MTA Today - Winter 2015

PSU bargaining table has become
a lab for corporate education reform

To the Editor:

Thanks to Michelle Corbin and Tim Scott for their Fall 2014 commentary, “From public good to profitable commodity.” It’s a dubious pleasure to learn the language of “LEAP,” “VALUE” and “scalable rubrics,” but if our colleagues in K- 12 have suffered it for a decade, we in higher education deserve our turn.

We’ve endured the shock doctrine of starvation budgets setting the stage for “accountability” policies ostensibly designed to address real problems: poor retention, lack of student preparation, excessive student debt, and enrollments unmatched by increased staffing levels.

Meanwhile, the Professional Staff Union at UMass Boston has seen its bargaining table become a tiny laboratory for corporate education reform. Management’s justifications for gutting key pillars of our contract have been all about “market-based” changes, “best practices” and the need to align with the sinking standards of the non-union private sector.

Corbin and Scott remind us that our little bargaining table belongs to a much larger project, one we need to understand in order to resist. And part of that understanding is learning where our power lies: In the Legislature? At the bargaining table? In alliance with our students? In an educated and active membership?

Tom Goodkind President, Professional Staff Union, UMass Boston

Political alliances must be based
on debate — not tradition or fear

To the Editor:

As the largest union in Massachusetts, the MTA and its local affiliates represent an important voting bloc in national, state and local elections. We often fail to take this essential fact fully into account due to our strategic approach to electoral politics. For many rank-and-file members, our electoral work seems detached from our day-to-day union work. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that locals struggle to staff phone banks and thousands of MTA mail pieces are immediately trashed.

When we allied with the Democratic Party decades ago, we traded independence for political access. Two decades of education reform reveal the limitations of that access, but our loyalties have remained firm.

Rarely do Democratic candidates feel the need to make a strong commitment to our political program (sticking with, “I’m a proud product of the public schools”) because we rarely demand that they do (as we repeat that age-old mantra, “Anyone but a Republican!”).

We must use our leverage to shape the electoral debate and advance our platform on the campaign trail. I would never rule out a Democratic candidate as a potential ally, but alliances must be forged out of rigorous selection and robust debate, not tradition or fear. We must always approach elections from this position: not what is best for the Democratic Party, but what is best for the MTA.

Jamie Rinaldi Newton Teachers Association

The MTA should have no power
to recommend political candidates

To the Editor:

As a dues-paying member of the MTA, I feel misrepresented by my union when it comes to recommending candidates for election.

What should MTA’s relationship be to electoral politics? The MTA should have no power to recommend candidates.

I understand that the MTA needs to have the power to lobby for education. However, elections for local, state and national office do not revolve around just one issue. One candidate may have positions on education more favorable than those of another candidate, but those same candidates may differ on other issues that are also important to the membership.

For this reason I believe the union should not be speaking for the entire membership. Teachers come from different demographics, live in different communities and have different religious beliefs.

Elections are not solely about education and the union needs to be cognizant that some members may support a different candidate for reasons that are unrelated to education.

It is often frustrating to have to defend my political views at work and then explain them in society when I am unfairly labeled due to my union’s recommendations.

Paul Power The Education Association of Natick

Charter schools are here to stay;
now we must fight for better funding

To the Editor:

From July 1991 to June 1993, I was very involved in lobbying against legislation that became the Education Reform Act of 1993. I hate the title. We fought the good fight, but supporters at the time had the power in the Legislature and the governor’s office.

The concept of charter schools began to surface during the Reagan era and was supported by many conservative groups. The concept was supported by Massachusetts Governors Weld and Cellucci, Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush and the Massachusetts Board of Education, which was controlled by the Pioneer Institute. Support continued under former Governor Deval Patrick and continues under President Barack Obama and Governor Charlie Baker.

The charter school battle is over. Charter schools are here to stay.

We need to move forward. The real battle is for better funding for the public schools. We need to focus on changing the funding mechanism for charter schools. We need to increase state funding for public education by stopping or reducing the money that goes to the charter schools, to the detriment of local school systems.

Richard E. Paul, Retired Arlington Education Association

MTA Today welcomes letters to the editor from MTA members. Letters should be no longer than 200 words. Each letter submitted for publication must address a topic covered in

MTA Today, must be signed and must include the writer’s telephone number for confirmation purposes. Opinions must be clearly identified as belonging to the letter-writer. We reserve the right to edit for length, clarity and style.