This is crazy. The Massachusetts Teachers Association (MTA) beat down this draconian proposal would have tied
teacher performance to teacher licensing.
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.
Consider that in most, if not all, professions, folks lose their licenses for bad, unethical, illegal behavior, but never because of a bad report by a boss. After all, bad bosses exist. Plus, should this plan have passed, it would have resulted in immeasurable harm to poor and minority children attending low-income schools.
One really has to wonder about the machinations behind proposals like these. When policy makers surely know that there is a virtual one-to-one relationship between test scores and income (that overlaps with race), why do they persist on trying to pin the bulk of the responsibility on teachers? Of course we know that actions like these constitute attacks on our unions beginning with the ending of teacher tenure and due process, and are otherwise part and parcel to the neoliberal agenda to marketize everything education, but their disgusting racism and classism is what I'm calling out here—and it's what needs to get called out here in all of our struggles.
Just as importantly, stories like these need to get told about the importance of progressive union leadership like Barbara Madeloni, as well as the work of the rank and file to elect her as head of the MTA "in the most stunning election upset in
the union’s history." We can all learn from stories like these.
-Angela
A draconian proposal threatened Massachusetts teachers. Here’s how they defeated it.
Marion Post Wolcott / Library of Congress
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
byproduct 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.
If you like this article, please
subscribe or
donate.
