Dear MTA member:
Several
members have just brought to our attention a disturbing issue concerning a
"security agreement" that PARCC test administrators and proctors are
being asked to sign. We asked General Counsel Ira Fader for an MTA legal
opinion on whether members should sign this agreement.
We are sending along a link to his legal opinion as
well as a link to the one-page security agreement that is part
of a much longer PARCC Test Administration Manual. In addition, here is a link to the
website with PARCC manuals and other materials.
A crucial conclusion in our legal opinion is that the security agreement
is subject to collective bargaining: "If teachers are asked by the school
administration to sign the document, they should decline to do so until local
bargaining has been undertaken and completed. If they are directed by the
administration to sign the document under threat of sanction, they should sign
with a statement indicating that they have received the document but do not
enter into the promises it entails."
The agreement states, "Failure
to abide by the terms of the agreement may result in an investigation that
leads to sanctions including employment and licensure consequences, according
to your state policies."
It
is unfortunate that we are getting this information to you so close to PARCC
testing time, but we just found out about it ourselves, and we immediately
notified local association presidents and have asked the Commissioner of
Education to rescind the signing directive.
MTA field managers have prepared
bargaining advice and a suggested demand letter that has been sent to local
presidents. (NBEA has filed a "Demand to Bargain.")
This
"security agreement" is yet another example of the ripple effects of
the testing regime that is diverting valuable time and energy from teaching and
learning to bureaucratic compliance.
We have several important concerns
about it.
·
As noted, we believe
that signing such a document is subject to bargaining.
·
This agreement is on
PARCC letterhead but otherwise it is unclear who the parties to the agreement
are. The school district as a governmental entity does not appear anywhere in
the document. The link to the full document takes you to the Pearson website.
Is this an agreement with PARCC? With Pearson? With the district? Who will
enforce it and how?
·
In the past, test
administrators have not been required to sign a comparable security agreement
in order to administer MCAS. MCAS test administrators who supervise tests with
certain accommodations have been asked to sign a "nondisclosure"
agreement. This does not raise the same legal concerns as the PARCC Security
Agreement.
·
At least some members
have informed us that they have not been given adequate training and time to
learn all of the protocols outlined in the Test Administration Manual, yet they
are being asked to sign a document accepting responsibility for understanding
all of those protocols.
·
At least some members
have expressed concern that they will be held personally accountable for
behaviors and circumstances that are beyond their control, such as the adequate
functioning of technology and "ensuring" that students don't cheat.
We realize that, with testing scheduled to
begin Monday, some members may have already signed the PARCC security
agreement. Such action by individuals does not constitute a waiver of the
local's right to bargain, nor do we believe that you have prejudiced your own
rights as an employee. Please confer with your local association leaders about
how to proceed.
We
will keep you informed of further developments.
Sincerely,
Barbara and Janet
1 comment:
Should we ask for our signed document to be destroyed?
Post a Comment