We must vote NO. There is no way we can agree when the evaluation system hasn't been established. Too many unanswered questions. Evaluated based on individual classes/ homeroom scores? What score/ gain do they expect? How will students be successfully tracked from one grade to the next? This would be necessary because it's not the 6th grade literacy teachers fault if a student comes to them reading on a 1st grade level. Also how are teachers without hard data such as PreK, K, Art, Music, Physical Ed going to be evaluated?!?!?
Not enough information, we must vote NO!

No teacher should vote in favor of a contract that dictates pay raises on an evaluation system that has not been developed yet.

Why hasn't The Baltimore Sun published interviews of teachers who are opposed to this new contract? It looks as if Alonso, the school board, the BTU, the AFT, and The Baltimore Sun have joined forces to sell this ridiculously vague contract. I sure hope that every teacher goes to Poly on Thursday, October 14 from 12:00 to 3:00 to and lets their voice be heard.

The BTU has kept us in the dark for 8 months and then springs this absurd contract on us. As a paying member, I have been calling and emailing the BTU for months asking for information about the negotiations and have gotten no information whatsoever until this week. The BTU is supposed to protect us from abusive administrators, not give them the power to dictate our pay raises. It is time for the teachers to demand more from their union. After all, we pay their salaries. I am urging all BTU members to go to Poly on Thursday, October 14 from 12:00 TO 3:00 and vote against this contract.

Here here, Kenneth.

Listen, when I see these pie-in-the-sky proposals, I become suspicious that it is immediate greed being appealed to, not reason. I don't argue with the popular concept of performance-based pay-- I am, in fact, a young teacher who could stand to gain rapidly from the contract. Provided, of course, that the still non-existent evaluation system looks and operates according to best-case-scenario expectations.

These expectations include the ability to pay for at least eight new, highly qualified central office staff. However, anybody who thinks it'll be limited to that number is delusional-- I'd expect a substantial increase in staffing to be necessary for any authentic attempt to emulate corporate performance-based systems.
(See "Joint Governing Panel" provisions for details).

Finally, if the ultimate goal is to increase overall teacher quality (which it is), naturally payroll will be on a steady, upward climb to non-sustainability. Who will permanently subsidize the teacher's salaries? We have money for now, but there is no guarantee of stimulus funding in perpetuity.

Without seeing the following information, in sum, I urge fellow members to vote NO on the premature contract proposal:
a) proposed evaluation methodology ;
b) long-term budget requirements and a realistic plan to meet them; c) provisions that treat issues surrounding testing, development of which is, for many subjects, still in its infant stages or has yet to begin.

I actually like the idea of performance incentives, but this contract is absurd.

1. Too vague. I don't know what it actually means.

2. The writing doesn't even make sense. What idiot wrote it? It sounded as if they were trying to sound smart, but kept using awkward sentence structure and choosing incorrect words. Poor writing is the result of sloppy thinking.

3. Teachers are at the mercy of administrators, many of whom think they are "expert" teachers, but are usually no better than the rest of us. Teachers need to be able to evaluate administrators and dictate their pay, the pay of the school board and the pay of BTU employees in like fashion. There are no checks and balances to prevent abuses and the likely cronyism that will result.

In short, it is vague, demonstrative of sloppy thinking, and doesn't provide enough checks and balances for the union and administration.

I like the idea of where they are heading, but at this point I will vote no.

Unfortunately, there is no avoiding the new evaluation system. We have no say in changing that, once they do decide upon it. (We gave that up when MD passed a law requiring the evaluations to be 50% performance based.) Since that will be in place in all of MD whether we like it or not, I actually like the compensation system this contract puts forth. It significantly boosts my pay, provides more advancement opportunities and doesn't change health or tuition remission. According to my talk yesterday with Linda Eberhart, even if I earned a Satisfactory rating for 9 AUs (I've never gotten below satisfactory and never intend to!) I can still get a pay raise if I take a 3credit class relevant to my teaching. It really doesn't sound like a bad deal to me. I'm voting yes.

I believe this contract is a huge step forward, and I have to admit the concerns about the evaluation system are really well-founded.

On the plus side, we teachers will control how our pay increases. No one will lose pay, and we stand to get to the top of the pay scale and stay there, instead of waiting two decades to make some money just in time to retire. And for once, teachers will have a chance to have their extra effort rewarded, ending years of a system where someone with their feet on the desk can make more than our most effective teachers. This is the smartest contract in the country, and it was made by our own people right here in Baltimore.

But the questions that remain are serious. What happens to untested subjects? How do we generate tons of district assessments without the quality dropping to the levels we used to have? And the RTT money will fund a longitudinal data system to link students to teachers, but I think it won't exist until long after this contract goes into effect.

The tradeoff we've made is to implement with speed instead of detail. I want this contract now, not someday, so I'm ok with that, but we deserve some answers.

Our leaders have put more effort into holding press conferences than into informing teachers adequately; we're bragging more than we're working. The contract will probably pass, which is great, but let's get some answers.

Since there is much talk about coming changes to the teacher evaluation system, I would like to hear what teachers think of the current system. Is it fair? clear? what would you change about it, if anything?

I am still considering the contract. I am annoyed that we are voting on an evaluation system that has not even been written. Further, I believe the union members should have had deep, informative meetings before all the celebrties were dragged into OUR meeting! And I did not like hearing the AFT president talking about the contract at the DC rally as if it is a done deal. Could we at least have been given the respect to understand OUR contract first?

Still reviewing the details. Hope everyone with pratical information keeps posting.@City Teacher-Thanks!

city teacher,

You will be awarded 9 AUs under the current evaluation system. The state evaluation system is rumored to have four ratings. I am speculating that there will be an unsatisfactory rating worth 3 AUs, two satisfactory ratings worth 6 and 9 AUs and a proficient rating worth the 12 AUs you need to move up to the next interval. So if you were to get the lower satisfactory rating you will have to wait two years to get a pay increase or take two courses.

Many of our teachers are doctors (in education and other fields) and they are now supposed to take meaningless education courses just to offset the fact that an administrator may just not like them.

I also think that you will see much fewer proficient ratings because of this new system in an effort to save the school system money.

Did anyone else read the part that if an administrator does not complete a teacher's evaluation by the required date that that teacher will get an automatic satisfactory rating? This is absurd because if an administrator screws up you only get 9 AUs which is not enough for a pay increase. I forsee a lot of administrators forgetting to write that date in their calendars.

I don't understand "at the mercy of administrators" being brought up like it's some sort of new concept. It seems like everyone in a school is always "at the mercy of administrators." Certainly students and parents are. They don't have union reps to defend their rights. If the principal has decided that an idea or a question or a personality is something they don't want to put up with, life will not be pleasant for you in that school, in my experience. That's why students and teachers transfer to other schools.

I also like the new contract. It's been a long time since experienced teachers have gotten anything and with this, at least we have a chance to grow professionally and get more money. I think the only people who are not going to profit from this contract are the people who aren't willing to do anything extra and aren't viewed as being good teachers.

@Sun-Please, could you combine all the union contract related posts into one section so it will be easier to read them all and not miss any? Thnaks.

This may or may not be a good contract, but the fact that we don't know anything about the details of how it will be implemented is frightening. When I called the Union to ask about this, my building rep said no one knew anything except the negotiating team. Meanwhile, at North Avenue, staffers were attending detailed powerpoint presentations to discuss and understand the contract. If this is not paternalistic and scheistery, I don't know what is. The main opposition to merit pay has been that there has never been a fair way to evaluate teachers. How can we sign on to this when we don't know the MAIN thing about it? Please join me in asking that BTU delay the vote for one month while we review the ENTIRE contract, and host several teach-ins where we can inform ourselves of its ramifications before we vote.

http://teach2010.epetitions.net/

Once you sign, you need to go back to your email address and confirm before your signature is registered.

Thanks,

Robin Bingham
Drama Teacher
Civitas High School

@Robin Bingham:
I agree it would be helpful to delay the vote. This is a huge change, and we could all use more time to adjust.

Just to add some facts, the evaluation system will mostly be determined by MSDE, and we don't get to vote on it. We do get to vote on how we'll be paid along with that evaluation system. There's no telling when the evaluation details will be out.

Also it's a longstanding - albeit frustrating - tradition that neither negotiation team lets out any details before the ink's dry. If the details change from one round to the next, the public backlash has been on them in the past for leaking info.

--Campbell

City Teacher is right. A new evaluation system is coming no matter what. So even if this contract is defeated, it is not going to stop that train.

In terms of the question asked about the current evaluation system, it is a pitiful example of an attempt to rate teachers. You can see the whole thing here: http://www.nctq.org/evaluation_handbook/34-07.pdf

There are four domains and 3 levels. The levels have been assigned arbitrary points - 25 for the top, 18 for the middle and 6 for the lowest. This is the first idiotic thing about it - completely random points. The four domains are added up for a final score, which is then linked to the final evaluation rating.

Almost anything would be better than this current system in truly figuring out who is doing a good job with kids and who is not.

I don't like the fact that we still have no details about the evaluation system. I don't disagree with the overall tone and point of the contract but without further information about how exactly I am going to be evaluated I am a bit nervous.

I teach in a high school where we get the worst of the worst kids. Almost all of our staff is within two years of first teaching here. We've had a new principal. We've done restructuring and we are making some serious movements forward with our students. We have increased our HSA, PSAT, and SAT scores in just three years to where they've almost doubled. However, they still are not up to state standards. If we continually get the students who got kicked out of the other schools and they actually make progress but not enough progress, it's going to be very difficult to move forward if the city does not have an evaluation system that will encompass the "failing" schools. I don't feel that we are a failing school. I feel that we are moving forward but until our overall culture changes and we don't get "everybody" that's not worthy to be in other schools, we are heading for some serious problems.
We have amazing, hard working teachers who spend so much extra time working with the kids and for the kids. And we've seen some wonderful progress. But I know that others at the central office wonder how we can have proficient teachers when the kids are not. We have 30% special education in our school. How do we evaluate teachers when those students are not able to compete with their counterparts and their test scores are not within city standards or state standards?
I cannot fully support a contract that is ambiguous in this way. It will benefit me monetarily greatly overall, but I feel I can be severely punished for being in a hard-working, yet "failing" school. I can prove "MY" students are making gains with data and tracking, but I cannot compete against the overall culture of our school. Which one will outweigh the other?
As others have said, where is the sustainability in the money after the stimulus money runs out? If we have a majority of proficient teachers who continually get more and more money, where is that money going to come from? And, if there are a lot of proficient teachers, is the city going to limit the amount because there isn't enough money?

Until some of these questions get answered, I am voting "NO" and talking to as many people as I can. Our school is not supporting it overall.

I just hope people can look past the dollar signs.

@Another City Teacher
Special Education students who have well written IEPs that are actually being followed should be the easiest students to measure success with. An IEP has well defined "present level of performance", goals for what the student needs to achieve and metrics to be used in measuring how they are doing.

All of the teachers involved with a Special Education student should be involved in writing the IEP. As long as the goals are realistic and measurable, you're in good shape.

If there is a different metric for measuring a Special Education student's progress that shows a result that is in conflict with the results that the IEP show, something is seriously messed up in either the IEP or this other metric.

Sorry if I sound a little angry, but there is too much inuendo about "those special ed students". More than a few time on this board where Special Education students are held up as some sort of drag to the system and burden to teachers. As a parent of a Special Education student, I totally this attitude. My child is a contributing member of his school. He is neither a burden, nor a drag. He should not be used as an excuse to vote against this contract.

Vote NO! And what dollar signs are you referring to? There are NO substantial raises ($2000 or less -- puhleeze) to make up for this ambiguity we are submitting ourselves to... For years, my final year evaluations were done by principals who NEVER saw me teach for one single minute. This gives principals WAY too much power (they already have too much -- when do we get to evaluate administrators?) over teacher's salaries... there is already so much cronyism - this contract will increase it all the more. And yes - I saw the section that said if the administrator forgets or doesn't meet the deadline, you get a "satisfactory" or 9 AU's -- that isn't enough to move an interval folks! So they screw up and don't do their job - -and then we don't get a (step / interval) raise... are you serious? We have no idea what this evaluation system will look like -- and that is very scary. Don't do it for a measly $2,000 (which is what most would get anyway under the current "step" system).

@ a parent: I don't have a problem with any of the special ed students. Another teacher who teaches special ed brought it up and it is a concern. There was nothing in the documentation that said anything one way or another. I do agree that it should be based on their individual IEPs, but the contract does not state that. It could be based on their original HSA scores, which the students have to take (and fail) their first time to take the MOD HSA. That first failure still counts against the schools unfairly.

We have great special ed kids. Yes, they have learning disabilities, but you are correct: it does not mean that they aren't contributing students. Many of our favorites are the special ed kids. They are not MY reason for voting no.

I am much more concerned with the fact I am in what is considered a "failing" school by the state and the city. This doesn't have to do with just special ed students, and I'm sorry it was read that way to you. It more like we get MOST of the students that other schools don't want (usually because they were kicked out of the other school for whatever reason), making it a great fight for great education every day. I have actually heard a principal say, "I've been in trouble for giving my teachers proficients when we don't pass the state standards." If I work at a school like that (which I do), there is no way I will be able to move up easily with the new contract, regardless if I get a proficient or not because my principal could be told that they only have a certain number of people who can be considered proficient. I want to examine that rubric or whatever evaluative tool that they plan on using on us. If we vote "YES", it gives North Ave. the ability to change things whichever way they want them to without notifying us. I'd even be willing to vote yes if they put a clause in it that the teachers need to ratify the evaluation tools as well. Somehow, I don't see that happening.

That is why I am voting no. I feel that there is too much ambiguity in the contract and there isn't enough clarity in the evaluation process.

to Parent: the one who brought up the current evaluation system: Administrators currently simply don't have enough time to adequately evaluate teachers. So they go around with checklists, and require that you hang certain things on your walls and arrange your classroom in specific ways. Most administrators also want you to have extremely thorough lesson plans, written in a specific way. And the fewer kids who get sent to the principal's office the better-- so Classroom Management is the most important thing of all. All of this is good-- lesson plans are good, visual support for student learning is good, handling problem kids yourself is good, but none of this has much to do with actual instruction. The problem is that very few administrators have the luxury to be able to actually sit in the classroom and watch us teach, and then give us feedback.

Usually the checklists are formulated using the last education book that someone at North Avenue read, which means a lot of veteran teachers become really jaded because the latest fad is always 'best practices' regardless of whether or not it is effective, and there is no collective memory of the last 'fad' to come through, even if it worked really well.

I never went through a traditional Education program, but got my certification simply by taking classes. As a result, I missed having a seasoned educator sit and watch me teach and give me feedback. Over the years a few have done it but they all had to give up precious planning time-- planning time is always precious-- to do so. The old evaluation system is therefore terrible. What would improve it? Well-- obviously-- Professional Development tied to teacher observation. (By the way, this is a cornerstone of the Teach for America and Baltimore Teaching Residency pathway to teaching) But system-wide, this is an extremely expensive proposition. There really is no way to do good evaluations without hiring hundreds of extra support staff, which is impossible, given budget constraints.

So I have little faith that a new evaluation system would be any better. In fact, the contract implies that the old evaluation system will be used, but these flawed evaluations will now be tied to pay raises.

@Another City Teacher

A few things to clarify about your most recent post: the MSDE law clearly talks about student growth, not absolute student achievement. This part is coming to be 50% of your evaluation (30% determined by state, 20% by local) no matter how you vote on this contract. So, theoretically, one could still be at a school where all their students are below standard, failing the HSA and not making AYP, but the teachers are all getting excellent evaluations because students are at least improving.

An EXTREMELY small percentage of students take either the MOD or ALT HSA, and these are students with severe disabilities. Providing accommodations like extended time or a scribe or verbatim reading of directions does NOT turn the HSA into the MOD HSA; they are completely different things. Students qualify for the MOD HSA in different ways, and not all need to fail the HSA before they qualify for MOD. Most importantly, AYP (the only measure the STATE uses when deciding "failing" schools) only measures the percentage of graduating seniors who have passed these state tests; thus, even if a student takes and fails the HSA, then later graduates or earns a certificate through MOD HSA, that original failure will not count against the school for AYP. Now, the district may be looking at other HSA scores of other students besides graduating seniors to determine how well the school is doing (and they should!) but there is no state accountability associated with this, and any local accountability caused by these failing students can be brought up by your principal during his or her evaluation meetings.

As far as your principal lowering evaluations, the new evaluation system will lessen his or her ability to do this sort of thing; if your students are improving (not even succeeding) that takes away half of your principal's power to give you a bad evaluation. Remember, "that rubric or evaluation tool" is changing (state law, not local contract) no matter what, and it won't be developed for at least a year. Where the safeguards exist in the new contract are in the fact that it won't be "North Ave" making these decisions...the new evaluation tool, achievement units, peer review committee, and everything else that's TBD about the contract will be created by groups of people will equal representation from Union and Board, and if they can't come to an agreement or what they come up with has been shown to be ineffective, then the contract reverts to what we have now.

So, before you dismiss the contract entirely, I hope that you carefully consider what you're going to be stuck with no matter what as well as what safeguards the contract DOES provide.

@Robin

I agree that the cycle of quality conference, observation, feedback, repeat is an important - perhaps even necessary - aspect of teacher professional development. I disagree, however, that it's impossible to do with current staffing and funding appropriations. I agree that a principal can't do all of these meetings and observations with all teachers, but there are other support staff in the building who can perform these duties. Schools have assistant principals, Teacher Staff Developers (aka ISTs) or department heads, and other in-school personnel, and the district provides Teacher Mentors who can come observe. And if these people can't or won't observe, teachers are required to devote one planning period per week to collaborative work, which can take the form of observing each other and conferencing. And if everyone has the same planning period, teachers can plan lessons together, watch videos of the lessons (with cameras borrowed from North Ave) and critique and offer support to each other that way. Not a single one of these suggestions costs a dime above what already exists today. What's missing in many schools is the WILL to say, "I'm not going to make my instructional leaders perform administrivia, I'm going to tell them their job is to be in classrooms with teachers." Now, maybe that's a human capital issue. Maybe it's a competence issue. Maybe it's a knowledge gap issue. Maybe it's a creativity issue. It's NOT a funding issue. At least, not at a majority of schools. In fact, the new CAO has tasked principals with spending 50% of their time in classrooms, so it's definitely supposed to be on all principals' radars already.

I don't envy the city teachers' decision that's coming up. There dangling the carrott of money, but if you vote without knowing how your evaluated...your stuck! If it looks too good to be true, it is...vote no!

@Simon

Sorry but you have no idea what it is to be an administrator in Baltimore City, nevermind a "neighborhood school". Nor does 99% of North Ave, including the new CAO. I would love for some of our "higher-ups" to have actually been a principal here in Baltimore. This place is beyond dysfunctional, it's insane.

I personally would love to be in classrooms 50% of the day, but when there are non-stop requests, meetings and crazy situations to deal with that time gets eaten up. I often reflect that I don't get in classrooms enough, but when you're dealing with insanity all day it's tough to do. I'm not happy about it, but I have to keep the place functioning. Follow a neighborhood principal for a week and let me know what you think about the 50% classroom time.

Also, please don't tell me it's not a funding issue. At the system level I agree there is cash, at the neighborhood schools I would say you have no idea what you're talking about. I have half the staff of county comparison schools. There is no real differentiation for our most challenging schools in Baltimore.

I would suggest that most people in this system making the rules, policy and pushing change have no idea. They have not been in the trenches for any real time, served as school based administrators, nor do they know the reality of our students' lives.

The people have spoken. Dig a hole and bury this dead issue. Next time, don't try to change something that isn't broken.