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.
To submit a letter, mail it to MTA Today, 20
Ashburton Place, 8th floor, Boston, MA 02108 or
e-mail it to mtatodayletters@massteacher.org.
For additional information, please refer to the
guidelines posted on www.massteacher.org.
Letters policy