(I am wondering if they are trying to press the union to take the salary schedule out of the current contract.)
I just went to my last blog and cut and pasted this parenthetical statement I made when I was explaining how our contract as teachers is not for one year but it is for 15 years one year at a time as a function of the Washington K-12 Salary Allocation Schedule being adopted as Appendix A in our Collective Bargaining Agreement. Guess what? No more.
Just like you I received in the mail the Summary of SPS proposals today August 15th. I read the whole piece as I hope you are all doing and it was much the same as can be found elsewhere. The union is making an issue out of tying teacher evaluations to student test scores. From my perspective the greater violations are occurring in what is not being agreed to before bringing either the SPS or the SEA proposal before the membership. These significant violations can be found in what the SPS is calling reopeners. I think this means that after we ratify the contract, the SPS and the SEA can in post ratification times agree to these things without the vote of the membership. These alone are worth striking for.
1. In the event that it chooses to hire new teaching staff through alternative organizations such as Teach for America, SPS reserve the right to reopen this Agreement for renegotiation to bargain the effects of such a decision, as required by law.
Teach for America is the brain child of the federal government to, get this, hire college graduates out of schools with no teaching credentials and put them into schools as teachers for 2 years. Something like the peace corps or something like that. This whole program is unconscionable somehow believing that fresh college grads in their fields of interest can or will be effective teachers and should somehow get first shot at open teaching jobs. First of all this an absolute insult to all colleges of education and all teacher education programs. Second of all allowing districts to hire uncredentialed persons in credentialed fields is like allowing anatomy students to come in and play doctor. What about all of the kids who have committed to gaining credentials and will ultimately, I presume, cost the district's more money? What is the incentive to ever hire and train new teachers. With teach for America you could roll untrained college students through the system every year and as they fell off like flies replace them with a new crop and maybe hold on to a couple who by happenstance turn out to be natural born teachers. Teach For America is the absolute most insidious undoing and blatantly largest insult against teachers and teaching professionals of all time. SAY NO to TEACH FOR AMERICA teachers. Send these good souls to Ghana. Professional teachers only for American public schools.
2. SPE reserve the right to reopen this Agreement for renegotiation to discuss adoption of the Washington K-12 Salary Allocation Schedule for Certificated Instruction Staff and adjusting TRI payments so that employees maintain the same level of total compensation.
Well there it is, as promised. This SSD bargaining unit has told our SEA bargaining unit that they can forget about adopting the Salary schedule. This alone makes these negotiations a non-starter. The salary schedule is the basis of the teacher's professional career with the steps and salary increases that they merit according to who, THE STATE of WASHINGTON, that's who and the SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT is saying NOPE. Only if we say so.
This is not good faith or any kind of reasonable bargaining. The Goodloe-Johnson administration has to be removed. The school board has to be turned out and replaced with a school board which respects its employees and their collective bargaining agency.
I frankly don't think, at least for me, there is much more to talk about. If these Reopeners are not resolved which deny the district the opportunity to staff through alternative organizations and the district does not agree to adopt the Washington State K-12 Salary Allocation Schedule there is simply NOTHING to TALK ABOUT.
SHMUEL
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Educational Reform on the CHEAP: It's the Salary Schedule that we're talking about.
The other day by school email we all received notice from Don Kennedy that there would be no step increases in the coming year because the district couldn't afford it and the only thing that may prevent that from happening is that the district might be prevented from doing that by the collective bargaining agreement. When we asked Olga Addae about this email she said that it was not in reference to the certified staff and it was only relevant to those who were not represented by the SEA. That doesn't make any sense. Don Kennedy said straight out that it was his intent to prevent the step increases unless the collective bargaining agreement prevented him from doing so. Apparently, Don Kennedy and the current SSD administration doesn't really understand that they can not act independently outside a collective bargaining agreement like they do in South Carolina where there are no unions. Don Kennedy intended to stop the step increases of all certified staff. He found a way to save the district money by stopping the step increases in the teacher negotiated contract. Ok, let's talk money since this is really all about MONEY.
You know I keep on calling out Michelle Rhea, the DC superintendant, as the poster child of union busting teacher blaming school reform. But I have to let you know that Goodloe-Johnson is going to one up Michelle Rhea. She's going to bust the union on the CHEAP. If your not following the story in Washington D.C. part of the offer that Michelle Rhea made to teachers who signed on to the new contract, making teachers compete with one another, is that the good teachers would be paid $100,000.00. I'm not really sure of the details and I know that she got private financing to afford the offer but at least she had the courage to truly Value her educators who could do the work for her and the DC school district. Let's look at the VE of the district's SERVE proposal; Support, Empower, Recognize and Value Educators.
Value: How exactly am I being valued? From what I understand if I join SERVE this year I am valued an increase of 1% on my salary and in the second year of the contract another 1%. And if I don't join SERVE, which is v0luntary I will get no increase in my salary throughout the terms of the contract. I guess in this regard this means the only Educators who are Valued are those who join SERVE now. (I think this money might all be going to TRI and not the base salary but you'd have to check me on that.) This increase of 1% in two consecutive years will perhaps makeup for the loss of the two LID days paid for by the state. So in fact if we don't join SERVE today we will be making less money during this contract. Net ahead for the district. Net behind for the teaching corps. I don't feel VALUED by either the size of the raise 1% in an environment of 3% annual inflation nor do I feel VALUED by having a gun put to my head to VOLUNTEER to join SERVE so that I can get a little, very little more money to feed my family. What about the R of the district's SERVE proposal? Maybe I will gain VALUE through being recognized.
Recognized: I think the way the district wants to RECOGNIZE me for my excellent teaching is to provide me with stipends and a title for becoming either a Demonstration, Mentor or Master teacher. Yeh. But now let's really look at how the Goodloe-Johnson administration intends to get on the cheap, busting the union and making teachers compete with each other, which at least Michelle Rhea was going to pay me $100,000.00. I think for a $100,000.00 I might consider putting myself in competition with the rest of my fellow teachers to prove that I am the best and most effective teacher but what is Goodloe-Johnson offering me to betray the trust and collaborative spirit that dwells in an environment where Money is not the focus but children and their well being are. Let me see and I frankly don't know or even care about the real numbers but I think for a demonstration teacher I get a $2,500.00 stipend, for a Mentor teacher, a $3,200. stipend and a master teacher a $5,200.00 stipend. Woohoo. Can't you see the dollar signs ringing up in my eyes. This is truly on the cheap. But here I have a suggestion and in making this suggestion I hope to clarify how a Certified Staff Collective Bargaining Agreement is made so you will understand how crucial it is that you stand behind your union now and help them succeed in these negotiations when everywher in the nation, the city and the local news they are viewed as the primary impediment to good education.
Steve Puliken, the previous Executive Director of the SEA, who shepherded over many years of peaceful and collaborative relationships with the SSD in pre- Goodloe-Johnson days, said to me once, "I think the stupidest thing we have is 15 steps to get to the highest pay grade in the teaching field. I think there should only be five." If you have ever taken the time to read your collective bargaining agreement, you would find in appendix A, the Seattle Public Schools Certificated Non-Supervisory Salary Schedule. When Olga Addae was saying that what Don Kennedy was referring to was non representated staff, she was referring to the fact that as part of our Bargain we attach the Salary Schedule which shows what every certificated staff is paid at every level of education and every level of experience (Step). This means that Don Kennedy can't just arbitrarily stop the STEP increases because the Salary Schedule is an agreed upon addendum to the contract. What is agreed upon can not be changed. (I am wondering if they are trying to press the union to take the salary schedule out of the current contract.)
So let me explain the difference between a teacher's year to year (semi-guaranteed contract) versus say a similar contract in the business world. First of all outside of union work there is no guaranteed step increases over a 15 year duration and even in most union shops you will not see anything out 15 years. Why you may ask? Well, putting aside the fact that this schedules are really driven by the design of the salary schedule established by the legislature to pay teachers on the basis of education (currently under attack at the state level) and the basis of experience (currently under attack in these contract negotiations) what is the most striking about the salary schedule is to try to compute the average salary a teacher would make over the life of a 15 year contract. Given most professionals start at about 60K in the business world, let's see what a teacher's salary would be on average over 15 years. Using the BA plus 45 credit hours plus an MA (which probably represents $150,000.00 investment in a state school system) as the entry level salary including TRI the beginning salary is $50,062.00. Presuming you get at least another 45 credit hours so you are BA plus 90 and a masters the ending salary would be 70, 718.00. The average salary over 15 years is approximately $60,000.00. That makes this profession paying an average of the entry level professional salary for most other professions if and only if you work for 15 years. Other professions 15 years in are making deep into six figures. But okay, we're teachers were not in it for the money. So what is this all about?
The negotiations currently going on between the district and the union are all about THE SALARY SCHEDULE. The district wants to hire you AT WILL with no guarantee of a 15 year contract and the union wants to hold the district responsible to keeping you hired if after 5 years you prove yourself a competent teacher that they keep you on for the next 10 years so you can get the average salary. If the district is able to hire and fire at will then this salary schedule which is negotiated into our contract is meaningless and the promise of a future of improved income is contingent on an evaluation system. This is what we call seniority. We protect teachers who can make it through the steps to be given a continuiing certificate and try to secure for them an employment where they can get married, have children and afford a house and ultimately retire.
I understand what Steve Pulkinnen was telling me. 15 steps is an infinately long time to earn the highest salary you are ever going to get as a teacher so it would be better if we just got to it in five steps over say a ten year period. This would change the dynamic of education a lot but let me tell you, the district and not anyone is going to get you to the highest salary in shorter than fifteen years, that would be too expensive. So this salary schedule is going to stay in place and not be even impacted by the new titles of recognition; demonstration, Mentor and Master teacher. In order to get to the highest pay as a teacher despite your success in being evaluated you are still going to have to work for 15 years. Now this truly doesn't make any sense. If the new goal is to become a Master teacher, which means that you've made it regardless of education and regardless of experience isn't that the time you should be paid at the top of the Salary Schedule. Hey, young teachers, just think of it you are so good you get back these spectacular evaluations, you become a master teacher, you get to share your skills with all of those dinosaurs and Guess What the district is going to pay you at the highest level. NOT.
So please understand this is all about the salary schedule and giving the district the ability to hire and fire teachers AT WILL without any protections from the collective bargaining agreement. And if you think the district won't look at high paid employees and say, hmm, I think we can save some money by getting those old dinosaurs out of the way, think again. You just saw Don Kennedy try to strip you of your STEP.
On the other hand if Goodl0e-Johnson wanted to be generous and say to all of us. Here's what I'm going to do. If you join serve and become a demonstration teacher whereever your at you'll make no less than $65,000.00 and if you make it to Mentor teacher you will make no less than $85,000.00 and if you make it to Master teacher you will make no less than $100,000.00. Well you know for that kind of contract I just might put on my running shoes and compete with all of my fellow teachers, but for a $5,200.00 stipend? For these kinds of dollars I think I'd rather keep the collaborative nature of our business and let Goodloe-Johnson go back out to her business friends and see whether she can rustle up the hundred's of millions of dollars in permanent private financing that it would take to make such an offer. And even Bill Gates is not in this for the long term with his money. Just the short term, long enough to transform schools to small schools until that reform movement self destructed, and just long enough to destroy our union, our only protection against all the forces that today, are mistakenly blaming the Teachers for the failure of the public schools. There are lots of problems in the public schools but starting off to solve them by stripping teachers of their defenses against the uncertainty of market forces is certainly the wrong way to go about it and if they succeed it will take many years to repair the damage it will do and in the mean time many committed and excellent teachers will have been shown the door because they just weren't magicians and couldn't resolve all the problems in society that came into their classroom.
SHMUEL
You know I keep on calling out Michelle Rhea, the DC superintendant, as the poster child of union busting teacher blaming school reform. But I have to let you know that Goodloe-Johnson is going to one up Michelle Rhea. She's going to bust the union on the CHEAP. If your not following the story in Washington D.C. part of the offer that Michelle Rhea made to teachers who signed on to the new contract, making teachers compete with one another, is that the good teachers would be paid $100,000.00. I'm not really sure of the details and I know that she got private financing to afford the offer but at least she had the courage to truly Value her educators who could do the work for her and the DC school district. Let's look at the VE of the district's SERVE proposal; Support, Empower, Recognize and Value Educators.
Value: How exactly am I being valued? From what I understand if I join SERVE this year I am valued an increase of 1% on my salary and in the second year of the contract another 1%. And if I don't join SERVE, which is v0luntary I will get no increase in my salary throughout the terms of the contract. I guess in this regard this means the only Educators who are Valued are those who join SERVE now. (I think this money might all be going to TRI and not the base salary but you'd have to check me on that.) This increase of 1% in two consecutive years will perhaps makeup for the loss of the two LID days paid for by the state. So in fact if we don't join SERVE today we will be making less money during this contract. Net ahead for the district. Net behind for the teaching corps. I don't feel VALUED by either the size of the raise 1% in an environment of 3% annual inflation nor do I feel VALUED by having a gun put to my head to VOLUNTEER to join SERVE so that I can get a little, very little more money to feed my family. What about the R of the district's SERVE proposal? Maybe I will gain VALUE through being recognized.
Recognized: I think the way the district wants to RECOGNIZE me for my excellent teaching is to provide me with stipends and a title for becoming either a Demonstration, Mentor or Master teacher. Yeh. But now let's really look at how the Goodloe-Johnson administration intends to get on the cheap, busting the union and making teachers compete with each other, which at least Michelle Rhea was going to pay me $100,000.00. I think for a $100,000.00 I might consider putting myself in competition with the rest of my fellow teachers to prove that I am the best and most effective teacher but what is Goodloe-Johnson offering me to betray the trust and collaborative spirit that dwells in an environment where Money is not the focus but children and their well being are. Let me see and I frankly don't know or even care about the real numbers but I think for a demonstration teacher I get a $2,500.00 stipend, for a Mentor teacher, a $3,200. stipend and a master teacher a $5,200.00 stipend. Woohoo. Can't you see the dollar signs ringing up in my eyes. This is truly on the cheap. But here I have a suggestion and in making this suggestion I hope to clarify how a Certified Staff Collective Bargaining Agreement is made so you will understand how crucial it is that you stand behind your union now and help them succeed in these negotiations when everywher in the nation, the city and the local news they are viewed as the primary impediment to good education.
Steve Puliken, the previous Executive Director of the SEA, who shepherded over many years of peaceful and collaborative relationships with the SSD in pre- Goodloe-Johnson days, said to me once, "I think the stupidest thing we have is 15 steps to get to the highest pay grade in the teaching field. I think there should only be five." If you have ever taken the time to read your collective bargaining agreement, you would find in appendix A, the Seattle Public Schools Certificated Non-Supervisory Salary Schedule. When Olga Addae was saying that what Don Kennedy was referring to was non representated staff, she was referring to the fact that as part of our Bargain we attach the Salary Schedule which shows what every certificated staff is paid at every level of education and every level of experience (Step). This means that Don Kennedy can't just arbitrarily stop the STEP increases because the Salary Schedule is an agreed upon addendum to the contract. What is agreed upon can not be changed. (I am wondering if they are trying to press the union to take the salary schedule out of the current contract.)
So let me explain the difference between a teacher's year to year (semi-guaranteed contract) versus say a similar contract in the business world. First of all outside of union work there is no guaranteed step increases over a 15 year duration and even in most union shops you will not see anything out 15 years. Why you may ask? Well, putting aside the fact that this schedules are really driven by the design of the salary schedule established by the legislature to pay teachers on the basis of education (currently under attack at the state level) and the basis of experience (currently under attack in these contract negotiations) what is the most striking about the salary schedule is to try to compute the average salary a teacher would make over the life of a 15 year contract. Given most professionals start at about 60K in the business world, let's see what a teacher's salary would be on average over 15 years. Using the BA plus 45 credit hours plus an MA (which probably represents $150,000.00 investment in a state school system) as the entry level salary including TRI the beginning salary is $50,062.00. Presuming you get at least another 45 credit hours so you are BA plus 90 and a masters the ending salary would be 70, 718.00. The average salary over 15 years is approximately $60,000.00. That makes this profession paying an average of the entry level professional salary for most other professions if and only if you work for 15 years. Other professions 15 years in are making deep into six figures. But okay, we're teachers were not in it for the money. So what is this all about?
The negotiations currently going on between the district and the union are all about THE SALARY SCHEDULE. The district wants to hire you AT WILL with no guarantee of a 15 year contract and the union wants to hold the district responsible to keeping you hired if after 5 years you prove yourself a competent teacher that they keep you on for the next 10 years so you can get the average salary. If the district is able to hire and fire at will then this salary schedule which is negotiated into our contract is meaningless and the promise of a future of improved income is contingent on an evaluation system. This is what we call seniority. We protect teachers who can make it through the steps to be given a continuiing certificate and try to secure for them an employment where they can get married, have children and afford a house and ultimately retire.
I understand what Steve Pulkinnen was telling me. 15 steps is an infinately long time to earn the highest salary you are ever going to get as a teacher so it would be better if we just got to it in five steps over say a ten year period. This would change the dynamic of education a lot but let me tell you, the district and not anyone is going to get you to the highest salary in shorter than fifteen years, that would be too expensive. So this salary schedule is going to stay in place and not be even impacted by the new titles of recognition; demonstration, Mentor and Master teacher. In order to get to the highest pay as a teacher despite your success in being evaluated you are still going to have to work for 15 years. Now this truly doesn't make any sense. If the new goal is to become a Master teacher, which means that you've made it regardless of education and regardless of experience isn't that the time you should be paid at the top of the Salary Schedule. Hey, young teachers, just think of it you are so good you get back these spectacular evaluations, you become a master teacher, you get to share your skills with all of those dinosaurs and Guess What the district is going to pay you at the highest level. NOT.
So please understand this is all about the salary schedule and giving the district the ability to hire and fire teachers AT WILL without any protections from the collective bargaining agreement. And if you think the district won't look at high paid employees and say, hmm, I think we can save some money by getting those old dinosaurs out of the way, think again. You just saw Don Kennedy try to strip you of your STEP.
On the other hand if Goodl0e-Johnson wanted to be generous and say to all of us. Here's what I'm going to do. If you join serve and become a demonstration teacher whereever your at you'll make no less than $65,000.00 and if you make it to Mentor teacher you will make no less than $85,000.00 and if you make it to Master teacher you will make no less than $100,000.00. Well you know for that kind of contract I just might put on my running shoes and compete with all of my fellow teachers, but for a $5,200.00 stipend? For these kinds of dollars I think I'd rather keep the collaborative nature of our business and let Goodloe-Johnson go back out to her business friends and see whether she can rustle up the hundred's of millions of dollars in permanent private financing that it would take to make such an offer. And even Bill Gates is not in this for the long term with his money. Just the short term, long enough to transform schools to small schools until that reform movement self destructed, and just long enough to destroy our union, our only protection against all the forces that today, are mistakenly blaming the Teachers for the failure of the public schools. There are lots of problems in the public schools but starting off to solve them by stripping teachers of their defenses against the uncertainty of market forces is certainly the wrong way to go about it and if they succeed it will take many years to repair the damage it will do and in the mean time many committed and excellent teachers will have been shown the door because they just weren't magicians and couldn't resolve all the problems in society that came into their classroom.
SHMUEL
Saturday, August 7, 2010
An Analysis of the SSD's Contract Proposal for Evaluations
On August 3, 2010 I received in the mail a four page glossy brochure titled "Introducing SERVE Seattle: Support, Empower, Recognize and Value Educators in Seattle" I was immediately struck by the color pictures of teachers giving personal one on one instruction to students in an elementary class. Wouldn't it be great to have one student?
It is my assumption that the district with this brochure is putting its best foot forward with regards to this plan so I thought I would do some analysis of what is being offered compared to what we currently have, since that is what contract negotiations are about, the district gives a little and we give a little and everybody gets something. I think it is great how the district can entitle its proposal SERVE which says outright that with this plan it intends to Value Educators, when in fact this entire proposal was developed without any input from our Collective Bargaining Agency and totally dismisses any of the work that has been done collaboratively between teachers, the union and the district on evaluation over the past four years. That's right, the collaborative effort that was committed to between the union and the district in the previous contract has been totally abandoned and replaced with this proposal for evaluations developed exclusively by the district. This is what following through on contract language means to this district, "We collaborate when we get our way." So understanding collaboration with the district means their way or the hiway, which I guess is an employers right, lets analyze what their new proposed evaluation system is about. I will do my evaluation with the intent of identifying specifically what is cast in concrete and what has yet to be developed. And remember anything that has yet to be developed means that a person who votes for this contract is relying on a wing and a prayer on some unknown system at this time which will determine their evaluation and job security.
Cast in Concrete
1. Two hour shorter Fridays for teacher collaboration (some district determined and some teacher determined) and an additional 14 minutes per day of unpaid teaching time.
2. Stipends between $2,500.00 and $5,200.00 for teachers who opt into this program and based on their evaluations can qualify for the extra duties associated with being a Demonstration, Mentor, or Master teacher. (More money spent on certain teachers who will be taken out of the classroom to be replaced by substitutes or new hires and a cost that does not reduce class size.)
3. Doubling the number of STAR mentors to help new teachers. (More money spent on people who are not in the classroom and not reducing class size.)
4. Nationalized computer given assessment tests like the MAP testing going on in the district to evaluate student growth to be used as 25% of the teachers evaluation.
5. New money spent to support administration in putting teachers on Performance Improvement Plans (the step before being terminated). (More money spent on administration and not teacher salaries.)
6. Stipends for teachers who will teach in the district's failing schools.
7. Overall school performance would count for 10% of a teachers evaluation. 10% of a teacher's individual evaluation based on other people's work.
8. 5% of a teacher's evaluation would be based on a survey of fellow teachers, students, and parents. A popularity contest.
To Be Determined (In otherwords we don't know what this looks like but we are being asked to agree to it even though. Watch Carefully.)
1. Multiple Measures would capture teacher performance in
a. Instruction and Professional Practice-Not yet identified as to what the components of what makes good instruction or professional practice but TO BE DETERMINED by the Professional Growth and Evaluation System developed by a joint labor/management taskforce. Read-We don't have a Professional Growth and Evaluation System yet but please believe us that we will develop it collaboratively with labor and according to the literature it will be "fair, comprehensive and reliable." Sign up today for what we don't know we will be using to evaluate you. Here I have an idea. Why doesn't the district and the SEA develop it first before we make a commitment to it. Yah!
b. Classroom Environment-Not yet defined as to what determines good classroom environment. Here I have an idea. Tell us what the components of a good classroom environment are now before we sign up. Yah!
c. Instruction-Not yet defined as to what determines good classroom instruction. Here I have an idea. Tell us what the components of a good instruction are now before we sign up. Yah!
d. Planning and Preparation-Not yet defined as to what determines good planning and preparation. Here I have an idea....
e. Professional Responsibility-Not yet defined as to......
f. TWO measures of student assessments-One is identified as MAP for Reading and Math and I'm not sure what the other one is. I think it is some kind of collaboratively developed end of course assessments but in any case it is either unidentified or undeveloped. Here I have an Idea. Put your assessments together so I can see what I am up against to get my students to learn before I sign on. Yah.
g. TWO teacher-determined measures based on goals aligned with District Standards and WILL BE developed within professional learning communities and approved by instructional managers. I can't even imagine what this looks like so I don't have an idea but once again these measures are not currently developed.
In conclusion this contract casts in concrete that the School District is Empowered to put many of its teachers on Probationary status leading to termination based on undeveloped measurements. In gaining this new power the district is asking that all of the current employment protections against abuses of administrative power be abandoned.
And what are we getting to agree to cede all our curent protections. Nothing unless you agree to SIGN UP NOW for this "Voluntary" program called SERVE.
What ever happened to negotiations between management and our collective bargaining agency that provided improved working conditions, smaller class sizes or increases in wages.
Not this year.
SHMUEL Willner
It is my assumption that the district with this brochure is putting its best foot forward with regards to this plan so I thought I would do some analysis of what is being offered compared to what we currently have, since that is what contract negotiations are about, the district gives a little and we give a little and everybody gets something. I think it is great how the district can entitle its proposal SERVE which says outright that with this plan it intends to Value Educators, when in fact this entire proposal was developed without any input from our Collective Bargaining Agency and totally dismisses any of the work that has been done collaboratively between teachers, the union and the district on evaluation over the past four years. That's right, the collaborative effort that was committed to between the union and the district in the previous contract has been totally abandoned and replaced with this proposal for evaluations developed exclusively by the district. This is what following through on contract language means to this district, "We collaborate when we get our way." So understanding collaboration with the district means their way or the hiway, which I guess is an employers right, lets analyze what their new proposed evaluation system is about. I will do my evaluation with the intent of identifying specifically what is cast in concrete and what has yet to be developed. And remember anything that has yet to be developed means that a person who votes for this contract is relying on a wing and a prayer on some unknown system at this time which will determine their evaluation and job security.
Cast in Concrete
1. Two hour shorter Fridays for teacher collaboration (some district determined and some teacher determined) and an additional 14 minutes per day of unpaid teaching time.
2. Stipends between $2,500.00 and $5,200.00 for teachers who opt into this program and based on their evaluations can qualify for the extra duties associated with being a Demonstration, Mentor, or Master teacher. (More money spent on certain teachers who will be taken out of the classroom to be replaced by substitutes or new hires and a cost that does not reduce class size.)
3. Doubling the number of STAR mentors to help new teachers. (More money spent on people who are not in the classroom and not reducing class size.)
4. Nationalized computer given assessment tests like the MAP testing going on in the district to evaluate student growth to be used as 25% of the teachers evaluation.
5. New money spent to support administration in putting teachers on Performance Improvement Plans (the step before being terminated). (More money spent on administration and not teacher salaries.)
6. Stipends for teachers who will teach in the district's failing schools.
7. Overall school performance would count for 10% of a teachers evaluation. 10% of a teacher's individual evaluation based on other people's work.
8. 5% of a teacher's evaluation would be based on a survey of fellow teachers, students, and parents. A popularity contest.
To Be Determined (In otherwords we don't know what this looks like but we are being asked to agree to it even though. Watch Carefully.)
1. Multiple Measures would capture teacher performance in
a. Instruction and Professional Practice-Not yet identified as to what the components of what makes good instruction or professional practice but TO BE DETERMINED by the Professional Growth and Evaluation System developed by a joint labor/management taskforce. Read-We don't have a Professional Growth and Evaluation System yet but please believe us that we will develop it collaboratively with labor and according to the literature it will be "fair, comprehensive and reliable." Sign up today for what we don't know we will be using to evaluate you. Here I have an idea. Why doesn't the district and the SEA develop it first before we make a commitment to it. Yah!
b. Classroom Environment-Not yet defined as to what determines good classroom environment. Here I have an idea. Tell us what the components of a good classroom environment are now before we sign up. Yah!
c. Instruction-Not yet defined as to what determines good classroom instruction. Here I have an idea. Tell us what the components of a good instruction are now before we sign up. Yah!
d. Planning and Preparation-Not yet defined as to what determines good planning and preparation. Here I have an idea....
e. Professional Responsibility-Not yet defined as to......
f. TWO measures of student assessments-One is identified as MAP for Reading and Math and I'm not sure what the other one is. I think it is some kind of collaboratively developed end of course assessments but in any case it is either unidentified or undeveloped. Here I have an Idea. Put your assessments together so I can see what I am up against to get my students to learn before I sign on. Yah.
g. TWO teacher-determined measures based on goals aligned with District Standards and WILL BE developed within professional learning communities and approved by instructional managers. I can't even imagine what this looks like so I don't have an idea but once again these measures are not currently developed.
In conclusion this contract casts in concrete that the School District is Empowered to put many of its teachers on Probationary status leading to termination based on undeveloped measurements. In gaining this new power the district is asking that all of the current employment protections against abuses of administrative power be abandoned.
And what are we getting to agree to cede all our curent protections. Nothing unless you agree to SIGN UP NOW for this "Voluntary" program called SERVE.
What ever happened to negotiations between management and our collective bargaining agency that provided improved working conditions, smaller class sizes or increases in wages.
Not this year.
SHMUEL Willner
Thursday, August 5, 2010
An Open Letter to The Seattle Times: Teachers: We Are Not The Enemy
Dear Editor,
I want to thank the Seattle Times for its unbiased and neutral coverage of the current negotiations going on between the Seattle School District and the Seattle Teachers Union. On Sunday, August 1st, your staff writer Leonard Pitts titles his beautifully balanced piece, “Teachers and teacher unions: Get on board or get out of the way.” Hardly, four days go by and on August 5th, your paper secures the services of two city council members to write a piece titled, “Seattle must get serious about education reform.” These timely articles aimed at swaying public opinion against the teachers and SEA are being published concurrently with Dr. Goodloe-Johnson violating the agreed to closed door negotiations with the Seattle Education System and sending by email and public post the district’s proposal directly to teachers, attempting to usurp the union’s role of being our collective bargaining agency. My, my, my it seems like we are getting the full court press; National Government, City Government and the local news media. It’s a shame that our local news media, has succumbed to being one of the new media outlets that instead of reporting the news has decided to promote its own agenda like the Fox news network. I have been a citizen of Seattle for nearly 60 years and I would have hoped for better from the Blethen family but I guess I am wrong.
So let me take a moment to address just a few of the unfounded and erroneous assertions that these two editorials are presenting as if they were fact and see whether you publish this and begin to offer the citizens of Seattle a more “fair and balanced” review of what is actually going on in this tidal wave of anti-teacher and anti-union sentiment which holds itself out as the most recent and again unsubstantiated effort at reforming the public schools.
Let’s talk about the national agenda to begin with. Please remember that under the Constitution the duty of education is the mandate of the states and local control. The founding fathers thought this worthwhile realizing that local people would better be able to say what type of education they would want for their children. Because of the dearth of funds to support education coming from the state of Washington which refuses to tax its citizenry commensurate with the cost of fully funding public education, districts and state governments cede their control and their local duties to the National Agenda because that is where the funding comes from.
So let’s go after the first misleading propaganda that our local council members made in their article. They write, “The evidence that reform is needed—and quickly—is convincing. Our state was embarrassed recently when we failed to qualify for President Obama’s Race to the Top education-reform competition.” First of all this sentence makes no sense at all. The evidence that reform is needed is because we didn’t qualify for the education-reform grants? Well a couple of things: first, most states didn’t qualify; second, most unions in the state signed on to the national agenda and had no responsibility for the failure of the state to get funds; and third, the current education reform agenda which demands accountability follows on the heals of the failed no-child-left behind agenda which caused a travesty around the nation as failing schools, failed even worse. And just like its predecessor that was conceived on little evidence this reform agenda of blaming the teacher and their unions has no facts to support its potential for bringing about true reform in the public schools.
Here let me give a shot at what is really the failure of public schools. It’s the failure of the states and whoever else to fully fund early education ages 2-5 where all children are taken from their homes whatever home they may have come from and put into environments where they learn a love of learning and the social skills to make learning possible. With this head-start all children will enter the k-12 public schools with an equal chance to succeed. But I digress.
Now let me get to the stuff in this article that bothers me the most because it exudes with the platitudinous arrogance under which the current educational system is burdened and by which teachers and students are constantly harassed. After listing the abysmal statistics of students failing to demonstrate baseline skills needed to be successful in college the writers go on to say, “What does education reform mean for the Seattle School District? It means higher academic standards and increased accountability. It means BELIEVING that every child can learn and must be prepared for college and the career of his or her choice.”
Ok, what is wrong with this picture? Here let me do the math for you. If only 34 percent of Seattle High School graduates demonstrated the baseline skills why would you want to make “higher academic standards”? It appears that 76 percent of the students can’t meet the baseline standards they are currently being asked to meet. I would think you would want to create academic standards where students can meet the baseline standards and when you’ve arrived there start raising the standards but not before. So much for “higher academic standards” but what about “increased accountability”? What the WASL wasn’t enough? I thought it was too hard and therefore having it as a requirement for graduation was delayed again and the test was watered down so even more kids could succeed? Oh, but these authors aren’t talking about “increased accountability” for students like holding students back in grades where they do not meet standard or requiring them to stay after school and come in on Saturdays to make up for the work they weren’t able to manage during the normal school day. No, these city council members are talking about “increased accountability” for teachers. As a matter of fact, the Seattle School District wants teachers to be accountable for the performance students do on these new unproven tests. Looks to me like that would mean 76% of the teachers in the Seattle School District would be fired on a rotating basis until finally 100% of these students succeeded at these tests. Does anyone really think that firing your teaching staff until you get the right teaching staff is really going to change the returns?
I love the affirmation the D.C. superintendent gets from the nation for crushing the unions and firing 260 teachers and putting another 17% of the four thousand on probation. Here’s where this BELIEF thing comes in? How many of you believe Ms. Rhea is going to be able to find replacements for those teachers to teach in the lowest performing most difficult schools in the Washington D.C. area? And how many of you believe that these new teachers are going to last? If you want to get discouraged about teaching, try teaching in one of these schools? But you want me to BELIEVE “that every child can learn and must be prepared for college and the career of his or her choice.” I can believe this. I can believe it until the cows come home but you know what? Some children are going to come into class and no matter what teacher is before them they are not going to learn and there are thousands of reasons why they won’t; emotional distress, drugs, indifference to name a few. But as a teacher my belief in kids every year remains unshaken until the same kids that failed the year before fail in my class as well. And each year I get more experienced and more veteran and become a true authority on children and students and what is possible to get them to do and what is not. That is my profession. That’s what you pay me for. But, no, you want me to BELIEVE that every child can learn. Yes, I do but that does not mean that they will. You want me to BELIEVE that every child must be prepared for college. Yes, I do but that does not mean that they will make the commitment to themselves to get there and that does not mean that they even prioritize a college education because after all there are great things that can be done outside of college educations. Bill Gates didn’t get a college education, nor did Andrew Carnegie. You want me to believe that every child should be “prepared for the profession of his or her choice”. You bet I believe that but for the most part high school kids have no professional aspirations and in the real world of America how many people can really say that they got a choice as to which profession or working environment they wanted for themselves.
And I could go on with the falseness of these platitudes that you allow to run in your paper but I want to end with a final accusation against this paper and you its editor. Your not doing your homework and your not doing the investigative journalism that it takes to come out with a meaningful analysis of just what this educational reform is all about or why a union is so very important for a working class of people like teachers who are not miners and truck drivers and they too just want everyone to just get along. But my oh, my it is certainly difficult to get along with a public prodded by the media, and business and a national government that has decided to lynch the Teacher.
Remember the teacher, the person who you remember that had the greatest influence on your life? Show a little respect when you decide that it is the teacher who has victimized the student and taken the public for all of its wasted tax dollars in this sham we call public education. Show a little respect. Mrs. Jones is still out there and she is still loving, nurturing and challenging her young charges to achieve in this ever more complex world. Here publish this article and title it. TEACHERS, WE ARE NOT THE ENEMY.
I want to thank the Seattle Times for its unbiased and neutral coverage of the current negotiations going on between the Seattle School District and the Seattle Teachers Union. On Sunday, August 1st, your staff writer Leonard Pitts titles his beautifully balanced piece, “Teachers and teacher unions: Get on board or get out of the way.” Hardly, four days go by and on August 5th, your paper secures the services of two city council members to write a piece titled, “Seattle must get serious about education reform.” These timely articles aimed at swaying public opinion against the teachers and SEA are being published concurrently with Dr. Goodloe-Johnson violating the agreed to closed door negotiations with the Seattle Education System and sending by email and public post the district’s proposal directly to teachers, attempting to usurp the union’s role of being our collective bargaining agency. My, my, my it seems like we are getting the full court press; National Government, City Government and the local news media. It’s a shame that our local news media, has succumbed to being one of the new media outlets that instead of reporting the news has decided to promote its own agenda like the Fox news network. I have been a citizen of Seattle for nearly 60 years and I would have hoped for better from the Blethen family but I guess I am wrong.
So let me take a moment to address just a few of the unfounded and erroneous assertions that these two editorials are presenting as if they were fact and see whether you publish this and begin to offer the citizens of Seattle a more “fair and balanced” review of what is actually going on in this tidal wave of anti-teacher and anti-union sentiment which holds itself out as the most recent and again unsubstantiated effort at reforming the public schools.
Let’s talk about the national agenda to begin with. Please remember that under the Constitution the duty of education is the mandate of the states and local control. The founding fathers thought this worthwhile realizing that local people would better be able to say what type of education they would want for their children. Because of the dearth of funds to support education coming from the state of Washington which refuses to tax its citizenry commensurate with the cost of fully funding public education, districts and state governments cede their control and their local duties to the National Agenda because that is where the funding comes from.
So let’s go after the first misleading propaganda that our local council members made in their article. They write, “The evidence that reform is needed—and quickly—is convincing. Our state was embarrassed recently when we failed to qualify for President Obama’s Race to the Top education-reform competition.” First of all this sentence makes no sense at all. The evidence that reform is needed is because we didn’t qualify for the education-reform grants? Well a couple of things: first, most states didn’t qualify; second, most unions in the state signed on to the national agenda and had no responsibility for the failure of the state to get funds; and third, the current education reform agenda which demands accountability follows on the heals of the failed no-child-left behind agenda which caused a travesty around the nation as failing schools, failed even worse. And just like its predecessor that was conceived on little evidence this reform agenda of blaming the teacher and their unions has no facts to support its potential for bringing about true reform in the public schools.
Here let me give a shot at what is really the failure of public schools. It’s the failure of the states and whoever else to fully fund early education ages 2-5 where all children are taken from their homes whatever home they may have come from and put into environments where they learn a love of learning and the social skills to make learning possible. With this head-start all children will enter the k-12 public schools with an equal chance to succeed. But I digress.
Now let me get to the stuff in this article that bothers me the most because it exudes with the platitudinous arrogance under which the current educational system is burdened and by which teachers and students are constantly harassed. After listing the abysmal statistics of students failing to demonstrate baseline skills needed to be successful in college the writers go on to say, “What does education reform mean for the Seattle School District? It means higher academic standards and increased accountability. It means BELIEVING that every child can learn and must be prepared for college and the career of his or her choice.”
Ok, what is wrong with this picture? Here let me do the math for you. If only 34 percent of Seattle High School graduates demonstrated the baseline skills why would you want to make “higher academic standards”? It appears that 76 percent of the students can’t meet the baseline standards they are currently being asked to meet. I would think you would want to create academic standards where students can meet the baseline standards and when you’ve arrived there start raising the standards but not before. So much for “higher academic standards” but what about “increased accountability”? What the WASL wasn’t enough? I thought it was too hard and therefore having it as a requirement for graduation was delayed again and the test was watered down so even more kids could succeed? Oh, but these authors aren’t talking about “increased accountability” for students like holding students back in grades where they do not meet standard or requiring them to stay after school and come in on Saturdays to make up for the work they weren’t able to manage during the normal school day. No, these city council members are talking about “increased accountability” for teachers. As a matter of fact, the Seattle School District wants teachers to be accountable for the performance students do on these new unproven tests. Looks to me like that would mean 76% of the teachers in the Seattle School District would be fired on a rotating basis until finally 100% of these students succeeded at these tests. Does anyone really think that firing your teaching staff until you get the right teaching staff is really going to change the returns?
I love the affirmation the D.C. superintendent gets from the nation for crushing the unions and firing 260 teachers and putting another 17% of the four thousand on probation. Here’s where this BELIEF thing comes in? How many of you believe Ms. Rhea is going to be able to find replacements for those teachers to teach in the lowest performing most difficult schools in the Washington D.C. area? And how many of you believe that these new teachers are going to last? If you want to get discouraged about teaching, try teaching in one of these schools? But you want me to BELIEVE “that every child can learn and must be prepared for college and the career of his or her choice.” I can believe this. I can believe it until the cows come home but you know what? Some children are going to come into class and no matter what teacher is before them they are not going to learn and there are thousands of reasons why they won’t; emotional distress, drugs, indifference to name a few. But as a teacher my belief in kids every year remains unshaken until the same kids that failed the year before fail in my class as well. And each year I get more experienced and more veteran and become a true authority on children and students and what is possible to get them to do and what is not. That is my profession. That’s what you pay me for. But, no, you want me to BELIEVE that every child can learn. Yes, I do but that does not mean that they will. You want me to BELIEVE that every child must be prepared for college. Yes, I do but that does not mean that they will make the commitment to themselves to get there and that does not mean that they even prioritize a college education because after all there are great things that can be done outside of college educations. Bill Gates didn’t get a college education, nor did Andrew Carnegie. You want me to believe that every child should be “prepared for the profession of his or her choice”. You bet I believe that but for the most part high school kids have no professional aspirations and in the real world of America how many people can really say that they got a choice as to which profession or working environment they wanted for themselves.
And I could go on with the falseness of these platitudes that you allow to run in your paper but I want to end with a final accusation against this paper and you its editor. Your not doing your homework and your not doing the investigative journalism that it takes to come out with a meaningful analysis of just what this educational reform is all about or why a union is so very important for a working class of people like teachers who are not miners and truck drivers and they too just want everyone to just get along. But my oh, my it is certainly difficult to get along with a public prodded by the media, and business and a national government that has decided to lynch the Teacher.
Remember the teacher, the person who you remember that had the greatest influence on your life? Show a little respect when you decide that it is the teacher who has victimized the student and taken the public for all of its wasted tax dollars in this sham we call public education. Show a little respect. Mrs. Jones is still out there and she is still loving, nurturing and challenging her young charges to achieve in this ever more complex world. Here publish this article and title it. TEACHERS, WE ARE NOT THE ENEMY.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Sadly: Ending the Fifth Column Among Us As We Face A Strike
The most recent communication from Dr. Maria Goodloe-Johnson directly to the teaching staff through the email system and now through the mail system, is a direct violation of the negotiating terms that the Union and the District agreed to before entering into these negotiations. The president of the union, Olga Addae, has responded over district and private email with the union's public response and has published the District's SERVE proposal on its website. If you did not attend one of the focus meetings I strongly recommend you go to the Seattle Education Association's website and read the SERVE proposal and judge for yourself. And YOU MUST JUDGE FOR YOURSELF because you are going to be asked to vote on whether to approve the district's proposal or not at the September meeting. The actions of the district to attempt to negotiate directly with individual teachers is the most clear indication that the administration under Dr. Maria Goodloe-Johnson with the support of the Seattle School Board is intent upon breaking the union and the ability of teacher's to collectively bargain. And now for a History lesson.
The term fifth column refers to a group of "secret sympathizers with the enemy who engage in espionage or sabotage". And it is sad to say that among the teaching profession we have a not so secret group of sympathizers who on their own initiative because they think they know what is best for education and for teachers take sides against the union, our collective bargaining agency, and weaken the ability of teachers to improve their working conditions and wages. Due to my sadness at the impending possibility of a strike, I am going to limit my invective against these teachers to something more like a gentle tap on the wrist. Please, forego your unfounded arrogance and allow our representative organization, the SEA, to do what only it can do with any success and that is to negotiate on our behalf.
Our collective bargaining agency is a democratically elected representative system, that's purpose is to better the working lives of the people they represent. In our school of 75 active members we were unable to get 4 people to fill the voting slots we have to represent the interests of our members not to mention the 4 alternate positions. When we hold meetings they are attended by the same 10 teachers and the rest make up some lame excuses as to why they choose not to prioritize providing their input into the organization which is dedicated to improving their lot. Each wage increase you have ever gotten has been negotiated by the SEA. Each limit of class size, each step increase, each tri pay has been negotitated by the SEA and yet there are those among you who simply think that this group is incompetent or you don't have the time to participate. Well, for those of you who are willing and ready to let the union fall and allow you to negotiate on your own with the likes of a Goodloe-Johnson, get prepared the wolves are the doors.
So indeed I am more sad then angry. I am sad that the school board has hired a show boat superintendant who steam roles over every stakeholder with whom she has business dealings. I am sad that the public and the media blames the union for holding back education when the facts of the matter are the WEA is in the forefront of educational reform and promoting such things as National Board Certification for teachers. I am sad that the union gets the blame for keeping poor teachers in the system when in fact the blame should go in order to the legislature, the administration and then and only then the union. Let me explain this to YOU once and for all so you will stop repeating the mantra of the union's detractors that it is the union that is at fault for supporting poor teachers and poor teaching practice.
The laws which determine our rights and obligations as teachers do not come from the CBA (collective bargaining agreement) first, they come from the State of Washington RCW's, specifically Chapter 28A.405. RCW-Certificated Employee. You can access this RCW at the Washington state Government Web site but for your convenience I will quote the important passages to you here.
28A.405.110 Evaluations-Legislative findings. The legislature recognizes the importance of teachers in the educational system. Teachers are the fundamental element in assuring a quality education for the state's and the nation's children......The legislature further finds that an evaluation system for teachers has the following elements, goals and objectives: (1) An evaluation system must be meaningful, helpful, and objective: (2) an evaluation system must encourage improvement in teaching skills, techniques, and abilities by identifying areas needing improvement; (3) an evaluation system must provide a mechanism to make meaningful distinctions among teachers and to acknowledge, recognize and encourage superior teaching performance; and (4) an evaluation system must encourage respect in the evaluation process by the persons conducting the evaluations and the persons subject to the evaluations through recognizing the importance of objective standards and minimizing subjectivity. (1985)
So as you see because the legislature recognizes the importance of teachers it wishes to perserve the investment it makes in teachers and teacher training by insuring an evaluation system that is helpful and aimed toward improving teaching practice not penalizing struggling teachers.
The administrators are second in line of the group that is responsible for perpetuating poor teachers because they do not apply the evaluative procedure in the way that it was intended but choose to use it to punish and harass teachers and inhibit free speech and freedom of thought or to not use it at all.
And finally the union which has a reponsibility to its members to protect the due process of teachers in accordance with the legislative findings that are incorporated in the CBA. If the union is successful in helping a teacher maintain his/her position the union is able to do so on due process grounds or through their representation of the member in the Performance Improvement Plan period that actually supports the teacher towards overcoming his/her weaknesses. The union simply follows the law but the union will sometimes go beyond its duty to follow the law and take an active interest in helping an individual out of the teaching profession if they believe there is substantive evidence that suggests that this individual is not good for the profession. The union does not benefit from keeping poor teachers in place. It takes it as its responsibility to insure students are educated and a poor teacher does not educate.
And with regards to the importance of seniority to avoid abuse in the system. I will defend seniority and take that up in my next blog if I am not overwhelmed by the impending strike and the need to communicate crucial organization information.
So Sadly, I must report that the likelyhood of a long and extended strike is facing Seattle. The district has leveraged a bad economy and a national anti-union anti-teacher sentiment to put together a union busting contract that provides no additional benefit to its teaching or educator corps. It appears that the union will not be proposing that we ratify this contract, if the breakdown in the current negotiations are any indication. So while this is infinately sad that the district would leverage this difficult time against its employees despite its protestations that it is here to help teachers, it will be an even greater tragedy if we do not stand the line to defend the right of our members to collectively bargain in good faith with its employer.
What is clear to me since the beginning of the Goodloe Johnson administration, is that there is no good faith bargaining with its employees. This is a shame and we are going to have to fight and bleed for it. Expect a long drawn out strike that will reach deep into October, maybe November. Put some money away to help get you through the next three months and if you need to borrow money to pay your bills the Seattle Education Credit Union is offering a great deal to its members to borrow 10,000.00 at 4.25% over a five year period ($180.00 a month pay back). That $10,000.00 should be able to get most of you through the period because you must be able to stand strong and your financial peril will weaken you and your support of our cause. Y0u might consider borrowing it now, SECU might change its mind if a strike is announced.
So stay tuned and keep the faith. The stronger you are now, the more support you are able to get from your friends and neighbors against this superintendant and against this school board the more helpful you will be in preventing the district from strong arming the union. And don't forget that we are having elections in November and some school board members are up for re election. It is time to elect people who will terminate Goodloe-Johnson and be responsive to the stake-holders of the city of Seattle.
SHMUEL
The term fifth column refers to a group of "secret sympathizers with the enemy who engage in espionage or sabotage". And it is sad to say that among the teaching profession we have a not so secret group of sympathizers who on their own initiative because they think they know what is best for education and for teachers take sides against the union, our collective bargaining agency, and weaken the ability of teachers to improve their working conditions and wages. Due to my sadness at the impending possibility of a strike, I am going to limit my invective against these teachers to something more like a gentle tap on the wrist. Please, forego your unfounded arrogance and allow our representative organization, the SEA, to do what only it can do with any success and that is to negotiate on our behalf.
Our collective bargaining agency is a democratically elected representative system, that's purpose is to better the working lives of the people they represent. In our school of 75 active members we were unable to get 4 people to fill the voting slots we have to represent the interests of our members not to mention the 4 alternate positions. When we hold meetings they are attended by the same 10 teachers and the rest make up some lame excuses as to why they choose not to prioritize providing their input into the organization which is dedicated to improving their lot. Each wage increase you have ever gotten has been negotiated by the SEA. Each limit of class size, each step increase, each tri pay has been negotitated by the SEA and yet there are those among you who simply think that this group is incompetent or you don't have the time to participate. Well, for those of you who are willing and ready to let the union fall and allow you to negotiate on your own with the likes of a Goodloe-Johnson, get prepared the wolves are the doors.
So indeed I am more sad then angry. I am sad that the school board has hired a show boat superintendant who steam roles over every stakeholder with whom she has business dealings. I am sad that the public and the media blames the union for holding back education when the facts of the matter are the WEA is in the forefront of educational reform and promoting such things as National Board Certification for teachers. I am sad that the union gets the blame for keeping poor teachers in the system when in fact the blame should go in order to the legislature, the administration and then and only then the union. Let me explain this to YOU once and for all so you will stop repeating the mantra of the union's detractors that it is the union that is at fault for supporting poor teachers and poor teaching practice.
The laws which determine our rights and obligations as teachers do not come from the CBA (collective bargaining agreement) first, they come from the State of Washington RCW's, specifically Chapter 28A.405. RCW-Certificated Employee. You can access this RCW at the Washington state Government Web site but for your convenience I will quote the important passages to you here.
28A.405.110 Evaluations-Legislative findings. The legislature recognizes the importance of teachers in the educational system. Teachers are the fundamental element in assuring a quality education for the state's and the nation's children......The legislature further finds that an evaluation system for teachers has the following elements, goals and objectives: (1) An evaluation system must be meaningful, helpful, and objective: (2) an evaluation system must encourage improvement in teaching skills, techniques, and abilities by identifying areas needing improvement; (3) an evaluation system must provide a mechanism to make meaningful distinctions among teachers and to acknowledge, recognize and encourage superior teaching performance; and (4) an evaluation system must encourage respect in the evaluation process by the persons conducting the evaluations and the persons subject to the evaluations through recognizing the importance of objective standards and minimizing subjectivity. (1985)
So as you see because the legislature recognizes the importance of teachers it wishes to perserve the investment it makes in teachers and teacher training by insuring an evaluation system that is helpful and aimed toward improving teaching practice not penalizing struggling teachers.
The administrators are second in line of the group that is responsible for perpetuating poor teachers because they do not apply the evaluative procedure in the way that it was intended but choose to use it to punish and harass teachers and inhibit free speech and freedom of thought or to not use it at all.
And finally the union which has a reponsibility to its members to protect the due process of teachers in accordance with the legislative findings that are incorporated in the CBA. If the union is successful in helping a teacher maintain his/her position the union is able to do so on due process grounds or through their representation of the member in the Performance Improvement Plan period that actually supports the teacher towards overcoming his/her weaknesses. The union simply follows the law but the union will sometimes go beyond its duty to follow the law and take an active interest in helping an individual out of the teaching profession if they believe there is substantive evidence that suggests that this individual is not good for the profession. The union does not benefit from keeping poor teachers in place. It takes it as its responsibility to insure students are educated and a poor teacher does not educate.
And with regards to the importance of seniority to avoid abuse in the system. I will defend seniority and take that up in my next blog if I am not overwhelmed by the impending strike and the need to communicate crucial organization information.
So Sadly, I must report that the likelyhood of a long and extended strike is facing Seattle. The district has leveraged a bad economy and a national anti-union anti-teacher sentiment to put together a union busting contract that provides no additional benefit to its teaching or educator corps. It appears that the union will not be proposing that we ratify this contract, if the breakdown in the current negotiations are any indication. So while this is infinately sad that the district would leverage this difficult time against its employees despite its protestations that it is here to help teachers, it will be an even greater tragedy if we do not stand the line to defend the right of our members to collectively bargain in good faith with its employer.
What is clear to me since the beginning of the Goodloe Johnson administration, is that there is no good faith bargaining with its employees. This is a shame and we are going to have to fight and bleed for it. Expect a long drawn out strike that will reach deep into October, maybe November. Put some money away to help get you through the next three months and if you need to borrow money to pay your bills the Seattle Education Credit Union is offering a great deal to its members to borrow 10,000.00 at 4.25% over a five year period ($180.00 a month pay back). That $10,000.00 should be able to get most of you through the period because you must be able to stand strong and your financial peril will weaken you and your support of our cause. Y0u might consider borrowing it now, SECU might change its mind if a strike is announced.
So stay tuned and keep the faith. The stronger you are now, the more support you are able to get from your friends and neighbors against this superintendant and against this school board the more helpful you will be in preventing the district from strong arming the union. And don't forget that we are having elections in November and some school board members are up for re election. It is time to elect people who will terminate Goodloe-Johnson and be responsive to the stake-holders of the city of Seattle.
SHMUEL
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
A Non-Offensive Update
My what a shocker. I send out an email full of passion and truth to raise teacher conciousness about the current bargaining negotiations and the best response I get (apologies to my socialist comrade) is from people thanking me for apologizing at misusing the email system to promote my ideas. Ugh.
So here I am in the privacy of my own blog and if you don't want to read it or you feel you will need to report these ideas I have to administration and imperil my teaching career do me a favor and stop reading now and work your own way through this morass.
But as promised this update will be non-offensive and mostly without opinion, devoid of passion and caring and to the best of my ability a simple reporting as to what is transpiring at our contract negotiating table interspersed with the authoritative comments about the misguided nature of the most recent effort at school reform from Diane Ravitch and her article "Stop the Madness" in the August/September edition of NEA Today. Diane Ravitch, if you don't know was one of the loudest advocates for No Child Left Behind under the Bush administration, who having seen the damage it has done to schools and the teaching profession, is now the oft quoted sage about why it's not the teacher's fault or the teacher's union's fault after all.
Hopefully, you had a chance to go to one of the focus group sessions that the Union held between July 24th and July 27th. As you probably know, after last year's fiasco when the district and the union tried to negotiate in public but in doing so got an earful of why their plans were impalatable, this year they are negotiating behind closed doors so we won't even know what is in the contract before we show up to vote on it. Luckily, the union, understanding the grave consequences and significant changes the district's proposal has decided that before it shows up with this totally new contract will show it to us before they propose we accept it in September to avoid a strike. Yes, they will recommend we accept it because for them it is the politically expedient thing to do in an environment where union's are the poster children of those who are standing in the way of school reform. If you don't believe the union has this first and foremost in their mind you might want to read the last communication you received from the bargaining table where the union spent most of its communication explaining why they are not at fault. But let's talk about the district's proposal.
SERVE-Yup that's the name of the district's proposal. I am wondering how much they paid some PR consulting firm to come up with that title. I can just see it now. Teacher's Union Rejects District's Offer to SERVE Students. I wish the union had the money to spend on PR for teachers. Ok, so what is this offer.
The first and foremost thing everyone must understand in the district's proposal is that absolutely everything; collaboration time, increase in wages, professional growth opportunities is tied to a new plan for Teacher Evaluation. In the past teacher evaluation was simply one part of the negotiations. No more. All of the district's offers to improve any part of our working conditions or increase our teaching salaries is linked to our willingness to accept this new evaluation system. In otherwords if we don't accept this new evaluation system there is absolutely nothing in this contract to improve our working conditions or our wages. So this means that this contract is all about teacher evaluation and nothing else. It is a totally one sided negotiation with the District deaf to any of our interests regarding more collaborative time or smaller class sizes or increased compensation unless they are connected to SERVE. So what is SERVE?
SERVE has many components. It is proposed to cost 3.9 million dollars to administer over the next four years of this contract which includes the purchasing of expensive software (wouldn't suprise me if it was made by microsoft) to monitor student testing and I guess to track teacher evaluations and to hire 3 new high paid administrators to oversee the program. I am thinking to myself how much new curriculum materials could be purchased with this money or how many IA salaries to support the new inclusion of special education students in the mainstream classes. Here is what Diane Ravitch has to say about the effectiveness of administration to manage testing. "state education departments were drowning in new bureaucratic requirements, procedures, and routines and that none of the prescribed remedies was making a difference." Here Seattle wishes to put in to its adminstrative costs its own self funded oversight program.
The Teacher Evaluation System in SERVE. I am quite sure I can not do this aspect of their proposal justice from pure recall and the few notes that I took at the meeting but I will do my best.
Student Evaluations based on Testing account for 25% of a teacher's evaluation for courses that are being tested. Student evaluations based on testing will not account for any of a teacher's evaluation if they are not in a subject that is being tested. The current testing courses include reading, math and science and there is also proposed end of year assessments for Social Studies with the intent of over time creating end of year assessments for things like foreign language. Here is what Diane Ravitch has to say about this.
" The most toxic flaw in NCLB ws its legislative command that ALL students in EVERY school must be proficient in reading and mathematics by 2014 including students with special needs, students whose native language is not English, students who are homeless and lacking in any societal advantage, and students who have every societal advantage, but are not interested in their school work...One of the unintended consequences of NCLB was the shrinkage of time available to teach anything other than reading and math. Other subjects, including history, science, the arts, geography, even recess were curtailed in many schools. Reading and mathematices were the only subjects that counted in calculating a schools's adequate yearly progress, and even in these subjects' instruction gave way to intesive test preparation. Test scores became an obsession.....In urban schools, where there are many low-performing students, drill and practice became a significant part of the daily routine."
Here are some of the other components of Teacher Evaluations:
1. 10% or 20% for non testing subjects the evaluates how close you are to reaching target on two teacher selected, administration approved student academic achievement goals.
2. 10% for overall whole school student's growth data. Which means if the students of the school don't improve on a two year rolling average you are dinged for 10% of your evaluation.
3. 5% of your total evaluation would be based on "surveys" from peers, families and students.
This leaves 50% to 65% of the rest of the evaluation to be subject to the new adminstrative evaluation system which includes four ratings; classroom environment, instruction, planning and preparation and professional responsibility. These would be from administrative observation and you can receive a rating of unsatisfactory, needs improvement, average, strong and exemplary.
Collectively when all of these percentages are tallied together you get a percentage number evaluation which translates into one of four categories; unsatisfactory (put on probation), basic (if you don't improve by next year you will be put on probation, proficient (for which there is no particular reward it just keeps you off the watch list) and innovative (which provides you opportunity for professional growth up the ranks of master and mentor teacher for which you can qualify to make more money by taking on new responsibilities as a teacher-teaching other teachers.
I think that is pretty much the SERVE plan and if you opt to join this plan you can get a 1% increase in salary next year and another 1% increase the following year and make yourself available to go up the teaching career ladder. If you do not opt to join SERVE you will get no raises and even if you choose not to opt in during this contract extension, you will be required to join SERVE for the next contract extension.
Other motivations to encourage union members to approve the contract are the fact that along with this new evaluation system the district will implement a district wide friday early dismissal program of 19-2 hour teacher collaboration periods that will be split between teacher and administration controlled with the single caveat that we agree to add 12 minutes to the school day for no extra pay but to stay within the hour requirements for students.
As I evaluate this new evaluation procedure I see an awful lot of top down oversight and management that will take up most of our school administrators' time and simply burden the administrative structure with undoable evaluations. Imagine a principle meeting with teachers on goals, tracking performance, rating teachers, inputting student performance and calculating percentages on teacher evaluations. Conducting stakeholder surveys and tabulating the results to come up with a 5% number. Not only will this be problematic but just imagine if a teacher wishes to disagree. (I think they wrote non-grievable). In any case given all that the administrators are currently dealing with I can't imagine this will enable them to be better administrators of their schools. Oh, and by the way over the next four years during the role out some teachers will be in the system and some will be without of the system. Clearly the District spent most of its money on PR without really considering the logistically nightmare of putting this into place and the distraction it will be to both teacher and administrator for focussing on the classroom and the student.
Well this is the crux of the SERVE program and you may ask what does that do to our current contract structure. Well, when I grant myself the opportunity to be opinionated in my next blog I will share with you the impact on the contract but the bottom line, it makes the union functionally irrelevant to protecting the employee from any effort the district would make at any time to dismiss him or her.
What does Diane Ravitch have to say about all of this effort to end the influence of unions on education?
" One would think, by reading the critics, that the nation's schools are overrun by incompetent teachers who hold their jobs only because of union protections, that unions are directly resonsible for poor student performance, and that academic achievement would soar if the unions were to disappear....This is unfair. No one, to my knowledge, has demonstrated a clear, indisputable correlation between teacher unionism and academic achievement, either negative or positive. The Southern states, where teachers' unions have historically been either week or non existent, have always had the poorest student performance on national examinations. Massachusetts, the state with the highest academic performance, has long had strong teacher unions." (Guess where Dr. Goodloe-Johnson has spent most of her working career as an administrator?)
And what does Ravitch have to say about the Gates, Walton and Broad foundations that are setting "policy agenda not only for school districts, but also for states and even the U.S. Department of Education." She says, "There is something fundamentally antidemocratic about relinquising control of the public education policy agenda to private foundations run by society's wealthiest people....They have taken it upon themselves to reform public education, perhaps in ways that would never survive the scrutiny of voters in any district or state."
I would love to quote more of Ravitch's article but if you have your August/September 2010 NEAtoday you can read it for yourself.
Okay you've been patient and I have been to the best of my ability neutral which is pretty hard in this environment. Next blog I have no intention of being neutral. I will explain the writing on the walls of this agenda to end the influence of unions on our public schools and scape goat the teacher.
And remember, this is a free speech and freedom of thought blog. While you may choose to censor me in the neutral proceedings of union busines, if you come here and read this stuff, expect to see MY OPINION of the unvarnished truth of what is happening today. Next Blog.
The Fifth Column amongst the Ranks of the Teachers.
SHMUEL Willner
So here I am in the privacy of my own blog and if you don't want to read it or you feel you will need to report these ideas I have to administration and imperil my teaching career do me a favor and stop reading now and work your own way through this morass.
But as promised this update will be non-offensive and mostly without opinion, devoid of passion and caring and to the best of my ability a simple reporting as to what is transpiring at our contract negotiating table interspersed with the authoritative comments about the misguided nature of the most recent effort at school reform from Diane Ravitch and her article "Stop the Madness" in the August/September edition of NEA Today. Diane Ravitch, if you don't know was one of the loudest advocates for No Child Left Behind under the Bush administration, who having seen the damage it has done to schools and the teaching profession, is now the oft quoted sage about why it's not the teacher's fault or the teacher's union's fault after all.
Hopefully, you had a chance to go to one of the focus group sessions that the Union held between July 24th and July 27th. As you probably know, after last year's fiasco when the district and the union tried to negotiate in public but in doing so got an earful of why their plans were impalatable, this year they are negotiating behind closed doors so we won't even know what is in the contract before we show up to vote on it. Luckily, the union, understanding the grave consequences and significant changes the district's proposal has decided that before it shows up with this totally new contract will show it to us before they propose we accept it in September to avoid a strike. Yes, they will recommend we accept it because for them it is the politically expedient thing to do in an environment where union's are the poster children of those who are standing in the way of school reform. If you don't believe the union has this first and foremost in their mind you might want to read the last communication you received from the bargaining table where the union spent most of its communication explaining why they are not at fault. But let's talk about the district's proposal.
SERVE-Yup that's the name of the district's proposal. I am wondering how much they paid some PR consulting firm to come up with that title. I can just see it now. Teacher's Union Rejects District's Offer to SERVE Students. I wish the union had the money to spend on PR for teachers. Ok, so what is this offer.
The first and foremost thing everyone must understand in the district's proposal is that absolutely everything; collaboration time, increase in wages, professional growth opportunities is tied to a new plan for Teacher Evaluation. In the past teacher evaluation was simply one part of the negotiations. No more. All of the district's offers to improve any part of our working conditions or increase our teaching salaries is linked to our willingness to accept this new evaluation system. In otherwords if we don't accept this new evaluation system there is absolutely nothing in this contract to improve our working conditions or our wages. So this means that this contract is all about teacher evaluation and nothing else. It is a totally one sided negotiation with the District deaf to any of our interests regarding more collaborative time or smaller class sizes or increased compensation unless they are connected to SERVE. So what is SERVE?
SERVE has many components. It is proposed to cost 3.9 million dollars to administer over the next four years of this contract which includes the purchasing of expensive software (wouldn't suprise me if it was made by microsoft) to monitor student testing and I guess to track teacher evaluations and to hire 3 new high paid administrators to oversee the program. I am thinking to myself how much new curriculum materials could be purchased with this money or how many IA salaries to support the new inclusion of special education students in the mainstream classes. Here is what Diane Ravitch has to say about the effectiveness of administration to manage testing. "state education departments were drowning in new bureaucratic requirements, procedures, and routines and that none of the prescribed remedies was making a difference." Here Seattle wishes to put in to its adminstrative costs its own self funded oversight program.
The Teacher Evaluation System in SERVE. I am quite sure I can not do this aspect of their proposal justice from pure recall and the few notes that I took at the meeting but I will do my best.
Student Evaluations based on Testing account for 25% of a teacher's evaluation for courses that are being tested. Student evaluations based on testing will not account for any of a teacher's evaluation if they are not in a subject that is being tested. The current testing courses include reading, math and science and there is also proposed end of year assessments for Social Studies with the intent of over time creating end of year assessments for things like foreign language. Here is what Diane Ravitch has to say about this.
" The most toxic flaw in NCLB ws its legislative command that ALL students in EVERY school must be proficient in reading and mathematics by 2014 including students with special needs, students whose native language is not English, students who are homeless and lacking in any societal advantage, and students who have every societal advantage, but are not interested in their school work...One of the unintended consequences of NCLB was the shrinkage of time available to teach anything other than reading and math. Other subjects, including history, science, the arts, geography, even recess were curtailed in many schools. Reading and mathematices were the only subjects that counted in calculating a schools's adequate yearly progress, and even in these subjects' instruction gave way to intesive test preparation. Test scores became an obsession.....In urban schools, where there are many low-performing students, drill and practice became a significant part of the daily routine."
Here are some of the other components of Teacher Evaluations:
1. 10% or 20% for non testing subjects the evaluates how close you are to reaching target on two teacher selected, administration approved student academic achievement goals.
2. 10% for overall whole school student's growth data. Which means if the students of the school don't improve on a two year rolling average you are dinged for 10% of your evaluation.
3. 5% of your total evaluation would be based on "surveys" from peers, families and students.
This leaves 50% to 65% of the rest of the evaluation to be subject to the new adminstrative evaluation system which includes four ratings; classroom environment, instruction, planning and preparation and professional responsibility. These would be from administrative observation and you can receive a rating of unsatisfactory, needs improvement, average, strong and exemplary.
Collectively when all of these percentages are tallied together you get a percentage number evaluation which translates into one of four categories; unsatisfactory (put on probation), basic (if you don't improve by next year you will be put on probation, proficient (for which there is no particular reward it just keeps you off the watch list) and innovative (which provides you opportunity for professional growth up the ranks of master and mentor teacher for which you can qualify to make more money by taking on new responsibilities as a teacher-teaching other teachers.
I think that is pretty much the SERVE plan and if you opt to join this plan you can get a 1% increase in salary next year and another 1% increase the following year and make yourself available to go up the teaching career ladder. If you do not opt to join SERVE you will get no raises and even if you choose not to opt in during this contract extension, you will be required to join SERVE for the next contract extension.
Other motivations to encourage union members to approve the contract are the fact that along with this new evaluation system the district will implement a district wide friday early dismissal program of 19-2 hour teacher collaboration periods that will be split between teacher and administration controlled with the single caveat that we agree to add 12 minutes to the school day for no extra pay but to stay within the hour requirements for students.
As I evaluate this new evaluation procedure I see an awful lot of top down oversight and management that will take up most of our school administrators' time and simply burden the administrative structure with undoable evaluations. Imagine a principle meeting with teachers on goals, tracking performance, rating teachers, inputting student performance and calculating percentages on teacher evaluations. Conducting stakeholder surveys and tabulating the results to come up with a 5% number. Not only will this be problematic but just imagine if a teacher wishes to disagree. (I think they wrote non-grievable). In any case given all that the administrators are currently dealing with I can't imagine this will enable them to be better administrators of their schools. Oh, and by the way over the next four years during the role out some teachers will be in the system and some will be without of the system. Clearly the District spent most of its money on PR without really considering the logistically nightmare of putting this into place and the distraction it will be to both teacher and administrator for focussing on the classroom and the student.
Well this is the crux of the SERVE program and you may ask what does that do to our current contract structure. Well, when I grant myself the opportunity to be opinionated in my next blog I will share with you the impact on the contract but the bottom line, it makes the union functionally irrelevant to protecting the employee from any effort the district would make at any time to dismiss him or her.
What does Diane Ravitch have to say about all of this effort to end the influence of unions on education?
" One would think, by reading the critics, that the nation's schools are overrun by incompetent teachers who hold their jobs only because of union protections, that unions are directly resonsible for poor student performance, and that academic achievement would soar if the unions were to disappear....This is unfair. No one, to my knowledge, has demonstrated a clear, indisputable correlation between teacher unionism and academic achievement, either negative or positive. The Southern states, where teachers' unions have historically been either week or non existent, have always had the poorest student performance on national examinations. Massachusetts, the state with the highest academic performance, has long had strong teacher unions." (Guess where Dr. Goodloe-Johnson has spent most of her working career as an administrator?)
And what does Ravitch have to say about the Gates, Walton and Broad foundations that are setting "policy agenda not only for school districts, but also for states and even the U.S. Department of Education." She says, "There is something fundamentally antidemocratic about relinquising control of the public education policy agenda to private foundations run by society's wealthiest people....They have taken it upon themselves to reform public education, perhaps in ways that would never survive the scrutiny of voters in any district or state."
I would love to quote more of Ravitch's article but if you have your August/September 2010 NEAtoday you can read it for yourself.
Okay you've been patient and I have been to the best of my ability neutral which is pretty hard in this environment. Next blog I have no intention of being neutral. I will explain the writing on the walls of this agenda to end the influence of unions on our public schools and scape goat the teacher.
And remember, this is a free speech and freedom of thought blog. While you may choose to censor me in the neutral proceedings of union busines, if you come here and read this stuff, expect to see MY OPINION of the unvarnished truth of what is happening today. Next Blog.
The Fifth Column amongst the Ranks of the Teachers.
SHMUEL Willner
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)