As parents, teachers, and community members, we are Massachusetts grassroots activists for education. We read bills, testify at hearings, write letters to the editor, pore over budgets, speak at town meetings, make phone calls, and hold fundraisers. Many of us have done so for years.
It was as part of this work and with great hope that we joined Stand for Children. And—initially—Stand helped us do great work. We cast a critical eye on education bills at the State House and testified as needed. We turned back ballot initiatives that would have gutted education funding. We closely watched local budgets to keep dollars close to classrooms. We put our voices, time, money, and reputations into building Stand for Children. Because we were united and we spoke from our experience, we were heard.
Along the way, we learned a great deal about the legislative process, education funding, and policy. We learned to research our positions, present them, and back them up.
But in 2009, while we struggled to give voice to the needs of our schools, Stand’s staff was turning away from our concerns, announcing that it expected its members to forgo community advocacy in favor of a new, special agenda. This agenda, emerging seemingly out of nowhere, touted more charter schools, more testing, and punishing teachers and schools for low student scores.
None of these initiatives arose from the needs of our communities. Indeed, we understood well their dangers. Yet all of them became the positions of Stand for Children. Policy proposals no longer came from the local level. They were dictated from the top.
What accounted for this shift? We were mystified at first. But we’ve since learned that Stand abandoned its own local members – us – to follow the lure of millions of dollars from Bain Capital, the Walton Foundation, Bill Gates, and others who had an agenda in conflict with our previous efforts.
The ballot initiative brought forward by Stand for Children is just the most recent example.
Stand was one group of many at the table when the new Massachusetts educator evaluation system was hammered out over several months last spring. Unions, principals, state officials, parents—all contributed. But when the new regulations were finally announced, one group walked away—Stand for Children.
Immediately, Stand filed for a ballot initiative and used some of their new corporate money to hire people to collect the signatures. It cost them $3 a signature, but they have plenty more. They are following the master plan revealed in Colorado by their national CEO, Jonah Edelman, a month before it was announced Massachusetts.
The proposed ballot measure attempts to blow up the collaborative work that created the new regulations last spring. It does nothing to improve teaching in our schools. What it does is put the careers of our teachers at the mercy of an untested rating system, violating the recommendations of the people who designed that system.
We fear the result would be to drive some of our best teachers away from the schools that need them most.
This ballot measure fits the ideology of its corporate sponsors, but it is not what we want for those who teach our children. Most of all, it is not what we want for our children.
Therefore we the undersigned, as former members and leaders of Stand for Children, urge Massachusetts voters to oppose this ballot measure.
This letter has been signed by 30 former members and staffers of Stand for Children. We are collecting signatures at the Citizens for Public Schools site.* If you wish to add yours, please do so in the comments.
*link has been updated!
including local school committee members and parents here in Lowell…and they tricked me.
There is a part of me that thinks this may have been the goal all along, that they wanted to build the reputation of a grassroots, parents-oriented advocacy group and growing on the backs of heavy hitters like Citizens for Public Schools and local officials and parents around the state, then shifting to their real agenda. That’s the cynical side of me.
Maybe it was a shift that occurred midway through, but I dunno. Something smells REALLY fishy.
I will sign, and better yet, will also post in LiL.
This article in Rethinking schools follows the history of Stand and looks at the change in their funding stream as an explanation for their apparent about face:
http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/26_01/26_01_sanchez.shtml
How can such a huge change happen in so short a time?
I have to wonder if the national directors weren’t already leaning in that direction in the first place, to seek out that sort of funding. Why else go AFTER those funds? Or allow them to come in??
There’s enough of the old Stand left to have the occasional worthwhile idea, but for the most part they advocate what the pay-masters demand. Basically, the 1% bought themselves a group that promises to do to education what others have already done to banking.
I do not see a comments field at your website to sign!!
on CPS?
Try here:
http://www.citizensforpublicschools.org/2012/05/11/news-alert-25-former-stand-activists-oppose-ballot-measure/
Glad you’re reposting!
but one where you linked in this comment. Maybe you should fix it in your post so we can be sure people will come and sign?
Even though I’ve already signed, I want to be able to pass this on to other to sign. I can do that with the second link.
Sorry for the mixup.
With your letter and as much information I could gleam (and my own personal story).
Post here. Hope it helps, especially in alerting the folk in my neck of the woods.
I did sign at that link…I am guessing there’s a backlog of sigs right now in moderation. I’d suggest as quick as possible going to approve any sigs that have come through…psychologically, the more sigs you have, the more you collect, I find. People hate being a voice in the lone wilderness…
Well, people that are not me, anyway. I’m used to it by now. 🙂
I’m in charge of moderating these comments, but I don’t see yours yet, Lynne.
While I get help with what seems to be a glitch with the web site, Lynne, you and anyone else can email me with your full name and city and I’ll add you to the list. guisbond@mit.edu.
The original Stand For Children theory was that improvements for children were good for teachers, and improvements for teachers were good for children.
That changed, as you have noted.
Now they believe that harming teachers, making them less secure, less able to speak, less empowered, is good for children.
I participated in bringing the TeLLS survey to Massachusetts, based on the belief that empowering teachers, respecting their opinions, and soliciting their ideas, is good for children AND their teachers. Paul Reville was part of that team; and, for once we were in complete agreement. Now, because of Stand for Children and their corporate agenda, it is all slipping away. Reville opposes the Stand ballot initiative, to his credit.
One example? the Stand initiative takes away Professional Teacher Status from any part-time teachers. Part-time public school teachers are pretty rare; but they are almost entirely women, and overwhelmingly “new mother” women who want to job-share. The Stand initiative isn’t just anti-woman, it’s anti-CHILD.
Stand for Children has become as ironic a name as the Slaveship “Amistad” was.
Stand is very sensitive about their ties to ALEC. When a post appeared on Daily Kos last week alleging ties between Stand, ALEC and Teach for America, a Stand official was quick to respond that there is no relationship–although ALEC may have modeled some of its model legislation on Stand’s bills. I thought that was a little weird so dug deeper.
ALEC’s model bill on teacher evaluation is called Great Teachers, Great Leaders–the same name that Stand uses in Colorado. Read the bill for yourself here: http://alecexposed.org/wiki/Public_Education
Sound familiar? It should–the section that leaves hiring up to principals after a layoff is virtually identifical to the language in Stand’s ballot initiative…
Even people who are fooled by Stand’s faux reform talk are uncomfortable with ALEC. I say spread the word.