From Politico Mass Playbook:
DELEO TO THROW SUPPORT BEHIND CHARTER SCHOOLS ON WEDNESDAY — “Prepping for charter school fight,” by Hillary Chabot, Boston Herald: “Beacon Hill bosses Robert A. DeLeo and Stanley C. Rosenberg will sound off on Boston Herald Radio this week as the battle to expand charter schools takes center stage — and DeLeo prepares to renew his charter school support in a high-profile speech Wednesday.” http://bit.ly/1UlGWXv
Please share widely!
He’s turning out to be an excellent de facto lieutenant governor for Baker.
he’s in too
There’s a lot of nuance in there I don’t want to go into, but Rosenberg is more a friend of public education than it may seem from the headlines.
maybe more pragmatic than anything else. But looks like he’s going to play ball. We’ll see what he comes up with.
One problem is there doesn’t seem to be a comparable “big idea” on the dem/progressive side to improve schools- which most believe is necessary.
Baker & many conservative/libertarian folks are laser focused on charter schools as the answer to our education problems. If successful, they will affect a radical change in the system and could even undermine the American bedrock notion of universal public schools. What’s the big idea on the other side?
if that’s what Charters provide, then I’m all for it. But don’t we have enough to get a sense of what is working. What’s the end game here for the Charter proponents. What is their “big idea”?
Charters = innovation in education (in theory), that’s a big idea…and vague enough for mass appeal.
Given that many charters force employees to sign non-disclosure agreement, we can be sure whatever “innovation” is taking place will remain the sole property of the charter. That hurts everyone, of course, but the bottom line is the bottom line.
If I know anything about it our public schools are among the best in the country and we even compare favorably globally even if the country as a whole does not. I’ve also read recently that dropout rates in MA are the lowest they have been in quite a while and more students are pursuing post-secondary education.
is one reason.
to our educational problems. They are an answer for gentrification and the lack of will to pay for education, particularly for the poor and needy.
Legislatively, I think the problem with charters is that there’s going to be a ballot question that will pass. Our legislative leaders, I think, are trying to manage that eventuality.
Make NO mistake about it. There are very few union members left in the USA and the Republicans are going after them. DeLeo seems to be on the side of the “crush the unions” crowd, eh?
Here’s a simple little uncomfortable truth in the world. Of the 25+ nations that outscore the USA in test results of their students, all but maybe one or two are staffed with union teachers. Finland, with one of the strongest teachers unions typically ranks in the top one or two.
The real reasons SOME schools in the USA do poorly is funding and a lack of parental involvement. To help the funding problem that will require TAX INCREASES. Deleo and Baker already said no to that. The other reason is a lack of parental involvement. But when both parents are working full time jobs and possibly a part time job to make ends meet, that takes an elected official who will acknowledge the real problem of low wage and high wealth disparity. From DeLeo and Baker we hear…..”crickets” on those topics.
So, plan “A” and plan “B” and all the rest is to do this: Blame the Teachers Unions and support charter schools.
My liberal mom was in town from NYC last weekend. Charter schools came up and she started attacking teachers unions. She said NYC public school teachers make $100K.
In reality, NYC public school teachers start at $45K, which is nearly as close to the family poverty line (around $32K) as it is to a living wage for a single parent ($56K). If teachers stick with New York City Schools for 8 years, they can look forward to max out at $75K. Unless you marry someone on Wall Street, I have no idea how you live in NYC, raise a family, and pay off student loan debt for that kind of money.
How much blame-the-teachers BS is out there when even liberals are propagandized?
The NYC teachers unions have made themselves very unpopular in a variety of ways, by taking needlessly aggressive and unreasonable positions. When I was a kid, one of the local high schools had 30-40 more kids than there were lockers in the hallways. But every classroom had lockers in the back, so, problem solved. Nope- you need someone in the classroom, and although the contract required the teacher in the classroom 15 minutes before homeroom, it did not require that students be allowed in. Can we just open the two classrooms five minutes early so these kids have a place to put their stuff? No. Can we put someone else in the 2 classrooms so kids can have a locker? Nope- classroom supervision reserved for teachers only. Result: 40 kids got to carry around all of their bools, gym stuff, and coats around with them every day.
Teachers unions aren’t automatically good. Some are better than others. Locally, it seems that the teachers’ union is far more interested in using the dues to print glossy mailers for political candidates than it is in, say, competently negotiating a contract.
contracts. Without the bigger unions, we would have no say politically, which is completely scary when you consider the other side.
With that said, different unions have different attitudes. They also respond to different administrations. I agree with you, when you say,
This statement, however, is probably not correct:
A tiny number of locals might do that–I can’t think of any–but the MTA and NEA do, but they only advise on contract negoatiations.
You had to carry your coat with you in high school? Let it go, dude.
I was attempting to explain why the NYC teacher’s unions are not well-regarded even by liberals– because it has long been confrontational and focuses on credibility-sapping “work rules” issues that make it seem like the 1960s UAW rather than an organization comprised of professional, educated people.
I am not necessarily opposed to our local unions, but do get frustrated them, primarily because they use their collected dues to try to convince members how they should vote, which is a waste of members’ money.
Didn’t mean to downrate.
First off, members are well able to request that their dues not go toward political expenses. They’ve had that right for a very long time now.
Second, political expenses within almost any union are a tiny fraction of a nugget of the budget. Contract negotiations, member support services, etc., are all the vast majority of the costs.
Sounds like both the students and the teachers were put in that position by somebody who couldn’t count…
This has nothing to do with teachers and everything to do with unions. I’ve worked with a few unions in various trades and industries over the years. Every last one of them zealously guards the turf negotiated… sometimes to extremes that not only appear silly, but are in fact and deed, quite silly. Teachers aren’t exempt from this.
As it was explained to me by a long time union foreman: “We do it because we fought hard for it, and because if we don’t continue to fight hard there are those waiting to take it away.” That’s the reality of our adversarial system of labor relations. In your case, if just one teacher had relented and allowed students in to use the lockers they would have risked losing that ground in future negotiations.
That doesn’t even make logical sense.
You could blame the administration or the budget for not having enough staff, but the union? How would they have helped ‘count’ in that situation?
???
I was pointing out, in their defense, why unions sometimes act in ways that seem obstreperous. I agree and defend this behavior… or didn’t you notice… on the grounds — and completely not the fault of any union — That our system places throats in jaws at the outset and then invites antagonists into a continuous death struggle.
In what manner does this lay the blame upon the unions???
Both charter schools in my area are unionized
Dont mess with the talking points. Also, MCAS scores are meaningful for charter schools, but are outdated, flawed, and oppressive at public schools.
Please make a note of it.
I have an question, and I’ll put the links up once I have some answers.
Let’s say you own a company. Your workers are unionized.
One of the union leaders encourages the workers to not cooperate with a certifying body (let’s say ISO). If the company doesn’t get certification, the opinion of the product will go way down.
What do you think should happen to that employee? Should they be fired?
I think it depends on how much value the employee adds to the company.
I know it’s a distraction, but when you say “ISO”, I think “ISO9000” — a canonical example of stupid, useless, make-work bureaucracy canonized by cynical middle-management types. While the absence of ISO9000 certification might lower the opinion of the product in some, I suspect that the presence might lower the opinion of others. Still, I appreciate that I’m just picking on your choice of ISO… as an example. Other certifications (such as PCI for software companies that handle personal information) are different. In any case, there is often a world of difference between “opinion of the product” (whatever that means) and profitability of the product.
There are many ways to “not cooperate” with a certifying body, and many motivations.
I guess that I think that firing is a last resort (especially in a union shop) that in my view is best reserved for the most egregious misconduct. I’m not sure that the behavior you describe meets that standard.
In the example you offer, the company is already unionized. That suggests to me that a contract is already in place. It also suggests to me that outright firing will entail legal costs and time for all involved.
I think it comes down to the question of how much value the employee adds to the company, how much value the executives believe the employee took away from the company, and how much harm in overall worker productivity would result from the firing.
If I were on the executive team, I would seek less draconian ways of addressing the conflict.
Or that encouraging actions of fellow employees to sabotage a process was okay? What if you were working at a software company writing code, and you convinced other programmers to slip bugs intentionally into the product so that you and the others could force the company to accede to your collective wage demands? If the company found out that you were attempting to do this, should you be fired?
Note: I’ll be bringing this back to teachers next.
You’re using words like “sabotage”, “slip bugs intentionally into the product”, etc. That behavior was not described in the scenario I responded to. Such behavior is also exceedingly rare.
I have a very hard time with accusations of any employee being “disloyal”. My world is FILLED with employees who are accused of being “disloyal” because they dare to speak out about inconvenient facts that executives of their company prefer to hide.
We have stipulated that this is a union shop. The employees in question presumably work under a contract. That contract surely describes the offenses for which an employee may be involuntarily terminated.
I think executives and union leaders should work to address and resolve whatever conflicts are generating the behavior in question. I think any legal action towards any specific employee should be evaluated in the context of that work.
Andover teacher was fired and then restated.
This was after numerous job actions like picketing, including forming “gauntlets” at parents nights, etc. They held numerous meetings with parents but failed to get much support. The candidates they supported in SC elections lost. State finally appointed a mediator (this is was the end portion of a state mandated process) who sided with the SC in a very public way. Teachers were going to be forced to agree to a contract they did not like. This was a last resort move.
I’m only pointing out that these are the kinds of things that make it difficult to support teachers. While most people in Andover had a affinity for their K-8 teachers (and these teachers were far less militant than the HS, and the contract changes would not effect them) the HS teachers were running the show. Very little of of the dispute seemed to be about teaching, the town or the students.
http://www.massteacher.org/news/archive/2013/andover_teacher_firing_decision.aspx
I see nothing in the report you cite that to me corresponds to “sabotage”, “slips bugs intentionally into the product”, any comparable behavior.
Here is some relevant language you did not quote, from the same source (emphasis mine):
It sounds to me as though the school board over-reached, improperly fired the teacher in question, and then LOST the resulting court case. It also appears to me that you misrepresented the decision in your attempt to construct an analogy. The CERB examined the case and explicitly rejected the claims you assert. It seems to me that your use of language such as “sabotage” misrepresents the facts of the situation as described in the piece you cite.
You also failed to quote this part of the cited piece:
The “sabotage” that you allege was widespread and had the “tacit approval” of the administration.
You asked me what I would have done, and I told you. I think if the school board had followed the approach I describe, the entire episode might have been avoided.
I further note that the teacher in question is, by all accounts, an excellent and well-loved teacher. You wanted to know if I would have fired this employee. Frankly, if you had been my employee, and you had brought these trumped-up charges against a colleague, I’d be more inclined to fire YOU!
I get that for you, “these are the kinds of things that make it difficult to support teachers”. For me, this behavior of the School Board — and your mis-characterization of what happened — is what makes me so suspicious of the Charter School movement.
union local, not teachers. Second, unions don’t typically act out in a vacuum, as Tom aptly demonstrates with your own documentation.
Believe it or not, teachers don’t really have the time or inclination to cause employment problems.
what the parallel is? Teachers unions are urging teachers not to follow the contract? I’m not aware of teachers opting out of state-mandated stuff.
Political opposition to state policy is fine.
Please clarify, and I’ll do my best to answer.
really pissed you off.
That means global warming isn’t real!
The plural of “anecdote” is not “data”. Most charters are not unionized. I know a quartet of charter teachers south of Boston who were fired for trying to unionize their school.
You fired friends are an anecdote as well. Can the hive mind tell us how many charters IN MASS are unionized?
I don’t know and neither does Petr.
Not a one. At least… not with a teachers union. They, perhaps, have tried to unionize as a work union, dealing with issues of contract length and workplace rules. However, any charter school teacher in a union would, at the present time, be barred from making anything in the way of changes to curriculum, methodology, class size and pedagogy as the Massachusetts state law that governs charter schools require that teacher certification, methodology and other such things be carefully described in the charter.
I’m not sure you understand how a charter works…
http://www.massaflcio.org/node/197671
It is nearby, so I am aware of it. ARE there others? Do not know.
When I traverse your link, I get a headline that reads “Union says Lighthouse Charter School unionization is legitimate”, with subtext that says “Haynes: Senate Bill Not Perfect, but Something to Build On”, and a link titled “Original article” that answers a placeholder page reading “It works!” (presumably meaning that the link generator works).
In short, a work in progress that at least to me does not provide enough information to know whether or not it supports or refutes the comment from petr.
Conservatory Lab Charter School in Brighton was unionized in 2008 but disbanded in 2012.
Cape Cod Lighthouse Charter has a nominal union.
“It still exists,” said Paul Niles, who directs Cape Cod Lighthouse Charter School in East Harwich, where teachers unionized last year. “But I’m not sure active is the right word.”
To enable the outsourcing of substantial tax revenue from already cash strapped public schools to charters that have operated with substantial impunity and lack of oversight. Their financial model requires rhem to syphon off resources from schools that are already faring poorly and could use some shoring up and has run into noticeable problems in the past.
That said, Charley made a good point on the SOTC thread that it is difficult for a state representative or a senator to look a parent in the eye and tell them their kid can’t have a chance at the lottery and has to attend a school their involved parent feels isn’t up to snuff. I am not saying that the charters are always better or that in the longer scheme of things they don’t exacerbate issues of inequality in education. I am saying for those kids at that moment it may be their best shot, or at least that’s what their parents strongly believe, and that’s why it’s going to be incredibly difficult to make these decisions going forward. Lawmakers have my sympathy on this one, though it would be nice if the conversation could be steered away from union v. non-Union to whether these are a smart or foolish investment. My guess is it’s penny wise and pound foolish, but then again, I’m not a BPS parent concerned about their kids immediate future.
The reality is parents want more choice when they’re deciding which schools to send their children. If you ask parents it’s a no brainer. DeLeo gets it, Rosenberg gets it, Baker gets it … If you ask this dad I say out with the old and in with the new. Bring on the Charter schools!
Because if they’re parents in cities, there are loads of public school options. We can (should?) increase opportunity for school choice without charters.
Charter Schools are coming, are you ready? I am. : )
troll. Please.
And remember, of course, that almost the whole caucus voted to make him speaker-for-life
If charter schools are this hotbed of innovation and achievement, then I don’t understand why the state doesn’t let charter schools crop up in any community?
Can you imagine what a charter school could do in Wellesley, since they currently spend $17,108 per student? Can you even begin to imagine what more a private corporation could do with that amount of funding?
Why can’t a school be created in Wellesley to try and draw some of the students away from the public schools? Surely those schools are not serving every student the way they should be served.
It actually might be a good idea because the current HS is pretty crowded.
I wonder if per child funding is that big of a deal. Lawrence spends more per child than Andover and they have charters and Andover currently does not.
just ask Boston.
Comprehensive education – citizenship = STEAM
A fancy acronym that means “worker training”.
just had their charter revoked. Statehouse news.
Don’t know the background here, vote was 6 to 4, Peyser voted for revocation.
with the revocation of the charter in Dorchester, by charter school proponents, you get stories like this in the Herald.
here that isn’t completely reflected in the new articles. The Herald article may be factually correct for all I know, but it’s bogus: telling the story of one kid implying that the charter should be kept open.
The Globe says, “the board placed the school on probation for poor test scores and fiscal oversight.” Fiscal oversight (more like graft) was what killed Robert B. Hughes Charter School in Springfield. I think fiscal problems also had something to do with the problems with the Gloucesters Arts Charter that never got off the ground.
I’ll look at the numbers on DESE when I get a chance. It might be interesting.
but when you talk about schools, kids and families, there are always personal stories that would tug on the heartstrings. That’s what makes it so difficult. But when Chester and Peyser want to shut down a charter, it’s interesting.