Baltimore teachers said thanks, but no thanks, Thursday night to a new contract that would have based their pay on student outcomes and professional development, instead of seniority and degrees.
The contract had been touted by many in education policy as a potential new model for the state, and even the nation. Even the morning of the vote, the U.S. Department of Education had bragged about the expected deal in a press release highlighting examples of cooperation between teachers and education-redesign minded managers.
Back when the contract was announced, Jack Jennings, the president of the Center on Education Policy, told The (Baltimore) Sun that the agreement was "extraordinary" and squelched claims that unions are impediments to reform. And Emily Cohen, a policy analyst at the National Council on Teacher Quality, told the paper that the city went further than any other district to eliminate automatic pay increases.
Although the contract included pay raises and kept health benefits at their current levels, some teachers were skeptical of the idea that future salary increases would be tied to effectiveness and professional development, the Associated Press reported after the vote.
...
Marietta English, president of the AFT-affiliated Baltimore Teachers Union, told The Sun that the rejection was the result of "frustration and misinformation" about the contract. And she said in a statement that the union had been told that "some charter school operators have encouraged their teachers not to vote for this agreement."
"We negotiated a very new and different agreement at a time when fear, frustration and distrust are at an all-time high," English told The Sun. "We are confident that this is a bump in the road, and if we continue on the road of working with the administration, and listening to and respecting our members, we will soon have a great teacher contract for the city of Baltimore."
The vote drew more than 2,600 teachers, with about 58 percent voting against the contract, schools Chief Executive Officer Andres Alonso said. He issued a statement stressing that he would keep working with the union.
Next thing to do is vote out the sell-out leadership who tried to sell Baltimore teachers on the "Salary Commensurate With Test Scores and PD" jive.
Then take aim at Randi Weingarten and the rest of the sell-outs in the AFT leadership who touted this piece of shit contract as a model for contracts all across the country.
Hey, Randi, hope you can read lips!!!!
You too, Arne!!!
"Then take aim at Randi Weingarten and the rest of the sell-outs in the AFT leadership who touted this piece of shit contract as a model for contracts all across the country."
ReplyDeleteAFT Convention in Detroit - July 2012 - be there.
How is it that NYC and the union can negotiate using VAM w/o the consent of rank and file???
ReplyDeleteRandi and Company do all kinds of things without the consent of the membership.
ReplyDeleteYou can be sure Mulgrew will sell us down the river in the next contract after the "fact-finding."
Cuomo will finish us off by declaring seniority and tenure illegal and abolishing them by law.
It will be up to the UFT to fight that in court.
Hope I am wrong, but I don't think I will be.
I should add that I am skeptical that the UFT will do that. Witness that asshole Ed in the Apple's comment on the Baltimore contract:
ReplyDelete"The USDOE and other "outsiders" sank the contract with "boastful" comments. This is a complex agreement, and, teachers are righfully cautious. The rush to a vote was foolish, clearly the union leadership should have spent more time explaining the agreement.
When unions move too quickly ahead of their membership they risk losing their membership. When city and school district leadership move too quickly they lose parents and voters."
Ah, yes - "move too quickly"...as if these moves are right to do, the membership just hasn't been "educated" enough to know how "good" this stuff is for them.
That is the UFT leadership attitude toward the membership in a nutshell.
As a New York City teacher, thank G-d for union democracy. NYC teachers would never vote for such a contract. Weingarten brought us the ATR system as well as the end of seniority-based transfers. Even the best senior teachers cannot transfer because of the last contract due to age discrimination and budgetary reasons (old teachers are too expensive). No rational teacher is going to vote for a contract that bases a salary increase on factors one cannot control. When I can control the lives of high needs and special education students, then I will vote for a contract that will base a raise on student achievement. When I can choose only students with average and above average IQs will I vote for a contract that will base a raise on student achievement. Only when parents who neglect the educational needs of their children are punished by the state will I vote for a contract that will base a raise on student achievement.
ReplyDelete