Teachers, parents, City residents: join us at the Baltimore Education Coalition rally Monday 2/28 in Annapolis to tell our Gov and legislators NO to state cuts for Baltimore. Go to www.becforourkids.org for info or to register.

I spoke with my principal about renegotiating the monies for the contract, and putting it into the schools, particularly given this shortfall. He said that Race to the Top, federal money, has to go for new programs, i.e. including new contract I guess. This shortfall has to do with less state and district money. And Baltimore City is hit harder than other districts because of our smaller tax base. Could you comment on this and the possibility that this could be revisited particularly in this critical time?

The Race to the Top Money was not to be used for the new contract, except in the form of stipends IF we signed it. So that argument is irrelevant. Wouldn't Alonso have been aware of possible shortfalls in the budget, since this has been happening statewide and nationally, since 2008? While the fight over the contract was going on, states across the country were declaring teacher layoffs. I can't imagine this decision was made without the knowledge of this shortfall.

I know people are probably tired of talking about the contract, so I promise I'll be brief.

I think people are conflating two similar but different problems when they link the new contract and the budget shortfall. I haven't seen anything to suggest that the two are actually related though. Just to clarify, the budget shortfall is caused by changes to the Thornton Formula. The General Assembly uses a model known as Thornton formula to determine how much education funding each LEA gets, and the formula factors in the size and wealth of a district. State level changes in how the formula is computed are leading to more money for some districts and less money for us. The contract passed by the city teachers in November probably made the assumption that the Thornton model wouldn't change. It seems like the funding is a state issue and the contract is a city issue - just because they both affect our financial bottom line doesn't mean they are causally related. Yes, the contract is something the district is spending money on, but it's not the only new initiative, so it can't be the only thing that's responsible. No one is blaming the expansion of Pre-K for the budget gap, so that leads me to think that people who don't like the contract are using it as a scapegoat for budget woes.

All told though, I really want to reiterate my earlier opinion that this isn't about the contract. It's about a loss of funding that could really hurt our schools. We're seeing increases in enrollment and making important gains, and those are in jeopardy. Please everyone who is reading this, come to the rally on February 28th - there are a ton of buses leaving from several cit y schools locations.

But at least we're not Detroit. http://huff.to/i3XvWm

@Nadine

Thorton changes only represent 15million of the 72million shortfall. The remainder is structural and inflationary issues with the baltimore budget.

The contract is a 68million hit, that's at least what the system has put out there.

This discussion should be foremost about what is best for kids. Teachers are suddenly making big bucks off an unproven contract that costs more than the old one, and then Alonso is trying to get rid of experienced teachers (FOREVER) in favor of new and inexperienced ones. The state budget cuts mean the possibility of raising class sizes across the city because of the loss of 2-5 teachers at every school.

Why would people not call into question the recently signed contract or any other costly measure? Parents and students should be able to discuss how our budget is put together and what should get priority. We (families) have the biggest stake in this game. But we don't even have an elected school-board, and as far as I can tell, the budget is not available for honest and open public discussion. Instead, arguments like Nadine's-- "well, that's DIFFERENT money, so it's irrelevant" cloud the issue of what makes a quality school.

Everyone should be getting on those buses as NVC says, but we should not try to separate pots of money in order to avoid an honest discussion of priorities, either.

Deciding a budget is a matter of priorities, and the priorities should drive a discussion of the entire budget, not just one pot at a time. Following Nadine's argument is akin to a household looking to cut expenses deciding not to spend less on clothes because that's DIFFERENT money than what we spend on rent. The whole budget needs to be looked at as part of the discussion of priorities, but this has so far not been allowed to happen.

My impression is business interests seem to be trumping the interests of quality education for all kids as notable in Alonso's announcement that he'd be politely showing veteran teachers the door in order to close the budget gap.

What makes a quality education? We should look at the types of schools that turn out the best students, and the types of teachers that teach in those schools. Those schools have small classes and give teachers who are innovative and excited about their jobs time to plan innovative and exciting lessons. These teachers aren't generally 22, (although there is a mix that includes 22-year-olds) and they usually have just a few kids they can focus on, and time to think and plan, rather than no time and 35+ kids in a class.

Most of the 'innovation' I've seen in Alonso's BCPSS seems to be business-oriented, not kid-oriented, and a series of cost-saving measures. (new contract included-- even though it is more expensive immediately, I predict that over the next ten years, salaries will be depressed by the Evaluation-tied pay-scale)

Just a quick comment about class size because it does often go up when budgets get cut.

The main research that indicates that lower class size makes a difference came out of TN and was only in the tested in the lower elementary grades and the class size had to be down between 12 -14 to make a difference, and this is never what happens. There is no evidence that a class of 18 does better than a class of 24. Or even that a class of 24 does better than a class of 30. It may make a teacher fell less overwhelmed, but in terms of learning, we have no evidence that an expensive intervention like class size reduction truly is worth the money spent on it.

What happened in California when they tried to do class size reduction is that they needed so many new teachers that they took marginally qualified ones. While it is not a good choice to have to make, I'd rather have an exemplary teacher with 35 kids, than an exemplary teacher with 17 kids and the other 18 kids with someone who is marginal.

I am not even going to get into the argument about what money is coming from where because its a chicken or the egg type deal. It is all just money and it does come from the same pot, tax dollars. But, why is the prevailing thought always that if there is a budget problem public servants should bear the brunt? We have been lowering corporate tax rates in this country for 30 years without reducing services and now we wonder why there is a budget crisis? Come on? And raising taxes back to levels that could sustain a balanced budget never becomes an option? Why? Why should a small segment of the population that is not overpayed by any means be asked to bear the brunt of this burden? Everyone should share in this. We did not create this mess and I am insulted that a mass movement in this nation today seems to think I should be held responsible for bearing the cost of fixing it. Teachers are not hacks off the streets asked to babysit our children. We are required to get undergraduate degrees, masters degrees, state certification licenses, and continue our education with 6 credits and countless professional developments every 5 years just to remain certified by the state. You ask all of that from us, but then want to treat us like we are not professionals. I have to pay laons on the undergrad and graduate degrees. I have rent and car payments like everyone else. My utilities bills are through the roof just like yours all are. I do not have that much disposable income. This raise for next year will finally allow me to stop living paycheck to paycheck and worry every year about the prospect that if I do not find a good summer job my money could run out before my next paycheck hits in the fall. (We do not get payed for the summer, contrary to popular belief). I may finally get to save some money and begin to process of maybe owning my own home some day. I am not that young anymore. I am tired of scraping by. I have multiple post secondary degrees that I worked very hard for. Why am I treated like a pauper? Why should I have to give up my dream that if I work hard as a public servant trying to educate children that I can at least save enough money that if my car breaks down I can afford to fix it and not worry about paying the rent that month? Do you people want good teachers or just whoever you can find that is willing to work for the scraps you have left over after you gut the budget? I am too tired to picture myself living day to day any longer. I just can't do it anymore.

For once, S. Hoffman, I agree with you completely. Why in the big huge education reform debate is the disparity between wealthy districts and poor ones not brought up, not even once? Why do schools get their budgets out of property taxes, and not as part of the investment that our country makes into its own future, an investment taken from all taxes, and pooled equitablty?

At the same time, I feel like budgets are always discussed piece-meal, and often in order to avoid serious discussions about priorities that might jeapordize one interest group or another. Who loses? The kids.

@ Michelle, the following article about class-size, which ran in Washington Post's Answer Sheet in October should put your argument to rest. If class size is not an issue, why is it that there are no private schools with class sizes over 25? And the best ones seem to keep their class-sizes below 20 most of the time. Good teaching requires good relationships, and quantity and quality in this case are mutually exclusive.

Read the article. It's short and very informative:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/class-size/7-class-size-myths----and-the.html

Robin Bingham