I attended a meeting of 'Teachers Very Angry about the New Contract' the other day. I was asked to by my Building Union Rep (who wanted to go, because he is similarly ambivalent to the contract as I am), as well as this big gun in from NYC (the BTU has apparently hired a union firm from NYC to try to get this thing passed). They've tracked my thoughts on this blog, and on InsideEd, and knew I was someone who was kind of 'convinced' of the merits of the contract throughout the 2 week timespan. However, I talk about the contract all the time, and also see and discuss its deficiencies. Privately (until now), I'm kind of glad I didn't have to make up my mind and vote for it last Thursday.
So I went to the meeting. There, I felt a little like a spy, until I got there, and realized that the vast majority of the teachers there were like me -- people with solid reservations about the contract, but see some merits in it. One guy even announced that he'd been sent there by the union, like me. I'm sure there were more.
Still, I quickly didn't feel bad about being there because, even though I'm an optimist, as were many of the people there, I still recognize that this thing has some holes in it. It needs to be fixed before I'll vote 'Yes'.
On this blog, upon making the decision I liked the contract, I said I would have voted for it; however, now I'm not so sure. First, rewarding the union and North Avenue for presenting a poorly-defined and rushed contract by voting it in in 2 weeks just doesn't seem like good precedent. It's good to be suspicious of things done in a rush like this. As it is, I am now happy that the contract did not pass. I like that both sides seem to be trying to define the terms of the contract (which, as it's written, seems ripe for corruption) more.
Here is why I am glad it did not pass:
1) AUs (Achievement Units) still aren't defined at all, except for taking courses. If these are the check against getting a Satisfactory evaluation, or the tool a teacher gets to move to the next salary level, they need to be defined more before I sign off on the contract.
2) "Model Teachers" aren't defined at all. The carrot of being a "model teacher" is the only benefit of the contract for me (otherwise, I get a tiny raise of $200 or so, plus the signing bonus), and I want it - bad. It would mean a significant raise. Since this is pretty much the only benefit of the new contract for a good teacher in the middle of his career (and, don't get me wrong -- it's a significant one), this needs to be defined.
3) The way that principals will get teachers now that they couldn't do before would be to give lots and lots of 'Satisfactory', instead of 'Proficient', evaluations. Currently, 11 of 14 of the teachers in my department, for example, get 'Proficient' evaluations every year. I think they probably all deserve it. I feel like the new contract, which will put principals in effective charge of a raise or not because a 'Satisfactory' means only 9 AUs instead of 12 (the raise), allows them more of a chance to mess with teachers who, for example, confirm to a parent that, yes, he did threaten to beat up your kid in front of me, yes, your kid is telling the truth (yes, that happened to me, and, yes, my life was turned into a type of hell for a couple years after). Therefore, there needs to be language in the contract about being able to grieve a Satisfactory evaluation if one is handed down. Currently (I believe), teachers can only grieve unsatisfactory evaluations.
4) In the new contract, Building Reps can be transferred at the CEO's will. According to someone at this meeting, Marietta English didn't even know this was in the contract when he confronted her about it. This seems a pretty big deal (the building rep at our school, plus the rest of the union chapter committee, was involuntarily transferred from our school about 4 years ago because they were calling the principal to task... Dr. Alonso came into the that summer and re-instated them after a swell of protest), and I'd like to see this (yes, relatively minor) clause out of the contract to provide the union building rep more protection. I see the union building rep as an important check against administrator power in the new contract.
5) There needs to be language about Total Class Load in the new contract. Let's hold administrators and Dr. Alonso accountable to getting enough teachers in the classrooms and lowering the numbers. Show us that you're willing to give something, too, something that will be good for the students.
6) How about we make the negotiations more transparent? Some school systems have negotiations televised. Let's see/hear what is happening.
I do not question Dr. Alonso's motivation for this new contract. I sincerely believe that he wants what is best for the students. However, he does not control the money. When he first came to the city, he said he would have a book in every kid's hand. I've still never had enough textbooks. It's not Dr. Alonso's fault, but I worry the new contract (with, if done fairly, will increase many teachers' salaries significantly) will make schools lose teaching positions (which is why the Total Class Load is important). If that clause is not possible, there needs to be guarantees that teacher positions are not eliminated because of the new contract.
Define some parts of this vague contract, tweak a couple parts, and I'll vote Yes.
Devolution
-
I’m in this glorious Cannes realm, surrounded by devout Catholics. And then
there’s the outside world, the real world, the Jason Sudekis-Jennifer
Aniston w...
27 minutes ago
5 comments:
Please tell me WHY secret meetings like this keep happening, firms are brought in at great expense, colored flyers on high quality paper are distributed saying NOTHING,but most teacher still know nothing more!!!!! Further, if you write to the union as instructed, you get emails written in texting jargon telling you nothing. We need a riot about the way this is going down.
I don't think the meeting was secret; it wasn't a union meeting and they're trying to spread the word. However, I signed up on the sign-in sheet and have yet to receive an e-mail with our list of 'demands' that was supposed to go the press and such.
I believe there will be a movement to be at the School Board meeting on Tuesday night. This group will be meeting again on Monday evening at 5pm (don't know where... that was supposed to come in the e-mail that, for some reason, hasn't been sent yet) to plan their protest.
One issue is that Marietta English is anti-technology and doesn't really return e-mails. Notice she wasn't even the one to send out the e-mails about the contract, but someone else did. Just look at the BTU website for their (non)attention to technology.
I feel like the union is weak and that national reform movements are recognizing this, which is why there is so much $$ and attention being aimed at this vote.
I still think the contract has some good parts but I'm growing increasingly unhappy with how it's all happening. I continue to lose faith in our local BTU folks.
If the meeting was not secret, how does a teacher in the trenches get invited? If the meetings are not publicized as open union meetings how do we get information? Other than rumor, teachers have no more information now than they had on the ratification day.
The BTU staff is a mess. They are nonresponsive, write in poor English and answer no questions. Like most professionals I know, I appreciate the progressive aspects of the contract but there are too many unanswered questions for any intelligent person to possible trust the board and the BTU to work out.
How will teachers without a group of tested students be evaluated? How will they advance?
I recently observed an administrator drive a new teacher out of a job. No one else in the school agreed...no one...but the principal got his/her way. Much too subjective for me.
You are right about the union and technology. All you need to do is look at the pitiful website.
So we have an expensive PR firm from NYC and we have full color, glossy flyers but lack bare essentials at schools, have increasing class sizes, are losing positions at many schools but have money to squander trying to sell a poor contract to a bunch of teachers they are hoping are too dumb to figure it all out. End of tirade. You do a great job!
It wasn't a union meeting, so the union would not have publicized it at all. It was an anti-BTU meeting.
You're not going to find out about how teachers of non-tested (or even of tested) subjects will be evaluated because the state will determine that, not the city.
Post a Comment