A divisive and harmful bill (H.583/S.340) pending in the Massachusetts Legislature is being heavily promoted by a New York-based and billionaire-funded group named Educators for Excellence (E4E).
There is considerable confusion and misinformation circulating around this bill, much of it coming from E4E in their conversations with educators and legislators.
This page is designed to provide the facts on what the bill and E4E are really about. Please share this page with other educators and make sure to check back for updates and new content.
Fact Sheet: The Truth About the E4E "Attack on Teacher Rights" Bill
View and download a two-page fact sheet (pdf) to learn more about the E4E "Attack on Teacher Rights" bill and why it would be harmful to educators and their students.
Frequently Asked Questions About the E4E "Attack on Teacher Rights" Bill
Q1. What is the issue?
A New York-based group called Educators for Excellence (E4E) is heavily promoting a bill in Massachusetts Legislature (H.583 in the House and S.340 in the Senate) that they claim would increase educator diversity and quality – important goals that we share. But a closer look at the bill shows that it would advance neither goal; in fact, it would harm not only the teaching profession generally but diversity efforts specifically.
While the bill has little likelihood of passing the Legislature (it has only one sponsor in the Senate, a sign of its meager support), E4E has been aggressively pushing the bill with educators across the state, using rhetoric that on the surface sounds appealing and benign. The purpose of this FAQ is to equip AFT Massachusetts leaders and members with the facts so that educators better understand what E4E is promoting and why the bill is harmful.
Q2. In a nutshell, what would the E4E bill do, and why is AFT Massachusetts opposed to it?
The E4E bill would change Massachusetts law governing how educator layoffs are handled by a school district. In doing so, the bill would harm educators of all backgrounds by weakening their professional teacher status (PTS) rights, making educators more vulnerable to the whims and biases of Management in a layoff situation.
Put simply, the E4E bill is a management rights bill. Management rights and prerogatives would be strengthened, and teacher rights and voice would be weakened.
The bill would also hurt students, as teachers – through the undermining of their PTS rights – would feel less secure in advocating for their students’ needs.
Q3. The weakening of professional teacher status (PTS) rights sounds serious. Can you tell me more about PTS and why it’s important?
Under current state law, a licensed educator earns professional teacher status (PTS) after three years of continued employment in the same district. Until PTS is earned, an educator is essentially employed “at will” and can be “non-renewed” (let go) without the employer having to give a reason. However, once an educator earns PTS, that person can only be terminated for “just cause," which school administrators must demonstrate in an arbitration hearing.
PTS is important because it protects educators from arbitrary and capricious dismissal. It also protects more experienced teachers, who generally earn higher salaries and are sometimes more outspoken about educational issues than their less senior peers.
PTS status also factors into the order of budget-induced layoffs. Current law says that non-PTS educators must be laid off first, or they could simply be non-renewed (a common practice). If layoffs then go into the PTS ranks, state law mandates a combination of quality and seniority to determine the layoff order.
While widespread layoffs – though rare – are painful, the current state-mandated order of layoffs is important to protect more experienced, higher-cost, and often more outspoken educators from arbitrary or retaliatory dismissal via layoff.
Q4. How exactly would the E4E bill weaken PTS rights?
The E4E bill says that educators who meet certain criteria, as determined by school administrators, could be made exempt from dismissal in a layoff situation. These exemptions would extend into the non-PTS ranks, meaning that a non-PTS educator – at Management’s discretion – could be retained by school administrators ahead of an educator with PTS, regardless of the PTS educator’s experience or quality. This would allow school districts to do an end run around long standing just-cause and due-process protections, making more experienced, higher-cost, and more outspoken educators vulnerable to dismissal via layoff.
Q5. OK, so this bill would clearly hurt teachers with PTS. Does that mean it would help non-PTS educators?
No. That’s because the bill (as confirmed by E4E in a 12/13/23 meeting with AFT Massachusetts) would retain Management’s authority to non-renew non-PTS educators without giving a reason. In other words, E4E claims their bill gives new “protections” to certain early-career educators. But, in fact, these “protections” are meaningless: In the case of a non-PTS educator, it would still be Management’s decision as to whether that individual is retained or not from one year to the next.
Q6. So, the bill would weaken the rights of experienced educators and offer no meaningful protections to early-career educators. So, then, what’s the upside? E4E says their bill would promote teacher diversity and quality. Is that true?
E4E’s claims about diversity and quality crumble when subjected to scrutiny.
First, E4E says their bill would benefit educators of color because such educators are disproportionately represented among early-career educators and the bill would give more “protections” to early-career educators. But, as noted above, these “protections” are meaningless, as the E4E bill would still permit Management to non-renew a non-PTS educator without giving a reason. Meanwhile, more experienced educators of color – as would be the case for all experienced educators – would be placed at greater risk of dismissal by having their PTS rights diminished.
Second, E4E claims the exemptions in their bill are closely connected to diversity and/or quality. But a closer look suggests the exemptions are vaguely defined, largely unrelated to either diversity or quality, and rife with Management discretion. The exemptions simply give Management more discretionary authority to wield in a layoff situation – power that could be abused and aimed at higher-cost and outspoken educators of all backgrounds.
Q7. What exactly are the exemptions?
It’s hard to answer this question, because E4E keeps changing them! There are eight exemptions in the original bill filed in the Legislature, but E4E admitted their original bill was flawed and told AFT Massachusetts in a 4/14/23 e-mail that the original bill “needs significant revision.” Then, on 11/6/23, E4E sent AFT Massachusetts a revised bill that it says it is sharing with legislators. This revised bill has a different mix of exemptions – seven total. We do not know if this revised bill has been made public. The precise exemptions do not matter that much, though. What matters most is how the bill empowers school administrators to use the exemptions to undermine the job security of educators.
Q8. It sounds like AFT Massachusetts has engaged in direct discussions with E4E to explain the bill’s shortcomings. What was their response?
Yes, AFT Massachusetts leaders and staff have met with E4E several times to discuss their bill. Each time we have expressed our profound concerns and communicated our strenuous opposition to the bill in its original and revised forms. Nevertheless, E4E persists in promoting this fundamentally flawed and harmful bill against the wishes of teacher-union leaders.
Q9. OK, we get it that teachers unions are opposed to the E4E bill, but what do rank-and-file educators think of E4E and their legislation?
If educators only hear the E4E presentation – with no counterpoint – many are inclined to have a favorable reaction. After all, on the surface, it all sounds great. E4E says their objective is to retain high-quality educators of color, and who doesn’t want that?
But once educators begin to scratch the surface, they start to ask more questions and often end up with a different view of the bill.
One reaction from rank-and-file educators can be found in this letter to the Boston Globe from a group of Boston teachers.
The Boston teachers write, in part:
The piece from the Boston chapter of Educators for Excellence touted a bill that purportedly seeks to enhance educator diversity but in reality would thwart that goal.
The legislation, though framed as a means to foster educator diversity in Massachusetts, threatens to dismantle the due process system that safeguards the rights and job security of educators.
Without these protections, educators of color would be even more vulnerable to the whims and sometimes not-so-subtle bias of administrators. Passage of the bill would undermine our recruitment pipeline while claiming to advance something we all believe in.
We stand firmly against any legislation that exploits the cause of diversity to erode the rights and protections of educators, particularly educators of color.
Q10. I don’t get it then. Why would E4E promote a bill that educators and their unions say would be harmful to the teaching profession and diversity efforts?
We can’t get inside their heads, but we urge you to ask E4E representatives that question if they show up in your community.
Important context may be found in E4E’s funding sources, which are detailed in a blog post by (retired) UMass political science professor Maurice (Mo) Cunningham.
According to Cunningham: E4E is a billionaire funded “teacher” house operation intended to undermine real democratic unions…From 2017-2021 E4E took in $5,495,000 from the Waltons, some of which probably found its way to Boston…
You can read the full blog post here.
Q11. I’m convinced now that the E4E bill is not the answer for increasing educator diversity or quality—that it would instead cause harm. But recruiting and retaining more educators of color is an important issue. Is there something else we can do to support that goal?
Absolutely. There’s a lot we can do.
First and foremost, AFT Massachusetts and a wide coalition of education groups strongly support passage of the Educator Diversity Act (S.311), a bill currently pending in the Legislature.
In her June 2023 testimony, to the Legislature, AFT Massachusetts President Beth Kontos strongly endorsed the Educator Diversity Act (EDA) and outlined numerous reasons for supporting it.
Please call your legislators and urge them to pass this critical bill.
In addition to passing the EDA, AFT Massachusetts supports the following strategies for recruiting and retaining more educators of color:
- A state investment in scholarship/grant opportunities for individuals training to become educators at colleges and universities.
- A state and local investment in locally designed “grow your own” programs that nurture student-to-educator and paraprofessional-to-teacher pipelines.
- A state and local investment in district-run teacher residency and apprenticeship programs. These programs should help with tuition and pay a stipend that allows candidates to cover basic living expenses while learning on the job.
- State-established routes to educator certification that provide alternatives to the MTEL exams, as historically these exams have been shown to create barriers to entry for educators of color and educators whose first language is not English. For those who do take MTEL exams, the fees should be waived, with the cost shared by the state and districts.
- Concerted and transparent efforts by the state, districts and schools to review and update recruitment and hiring practices to remove systemic barriers for educators of color and to boost recruitment at colleges and universities that train high numbers of educators of color (e.g., historically Black colleges and universities).
- Concerted and transparent efforts by the state, districts and schools to create the working conditions – including culturally responsive workplaces, mentoring and induction programs for new teachers, and competitive compensation – that will retain educators of color (and educators generally).
- Passage of the Thrive Act (H.495 in the House, S.246 in the Senate), which would empower educators and families in school decision-making, replacing the current model of punitive school accountability that subjects educators, families, and students to sanctions for working in or attending high-need, high-poverty schools.
Passage of the EDA and investment in the solutions above will advance diversity efforts in meaningful ways. We look forward to working with legislators, educators, and activists who share our commitment to enacting these and other proven strategies. The misguided E4E bill is a diversion from these real solutions and should be soundly rejected.