I think the more important question is what will the impact be for the students? Public education needs to focus on what is best for students and forget all the politics.

Is losing a veteran 10+ year teacher to a brand new inexperienced teacher ideal? When we're in an education crisis, which I think it is safe to say we are, shouldn't we focus on what is ideal for the students rather than how we can snip dollars?

So I guess all of City School's words, that having an inexperienced teacher is the worst thing to do to a student, were just noise. And I guess all the concerns whether the new contract was actually funded were justified.

It's all about the kids. Oh, right, what was I thinking?

They should bring in people from successful school systems and make all the administrators reinterview for their positions. If they are not qualified to work in another school system they should loose their jobs.

"They should bring in people from successful school systems and make all the administrators re interview for their positions. If they are not qualified to work in another school system they should loose their jobs."

Who would want to leave their job in a successful school system, re interview for the same position, and not be guaranteed to get said position? This reasoning makes no sense.

Also who would want to leave a successful system to go work in a system as broken as Baltimore City. I know how broken it is as I worked there for 5 years with nothing to show for it except gray hair and stress. After working less than 2 years in a "successful" school system (there is no way to qualify that term) I still have the gray hair, but no stress and enjoy coming to and doing my job the best I can everyday.

Why are we at the point of coming up with drastic measures to try to save money when we're still talking about going to Annapolis to get our funding back? Once this kind of offer is made people are going to stop feeling secure in their jobs and start looking elsewhere. Also this is going to result in much larger class sizes across the board. How is that an OK thing to put forward when we haven't reached the end of the line?

I'm confused.

So we were promised that they could afford the new contract, now all of the sudden we're buying out teachers at 75% of their salary and I keep hearing rumors about a reduction in force.

Sounds like they want to afford this contract by any means necessary... So tired of this den of thieves.

Finally we are back into the blog swing of things!

Okay now where to begin:

1) I am still confused about the 75% thing - is that 75% of 1 years salary paid over a few years or is it 75% paid each year. And what about health insurance - just asking

2) As to which is better - a new teacher or a 10 year vet, I can't say. All I can saw is that a new teacher is new and a 10 year vet has, well 10 years or more of experience. What matters is what type of progress students are making with that teacher. I don't personally give a rats butt about years of experience, I care more about getting rid of teachers who cannot seem to move kids forward. I believe that the new contract is designed to address some of the question of how we measure, but as with all things that have a whiff of politics, the powers that be leave the details out and just give us grand ideas. I am interested in seeing how this is all spelled out.

3) One must wonder how much is really saved when someone with 15 years of experience leaves, getting paid their salary for NOT working and someone new is hired and gets their salary too. How does that save money? Not sure, but I would love to see the details and the numbers.

4) And one must also wonder what type of teachers are going to take advantage?

@ BC - " As to which is better - a new teacher or a 10 year vet" - Having lived through both, I would take the latter. The problem is that there are a few who have one year of experience and nine years of repeatition. Those I can do without.

I would like to hear more about who the target of this offer is. For the majority, after ten years in teaching makes you mid-to-late thirties. Retirement, I think not. Is this just a setup for layoffs. The offer was made, not enough takers, drop the hacket.

I have also read that the deficient is really over $70 million not $17 million. Is that true?

Those of us that were around during the Russo era remember that deficient was blamed on spending for programs that the system could not afford. Is the current CEO falling into the same trap?

@BC

1) The deal is 75% of one year's salary, paid out over 5 years, not 5 years' worth of 75% salary (I had the same question myself!).

2) That sounds like an argument to allow effectiveness to be a factor in determining layoffs rather than seniority.

3) A teacher with 15 years experience is making about $65,000 on average. 75% of that is about $49,000, which would be a little less than $10,000 per year paid to a non-working teacher. A new teacher next year will make a little under $47,000. So the cost of the new teacher + the money paid to the retired teacher works out to about $56,500, saving the district almost $9,000. That's $3 million in savings for 350 teachers and about $6.4 million for 750 teachers. Roughly roughly roughly.

4) We'll see, I guess!

I'm a bit confused here. We have a budget crisis so we need to get teachers to take early retirement. If we have a budget crisis, where are they going to get the money for all of those six figure salaries the new contract promises dynamic, master teachers?

I was at the union this afternoon and a union person told me that the payout is 75% of your salary for each of five years! Now which is it? Can we get some straight answers? Simon-help! Also, can we buy medical insurance @ a group rate? This is sometimes done in buyouts.

This needs to be re-phased. This is not an offer to enter retire early but a prelude to layoffs. Are there enough 62 year old, 30 years of service teachers in BCPSS to make this offer viable?

Simon:

Thanks for clarifying on the big money question. Too bad, I would take the deal if it were the other way and I guess I could save the system both money and the headaches that come with me being in the system:-)

As for #2, yes, you are correct. I am in fact saying that people shouldn't keep their jobs just because they have been around a long time, but rather because they are doing a good job. I know, I know, crazy talk. Reward people who are doing a good job? Fire people who aren't doing a good job? INSANE. Actually people in other places are taking this on and even here in Md. we have Wild Bill F to thank for bringing this up at the political level. Let's take a look at what they are doing in those places as a model for how we might take this on. Any heck, as long as I am dreaming, how about the union getting ahead on this one. Oh, and I want to ride a Unicorn. I know, I know, only one of those has a chance - where's my saddle?

I would really like to see the BS do some digging so that we could know what the deficit is, how many teachers are currently suspended with pay (and if the "investigative" unit might get off their butts and move these folks either back into the classrooms or out of the system, hmmmm might we save some money here?) and how many people are being rated unsatisfactory. I head that there's a school where 16% of the teachers are on that list and that's a high number. How can it be that less than 16% of teachers are unsatisfactory anywhere, let alone here?

Boy I hope people are engaging here again. I miss Sarah...

Well I can tell you there will be more cutting done over the next year. AAA and his cronies are hard at work figuring out ways to move people out. The system is now orientated on a deficit culture, looking at teachers as problems unless they are instantly amazing. No time to develop, just toss them aside. Have a bad year and need time off, you'll be tracked and dismissed.

As the COS said "they wanted this contract now they are going to have to live with it".

Principals have been put on notice to activly move people out of the system. PIP and evaluate out, one year is all it will take. Rate your staff Satisfactory and scores are not up, principal is at fault and needs to go. Observe, evaluate and dismiss is the new staff development cycle being pushed in BCPSS. Heck they called out principals who are good at "getting rid of teachers" at the last principals meeting. COS bragged she was "spending her summer" making a PBES system that "would help exit teachers".

It's a sad day for me because I always thought as teachers we are always learning and growing. Guess in BCPSS if you're not perfect yet, you need to go.

People who are working to hurt kids should go ( I think it's the vast minority 2%), but subpar teachers who are willing to try need to be coached. Good leaders have that obligation to those in their care. We've neglected staff development for 10 years and they act shocked some folks are not performing. The work is hard and I'd take a middle of the road vet who is invested over a shiney new teacher coming in for a brief stint before moving to greener pastures.

Anyone who is willing to try every day is worth the investment in PD and support. 90% of our schools don't provide real PD or support for their teachers. As a teacher you make it or don't; replace rather than develop.

Trust me, we will be in trouble building a system that depends on a revolving door of new teachers (we're already trying it and it's only going to intesify). Sure new teachers are cheaper but they create instability within a school that hurts kids. The energy argument for new teachers pushed by many is smoke and mirrors. If you have more than 20% of your building in their first three years; or cycle out more than 20% a year you're flirting with chaos.

This is not a system for a principal who believes in teaching and learning. Time to bow out and go someplace that believes in growing people and developing all who enter the school.

Good luck folks, this principal has some principles. oh and for those theorists who have zero time leading in this city but know it all, feel free to read anything by Sergiovonni to understand the moral obligation of school leadership.

@Poof

I'd really like to hear more of what you have to say. It's good to hear the voice of a principal in this mix.

Ha, already said to much. I'm sure the cronies are trying to figure out who I am. Luckly we keep adding schools to the lineup (not many are doing great) and we replace principals non-stop. I'm not sure they know who half the people in the schools actually are. Hell I've been around a log time and I don't.