Sign up to receive Ward and political newsletters by email here.
Correction: An earlier version of this newsletter referred to this as the longest educator strike in Massachusetts in a century, based on a local TV news station article. That record, in fact, belongs to the infamous Franklin Public Schools strike of 1977, which lasted nearly a month and featured brutal jailing and fining of many individual teachers.
The educators of the Newton Teachers Association will remain out on strike tomorrow, for a seventh school day. On Friday, the judge relented on the contempt fines on the union in view of the slow movements by the School Committee and NPS to bargain, and seemingly recognized that breaking the union with a judicial gavel and forcing everyone back to work against their will is probably not conducive to functional operations of a school system.
I would reiterate also that we have to admit that 98% of NTA members did not vote to go on strike purely over some percentage point differences in contract adjustments, however important these are, because if they had felt like they were being respectfully listened to and heard on the evolving conditions inside the buildings and supported on these mounting emergencies, they would probably have been more open to less drastic action while negotiations continued. This has been building for years.
The crawling pace of negotiation by Newton during the strike has hardened that determination of the members to remain outside until they are taken seriously and supported as professionals, for the sake of the students they are trying to help as educators.
Ever-changing lines in the sand and circular logic
The latest explanation on the management side for the impasse on settling a fair contract is that preventing potential layoffs, either in NPS or city departments, is an absolute line in the sand.
Up until now, looking back over the past several years or the past decade and a half or the past quarter-century, I have never recalled a time when a risk of layoffs was considered in Newton to be an unacceptable, unthinkable outcome. The steady trickle of layoffs in NPS over the past several years, despite federal revenue replacement dollars intended to help mitigate or repair pandemic damage, would certainly point to the opposite.
That is not to imply that layoffs would be no problem, since things have indeed been slashed to the bone already (after years of listless and half-hearted political effort to engage with and mobilize taxpayers), but merely to observe that this is a puzzling, novel hard limit on contract negotiations. I have also not heard anything promised anywhere to suggest if, for example, the existing contract were to be extended without any modifications or raises, that there would be zero layoffs this coming fiscal year, as part of this newfound commitment to permanent employment.
We are told, rather elliptically, in nightly communiqués that Newton cannot sign any contract that could result in layoffs now due to insufficient funding, and that we cannot provide additional funding now because at some point it might run out and force layoffs later.
In my previous newsletter, I addressed why the needs are likely to be less great in the future, even if we hit a wall with available financial resources (although even then, there are positive trends and we have certain resources we could use in a pinch to bridge a one-year gap here or there, prior to the end of the pension pre-funding crunch period we are currently experiencing).
But also it would at least be more comprehensible to the residents to make future cuts after we have used the resources we have, than to make cuts now when we do have resources still. (This was a key factor in the defeat of the override referendum last year.)
And even if we achieved a zero-staff-reductions contract through caps on compensation, simply put, as we look at a mass-membership organization, one cannot compel people to remain on the job for less than they are willing to accept in compensation, and one cannot replace even a significant fraction of 1,700 teachers and aides quickly and inexpensively (let alone with good hires). Let us be realistic, not fanciful.
There is no bargaining scenario here where we as a city or school district get everything that we want in a school system (especially in personnel numbers and types) with zero change in funding allocation levels and no change in projected cost growth. As I have said before, the public education profession is not a recreational hobby.
Hard choices
Some politicians like to think of themselves as making the hard choices that are widely unpopular. Right out of the gate we ought to have a red flag above this political self-conception in a democracy because governance is supposed to be based on popular consent and not opposed to it.
Secondly, if a choice is necessary but difficult, this is where it is essential to have strong, sustained political communications that respect the voters and offer them some scenarios and options. Failure to sell the necessity of a decision is typically what makes something a hard choice in politics, because people don’t understand why you are doing it or prioritizing things that way. The other typical factor in making something a hard choice politically is usually the presence of materially powerful opposing formations or blocs whose interests are directly affected by such a decision, and that can only be overcome through negotiation (or a destructive showdown with public approval), not pretending the countervailing power bloc does not exist.
Thirdly, while it is true that there are often conflicting options that both have downsides, which can be construed as a hard choice, we have to consider who is being harmed the most by choosing one or the other. If children in school are facing a possible lifetime of negative consequences from academic under-performance due to lack of support, unacknowledged mental health crises, or unaddressed behavioral and emotional problems, that is more important than – for example – a pothole, even when the potholes rank higher in an opinion poll of problems to solve. Although I reject the premise of scarcity, if we were to accept that premise for the sake of argument, that is an extremely easy call. And the public majority agrees with this prioritization when the two are juxtaposed instead of mentioned in isolation from one another.
And in order to address those children’s needs, we do actually need skilled, experienced professionals, and that costs money. To quote a former Council colleague of mine, “We can’t run our school system with nothing but 24-year-olds who live with six roommates in Brighton and are just working in the schools for a couple years before they move on to their ultimate career.”
See you tomorrow.
If you are interested in donating to support the NTA strike fund, that link is here.