“Under its newly elected
leadership, the Massachusetts Teachers Association has become a democratic,
rank and file-led organization —one that is starting to rack up victories”
“To the casual
observer, Massachusetts may seem like an unlikely place to open up a new front
in the assault on teachers. The state has the highest test scores in the
nation, and just this year the National Education Association named its
chief executive ‘America’s Greatest Education Governor.’
“But on October 20, the Massachusetts
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) unveiled a draconian
proposal that would tie teacher performance, narrowly defined, to teacher
licensing. Thousands of educators knew an unmitigated attack when they saw
one, and responded accordingly.
“Late last week, after a massive
backlash organized by the Massachusetts Teachers Association — under the
leadership of Barbara
Madeloni, the recently elected president of the 113,000 member union — the
proposal was withdrawn. The victory
should serve as a reminder that a mobilized rank-and-file and implacable
leadership can defeat attacks on public school educators. Backroom deals don’t
get the goods. And because the proposal will likely appear in other states,
teachers around the country should take note.
“Under the October 20 proposal,
teachers rated by their supervisors as ‘needs improvement’ wouldn’t just lose
their jobs — they’d lose their license, preventing them from teaching anywhere
in the state ever again.
“On October 30, in response to letters
of protest, Massachusetts Commissioner of Education Mitchell Chester emphasized
that ‘at this point in time,’ he had not yet recommended any specific changes.
He was just floating a set of (bad) options. Three were being considered, and
all tied license renewal to ‘performance.’
“Under Plan A, a teacher wishing to
retain her license would have to be rated at least ‘proficient’ and have at
least ‘moderate’ student impact ratings every year; a teacher who cleared that
bar could get her license renewed for the next five years. On the
other hand, if her supervisor judged that she ‘needs improvement,’ or her
students’ test scores didn’t go up at least a ‘moderate’ amount, she would be
unable to re-up her license.
“Under Plan B, if an educator didn’t ‘demonstrate
to the state’ enough ‘progress toward growth’ on his or her educator plan, the
educator would get a conditional one-year extension. This would presumably
require the state to add hundreds of staff members to read through eighty
thousand teachers’ educator plans. (This in a state where the DESE often takes
a year to respond to a complaint that a teacher violated the rules
for administering a high-stakes test — one of the agency’s highest
priorities.)
“Plan C offered a menu of bad choices,
and applicants had to meet two or more of them. Options included being
recommended by one’s school district (dependent
on one’s supervisor), ‘satisfactory student growth as measured by’
high-stakes standardized tests, and (unspecified) ‘successful and effective
parent engagement.
“These inane plans – not raising pay,
or according respect, or giving teachers more autonomy in the classroom – were
supposed to create a world-class teaching force in Massachusetts.
“If adopted, the consequences of this ‘performance-based’
licensure system would have indeed been dire. First, teacher tenure would
be effectively abolished. Forget due process. An educator could have a solid
union contract and be doing a pretty good job; if his supervisor decided he
wasn’t good enough, he’d lose his license and his job — even if he had
Professional Teacher Status, the state’s equivalent of tenure.
“Second, teachers’ jobs would be
dependent on their supervisors’ goodwill. If they got a ‘needs improvement’
rating, then in order to avoid another such evaluation, for the next four years
(until the next license renewal), they would be under great pressure to support
every initiative their supervisor proposed, no matter how ill-conceived.
“In other professions, people can lose
their licenses for a variety of kinds of bad behavior, but nowhere else is one
prohibited from working again on the basis of a bad supervisor report. Anyone
who has ever had a bad boss knows how dangerous such a provision would be.
“Third, teachers would flee low-income
school districts. In Massachusetts, there is an almost perfect correlation
between a town’s median household income and the percent of students who
receive a passing score on the state’s high-stakes standardized test. If the
students have low scores, and if we have a ‘no excuses’ policy that implicitly
or explicitly says teachers are entirely responsible for student test scores,
then clearly the teachers ‘need improvement.’
“Therefore, most of the teachers
in low-income schools would either leave teaching altogether, or they would
transfer to more affluent communities (where, miraculously, their students’
test scores would go up and the teacher would suddenly be a good teacher). Not
surprisingly, there are huge variations across
the state in how principals and superintendents rate teachers. In Fall River, a
low-income community, 31.3 percent of teachers were rated “needs improvement”;
in Newton, an affluent community, only 1.3 percent of teachers were
similarly judged.
“These policies would therefore have
busted unions, put teachers under their supervisors’ thumbs, and driven people
out of teaching, especially in low-income communities. At that point charters
would emerge as the obvious option. These wouldn’t be the unfortunate by-product
of the new licensure proposal; they would’ve been the inevitable result.
“But
the proposal was quashed before we had to see that outcome. How was it
stopped? An enlivened union membership was crucial to nixing the proposal,
but so too was a newly installed, fighting leadership.
“In 2012, when the Massachusetts
Teachers Association was under different leadership, the education reform group
Stand for Children threatened a
ballot referendum to take away teachers’ seniority rights. The union did not inform the membership, much less mobilize it. It
never tried attempted to build the rank-and-file’s collective capacity to
resist.
“Instead the president and
vice-president engaged in secret backroom negotiations with Stand for Children. When the board of
directors first learned about this — thanks to persistent questioning by a
handful of board members — the president insisted that the entire discussion
take place in executive session; board members were forbidden to tell the
rank-and-file what was going on.
“Eventually a deal was negotiated,
removing some of the worst features of the ballot measure, but with the union
agreeing to dramatically weaken the impact of seniority in layoffs and
transfers, which were now to be governed by ‘the best interests of the child’ –
a phrase that could mean practically anything. The union’s mantra, heard often under the old leadership, was ‘it could
have been worse.’
“The
custom in the Massachusetts Teachers Association is for the sitting vice-president
to ascend to the presidency. But something strange happened in May: Madeloni, a
rank-and-file progressive activist, was elected president in the most stunning
election upset in the union’s history.
“When the teacher re-licensure proposal
was unveiled last month, Madeloni
did not initiate backroom negotiations and seek an orderly retreat; she
immediately and decisively opposed the
new licensure proposal, and gave an eager membership ways to act.
“More than five thousand members sent
emails, and two rallies were scheduled, with buses rented and members signed up
to attend the last two of DESE’s ‘Town Hall’ meetings for their proposal.
Instead of choosing which bad option to support, the campaign was titled ‘None
of the Above.’
“Three weeks after the MTA campaign
began, the DESE completely caved. A letter from Chester announced, ‘In short,
we are rescinding the draft options that link licensure to educator evaluation.’
An impressive victory for teachers and the union, although we worry that,
vampire-like, some form of this will be brought forward again as soon as DESE
and corporate reformers think we are napping.
“And
while the proposal has been defeated in Massachusetts, similar proposals
may be coming to other states. In 2012, the Council
of Chief State School Officers released a
report on teacher licensure that implicitly promised another focused on re-licensure.
“The report stated it was being
issued ‘to all chief state school officers to sound a clarion that current
policies and practices for entry into the education profession are not
sufficient,’ adding that ‘While the focus of this report is on new teachers and
principals, future reports will address the need for additional preparation of
veteran teachers and principals.’ Clearly the states coordinate, and announced
their intention to address teacher re-licensure; the Massachusetts’ proposal
appears to be an opening shot in this effort.
“So
what can others learn from the victory in Massachusetts? Why was the
union’s victory so complete and so swift?
“First
and most importantly, the union leadership made it clear that it was prepared
to fight, and that it was not looking for a
minor backroom concession. Second, the
union jumped on the issue immediately. The proposal was released on a
Monday, and by Friday the union had developed background information, had
material on its website, and had sent an email to all members with steps
to take to oppose the new licensure proposal. Third, the membership was weary of backroom deals and was ready for a
fight. The rank-and-file responded by the thousands, and local unions
were gearing up to get every member to weigh in on the issue.
“Fourth,
this was an issue that unified the membership.
Every teacher knew that her license, her teaching career, was in jeopardy. Fifth, the powers-that-be had never
confronted a teachers union leadership and membership prepared to fight (in
fact, spoiling for a fight). For the past many years, whenever teachers
were threatened the union entered negotiations to plan an orderly retreat. The
DESE probably expected the same ‘let’s make a deal’ response this time, and
were caught by surprise by the strength of the response.
“Finally,
Madeloni made it clear that the union was not going to compromise;
we were going to fight until we won, and the campaign that started strong was
building momentum throughout the three weeks it took to win.
“In fighting similar corporate reform
measures around the country, teachers can’t assume a mobilized base and
progressive leadership will always secure a comparable victory. There are
structural constraints that sheer militancy can’t overcome. But it’s certainly
a precondition for success.”
This article was written by Dan
Clawson, a professor of sociology at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst.
He is a member of the board of directors of the Massachusetts Teachers
Association and co-chair of the MTA’s education policy committee. His views and
opinions do not necessarily reflect those of the MTA.
From
In These Times
First published at Jacobin.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.