The Alliance's attempt to put ALL student outcomes on teachers is nothing less than disgraceful and their undermining treatment of the Seattle Organizers Coalition is shoddy. (Please note: this is my opinion. I know that many in the Seattle Organizers are not appreciative of this treatment but they tend to be less vocal than me.)
From the article:
While the group's ideas are not necessarily new, its effort to influence the negotiations is. And the coalition may have the political clout to do just that.
Among its members: City Council member Tim Burgess, the Urban League of Metropolitan Seattle, El Centro de la Raza, and the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce.
Now El Centro de la Raza declined to be part of the Seattle Organizers but not this group. I'd be interested to know why. Maybe the Alliance's group looked like more heavy hitters but the Seattle Organizers, at least, is dedicated to parents and community, not the business/political community.
Also from the article:
The coalition wants to shorten the process for firing ineffective teachers and to base lay-off decisions at least in part on performance rather than just seniority.
Asked whether the she would go along with the latter suggestion, Addae declares: "Never!" Then she backtracks slightly to say that she should never say never, but adds that she'd have to see the district do a lot of other things first to "authentically show" that it wanted to close the achievement gap, like reducing class size (though why this should come before laying off weak teachers is a mystery).
I think the SEA's vise grip on seniority as the be all and end all to RIFs is going to hurt them. Why come from a place of no right from the get go? (Note: never been involved in contract negotiations - I'm sure there is an art to it.)
I'm signed up to attend next week's "Teacher Quality Town Hall" at South Lake High (small venue but apparently that's all they could get). It should be interesting.