Presentation on theme: "AEA ANNUAL MEETING 2011-2012. Agenda 1. Call to Order 2. Opening Remarks 3. New Officers and BOD Members for 2012-2013 4. Committee Reports: Member Requests,"— Presentation transcript:
AEA ANNUAL MEETING
Agenda 1. Call to Order 2. Opening Remarks 3. New Officers and BOD Members for Committee Reports: Member Requests, Budget, Sick Bank, Superintendent’s Advisory Committee, LPAT Political Action, Grievance Committee, Negotiation Update 5. STAND Ballot Initiative Update 6. New ELL Certification Regulations 7. Move to Adjourn 8. New Educator Evaluation System
Executive Officers President – Ron Colosi 1 st Vice President – Siobhan Foley 2n Vice President – Linda Hanson Treasurer – Amy Duke Secretary – Val Sarazen
New Officers for President: Linda Hanson 1 st Vice President: Siobhan Foley 2 nd Vice President: vacant Treasurer: Amy Duke Secretary: Val Sarazen Webmaster: Rebecca Bell Immediate Past President: Ron Colosi
Proposed Interim Change Eliminate 2 nd Vice President position for one year Reallocate $3,060 stipend to the following: o MTA Summer Conference Payments o Restore Reductions from Line Items: Refreshments for meetings, MTA Convention lunch, Office expenses, etc… o New items as approved by BOD and membership
Board of Directors Two Year Term Pre School: Ann LeBlanc Bishop: Annette Brubaker & Liz Higgins Brackett: Diane Vergnani Dallin: Rotates among teachers monthly Hardy: Marsha Mann Peirce: Evelyn DeRosa Stratton: Ellen Mendes Thompson: Kate Sweeney OMS (3): Linda Tomilson, Judy Packer AHS (3): John Bookston
BOD Pre School: Ann LeBlanc Bishop: Annette Brubaker & Liz Higgins Brackett: Diane Vergnani Dallin: Hardy: Peirce: Stratton: Ellen Mendes Thompson: Lynne Dichter & Nicole Melnik OMS (3): Linda Tomilson, Judy Packer AHS (3):
Have you taken your turn? The following slides attempt to reconstruct past BOD membership, please excuse any errors.
Dallin 2012/13 YOUR NAME HERE!!! 2011/12 rotates each month 2010/11 Amy Villandry Carta 2009/10 Amy Villandry Carta 2008/09 Amy Villandry Carta 2007/08 Amy Villandry Carta 2006/07 Marie Chase THANKS!
Hardy 2012/13 YOUR NAME HERE!!! 2011/12 Marsha Mann 2010/11 Marsha Mann 2009/10 Ann deCifuentes 2008/09 Laura McGowan 2007/08 Marilyn Sullivan/Maggie Trivino 2006/07 Maggie Trivino THANKS!
PEIRCE 2012/13 YOUR NAME HERE!! 2011/12 Evelyn DeRosa 2010/11 Evelyn DeRosa 2009/10 Jessica Karwowski 2008/09 Jessica Karwowski 2007/08 Carol MacDonald 2006/07 Eva Kennedy THANKS!
STRATTON 2012/13 YOUR NAME HERE!! 2011/12 Ellen Mendes 2010/11 Ellen Mendes & Peter Rufo 2009/10 Nancy Kelly 2008/09 Nancy Kelly 2007/08 ? 2006/07 Julie Corbett THANKS!
Thompson 2012/13 Lynne Dichter & Nicole Melnik 2011/12 Kate Sweeney 2010/11 Siobhan Foley/ Kate Sweeney 2009/10 Laura Dominguez/ Christina McGorty 2008/09 Christina McGorty 2007/08 Emily Ruggles Clark/Adrienne Shrekgast Frost 2006/07 Adrienne Shrekgast Frost/Emily Ruggles THANKS!
Ottoson 2012/13 1. Judy Packer 2.Linda Tomilson /12 1. Judy Packer 2. Linda Tomilson /11 1. Jane Chertoff 2. Nella LaRosa- Waters /10 1. Jane Chertoff 2. Amy Duke 3. Nella LaRosa- Waters 2008/09 1. Amy Duke 2. Pat Hassett 3. Nella LaRosa- Waters 2007/08 1.Amy Duke 2.Pat Hassett 3.Todd Sundstrom 2006/07 1.Anna Colozzo 2.Pat Hassett 3.Todd Sundstrom
AHS 2012/ /12 1. John Bookston /11 1. John Bookston /10 1. John Bookston 2. David Moore /09 1. John Bookston 2. Bill McCarthy & Nancy Ortwein 3. David Moore 2007/ John Bookston /07 1.John Bookston 2. 3.
By Unanimous Vote, New AHS Board of Director Representative:
Please Step Up! Commitment Involves: Monthly meetings on 3 rd Thursday of the month from 3:15 – 5:00 Regular communication of AEA priorities and updates to colleagues in your building by or in person after faculty meetings Two way communication with AEA Executive Board around important matters that come up in your building Benefits: Local dues reimbursed with 75% participation in meetings ($124) Hearing about issues that affect members across the district The satisfaction of knowing you are making a difference! New friends and good times!
Budget Two Year Comparison Highlights Total Teachers/Nurses357 FT; 12 PT359 F; 13 PT Total Secretaries28 FT; 2 PT Total Income from Dues$45,714$47,226 MTA Local Support$9,820$10,000 Total Income$55,534$57,226 AEA Dues$124Not Available MTA Dues$471$480 NEA Dues$178Not Available
AEA Stipends President$5,100(increase by % raise) 1 st Vice President$3,060(increase by % raise) 2 nd Vice President$3,060(increase by % raise) Treasurer$3,060(increase by % raise) Secretary$3,060(increase by % raise) Webmaster$1,530(increase by % raise) Past President$250 (1/2 stipend)(increase by % raise) Building Reps$124 x 11 = $1,364Depends on # of Rep’s Other President’s Salary 20%$14,000 Accountant$800
Office Expenses Rent$11,427 Maintenance$645$1,100 Utilities$1,117 Insurance$500 Website/Technology$400 Union Actions New Teacher Luncheon$280$300 MTA Summer Conf.$1,000$1,500 Grievance/Arbitration$3,185$5,000 Elections/Surveys$72$200 Gifts/Contributions AEA Scholarship$1,000 MLK Committee$50.00
Total Income$56,804$57,226 Total Expenses$56,554$57,138 Balance$43$88
Sick Bank Committee Chair: Linda Hanson Members: Jeanne Wall, Juli Keyes, Ron Colosi 3 Sick Bank grants requested 3 Approved Approximately 400 days in bank at end of year
Sick Bank Criteria “Sick Leave Bank established in September 1972, for use by eligible members of the professional staff covered by this Agreement who have exhausted their own sick leave and who have a serious illness…” Criteria applied for eligibility determination Adequate medical evidence of serious illness Prior utilization of all eligible sick leave Length of service in the Arlington Public Schools Propriety of use of previous sick leave
Superintendent’s Advisory Committee Chair: Linda Hanson Members: Nancy Knopf, Carolyn Shediac, Anita Cristina Calcaterra, Janet Maguire, Jen Crafts, Jason Levy, Nigel Kraus, Kristin Arabasz, Peggy Regan, Ann DiCifuentes, Mary Cummings Topics Covered: Parent Conferences, Report Cards and Power School, Professional Development, Special Education*, Communication* *May 31 – final meeting
LPAT – MTA Political Action Chair: Mary Cummings PAL: Nigel Kraus STAND Ballot Initiative Update Mitchell Chester Meeting State Education Budget Other Items
STAND Update MTA made a very strong case to overturn the STAND petition on Mass. Constitutional grounds, but betting on a favorable judicial decision carries a very high risk, considering what we would give up if we lose Based on the MTA’s own polling, if the STAND ballot were put to a vote, odds are overwhelmingly in favor of it passing Would cost millions of dollars and a huge expenditure of energy; likelihood of success poor
“Legislative Alternative” Meanwhile, Legislative leadership suggested MTA talk directly to STAND to “work something out” Legislature doesn’t want the STAND petition on the ballot either, but they sense the overwhelming support it has, and are not willing to take a “stand” on it Deadline for “Legislative Alternative” late June to early July in order to allow time for Legislature to debate and vote on it before summer recess After July 3, even STAND will not be able to remove the initiative from the ballot
STAND Debate at MTA Convention MTA Annual Convention voted to allow MTA Executive Board to continue talks with STAND to work out a compromise to remove STAND initiative from the ballot and replace it with a a “Legislative Alternative” In early talks with MTA, STAND has agreed to: Eliminate 29/31 provisions (have agreed to retain PTS status) No provisions in effect for 5 years to allow new Educator Evaluation System time to take effect STAND has not been willing to give up on: Performance evaluation taking precedence over seniority for lay offs and involuntary transfers
Reality MTA vote shows that thoughtful people don’t agree on best course of action. New Educator Evaluation System makes some of these changes anyway. Currently, local contracts vary quite a bit around criteria and procedures for lay offs and transfers. It’s complicated, and we can’t afford to lose.
Grievance Update Chair: Siobhan Foley Members: Abbi Holt, David Moore, Janet Welby, Patti Toohig, Linda Tomilson, Ron Colosi Grievance Procedure Level 1: Teacher discussed grievance with the principal, AEA may be present, resolution shall not be inconsistent with terms of collective bargaining Level 2: If grievance not settled after three school days, Association presents case in writing to the Superintendent or his/her designee within five school days
Grievance Procedure continued Level 3: After ten school days following presentation in writing, Association may refer the grievance in writing to the Chairman of the School Committee within five school days Level 4: After fifteen school days, the Association may submit the matter to arbitration by giving notice to the Committee within 15 days of the Committee response or expiration of the period for such response, whichever comes first Goal: Solve the grievance satisfactorily at the lowest level
Negotiation Update Chair: Siobhan Foley Members: Ron Colosi, Kate Sweeney, Val Sarazen, Linda Hanson #1 for both sides – Compensation! School Committee/Administration 21 vs. 26 Week Pay Cycle School Calendar Job Share Language Teacher Evaluation Committee Grievance Procedure AEA K-12 Art Seniority List Stipends: clean up, equity, pay increase, transparency, descriptions Allowing Teachers to Bring Children to APS Schools Clarify Course Reimbursement Amount Special Education Workload/Caseload Parent Conferences Moving Classrooms Payment
New Educator Evaluation System Joint Committee to be Formed to bargain the sections of the new system that are subjects of bargaining Help to educate members about new system Need to recruit teachers to sit on this committee Committee will work throughout , possibly 1-2 days in the summer If interested, contact Linda
New ELL Regulations RETELL: Rethinking Equity and Teaching for English Language Learners Affects all core academic teachers: Early Childhood, elementary teachers, teachers of students with moderate and severe disabilities, English, reading language arts, mathematics, science, civics and government, economics, history, and geography Purpose: to increase academic achievement and close the proficiency gap between ELL’s and native English speaking peers – the largest and most persistent gap in proficiency among all student subgroups (resulted from federal civil rights case) ELL’s are the fastest growing population in the state: from 50,000 in 2003 to 72,000 in 2011
New ELL Regulations DESE piloting a model course that will be available next fall New course will consist of online and face-to-face blend of instruction that will cover: Socio-emotion/Socio-cultural considerations Second Language Acquisition/English Language Development Sheltering Content in the Teaching of Academic Language Four year time table to meet new requirements: organized from highest to lowest incidence of ELL population ELL Category Trainings replaced by a new course of study built upon the latest research and practices for SEI instruction.
New ELL Regulations continued Once attained, you do not need to renew the SEI Endorsement PDP requirement changes: after 7/1/14, need to earn at least 15 PDP’s in ESL/SEI; 15 PDP’s in SpEd, 90 PDP’s in content area Teachers who have taken Category Trainings #1,2, and 4 by August 2012 will meet these requirements “Gap” details available in the future
Contract Ratification Vote: Monday, 6/18! Mark your calendars! Please come and hear the details of our next three year contract on Monday, June 18 at 3:00 in the AHS Auditorium. Vote on AEA Budget Vote on a small Bylaw change concerning Immediate Past President stipend – 75%
Mitchell Chester – Lexington High School Get in your cars and come to the Lexington High School Science Auditorium to meet Massachusetts Education Commissioner! Time for questions and comments on the new Educator Evaluation system and the new ELL regulations. 5:30 – 7:30 PM
Move to Adjourn Anyone interested in the New Educator Evaluation presentation can stay.
New Educator Evaluation System Why? State and federal policy makers and many educators believe the current system is flawed, resulting in inadequate evaluations in some districts. o Evaluations superficial (based on single observation) o Not completed according to schedule o Not effective in helping teachers learn and improve Poor evaluations can impede professional growth and in turn adversely affect student learning.
Q. When does it take effect? A. Arlington must implement an Educator Evaluation System that conforms with the newly adopted state regulations in school year. Q. How would students benefit? A. Educators who are evaluated properly and provided with meaningful feedback and support become better teachers and administrators. B. Improving the evaluation system should never be a substitute for society addressing the most significant cause of poor student performance: poverty.
How Does it Work? Teachers are evaluated using four standards. Two mandatory standards: #1 Curriculum Planning and Assessment - Curriculum and Planning Indicator - Assessment Indicator - Analysis Indicator #2 Teaching All Students - Instruction Indicator - Cultural Proficiency Indicator - Learning Environment Indicator - Expectations Indicator
Two Additional Standards: #3 Family and Community Engagement - Engagement Indicator - Collaboration Indicator - Communication Indicator #4 Professional Culture - Reflection Indicator - Decision-making Indicator - Professional Growth Indicator - Shared Responsibility Indicator - Collaboration Indicator - Professional Responsibilities Indicator
4 Performance Ratings Exemplary: consistently and significantly exceeds proficiency Proficient: demonstrates competence Needs Improvement: demonstrates lack of proficiency Unsatisfactory: demonstrates lack of competence Notes: 1)These are non-negotiable. An educator shall be placed on an Education Plan based on his/her overall rating. 2) Proficient is the goal for most. 3) Must be rated proficient or above on both Standards #1 and #2
Evaluator’s Observations Unannounced Observations These appear in the regulations and may be in the form of partial or full-period classroom visitations, instructional rounds, or walkthroughs. Unannounced observations will take place. Procedures and protocols specific to unannounced observations can and should be negotiated.
Announced Observations Procedures and forms to be used will be bargained as we have always done. Procedural language that we have now may be used in some cases. Ex.: time frames, number of announced observations, timeline to receive feedback, minimum duration of said observations, etc…
Educator Work Products Categories of Evidence PracticeLearningEngagement Self AssessmentStudent learning objective Professional Development ObservationMultiple MeasuresFamily Engagement Educator Work Products District Common Assessments Student Surveys* Student WorkState AssessmentsStaff Surveys* Practice GoalOthers based on DESE guidance and collective bargaining Parent Input* * Not fleshed out
Starts with Self Assessment Each educator judges his or her own practice. District must provide: District and School priorities District and School goals Professional development in order to accomplish self assessment and goal proposal Time for teams to analyze student data Regularly scheduled curriculum planning time for teams Time set aside early in year for teams to meet and set goals
Four Types of Plans 1) Developing Educator Plan 2) Self-Directed Growth Plan 3) Directed Growth Plan 4) Improvement Plan
Developing Educator Plan Non PTS teachers Educators with PTS teaching a new grade or subject Educator shall be evaluated at least annually
Self-Directed Growth Plan PTS teacher rated Proficient or Exemplary Two Year Plan For educators whose impact on student learning is moderate to high; includes a formative rating at the end of Year 1 and a summative evaluation at the end of Year 2. One Year Plan For educators whose impact on student learning is low, with a summative evaluation at least annually; includes an examination of the discrepancy in practice and student performance. Differentiation between two plans based on multiple measures.
Directed Growth Plan Overall rating of Needs Improvement Goals must address areas identified as needing improvement determined by the evaluator. Educator shall receive a summative evaluation at the end of the period determined by the plan, but at lease annually. Decision on educator’s status must be made no later than June 1 of the directed growth year. If rated proficient, educator will have a self directed plan in the next cycle. If performance has not sufficiently improved he/she shall be rated unsatisfactory and shall be on an improvement plan for up to the next 12 months.
Improvement Plan PTS Educators rated Unsatisfactory Notification by no later than May 1 that the evaluator is placing the educator on an Improvement Plan (date subject to negotiation). Duration of plan may be from 30 days to one year. Improvement Plan must define specific problems of practice and assistance to be provided to the educator by the District. The educator shall receive a summative evaluation at the end of the period determined by the evaluator, but at least annually.
Improvement Plan Continued If, at the end of the plan term, the educator is rated proficient, he/she shall be placed on a Self Directed Plan for the next academic year. If the educator is rated in need of improvement, he/she shall be placed on a Directed Growth Plan the next academic year. If the educator is rated unsatisfactory, the evaluator shall recommend that the educator be dismissed or demoted.
Summative Evaluation The evaluation cycle includes a summative evaluation The rating is a based on: 1) Educator’s performance rating on each of the four standards 2) Degree to which the educator has attained each of the two goals
Goal Setting and Plan Development Procedural issues to be considered Date when the self assessment is completed Date when observations and evidence collection commences List of evaluators and who is evaluating whom and by what date Confidentiality issues regarding process and self assessment Sign off sheet for agreed upon individual or team goals Meetings with individuals/teams to develop goals Sources of evidence to measure outcomes Use of Peer Assistance and Review Goal setting and plan development can be used for IPDP and license renewal
Role of Collective Bargaining Examples of Bargaining Rights Procedures Time lines Parameters around unannounced observations Issues surrounding student attendance and learning outcomes Goal setting District Common Assessments Grade level and/or subject area assessments Rubrics, templates, forms
Lots More to Come! Stay tuned. There will be much more information on the new Educator Evaluation System and how it will look in Arlington when we get the Joint Committee off the ground. Linda if you are interested in participating on the committee: