The new day to vote = inconvenient. Who has time to stand in line for hours when they teach 7-3 and go to class from 4-7:30 on Wednesday?

I just hope the tone of this column does not give ammunition to the group that wants to make this seem like a re-vote of the same contract. I have attended some of these meetings and this new contract is not the same. The union did the best they could in a short time to address some of the issues teachers wanted. They could not fix everything. Sometimes people forget there are 2 sides to a negotiation. Some things may not have been on the table. But they did clarify the AU process, add additional protections against administration, and make a few other edits that we asked them for. This is also a significantly better deal then the one we have had most recently. Some seem to expect too much. I just hope this does not become another bunch of "same contract, same vote" comments as this is NOT the same contract we voted on last time.

B - I have heard that there will be early voting as well, although I don't think the details on it have been released. I hope there is, because I think turnout is going to be higher this time, and standing in line is probably my least favorite thing to do.

I swear I remember Dr. Alonso mentioning he'd be supportive of an early release date to allow teachers to vote. I don't generally leave school before 6 or 7 at night. However, maybe the system for voting will be much better to prevent the long lines of last time.

S. Hoffman:

I'm not a "Same contract, same vote" type but I think you're vastly understating the changes to the contract. They've added a small amount of clarity to AUs, but nothing specific about them. The additional protections against administration do not include any ability to grieve a 'Satisfactory' evaluation, which means less pay, nor did it change the ridiculous part about how an administrator can just not do an evaluation and the teacher gets a Satisfactory (which seems like a punishment on the teacher, not the administrator). There was some vague statements made about administrators who would be investigated for skewed evaluations, but nothing about how this would be done. For those of us with little faith in the larger working wheels of the system (I have extreme faith in my students, and in my colleagues, and even in my current administration, but not in the system), this is problematic.

So, yes, this contract is largely the same. Ms. Green is right. This time, we will see whether it's about the content of the contract or the delivery of the ideas. The Union is much more organized now and have, thankfully, been having open forums and discussions. But it's not about any change; I highly doubt anyone who turned over the issues in their head regarding the contract the first time is going to change their vote because of the small changes that have occurred.

I'm still somewhat undecided, but leaning towards voting for it. I really, really wish it was better and clearer; I want to have faith in this deal. But extremists on either side don't help, I don't think, and it seems you’re painting yourself as one.

I'm left disappointed in all sides but still willing to vote for it because (a) there's a chance this could be a good contract for me and BCPSS though; (b) I want it to be over; (c) I believed the former contract was broken; and (d) I think teachers will be vilified in the current blame-the-teachers culture we’re living in.

However, I would be voting for it despite continued disappointment in the finished product. Maybe that's what compromise is, a product that neither side loves but both sides can live with. But I'm not going to fault anyone who believes they can't live with it, or anyone who is stating the fact that, yes, it is pretty much the same contract. Because it is.

I've gone back and forth so much on this thing that I'm making my head spin. In a way, I admire those people who can look at it and hate it excessively or love it unconditionally. I don't really see how anyone can look at it and not see its merits or flaws. I guess it's just how much of those flaws you can live with. I’m not going to hate on those yearning for clarity and protection from unfair ‘Satisfactories’ or the clause about an administration that does not file an evaluation on time, nor will I try to convince those who are voting yes that we need to hold out for more. I will probably cross my fingers and cross my toes and vote for it. I think. It could be awesome.

This is probably the only time in my life I will be a Swing Voter. :)

@epiph: why with the questions and the unclarity, would you still vote for it? The last no vote forced a little clarification. We can demand more clarity by voting no again, but we cede all power to hold anyone accountable if we vote yes. Even if you like the contract ideas, it seems to me that we should be able to demand the things you outline here. Why would we simply resign ourselves to the contract being disappointing? If we truly care about the education of our kids, if we truly care about our own profession as teachers, wouldn't we want to make sure that your concerns are addressed? Fixing something that is broken with something that's undefined seems silly. That's like going to the drug store and buying any old bottle of medicine to fix your headache. Why not identify what's broken, try out a solution, (as in Pilot program) and if the solution works, THEN fix it? Saying yes now means your specific concerns are not really that important. I think they are. Your concerns are much simpler to address than mine, but even these are not being addressed. Why can't we demand as you ask here, that a no evaluation means an automatic Proficient rating? Why can't we demand the right to grieve the content of our evaluations? If we vote no again, we CAN demand things like this. If we vote yes, well, we're stuck with whatever the contract says, and exploitation of whatever it doesn't say, and whatever varying interpretation of its vagueries.

There is no length of line I wouldn't stand in to get my vote. I don't want this to turn into an argument over "yes" and "no" again, I know my stance has not changed. I had the opportunity to talk to an AFT representative and 9 out of the 10 questions I had prepared could not be answered with clarity. I hope we have a large turnout (regardless of the outcome). The more people become involved the stronger we grow as a Union. My sincerest hope is that after this is over (either way it goes down) many of the passionate teachers stay involved in being the union instead of watching union leadership from the sidelines.

@ Robin, who said: Why can't we demand as you ask here, that a no evaluation means an automatic Proficient rating? Why can't we demand the right to grieve the content of our evaluations? If we vote no again, we CAN demand things like this. If we vote yes, well, we're stuck with whatever the contract says.

I need to remind you of something that was stated often in earlier posts. We do not have the right to make demands. There are two sides to a negotiation, and if the district says no to something, a compromise can't be reached on that issue. We don't have the right to make demands because we do not have the right to strike. That's just a legal reality. So your use of the word demand is either intellectually dishonest because you know we can't do it, or it's misinformed, because you still believe that we can.

Also, if the contract creates a broken system, instead of a system that works perfectly fine, there is the option to abolish the BLPSSP revert to seniority based pay at the end of year two. We're not stuck with it, as you say, and if we revert, we'd keep our salary increases.

I'm usually quite moderate in tone, but I'm starting to notice that you are continually reusing arguments that have already been shown to be inaccurate. That's not okay. What gives?

@ Robin, who said: Why can't we demand as you ask here, that a no evaluation means an automatic Proficient rating? Why can't we demand the right to grieve the content of our evaluations? If we vote no again, we CAN demand things like this. If we vote yes, well, we're stuck with whatever the contract says.

I need to remind you of something that was stated often in earlier posts. We do not have the right to make demands. There are two sides to a negotiation, and if the district says no to something, a compromise can't be reached on that issue. We don't have the right to make demands because we do not have the right to strike. That's just a legal reality. So your use of the word demand is either intellectually dishonest because you know we can't do it, or it's misinformed, because you still believe that we can.

Also, if the contract creates a broken system, instead of a system that works perfectly fine, there is the option to abolish the BLPSSP revert to seniority based pay at the end of year two. We're not stuck with it, as you say, and if we revert, we'd keep our salary increases.

I'm usually quite moderate in tone, but I'm starting to notice that you are continually reusing arguments that have already been shown to be inaccurate. That's not okay. What gives?

I have not made up my mind about the contract yet. At best, it will be an uncomfortable decision. However, the proverbial straw that breaks....is the voting hours issue. WHAT teacher except those in the voting school buidings can vote between 7 and 3? The kids at my school arrive at 7:50 We begin instruction at 8:00AM. We have a 30 minute lunch. The kids leave at 2:50. I am never out before 5:30 and often hours after that. What is the point of a bunch of union staff sitting around all day as teachers teach children? I can leave by 3:00 but it is really inconvenient. Why cant the staff reps take the next couple weeks, go to their schools and collect votes? Fewer people are running around, students are instructed, and everyone can vote. Does the union realize that there are teachers who take the bus, are in wheelchairs, and have other disabilities which were totally ignored at the last voting place. BTU-think it through.

wise educator says: "Why cant the staff reps take the next couple weeks, go to their schools and collect votes? "

Yes! I've been thinking the same thing for weeks. The first vote at least was on a PD day where most teachers could go and vote (even though some like me were attending external PD). But voting 7-6 on a day when we still have full teaching responsibilities, a day when high schools are hosting open houses for middle schools, and a day when five other events are already on my calendar! It seems that each school's building rep could collect votes and bring them in, making every school its own voting site, or if this is impossible, send out BTU reps to 40 schools each day, thus completing voting for all 200 schools over the course of a week.

@wise educator - The voting hours are scheduled to be from 7-6, not until 3 and there is scheduled to be early voting at the Union. From what I understand, this is being done to provide greater flexibility. Voting machines will be used so the lines shouldn't be a problem like they were before.

Robin:

I guess it's because we all have to decide our own dealbreakers and those aren't my dealbreakers, I don't think. I do not believe anyone will get 100% what we want and don't think the union is in a position, in a non-union state, to demand everything. And I don't want to go all year without a contract, don't want to sacrifice my Christmas conversion $$. Lastly, I do not think this is a bad contract for students.

Robin - whose demands should be met? There will be no contract without compromise and consensus. I have spent a lot of time going through the contract materials and I do feel like this is a better contract. Going back to step increases isn't an option with the way education nationally and in MD is moving forward. I don't feel like all the rhetoric is constructive; rather it's just setting us back. Also, are you currently teaching in the classroom? How much of this applies to you?

@ Epiph
Your post was fair and I agree with many of your concerns. There is also going to be possible problems with any new system and I am not sure this will work perfectly. My only general response to this is that having a lot of knowledge of how this was negotiated, this was the best and most teacher friendly contract the negotiating team could get. There are 2 sides to a negotiation and unfortunately some things that would have made many teachers happy were not on the table. Our ability to make demands is limited since we can not strike. I also feel that while there will always be room for the district to abuse the contract and teachers, this new contract has more protections for us then the previous one. I also, like you, am honestly convinced this is our last chance to have a contract for this year. I do not wish to work the entire year with no contract, no pay increase and not able to get my sick conversion for the holidays. Basically while this is not perfect, it is far better then what we will get if we vote no, which is nothing and possibly worse. The district could decide to do this legislatively and shove it down our throats without our input and without a pay increase. I will choose the pay increase and a chance to work with the city to establish this new system then option b. Your type of dialogue on here is an asset to the forum and beneficial to this process. Keep it up.

@ Robin Bingham
You keep throwing demands around as if we have the ability to get everything we want. Instead of comparing this contract to your own individual idea of a "perfect contract" we should compare it to the previous contract. While there are things any teacher would love that are not in this contract, by all objective measures it is a much more teacher friendly contract then the one we had previously. You seem to be an idealist with no room for compromise. Furthermore your list of "demands" as you put it is getting on the extreme side and honestly unrealistic.

So far in the blogs on here you have listed these issues as major problems for you.

Evaluation process: this is being done legislatively by MD and is not an issue for the contract.

AU process: The reason this was left flexible was because it was felt teachers would make out better if room was left open to add things later. If we started boxing ourselves in on what is and is not an AU now we forever close off avenues that may be invented later. By creating a board that teachers have equal say in as administration we leave ourselves the ability to shape and form the AU process. The contract is very clear on what kind of activities will be an AU. PD's, Credits, Extracurricular activities all will definitely be worth AU's. The question is how many AU's. It was felt we would have a better ability to bargain these issues with the board to be set up then at the negotiation table for the contract.

Federal Funding: right now money is tight in case you have not noticed. If we were to turn down federal funding right now there would be no money for a raise for teachers. Are you really advocating we turn down a raise because some of the money came from the federal government? It is true that if the economy does not improve and money is still tight in 3 years we may have to fight to keep this raise. That is a fight for 3 years from now and NOT an issue on this contract. I would rather fight to keep a raise then never have one at all. Furthermore, the economy may improve by then and this point then becomes irrelavent.

Local Funding and budget issues: The new contract is expected to cost 87 million dollars to implement over the previous 3 year contract. That is only 2 percent of the districts budget. That is without federal funding. I feel teachers are worth an additional 2 percent of the budget. If 2 percent creates that great a problem for schools to provide what is necessary for students I feel that is more indicative of poor management of resources and allocation of funds NOT that the problem is we are getting paid too much. You imply we should turn this down because if they have to pay us more money it might hurt their ability to have books for children and proper facilities or class sizes will increase. Instead of putting this problem on the teachers and implying we should fall on the sword and take less money so the district can continue to mis-manage its funds, why dont you demand our district do a better job with its ample resources and find a way to have books for students and pay the teachers a fair adequate salary. You seem quick to throw demands around yet you seem to make them in the wrong places.

School Lunches: This is a great idea, and I agree our students deserve better food in the schools, bt it is NOT an issue for a teacher contract. This is a policy issue for the district and not something we can negotiate in a teacher contract.

Class sizes: Again this is a priority for the union and for the district. The district does not want students to fail and they know large class sizes are bad, but again they are guilty of mis-management of resources. This is not a teacher contract issue it is something for the district to be held accountable for but not in this forum. Again a good idea but not pertinent to this discussion.

Checks on principle's authority: While there will always be the ability for a bad administrator to make your job difficult, this new contract has much more protection and checks on admin authrority then the previous one. We have the ability, if a principle is giving evaluations that do not add up, to have them reviewed and checked for validity. No other job has this kind of protection where you can challange the validity of your boss's evaluation of your job. What more do you want? Sometimes I wonder if you even acknowledge that the principle is our boss. Sometimes when you have a bad boss your job is going to be difficult and nothing in a contract is going to fix that. We still have the ability to grieve everything we could before. We now have a special board in addition to that to investigage anytime a schools evaluation average drops from previous years. The protections in this contract are greater then previous years. Also, you insinuate principles will have incentives to not give proficient evaluations to keep salaries down. Schools will only have to account for the "average" teachers salary for every employee. They will not have to pay more from their budget for a teacher that makes more due to a raise. There is no incentive for a principle to try to keep you from getting a raise.

Finally, you insinuate that the union is not listening to teachers and is not looking out for us. You seem to imply they are some outside force. The team that negotiated this contract for us was made up of classroom teachers from the city. You fail to realize that some things we may want are not possible because the city will not go for it. This is a negotiation not a democratic process. The district has to be open to the idea. We have limited power since we can not strike and if we go without a contract it means no step increase and no raise. It hurts us much more then the district. How we are to make "demands" in that situation is unclear to me. The negotiators for the teachers try to listen to what teachers want but as the conversations on here prove there is not one voice of teachers. We are diverse and have different ideas. Your goals are not my goals in this contract. SO who are they supposed to listen to? I think the problem is not that the negotiation team for the teachers didn't listen to teachers, they just did not get what YOU wanted in this contract. Stop trying to characterize them as the villains. They did the best they could for the teachers and got the most teacher friendly contract they could get from the city. Your list of demands is unrealisitic and worse, some of them make no sense at all.

If we vote for this contract, while not perfect, it gives us a seat at the table to help develop and guide this new system. We have equal say in all matters regarding the implementation of new policy. How can we ask for more then that? If we say no, I fear the city will legislate most of this and implement it without our input and without the pay increase they are offering us right now. If we vote no the reality is we will go the year without a pay increase and most of what you do not like will become a reality anyways just without the raise to go with it and without you having any say in the process.

Voting will be all day from 7-6pm in 5 different lcations. I think BTU did very will this time around. I also heard that they may be having electronic voting this time.

I do agree that they could add an extra day to the voring or have the voting open at 6am, but I mean get out there and vote. I teacher more than one class and I never HAVE to stay in my building until 5pm. Work smarter not harder. I'm sure you can rearrange your schedule for one day. BTU did do a much better job at getting the information out this time. They should have done it this way in the first place.

The union has set up all-day voting at five locations around the city: union headquarters on Metro Drive, the Lake Clifton complex on St. Lo Drive, Cherry Hill Elementary-Middle School on Bridgeview Road, Edmondson Westside High School on Athol Avenue and the Professional Development Center on East Northern Parkway.

Does anybody else find it concerning, and insulting, that the BTU is trying to convince us to vote for this agreement based solely on the financial gains teachers will make? If the agreement truly is good for students then why isn't the BTU trying to convince us to vote for it for those reasons? I personally think that this agreement is bad for students. It puts market ideology into education which, in my opinion, will pervert education.

DEFEND STUDENTS. VOTE NO.

@ bcpss teacher
No I do not find it insulting at all. I strongly disagree with your opinion. It does our profession a disservice when you imply that money is not important. The things you are focused on are important but NOT to a teacher contract. Initiatives for students are the dominion of the district administration. Our union fights for them all the time but they are NOT something we can put in a teacher contract. There seem to be many people who are confused about what scope of a teacher contract is. It is not about the students. It is about how teachers are compensated and what protections we have on the job. Paying teachers more is not the answer to student success but it is a good thing if you are a teacher. The things some on here are advocating for are not issues for a teacher contract. Those are issues that have to be brought to the district in another forum. The public must bring pressure on the district to do those things. It is not something we can bargain for in a contract. Even so are you really arguing that our union should prioritize students needs over our salary??? I care very much for the students or else I would not be teaching but I also care about my salary. Teachers will never be rich but I am completely confused by the litany of posts on here implying we should not try to get a raise and instead focus on student centered issues. Those are not relevant to a teacher contract. A lot of people are upset at the district and their lack of support for students and that is fair but it is a completely different issue from a teacher contract and having those things bleed over into the debate about our contract (which is about our pay first and foremost) is not productive to the discussion.

@BCPSS teacher -
Although we wouldn't have jobs without students, it's important to remember that the Union represents teachers, not students. When teachers are satisfied and amply rewarded and recognized, they feel more fulfilled and the students profit from that.

This is a teacher contract between the Union and the school system--not between the students and the school system. I'm all about working with North Avenue regarding other issues in education, but that in no way means I have to vote against the contract proposal. Market ideology? Because a teacher would be compensated for the totality of what they do and not just the basics? Fair enough..sign me up.

As for defending students...don't insult me. I spend every day of my professional life defending students and will continue to do so.

Two teachers have brought up fears of no contract so far on this thread, and I was wondering if anyone had a definite answer (or if Ms. Green could find out for us):

If the contract is defeated again this go-round, will we A) work the rest of the year without a contract, with no step, no cost-of-living adjustment, no sick leave conversion in December, B) go back to the negotiating table and have a new contract to vote on in a month, or C) revert to the previous contract, including our step increase etc.?

I think this vote boils down to two questions:

1. Do you believe the current contract helps teachers or students in a significant ways?

2. If the proposed contract is not approved, what do you believe will replace it?

I know the proposed contract isn't perfect, but I don't know anyone who thinks the current contract is great for teachers or students. We owe it to ourselves to take a step towards something better.

For the second question, we have to acknowledge a change of this size takes time to implement. If the proposed contract is not approved soon, it's unlikely it can be implemented by year's end. So then what will we have? Will we get an opportunity like this again?

I'll be voting Yes on November 17th. However you choose to vote, please encourage as many colleagues as you can to join you on voting day.

These are questions that I have asked multiple BTU representatives but they have failed to give me any concrete answers for any of them.

1) What is the role of the lead teacher? Will they have a reduced course load? If so, will more teachers be hired so class size does not increase?

2) What is the role of a model teacher? Will they have a reduced course load? If so, will more teachers be hired so class size does not increase?

3) “No person who has been assigned as a Model or Lead Teacher shall suffer a reduction in pay if that person is involuntarily re-assigned to the position of Professional Teacher without just cause.” What is meant by just cause? Does an unsuccessful review by the peer review committee (after 3 or 5 years) constitute just cause for reduction in pay? What is the review process for retaining model teacher status?

4) What are the criteria for becoming a model teacher? What does the rubric look like?

5) How often can a teacher apply to become a model teacher? What is the application process?

6) Will we be able to evaluate or grade administrators?

7) Will we be able to evaluate or grade the BTU leadership?

8) “Failure of a principal to issue an annual evaluation within contractual time limits results in a satisfactory rating.” Could a principal purposefully (because of personality differences) not issue an annual evaluation within contractual time limits to a proficient teacher in order for that teacher to receive a satisfactory rating instead?

9) Will stipends that were typically given for clubs, activities, professional development, etc. be replaced by AUs or will AUs be given in addition to stipends?

10) Do applications for AU approval have to be submitted prior to the club, activity, professional development, etc. or do you do participate in the club, activity, professional development, etc. and hope to get AUs after the fact?

11) Section 2.17 of the current extended agreement – “No employee who has been a Building Representative for more than 3 years of continuous service in a particular school shall be reassigned involuntarily out of that school to another work location.”

Amendment to Section 2.17 included in new tentative agreement – “No involuntary reassignment of BR without written approval by CEO.”

Why can building representatives now be involuntarily reassigned with written approval by the CEO?

12) School-Based Options are limited to selected parts of Article VII – specifically sections 7.1 (school year), 7.2 (school week), 7.3 (school day), and 7.8 (available preparation time). Why don’t School-Based Options provide an opportunity for a school to address curricula, discipline policy, class size, etc?

13) If the length of the school year, school week, or school day is changed under School-Based Options, when do the changes take effect (immediately, end of semester, etc.)? If the new schedule does not work for a teacher (possible conflict with class schedule, childcare, second job), what rights do they have for transfer?

@ F
Those are all very targeted and perhaps pertinent questions for specific situations but unfortunately not the kind of details that will ever be in a contract. I think people should look at the old contract. There are questions being thrown at the union regarding such specific things that if the contract were to answer them all it would have to be 500 pages long. Then I am sure everyone would complain it was too long and confusing. A contract is an outline and a framework. It has to be left flexible to allow for it to be workable as you implement new policy. One thing that a lot of these posts have in common is a perception or paranoia that the district and union are out to get us in some way. That if something is left vague and flexible it must be so that the city can find a way to screw us over later on. Is it possible that some of these very targeted specific questions were left unanswered because they may have to be answered differently for different situations. Perhaps the specific job of a lead teacher will be different depending on the school. The role of a lead teacher at an elementary school may be very different then at a high school. leaving every specific job description out of the contract is not a way for the district to "get us" its a way to make this new plan flexible so that it is workable as we implement it for schools with different needs.

The answer to your 3, 4, and 5, questions are impossible because the board that will be responsible for answering those questions does not exist yet. There is no way we would want a rubric to be that set in stone, it would box us into things we may want to change later. This was a better solution, to set up a board that we have equal say in and let them set up a flexible system that can change and adapt. This board can not be set up until we approve the contract. That question can not be answered until after we pass the contract.

The answer to number 6 is yes and you already can. We have climate surveys every year. If what you mean is actually have some power over your administrators job then of course the answer is no and never will be yes. At the end of the day the administrator is your boss even if you do not like that fact. You have the ability to voice displeasure and give input and this new contract has much more checks on administrative power then the previous one but we will never have say over administrative policy.

Your issue in 8 is a grievance issue. That is a specific grievance that would have to be filed same as now and nothing has been limited in the new contract about what can be grieved.

Your question 9 is very interesting and I am curious as well since I get a stipend for coaching an activity. However, I am not turning down a significant raise over such a small issue.

Issue 10 will be resolved because the first order of business of the new board will be to issue a list of activities that have automatic AU's attached to them, like PD events, Quest for instance, and after school activities. THe tricky part will be when you want to develop your own activities to foster student success and apply for an AU. In that case you would have to find a way to measure how your program lead to student achievement and then submit the data for your AU. For most activities, however, you will know ahead of time if it is worth AU's.

Issue 11 is misleading because you left out something very important, even with the CEO approval the BTU president can veto the transfer.

I do not know about the last 2 questions so I will not comment.

Finally, I really hope that people that are nitpicking this understand you are not choosing between this contract or something better. You are choosing between this contract and NOTHING. No other district in MD is getting a raise this year. Most are not getting a step increase and have salaries frozen. Considering the alternative this is a great deal for us. Compared to other reform contracts nationally this one has more teacher protections. A sizable raise, and flexible opportunities for career advancement. Is this contract perfect, no, but it is much better then our previous contract.

If we turn this down the reality is we will go the entire year without a step, without a COLA, and with no sick leave conversion. We will basically get nothing. Perhaps I am the only person who has bills to pay and has this as a consideration.

Those are some very good questions posed by F - some of them I hadn't even thought about. I do feel that there is too much that is unknown with this contract to vote in favor of it. The union and school system should be forced to provide more details before something involving such great change is approved.

I've had principals forget to give me my end of year evaluation before, I would take a satisfactory if that were the case all of the time. However, I've also had principals "forget" to give me my end of year evaluation even though it was synched to both of our blackberry calendars in lieu of a 4 hour lunch out on the town while I waited.

I hadn't fully considered the issue with the automatic satisfactory. If this contract had negotiated the right to grieve the evaluation process I would be ok with it, but as it stands it is far too easy for a principal to deny a specific teacher a proficient (and a pay raise) simply by being "busy".

With this contract it will be *my* job to make my principal do his/her job if I want to guarantee I receive the best pay. I don't see how negotiating a contract with such a gaping hole, and then asking the workers to work harder to fill that hole, is a fair and well negotiated contract.

@ Brandon
First, you imply that a satisfactory will prevent you from getting a pay raise but isn't that misleading because it implies you will earn no additional AU's throughout the year. It takes 12 AU's to advance an interval. You would get 9 for your satisfactory rating, then would need 3 AU's somewhere else. You will recieve an AU for PD's that you attend so are you intending to skip most of those? If you participate in any extra curricular or after school activities you would earn AU's for that. If you are taking any classes for your re-certification that would get you the 3 AU's you need and tuition reimbursement is still in this contract. Basically, the only way for you not to be earning additional AU's would be if you were doing absolutely nothing outside your minimum job requirements, in which case you probably wouldn't deserve a proficient rating.

Second point, and this is the one that really confuses me, you are talking about how there are opportunities for a principle to get in the way of you getting the most possible money. Yet your no vote is getting in the way of your opportunity to get any raise at all. If we turn this down we will go this year with no step and no COLA and we are not eligable to have sick leave conversion at xmas. We get nothing...so you are choosing nothing yet complaining about what you may have to do to get more money in a new system. Not sure I understand the logic here or how saying no to this helps ensure you get your raise when a no vote means we get nothing at all.

Finally, I wish people would be more forthcoming with their motives. Often on these boards an opponent of this contract will make a case, then when they realize they are not convincing others with that argument, all of a sudden they are posting about a completely different reason they have a problem. There are real issues people may have. If you are really that averse to a more market based system and having increased accountability along with better pay then that is legitamate but say it. Don't hide behind "its too confusing", "its not clear enough, make it 10,0000 pages and explain every detail", or "their out to get us". These all distract us from the real issues.

Can someone explain why we have not gotten a step for THIS year under the old contract? If the contract was extended, then why is BCPS not abiding by it and paying us this year at the correct step?
Why is the transition scale pay scale based on the step we were on LAST year (09-10) and not on the step we are already SUPPOSED to be on this year?
Thanks in advance for explanation.

@ A City Teacher
I called my union rep to ask the same question back in September and it was explained to me that the step's are only negotiated for the life of the contract. They do not "go on forever". So the extension of the contract one month at a time while we negotiate is only an extension of the principles and binding legal responsabilities between teachers and administrators in the contract not an extension of the pay scale. Once a contract expires our pay increases are expired and we are "stuck" where we are until we negotiate another contract. While this sucks and I agree it is not fair, it is legal. Why would the city agree to do something they are not legally required to do and extend the steps for another year when this is a huge bargaining chip they have. We get nothing until we sign a new contract. However, you are not totally accurate with the statement that our new intervals are based on our old salary. Instead of moving us a "step" this year, if we sign the new contract we get a flat 2 percent raise over last year for COLA and then a 1500 bonus. for most people that is about equivalent to what a step would have been. For some its a little more, some a little less, but its close. The reason they did that though, we is benefits teachers that are at the top of their pay scale. FOr those that are maxed out and have been frozen for years it is finally a chance to get a raise. So actually, the flat 2 percent raise and 1500 check is better for teachers then a step this year would have been. If we say no to this contract, however, then we get nothing and then you would be correct and we would be getting screwed. Hopefully this passes and we do not have to deal with that grim reality.

This brings me back to a point I have been trying to make and many still seem confused on. We have very limited bargaining power. We are in a non union state and have no right to strike. Furthermore, until we get a new contract our salaries are frozen. Not only that but we can not get sick leave conversion this December as we are used to without a contract. Basically, compensation wise we are screwed until we get a new deal. The city has to suffer the bad publicity of having a dispute with the teachers but honestly I feel like we have the bigger gun to our head right now then they do. If we say no to this we will basically go this year with no step, no cost of living adjustment, and no sick leave conversion. Next year we will probably negotiate a new contract but we will never get back that money we lose this year. The 1500 bonus they are offering will probably be gone, and the 2 percent reaise for this year we will never get back. Expectations need to be realistic and I fear some are fighting for more, and are going to cost us the chance to get anything at all.

@S. Hoffman
It appears that your main interest is the money. It's too bad that you are so cynical that you care more about the money than you do about the bigger principals at play. Now you are saying 'Just vote Yes' because if you don't we'll never get the money.' and 'Just vote yes because we can't strike and we can't do anything about the contract anyway.' and
'The city has to suffer the bad publicity... so vote yes.' Really?

How about our rights as teachers? How about the hard-won seniority our unions fought for over decades? How about fair and un-biased methods of pay? How about teacher collaboration, the right to shape our classes as we wish, the ability to teach non-testable subjects, the control over our own union? How about not signing over the power to decide what power we have? How about not writing a blank check to what has historically been a non-teacher-friendly system?

Do you think 'limited bargaining power' stopped Rosa Parks from sitting down in the front of the bus? That was illegal, too. So was sitting at lunch counters, and, ahem, walking into some schools. What do we lose if we vote no? A measly $1500. What do we gain? A voice in the way we teach and learn in our schools.

Vote NO!

and S. Hoffman-- please. Look in the mirror before you make your arguments.

What is disappointing with the lack of a step increase is that, in the past, steps have been honored on the previous contract into the next year. It was a move of bad faith by Dr. Alonso not to honor step increases, and one of the reasons that it's hard for teachers to trust him/North Avenue. More good faith efforts from him probably would have led to a smoother contract discussion.

Also, to answer another question from the thread, the union rep who came to our school was very clear that if teachers received a stipend for an extracurricular job (coaching, etc), then they will not receive any AU for that job.

This might lead to some interesting discussions. For example, the drama teacher at our school is paid a small sum (a few hundred dollars for four months of after-school work until 6 or 7pm) by the PTA, something new a couple of years ago. Should he now refuse this small stipend so he can get AU credit for the work? It will lead to some interesting dilemmas.

I'm beginning to think the contract does not have much chance of passing. I don't think it's been marketed well, and the anti-contract side is much more organized/vocal. The fact that we're not given any release time to vote is a problem. I have Coach Class until 5pm, plus PTSA that day, and may not be able to make it to voting. It will be, at the very least, pretty inconvenient and that's coming from me, who is on the pro-contract side. Imagine if people are on the fence, which is most people (and I have been on the fence much of the discussion, too.) I want the contract to pass, but think many will just not vote, which is a bummer.

@S. Hoffman,
by your argument, "we have very little bargaining power," so therefore we should vote yes-- why do we even have a vote then? The vote IS our bargaining power on this contract. Even if you like the idea of the contract, but don't like the fact it has huge holes, and is incomplete, you should vote NO in order to retain that bargaining power.

If history is any indicator, voting NO carries very little risk. Every time there has been a conflict over a new contract in the past, the old one has simply been extended while the conflict is being resolved. Signing this contract means signing away major powers we still retain. i.e. the power to decide what AUs look like, HOW we are going to tie test scores to teacher evaluations, (yes, the law may mandate that we do this-- we'll find out today-- but the district gets to decide HOW to do this.) and ensuring stipulations are in place to protect non-tested subjects, teacher-case-load, stipulations to provide that school-based options extend to true teacher-participation in the leadership of a school, rather than simply working longer days, checks against administrative power to give unfair evaluations or no evaluations...

I advocate a NO vote in order to retain the power over these decisions and force the district to get it right. If the contract was written such that we could vote on each section again once it had been developed, I might vote for it. There are a lot of interesting ideas in it. But your argument that we might face some horrible boogeyman if we vote no, is a cheap scare tactic, and not true.

We're already on our second extension. If this doesn't pass, then we're most likely without a contract. Which means we get nothing - not only no sick leave, no pay increase - but no security, no assurance, and safety.
I'm concerned that people against the contract think that there's a magical "none of the above choice" that will allow them to write in whatever they want, or even go back to the prior system of step increases. There's no third option. It's this contract, or no contract. I need a contract.

Furthermore, I do think it's a strong contract. It's much better than the prior system in my opinion, in most respects. Please get whatever sort of clarification you need if you're still on the fence, but I hope the crazy crusade to take down the contract and start some other sort of alternative reform ends now. That's going to get us nothing but a lack of contract.

Great, a racist teecher who can't spell.

This agreement should not be voted for simply based on the fact that it may be better than what the first proposed agreement was. If it is not a good proposal, then it should be voted down and that no vote should demand that the union goes back to the table and works for what the teachers want. The idea of voting for this because it is too scary to be without a contract is crazy and is what the union and North Ave. want us to do so they can exercise their power over teachers. The teachers are the ones with the power here - the power to accept or reject this agreement based on what they think of it, not their fear of what may happen if they don't like it.

@ Anonymous

If you don't have faith that Alonso and the school board would extend the current contract until the an agreement is accepted by teachers then you shouldn't have faith in this contract because so much hinges on trusting Alonso, the school board, and the union that has sided with them.

@ Voting No on Principal:

First of all, you need to spell principle correctly. I know it’s condescending to start off by correcting you that way, but it really undermines your point when you say that principles are important to you as an educator, then you spell it incorrectly. We are educators – the way we communicate is important. (Unless of course, you are being ironic and trying to imply that your philosophy has been informed by your interactions with principals and admins. In which case I apologize.)

You’ve probably stopped reading by now because you were a turned off by my intro (which I deserve, for being a jerk) but if you’re still reading, hear me out, because I’d like to wade into your conversation with Hoffman.

A teaching contract like the one we are debating is primarily about compensation. So focusing on the compensation aspects, and what we stand to gain or lose financially, depending on how we vote, is appropriate.

From what I understand of Hoffman’s post, the quotes you pulled are taken out of context and don’t represent the underlying idea he was expressing. Here’s what I got from his comments. This is a negotiation. We legally cannot dig our heels in and make demands because there are two sides that must work together. We need to recognize that the district has its interests, and we need to be willing to work with them to make sure our needs are met.

Hoffman was also correct to point out that we teachers do have something to lose by voting no. We lose the income we would have gained this year, which for some of us, is not insignificant. I wish I was in a financial place where money doesn’t matter, but it does. I’m not just voting yes because of the money, though. I’m voting yes because I believe this contract can increase accountability and rewards for teachers. While being held accountable for my work will be a new challenge, I am willing to embrace it because I work with people’s children for God’s sake. I SHOULD be held accountable for what I do.

Most of my issues with your post come from this paragraph:
How about our rights as teachers? How about the hard-won seniority our unions fought for over decades? How about fair and un-biased methods of pay? How about teacher collaboration, the right to shape our classes as we wish, the ability to teach non-testable subjects, the control over our own union? How about not signing over the power to decide what power we have? How about not writing a blank check to what has historically been a non-teacher-friendly system?

Your post notes that you are concerned about our rights as teachers. The new contract is actually a tentative agreement that keeps all of the protections in our former contract, but changes the salary scale. Teachers like Hoffman probably aren’t concerned about teacher rights because our rights and our day to day working environments aren’t likely to change that much.

On the point of seniority: I understand that our unions fought hard for seniority, but the context in which we teach is different now, and seniority should play a different role. Seniority was initially important because of age and gender discrimination. We as a profession no longer face those hurdles. Legal protections against age and gender discrimination have been put into place from the federal level, with the Age Discrimination Act, all the way down to the district level. (I’m thinking specifically about the BCPS policy that keeps principals from removing experienced teachers because they are more expensive.) We currently work in an educational system where large amounts of students aren’t achieving. (Nationally – not just in Baltimore.) We need to focus on getting our students to learn the knowledge and skills to compete in a global marketplace. The economic and civic future of this country depends on it, and I don’t believe I’m being hyperbolic when I say that. Because we need to focus on what our students can do, we need to shift from thinking about the number of years a teacher has taught, to the actual quality of work that is happening in their classroom now. Moving away from seniority based pay shouldn’t threaten quality veteran teachers. If a teacher has been working in the system for 25 years, they SHOULD be an effective teacher, because they have so much experience. Veteran teachers stand to gain in this new contract, whether they decide to do PD or not.

I’d like you to explain why you think the new system of pay is biased. Think about this philosophically for a moment. The only way to create an unbiased pay system is to pay everyone the same amount. If the system did that, they would be treating all of its employees equally, and seeing them all the same – free of bias. So, first of all, all contracts will involve bias, because some employees will always make more than others. In the old system, teachers with seniority were paid more – the system was biased toward them. The new contract is biased toward teachers who are hard-working and/or effective in the classroom. I recognize the bias there, but I don’t think it’s inappropriate. Hardworking, or effective teachers should be paid appropriately for the work that they do. The new contract is also biased toward veteran teachers because it keeps their salaries increasing infinitely, where the old contract capped their salaries.

Regarding a point from the paragraph above: The new contract provides rewards for teacher collaboration. Evidence of collaboration is one way a teacher can earn AUs.

The contract doesn’t take away your right to shape your classroom as you wish. Your principal might do that, but that’s because your principal has a specific leadership style and vision for the school. The principal’s leadership and vision may very well be terrible. Voluntary transfer rights still apply in the new contract, so you have the right to seek employment under a different principal.

Note, please, that I spelled that word principal (meaning administrator) with a 'pal'.

@anonymous - the BTU is planting the idea that we will be without a contract if we don't approve this one on the next vote. That won't happen. Remember, a contract benefits both parties. Without one, the school board can't hold us accountable many things, just as we would lose certain safeguards. It would not be in their best interest to have us working without one. The notion that it is "this contract or no contract" is a fallacy.

@Anonymous and F:
The problem with a contract extension isn't that we'd have to trust Alonso and the Board to grant it. The problem with a contract extension is that because it's temporary, it can't give us the same level of financial security when it comes to providing things like sick leave conversion. A contract extension is a legally inferior document to a contract, and it leaves us financially vulnerable.

@ Robin Bingham:
You say that voting for the contract takes away our power to decide what an AU is. This is not the case. Teachers will make up 50% of the board that decides what an AU is, so we technically would still retain that power. Our voice on the panel would be equal to that of the district, which is realistically, the most power we could hope for. Giving teachers more than 50% of the votes on the panel would create a situation ripe for corruption where teachers could constantly vote to give themselves AUs for activities that don't merit them. Just as there need to be checks on the district, there need to be checks on teacher power. If you disagree, please, talk to literally anyone in this system about the corruption that is perpetrated in this system, not just by admins, but by teachers. If the contract is approved, maybe you should apply to be on the board that decides what an AU is - you definitely care about it a lot, and it's important to have arts teachers represented because you are so specialized. But it's flat out wrong to say that teachers won't have a voice in deciding what an AU is, so please stop using that argument. It's factually incorrect.

Furthermore, yes, I agree with you that BCPS teachers need to be involved in the process that determines how test scores will be tied to evaluations, but for the last time this contract is not remotely about that. That argument hasn't even begun to happen yet, so save your energy for when it'll actually make a difference in a few months. This contract is about how salaries will be tied to evaluations, NOT how evaluations will be tied to student performance. You've been accused before of confusing issues intentionally to create a smokescreen - this is an example of that. I honestly can't believe that we are repeating this over and over again. Bringing up this argument over and over again makes me think that either you don't understand this contract and our legislative context, or you do and you're just combining all your issues because you know that's a way to get attention and support for your cause.

We've never had the power to protect ourselves from large class sizes or as you and Bill call it, total student load. So to say that voting yes on the contract would be losing that power is inaccurate. We can't lose a power we never had in the first place. If you want that type of protection against large class sizes, you need a legislative solution from the MD General Assembly because it's state law that teacher unions cannot bargain on class sizes. Again, that fight is not this fight.

Finally, on the School Based Options issue - there are quite a few ways for teachers to be democratically involved in the governance of a school, and if we vote yes on the contract, those leadership pathways won't go away. One option is the School Family Council. In charter schools, often teacher leadership and governing power is written into the school's charter. But the thing to remember is that this contract is about how we will be paid. The 3 categories for SBOs in the contract are there because they relate to the hours we work, and how much money we will be paid for an extended day and year. Those three options are not the only topics teachers should have a say on, but they are the only ones that should be mentioned in a contract about a salary scale.

@Robin. You want to vote on the contract piece by piece? That's simply not how a contract works. Ever, in any field. Many if not all of your questions have been answered by BTU and AFT staff when they went out to schools. Where were you?

@Nadine: you say I am confusing issues, but they go hand in hand, and so in my opinion, they must be discussed together. The last contract, bad or good, did not tie evaluations to test scores, or evaluations to salaries. This one assumes that evaluations will be tied to test scores, (as per a presently tabled law) AND ties evaluations to salaries. So, no. There is no smoke screen here. There is an acknowledgement of the broader picture and an attempt to discuss the contract as part of that broader picture. Parsing the issue means putting blinkers on.

I'd like to note here, that ours is the only district in Maryland with performance pay on the negotiating table. And ours is the only union in Maryland that endorsed Race to the Top. That is to say, these things ARE within the scope of discussion because they are still ours to decide. If this stuff was a done-deal, there simply would not be a vote.

As to your point about class-size, we should have an understanding of the financial ramifications of this contract before we sign on. I'm very disappointed that the district has not provided a detailed analysis of cost. If they had, perhaps some of my fears would be allayed, rather than ballooning.

Some of us have been hoping that by using the term 'teacher case-load' we could get around the class-size law. I do see this maneuver as flawed, as some teachers teach five classes a day, and some three. (so capping a teacher's caseload at 125 would still mean the three-class-per-day teacher had more than 40 kids per class.) I'll cede this point though, if you'll cede the following:

We should know exactly how the budget is going to be modified, and how it is going to be sustainable as more and more teachers climb the pay-scale. If the new salary system really does work as advertised, it's going to cost quite a bit more than the initial $60 million over 3 years. In Denver, where one of the first Performance-Pay systems was implemented, the city voted in a $25 million mill-levy to ensure the system was sustainable.

I think we deserve to know the numbers before we vote, and while you are right that we cannot bargain for class-size directly, if class-size will be affected, then I don't want this contract.

You had said this will cost less than 5% of the budget, and someone else said 2%. Telling us how you got this number would be great, and I'd also like to know where that 2% or 5% is coming from elsewhere in the budget.

In an earlier post, you suggested that you knew quite a bit about the financing for the contract. S. Hoffman also suggested that all the financing was publicly available. Please do share, because this information, if it IS public, is pretty hard to find. (I've called and asked and looked online and called and asked at info-sessions... the only numbers I've gotten are the ones in the contract itself and those provided by Bill Bleich in his Op-Ed.) Perhaps you can answer some of the questions that keep me believing that this contract is a shell-game, and most teachers will actually make LESS money over the long-term.

Even something like Alonso saying, "Well, folks, we got rid of 500 North Avenue employees when I first arrived, and that was X amount, so I'd really like that money to go to teachers," would go a long way. So far, though, I've heard silence from BTU on this subject, and silence from North Avenue. So please do share what you know.

@ Vote no on principle
There is no bigger issue then the money. This is a teacher contract not a social change movement. This fight is about our compensation not about any of the issues being thrown around as diversion tactic on this board. Second your priorities are not my priorities. I do not value seniority. I do not want to be payed based on how many years I have survived in the system but rather on the quality of my work. If I work hard and am effective I want to be compensated on that. Finally, your last comments come off as rather racist and offensive. Relating major civil rights issues and events to our current contract dispute is also completely innapropriate. Again this is a simple negotiation about how we should be payed and you are trying to turn it into a fight over social and racial issues. I would rather keep the discussion where it belongs.

@ Bingham, Teacher, Anonymous
You made a list of issues and demands that you want but this contract meets all of those. This TA has more checks on administrative power then our current contract. It has more avenues for teachers to challenge and even gives us the protection where if admin can not back up their evaluations with scientific data to support it they can be invalidated. THis is a protection we do not currently have.

Your statements that voting yes is what "the union and city want" so they can get us somehow is not only misleading but it, once again, allows your bias and paranoia to shine through. The team that negotiated the tentative contract was comprised of teachers. They were US, as I have pointed out time and again, so stop trying to paint them as some foreign organization that is out to get teachers. You may not like what was negotiated and perhaps they chose a path you do not support, but they were looking out for what they thought was best for teachers in this city. Your character assasination of the team that did a lot of work to try to get the best deal for teachers is disgusting. I am a teacher in baltimore city and I have happy with the contract. As Nadine pointed out from what I see in the contract nothing about my job is going to change due to this new contract. The only thing that will be different is that I will be making more money to do exactly the same job that I am doing now. Why would I have a problem with that???

There are several other issues with that you said but honestly your bait and switch tactics are getting old. Nadine is trying to be dipomatic and I appreciate that but I am going to call you out for what you are doing. The topics you are bringing up are nonsense. You throw things out as a smokescreen and then when someone takes the bait and engages you, suddenly you have another totally different topic you have issues with. You bring up issues you know are not relevant or pertinent to this contract over and over again. I no longer feel there is any chance that this is due to your incompetence or lack of intelligence but is a tactic you are using to try to confuse, misinform, and scare others into achieving your utlimate goal which is to fight this contract on its principle. You have a problem with the idea of moving to an acheivment based system of pay instead of a senority based system. You have deep seeded issues of paranoia and mistrust of government and the BCPSS specifically. If you want to try to hold onto an outdated and failing system then do so but stand on your true feelings and issues. Stop trying to hide your motives behind propaganda and misinformed or intentionally misleading statements. I just hope your tactics and motives are as transparent to everyone else on here as they are to me. For my part I will continue to point out your lies everytime you come on here to throw them around, even after you have been told time and time again that your information is innacurate.

S. Hoffman - Thank you. I just hope everyone else sees that what Robin Bingham is talking about is scare tactics and nonsense.

@Hoffman: I'm completely on board with Robin. She's been the voice of reason on this issue from the start. If anybody's throwing out smokescreens and generalizations, it's you.

Don't let this blowhard get you down, Robin.

Let's go out there on Wednesday and tell everybody one more time that the BTU membership says NO!

Fellow BTU members,

Don't let Marietta English and her cronies pressure you into voting for this contract. We said NO once and we'll say NO again.

@Nadine and S. Hoffman
I'm surprised your last response was so angry, S.H-- I'm actually legitimately asking about the money, because I really want to know the details-- you say this info is publicly available. Where is it? Can you share all that you know on this board so that this becomes a more informed discussion? Knowing actual numbers would deflate or confirm a lot of my arguments. Calling me a liar for voicing my concerns just makes you appear irrational.

@ Educator
How exactly is English or anyone else trying to pressure you? Why such mistrust of the Union? Where exactly (and I want specifics) do you get your paranoia from? You are aware that the negotiating team for the Union was comprised of teachers from Baltimore City right? If English is the worst thing to ever happy to Baltimore teachers why did she get elected as BTU president? The most frustrating aspect of this whole discussion on the contract is that I know one of the negotiators for the teachers that was on the board. I trust them when they tell me the reasons behind much of what was negotiated. I also truly believe that this was the best they felt they could get for the teachers. The old system is not on the table. Baltimore City is not going to go for another senority based system. Once you reach that conclusion, that this new contract, whenever it is eventually ratified will be based on acheivement and increased accountability and not senority, you will see that this current proposal is pretty good. It offers significant protections. It offers us equal say and a platform to have input into how these new policies are put into action. We will have the ability to shape the way this is implemented. I completely understand why some would be concerned and have issues with moving away from a system then are very comfortable with and know how to work with. However, throwing around paranoid comments that inspire fear of the very people that are working to try to do what they feel is best for teachers is not productive. What I do know is that I can not afford to go the year without a step increase or sick leave conversion and I am very skeptical that if this does not pass we will get either this year. I also am convinced that whatever contract we eventually get will not be better for teachers then the current one. The City is not going to give up some of the things the "no" campaign is asking for. We can fight all we want but those issues are not on the table as far as they are concerned. If I thought we could get a better deal I would vote no, but we will not. Your job is not going to be any better if you vote no.

I wish there was a way to get you to believe it but I doubt you will but remember this 3 years from now. If we vote no on Wednesday, 3 years from now your job will not be any easier and the requirements and accountability you are fighting against will be there anyway but probably without you having any input into the process, and you will be getting payed less then you would if we had voted yes.

Voicing your concerns is not the problem. Voicing a laundry list of concerns that is impossibly long and most of which are not pertiment and have nothing to do with this contract is the problem. What happened to school lunches? I thought that was a big issue to you? Or wait, oh yea you have a problem with the evaluation process. The one that is currently waiting on the Governor to decide what to do about it and is completely out of our hands either way. But then again you talked about class sizes when law states we can not negotiate class sizes in a contract. Oh and there is nothing about air conditioning and heating in the contract, that was a big deal to you in one of your posts. When are you going to start bringing up the AU process and how vague and ill defined it is because for a while that was your big issue. Everytime one of your "issues" is dealt with and answered you have a new topic. This is nothing more then an old fashioned bait and switch tactic used over and over again to accomplish a political agenda. Furthermore, this type of strategy you are employing makes it impossible to have productive dialogue about the real issues. The real issues can not be dealt with when you will not admit what the real issue is. Of course that is the point of such a strategy.

Tenure and steps are in place for a reason. That reason is academic freedom. There are larger issues here. The fact that teachers haven't voted themselves a raise yet, should speak volumes. Congress routinely votes for their OWN raises. Personally, I don't want more federal government funds via Race To The Top, because they are contingent on certain parameters. In the City's case, it will be teacher evaluations tied to high-stakes test scores. I am a Baltimore City teacher and regret that I am forced to teach to the test. Now, the media, union, and Dept. of Education want to base our salary on how well we indoctrinate our youth. Appalling. Read John Taylor Gatto's eyeopening "Weapons of Mass Instruction."