Your little blurb here about the teacher contract vote contains an error. We didn't vote on the same contract--they significantly changed the some of the language and terms in the contract as per our objections and concerns. We voted on the clarified, amended contract; not the one we rejected a month ago.

Baltimore Sun Education Writers,

Thank you for helping the BTU and North Ave win this contract. They needed all the help they could get what with the secret Filipino meeting & refusing to let teachers who were organized against the contract to use the school system's inner-mail system to send flyers with an opposing view. It's hard to run a campaign when the only mail you get is "The money is there, Vote Yes!" or "Evaluations won't hurt you, vote yes!" and the only answer to any question handed to AFT is "It will work, I promise!"

It is even harder to run a campaign when an "unbiased" newspaper can't write the word "contract" without "progressive", "landmark", or some other positive modifier. Really, this second vote for the a contract that (lets be honest) was voted down once and re-voted on to make this happen wouldn't have passed without your help! I hope you're there to write articles when things go sour due to the gaping holes in this contract. Ah well, perhaps I'm just a sore loser, maybe it will all work out seamlessly... maybe.

Sincerely,

Brandon, a teacher who can only take so much more.

Yes, the BTU leadership was able to win handily, although rather than addressing very real concerns, they chose to use the following tactics:

fancy lunches for special interest groups including Philipino teachers, Building Reps, Teach For America teachers, (who also got a special guest appearance by AAA) Master Teachers (who stand to be the first in line for Model Teacher status)

Veiled threats to certain teachers’ immigration status

15 full-time AFT national reps working around the clock for 3 weeks

The confiscation of all anti-contract literature with help from North Avenue, and prevention of the use of intra-system mail for the use of information that might jeopardize the contract

Inundation of mailboxes with pro-contract literature

Repeated robo-calls

Uninformed endorsements on the part of
-our mayor (who needs BTU support to win her mayoral campaign next year)

-our newspaper editorial board

-both political parties

-Arne Duncan

-free transportation to voting sites for pro-contract voters

-a $1500 signing bonus check to be cut immediately for all teachers right before Christmas.

----

Let us hope that what these tactics yielded is as good as advertised. It’s too bad that these tactics were used instead of simply addressing very real concerns, a few of which follow:

How will the budget be adjusted to accommodate?

Since the first three years are being funded by non-renewable money, (Jobs Grant, and Race to the Top) how can we ensure this program is publicly sustainable?

What bureaucratic accommodations will be required to implement this?

Is it possible to build the bureaucratic structures required in less than a year, given that no Pilot program or ‘practice run’ has never been conducted?

How will committees for overseeing this be appointed?

What will be the affect on class size?

What are the guarantees for academic freedom?

What specific activities will constitute AUs, how many A Us can be awarded per year, and who has power to decide this?

Let’s hope these questions can be answered satisfactorily. It is too bad we have given up the right to say no if they can’t.

Brandon,

The Baltimore Sun has been describing the contract -- both of them, and, yes, some of the language was changed -- the same way throughout the campaign. Isn't it possible that teachers, through the many meetings and discussions, became more comfortable with what the contract contained? Isn't it possible that your fellow teachers aren't as ignorant as you seem to think they are? I think most of us debated this contract amongst each other, turned it over in our head, looked at both sides, listened to all arguments, and then made an informed decision. Your implication that we didn't, and that we are easily led by the same kind of fliers and press treatment as we (also) ignored for the first vote, is just another type of teacher-bashing.

Your (and Robin's, who summarily called everyone's endorsement/opinion but her own "uninformed") post here is condescending.

No one is expecting the transition to the new contract to be "seamless", to use your word choice. But a better system that rewards hard work and delving into the profession more reflectively and doesn't summarily give all teachers a raise just because they stayed another year works for me.

@ Robin Bingham
For the last time, saying false statements over and over again does not make it true, it just makes you wrong over and over again. This contract was not funded with race to the top money.

The contract is real clear about the committes. The BTU will have equal say in each committe and applications to those will be handled through the BTU.

Class size is the domain of BCPSS and we have no say over that and are not allowed to negotiate that in a contract.

There are no guaruntees for academic freedom, the courts have ruled that teachers do not have 1st amendment rights over their classes and are not free to choose curriculum. I hate that decision but you are fighting a lost war on that front.

You continue to bring up irrelavent issues to this contract but at least it is over and I do not need to continue this endless debate.

Hi Robin –

Some of the tactics you allege are quite serious ethical violations. If you have proof of the BTU engaging in them, you should press for an investigation. Some of the above allegations of dirty politicking, however, are baseless. I can speak to the following accusations having no merit:

- The Master Teachers (I’m assuming here you mean Teacher Leaders) were not given a fancy lunch. At two of the weekly Teacher Leader meetings, the contract came up, because it’s obviously a huge interest and affects us. We discussed the contract, but no North Avenue employee endorsed the contract or told us to vote for it. At the end of our discussions, some teachers expressed that they supported the contract, and decided they would advocate for it in their schools, while others opposed it, and said they wouldn’t vote for it. As a Teacher Leader, I was present and can say that very clear parameters were set for the conversations we had, since there are strict rules about how the district can interact with teachers over the contract.

- Having spoken to someone about the immigration status meeting, let me first say that the meeting was scheduled far before the contract revote was announced. The BTU represents all of the teachers in its unit, including non-citizens. The original goal of the meeting, was separate from the contract (as I understand it) and was to simplify and streamline the documentation for teachers who are foreign nationals. From speaking to people present at the meeting, and reading the Baltimore Sun article, I haven’t seen any indication of impropriety. If you have evidence otherwise, please share it – but I’d encourage you to not just do that here, but with the Department of Labor Licensing and Regulation? I’m not sure if they’re the right body, but maybe someone else here knows where those complaints should be lodged (the MD Attorney General?)

- Yes, the AFT organizers were paid for by the BTU, but there’s nothing shady about that. The BTU is part of the AFT for precisely this reason – The AFT is a national labor organization that works to provide resources to local teachers unions. Almost all unions work this way, and the actions here were standard union organizing practices. Our dues, whether you are a voting member or not, go (at least in part) to the national AFT organization. I can see how you might have problems with that, but since our union abides by a practice known as “fair share” that’s their policy.

- To my knowledge NEITHER pro-contract nor anti-contract literature was allowed at North Avenue. So yep, your literature was confiscated, but the district didn’t do the BTU any favors on that one either.

- There was anti-contract literature AND pro-contract literature distributed to people’s school mailboxes. So in this case, your side wasn’t slighted. I think in my school the only real issue came from the fact that people couldn’t tell who was publishing the anti-contract literature, so they assumed that it came from the BTU. Our rep made several announcements to clarify that the anti-contract fliers came from an outside group, but they did not attempt to keep the fliers out of people’s hands. It probably played out differently at other schools. If you know details of this, please share them.

- What’s wrong with robo-calls? Every campaign uses them. Heck, we even used them to call our students’ parents to let them know about PTA meetings. While they can be annoying, I certainly don’t think they are underhanded or sinister, as you’re implying.

- Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they are uninformed. A lot of very informed people, myself included, thought the contract contained more good than bad. You don’t know what information Arne Duncan, our Mayor, and the Sun Editorial Board used to come to their conclusions, so you can’t make the blanket statement that they didn’t know what they were talking about. It honestly sounds like you are calling people stupid (or to put it politely, uninformed) just because they disagree with you. I don’t let my students do that, for a very good reason. Again, if you have more info about this, please share.

- This is the first I’ve heard of transportation being provided. But it wouldn’t be unethical for the BTU to do so unless they purposely tried to suppress voters who didn’t support the contract, or if they ignored the transportation needs of those people who were likely to vote against. Do you have proof that the BTU consciously chose to help some teachers over others, or is your assessment of their motives just supposition?

- The $1500 check isn’t a bribe, because everyone gets it, regardless of how they voted. Here’s how a bribe would work: people who vote yes get the check, and people who voted no would get nothing. But in this situation, because the contract passed, people who voted yes are no better off financially than people who voted no. I am 100% serious when I say this: If you feel so strongly, I want you to send me your check. You have my email address, so you know how to get in touch with me. I’ll send you my address, and in a few weeks, I will seriously, help you out by taking that dirty, filthy money out of your hands. I’m serious Robin – if giving it to me doesn’t sit well with you, give it to charity, and post your receipt online (with your personal info redacted, of course). If you spend that bonus check, don’t you dare ever bring it up again.

@Robin,

There's always openings in Baltimore County...try those. I'm sure there are people willing to take your position.

Great post Robin! If only the union worked as hard protecting its' members as it did selling this incomplete contract.

@Robin
Ignore these politicians trying to discredit you. They are hateful and ambitious.
We reasonable skeptics breathe easier knowing you're still with us.

I think Brandon's point was that the Sun only described the contract with positive modifiers, which would lead people outside the teaching profession to believe that the teachers who were against the contract were making a bad decision.

I don't think it is too much to ask that, outside the editorial page, a newspaper in a large city present a subject without bias.

BTU officials said, right in front of me, that they were making sure that any anti-contract literature was confiscated and destroyed before it got to teachers' mailboxes. It's one thing to run an aggressive campaign, it's another thing to prohibit the opposition from exercising their first amendment rights.

Please, Just as I see some of Robin's comments a bit off, so are you.

Fact: Dr. Alonso and the BTU ensured no anti-contract literature. Principals were ordered to only allow BTU and system authorized mail in boxes. All anti-contract literature was to be removed.

Fact: The system is looking to bring charges/punish those who published the last anti-contract literature. Alonso stated "I'm trying to find out if thet used my paper and time".

Fact: Teaching and Learning did in fact push the contract, heck Eberhart was the tip of the spear pushing the effort.

Fact: It was implied that "Teacher Leaders" (incidently a joke role) were the first in line for the new 100K jobs. Sad reality is it will cost a school an extra 25k for that position so it's unlikely anyone will have that role.

The $1500 was a bribe in my book. Shoot if it passes teachers get $1500, it's in your best short term interest to pass it. Sad thing is that money is going to people who stay or go at the end of the year. I don't see the value of that one time cash payment other than to sway the vote, thus it could be interpreted as a bribe.

Did the Inside Ed bloggers go on vacation?

@ BCPSS if Robin decides to take a county job, hire me to take her place! I'm "highly qualified" and more than ready to begin my teaching career in Baltimore City! And I wont gripe about the contract because, despite the public outcry for attracting highly qualified teachers to City Schools (which is part of what this contract aims to do), I was completely unable to have ANY say in this matter because of the hiring freeze that no one seems to ever talk about.

Fact: The system is looking to bring charges/punish those who published the last anti-contract literature. Alonso stated "I'm trying to find out if they used my paper and time".

AAA can rest assured knowing that the anti-contract literature was not made using his paper or his time. What charges is he planning on filing?

I really hope AAA didn't make that statement, because if he did, then we have bigger problems than this contract.

@@Nadine

Well, my observations of the campaign and yours differ. To be honest, I sincerely hope that you're wrong, but in the case that they're not, I suggested an independent investigation. That will do everyone a whole lot more good than rumors and conjecture.

One more thing - what you labeled are observations, not facts. Calling them facts implies that your version is the sole, undisputed truth, and while there may be some truth to your claims, you weren't in all 190 schools, and you can't say what happened in every situation. In my school, anti-contract literature was allowed to be distributed.

Like I said to Robin - it's fine if you consider the $1500 a bribe. I personally disagree. But if you think it's a bribe, just don't spend it, or else you'll be a hypocrite.

@Nadine

Robin has never been condescending in any of her messages, but you continue to attack her because she THINKS. She has too much class to bite back, but I don't.

You are pompous, condescending, and ignorant.

To be honest, I sincerely believe that your students must despise you.

One of the biggest revelations on the contract vote was how different the outcome was from the discussion on the Inside Ed posts. The discussion here has been dominated by negative attitudes, risk aversion and lots of stone throwing. In contrast the vote showed that the majority of teachers were willing to take a risk and were hopeful about the future of City Schools. I guess the comments on this board aren't representative of general teacher opinion, which is good for City Schools, but I wonder why I continue to read this board. Clearly no minds are ever changed here and it's generally pretty depressing.

To City Teacher:

I never meant to seem condescending, let alone pompous or ignorant. I tried to choose my words carefully to avoid just that outcome.

Your personal attack is out of line.