The Problem
Anti-unionism aside, I am more concerned with the mind set that leads to the idea that weakening unions will improve education. Yeah, there are plenty of people out there who just don’t like unions, and as a teacher union member, I reap the “rewards.” But I think objections to collective bargaining and teacher unions come not so much from market fundamentalism as they do from the frustration of the basic assumption education reform model. The assumption: education reform is best achieved in a top-down fashion by executives and managers from education and business.
Consider The Readiness Project. Its leadership is composed entirely of school superintendents, college presidents, lawmakers, mayors, and chief executive officers of corporations. With the exception of former teachers’ union president Kathy Kelley, the Project’s Leadership Council seriously lacks classroom experience. There isn’t a single teacher or for that matter, educational researcher in the bunch.
Administrative or executive expertise is certainly valuable, indeed indispensable, but it is a perspective limited in focus. Administrators know know how to make policy and implement policy, but only from a macroscopic, managerial point of view. In many ways, the school superintendents that administrate public school systems have more in common with the CEO’s of a medium-sized company than a classroom teacher. Their world revolves around making budgets, complying with regulations, and meeting with subordinates. Few are involved with curriculum or decisions that directly effect learning.
The work of school superintendents is indispensable and makes learning possible. But their perspective is filtered through reports and what their subordinates choose to tell them. Aside from whatever teaching they once did (often a short time in the distant past), superintendents have no direct experience of what is happening in the classroom. And if their experience of classrrom learning is remote, imagine the distance college presidents and CEO’s!
Executives tend see problems from an executive point of view: they figure out the outcome they want to see, set a policy, and try to figure out how to make workers do what they want. It was this perspective that guided education reform in Massachusetts. The educational executives, with the help of volunteering employee/teachers, devised curriculum frameworks for public schools and developed tests to insure that certain “standards” were achieved. This high-stakes testing would be used as a stick to beat students and teachers into higher test scores. Low achievement a problem? Push students and teachers harder.
It is this executive perspective, I think, that is partly behind the under-current of teacher unions, but more importantly, it is this limited perspective that is responsible for the short-comings of education reform.
What to do?
The answer is not to eliminate the managerial class from decision-making, but to include two other groups with valuable and differing perspectives: teachers and education researchers. The previous assumption of education reform has been to think that the managerial perspective is sufficient for educational policy-making. It is necessary, but it’s not sufficient.
Teachers offer the perspective of the classroom. Teachers have the most important job in a school system. All the money, extended learning time, and high-stakes testing in the world can not change that fact. They also see the effects of top-down policy on learning (they also know how it can be subverted). I attended public meetings with the Department of Education when MCAS was first being introduced. I listened to teachers tell the DOE what would happen when the high-stakes testing began. And much of what they said was true. But the decision-makers had already made their decisions. I believe this micro-level perspective could do much to enlighten today’s decision-makers many of whom haven’t seen the inside of a classroom in 30 or 40 years.
Researchers should also play a part in developing education policy. We have some accomplished education researchers around the Commonwealth, though you won’t find them heading the Readiness Project. What do researchers have to add? First of all, they know how to read research. Reading research is not a particularly difficult skill, but it must be learned. (It’s certainly a skill the Editors of the Boston Globe haven’t mastered). There are also bodies of knowledge behind most bodies of research without which findings can be easily misunderstood. Education researchers could expose the limitations of particular studies, which most CEO’s, college presidents, and teachers could not do.
Mark
sabutai says
At the State Convention, there was a nearly two-hour session on Patrick’s “Readiness Project”. Part of it was a summary, “sneak peaks” at the upcoming project, and discussion of current and future priorities. Members were encouraged to agree to volunteer to be a “readiness rep”, and a sign-in sheet was circulated.
<
p>At no point was there any mention of this new type of charter school. Not a courageous moment for the Patrick campaign.
<
p>Fighting for expanded casino gambling, charter schools, lower corporate taxes…
centralmassdad says
ryepower12 says
We’re of a similar mind. The problem with this proposal is actually becoming a common theme, sad to say: too much focus on grand, sweeping changes, not enough focus on the nuts and bolts. Massachusetts already does a pretty good damn job in most things, education tops among them. We neither need an overhaul of education nor the glitz of this new shiny wrapper.
<
p>I do find it seriously disturbing that the Governor, who ran on ‘no new charter schools,’ is suddenly proposing the creation of dozens – just, conveniently, with a new, shiny name. The “Patriot Act” didn’t make its policy good and neither will “Readiness Schools.” It will only further increase the schools of the haves and the have nots.
<
p>As I said in my blog, which I linked above, what we really need is a focus on the nuts and bolts. For most students in this state, we’re doing a pretty damn good job educating them. The focus should be reaching the students we currently aren’t. That problem, unfortunately, lies less in improving teaching than it does in preventing the obstacles that get in the way of teaching.
<
p>Specifically, we’re losing students at home. Every day. Students aren’t worried about their learning algebra and US History if their parents are on drugs, or if the student has to maintain a job to help pay the rent, or if the streets aren’t safe and drugs are taking hold of the community (or their homes). Longer school hours, so students can finish more of their work in school as opposed to at home, is a good way to achieve that gap – but it has to be something we accomplish universally, not just for the students lucky enough to get into these new, wonderful, glitzy “Readiness” charters.
<
p>Finally, one of the comments on my blog came from Swamspcott’s School Committee Chair. He made the point that before Massachusetts makes any grand, sweeping changes, we need to do a better job of maintaining the high quality of education we have now. Even some of the wealthiest districts in Massachusetts are near the point of bankruptcy. Many towns are woefully underfunded by the state in these shadowy Ch. 70 formulas – often towns that are largely working and middle class, just with a few big mansions on the water that skew the data. There’s problems with paying for health care, pensions – and even text books. Let’s fix those problems first, before we get into streamlining a whole new crop of charters and other ambitious plans.
jasiu says
Additionally, many school systems, in order to continue to offer programs rather than just cut them, have been and continue to implement fees for many services, creating a two-tier (semi-)public education system. If you have the money, your kid can ride the bus, play an instrument, participate in a sport, attend full-day kindergarten, etc. Otherwise, your child is a second-class student.
bladerunner says
That is correct. The committee I serve on is implementing a $200 bus fee for grades 7 -12, with a $500 family cap. We’re awaiting a proposal next week on increased user fees for sports.
<
p>As I read the Globe article, I was struck by the wording
This was exactly the goal of the Education Reform Act in 1994. Why is the governor adding another layer of bureaucracy here.
<
p>I thought I helped elect Deval to deal with the property tax issues affecting all of our cities and towns. Where is that relief? Or maybe I should look for a gambling riverboat on the Merrimack?
ron-newman says
is something I’ve never understood. As a liberal, my natural impulse is to favor experimentation, choice, variety, “let a hundred flowers bloom”.
gary says
Liberalism has nothing to do with experimentation. Liberal means, philosophically speaking, that equality for all trumps individual liberty.
<
p>Public schools presumably mean equality for all, whereas charter schools, vouchers, etc… allow parents and students choice and therefore some, by their choices or status, will be better off than others. i.e. liberty.
<
p>Practically speaking it has nothing to do with Liberal v. Converative, but rather Teachers’ unions trump everything.
yellow-dog says
idea: maximum individual freedom, free market, etc.
<
p>Liberalism can be just as unexperimental as conservatism.
<
p>My point of view is not the best for criticizing unions, I’d like to hear some non-knee jerk, well-substantiated criticisms.
<
p>Mark
shack says
I don’t know that I can speak for Liberals as a group, but I believe those who don’t support the charter school movement have two primary objections:
<
p>1) The Charter Schools are financed in part with state money that would otherwise go to established public schools, undermining the ability of those schools to improve their services;
<
p>2) Charter Schools don’t necessarily address the problems that traditional public schools have been accused of failing to address: children who come to the school system with emotional, social, family and learning problems, and pass through the school system without the support and services and academic skills they need to succeed.
<
p>Experimentation is not the issue. As Mark Bail points out in this post, a lot of teachers would be interested in innovative teaching practices.
ryepower12 says
Charter schools isn’t the only way to do it.
<
p>First, it’s a complete mischaracterization to say there’s no choice. All across the state, in addition to traditional public schools, there are also technical schools and agricultural schools. Students there can learn anything from plumbing and electrical work to hairdressing and raising cattle. So let’s stop right there on the matter of there being not enough “choice.” Many people, including me, would also completely favor regional mathematics-centric schools, schools focusing on the arts… etc. That’s offering real choice.
<
p>Charter schools are different. First, they rob traditional schools of their funding. Second, they do away with such basic things as the right to unionize – and unions, as you may or may not know, are a means to protect both teachers and students, since both of their interests are often shared. Finally, with charters, there’s a severe lack of accountability compared to traditional schools, where members of the community elect the school committee. Charter schools have several layers of protection that can ultimately keep them operating when, at least, they should make changes.
<
p>Ultimately, charters create a multi-tiered system. Often, they get additional resources, attract volunteers to help tutor their students and benefit from having fewer students who would detract from their test scores (less students with disabilities or home issues, etc.). So, while it may look like that school is doing better – and sometimes they do – it’s usually because they either have students who are better off or because they have additional resources that aren’t available elsewhere in their district, whilst also draining the rest of the district of badly-needed resources.
<
p>Instead of adding more charters, I’m a big proponent of Pilot Schools. They do many of the same things that charters do, without draining districts of their resources. They add experimental aspects to schools all across the state, but keep schools in the district so the entire city or town can benefit. They don’t create more schools of the haves and have nots. There usually aren’t waiting lists and eligibility requirements to attend such schools: they’re merely schools where experimentation was applied successfully and were recognized by the State for their achievements. They’re also a model for showing that regular, public schools can act as labs to test new and improved ways of reaching students. As Mark said, every school should be creative in addressing their students. I’d go even further: every school should be willing to teach to each and every student in the building.
shack says
Did the authors of Ed Reform believe that they were offering the grassroots model for innovative schools when they provided for Horace Mann form of charter schools?
<
p>Am I correct in my impression that this model was not very popular? If so, perhaps this current, second wave of Ed Reform leaves out teachers because what the first wave authors considered to be an opportunity for teacher participation was not taken up with much enthusiasm.
<
p>I’m sure I’m oversimplifying, but I would be curious to know if the rejection of the Horace Mann format becomes a factor in the current round of Ed Reform debate.
lolorb says
becasue I respect his perspective. It’s one that is not usually represented by administrations, but it’s always spot on.
<
p>Here’s why I appreciate Mark’s posts:
<
p>I’ve dealt with every type of teaching administrator, public official and politico on issues relating to a “gifted student”. I fought for my child from prior to Kindegarten through high school. Unless you are wealthy, your child, if falling outside of the normal spectrum, is thought of as a statistic in the system. Kids are not statistics. They are real. They are different. They don’t perform to “normal standards”. Teachers know this. Testing is a political nightmare to which children are exposed at a very early age. There is no way to evaluate a child on a single pre-determined basis. The only people who are qualified, in my opinion, to evalaute children are those who work with them. If there is no input in policy from those who understand and appreciate the diffuculties and variances in teaching, the end result is a total disconnect between reality and policy. Mark says it very well.
yellow-dog says
joeltpatterson says
when I first read this article, I thought similar thoughts to yours.
<
p>But when I read more carefully I got a different idea about it.
<
p>Note that the reporter and the anonymous source say there will be friction over this between Deval and unions–but the quote from the union president is not at all antagonistic.
<
p>These schools aren’t charter schools because they don’t take money away from the districts and they do report to the school boards, so I’m wondering if maybe a charter proponent leaked this with a spin to try and create friction between Deval and the unions.
<
p>Let’s wait until the plan is out in detail before we judge it.
yellow-dog says
your invitation to wait until the Readiness Plan is out, the gist of my diary is more about how decisions are made than the comments concerning charter schools. Regardless of the findings, the principle remains the same.
<
p>I may, in fact, have been spun, as you say. Time will tell. As I’m sure you know, politicians sometimes leak information for political reasons, and I don’t leave out the possibility of an intentional leak by the Readiness Project.
<
p>You say
<
p>Perhaps, you just forgot to mention the weakening of teachers unions?
<
p>Mark
joeltpatterson says
is about to let her union be weakened.
yellow-dog says
letting on or at least holding stronger opinions about teacher unions than your saying.
<
p>Mark
ryepower12 says
They’re just a new kind. Yes, they’ll report to the local school committee instead of the local BoE, but it’s still taking control away from that local board for several years at a time. I doubt the board will be able to approve its budget by line items, etc. Furthermore, the “readiness school” will ultimately become the de facto issue that decides school committee elections. That would only create more divisive towns and would only add more people who aren’t fully qualified to serve (or may be interested in one school choice, but not the other, etc.). Finally, it’s only going to create a less equal educational system in the town by adding a charter option. The parents who don’t get their kids in will be pissed, while the parents who do will be counting their lucky stars… and, meanwhile, we won’t even know whether these schools will be good or bad for years, because there’s less accountability, fewer standards (such as union teachers) and less that a school committee can do about it year in and year out.
ryepower12 says
not “local” boe, just BoE.