All good things must come to an end, including our illuminating, sometimes raucous, usually respectful debate about whether the Massachusetts Miracle proves teachers unions to be not such a barrier to school reform that some reformers claim. (If you missed it, see each episode, in order, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. And don't forget to read the comments, especially from the latest installment.)
I started the debate by pontificating about something Diane Ravitch said, so I'll give her the last word. (Sorry Greg.)
But I can't help but get my two bits in first. What this whole discussion made clear to me is that we need to be very careful about labeling teachers unions (or any opponents or proponents of reform) as "strong" or "weak." There is a widespread impression that Massachusetts has a "strong" teachers union because it is a "strong union" state. Yet we've learned during this discussion that the union got rolled, time and again, in the implementation of the 1993 reforms. They used all of their regular tactics, and lost, because of an exceptional array of leaders willing to take the heat.
That doesn't mean that unions don't matter. It just means that they aren't all-powerful. But they are tenacious and need to be defeated, over and over and over again if reform is to advance. And more than anything, that takes courageous leaders willing to endure the battles but also the long war.
And with that, I'll give Diane her promised last word:
I remember well that the union fought the reforms that proved so successful in Massachusetts. That suggests that the union is not as powerful as its critics assert. Despite the union opposition, the reforms were enacted and implemented.??I never asserted that teacher unions cause higher achievement. That is not their purpose. They exist to protect the rights and dignity of their members.
The proposition put to me at a conference was that the single best way to improve U.S. Education would be to mount a publicity campaign to demonize the teachers unions. I think that is a ridiculous proposition on its face. The fact that reformers encountered union opposition in Massachusetts does not mean that the union should be banned and destroyed.??
If the sine qua non of academic excellence is getting rid of unions, why won't one of the critics offer up an example of a district or state that has weak or no unions and superb schools?*
* OK, I lied. I can't help it. I get the last word! You want an example of a state with weak unions and superb schools? Here's one: Massachusetts, circa 1993-2007.
