Paul Toner's Comments at the New Bedford School Committee Meeting

Paul Toner, MTA President
Comments at the New Bedford School Committee Meeting
Concerning the DESE report on New Bedford Public Schools
June 13, 2011

Dear Mayor Lang and Members of the New Bedford School Committee:

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you today. My role here is not to comment specifically on the content of the report, but to let you know of MTA’s willingness to provide the New Bedford Education Association with support moving forward and to make some what I hope you will see as constructive comments to the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education about the development of such reports in the future.

New Bedford, like many districts in the state, faces a lot of challenges, both internal and external. I believe that everyone here is in agreement about one thing: that the highest priority is to provide the students of New Bedford with a quality education. The DESE report emphasizes some strategies for achieving improvements. NBEA President Lou St. John has already commented on some of those recommendations. What we can do at the MTA is work with the NBEA to make sure classroom teachers and support staff are more integrally involved in the improvement plans going forward. We have professional development and affiliate service staff who are expert in developing proactive solutions to the problems confronting the NBEA and New Bedford Schools. If the NBEA wants our assistance, we are prepared to deploy staff resources to make sure that classroom teachers are fully informed have an opportunity to provide their own ideas. Simply tweaking the contract here and there will not be transformative. In the end, this has to be a collaborative process that involves the teachers and all the staff if you are to make real improvements.

We do have some concerns about the process used in developing this report. Similar problems have been identified in early district reviews. I know that some improvements have been made, but we still have concerns. Let me name a few. I am happy to meet with members of the DESE staff to talk in greater depth about our recommended changes to the process for reviewing schools and districts.

§ Lack of balance. President St. John was interviewed for this report, but his views are scarcely reflected in it at all. Union leadership is only cited four times, and in three out of those four times it’s just to say that the union agreed with someone else’s analysis or views. He tells us that he had a lot more to say and recommendations to suggest – and these ended up on the cutting room floor.

§ The principals’ perspective vastly outweighs the teachers’. This is not surprising. 18 out of the district’s 23 principals were interviewed for this report, while only 40 out of about 1,000 teachers. Throughout, the report attributes certain views to teachers speaking in “focus groups.” There is no reference to how those groups were selected – or self-selected – or any attempt to find out if the views expressed are representative.

§ Accuracy. I believe that other steps should have been taken to verify the accuracy of certain claims in the report, especially as they pertain to the collective bargaining agreement. Too often there are statements that people believe that thus-and-such is required, even when it isn’t in the contract. President St. John has pointed out several important instances where he believes the report is factually inaccurate or misleading. In the future, I believe that the DESE should directly share a draft of the full report with the local association president before it is released so that errors can be corrected. The local president shouldn’t have to get a copy of the report from the Superintendent. It should be sent directly to the union president at the same time it is sent to the superintendent. In a similar vein, President St. John belatedly received – at his request – a copy of a letter that DESE sent to the mayor detailing concerns about the contract. The superintendent was CC’d on this letter, but the local association – one of two parties to this contract in question – was not. If you want the union to be a full partner in reform, the DESE must treat the union as a full partner.

§ Superficiality. The DESE should consider whether a full and accurate report can be made about a district the size of New Bedford by visiting the site for just four days. And for reports like this one that focus so heavily on the contract, it would be important for the review team to contain some members who have expertise in collective bargaining. I am not aware that that is the case in this instance.

I appreciate you taking the time to here me out on this and, again, I am glad to discuss these issues with you further. All the concerns notwithstanding, we believe that districts benefit from being reviewed. We see the review – for all of its flaws – as the beginning of a process, not the end. We hope the DESE and the district will take to heart the need to have classroom teachers fully informed and involved every step of the way.