@ BS Paper article Joint Governing Panel for teachers union contract announced raises query from district citizen/stakeholders.

To:Erica Green
Baltimore city school and Baltimore Teachers Union officials announced components of the applicant panel members of a joint governing body. Was the applicant panel truly established in the contract as reported?

The applicant members of the panel represent four educators interviewed and appointed by BTU, and four by the district as reported. Identify who are the components that made up the interview panel of representatives within the district school system. Were they operations executive officials/governance or school board members? When/Where do they begin meetings; this month in March and other future meetings. Are there any plans allowing for public open meetings. Is a public input weigh-in session component for parents/stakeholders participation being allowed by June 30?

In the March 2 focus group as follows:
What levels of experience in content areas and grade levels are the educator’s participating in the focus groups: clinicians, special educators, resource teachers, librarians and career technologists, as well as home-and-hospital teachers?

The "voices of the teachers are an excellent resource to define the AUs," said Violet Cousin of the BTU Teacher Center, who coordinated the sessions. "Educators feel validated about their practices when credence is given to their ideas."

Ok, 94K a year? Plus factor in almost 28% for fringe and you have this group costing the City over a million. A MILLION to evaluate AU's WHAT!

Where is the outrage and discussion. AAA makes principals send folks to Annapolis to fight for more cash and this is how we waste it.

Between this and the 2 weeks of MSA watching we're blowing over 1.5 MILLION!

In the meantime we have to prepare for cuts due to a budget crisis.

What happened to all the union rah rah on this board? You've got actual, real teachers working to figure out details on the signed contract, and the only comments are too much money and something incoherent about selection or something.

It's not my contract, but it seems like there were lots of comments about how the devil is in the details. Now you have representation from you union brethren, and there listening to actual teachers, and there are no shouts of joy? This is the very definition of a no win situation.

If you read the post you'll see this is not general funds money, but specifically RTT money. So teachers are removed from schools and either replaced (no $ impact) or not replaced (a cost savings I guess). As far as $ figures - seems that this work is super high profile and very important. Seems like something on the order of principal's pay level is in order.

$350,000 dollars to pay monitors to be sure I do not cheat. $94, 000 to a group to figure out the contract we blindly signed. Why would I or anyone work for a system who has so little faith or trust in me? I did not come to this job for a paycheck. I came with committment and idealism. I am looking elsewhere along with almost every excellent teacher I know. Given the economy and other constraints, all will not leave this year but the system has taken it's toll. Very sad indeed.

I agree with the post by "a Parent". I am a parent of two children in the school system and I have a number of friends athat are teachers in BCPS. I really don't understand what all the complaining is about. This is an opportunity for teachers to be paid as professional. All of the people chosen were teacher(not administrators), doesn't it make since that teachers will do what is best for teachers. I don't understand how other teachers can complain about the teachers making this great salary. They will be charged with the responsibility to create a process so that ALL teachers can get to that salary as well. My friends are all great teachers that work with other great teachers! They were excited about this new contract. It seems that the only ones that are complaining are the teachers that do the bare minimum and look forward to their raise every year.

Thought this might be of interest.

All of the members of the panel are not in fact teachers being pulled out of the classroom. I know a couple of them have been working at North Ave for a couple years. Please release the names of the members as well as the schools they're coming from.

Really this is a job worth 94K? You would be hard pressed to tell me these folks are going to be doing more than a classroom teacher or a variety of other positions in the schools. We are cutting our budgets and they toss around these numbers for people to simply evaluate provisions in the contract.

We are really a mess and even worse people simply lock in step with this stuff. AAA is challenged by nobody in this system. There is NO none zip zero critical thought or discussion.

Are memories so short? There were page after page of comments on this blog when it came to the new contract that could be summarized as "teacher evaluation is the most critical part of this contract and it hasn't been worked out yet - I can't sign this contract" Now when teacher evaluation criteria is being done - "the most important part of the contract" - there's whining about having to pay actual teachers (you know, your union brethren) to do it? Really?

@A Parent, Pay is not the issue;the amount of pay is the issue,no matter the source! Sytem, state or federal miney;it is all taxppayer money and more than most teachers earn. Actually, you could "buy" 2-3 teachers with the money. Many of the contract concerns of teachers are still concerns(not to be traslated as whining) Many teachers are still trying to get basic human resource information updated/corrected after as long as a year of trying.(updating certification, change of bank account,adding of test scores etc.) This was an issue as the contract now charges the same people to track AU's which are a big part of pay status. Some teachers were invited to the union office to offer expertise on how AU's would look for various specialty areas. This was "accomplished" in under two hours of scripted input with heavy handed guidance by someone who had no knowledge of the specialty area. Strictly paper shuffling so someone can say we were involved and someone can submit notes and an agenda.

I once liked reading the thoughts of a parent because we don't have that discourse on this board much and yours were always fair abd thoughtful.Of late your posts have gotten critical and snippy. I would hope you would revert to the collaborative contributions you were making which gave me hope for improved parent-staff communications and work. I think we are all working for the same goals.

A Parent,

What is described in this blog has nothing to do with evaluations but, rather, AUs. That *was* one of the big issues of the contract -- that AUs hadn't been defined yet and, indeed, they still aren't. There's movement towards that, though. Evaluations are a separate issue altogether.

@Epiph - thanks for the clarification. I've commented very little on contract issues since it's not my issue as it's not my contract and I've never belonged to a union (though Pete Seeger and union songs make up a great deal of my CD collection). whatever, it makes me sad that used to be a simple support teachers = support the union has now become much more complicated. I will try to hold my tongue on this issue in the future. As far as tone of comments on this blog, if there were a balanced set of commentators I would get less defensive. Probably the smartest thing for me to do would be quit posting as most of the more balanced commenters have. I'll give it a shot.

@elisabeth--
I would really like to hear more about exactly what process was utilized for the AU-per-specialty-area decision making. This was both one of the areas I most worried about in the new contract (as it was the least defined) and one of the areas I had the most hope for. I really liked the idea of teacher-input at all levels. Most of us never even heard this process was happening when it did, so obviously most teachers were not allowed into the process. Even if it were by invitation only, I would be fine with those involved being highly esteemed teachers in the field, people who are respected and knowledgeable.

But what you describe sounds like there was no care and thought and deliberation at all put into something that is going to affect us so deeply and for so long. This sounds extremely cynical, and it surprises even me, who came out pretty fervently against the contract.

Please elaborate on what you describe as 'paper shuffling.' If this is true, I am very disappointed in my union.

nibor2000@gmail.com