AEA annual Meeting

2011-2012

Agenda

1. Call to Order2. Opening Remarks3. New Officers and BOD Members for 2012-20134. Committee Reports: Member Requests, Budget, Sick

Bank, Superintendent’s Advisory Committee, LPAT Political Action, Grievance Committee, Negotiation Update

5. STAND Ballot Initiative Update6. New ELL Certification Regulations7. Move to Adjourn8. New Educator Evaluation System

2011-2012 Executive Officers

President – Ron Colosi

1st Vice President – Siobhan Foley

2n Vice President – Linda Hanson

Treasurer – Amy Duke

Secretary – Val Sarazen

New Officers for 2012-2013

President: Linda Hanson

1st Vice President: Siobhan Foley

2nd Vice President: vacant

Treasurer: Amy Duke

Secretary: Val Sarazen

Webmaster: Rebecca Bell

Immediate Past President: Ron Colosi

Proposed Interim Change 2012-2013

• Eliminate 2nd Vice President position for one year

• Reallocate $3,060 stipend to the following:o MTA Summer Conference Paymentso Restore Reductions from 2011-2012 Line Items:

Refreshments for meetings, MTA Convention lunch,

Office expenses, etc…o New items as approved by BOD and membership

2011-2012 Board of DirectorsTwo 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

2012-2013 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.

BISHOP• 2012/13 Annette Brubaker, Liz Higgins• 2011/12 Annette Brubaker, Liz Higgins• 2010/11 Rebecca Bell, Linda Hanson• 2009/10 Rebecca Bell, Linda Hanson• 2008/09 Janet Welby• 2007/08 Janet Welby• 2006/07 Janet Welby

THANKS!

Brackett

• 2012/13 Dianne Vergnani• 2011/12 Dianne Vergnani• 2010/11 Tammy O’Connor• 2009/10 Tammy O’Connor• 2008/09 Nicole Schultz• 2007/08 Nicole Schultz

• THANKS!

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

AHS

By Unanimous Vote, New AHS Board of Director Representative:

Please Step Up!Commitment Involves:•Monthly meetings on 3rd Thursday of the month from 3:15 – 5:00•Regular communication of AEA priorities and updates to colleagues in your building by e-mail 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!

Member Requests 2011-2012

Budget Two Year ComparisonHighlights

2011-2012 2012-2013

Total Teachers/Nurses 357 FT; 12 PT 359 F; 13 PT

Total Secretaries 28 FT; 2 PT 28FT; 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 $124 Not Available

MTA Dues $471 $480

NEA Dues $178 Not Available

2011-2012 2012-2013

AEA Stipends

President $5,100 (increase by % raise)

1st Vice President $3,060 (increase by % raise)

2nd 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 = $1,364 Depends on # of Rep’s

Other

President’s Salary 20% $14,000

Accountant $800 $800

2011-2012 2012-2013

Office Expenses

Rent $11,427 $11,427

Maintenance $645 $1,100

Utilities $1,117 $1,117

Insurance $500 $500

Website/Technology $400 $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 $1,000

MLK Committee $50.00 $50.00

2011-2012 2012-2013

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 ConventionMTA Annual Convention voted 340-230 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 UpdateChair: 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 FoleyMembers: 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 2012-2013, possibly 1-2 days in the summer

If interested, contact Linda

New ELL RegulationsRETELL: 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 considerationsSecond Language Acquisition/English Language DevelopmentSheltering Content in the Teaching of Academic Language

• Four year time table to meet new requirements: 2012-2016 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 2012-2013 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 scheduleo 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 2013-2014 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

Practice Learning Engagement

• Self Assessment • Student learning objective

• Professional Development

• Observation • Multiple Measures • Family Engagement

• Educator Work Products

• District Common Assessments

• Student Surveys*

• Student Work • State Assessments • Staff Surveys*

• Practice Goal • Others 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 PlanPTS 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 PlanOverall 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 PlanPTS 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 DevelopmentProcedural 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.

E-mail Linda if you are interested in participating on the committee: lhanson@rcn.com