Here are what I consider to be three “no-brainer” thing he can do to begin repairing relations with public school teachers: (1) provide incentives for charter school teachers to unionize or at least publicly encourage them to do so, (2) end contracts with for-profit, out-of-state test-creating corporations – put that money into tests designed by Massachusetts teachers as part of some state-run committee, (3) add two seats to the Board of Education reserved for public school teachers who are actively working in the classroom. I don’t know how Board of Ed seats are filled, but I imagine that candidates for those seats could be nominated by a committee including representatives from the major teachers’ unions, School Committees, etc.
He can still save face with “corporate interests” by promoting charter schools and continuing “high stakes testing” (at least until he is re-elected – it would be nice for him to consider eliminating high stakes testing after the election). But these three easy and practical moves would show effort that he “gets it” and is trying to reach out to educators, who he desperately needs to win over again.
I don’t get your point on “high stakes testing.” Are you suggesting that he advocate for the testing as a candidate and then he gets to eliminate the testing after elected? Isn’t that part of the problem with this guy? Saying one thing (charter formula) and doing another is exactly what his problem has been.
<
p>
There are few teachers left who would say “get rid of the MCAS” but it would be nice to see our liberal Governor recognize that using MCAS alone as a measure of student and teacher effectiveness is incredibly limiting and unfair. It would be nice to see this Governor move forward on a more diverse way of assessing teachers, students, and schools.
…ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you…that seems to be the mantra with many people now-a-days.
<
p>Tell me, what can the teachers do to win back the support of parents and community taxpayers who are trying to innovate cost saving changes–like joining the GIC health care programs–without compromising the quality of education and are fought tooth and nail by teachers?
Again, here is another post that makes the suggestion that teachers have something they need to “win back”.
<
p>Hogwash! I know many members of my community who are great admirers and supporters of teachers and, yes, even the UNION!!! I know it’s hard to believe, but most people are quite satisfied with their public schools and their kids’ teachers.
<
p>The primary reason that many DO question teachers and unions is because the right in America does such a good job of demonizing them with anti-union propaganda. In the rights’ narrative, continuing to fight hard for fair and equitable contracts is akin to screwing the community for self-interest (something the business community does with impunity, by the way!!!) It seems like too many in the public buy into this almost cartoonish notion that teachers are out there, twisting their curly mustaches, and malevolently plotting ways to destroy their schools and to pad their own pockets (not to mention conspiring to keep the worst teachers in the world in the classroom).
<
p>Quit succumbing to the anti-union propaganda and respect the fact that the VAST MAJORITY of teachers are selfless, tireless advocates for children and schools who only fight for what is fair and equitable. For instance, teachers who reject the GIC don’t do so because they want to screw the rest of the community. They do so because they, like any REASONABLE person would be, are worried about losing quality health care.
<
p>
That is complete BS…it is the same health care that public employees at the state level (from state police, to UMass employees, to our elected representatives, to social workers)…to represent this as “losing quality health care” is an intellectually dishonest.
<
p>In addition, it is a complete cop-out to blame “anti-union propaganda” on “right-wing” narratives. I just got back from my Dem caucus where many of us stayed and talked about current affairs. I heard hard-core dem activists question why we as a party rely so much on union support, when they refuse to support other elements of the Dem coalition–like supporting Scott Brown because they opposed one element of health care reform, or picketing Deval Patrick because of his opposition to the out-moded Quinn Bill or details. Parents and teachers can be allies, but when lay-off parents are struggling with property tax increases and they see the teachers balking at changing their health care plan–and the GIC is an excellent plan–because it may increase their deductibles, then they are not allies. It is the intractable and unreasonable positions of union–to balk at drug testing for fire fighters, to resist making health care cheaper, to demand police details–that create liberal resentment against them…not some rightwing narrative. If anything, it is the behavior of many unions that contributes to the success of these rightwing talking points.
<
p>Folks like me are pro-union in the big picture–I’m for card check and certainly the principal of collective bargaining–and when I see behavior that is self-destructive I point it out and want to change it, before the right uses this behavior to destroy unions. You apparently want to defend unions down to the very last wrong they commit and, ironically, your behavior will result in the ultimate demise of the labor union movement and my behavior is intended to insure they are successful in the 21st Century.
You will note that, at no point, did I say, or even imply, that the GIC is poor health care. My point is that people who are asked to make the switch worry that they will lose quality health care. People are being asked to make a switch from plans they know (and trust) to a plan they don’t know. In addition, for many people, the GIC will increase their health care costs (higher copays, deductibles…etc). That doesn’t mean it’s a bad plan. But it is more costly for many people.
<
p>With regard to your quote:
<
p> “when lay-off parents are struggling with property tax increases and they see the teachers balking at changing their health care plan–and the GIC is an excellent plan–because it may increase their deductibles, then they are not allies. It is the intractable and unreasonable positions of union…that create liberal resentment against them…not some rightwing narrative. If anything, it is the behavior of many unions that contributes to the success of these rightwing talking points.”
<
p>You’ll never catch me saying that unions are always right 100% of the time. No one would say that. Of course, unions support positions that anger people from time to time. But the fact remains that unions have, and continue to, protect the bests interests of their members.
<
p>Teachers unions are not perfect either. However, blaming unions for contributing to the success of right wing narratives is an easy way out of a complex problem. Why bring to light the systems that perpetuate inequality, thereby necessitating the continued vigilance of unions when it’s so much easier to scapegoat unions? Not unlike those who choose to demonize young black kids who join gangs as being responsible for why stereotypes of blacks as criminals exist, instead of putting a spotlight on the systems of white privilege and systemic racism that perpetuate problems of poverty and race.
You wrote, “For instance, teachers who reject the GIC don’t do so because they want to screw the rest of the community. They do so because they, like any REASONABLE person would be, are worried about losing quality health care. “
<
p>I don’t think I’m being unreasonable to interpret that statement to mean that you think the GIC program equals a poor health care plan. And for someone who claims that you don’t think unions are 100% right…you certainly write as if they are 99.999999% right…let me give you an example from what you just wrote.
<
p>You claim the the GIC plan will be more expensive for union members because of higher deductibles and copays. That is a complete red-herring and makes me think your 100% in the tank. First, I’d objectively admit that maybe the final costs would be higher, but a complete analysis community by community, must be done. But what you just wrote about costs being higher because of the higher copays and deductibles is, in general, an untruth and I get very frustrated with people who continually spout untruths and expect me to think they are giving me an even-handed argument. This blanket statement about moving to the GIC as being more expensive for unions members is most often an untruth because when the over all cost of the plan goes down–the teachers contribution goes down.
<
p>For example: let’s say a current family plan cost 1500 a month and the teacher pay’s 25%, or about 375 a month and moving to GIC plan costs $1,200 a month–saving the teacher about $75 a month, or about $825 a year. But under the GIC plan (for example) there is a $500 deductible and each office visit and script costs $5 more. In the end, most teachers actually save money, some will break even and a very small % may pay more. Yet I often hear teacher unions demanding to renegotiate their contracts as a prerequisite to going the GIC route, looking for something in return for the higher deductibles and co-pays, even though most of their membership would benefit from the switch. This leaves a lot of people like me scratching our heads trying to figure out the mind-set of the union leadership.
Take a step back and make sure you quote me accurately.
<
p>I did not say ” the GIC plan will be more expensive for union members because of higher deductibles and copays”.
<
p>I did say “for many people, the GIC will increase their health care costs (higher copays, deductibles…etc). That doesn’t mean it’s a bad plan. But it is more costly for many people. ”
<
p>This isn’t being in the tank for the unions, this is simply stating what is true. If one has a pre-existing condition that requires regular visits to specialists and possible emergency room visits, the GIC is not agreat cost-saver and could actually increase health care expenses.
<
p>I do not question your analysis that the GIC will save many people money. Nor, at any point, did I say the GIC is a poor health care option. You are choosing to interpret my posts that way. I can’t help that.
<
p>In my town, the teachers recently switched to the GIC from Blue Cross, a plan many teachers were very happy with. While some of them will save money by switching, their are others for whom the savings will be limited. Also, many are anxious about leaving a plan they know (Blue Cross) to a plan they don’t (GIC). It doesn’t help when the GIC announces mid-year increases in copays and deductibles.
<
p>So, I hope you will read this carefully and understand that I am not trashing the GIC. I am merely stating the facts. Interpret them how you wil.
OK, you say “many” and not a more blanket assumption I wrote…but as we hashed out the math “many” in fact would save money, not lose money, or as you stated, their “savings will be limited”. Others will break even and a small amount that have high health care needs will end up paying a small amount more (in my example, you start $875 ahead, use up a $500 deductible…that means you have to have more than 70 yearly office visits or prescription co-pays for a family of $5 more to brake even with the old plan–their is a very very small minority of families that fall into that tragic category.
<
p>I don’t now if you’re a teacher in the town you live in, but if you are, would you care to tell me if you are saving money with the switch out of plans?
<
p>I can’t believe for the second time in our discussions you bring up people being “anxious” about switching health plans as an argument not to do it. Unemployed or underemployed people are a lot more than anxious nowadays and would love to have the anxiety of switching from one great health plan to another.
<
p>That is what I really object to, I’m a progressive because I believe in Community, that we are a better society if we stop acting in petty self-interest and act in the greater good. Ironically, that is the foundation of unionism and collective bargaining–workers not competing against each other, but uniting for their greater good. We have enormous problems and your concern about the anxiety of switching from one health care plan over another or, at worse paying a few dollars more, is a completely selfish attitude that undermines the very principle of Community that I think is so important. And in the end, the short-term selfishness of this kind of behavior will undermine the long-term future of public unions.
<
p>As for whether or not you trashing the GIC, the readers can decide for themselves when you originally wrote, “For instance, teachers who reject the GIC don’t do so because they want to screw the rest of the community. They do so because they, like any REASONABLE person would be, are worried about losing quality health care.”
<
p>
First of all, before I respond to specifics, let me restate that “I do not question your analysis that the GIC will save many people money. Nor, at any point, did I say the GIC is a poor health care option.” So, you can continue to invest your time in slicing and dicing numbers in attempt to explain distinctions without differences. It won’t change the fact that I have already acknowledged the validity of your point.
<
p>Now I will once again point out a place where you made a mistake in interpreting me.
<
p>You said: “I can’t believe for the second time in our discussions you bring up people being “anxious” about switching health plans as an argument not to do it.”
<
p>At no point in any of my postings did I ever say that people should not join the GIC. At no point did I argue that at all. This whole thread of argument about the GIC began because I made the point that “teachers who reject the GIC don’t do so because they want to screw the rest of the community. They do so because they, like any REASONABLE person would be, are worried about losing quality health care.” Nowhere in that quote was anything about the GIC being a bad health care plan. Nowhere in that quote is my opinion at all. You have misinterpreted me from the start.
<
p>Finally, your statement that “We have enormous problems and your concern about the anxiety of switching from one health care plan over another or, at worse paying a few dollars more, is a completely selfish attitude that undermines the very principle of Community that I think is so important.” is, on the other hand, a terribly arrogant and shortsighted statement.
<
p>I challenge you to go up to a person who, say, has a life-threatening illness and a family to support and tell that person that his or her anxious feelings about switching to another health plan may cost money is a completely selfish attitude that undermines the very principle of community. Tell THAT person he or she should think about the greater good first. For that comment alone, you should be ashamed.
…and I’d have no problem outlining rationally with someone in that situation. Given that much of their life-threaning illness (let’s say kidney disease) would be covered outside the scope of the costs we’ve been discussing–under hospitalization which would include transplants. I’d point out that they are trading one great plan for another, would be able to keep the same Dr and go to the same hospital and under the new plan you would save $875 up front, but you’ll have to pay a deductible of $500 and $5 more for each of the 5 monthly prescriptions you have and $5 more for each of your monthly appts. Now that will amount a total cost of $885, so yes it will be costing you $ 10 more under this plan. But your weekly dialyses and the cost of your potential transplant will be covered at the same rates.
<
p>Now, in return for the extra $10 that you would have to pay, most of your fellow teachers will be saving hundreds of dollars every every in health insurance, the school system will be saving $15 million (you community) and that means we won’t have to lay off 100 people and/or ask cash-strapped people to pay more property taxes. So in return for you paying another $10, there will be huge benefits to thousands of people and that is why it is being done.
<
p>What in the world do I have to be ashamed of because that is my line of thinking? I, you and most everyone reading this would willingly make these kinds of sacrifices for the good of other people. But I refuse to act in this manner when I think I’m being taken advantage of…and maybe it’s because it’s happening in my community–municipal workers resisting even CONSIDERING the GIC unless they get something in return (even though it will save most of them lots of money)–that I’m sick and tired of other people acting in their self-interest, while I’m Mr Nice Guy voting for Prop 2 and 1/2 over-rides over the years. Well I’ve run out of my good will (and money) and if I don’t see other people acting as a community and making small sacrifices for the good of the many, then it’s time to stop acting like a sap.
Listen, You can keep making your mathematical calculations to prove that the GIC is a good switch. As I have stated repeatedly, I am not against the GIC. I never said I was. So you can cease with your strenuous defense of it. For the last time, my original point was that it was understandable why some people rejected the GIC (fear about losing quality health care). That’s not the same thing as saying the GIC is a poor plan. Health care changes, particularly in this unstable economy, are scary for people. So you can make your mathematical arguments until the cows come home. You seem incapable of appreciating the emotional issue that it is for many people.
<
p> Here’s the little bombshell of information that should silence you. Whether you believe me or not, I do not care. I am a person with a condition that requires specialized care. I am a municipal employee. I voted YES for my union to the switch to the GIC, despite the fact that switching will benefit me far less than my colleagues. So you can spare me your moralizing about how we need to think about community interests over self-interests. I don’t need someone to preach to me. But many of my friends and colleagues are very uneasy about the switch, for a variety of reasons. Your assertion that they are selfish to think of how a health care switch will affect them and their families is shameful.
<
p>End of story.
<
p>
…it is irrational to “fear” switching to GIC and my calculations were one to toll show why. I’ve encountered plenty objections to joining the GIC and most are totally bogus.
The question isn’t “How can Patrick win back teachers?”…across Massachusetts the question that should be answered is, “How can teachers win back the public?”
<
p>Teachers unions may have increased teacher pay and benefits and the number of “professional days” added to the calendar…but the price the profession has paid is a marked decrease in respect and admiration for teachers in the public’s opinion. Especially in this recession when workers both public and private were losing jobs, pay and benefits…when local administrators were calling on all city and town employees to help out…the teacher unions stubbornly and selfishly refused to budge….time after time…
<
p>Stop whining at a Governor who has been supportive of educators and most of all supportive of the kids. Your 3 quick and easy solutions interestingly enough have only to do with teacher-centric concerns: unionize charter schools, pay Mass teachers to construct tests, and designate union teacher seats on Bd of Ed.
Is anyone at MTA and AFT ever concerned about the kids first and foremost? That would be one way to win back the public!
<
p>Do teachers thing Charlie Baker or Tim Cahill will be better advocates for public school union teachers? That is laughable…like saying Scott Brown will be an unwavering advocate for the union rank and file (who helped elect him)!
Give me a break. The decline in respect for teachers is not because of the unions, but because of conservative interests fighting a sustained campaign to make the public think that public schools are failing everywhere. These folks would love to see the entire public school system dismantled in favor of charters and vouchers for private schools. That’s a scary thought.
<
p>The plain and simple fact is that they are not. Yes, there are many cases of failing schools, but most people are pretty happy with the quality of their child’s school – that is a testament to the fact that teachers continue to plug away and to do the best they can despite real wage declines, increasing class size, diminishing resources, etc.
<
p>My union agreed to join the GIC, saving the town $15 million dollars. They responded with a pay cut. Meanwhile my superintendent earns over $200,000 a year including a nice fat raise this year. Who is being selfish here?
<
p>Unionizing charter schools is good for kids. More secure teachers mean they stick around for more than the average 3 years. Unless what you want is only young cheap teachers, which is the case in most charter schools.
<
p>My argument for paying Mass teachers to create tests is not about raking in money for ourselves but to stop paying for-profit interests who clearly have no interest in kids. I love your assumption that somehow a test-creation company in NH has a better interest in kids than MA teachers do.
<
p>The board of Ed has no teachers on the board! That’s absurd. I don’t really care how they are selected, just get some on the board.
<
p>I don’t challenge the governor’s motives. And I personally think he has done some things that have helped kids and schools – I applaud him for maintaining school funding when others might have slashed it. I just happen to disagree with his ideas on charter schools, for example. And if he wants to get elected he has to get teachers on his side.
Do you mean conservatives like Deval Patrick?
for the public perception of teachers, but the Pioneer Institute for example and other organizations who have a vision for dismantling public education. I think many progressives (including Patrick) have become infatuated with charter schools as the panacea for education when there is no evidence to suggest that they do any better. Meanwhile they can be a destructive influence on the rest of the public school system.
Case in point:
Your union may have taken the GIC option locally…but most did not, and would not…good for your local if that’s what you did.
<
p>As far as teacher bashing…no way…I am a former high school history/economics teacher and was an MTA member…I am VERY PRO-teacher but I do believe the unions have indeed diminished public respect for teachers and in many, many communities teachers are now viewed as the in satiable enemy concerned more about their contract and getting more professional (non-student) days than they are with kids education. Now that may or not be true of 98% of teachers but that is what the public has come to believe…and that is a shame.
<
p>Deval patrick and Tim murray are fighting for the kids…so let’s not bash them for trying. The AFT members who railed at the recent AFL-CIO meeting in Plymouth are no help at all.
about typos…hit the button too quick before proofing
I agree that Patrick and Murray have their heart in the right place. That’s a good place to start – we all have the interests of kids as our tio priority. But when I’m stressed about my own economic security and don’t feel that my government is protecting me will I be as effective a teacher? Does that help kids?
<
p>I am not bashing Patrick for trying. I’m criticizing what I think is his misguided direction in doing so.
<
p>And I’m worried that if he doesn’t make overtures to rank and file teachers he will lose them, and, ultimately, the election. Then we end up with Baker who we know will not be a friend of public education.
Why should you have any more economic security than the rest of us? Actually you already have more economic security than the vast majority of the workforce.
David, you ask…
<
p>”Why should you have any more economic security than the rest of us? Actually you already have more economic security than the vast majority of the workforce. “
<
p>You write this as if it’s a BAD thing.
<
p>Let me rewrite your question:
<
p>”wow, isn’t it reassuring that teachers, with the support of their unions, have such good economic security? Maybe if more American workers were allowed to unionize and fought hard, there wouldn’t be so many workers out there today in a worse position.”
<
p>Would you feel better if teachers gave up their security? Would more struggling, suffering Americans be equitable in your eyes? I don’t think asking “why can’t you be as miserable as the rest of us?” accomplishes anything. What you should be doing is applauding the steadfast determination of teachers unions and fighting for the same for more American workers.
Why shouldn’t teachers be as venerable to layoffs like the workers in other sectors raped by financial deregulation? I have the same reaction to people wanting to repeal the prevailing wage law–sure it will save money for communities, but it will continue to drive wages–union and nonunion–down and how does that help us all?
So what is the answer? We cannot afford what we want and require and we don’t want to raise taxes, so how do we pay for it all? BTW, I understand that reducing wages across the board ultimately is a bi economic problem. I’m only asking what the sloution is.
<
p>See me post below about Municipal Employees.
…they are the ones providing an education to the next generation, leading to better overall economic security in the future. The services we as society provided publicly are PRECISELY those that should NOT as much as humanly possible, feel the brunt of the economic cycle that the private sector does.
You could extend your argument to police, fireman, college professors, etc. and they all play a critical role in society. None are any more or less important than teachers.
<
p>For what it is worth the premise of my argument is rather simple. We are at a point as a Commonwealth where we need to decide what we can afford and how we are going to pay for it. Many would argue that more taxes are the answer, others not so much. Given the fact that we are in an election cycle I would be surprised to see tax proposals. Some would argue that state and local government needs to be reinvented and made more efficient. I would argue that the discussion better happen soon because things are not going to get better until unemployment is brought under control and the stock market starts generating cap gains tax revenue for the Commonwealth. Of course, investors are immune from cap gain taxes in Mass for the foreseeable future simply due to the huge loss carry forward balances that will offset cap gains for the next few years.
<
p>Tough times..tough decisions.
…extend the argument to the professions you list in your first sentence. I’m all for a wholesale discussion about taxes because we need to get closer to the attitude that taxes are a GOOD thing, not just a necessary evil. That does of course require proving good stewardship of tax dollars as it is. I must tell you though I hold as a strong principle that teachers are woefully underpaid relative to societal worth. I have very little sympathy for those who gripe about a relatively small tax increase then turn around and buy season tickets to professional sports, thus supporting athletes that are woefully OVERPAID relative to their need for education and necessity for the advancement of society.
or a computer professor! lol
<
p>Of course, this blanket statement is not always true. While experience counts in teaching at least as much as in other professions, the fact is that there are some crappy teachers who will stay in their position no matter how bad they are because of tenure protections. I don’t think it’s “teacher-bashing” to point this out, and I think it’s on this point in particular that HLPeary’s comment makes perfect sense.
<
p>It’s when teacher unions defend the right of bad teachers to maintain their jobs, come hell or high water, that people get frustrated with them and they lose respect with the public.
“Teachers unions may have increased teacher pay and benefits and the number of “professional days” added to the calendar…but the price the profession has paid is a marked decrease in respect and admiration for teachers in the public’s opinion. “
<
p>The quote above could be rewritten to say “If teachers had just capitulated repeatedly and sacrificed pay and benefits, maybe the public would still respect them.” That is ridiculous.
<
p>First of all, I reject your assertion that teachers have lost the respect of the public and that unions are to blame. Teachers and unions may have lost YOUR respect, and the respect of some. However, I know many parents and community members who admire and respect the teachers in their schools and appreciate the steadfast determination of unions to ensure fair collective bargaining agreements for their teachers.
…with the wage and working conditions of teachers today…crazy fear mongering talk.
<
p>There are huge differences…
<
p>Debs and the American Railway Union lost.
<
p>However, thanks to the continued dedication of people Debs inspired to continue to advocate for the interests of workers, no matter the current economic climate, workers TODAY no longer face the kinds of decrepit working conditions people in Debs’ day faced.
<
p>Having said that, I acknowledge that it was hyperbole on my part. Got your attention though. : )
Neither your attention nor your respect are really that important to me. No offense.
Anyone who thinks unionizing teachers in charter schools would undercut the effectiveness of those schools buys into several myths about education:
<
p>1) That unions oppose reform (utter hogwash)
2) That charter schools are universally successful (also hogwash)
3) That teachers will only work hard if forced to (complete hogwash)
<
p>People pay lots of lip service to the idea that charters can be laboratories for reform of public education…
<
p>Well, it is a fact that the best public school systems in the state (Brookline, Newton, Wellesley..etc) all have engaged teachers unions. Why not replicate THAT in the charters? Makes sense to me.
<
p>I’m not saying that unions are pefect, but they are essential to the long-term empowerment and satisfaction of excellent teachers across the state.
Union and Non-Union Charters?
<
p>I do not see this as a binary question. If the teachers in a particular charter school do not want to unionize why should there be Executive Branch pressure for them to unionize? By the same measure if professional and administrative staff at a charter school wish to unionize they should be allowed to do so pursuant to whatever rules and regulations are in effect at that time.
<
p>Charter schools, in my opinion, provide the opportunity to implement different approaches to education in using different methods to achieve a better outcome for its students. Focusing on whether the school staff should be or should not be unionized takes away from the focus on the students.
<
p>Let the unionization question be decided by the teachers in the schools. You might have different outcomes, but mandating that teachers in charters be unionized is just as bad as mandating that they should not be unionized. Its their call, let them have their choice.
<
p>We rely on them to teach out children let’s give them the option rather than trying to take the choice away from them.
I agree that unionizing should be up to the employees to make the decision.
<
p>So I’ll change my proposal – the governor should encourage employees of charter schools to consider the benefits of unionizing. If they decide not to, that’s their prerogative.
(some) teachers because he can’t be trusted not to throw collective bargaining rights under the bus.
<
p>Respecting teachers, which all Democratic politicians do on the stump, is not the issue. Unionism is. Education just happens to be the easiest place to attack unions. Detractors can always say that unions exist in spite of the best interests of students. This is usually demagoguery, which really means, union locals or the MTA oppose the policy du jour. The editors of the Boston Globe are the most obvious of these demagogues.
<
p>The thing about our teacher unions, however, is that regardless of the MTA, they differ from school district to school district. Contracts may look largely the same, but locals are weak; others are strong. Some are obstructionist; some are cooperative. Some, like Springfield, have the GIC; others belong to regional cooperatives (offered in Hampshire County) that are cheaper and outperform the GIC.
<
p>Teacher bashing tends to vary from community to community. I teach in a good-paying district where most families make much more money than mine. Over my 17 year career, the appreciation I’ve received personally and as part of our faculty has far outweighed the complaints I’ve heard. When our school committee negotiated a 4%-4%-4% contract several years ago, they and the school committee faced the criticism.
<
p>Poorer communities often have a less appreciative attitude toward teachers. One of my friends was president of his local. His district has some of the poorest rural communities in the state. People there were jealous of teacher salaries and benefits.
<
p>I’m a strong union supporter, but I don’t support unionizing charters unless the teachers there want to. It would be interesting to see whether unionizing might prevent the 50% turnover most see in their faculty, but the state should remain neutral as far as unions go.
I believe what follows is a fact. Today the Commonwealth and most, if not all, cities and towns in the Commonwealth are in structural deficit. In other words, we do not have enough money to do the things that taxpayers want and require. One of two things, or both, needs to happen quickly or the “teacher bashing/union bashing” will continue.
<
p>1) We need more reveune-unlikely given the fact that elections are in November, and/or,
<
p>2) We need to reinvent how we deliver services.
<
p>There you have it. Simple and tidy and certain to make people angry.
<
p>Remove the anger from your response and look at reality. If there is an option three please throw it out there because we need to have a very adult conversation sometime soon. It’s not going to get any better and it’s not personal.
When you ask “why should you have any more economic security than the rest of us?” it is you who is projecting anger( or at least resentment). I’m not saying that you are angry and resentful, but before you go commenting on others’ anger, you might do well to consider how your own posts are received.
<
p>Again, your perception of the level of teacher bashing out there is different from mine. In my community, most people I know are great supporters of their teachers and schools (as well as supporters of the union).
<
p>If you are not, that’s fine. But don’t suggest that, by continuing to advocate vigorously for the best working conditions possible, unions are somehow doing a disservice to the community. That is simply not true.
<
p>Unions across the state are accepting collective bargaining agreements far inferior to past contracts, specifically BECAUSE they recognize the difficulty of the current economic climate. If you choose to bash teachers in spite of that, that’s your problem.
Not sure I did that. I am only looking to advance a dialog on what needs to happen across the ENTIRE Commonwealth in order to avoid the a fiscal mess that is not going away.
FIRE PAUL REVILLE!
Not for a minute suggesting that Patrick can afford to take them or anyone for granted, but my goodness!
<
p>Patrick is the only candidate (save perhaps Grace Ross) who is on board with funding school systems with state aid at current levels. Do you really think teachers should go with Baker, Mihos, or Cahill? Certainly not if they want to keep their jobs!
<
p>Go ahead and argue for these issues on the merits if you please, but spare us the political calculus.
To be sure, Patrick’s got my vote, but I worry about his general educational philosophy. My teacher colleagues tend to share in this worry. This has to be of concern to him as imagines where his votes will come from. I put this post up because the political calculus is something his people are, of course, thinking about. Public school teachers are core constituency that is, by in large, under-enthusiastic about his governing so far. But, as you have asked, let me argue for the non-political merits of my proposal:
<
p>I worry that Patrick believes that (a) charter schools will save public education and that (b) teachers’ unions have outlived their usefulness. Both of these assumptions (as I have tried to explain above) will accelerate the decline of the quality of teachers, and thus, in the education for our children.
<
p>My three suggestions will move towards both improving education (and have the side benefit of helping Patrick get reelected by building support from one of his core constituencies). (1) Encouraging unionization of charter schools will help increase longevity among teachers in charter schools. A dirty little secret in charter schools is chronic turnover. This lack of experience is one of the reasons that charter schools don’t outperform their counterparts despite smaller schools and the fact that their students are more self-selecting. Encouraging experienced teachers to stick around has to help kids; contrary to popular belief, some of the most innovative teachers I’ve worked with have had more than 10 years experience. (2) Ending the corporate influence in the MCAS will eliminate any conflict of interest that may exist in the measure of student progress that our state thinks is most important. This will improve the test and, hopefully, lower the cost of creating and administering it. This can only help kids. (3) Making sure that active teachers serve on the Board of Education will bring voices to the table that are closest to kids. Right now the only perspectives are corporate and academic. Having a classroom perspective at the table will help kids.
<
p>Public school teachers will recognize how these policies will help kids; at the same time they will recognize how these will also help them personally. Corporate interests would not be undercut (charter schools and high stakes testing would still be supported). So it’s a win-win-win situation. On policy and on politics.
I understand how being in a union helps teachers, but how does it help kids?
David,
<
p>You are quite right to ask this question. After all, teachers unions, like all unions, exist primarily to support teachers, not students. Just like auto worker unions exist to protect the worker, not the administration, not the car, and not the driver.
<
p>Unions exist to give teachers a voice in their own working conditions, to protect from abuse by administration, to advocate for due process, and to bargain for fair and equitable compensation for their work.
<
p>Not all unions are ideal (some are corrupt, inefficient, weak..etc). This is no different from any other industry. The debate over tenure and teacher evaluation is a fair one that deserves more attention.
<
p>However, a vigorous union advocating for good working conditions, small class sizes, generous resources, and just compensation is good for both teachers and students.
<
p>A child in school is most directly affected by their teacher. A teacher who feels the support of an effective and supportive union is a teacher empowered.
One example: patients benefit from conditions that are clinically safe as ensured by union-mandated maximum patient loads. Kids ultimately benefit from conditions that are instructionally sound as ensured by union-mandated maximum teaching loads. Unions are there to protect the work that teachers (and nurses) do as professionals. Unions prevent teachers from being used like factory workers. Children (and patients) are not widgets off of an assembly line. You can’t throw the “bad” ones away and make new ones to replace them.
what educational strategies work and implementing them in schools rather than reorganizing schools.
<
p>The educational establishment, i.e. the state educational bureaucracy, think tanks like the Boston Foundation, looks at education from a “business” perspective which sees reform as a matter of management deciding what should happen and employees doing what they’re told. With unions, management can’t just implement what they want. So unions become a problem to be eliminated.
<
p>The existence of unions has probably saved students being subjected to any number of ridiculous “innovations.” Have unions prevented some good innovations from happening? Maybe. That’s the nature of unions. On the other hand, it’s the nature of employers to get the most out of employees at the lowest cost.
<
p>If the educational establishment in Massachusetts had more educators, rather than business people and educational administrators, and more importantly, more researchers, we would probably start moving in a better direction.
And one way to move towards that – appoint active teachers to the Board of Ed.
Yes, by all means, put some teachers on the board to bring policy discussions back to reality. For similar reasons, I think having had the parent representative, (full disclosure: my friend) Ruth Kaplan, has had a salutary effect, but she and Harneen Chernow are way outnumbered.
<
p>Mark Bail’s point about the misplaced focus on governance and making the underlings do as they’re told by the experts on high is right on the money.
<
p>And the current push for national standards (and likely national tests to go with them) is sure to worsen our current tendency to make control of what goes on in our classrooms more and more remote.
<
p>As a parent, I find this actually quite frightening rather than comforting. An inexperienced teacher treated like some kind of automaton and given daily scripts by far away experts who supposedly know what’s what is a terrifying proposition. Even if the experts really did know what’s what, the automaton could never substitute for a compassionate, well-prepared, experienced and/or supported teacher who has the autonomy to think about my child’s individual needs and respond to them.