All data and information provided is for informational purposes only. The opinions expressed by Bloggers are theirs alone.
NBEA makes no representations as to accuracy of the posts. You agree to indemnify and hold NBEA harmless from any claim made by any party due to or arising from your use of or posting upon this blog.
We reserve the right to edit or remove any post at any time for any reason.
If you disagree with these conditions, please do not read our blog or post to it.
Friday, June 8, 2012
Paul Toner cedes key rights on seniority
8 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Paul Toner has betrayed every teacher in Massachusetts.
Dear New Bedford Members: The MTA announced that we have reached agreement with Stand for Children on a legislative alternative to Stand's ballot initiative. This agreement followed months of negotiations, in-depth discussions by the MTA Board of Directors and a 345-to-230 vote by the delegates to MTA's Annual Meeting on May 12 authorizing the MTA leadership to pursue a legislative alternative. The MTA Board approved the proposed agreement on May 31 by a vote of 37 to 24. For a copy of the bill itself, go to: http://massteacher.org/advocating/toolkits/~/media/Files/PDFs/Advocating/stand/proposed_alternative.pdf The legislation will reduce the number of proposed changes to current law from the 31 in the initiative petition to two. Among the 29 provisions to be dropped are changes that would strip teachers of many collective bargaining rights, deny Professional Teacher Status to part-time teachers and blur the distinction between teachers with and without PTS in layoff decisions. The two provisions that remain were modified and will do the following: Role of Seniority in Layoffs: Beginning in September 2016, the legislation would establish that layoff criteria must be primarily based on teachers' performance, including evaluations and other job performance factors, and the best interest of the students. Criteria for both would be negotiated with the union. Seniority could not be a primary factor, but could be a secondary factor or tie-breaker. As under current law, teachers without PTS would continue to be subject to being laid off before PTS teachers. Under the ballot question, that would no longer be the case. Authority of Principal in Involuntary Transfer or Reassignment Situations: The proposed legislation would require "good faith consultation" between superintendents and principals when a teacher is being reassigned from one school to another, however, the superintendent makes the final decision. The criteria for such reassignments would be subject to the same requirements as in layoffs (i.e., performance would be a primary consideration and seniority would be secondary). In addition, the alternative delays implementation until 2016-17 to give districts time to implement the new evaluation system. The ballot question would require immediate implementation, even before all districts have adopted their new evaluation systems. The alternative also calls for funding over two years so that all teachers and administrators are trained in conducting and participating in fair and effective evaluations under the new system. No funding was attached to the ballot question. The MTA Board supported this legislation because: • Fighting the initiative on the ballot would have been extremely expensive and divisive, and winning was far from certain. • The alternative legislative proposal is vastly superior to the complex and misguided ballot initiative. • A substantial majority of MTA members polled indicated over the course of three surveys that they support the basic outlines of the alternative: Seniority should play a role in personnel decisions, but the quality of teaching should be primary. An important caveat is that we strongly believe that teachers should have a voice through collective bargaining in determining what the performance evaluations look like and how they are used. The alternative preserves that voice, while the ballot question would eliminate it. As MTA leaders, we and the rest of the members of the Board had to make a decision based on what we believe is in the best interest of our members and our students. We hope you will join us in advocating for passage of the alternative bill so that we can avoid a divisive and unproductive ballot fight in November.
There's no guarantee that the stand for children people won't come back for more consessions in a couple years Paul Toner knows this but that doesn't stop him from negotiating with those terrosits.
Smiley p can spin it any which way but the reality is that MTA leadership sold they souls to the devil. Unfortunately the Mta leaders won't be the ones to lose their jobs over this compromise that give teachers "a voice". What a crock of sh***!
8 comments:
Paul Toner has betrayed every teacher in Massachusetts.
Impeach Paul Toner!
Dear New Bedford Members:
The MTA announced that we have reached agreement with Stand for Children on a legislative alternative to Stand's ballot initiative. This agreement followed months of negotiations, in-depth discussions by the MTA Board of Directors and a 345-to-230 vote by the delegates to MTA's Annual Meeting on May 12 authorizing the MTA leadership to pursue a legislative alternative. The MTA Board approved the proposed agreement on May 31 by a vote of 37 to 24.
For a copy of the bill itself, go to:
http://massteacher.org/advocating/toolkits/~/media/Files/PDFs/Advocating/stand/proposed_alternative.pdf
The legislation will reduce the number of proposed changes to current law from the 31 in the initiative petition to two. Among the 29 provisions to be dropped are changes that would strip teachers of many collective bargaining rights, deny Professional Teacher Status to part-time teachers and blur the distinction between teachers with and without PTS in layoff decisions. The two provisions that remain were modified and will do the following:
Role of Seniority in Layoffs: Beginning in September 2016, the legislation would establish that layoff criteria must be primarily based on teachers' performance, including evaluations and other job performance factors, and the best interest of the students. Criteria for both would be negotiated with the union. Seniority could not be a primary factor, but could be a secondary factor or tie-breaker. As under current law, teachers without PTS would continue to be subject to being laid off before PTS teachers. Under the ballot question, that would no longer be the case.
Authority of Principal in Involuntary Transfer or Reassignment Situations: The proposed legislation would require "good faith consultation" between superintendents and principals when a teacher is being reassigned from one school to another, however, the superintendent makes the final decision. The criteria for such reassignments would be subject to the same requirements as in layoffs (i.e., performance would be a primary consideration and seniority would be secondary).
In addition, the alternative delays implementation until 2016-17 to give districts time to implement the new evaluation system. The ballot question would require immediate implementation, even before all districts have adopted their new evaluation systems. The alternative also calls for funding over two years so that all teachers and administrators are trained in conducting and participating in fair and effective evaluations under the new system. No funding was attached to the ballot question.
The MTA Board supported this legislation because:
• Fighting the initiative on the ballot would have been extremely expensive and divisive, and winning was far from certain.
• The alternative legislative proposal is vastly superior to the complex and misguided ballot initiative.
• A substantial majority of MTA members polled indicated over the course of three surveys that they support the basic outlines of the alternative: Seniority should play a role in personnel decisions, but the quality of teaching should be primary. An important caveat is that we strongly believe that teachers should have a voice through collective bargaining in determining what the performance evaluations look like and how they are used. The alternative preserves that voice, while the ballot question would eliminate it.
As MTA leaders, we and the rest of the members of the Board had to make a decision based on what we believe is in the best interest of our members and our students. We hope you will join us in advocating for passage of the alternative bill so that we can avoid a divisive and unproductive ballot fight in November.
There's no guarantee that the stand for children people won't come back for more consessions in a couple years Paul Toner knows this but that doesn't stop him from negotiating with those terrosits.
In Paul's defense, he is looking out for number 1... Himself.
The reformers call toner a progressive. They love him because he is so eager to please them.
It, going to be a long 2 years.
Smiley p can spin it any which way but the reality is that MTA leadership sold they souls to the devil. Unfortunately the Mta leaders won't be the ones to lose their jobs over this compromise that give teachers "a voice". What a crock of sh***!
Post a Comment