers contract. School lunches, AC and heating, class sizes, and programs that foster student success are all good and things our union should and does lobby for, but they are also all issues that can not be included in a teacher contract. Those are administrative issues that we have no say in weather you like it or not. We can lobby and push for those things but we can not make demands like that and certainly will never get anything like that in a teacher contract. Bringing up issues like that over and over after you have been told they are not pertinent to this contract is dishonest. These are the things I feel you have been inaccurate about. I can not speak for Nadine but I agree that the way you present your case comes off as disingenuous at tiems. I also think the way you throw around phrases like "some rich guy" and rant on Bill Gates and government belies a deeper motive regarding your paranoia of the elite and big government. While it is your right to have these views this contract is not the correct forum for social change.

@S. Hoffman--
you know, I did drop the evaluation thing for a while when I was convinced that it was completely dictated by the state. But it's not. The state law says that we need to tie teacher salaries to student achievement, but leaves it up to the district to decide how to do that. When I found that out, I began to bring it up again here. I KNOW the AU is supposed to be flexible-- which gives me more pause. Flexible for who? Thanks for the insight into the teacher-led decision on leaving the AU thing empty. That is actually really interesting, and I'd like to know more.

As to the non-contract related items-- I bring them up for two reasons:
1. we should be pushing for them
2. the district should be pushing for them.

I agree-- they don't go in a contract, but they should have priority for both Alonso and the union. I do not hear this priority being discussed in the national discussion, and I don't hear it discussed in Baltimore either. I just spoke with an ex- teacher yesterday who said he left when he had to ask students to 'please smoke marijuana OUTside the building.' Is teacher quality really the problem if this is where we are at at some of our schools?

I bring up these non-contract-related items mainly to point out where the District's priorities seem to lie, and where the Union is falling short. The district seems to be choosing Teacher salaries as its priority over all those other items. The Union seems to be still so zeroed in on salary skirmishes as the only way to help teachers that it hasn't made these other things a public issue.

My question is why is the district going after salaries instead of the other things? My own answer, based on analysis of national trends, is that it's a funding issue, and performance-based salary schemes are cheaper.

That's why I question the money, ESPECIALLY in economic times like this when there is not a lot of it floating around.

I bring up Bill Gates because he was mentioned specifically to me by BTU reps as the funder of possible grants that we would be eligible for if we pass this contract. He recently gave $200 million to Tampa Florida to develop a merit pay system there. You may ask-- what's the problem with a $200 million donation? Well, there is no problem with that as long as the values of our families align with the values of Bill Gates. This kind of funding essentially makes Bill Gates boss of the Tampa Florida school system. Now, he may be a great guy, but some Kings are benevolent kings, too. I think we need to have a conversation about whether we want him to make our decisions for us.

And wait-- I know your next response-- why am I bringing this up if Bill Gates is not on the table? Because if we sign up for this thing, and then can't afford it, you can bet your bottom dollar we'll be running to people like Bill Gates to foot the bill long before we'll backtrack on those top salaries. I want everyone to say they are fine with that before jumping in. And that seems to me a decision that families ought to make with us.

Personally, I'd really like a democratic education system, controlled by parents and students. I have to admit, our public education system has probably never really functioned well as the democracy it's supposed to be, and it's certainly not functioning as a democracy now, but my solution would be to strengthen the democracy rather than turn it over to private foundations. Yes-- this cannot be done soley through a contract, but a contract can either move us closer to that or move us farther away from that. I guess we'll have to simply disagree on the social change bit-- I think every policy decision we make should be made according to the values we hold.

At the end of the day, I don't see this contract really helping students. Even pro-contract people I know say they don't think it's really going to help students. Vanderbilt University came out with a huge study saying performance pay didn't really help studens. And if they are the reason we're teaching, then why are we doing this?

ps. I am on a one-year leave of absence to take care of my baby. I am teaching one class of drama as a part-time thing because we can't afford to live otherwise, and because I want to keep my feet wet. Fall 2011, I plan on being in the classroom full-time. And yeah, I guess I'm sensitive. I hope there will be a place for Drama teachers. Less money ALWAYS means fewer of us.