Seattle Education Association official blog

Talking points created by teachers for parents

2010-08-27T18:08:00.000-07:00

WHY SEATTLE TEACHERS AND PARENTS ARE STANDING UP

Under the Superintendent's plan called SERVE:

* More time testing = less time learning. Precious class time would be spent “teaching to the test,” eliminating art, music, PE, project-based learning, and other instruction needed to ensure success in college and in life.

* Students would be dismissed from school every other Friday afternoon while teachers attend meetings. This is a loss of more than 2 weeks of class time.

* Libraries & computer labs would be closed to classes during the 9 weeks required to test students during the year. Yet, this test does not replace, or even prepare students for, the state-required proficiency exams required for graduation.

* Relationships between students and teachers would be undermined by high-stakes testing - increased stress threatens the personalization that makes for good teaching.

* Taxpayers would be asked to spend millions more on the MAP test which, according to its creators, was never meant to be used as a summative student evaluation (like the SAT), nor as a teacher evaluation tool.

Concerned parents and teachers believe:

Students are more than test scores. They are human beings, not “products” to be measured and calibrated to “the norm.”

21st century education requires developing critical thinking skills, effective communication skills, practice in collaboration and intrapersonal interaction in addition to “the three R’s”.

Teachers cannot treat students as individuals when the district treats them as "products" that determine employment and compensation.

Cooperation and collaboration among teachers disintegrates as colleagues become "competitors" fighting for the “best students” and “merit” pay determined by a test score.

Teachers want to be accountable for factors they control: planning & preparation, classroom environment, instructional practice and professional responsibility.

For more information see:
Department of Education Error Rates in Measuring Teacher and School Performance Based on Student Test Score Gains http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20104004/pdf/20104004.pdf
Diane Ravitch Obama's Race to the Top Will Not Improve Education
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/diane-ravitch/obamas-race-to-the-top-wi_b_666598.html
Dora Taylor The MAP test has a few teensy problems http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut4bK2Z0cvs
Meg Diaz takes the School Board to task http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19vOVdpOh6M
Carl Bialik Putting Teachers to the Test http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/putting-teachers-to-the-test-982/

Aug 26th - Bargaining Teams continue into the evening

2010-08-26T20:58:00.000-07:00

The teams were still bargaining at 8:00 p.m. They will continue into the evening. The SEA Bargaining Team continues to negotiate based on the values and priorities members have identified. The teams will schedule more sessions if needed. Their goal is to get a tentative agreement by or before August 31. We will continue to provide regular updates.

This morning, staff and parents from Salmon Bay and Olympic View showed their solidarity by greeting the SEA Team with posters, flowers and breakfast treats as they arrived at negotiations. The Team clearly felt the support.

On Tuesday, August 24, 90 Site Coordinators met to prepare for activities to support our bargaining team. Below is the information they are circulating at trainings and schools this week.

We Are Ready for Change.

On Tuesday, Aug. 31, wear blue for our brighter future, and as a united symbol of what we can achieve for our schools and students through collaboration and innovation. SEA members are ready!

As educators, we dedicate our careers to doing the best we can for our students …. and we bristle when outsiders to our district suggest teachers should be blamed for every problem that interferes with a child’s education today. That’s why our union, the Seattle Education Association, is seeking a new path. It’s a path that recognizes the most important factor in a child’s schooling is a great teacher in every classroom, but also recognizes that great teachers are not the only factor that shapes a child’s education.

As educators, we know learning is more than simply teaching the answers to a standardized test. We know that education is facts, figures and formulas, but it is so much more: It’s attitude, curiosity and a student’s internal drive to do better. It’s instilling a desire for lifelong learning, not merely the ability to skate through next week’s test. As educators, we understand that children are not treated equally by the world. Some have access to travel, books, performances and information. Some don’t. Some families face a multitude of challenges. Some don’t.

As educators, we are not afraid to own our role in teaching our students. And as a profession, we must stand against being the sole source of blame for every factor that influences the upbringing of every child.

That’s why Seattle’s educators worked jointly with the district to develop the Professional Growth and Evaluation model. It creates a framework to identify great teachers based on clear standards, not simply guesswork or favoritism. It provides the support to help struggling teachers improve, so that every Seattle educator truly is proficient or innovative. It reflects and helps educators address the cultural differences of our students. And it deals head-on with an isolated but incendiary issue that has risked the credibility of our entire profession: teacher quality.

That’s the historic change we seek: fighting for the professionalism we – and our students – deserve, but finding meaningful solutions that still ensure fairness to our members. If we are successful, SEA could provide a beacon to other districts struggling with these same difficult issues. If no contract agreement is reached, SEA could find itself in a protracted battle with those who don’t recognize the educational damage created by their simplistic mandate for test-driven teaching.

For now, let’s remain upbeat and positive in our hope that our district is ready to move forward with historic change.

It’s our future. We’re ready for change: That’s why we need your voice.

Seattle teachers says, "Students are so much more than test scores..."

2010-08-26T10:45:00.001-07:00

More Progress, but still no Tentative Agreement

2010-08-25T18:47:00.000-07:00

Much progress has been made at the negotiation table this week. As you know, Monday was added this week and the teams met for a half of a day. Both Tuesday and Wednesday, the teams met for full days and intense discussions.

The teams will again meet on Thursday for another full day that may even extend into the evening. There has even been talk of adding more days if tomorrow does not provide enough time.

Despite the continued progress, there is still significant tension on some key issues that have great importance to the members. The Seattle EA team continues to follow the guidance that members have shared through surveys, focus groups, building meetings and individual emails.

Another communication will be sent out Thursday evening with an update on bargaining and upcoming activities.

In the meantime, start spreading the word that Seattle EA members will be wearing blue on Tuesday, August 31 as a united symbol of what we can achieve for our schools and students through collaboration and innovation. SEA members are ready!

General Membership Meeting

Thursday, September 2

4:30 p.m.

SPU’s Royal Brougham Pavilion

3414 3rd Ave W (at W. Nickerson)

For more information about basis for the jointly recommended proposal that has been discussed, please follow this link: http://www.seattlewea.org/index.php/component/content/article/252-the-basis-for-the-joint-proposal

August 23, 2010 Update

2010-08-24T10:22:00.000-07:00

The SEA and SPS bargaining teams met for a total of four hours today. Your bargaining team believes there are signs of progress, as the District negotiators begin to consider our proposals with a degree of seriousness not seen recently.

There are significant issues yet to be resolved. We will meet again at the bargaining table tomorrow (Tuesday) and Wednesday, with the hope that the progress seen today will continue. Our next bargaining update will be sent to you following the end of bargaining on Wednesday, unless significant news emerges in the next 24 hours

In the meantime, site coordinators will also meet tomorrow to continue providing support for our bargaining team.

Seattle Education Association

General Membership Meeting

4:30, Thursday, September 2, 2010

Royal Brougham Pavilion

3414 3rd Ave W (at W Nickerson)

NEA, CTA, and UTLA jointly write a letter to the LA Times

2010-08-23T19:11:00.000-07:00

August 20, 2010

Mr. Russ Stanton, Editor

Mr. Davan Maharaj, Managing Editor

Los Angeles Times

202 W. 1st St.

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Dear Mr. Stanton and Mr. Maharaj,

In a reckless and destructive move, which ignores the prevailing consensus that value-added measures are too unreliable and unstable to draw valid conclusions about a teacher’s ability to teach to a standardized test, much less to teach students, the LA Times has decided to publish a database naming 6,000 teachers and purporting to rate their effectiveness. Reasonable people understand a single test

score does not define student learning and can never solely measure the effectiveness of a teacher. We would think a reasonable and respectable institution such as the LA Times would as well. So, we are only left to assume, the purpose of the publication was to sell newspapers. Otherwise, we’d have to believe

that you felt it was ethical to publicly label teachers as “effective” or “ineffective” based on data, and a methodology, that even your own paper admits are “controversial” and knows are an incomplete and inaccurate measure of the quality of a teacher.

There is significant and widespread consensus that the type of value-added methodology the LA Times is using generates significantly unstable measures of a teacher’s effectiveness at teaching standardized test subjects. A recent report, released just this past month by the U.S. Department of Education’s

Institute of Education Sciences (”Error Rates in Measuring Teacher and School Performance Based on Student Test Score Gains,” July 2010), concluded that there is a 20 percent likelihood that a teacher’s rating under such a system will radically shift from year to year. Other researchers have concluded that the instability of such measures may be significantly higher, generating swings of up to 35 percent of

teachers moving from the most highly effective group of teachers in one year to the least effective group of teachers in the next.1 In other words, the teachers that the LA Times has seen fit to publicly shame as “ineffective” under its value-added measure would be labeled “effective” if the value-added measure were rerun for a different set of years. Or, to put the point bluntly, the LA Times rating of

these teachers as “ineffective” is false.

The radical instability in value-added measures of a teacher’s ability to teach standardized test subjects reflects what we all know to be true: a student’s performance on a standardized test reflects multiple factors, many of which are entirely independent of the teacher who administered the test. A student’s

performance on a standardized test reflects what they learned in prior years under other teachers, reflects what they learned or retained over summer break, and reflects their personal circumstances (did they come to school hungry the day of the test, do they come to school hungry every day, were they distracted that day due to personal hardships, such as a divorce, a lost job, a lost home, a lost

family member).

A teacher’s performance on a value-added measure also reflects the fact that student assignment is not random. Teachers do not all teach equally gifted or equally challenged students, and the teaching required to boost one student’s score on a standardized test by five points is not equivalent to the teaching required to boost another student’s score by the same increment. Student attendance

throughout the year also plays a significant role. The analysis the LA Times has done accounts only in part for a few of these variants. Indeed, the consensus in the literature is that such external factors are exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to capture effectively in value-added measures of an individual

teacher’s effectiveness. In addition, the California Standards Test (CST), on which the LA Times value added measure is based, is not designed for that purpose. The CST is designed to measure standards at each grade level, not continuous student growth from year to year. Indeed, the CST is not even vertically aligned, meaning that it is nonsense for the LA Times to assume, as it has, that a student’s performance on the CST should be stable from one year to the next.

Equally to the point, even if the value-added measure used by the LA Times were accurate, the information it would yield is at best partial, measuring only a fraction of an elementary school teacher’s work. Our children go to elementary school to learn how to read and write and share and work together and express themselves and understand cause and effect and learn about our society and world.

To be sure, the LA Times could say that it recognizes all of the above and has made the decision to go ahead and publish its data because it provides the public with some glimpse into the ability of teachers, based on a single notoriously inaccurate measure, to teach to standardized tests, which would still be irresponsible. But that is not what the LA Times has done. In the article that the paper saw fit to run this past Sunday, teachers were labeled as “ineffective” without any qualification and blamed for years of supposed failures without any sound factual basis for such public shaming. The LA Times decision to run the article and name those teachers damaged both the reputations of those teachers and those of

their students. The LA Times proposal to expand its public shaming to the 6,000 teachers in its “database” will exponentially compound the damage. If the collective goal is to have highly qualified teachers in every classroom, how does exposing teachers to this public scrutiny entice anyone into the profession? The proposed publication of the data purporting to rate teachers publicly is not supported by the underlying data, which is limited, according to the sparse technical information that the LA Times has made available to date, to “identifying what factors improve student outcomes over time” and to providing insights into how a district may “align” its resources, not as a measure of the effectiveness of

individual teachers. Even the researcher who did this work for the LA Times says that he made “no attempt to link the scrambled identifier [he used for the analysis] with teacher names.”

The LA Times is the second-largest newspaper in the country. Its readers across the country expect and deserve better than the loose journalism ethics and integrity that led to this simplistic approach to measuring teacher effectiveness and the decision to publish the names of local teachers as if they are public officials.

As the elected leaders of NEA, CTA, and UTLA, we call on the LA Times to act responsibly and cease the publication of data that is materially false and misleading about the dedicated teachers who serve in our schools. Rather than publishing data that is false and misleading, and will distract from, rather than

advance, the efforts to improve our public schools and the evaluation systems used in those schools, we invite the LA Times to engage in an honest discussion about what is really needed to provide a quality education to all students and to create a fair and comprehensive teacher evaluation system that uses multiple measures of teacher performance and student outcomes, gives reliable and actionable feedback to teachers about their strengths and weaknesses, and offers quality professional

development and intervention to help teachers improve their practice. Only through a meaningful and comprehensive system such as this can a teacher’s quality and effectiveness be accurately measured, teacher practice improved and all of our students be ensured great public schools.

Sincerely,

Dennis Van Roekel

President, National Education Association

David A. Sanchez

President, California Teachers Association

A.J. Duffy

President, United Teachers Los Angeles

1 The current state of the research on value-added measures is captured by the National Academy of Science’s Report, “Getting Value Out of Value-Added,” released earlier this year. The report, based on papers commissioned from sixteen leading scholars in the field and a review of over fifty studies, concluded that “the year-to-year stability of estimated teacher effects can be characterized as being quite low from one year to the next”(p. 46). For that reason, there is widespread consensus that value-added measures should not be used for high stakes decisions regarding teachers and must be used with care and precision so as not to generate results that are far too unstable to be considered fair or reliable.

SEA members and community rally support for bargain

2010-08-20T16:50:00.000-07:00

Serious Conversation

2010-08-19T19:09:00.000-07:00

Earlier this week, we noted that district negotiators said they would seriously consider the latest SEA proposal, which attempted to address our mutual interests in quality teaching while not misusing student test data to fire teachers.

District negotiators returned Thursday and did indeed engage in a serious conversation with SEA to explore our proposal. The session concluded without any tentative agreements being reached over adopting the jointly developed Professional Growth & Evaluation process, but the district did choose to add an extra day of negotiations on Monday. The bargaining teams had not planned to resume contract talks until Tuesday.

SEA supports moving forward with the historic progress already achieved through the jointly negotiated Professional Growth and Evaluation plan. SEA’s proposal on Tuesday suggested carving out middle ground by recognizing the district’s interest in using test data to help support teachers who may benefit from additional help, while not misusing students’ scores as a part of the final evaluation or to fire teachers.

Negotiations continue and no contract agreement is in place. SEA will be contacting our building site reps to attend an organizing meeting scheduled for 4:30 to 6 p.m. Tuesday.

www.SeattleWEA.org

SEA President Olga Addae's speech at the August 18, 2010 Board meeting

2010-08-18T21:02:00.001-07:00

Thank you to all the SEA members who came this afternoon to the rally, over 200 members and supporters chanting “Kids first, not the test, kids deserve the very best” was a great thing to see and hear. Tomorrow, Thursday, August 19, 2010 will be an important day at the bargaining table for the SEA Bargaining team, but I wanted to share the following which was my speech that I delivered this evening to the Seattle School Board, Dr. Maria Goodloe-Johnson and the packed room of community members.

Please enter into the record for the August 18, 2010 SPS School Board Meeting.

I’m Olga Addae, President of Seattle Education Association.

In these tough economic times the district once again prioritizes spending their limited resources for “things” and not services for our students.

Will the 2.5 million dollars for new technology enhance student learning? I doubt it.

Will the new technology close the Achievement Gap? Definitely not!

What other technological machinery does SPS propose to waste its limited resources on? Nearly 4 million dollars to mechanize and automate the teacher evaluation system.

Will tying test scores to teacher evaluation enhance student learning? NO!

Will tying test scores to evaluations close the Achievement Gap? Definitely NOT.

The district can not show any evidence that tying student test scores to evaluations will enhance student learning.

So what purpose can it SERVE?

· It serves to mechanize/automate firing teachers

· It serves to dismantle collaboration amongst educators

· It serves to increase “teaching to the test”

· It serves to narrow the curriculum choices for students

· It serves to undermine our Profession of Teaching

I stand on the integrity and experience of our profession. Educators know:

· Children are more than test scores

· Teaching is more than “teaching to a test”

As professionals we say “No” to the improper use of tests and the destruction the district plans to serve to our students and teachers.

We will not sell out our profession or our students for failed and an unproven education policy driven by the Gates and Broad Foundations hidden agenda.

We will not sell out our profession or our students because our experience tells us that it is only through enhancing our profession through collaboration; collaboration that leads to “ongoing inquiry” , that we will build a quality education system for our students.

We the educators seek authentic accountability? Yes! Hold us accountable to our teaching practice!

The SEA and SPS joint Professional Growth and Evaluation Task Force has developed a robust evaluation system that not only holds us accountable to our teaching practice but builds collaboration and professional learning communities that will enhance student learning.

This shift in education culture is the only proven way to close the Achievement Gap.

It uses student outcome data, explicitly as stated in law: To reflect and improve our teaching practice.

We are about to embark on a “historical cultural shift” not a packaged program.

Creativity, professional autonomy, collaboration, and authentic evaluation, are the foundations to a quality public education that all students deserve.

DO NOT: Block the way of this historic change

DO NOT: Serve Seattle students anything less.

Honor our collaborative work.

SEA Vice President Jonathan Knapp's speech to the SPS School Board

2010-08-18T20:55:00.001-07:00

Vice President Sundquist, members of the board, superintendent Goodloe-Johnson, my name is Jonathan Knapp and I am the proud Vice President of the Seattle Education Association, the voice of Seattle’s educators.

Washington State has a long history of progressive labor organizations. Our roots go back to the International Workers of the World organizing the timber workers in camps throughout the rural parts of the state. SEA does credit to that progressive history by proposing real reform that addresses the one of the true failings of public education: the achievement gap.

Seattle educators make no apology for advocating for what we know to be right for our workplace because we know that the educators working conditions are the child’s learning conditions.What makes educators more effective and improves a child’s academic achievement are the measures and support by the district that inspire confidence. The kind of disruptive and divisive proposals that the district has put on the bargaining table do not inspire confidence among the very people that your bargaining team has characterized as the most important element in a child’s education: the teachers. My challenge to you is to walk the walk and not just talk the talk.

If you think that teachers really are the most important element in a child’s education, then you need to listen to what we are asking for to help close the achievement gap. Teachers are imploring you to implement a new evaluation system that we jointly developed with district managers through an arduous, collaborative, two-year process. Teachers want a clear and effective tool to look critically at their own practice in the classroom and benefit from the insights of their evaluators to make the substantive changes in the parts of their teaching practice that need improvement. The beautiful thing about the joint task-force’s recommendations is that it moves principals away from an antagonistic relationship with teachers and moves them into the role of collaborative supporter of teacher’s continuous professional development. This kind of teamworkis in line with Seattle’s culture.

Walk the walk of supporting the most important element in a child’s education. Seattle’s educators want to implement historic reform to improve teachers’ practice to improve student achievement. What is more accountable than the accountability of that kind of commitment and engagement by educators? Shake off your punitive notions of motivation and coercive methods of improvement. Teachers know that isn’t how we build trusting relationships with our students in our classrooms. Leave behind these 19th century notions of factory training. Join us in the 21st century where we can cultivate a new climate of confidence and trust together and where we can grow an educational ecosystemtogether, an ecosystem that, like all ecosystems, evolves interdependencies and interrelationships that grow into a healthy and vibrant environment where all the members thrive and not just survive.

Does the Seattle School District truly want to move forward with historic change?

2010-08-17T22:50:00.000-07:00

August 17, 2010

Reminder: Join us at a

SEA Rally
to support our bargaining team
5:30 p.m., August 18
JSCEE
prior to the School Board Meeting

Does the Seattle School District truly want to move forward with historic change, or is its strategy to block progress with an unyielding insistence on unproven, unacceptable testing schemes?

The SEA negotiating team extended a branch today that should make it clear whether the district’s true goal is to use test scores to improve student achievement and quality teaching, or whether it is merely a ruse for some other agenda.

Early in the day, the district’s negotiating team continued stonewalling on the issue of using test scores for teacher evaluations. Finally, when challenged by SEA to identify what parts of their SERVE proposal they were actually willing to negotiate over, their blocking strategy became clear.

The district was not willing to negotiate any proposal that didn’t base teacher evaluations on student test scores. It was their way or no way.

SEA supports moving forward with the historic progress already achieved through the jointly negotiated Professional Growth and Evaluation plan. So SEA’s bargaining team huddled privately to develop a creative solution that would meet the core values of SEA members and the interests of the district.

The result: A proposal from SEA that seeks to carve out middle ground by recognizing the district’s interest in using test data to help recognize teachers who may benefit from additional help, while not misusing test data to evaluate and fire teachers.

District negotiators said they would seriously consider the SEA proposal. We will know how seriously when we meet on Thursday morning for our next bargaining session.

Remember . . .

the Seattle Education Association

General Membership Meeting
Thursday, September 2, 2010, 4:30 p.m.
SPU's Royal Brougham Pavillion
3414 3rd Ave W (at W Nickerson)
Seattle

Ballard Teacher Speaks Out

2010-08-17T14:26:00.000-07:00

Are you communicating to your school community?

2010-08-17T13:55:00.001-07:00

Here is another sample of what one teacher sent out to the community:

Hello,

I am both a teacher and parent of Seattle Public Schools.

You might be wondering if a strike is looming in Seattle schools... Well, my answer is NO! The only person talking about a strike is Dr. Goodloe-Johnson. Teachers are ready to go back into the classrooms, many already have.

SEA and SPS are much closer to hammering out a contract than Dr. G-J wants us to believe. The only sticking point is the evaluation system. And this is the REAL RUB: half of what Dr. G-J is calling "SERVE" was developed jointly with SEA!!

Let me back up. Over the past two years, a joint committee of SEA and SPS have worked together to develop a new evaluation system. They finished it, agreed to it, and both parties SIGNED OFF on it in April. As far as SEA understood, this part of the contract had been settled.

Then, out of the blue, Dr. G-J adds on the part about teachers' evaluations being linked to student test scores conveniently the week after the school year ended. Not getting anywhere at the bargaining table, she went public with her idea. However, Dr. G-J bundled what the joint SEA SPS committee created with her idea of tying test scores to evaluations and called it SERVE. When Dr. G-J went public at the start of August to gain public favor for her test score idea she failed to give credit for what SEA did. Instead, she's making it sound like SEA doesn't want to change the evaluation system at all. She deceived me, and I think many others have been fooled, too.

SEA wants everyone to understand that teachers support a new evaluation system, and the new eval system called "PG and E- professional growth and evaluation" is going to bring radical change to the district. No longer will a teacher's evaluation be pass/fail, it's going to be unsatisfactory, basic, proficient, and innovative.... and it will not be acceptable to be either unsat or basic. Not to mention the detail and clarity of the PG and E system's rubric. I know from my experience, I want specific feedback that will help me grow as a professional. The PG and E system is a tool that will enable admin to have these constructive conversations with teachers.

Another thing SEA wants everyone to consider, where is the research that says student test scores correlates to teacher quality? We all know there are hundreds of variables teachers do not control that strongly effect students' test scores... so why would we want to stake who is fired based on how well Johnny slept the night before he took his MAP test?

If you have questions or just want to shoot the breeze about what I wrote, feel free to email or call me. And in the meanwhile, there is a school board meeting next week, Wednesday, August 18th. I plan on going to demonstrate my distaste for Dr. G-J's approach to negotiations. Specifically, I want Dr. G-J to honor what the joint SPS and SEA committee created. I hope you will spread the message, too.

Thanks,

A letter from a teacher to parents

2010-08-17T13:38:00.000-07:00

Dear Parents of children I have taught,

There is a new system that is steamrolling into our school district,
into our classrooms, and into the relationships that I have with each
of my students. This system, driven by standardized tests, will
change the classroom environment dramatically. I am asking for you to
make your voices heard on this issue.

As you may already know, Seattle Public Schools is prioritizing its
focus and funding on ways to make teachers “more accountable” by
linking student test scores to teacher evaluation and compensation.
But the elephant in the room is: Are these high quality tests? Do we
want teachers to give them highest priority? Tests such as the
Measurement of Academic Progress (MAP) test finite skills, which can
be useful for a teacher in designing instruction, but let’s not be
misled: it does not test how an individual child is developing skills
of critical thinking, creativity and problem solving, or independent
and teamwork skills—cornerstone qualities of the most successful
members of our society.

As a successful lifelong learner myself, I naturally need feedback in
many forms to evaluate my teaching so I can continuously improve.
However, this move to emphasize test results to evaluate and
compensate teachers is setting students up to be shortchanged.
Teachers will be forced to teach a narrower set of skills, focusing on
test-measured forms of “success”. Class time for music, arts, social
studies, science, research, and physical education will continue to
dwindle as long as the focus on testing is largely in reading and
math. I have already seen this happen throughout the district at the
elementary level, especially in schools with higher poverty rates
where students tend to test poorly and the pressure to raise test
scores is intense.

Even testing logistics have a negative impact on learning. In
buildings throughout the
district, the entire school is denied access to precious library
resources for 9 weeks out of
the 36 weeks of the year to allow for MAP testing three times a year:
that’s 25% of the
year! On top of that, often teachers and principals decide that kids
need more practice with standardized test taking on the computers in
order to succeed on these high-stakes tests. Children will see
libraries as testing centers rather than as places to expand their
learning through research and be inspired by great books.

What about teacher evaluation?

All students deserve talented, effective, inspiring teachers. We need
an evaluation system that encourages teachers to engage children in
critical thinking and in creative problem solving, as opposed to a
system focused on multiple choice test taking. A new evaluation
system was developed collaboratively over the last few years by the
Seattle Education Association and Seattle Public Schools and piloted
in several Seattle schools, and was shown to be a useful and effective
evaluation system to judge the effectiveness of teachers. It also gave
principals the power to put those teachers who demonstrated
ineffective teaching skills on probation. This system is an exciting
new development for our teachers and administrators, something that
many saw as a very promising step forward to building successful
schools.

But then Superintendent Goodloe-Johnson acted unilaterally in adding
the test based evaluation system to this new collaboratively-developed
system

After 15 meetings of the contract negotiation teams, Seattle Public
Schools introduced a new addition to the collaboratively developed
evaluation system, reducing the new system to 50% of a teacher’s
evaluation, and announcing 35-45% of the teacher’s evaluation would be
tied to student performance on standardized tests, most significantly
the new MAP test. This 11th hour addition to the contract negotiations
is called SERVE. These are just a few of my concerns:

* The MAP test was brought to the district in a no-bid contract.
Not having an alternate bid for many contracts is an embarrassing
critique outlined in the federal audit of SPS, recently published.
* Superintendent Maria Goodloe-Johnson sits on the board of the
company that makes the MAP test, and did not disclose that before the
contract was approved.
* Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA), the company that makes
the MAP test, states the test was never designed as a tool to evaluate
teachers.
* $4 million price tag to roll out this system includes money for
the test and for more administrators to oversee the program--- money
that won’t go to our children’s classrooms.
* Honest and thoughtful evaluations can’t be that easy! The SERVE
plan hands teacher evaluation over to a computer.

Do we want computerized tests at the core of what our teachers teach
and what our children learn?

What Can You Do?

Come to the Board Meeting at John Stanford Center for Educational
Excellence (JSCEE) on August 18.

Talk and write to everyone you know about your feelings. Write to The
Seattle Times and neighborhood papers. Email or call Superintendent
Goodloe-Johnson at superintendent@seattleschools.org or 206-252-0167

Contact the School Board members and tell them your concerns with the
SERVE proposal and the direction it would take our schools. Seattle
School Board email addresses:

superindendent@seattleschools.org; peter.maier@seattleschools.org

,
sherry.carr@seattleschools.org; harium.martin-
morris@seattleschools.org; michael.debell@seattleschools.org;
betty.patu@seattleschools.org; steve.sundquist@seattleschools.org;
kay.smith-blum@seattleschools.org; pjoakes@seattleschools.org;
mcrain@washingtonea.org

Thank you for participating in public education; it is the foundation
of our democratic society.

Focus on Growth or Focus on Punishment?

2010-08-13T18:38:00.000-07:00

Make your voice heard!

Join Seattle Education Association peers and community
members at Wednesday’s Seattle School Board meeting. Meet at 5:20 p.m. Aug. 18 at the District’s John Stanford Center for
Educational Excellence, 2445 3rd Avenue S. in Seattle.

Attend the SEA general membership meeting, 4:30 p.m., Sept. 2

at Seattle Pacific University, Royal Brougham Pavillion

3414 Third Ave. West, Seattle

For the past two years, Seattle educators have worked hand in hand with top district administrators to create a new model for growth and evaluation that focuses on helping Seattle’s students succeed. Now our superintendent is attempting a last-minute end-run around that collaborative process by demanding that teacher evaluations be tied to student test scores. So what’s in the Professional Growth and Evaluation plan (PG&E) that was developed jointly by SEA and the district? Why is it a historic change, how does it benefit students and help close the achievement gap?

It makes student progress the foundation of teachers’ professional growth

· All certificated teachers will set annual student achievement goals which are specific and measurable.

· Using the Professional Practice Standards as a guide, teachers will set professional growth goals to help obtain student achievement goals.

· Recognizes clearly that "Student growth data shall be relevant to the teacher and subject matter, and must be based on multiple measures that may include classroom based, district based, and state based assessments as well as, attendance, discipline data, mobility and completion (course or year) rates of students. Student growth means the change in student achievement between two points in time."

· The joint PG&E plan focuses on student achievement goals AND linking Professional goals that enhance our professional teaching practice. SERVE sets student achievement goals without accountability for enhancing professional practice.

It helps take the guesswork and bias out of educators’ evaluations

· Uses clear standards based on four domains from the research of Charlotte Danielson that have been tried and tested in other districts where improvement has been documented. The four domains are: Planning and Preparation, Classroom Environment, Instructional Skill and Professional Responsibility.

· Sets clear indicators of acceptable performance based on standards within each domain.

· Culturally relevant practices are integrated in all four domains.

· Establishes a four-level rating system: Innovative, Proficient, Basic and Unsatisfactory.

It increases the level of accountability for educators with a focus on great teachers in every classroom

· For newer educators, it increases the number of required observations and conferences by administrators.

· Requires any teachers not in the top two levels in any domain – Proficient or Innovative – to be on a Plan of Support.

· Improvement plans are clearly defined for administrators and educators.

· Establishes a support system in the form of Human Resource Consulting Teachers to assist educators who are on Performance Improvement Plans.

· Maintains probationary process for either improvement or dismissal for those deemed Unsatisfactory in any of the four domains.

· PG & E would be phased in beginning this year to replace the current evaluation system while ensuring that it is implemented with fidelity. It would be fully implemented by 2013-2014.

· All teachers will participate in collaborative groups called Professional Learning Communities (PLC’s).

· Enhances collaborative work amongst educators focused on the academic achievement of students with an emphasis on culturally relevant practice.

It uses student test data for teacher growth, not punishment

· Educators are professionals and believe in accountability. The joint plan negotiated with the district mirrors the state’s goals to use test data correctly to improve teaching, and it has the support of Seattle’s educators.

· The big difference? The state plan means teachers will be evaluated on their ability to use the student data to modify their instruction (which happens every day in the classroom) and, unlike SERVE, would not misuse student assessment results to deem teachers “good or bad.”

· In addition to test data, SERVE would also rely on student surveys at the high school level. This ignores that some students may lack the sophistication to provide detailed qualitative feedback on instructional techniques. For instance, is a teacher “mean” or does that teacher simply set high standards and hold students accountable? In an era of instant communications, students could easily organize a negative evaluation for even great teachers whom they simply don’t like. The likely outcome of SERVE is skewed data that would not be reliable for high-stakes personnel decisions.

Learn more at www.SeattleWEA.org

SEA member video

2010-08-12T11:21:00.000-07:00

Why Merit Pay and Tying Test Scores to Evaluations is not Appropriate

2010-08-11T21:22:00.000-07:00

SEA is Focused on Quality Education for Students

2010-08-10T14:57:00.000-07:00

Seattle teachers are on the brink of adopting historic changes that could increase student achievement, help close the achievement gap and increase teacher accountability through a jointly developed evaluation system. But Seattle District leaders are risking throwing all that away, publicly trying to goad teachers into a strike, all to achieve reforms that don’t pass the common sense test.

We’re focused on quality teaching and providing accountability
• Seattle educators want to make sure there is a great teacher in every classroom.
• Educators and district leaders have worked together to create a plan that increases teacher accountability and focuses on student performance. Under the new plan, it will no longer be OK to just get by: teachers will face specific measures unless they’re in the top two proficiency levels.
• Accountability also increases for administrators, who will now have standards on which to judge teachers. because The joint SEA/district agreement provides a standards-based, four-level rating system (Innovative, Proficient, Basic, and Unsatisfactory).
• Any employee not in the top two proficiency tiers will get a plan of assistance. If they cannot improve and become proficient, even employees with a “basic” rating would enter the probation process. That’s a new and higher threshold that educators must meet.
• These changes, which were developed collaboratively, have been jointly proposed to the bargaining team by SEA leaders and top district administrators. They could be implemented when school starts this fall. But that agreement is now stalled because the district superintendent wants to unilaterally change the proposal.
• The collaborative plan uses methods that are tested, proven and research-based.

We don’t agree that tests results should be misused
• Students are more than test scores.
• The key difference between the superintendent’s plan and the joint agreement developed by the district and educators is how to most effectively use test results to improve instruction.
• Tests are designed to understand how well a student understands a particular topic on a particular day, and serve as a basis to guide instruction. Education professionals understand classroom tests are not designed to rank teachers. Seattle’s superintendent proposes to misuse student test scores as a basis for employee evaluation. The jointly developed plan by the district and Seattle’s educators would use student test scores, but in an appropriate role as one of numerous indicators to help channel a teacher’s professional growth.
• You don’t have to decide who to believe on this issue: Even the testing companies state that the tests were not designed to determine teacher performance.
• Placing an even greater emphasis on test scores is likely to have unintended consequences. If jobs depend on tests, human nature will be to teach more to the test. That can only further narrow the curriculum at a time when options are already disappearing because of budget cuts.

Educators believe students learn best in a professional setting that fosters trust and collaboration
• Seattle’s educators are ready to follow through with the plan jointly developed with the district, but the superintendent is now obstructing that agreement.
• In contrast to the joint plan that was developed collaboratively, the superintendent deliberately waited until Seattle’s educators left town for the summer before presenting her first comprehensive draft of the SERVE proposal. Seattle educators and district negotiators already had met for nearly 15 bargaining sessions.The superintendent would divert $4 million to create a computer system that spits out employee evaluations. These millions would be better used to supply direct student services, instead of foolishly attempting to automate a process as individualized as teacher evaluations.

Resources:
1. Professional Growth and Evaluation Joint Task Force’s self assessment tool modeled after the work of Charlotte Danielson: http://www.seattlewea.org/static_content/pge.pdf
2. Charlotte Danielson’s work: http://www.danielsongroup.org/theframeteach.htm
3. SPS’s SERVE proposal: http://www.seattleschools.org/area/laborrelations/20100804_Summary_of_SPS_Proposals_for_Certificated_Staff.pdf
4. SEA’s research-based proposals: http://www.seattlewea.org/static_content/researchproposal.pdf
5. SEA’s message to members about the “Truth about SERVE”: http://www.seattlewea.org/static_content/bargainupdate7.pdf
6. Professor Daniel Willingham explains the pitfalls of linking student test scores to teacher evaluations: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uONqxysWEk8
7. Northwest Evaluation Association: http://www.nwea.org/
8. The Jointly Proposed changes to the evaluation system: https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=1AVwZIyYU-i2aAbQCSjC-u2pHoFOpSX3pb48ev06prZw&hl=en#

SEA Response to Superintendent's communication to staff re: bargaining

2010-08-04T09:58:00.001-07:00

August 3, 2010

The TRUTH about SERVE Seattle

(Please read and pass on)

Superintendent Goodloe-Johnson and Board Member Steve Sundquist sent all certificated staff an email tonight. The email contains and describes what they are calling SERVE Seattle. It is the district’s bargaining proposal that ties student growth based on test scores to certificated evaluations. The SEA held five focus group meetings last week to get input on the district’s proposal. We had over 200 certificated employees present at the focus group meetings, representing 57 schools and programs. Now the superintendent believes that if she just emails each of you; maybe you will put pressure on SEA and the bargaining team to go the way the district wants us to. The truth of the matter is that the email they sent you leaves out important details. Based on what our members told us at building visits, through the bargaining survey, and at last week’s focus groups, the SEA Bargaining Team will listen to its members and continue to say NO to SERVE Seattle!

Here is the truth:

● They say the district is “working together with your SEA representatives to make sure that everyteacher gets the tools, time, support, and opportunity needed to help students succeed.” The truth is that SEA has raised the issue of giving teacher’s support around class size/caseload and workload. SEA wants to make sure that you have the tools, time, support, and opportunities needed to help students succeed. SEA has made proposals that are research-based that we know can work to close the achievement gap and raise student academic achievement. Our proposal is in concert with a recent report by leading national civil rights groups.

● They say that significant change is happening in education throughout the country, and they are committed to a thoughtful, fair, and collaborative approach that benefits from lessons learned in other districts and builds on their success here in Seattle. The truth is SERVE was not developed in a thoughtful, fair, and collaborative approach. They only argue that others are using it, not that it works. We know that they use something similar in Washington, DC where 241 teachers were just fired in one swoop, while over 700 others were put on notice.

● They say SERVE gives teachers and other staff large blocks of collaborative time. The truth is that in exchange for 2 hours of collaboration time every other Friday beginning in 2011-12, you will teach students for 12 minutes longer each of the other nine days prior. The truth is that of the 19 days they offer for collaboration, 5 are district directed, 7 are principal directed, and only 7 are staff directed.

● They say SERVE gives career opportunities which will be available at every school with stipends. The truth is that they are not available until 2012-13 and only 3-4 teachers at each school will have the opportunity to partake in them. Teachers would have to opt in to SERVE and be at the highest level in all four domains of the new proposed evaluation tool. Although site based hiring would take place, principals will make the final decision on who gets the positions.

● They say SERVE offers support for new and developing teachers, almost doubling the number of STAR mentors to support professional growth in instructional practice. The truth is that the joint SEA and SPS STAR Panel made the recommendation to improve the STAR program and it was not originally tied to SERVE.

● They say SERVE will provide detailed information about student outcomes to help teachers understand the effects of their practice on all students they serve. The truth is that MAP already provides you with detailed information and SERVE does not enhance that in any way. The truth is that these reports will also be tied to your evaluation.

● They say SERVE will provide significant dollars focused on helping principals support struggling teachers by connecting them to relevant professional development, coaching and mentoring opportunities; and doubling the number of HR consulting teachers to support those on performance improvement plans. The truth is that it was the joint STAR panel that developed the language for doubling HR consulting teachers. The truth is they will offer a fund of $500 per teacher evaluated unsatisfactory in 2012-13 to help pay for principal suggested professional development and release time for other teachers to assist them. The truth is that our evaluation proposal, which was jointly developed by an SEA and SPS task force, also gives teachers support when they need it without SERVE.

● They say SERVE will recognize the critical work performed in our most challenging schools, by offering stipends to strong-performing teachers in our lowest performing schools. The truth is that teachers will have to be at the highest level in two domains of the proposed evaluation tool to get the service stipend. All other teachers working in the most challenging schools will not get anything extra even if you are working hard to help students achieve. The truth is that teachers will have to have their evaluations tied to student growth using test scores. The truth is that the district’s proposal gives them the discretion to change the eligibility criteria depending on funding availability.

● They say the “four-tier” evaluation system developed by the joint SEA and SPS task force is mandatory and will be rolled out over the next two year in all schools. The truth is that the roll out of the new evaluation system HAS TO BE BARGAINED. The district cannot make a unilateral decision of when to roll it out. The new state law requires it be in place by 2013-2014. We are willing to BARGAIN the roll out and have a proposal on the table to make sure it gets rolled out effectively.

● They say SERVE allows a teacher to choose when to tie their evaluation to student growth outcomes and peer and student feedback. They will give those who opt in fully to SERVE an immediate 1% increase to TRI. The truth is that those who decide not to opt in would make less money this year than last year due to the state taking away our final learning improvement day and you will have no increase in compensation over the life of their proposed three year contract. The district has told us at the table that you have received big enough raises over the last five years and thus do not need any increase in your compensation over the next three years. The truth is that even though the economy may not be at its best, every teacher in our 11 comparable districts except for Highline will be making at least the same amount of money as this past school year and most will be making more.

● They say in the email that those teachers who opt in will receive targeted support if they are struggling. The truth is that the proposed professional growth and evaluation system provided by the joint SEA and SPS task force gives ALL teachers who are struggling some targeted support.

● They say that SERVE will use a reliable and balanced set of measures to foster professional growth, including measures determined by teachers themselves. The truth is that the goals that teachers set would have to be determined by you, along with your peers in a professional learning community and then have to be approved by your administrator. There are no measures in SERVE that you have authority to determine by yourself. The joint SEA and SPS developed proposal did allow for individuals to set their own goals or use the reflective nature of a professional learning community.

● They say SERVE uses multiple measures that would capture performance in student learning outcomes and growth. The truth is that the outcomes and growth would be based only on student test scores on MAP, the new state MSP, and end of course assessments. The truth is that only teachers of tested subjects will have to fulfill this requirement which is 25% of their overall evaluation. They will be held to a different standard than their peers who teach in non-tested subjects.

● They say SERVE uses multiple measures and the overall school performance would be part of your evaluation. The truth is that your evaluation will now be based partly on how others in the school perform. You will now be evaluated on other people’s work and not just your own.

● They say SERVE uses multiple measures and would capture performance in service to and collaboration with peers and students. The truthis that the district wants to survey your students, parents, and even your colleagues and then include those survey results as part of your evaluation.

● They say in the upcoming year, teachers and administrators will work together in a joint committee designed to finalize details of the evaluation system and the supports offered to teachers. They say the new multi-faceted evaluation tool will be “fair, comprehensive, and reliable”. The truth is that this is a proposal of theirs and it would have to be bargained. The truth is that we proposed that the district use the SIG schools and a blind study of those members piloting the new “four-tier” evaluation system to see if the evaluation and student growth coincide. They told us they have “confidence” that their SERVE proposal would be “fair and reliable” and do now want to do any study.

● They say they will roll out SERVE in 2011-12 as a tool for professional development and growth. The truth is that the proposed professional growth and evaluation that was jointly developed by the SEA and SPS task force truly is a tool for professional development and growth. The truthis that the district is looking to mechanize evaluations and automate the firing of teachers.

● They say they remain committed to a collaborative process at the negotiation table. The truth is that last week, the superintendent told a representative of the Washington Policy Center that with the failure of the collaborative approach, the district will now be engaged in classic, and contentious, union/management negotiations, a process that will take many months. When asked whether the District was preparing for a possible strike, her answer was, yes, but I’m not at liberty to give out details. The truth is that SEA has been willing to collaborate around areas that will truly help close the academic achievement gap and help raise student achievement. SERVE DOES NOT meet this need.

● They say that providing all teachers the opportunity to improve their practice is the pathway to increased student achievement. The truth is that we definitely agree with this. Improving professional practice is ONE way of increasing student achievement. The joint SEA and SPS evaluation task force has proposed language that will help teachers improve their professional practice. It uses a standards based “four-tier” evaluation tool that is linked to improving student academic achievement. The district, itself, has provided research studies that show there is a correlation between the standards based evaluation tool and student academic performance. We want to give the jointly developed evaluation system a try. The jointly proposed system is designed to create a culture of continuous improvement. SERVE does not. Their mechanized system is one of minimal rewards and automated punishments.

● They say nothing in their email about the cost of SERVE. The truth is it will cost over $3.9 million dollars over the next four years. The truth is that part of this cost includes hiring 3 new managers. The truth is that the $3.9 million dollars is strictly for operational costs to put SERVE in place; it does not include any of the stipends for career ladders, stipends for working in low performing schools, or the 1% increase for opting in to the program.

SERVE Seattle does not serve students, families, or educators!

Go to the SEA website at www.seattlewea.org and see the district’s SERVE proposal.

Coalition of Community Groups have Similar Concerns as many Educators

2010-08-03T16:23:00.000-07:00

The following is an excerpt from The Answer Sheet on washingtonpost.com entitled: “New analysis blasts Obama’s school turnaround policy -- and tells how to fix it”.

The report includes a proposal for a new approach to school intervention called “Sustainable School Transformation,” which has these central elements:

1) A strong focus on school culture, curriculum and staffing.

This includes:
--Strong leadership
--Staffing structures that facilitate collaboration
--Professional development designed to meet individual needs of the staff
--A research-based, thoughtfully crafted teacher evaluation program, developed in conjunction with parents, students, teachers and administrators
--A well-rounded, culturally relevant and enriched college and career preparatory curriculum
--Intensive literacy support and “reading recovery” programs to ensure a focus on literacy

2) Wrap-around supports for students

This includes:
--Access to guidance counselors at the high school level
--A positive behavioral approach to school discipline
--Access to primary health care services to address basic wellness issues, including emotional/mental health issues

3) Collaboration to ensure local ownership and accountability
This includes:
--A comprehensive assessment of the school’s individual strengths, challenges and impediments to student success that takes a full school year.
--Students, parents and community members must be full partners in all stages,

“Yes, dramatic action is needed. But we have to get it right." the report says.

The “Framework for Providing All Students an Opportunity to Learn” is a collaboration of these groups: Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Rainbow PUSH Coalition, Schott Foundation for Public Education, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, National Coalition for Educating Black Children, National Urban League, and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

Mid-Summer Unity newsletter

2010-07-31T16:34:00.000-07:00

Unity -- July 30, 2010

215 Certificated members meet to discuss District proposal
Thanks to the efforts of Association Reps, phone bankers, and rank and filers, 215 certificated members attended focus groups this week. They represented 31 elementaries, 8 middle schools, 10 high schools, 5 K-8's and 5 programs. The participants stepped through a multi-layered District proposal to tie the new evaluation system to student growth determined by test scores. The participants were focused, thoughtful and serious about the feedback they gave. The SEA staff is synthesizing the results now – look for a Bargaining Update that will share the outcomes. “I was extremely impressed with our members’ focus on the issues,” said SEA Vice President Jonathan Knapp “and how much they reflected upon the impact those proposals would have on student achievement.”

Here are other reasons you can be proud to be a union member.

Don Kennedy’s email doesn't apply to SEA members
Chief Financial Officer, Don Kennedy, sent out an email July 23 stating that “Unless required by our collective bargaining agreements, step pay increases will not be given next year.” This applies to non-represented employees, not SEA-represented employees.
The Association has not agreed to any freeze of step pay increases, so SEA-represented employees will receive a step increase next year. There has been no proposal to freeze steps proposed at the bargaining table.
Union employees are protected by their collective bargaining agreements from sudden decisions like this.

Bilingual Instructional Assistants win reclassification: SP Grade 18 to SP Grade 19
The Bilingual IA job description for Bilingual Assistants was reviewed based on the Job Measurement System in the Paraprofessional Collective Bargaining Agreement. The points in the area of job Complexity, increased the total number of points for their job title, which resulted in the pay grade change from SP Grade 18 to SP Grade 19 effective September 1, 2010. All SEA represented Bilingual Instructional Assistants will see this pay grade increase on their October 1 paycheck.

$89 Overpayment due certs on September 1
The state funds the basic salaries of educators each year. As the year ended, SEA discovered the District was out of compliance with the funding allocated for certificated staff. After meeting with the District, each certificated staff will be getting “rollup” pay of $89 on the September 1, 2010 pay warrant. This is a right under our collective bargaining agreement.

General Membership Meeting
Thursday, September 2, 2010
4:30, Seattle Pacific University – Royal Brougham Pavilion
3414 Third Ave West (@ W. Nickerson)
Seattle

Foreclosure prevention assistance available
In these difficult economic times many of you may be needing assistance with your mortgages. Seattle Education Association is part of a network of community institutions, Sound Alliance, whose members have identified housing as an important issue to its collective members. Some of the members of this Alliance have been working on all of our behalf to provide Foreclosure Prevention Assistance. Click here to find out more details.

Bargaining Teams are Far Apart

2010-07-27T23:37:00.000-07:00

Seattle Education Association Bargaining Update July 23, 2010
SEA and District Far Apart in Negotiations

Your SEA Negotiations Team met with the District team on Tuesday and Wednesday of this week. We continue to be far apart on issues that you have told us matter most to you. The district is holding fast to their major proposals on:
tying student growth based on MAP scores, MSP scores, and end-of-course assessments to certificated employees evaluations;
use of evaluations as the lead factor in reduction in force, as opposed to strict seniority.

There has been very little to no movement on what you have told us are your two most important issues:
class size/staff ratios/caseloads to give students the attention they need and deserve;
compensation to attract and retain high quality educators to Seattle Public Schools.

The SEA has made proposals on these priorities and many others that you told us need to be addressed.

The District has proposed an evaluation system that includes tying evaluations to student growth based on MAP, MSP, and end-of-course assessments. We will be holding Focus Groups at SEA this coming week to share the details of the District’s proposal and to get feedback from our members about what they think about it. Our goal is to have up to 5% of each school/program’s certificated staff involved. Please contact SEA to attend a focus group to give us your feedback. Focus groups are at 10 a.m. on Monday, July 26 and Wednesday, July 28; 3 p.m. on Tuesday, July 27 and Thursday, July 29. We have one evening session on Wednesday, July 28 at 7 p.m. Call us to sign up for the session of your choice. 206-283-8443 x100.

Here are some of our other thoughts about the bargain:
Fact: SEA is willing to problem solve solutions to help raise student academic achievement and to help close the achievement gap. SEA has offered research backed solutions that are actually working in other school districts in the country.
Myth: The SEA does not want to be accountable for student academic achievement. Many years ago, the SEA was the first local in Washington State to negotiate student academic achievement goals as part of our evaluations. There are very few contracts that include it even today. It was the SEA who went to the district with a proposal in 2004 about closing the achievement gap and developing the flight schools. This year, the SEA proposed working with the district to do a study over the coming years regarding the correlation between evaluations and student academic growth.

Fact: SEA believes that the work of the collaborative SEA and SPS Professional Growth and Evaluation joint task force should be honored. A joint task force of SEA and District staff collaboratively developed a four level evaluation system. A new law in place requires that the system be fully in place by 2013-14. The philosophy of the task force is to promote professional growth in employees and create a culture in the District of being life-long learners and improving instructional practice. We do not believe the evaluation system should be used primarily to weed out “low performing” teachers. There is a process already in place to address performance issues.
Myth: SEA is afraid to try innovative ideas that may help raise student academic achievement. After a lengthy debate, the SEA Association Representatives voted to authorize a memorandum of understanding that would allow for three of our schools to waive some contractual rights in order to receive a federal School Improvement Grant. The grant is designed to help raise student academic achievement.

Fact: SEA understands that the economy is not the best right now. SEA was willing to look at giving up the Learning Improvement Day that the state took away this past legislative session (loss of funds to the district and to your pockets). In turn, we reminded the district that it has taken many years to be competitive with other districts in the Puget Sound Region regarding compensation and we do not want to lose ground in the future.
Myth: The state is to blame for all of the district’s money woes. While Seattle delivered RIF notices, almost all other districts in the Puget Sound area did not have lay-offs this year. While the district continues to tell us that there is no money at all in the budget for increased compensation in the future, eight of our eleven comparable districts will get raises this coming school year, two will at least make the same amount of money as this year, and only one will lose the learning improvement day and have a cut in salary.

Fact: Since 2005-06, the district has begun each school year with more in their fund balance than budgeted. For 2009-10, the District began the year with $6.4 million more than they anticipated. SPS ended the 2008-09 school year with more than double the amount they anticipated in their ending fund balance ($55.8 million instead of the budgeted $22.4 million).

What’s next? ---------------
The SEA will be negotiating again on Tuesday, August 3, 2010. The District has promised to bring a comprehensive proposal to the bargaining table that will be in response to our comprehensive proposal that we put on the table for our Paraprofessional, SAEOP, and Certificated members

Daniel Pink's speech re: Motivation animated

2010-07-22T14:20:00.001-07:00

2010-07-21T09:16:00.000-07:00

2010-07-21T09:10:00.000-07:00

July 14, 2010 Bargaining Update

2010-07-20T13:21:00.000-07:00

Bargaining Update

July 14, 2010

Two more bargaining sessions were held this week. Although we are not releasing details of proposals due to the confidentiality of the bargain, we do want to let you know the topics of discussion that are still on the table.

District Proposed

Student growth used as part of a teacher’s evaluation
Teacher evaluations used in helping to decide who gets displaced from a building or laid off from the district and other changes to the reduction in force language
Career ladder opportunities based on high quality teaching
Collaboration time
Changes to ICS and ELL models
Changes to the district teacher compensation system
Incentives to work in low performing schools, based on high quality teaching
Alternative routes to certification
Eliminate “classified to cert” program

SEA Proposed

Reduction in class sizes/caseloads/staff ratios
Workload reduction ideas
Our own “reform” ideas to improve student achievement and close the achievement gap that are based on research
Wraparound services for students
Fair compensation to be competitive in the future with other school districts in order to attract and retain high quality staff, including a living wage for classified staff
Use of professional development days for classified staff
Collaboration time
Changes to the classified reduction in force language that gives credit for service

Jointly Proposed

New four level rating system evaluation (consistent with Senate bill 6696 which passed in this year’s legislative session)
Improvements to the STAR Program

President Olga Addae speaking to the NEA Delegates -July 6, 2010

2010-07-20T12:39:00.000-07:00

From the National Education Association Representative Assembly

New Business Item 90 (Adopted)

The NEA will create an action plan using existing committee structure that will designate long and short term goals for the purpose of developing policy recommendations to support broad-based organizing efforts of local & state affiliates with other labor, non-profit & faith-based organizations.

Seattle Education Association President, Olga Addae speaking on July 6, 2010, in support of NBI 90

Olga Addae speaking on behalf of the delegation, I move New Business Item 90.

Mr. President, Van Roekel, in your key note speech you spoke of the deep and long economic crisis and its devastating impact on our students, our members, and our schools.

I agree with you; the future of America is uncertain and intolerable consequences await not only our students and our members; but every American who is among the working middle class, the unemployed, and those living in poverty.

It is time for all of us unite; whether we live in a Right-to-Work state or a Fair-Share state; Whether we are NEA or AFT, whether we are Democrats, Republicans, or Independents; Whether we are upper middle class or lower middle class. We need to reach out through broad-based organizing efforts to build relations with other non-profits, faith based groups and most importantly other unions.

It is time to take back America from the strangle hold of the financial elite and for-profit corporations.

The real education reform we seek requires real resources that are sustainable.

We must learn from history; the last time so few held so much of the wealth in America was right before the Depression… from that crisis the opportunity to build a strong middle class, with strong unions, strong non-profits (such as the PTA) and strong faith based organizations. The zenith for all these civil sector organizations was in the mid 1950’s.

It only took 60 years for the financial elite to dismantle the civil sector that so many unsung heroes fought and died for. Let us not wait for another Depression.

We must reach out to our brethren and build better relations and “Act” for the common good. Broad-based organizing is not about forming another union, not about a temporary coalition. It is about a process of continuous efforts to build relations with other unions, non-profits and faith based groups to “Act” for the common good, which is determined locally. Please support NBI 90