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, Budget, Sick
5.
6.
7.
8.
Bank, Superintendent’s Advisory Committee, LPAT
Political Action, Grievance Committee, Negotiation
Update
STAND Ballot Initiative Update
New ELL Certification Regulations
Move to Adjourn
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 Payments
o 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 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
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
2012/13
• 1. Judy Packer
• 2.Linda Tomilson
• 3.
2011/12
• 1. Judy Packer
• 2. Linda Tomilson
• 3.
2010/11
• 1. Jane Chertoff
• 2. Nella LaRosaWaters
3.
2009/10
• 1. Jane Chertoff
• 2. Amy Duke
• 3. Nella LaRosaWaters
2008/09
• 1. Amy Duke
• 2. Pat Hassett
• 3. Nella LaRosaWaters
2007/08
• 1.Amy Duke
• 2.Pat Hassett
• 3.Todd Sundstrom
2006/07
• 1.Anna Colozzo
• 2.Pat Hassett
• 3.Todd Sundstrom
AHS
2012/13
• 1.
• 2.
• 3.
2011/12
• 1. John Bookston
• 2.
• 3.
2010/11
• 1. John Bookston
• 2.
• 3.
2009/10
• 1. John Bookston
• 2. David Moore
• 3.
2008/09
• 1. John Bookston
• 2. Bill McCarthy &
Nancy Ortwein
• 3. David Moore
2007/2008
• 1.John Bookston
• 2.
• 3.
2006/07
• 1.John Bookston
• 2.
• 3.
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 Comparison
Highlights
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
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
AEA Stipends
Other
President’s Salary 20%
$14,000
Accountant
$800
$800
2011-2012
2012-2013
Rent
$11,427
$11,427
Maintenance
$645
$1,100
Utilities
$1,117
$1,117
Insurance
$500
$500
Website/Technology
$400
$400
New Teacher Luncheon
$280
$300
MTA Summer Conf.
$1,000
$1,500
Grievance/Arbitration
$3,185
$5,000
Elections/Surveys
$72
$200
AEA Scholarship
$1,000
$1,000
MLK Committee
$50.00
$50.00
Office Expenses
Union Actions
Gifts/Contributions
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 Convention
MTA 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 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 2012-2013, 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: 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 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 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 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:
four
1) Educator’s performance rating on each of the
standards
of
2) Degree to which the educator has attained each
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.
E-mail Linda if you are interested in participating on the
committee: lhanson@rcn.com