Steve Urbon: Massachusetts tenure reform years ahead of California

Did you notice last week that there was barely a ripple in Massachusetts when a California judge ruled that state's teacher tenure and dismissal laws keep bad teachers in front of disadvantaged students and therefore are unconstitutional?

The ruling, we were told by breathless commentators, would send a shock wave across America by voiding California's tenure system, setting a precedent that could render American public schools chaotic.

But here in Massachusetts, for anyone paying attention to education, the reaction was, "We've seen this movie before."

That's because reaching back to 1993, Massachusetts started reforming its educational system in earnest. At first, there were large sums of added money along with local aid formulas that at long last started to erode some of the excessive advantages of well-heeled communities.

Carolee Matsumoto, a New Bedford education consultant, said, "We're so fortunate to live in Massachusetts because a lot of the inequities were dealt with. That's why New Bedford gets so much more money."

This hasn't been easy at times. The funding for some towns remained uneven enough that they sued the state education commissioner in a 2004 case called Hancock v. Driscoll.

The suit led to seven months of civil trial in which the problems were laid out in persuasive detail.

So the judge assigned the task of conducting the trial by the Supreme Judicial Court, reported to the court that the system needed an influx of additional money to truly set things right about educational equality.

But the SJC in 2005 ruled against the towns, saying that money doesn't solve everything, and there are a lot of ways these issues can be legislated without involving the courts.

It was a shock at first, but reformers kept at it, and finally, two years ago, a teacher tenure reform law went into place.

The Massachusetts Teachers Association (reposted by the New Bedford Educators Association) issued a statement about the California ruling that rather approvingly spelled out how Massachusetts stands apart from other states.

While stating the union's support for the California teachers, the MTA wrote, "In Massachusetts, we have a system of evaluation and due process that supports both the interests of students and rights of teachers.

"And it works. We are one of the most highly unionized states in the country, and our students are first in the nation and among the top-performing students in the world."

It goes on to explain the new system, in which after a three-year evaluation period during which they can be dismissed for any reason, new teachers who perform well get "Professional Teacher Status," which gives them due process rights, "not a job for life."

"They continue to be evaluated thoroughly. If they are struggling, they must be given guidance on how to improve. If they fail to improve, there is a speedy process of dismissing them," wrote the MTA.

This process will take time, however, and there will be friction along the way. "For years the deadwood was protected by the unions," said Matsumoto. Now the evaluation system can't hide them unless it is implemented poorly.

"If we had this 10 years ago it would have been good," she said. The reforms 10 years ago would have been good.

"That's one of the hues and cries going on in New Bedford. For the first time, teachers are being told, 'You need to improve,' and teachers are saying 'Show us the evidence.'"

Supporters of the California tenure law contended that business interests were the power behind the lawsuit, and perhaps so.

But business interests were also heavily involved in the Massachusetts reform movement, yet now we've got mostly everybody signing off the same page.

First universal health care, and now this. Pity California, 10 years late to the party and now in a world of hurt.

Steve Urbon's column appears in The Standard-Times and SouthCoastToday.com. He can be reached at 508-979-4448.