Thus far, with regard to planning for the re-opening of schools in the fall, I had imagined that the key parties would be the Newton Public School administration, the School Committee, and the Newton Teachers Association. After all, these folks have a long history of working together for the good of the local community, and, even when disagreements arose, we could be confident that they were all knowledgeable about local circumstances and priorities. But another party now seeks to come to the table, the Massachusetts Teachers Association, of which the NTA is an affiliate.
At a recent meeting, the MTA suggested that the NTA and other local unions should defer to the MTA on a number of important issues. They proposed that local unions should “share statewide demands that MTA is bargaining with DESE with Superintendents and school Committees and frame that we are bargaining within this context.” (Note: DESE=Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.)
There is certainly a place for the MTA to have discussions with the state, but the long history of local control of the schools suggests that its role should be advisory or supportive in nature for each district’s union, not prescriptive.
For example, the state has determined that a three-foot separation between desks in schools is adequate for safety purposes. The MTA disagrees and thinks it should be six feet and states that local unions should insist on this parameter.
Do the people of Newton think that this kind of item should be bargainable by the local union? The guidelines set by the state are based on the best scientific information available to it, including consultation with epidemiologists, pediatricians, and others. Do we like the idea that such items should be open for negotiation based on a conclusion reached by the state union? Whatever difficulty might exist in the district to have classes with a three-foot separation would be compounded many times over with a six-foot separation. Indeed, such a requirement might just kill any chance of a full return to school.
The MTA says, too, that the local unions should bargain to “rescind all layoffs.” In the case of Newton, a number of aides on one-year contracts were laid off because the school administration felt that the capabilities of those people were not consistent with the needs of the students in the new environment. Why should the local parties agree to this item?
The NTA has enough on its local plate without ceding control to the state union. And the NPS and School Committee have enough on their plate without having a fourth member of the party dropping in.
It is disgraceful that this blog allows the author of How a Blog Held Off the Most Powerful Union in America to continue his collaborative, strategic campaign against labor unions.
* Our attorney says that I need to include:
what I believe to be his collaborative, strategic campaign against labor unions.
The party that should be there is a representative for the NPS nurses. They are going to have a large part to play in how this goes and, unlike the other parties, have actual medical training. Any discussion of reopening needs to include them.
Totally agree Meredith. The City and the State need input from the school nurses to ensure safe re-opening of our schools!
These are issues that may differ not only from community to community, but school to school and educational space to educational space within a school. Opening schools safely and will require focused attention to detail.
DESE has been a disaster from the day of the March shutdown and deserves whatever grief it receives from the teachers union at the state level (MTA). Its guidance was and continues to be a hindrance to solutions for opening up schools in just 7 weeks. DESE has listened to everyone but the people who’ve actually had to teach remotely under state constraints during the shutdown. They’re also the people who know how groups of students at various stages of development use school space.
While I respect pediatricians, they stepped well beyond their area of expertise when they began dictating solutions for opening schools. DESE should have taken their advice within the context of their expertise and turned to educators for direction as to how to implement the guidelines issued from epidemiologists. That being said, NTA and NPS have a solid, longterm working relationship. The major obstacle right now is time – there’s too much to do in too little time.
So my take is DESE deserves the grief they’re getting from MTA, but the solutions need to be developed at the uber micro-local level.
My neighbor just said Teachers Union is suing Fleishman. Oh boy. This is about to get good.
Meredith and Amy,
I totally agree, but the memorandum of agreement with the NTA will likely determine most issues.
what lessons can we learn from school openings in Asia?
Has it caused an increase in cases in both teachers and children? What % of children have been infected?
@Bugek-
I’m not confident that’s an apt analogy since, unlike China and other countries that dealt with SARS and MERS, we really didn’t have the infrastructure to conduct contact tracing and isolation. I understand the Commonwealth has initiated a robust program, but the results from the daily Covid monitoring don’t suggest to me that it is qualitatively comparable.
As for the re-opening, I understand that however we begin, the schools will be expected to be prepared to pivot quickly depending upon how things develop. Hence, DESE has requested 3 separate plans from full opening, partial and totally remote if I recall correctly. That suggests to me that there needs to be a lot of flexibility to respond to several scenarios.
While I understand that MTA is looking out for members as a whole, I do agree that each community and school system is unique in terms of what can occur and how quickly. I would think that our teachers – being on the front lines – are in the best position to advise and confer as to how to respond to an evolving situation. What works in another community may be completely irrelevant here, so local voices, experience and input are what matters.
@Paul Levy – thank you for another timely and informative thread.
@Paul Levy – I also thank you for sharing this stimulating post, especially the part about the layoffs that you snuck in toward the end. I am raring to read your book, but as I mentioned in a past humblebrag, I don’t do business with Amazon or Walmart, and those are the only two sellers I could find.
Anyway, people ask me, “Michael, if you live in Needham then why do you participate on Village 14?” And as I’ve responded, it’s because this website consistently presents novel ideas and strategies which readers may not have otherwise considered.
For example, I’d never given it much thought until today, and I say this as a general observation with zero knowledge of how it applies to the Newton Teachers’ Association, butt TIL yet another effective C-Level strategy for neutralizing unions:
Keep It Local.
Do whatever it takes to keep state or national unions from ever having influence in your organization, because their leadership is almost always more sophisticated in negotiation strategy, having been exposed to significantly more contractual discussions and a wider spectrum of managerial chicanery.
It is always preferable to limit discussions and negotiations to the local union, whose leaders are usually exhausted, part-time volunteers with limited resources and more important things to worry about. Rest assured that they would never have the time to read the managerial literature and case studies that you do. Furthermore, it is significantly easier to develop “relationships” with these local union leaders.
(The above interpretation is my own and as a Needhamite whose only experience with unions was as a hot dog vendor at Fenway Park, I have no idea whether it actually applies to the NTA. All I know is that it’s an incredibly logical and useful strategy!)
Paul said: For example, the state has determined that a three-foot separation between desks in schools is adequate for safety purposes. The MTA disagrees and thinks it should be six feet and states that local unions should insist on this parameter.
Do the people of Newton think that this kind of item should be bargainable by the local union?
Yes, OF COURSE I think the teachers should be able to bargain to ensure their safety. Especially if the state says a 3 foot buffer is enough between desks. Do you sit 3 feet away from your friends? Or do you sit 6-10 feet away because that’s what the best available science suggests, and oh yeah, because doing the bare minimum probably doesn’t make you feel all that safe?
Actually DESE recommends 6 feet of distancing but if not feasible, then no less than 3 feet “with other safety measures” outlined in the guidance. They relied on part on recommendations by the CDC, the WHO and experiences in countries (Denmark, China) which have brought children back into schools. As discussed in the guidelines, a factor considered is that it appears from studies of virus transmission that children are not a major vector of transmitting the virus to others. I have no opinion on this; I’m simply referencing the guidelines by DESE. And it does appear that those guidelines are designed to permit local municipalities to have some flexibility regarding distancing, provided our infections continue on the downward trend we are seeing as reflected in the state’s move to Phase 3 reopening.
For this to work the focus has to be on health and safety for staff and students and employing best practices developed in conjunction with what scientists, public health officials and doctors know about this disease. I understand that MTA seeks to use this as an opportunity to permanently abolish MCAS testing. Whether they have or will press any other demands unrelated to getting children back to school in the time of COVID I don’t know, but it strikes me that this is not the time for MTA to bargain for major pedagogical changes. And even if it is appropriate timing, their presence at the local table certainly isn’t needed.
We need to focus on educating kids in school.
Simply speaking, no. The MTA should not have a role in these talks.
All kids need to be in school in the fall.
@Jeffrey Pontiff – We need to focus on educating kids in school AND public health, not one or the other.
Jerry, countries across the world have managed to send their kids back to school without ANY outbreak clusters. Yes, we need to take precautions, but we will never be able to say that going to school is 100% safe. Even if there was no virus, there is always a chance that a school bus crashes. The DESE guidelines are fine. Let’s go back to school full time. Heck, let’s extend the school year to make up for lost time.
@Jeffrey Pontiff – How many of those countries re-opened their schools when they were here in their curve?
That said, admittedly, at least for the moment, Massachusetts is in way better shape than that US national curve.
So yes, I too am anxious to have schools re-opened in September, but that’s all predicated on the larger public health situation between now and then.
For sure, Jerry, but that is exactly the task being performed by DESE, with lots of expert advice. Not easy, for sure, and always subject to criticism and suggestions, but that’s the statutory framework in Massachusetts. And, note that DESE asked the districts to develop three separate plans in the event full reopening is not feasible–foreseeing a number of possible public health scenarios. If you haven’t read their document, I recommend it. It is IMHO an excellent piece of work, showing a lot of thoughtfulness and, indeed, humility about the possible courses of the virus.
While Lisap responded nicely to Bryan’s point, better than my original post, I would just add that while there are many local issues to be bargained, the basic rules and regulations set by the state are not. A poor analogy might be that of a state union directing a local union to argue that the provisions of a state plumbing code or building code should be bargainable, i.e., that a municipality should be obligated to have stricter plumbing or building standards in schools than the expert regulatory body at the state had determined were consistent with public safety and the public interest.
@Meredith & Amy-
You are both spot on. Input from nurses is absolutely essential in this process.
Hong Kong just shut down their schools again.
Schools shouldn’t open until there is a vaccine.
@Paul – If the teachers union had concerns that the state building or plumbing code was dangerous to their teachers, I should hope they would be asking local unions to support them in advocating for improved standards with the state.
You can justify the safety standards the state has released all you want, if the teachers don’t feel safe going to work, we have a major problem. The answer, in my view, isn’t to try to quiet the statewide teachers union, it is to have a real dialogue with them about what safety looks like. Which could’ve been done in advance to avoid this in the first place.
By the way, unions having a say in their members’ safety in COVID is not a new thing: Just read all the headlines about sports coming back, in which the players’ unions have to approve the safety measures.
Advocating at the state level is one thing, Bryan. I didn’t say anything about quieting the MTA in those talks. Read again: “There is certainly a place for the MTA to have discussions with the state.”
Local bargaining to change a state standard is another.
Paul – DESE has not included educators to the degree required to make for a safe school opening. If I may make another analogy, asking pediatricians for direction about the reopening of schools is like asking them to provide direction about any large gathering in an indoor space. They have no idea how school space is used, yet their voice was more prominent in this planned reopening of schools than that of educators. Can you understand how frustrating that is to teachers?
The DESE plan uses statements from state and national organizations, such as AAP, that are far removed from the day to day life of people who work in indoor spaces for sustained periods of time without proper physical distancing. In addition, many of the spaces have poor ventilation and no one knows how many people who work in these spaces are at high risk for serious disease or have family members who are. The DESE document includes only a passing acknowledgment (at best) of the risk to the adults who work in the schools. What was MTA supposed to do? Let that pass by? What did DESE expect?
Everyone wants schools to open, but that has to happen safely – for everyone. Time is short and the preparation is daunting.
My fear is that time is running out and what we will end up with is the same distance learning that we had last year. That would be a disaster. The administration, teachers, teachers unions, school committee and hopefully parent input should focus on:
1) getting the kids back into school as much as possible with appropriate protocols in place
2) identify high risk teachers/administrators and find a way for them to teach remotely
Some of the scientific literature I have read suggests child to child transmission or child to adult transmission is actually not common. Yes, there is still a lot to learn, but the focus for the fall should be getting the kids into the classroom and protecting those at risk. Arguing about whether kids should be 3 or 6 feet apart is not what I would be arguing about. Teachers (high risk or those who are not comfortable being in the classroom) should be pushing for ways to distance themselves from the children, whether that be separation in the classroom or teaching remotely. Hopefully, the plan for the fall starts to take shape soon, there are only ~7 weeks, and I’m worried that time will run out.
DESE undertook the promulgation of guidelines to apply state-wide for the safe re-opening of schools. These guidelines provide broad guidance based upon available medical and scientific evidence, since the first and foremost concern is to avoid a spike or resurgence of SARS-Covid-2. This isn’t a detailed “how to” manual, nor should it be. The nuts and bolts of how to implement a safe return to school will of course require input on the local level, indeed perhaps building by building. And that is where the voices of the people who work in those spaces will be critical in terms of actual implementation.
It is the responsibility of the DESE to establish policies and I agree with Paul that the guidelines are excellent and achieve that goal. DESE has given direction to all districts while permitting flexibility to individual districts.
I love how doctors and lawyers who haven’t had to work with DESE/DOE think they know better than educators whose professional lives have been upended for years – over and over again – by poorly constructed, unfunded mandates.
Have at it, guys. Just don’t blame the teachers for the end result.
@ Patrick Foster said.
When it comes to making policy decisions that are based upon factual scientific and medical data, the best experts to consult are (no surprise) actually doctors, experts in public health and disease and epidemiologists. I would not consult a pediatrician concerning the best approach to teaching English to a child learning English as a second language. Similarly, I would not consult an ELL teacher to model the likelihood that an infectious disease will have a resurgence and to what degree based upon the current rate of infection in Massachusetts.
I don’t think there’s much disagreement that the school closures in Massachusetts and distance learning were a huge set back educationally and emotionally for thousands of children across the Commonwealth. Given that harm, in light of data concerning the rate of infections within the Commonwealth is it safe to reopen schools and with what prevention in place to mitigate against a resurgence of infections. To my mind, that’s a question best answered by people whose expertise is in protecting public health and disease prevention.
Paul Levy wrote:
That doesn’t preclude having nurses there to provide realistic information. Unlike pediatricians, they work in the schools and understand the logistics. Even if the talks are for an agreement with the NTA, there should be someone in the room with first-hand knowledge of school health issues.
I agree!
At last… The AAP (American Association of Pediatrics) has issued a new statement that outlines the role and responsibilities of various professions in a proper context:
“Educators and pediatricians share the goal of children returning safely to school this fall. Our organizations are committed to doing everything we can so that all students have the opportunity to safely resume in-person learning…
Returning to school is important for the healthy development and well-being of children, but we must pursue re-opening in a way that is safe for all students, teachers and staff. Science should drive decision-making on safely reopening schools. Public health agencies must make recommendations based on evidence, not politics. We should leave it to health experts to tell us when the time is best to open up school buildings, and listen to educators and administrators to shape how we do it.
Local school leaders, public health experts, educators and parents must be at the center of decisions about how and when to reopen schools, taking into account the spread of COVID-19 in their communities and the capacities of school districts to adapt safety protocols to make in-person learning safe and feasible.”
Also, on a news show tonight, former Secretary of HHS Donna Shalala said that 25% of educators are in a high-risk category for COVID-19.
This is going to be hard and complex, but we can do it if everyone is included in the process and work together.
Should the union negotiate for something that they feel is in the best interest of its members? That’s pretty much the definition of what a union does.
Do I think the union should negotiate for something it believes is in the best interests of its members? That’s pretty much the definition of the union’s job.
NTA should negotiate for a safe reopening of school for its members. For the most part, this also would ensure a safe return for students. Under the current circumstances, “a safe reopening” means something quite different from previous years.