"School-based" options in new contract

As with most teachers in City Schools, I was excited to see the basic outline for the new contract that was just agreed between BTU and BCPS. Our school system is about to transform, it seems, away from tenure= more money, to a tenure-will-matter-a-bit-but-evaluations-will-actually-determine-opportunities-for-pay-increases. There are many more details that need to come out about the ways to move from 'standard' to 'professional' to 'model', although a basic outline of the contract (that has not been released to all as of yet) shows that advancing between those levels will be based on acquiring (12) AUs, or achievement units, based upon evaluations, college credit accrual (I believe...), and "other approved AUs".

This is exciting, but there was another change imbedded within this new contract. The idea of the "school based" option allowing teachers at a school to approve/deny pay increases for a longer work day/more planning time/etc. is very interesting. It seems, to which the article alludes, that schools are being given more autonomy and more specifically that we may see more "charter school" like implementations at City Schools. I wonder if this will open the door to individual schools becoming increasingly autonomous. What is there to stop other statutes from being approved/implemented outside of the realm of a teacher contract? I don't know how the decision-making process at North Avenue works for these processes, but I am interested to see where these options go.

I foresee changes at schools that draw teachers to different schools, perhaps homogenizing certain teacher personalities/qualities. Schools may implement certain teacher workday changes that attract various types of teachers. We already have some schools that have mostly veteran or, more commonly, mostly new teachers. I wonder if this will further change the teacher makeup at City Schools. Where might this lead?

The Case for TFA

There always seems to be a question about whether Teach for America is doing more harm than good. One side of the argument claims that TFA teachers are under-qualified and will simply leave after their two-year commitment is up. They claim that TFA takes away from more qualified teachers and they are only sustaining the problem of continuing to give BCPSS students a poor education due to the lack of new teacher ability. People who are pro-TFA state that they are bringing in a crop of intelligent and dedicated teachers who are masters of their content and committed to change. In the interest of full disclosure, I am a TFA teacher in my second year of teaching. While TFA does have many, many, many flaws, I do believe that TFA is a great benefit to the city.

Many people claim that traditional education programs give better pedagogy training and I completely agree. TFA’s pedagogy training is weak and inefficient. In my experience though I have found that traditional programs do not train their teachers to be effective masters of the content and these teachers are unable to teach the significant themes and ideas prevalent to subjects because they themselves do not understand it. While most TFA teachers will leave the profession and never look back, a great many of them will stay and go on to be master teacher’ and experts of the craft. This year’s Baltimore City Teacher of the Year is a TFA alum and proof that TFA teachers can become leaders in the region.

When TFA entered Baltimore the city already had a failing education system, and it was those traditional teaching programs that led us into that failing education system. TFA is simply alternative to traditional programs that led Baltimore into this problem. While change is scary to those who will lose power and influence, (a.k.a. bloated and ineffective traditional education programs, and jaded veterans) it is necessary if we want to give the children of Baltimore an effective education.