By Mike Pesa, BTU Vice President for Senior High School (teacher chapter)
As part of our 90th anniversary celebration of the Baltimore Teachers Union, we explore the fascinating history of our union. I want to thank the many people who helped me with my research, especially Ben Egerman from the Enoch Pratt Free Library and Pratt Workers United, Dan Golodner, AFT Archivist at the Walter P. Reuther Library at Wayne State University, and Professor Bill Barry, retired Director of Labor Studies at the Community College of Baltimore County. These three individuals, along with many others, have been instrumental to my research. My main source for the first half of this article is Diane L. Keely’s 1976 PhD dissertation at Fordham University, Conflict Group Formation: The Development of the Baltimore Teachers Union. For the second half, I relied heavily on the Baltimore Sun archives as well as internal union sources and other publications. This is not an academic paper, and I did not want to burden readers with an endless list of footnotes. That being said, I am happy to provide specific citations to anyone who wants them. I can be reached at mpesa@baltu.org.
The Baltimore Teachers Union that we all know was founded in 1934 after several earlier attempts to unionize teachers in Baltimore had failed. Although some teachers had been represented by the Public School Teachers Association (PSTA) as far back as 1849, the early PSTA viewed itself as strictly a “professional association” and saw labor unions as beneath the dignity of teachers. Today, the PSTA’s parent organization, the National Education Association, functions as a labor union as well as a professional association, and BTU has a positive relationship with state and local NEA affiliates. But the PSTA’s relationship with unions remained antagonistic for most of its long history.
In 1916 the Baltimore Sun reported on what may have been the first real attempt at teacher union organizing by the Baltimore Labor Federation, but this attempt did not lead anywhere. In 1919, an earlier incarnation of the Baltimore Teachers Union, Local 115, was founded. On September 24th of that year, an application for a union charter was submitted to the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) with John Aubel Kratz signing as secretary for the union. However, the local was disbanded the very next year. The Baltimore Sun reported yet another attempt at organizing a teachers union in 1923, but yet again, this organizing drive was a failure. A BTU article from 1936 describes an allied council of teacher organizations coming together to get better salaries but makes no mention of Local 115.
As the Great Depression swept over America in the early 1930s, the working conditions faced by teachers were grim. According to the 103rd Annual Report of the Board of School Commissioners as quoted in Diane L. Keely’s 1976 PhD dissertation at Fordham University, Conflict Group Formation: The Development of the Baltimore Teachers Union, “median salaries paid to Baltimore’s teachers in 1930-31 were: $1,660 for elementary teachers, $1,9655 for junior high teachers, and $2,555 for senior high teachers. Of cities over 300,000 in population, Baltimore ranked twenty-second of 23 cities on the elementary level, eighteenth of 19 cities on the union high level, and eighteenth of 24 cities on the senior high level. 1932 salaries were based on those of 1931, minus a 6.5% contribution to the city to help balance the municipal budget.”
Keely goes on to recount, “Median class size in Baltimore City schools in 1930 was 41.2 for elementary classes, 41.3 for junior high, and 36 for senior high classes. Of the 12 largest cities in the country, Baltimore’s elementary classes ranked third largest, the junior high ranked second largest, and the senior high classes ranked first in size.”
To address these conditions, and perhaps emboldened by the recent growth of the labor movement nationally, a small group of educators founded a new Baltimore Teachers Union. The union was chartered as Local 340 by the American Federation of Teachers on October 21, 1934. According to Keely and other sources, the union only had the bare minimum of seven members required to obtain a union charter–”two male professors from Johns Hopkins University, two female professors from Goucher College, two female and one male public school teachers.”
The founding President of BTU was Kenneth Douty, who had started teaching in Baltimore 3 years earlier at the age of 21. Douty, like the other six founding members of BTU, was a committed socialist. Keely recounts, “Seeing the effects of the depression at first hand in the working class neighborhood in which he taught, Douty’s interest in politics changed from ‘academic’; to practical. After the 1932 elections, he joined the Socialist Party in Baltimore and helped in organizing the unemployed.”
The Baltimore Sun reported the union’s formation on October 22, 1934, stating that, according to Douty, “the general aim of the union would be to improve the working conditions of teachers, secure for them more opportunity for professional study and to better the school system in Baltimore.” The article claims that the idea for the union started two months earlier, when a Washington DC-based teacher and AFT agent named Selma Borchardt spoke at a summer institute at Johns Hopkins University.
In the early years of BTU’s existence, the fledgling union had no official collective bargaining rights. Instead it attempted to exert influence by sending letters and speaking before the Superintendent, the Board of School Commissioners, the Board of Estimates, and the Mayor and City Council. They were supported in these efforts by other local unions through the Baltimore Federation of Labor. BTU joined with three other minority organizations to form an Associated Committee that would focus on advocating for salary increases. BTU invited the PSTA to join this Association but they declined. From the very beginning, the PSTA adopted an adversarial stance toward BTU, while BTU saw its position as a catalyst that could push the much larger PSTA to take positive actions on behalf of teachers. According to the minutes of the BTU Executive Committee for January 29, 1935: “It was agreed that if the suggestion arises that PSTA could work on this program with a better chance of success than the Union, we shall say that we shall go on with our plans, and will welcome their cooperation. The importance of a strong minority group in forcing constructive action upon the PSTA must be stressed to this group of teachers.”
In 1935, the BTU made its first attempt to replace the PSTA as the official representative for teachers in Baltimore City Schools. The result was a crushing defeat for BTU, with 3,396 teachers voting to continue being represented by the PSTA and only 65 votes against. BTU leaders argued that the ballot was purposely misleading by only presenting a “Yes” or “No” vote for the PSTA and claimed that many teachers were not aware that they had another option for representation. Nonetheless, the vote burst any hopes that BTU had of becoming the sole representative of Baltimore teachers anytime soon. The best they could hope for in the short-term was merely surviving as a minority union with a very small but dedicated membership. As late as 1944, a decade after its founding, BTU only had 24 members total.
Yet survive, they did. As Keely recounts, “The first 12 years of the Baltimore Teachers Union represent a successful struggle for survival. Ensuring the continuation of the organization was the greatest achievement of this first period in BTU history, even though the fledgling union made some definite advances in developing and implementing its program.” Keely credits the intelligence and dedication of BTU leaders for the union’s survival.
One of the things that set BTU apart from other local teachers’ organizations early on was its commitment to fighting racial discrimination. According to Keely, BTU leaders proudly claimed to be “the first integrated teachers’ union organization south of the Mason-Dixon Line” (quoted by Keely). Although this commitment should not be overstated–as BTU had very few black members in the ‘30s and ‘40s–they did speak up against racist policies on multiple occasions.
A letter to the Baltimore Afro American by civil rights activist Clarence Mitchell from May 11, 1935 recounts a segregated meeting at Douglass High School that many teachers did not feel comfortable attending but feared losing their jobs if they refused. In his letter, Mitchell urges teachers to join BTU.
“Baltimore has a teachers’ union, but so far few of the persons in our school system have availed themselves of the opportunity to join it. Teachers do not seem to feel that they ought to join a union. They generally advance some argument about such being beneath the dignity of their profession.”
Mitchell asserts that “Fundamentally, there is no difference between workers of hand and the workers of brain. Both groups have to meet the problems of unfavorable work conditions, unfair wages and infringements of personal liberties.”
In 1940, AFT National President George Counts made a stir when he threatened to revoke the charters of locals led by Communists. BTU members were fiercely divided over this action but ultimately union leadership voted to send a letter to AFT condemning the revoking of charters. This led AFT to investigate BTU for any potential links to the Communist Party. Ultimately, the investigation led nowhere and AFT concluded that any Communists who may have been active in BTU had left.
World War 2 created new problems for Baltimore City Schools. Wartime mobilization had caused a severe teacher shortage. This led to overcrowded classrooms, many of which lacked a qualified teacher. Keely reports that over 400 (about 12%) of the 3,248 teaching positions in Baltimore were filled by substitutes who were not eligible to become regular teachers. Additionally, very few students were entering local teacher training programs, indicating that this problem would persist for years to come.
When the war ended in 1945, teachers who had served in the armed forces were not exactly given a hero’s welcome by the School Board.
“After World War II, veterans returned to the schools, expecting to resume their former positions at increased compensation, according to current schedules. Letters sent by the School Board to teachers entering the military services had assured them that they would not be penalized in any way by the school system when they returned.”, recounted Keely. “Yet when veterans did return they found they were being penalized in a variety of ways: many were assigned to different teaching positions (for instance, senior high teachers were assigned to junior high schools); veterans were not given credit toward retirement for years in the military service; the regular payments toward their pensions had not been made by the city; courses taken during the service were not to be counted toward salary increments, nor was time to be allowed to make up courses which would otherwise have been taken and which would have counted toward increased salaries.”
BTU advocated for these GIs, demanding fair salary adjustments for teachers who had served in the war. Although their demands went largely unheeded, the union’s efforts would help lead to wins for veteran teachers later on when the Korean War broke out.
Meanwhile, BTU used newsletters and pamphlets to get its message out to more teachers and to argue against the perception that unions were “unprofessional”.
In February 1946 the Baltimore Teacher (BTU’s newsletter) asserted, “The AFT is the most professional of the teachers’ organizations in the United States because it possesses more power to accomplish the two objectives of any truly professional teachers’ organization: (1) to provide better educational facilities for children; and (2) to provide proper working conditions for teachers. Most non-union teachers’ associations throughout the United States have little power to accomplish either of these objectives.”
1947-1965: Growth and Transformation
In 1948, BTU elected its first female president, Una Corbett. Corbett later recounted to Keely what drew her to the union in the first place.
“I believe in the trade union movement as the best way for working people to improve the conditions under which they work.–Well, I read the papers–the first thing I knew about it. Of course, I joined right away and met all these people and was delighted to have this happening because the schools…it was a desert land, really horrible conditions. We were all liberals, and all thinking teachers were delighted to have this new organization with some leadership come in.”
Corbett claims that BTU remained committed to their vision in spite of its minority status and the hostility it faced from the larger PSTA.
“The BTU justified its existence to the other organization because we said: we’re militant; we work; we have a program. It never bothered us; we have a program. We saw what the other organization is doing–O.K. But we’re following our program; these are the things we want. We’re small and we haven’t got much power, but we’re sticking to it. We’re going right ahead; we’re not changing. And eventually we forced them to adopt much of our program. And they did become a better organization than they had been.”
The same year Corbett was elected (1948), BTU organized protests against forced segregated meetings. The following year Maryland passed the Subversive Activities Act (Ober Law), requiring public employees to take a loyalty oath. BTU strongly spoke out against this law, declaring that the law “will endanger the democratic freedom of loyal citizens”.
In 1950 BTU called for salary adjustments for teachers mobilized for the Korean War, recalling the lack of adjustments during World War 2 and how it negatively impacted veterans and their families. That November, BTU hosted a state conference for the Maryland/DC Federation of Teachers at the Samuel Gompers School on North Ave and Broadway.
In 1953, BTU hosted a fall conference against segregation in Baltimore that featured speeches from Thurgood Marshall and other civil rights leaders. In 1954, the union ramped up its push for school integration and celebrated the Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown vs. Board of Education, working for its swift implementation in Baltimore City Schools.
According to Keely, “The BTU’s tradition and public image as an advocate of civil rights became increasingly important after 1954. As the school system changed with the influx of Southern blacks to Baltimore City in the 1950s, there were more black teachers in the public schools, also. These teachers were less fearful of joining the union and were more aggressive in their attitudes than black teachers had previously been, and the number of black union members gradually began to grow. The effects of this change would not be felt fully, though, until the representation election in 1967.
Another major focus of BTU during the 1950s and continuing into the ‘60s was fighting for increased funding for teachers salaries, adequate staffing, and equitable funding from the state. The union pushed this agenda by speaking at school board and governmental meetings, organizing protests, and spouting its viewpoint in newspapers, on the radio, and on television.
In 1955, BTU spoke out against low pay for teachers and called on parents for support. There was a national shortage of qualified teachers, which BTU insisted would only end when teachers were paid what they deserved. BTU presented the school board with specific salary proposals ($3,400 – $,6,800 per year with annual $300 increases, plus bonuses for graduate degrees and long service). Although they did not get everything they wanted, by the beginning of 1956, BTU felt like they had at least won a partial victory.
“For teachers this is the happiest New Year in several years…”, BTU declared in Vol. 22, No. 2 of the Baltimore Teacher. “Our salary effort in 1955 was an unusual example of a united effort by classroom teachers, administrators, parents, and labor and civic groups.”
While the general tone of the article was celebratory, it warned teachers that the fight was not yet over. “While taking satisfaction in our 1955 success, we must point out, however, that we have won a battle, but not the war. Teacher salaries are still inadequate. In spite of the nation’s tremendous increase in productivity, we are still far behind the salaries that our training and experience should command.”
Later that year, BTU called for negotiations over supplementary social security benefits; proposed improvements to the teachers’ retirement plan, and called for a grievance procedure. The union also celebrated a change of policy that would prevent school administrators from pressuring teachers to join the PTA and other organizations or to vote for certain candidates or policies.
In 1957, the union pointed out that a funding “mandate” being proposed in the state legislature didn’t actually mandate “one penny” to increase teacher salaries. Due in part to their advocacy, teachers did get raises in 1958. However, the union decried the scaling back of federal funding of schools promised in the National Defense Education Act of 1958.
In December, the union called on the School Board to use newly available state funds to pay for additional teacher salary increases. Failure to adequately compensate teachers would lead to more qualified teachers leaving the District, BTU warned. “The Union’s aim must be…to seek for the immediate future a remedy to prevent the loss to the city of valuable teaching talent.”, the union declared in the December 1958 issue of the Baltimore Teacher.
In 1959, BTU celebrated its 25th anniversary. In a “State of the Union” published in February 1959, BTU Teacher looked back on the wins it had gained over the years, including “single salary scale, full service credit for veterans, cumulative sick leave, sabbatical leave, supervision as a consultative service rather than classroom visitation, and equal membership in teacher organizations”. Although BTU had never represented the majority of teachers in Baltimore, their steadfast advocacy for these policies had played a major role in making them a reality.
As the 1960s rolled around, BTU began a period of transition that would see the union change from a small but committed minority to the dominant force for teachers and paraprofessionals in Baltimore. As Keely puts it, the period from 1960-1970 was the time when “teacher unionism experienced its greatest triumphs, in Baltimore as well as in the nation”, according to Keely.
In 1960, members of the BTU Executive Council of the BTU testified before the city government.
“A year ago, teachers demonstrated at the doors of Baltimore’s City Hall in their effort to inform the public. We were asked if this demonstration presaged a strike by teachers. We answered that nine hundred classrooms filled by underqualified personnel indicated that nine hundred nameless and faceless potential teachers had already gone on strike by their refusal to enter a profession that would not promise them an adequate standard of living….”
The struggle over city budget cuts continued to intensify over the next several years, with teachers picketing City Hall and organizing demonstrations every year from 1962-1965.
“We must remind ourselves that a more enlightened educational policy will only begin – can only begin, in fact – with more enlightened public officials. Any real progress begins at City Hall.”, declared BTU in 1964. “We have to remove from public office the indiscriminate budget cutters, the grand-standers who cannot or will not distinguish between a dollar foolishly spent on frippery and a dollar urgently needed to improve the life of the city… As teachers, as members of the labor movement, and as citizens, we have an obligation to involve ourselves in the politics of progress….We must exert our influence on the course of public action.”
On December 23, 1964, following escalating protests led by BTU and others, Mayor McKeldin restored almost $1 million to the school budget.
Meanwhile, the union was getting more organized. In 1963, BTU assigned two full-time field organizers (one for elementary schools and one for high schools) to provide on the ground support for members and assist with recruitment. Membership continued to grow the next year, with 507 dues-paying members, up from 360 in 1962. According to Keely, “The efforts of 16 BTU recruiters were responsible for more than 80% of BTU’s new members in 1964.”
Around this time, BTU also developed a program to advocate for community schools with special attention to inner city neighborhoods that were being abandoned by city leaders in the wake of the “white flight” that followed school integration. This focus on community schools would increasingly become a priority for BTU over the next decade and would ultimately result in the District adopting several aspects of BTU’s proposed model.
In 1964, BTU held a spring conference focusing on urban problems and racial bias, following it up the next year with another spring conference focused on community schools. Following the conference, BTU presented its policy ideas for community schools and inner city investment to the School Board. When new budget cuts were announced in 1965, BTU launched protests once again. As the situation escalated, some members of BTU joined a sit-in at the Board of Education organized by the youth-led Congress on Racial Equality (CORE). Among them was Dennis Crosby, who was soon to become BTU’s first Black president.
1966 was a year of rising militancy and organization for BTU. The union had decided that after more than three decades as a minority, they were finally ready to make a real attempt at winning certification as the official representative of all teachers in Baltimore City Schools. They feared that if they did not act soon, the PSTA–and their parent organization, the National Education Association–would beat them to it. On January 15, BTU leaders agreed to pay AFT for a national organizer named Joseph Cascella who would direct their organizing drive from March 1966 to June 1967. BTU leaders were reluctant to give up any autonomy, but they believed that Cascella’s organizing experience would be critical to their campaign. Cascella was assigned to BTU from March 1966 to June 1967.
Meanwhile, BTU elected Dennis Crosby as its new President. According to Jane Berger in her book, The New Working Class, “Crosby, an African American high school teacher, was a member of CORE and had served as the chair of that organizations’ education committee. Under his leadership, BTU partnered with CORE and ran a Freedom School during the summer of 1966.” Crosby believed in the importance of “uniting together to fight for a common cause, not only for teachers but for children.”
In early 1966, BTU began picketing the Board of Education, demanding that they release the full school board budget. When the Board rejected salary increases for teachers, BTU threatened to go on strike on May 10th. On May 9, the Mayor announced that all salary increases would be restored, thus averting the strike at the last minute.
The disrespect that BTU members faced from the School Board that year only served to amplify their dedication. The December 1966 issue of BTU News declared, “The attempt to silence BTU President Crosby was the cause, not the effect, of the subsequent Union demand for the right of all classroom teachers to be treated as professionals. When School Board President Eli Frank shouted ‘Sit Down!’ and ‘GET OUT!’ he was addressing all teachers, not just Crosby. The School Board argued for 20 minutes over the right of the Union to get more than 3 minutes to present its position on matters of vital concern to education in Baltimore. This must not happen again. The master-slave relationship must go. We are TEACHERS. And we must be accorded the status and respect that goes with our position.”
With this victory under their belt and membership on the rise, BTU leaders now had the confidence to demand an election for representation that–if the votes went their way–would lead to collective bargaining rights and negotiations for a union contract that would apply to all teachers in Baltimore City Schools. When meetings with city and school officials proved unsuccessful, BTU made preparations for a strike. According to Keely, PSTA leaders told their members that if a strike broke out, they should cross the picket line. They claimed that BTU was only planning a strike to “capture teachers”, not to improve working conditions.
While the demand for a representation election was central to the strike, it was also a response to the cutting of more than $6 million by city officials from the school board’s proposed budget, including $1.8 million earmarked for teacher salary increases. According to an AFT newsletter from the time, “Thirty five related economic issues were interwoven in the strikers demands.” A strike pamphlet issued by BTU listed those 35 demands and told teachers that “the strike that we have called for on May 10 is the only way left for us to move the power structure here in Baltimore….On May 10th…HONOR THE PROFESSION…HONOR THE PICKET LINE!”
In early May 1967, negotiations again broke down and a court injunction was issued against striking. In defiance of this ban, night school teachers began striking on the evening of May 10th. A union editorial that day declared “…the teachers of Baltimore took the first and essential step towards freeing themselves and establishing the classroom teacher as a true professional. On this day classroom teachers initiated developments which promise to save and revitalize our severely challenged school system.”
The next morning teachers picked about 100 schools and about 130 teachers were arrested for picketing. The strike lasted about two days, with more than 1,000 teachers picketing about 75 schools on the second day, leading to 60 more arrests. At this point, Mayor McKeldin publicly agreed to BTU’s primary demand for an election. At a rally on the afternoon of Friday, May 12th, teachers voted to end the strike.
According to an AFT newsletter, “Throughout the strike, teachers had the support of enthusiastic groups of students. At Dunbar High School, for example, 200 pupils rushed out of the school, chanting, ‘We don’t want any substitutes’ and carrying picket signs reading ‘Teachers Want What Children Need’. At City College, students sang ‘We Shall Overcome’ and cheered through the windows the teachers who were being arrested.”
The article also describes how “flying squadrons” of striking teachers would drive up to a school, picket until the police showed up and read the text of the injunction, then leave and drive to another school to picket there, thus allowing the same strikers to picket at seven schools in one morning. On a more disturbing note, the article also mentions that “at one high school, a police car ran up onto the lawn, hitting some children.”
A three-page Statement on Staff Integration to Subcommittee A, Mayor’s Task Force Committee, May 15, 1967 highlighted the immediate impact of the strike.
“This local power structure got a terrific jolt last week. When the teachers went out on strike last Thursday, a new power emerged to challenge the old entrenched power; and by the success of the two day strike, teachers succeeded in redistributing educational power in Baltimore. There was a genuine shift in power, and Baltimore will never be quite the same again.
When the Teachers Unions go into collective bargaining sessions, they go in not as supplicants, not as supplicants, not as beggars, but with real power to get what they want. Anything having to do with the operation of the school is a matter of professional concern, and is the subject of collective bargaining…
The shift in educational power that occurred last week in Baltimore means that teachers who know the slum schools from daily living and working in them, can assert real power in winning better schools, better in quality, and better in equality…”
With the strike over, BTU prepared for the representation election, which would be held on June 16, 1967. With 92% of eligible teachers voting, BTU received 3,687 votes, with PSTA receiving 3,358. 232 teachers voted for “Neither” and 177 votes were challenged. Although the margin was narrow, BTU had won the vote–making them the sole official representative of all teachers in the district. As the Baltimore Sun noted, “…The election victory thrust the 1,500-member union from its near obscurity of a year ago to the position of the dominant teachers’ organization in the city.”
On September 12, BTU secured its first contract with the School Board. It included raises, a grievance procedure, limits on teacher duties, and much more. President Dennis Crosby called it “the best first contract of any teachers organization in this country”. The union experienced an influx of new members during this time.
In the midst of these historic victories, BTU also continued its commitment to civil rights, issuing a statement of policy demands regarding school integration in November 1967. The union’s twelve demands included “an open housing ordinance; greater black representation on the School Board and Board of Superintendents; assignment, promotion and recruitment of teachers according to seven specific BTU suggestions to bring about greater staff integration and more black leadership in the schools; incorporation of black history into the curriculum; and setting school boundaries to produce racial balance among students”, while opposing forced transfers of teachers. That year, BTU also helped teacher Jody Johns win her job back after she was fired in the spring for teaching African American literature.
On February 13, 1968, BTU ratified a new contract for the next school year, which “made Baltimore’s salary scale for teachers the highest in Maryland”. That year BTU also began organizing paraprofessionals.
1968 is also when BTU won their battle to open school playgrounds to the city’s children. “The space was there and the kids couldn’t use it,” explained BTU Vice President Ed Baublis. “If they could, you wouldn’t have 66,000 broken windows in the schools every year.”
In January and February 1969, teachers rejected a proposed contract and BTU picketed the School Board. After BTU refused the Board’s “last best offer”, the Board reluctantly agreed to a compromise. This improved contract was ratified by teachers in March. Starting salaries would be the highest in the state.
The collective bargaining policy adopted by the City and the School Board after the 1967 strike stipulated that a new election for representation would take place every two years. The union would need to convince teachers to choose it once again over its rival, the PSTA. BTU campaign literature distributed to teachers in the spring of 1969 promoted the following program: “(1) The highest starting teachers’ salary in the state, already negotiated, providing for a 39-percent increase in the 1966-70 period; (2) a new $1-million health and welfare plan to help provide insurance for such things as dental and optical costs; (3) voting rights for all teacher aides, in their own unit, separate from teachers; (4) pay for extra-curricular activities, won this year for the first time; and (5) full payment for medical and health insurance, one of the union’s targets for next year.”
BTU won this election by a significantly wider margin than the first one: The Baltimore Sun tallied 4,383 votes for the BTU; 2,870 votes for PSTA; 211 for “Neither Organization”; and 698 votes challenged. Over 8,000 teachers voted.
However, many of the teachers who voted for BTU were not dues-paying members and this was becoming more and more of a problem now that the union was responsible for representing the entire bargaining unit. As Keely explains, “Representing the interest of the classroom teacher became problematic for the union after 1967. On the one hand, the BTU had to win benefits for all the teachers to be able to retain their favor. On the other hand, the union had to provide effective and exclusive incentives to its own members.”
In order to represent 8,000+ teachers effectively while only receiving dues from a fraction of them, BTU was forced to go into debt. At one point, the financial situation got so bad that BTU was behind on its dues to AFT National, putting the local in bad standing. BTU had to increase dues at least twice between 1969 and 1970 to stay solvent.
A front-page editorial by the union in December 1969 lashed out “teaching parasites” who benefitted from the union contract but refused to chip in. “*Apathy* is a poor word to use for teachers here in Baltimore who still fail to support a union that has grown tremendously in just four short years….Four years that have witnessed an unparalleled jump in professional and personal benefits through collective bargaining, the most important single process in equalizing relationships in the public employee realm. Fully forty percent of our teaching staff – BY THEIR NON-SUPPORT OF THE BTU – is placing in jeopardy all of our recent gains because of the increasingly inordinate burden placed on those who understand and support a strong, professional union.”
In 1970, the first BTU contract for paraprofessionals was negotiated by Loretta Johnson and others. Later in the union’s history, this bargaining unit would be expanded to include other School Related Personnel. In 1971, BTU was re-elected again as the representative for teachers, and in 1972 Dennis Crosby re-elected as BTU President. However, BTU’s difficulties were mounting and by the beginning of 1973, the union’s popularity was declining.
In 1973, BTU received a devastating blow when the union lost its biannual representation election to their longtime rivals, the Public School Teachers Association (PSTA). According to AFT’s records, the PSTA picked up 4,220 votes while BTU only received 2,533 (out of a 8,500 member bargaining unit).
Since the PSTA’s stunning loss to BTU in 1967, the Association had focused on rebranding its image. Although many teachers still saw them as a “company union” aligned with the Administration, they were becoming increasingly militant and adapting some of the BTU’s own strategies and talking points in an attempt to win back the hearts of teachers. The rivalry between BTU and PSTA was mirrored by an intensifying rivalry between their parent organizations, AFT and NEA. BTU was once again a minority organization with no collective bargaining rights in the teacher bargaining unit. However, the union still represented paraprofessionals, which were organized in a separate chapter.
The year 1974 was a tumultuous one for teachers and other school employees. Jane Berger describes the situation in her book, “The New Working Class”.
“[In 1974], a month-long strike by Baltimore’s public-school teachers and a two-week-long strike initiated by sanitation workers signaled widespread discontent. The teachers’ strike was called by the Public School Teachers Association in February and supported to varying extents by the Baltimore Teachers Union and AFSCME. PSTA represented teachers; BTU represented teacher aides; and AFSCME represented other employees of the school system such as cafeteria workers. The strike began in early February when teachers announced they had ‘had it’ with salaries that lagged well behind those in most other jurisdictions in Maryland, unmanageably large class sizes, inadequate teaching materials, deteriorating school buildings, and other working conditions that prevented them from providing Baltimore’s children with a quality education. According to a survey by the Baltimore Sun, between 85 percent and 90 percent of the city’s 8,400 teachers participated in the strike.”
Monteece Jones, a retired BTU member who had joined in 1970, vaguely recalled the strike in a 2024 interview with Nathan Ferrell. Jones said the strike was over salary and benefits. “I just don’t remember the rest. There were rules and regulations we had to abide by, which probably influenced it as well.”
According to Berger, “The teachers’ strike enjoyed widespread community support–even if some complained privately of inconveniences and worried about the toll it took on their children’s education. Parents, otherwise bitterly divided over the use of busing to desegregate the city schools, supported the teachers across racial and economic lines. ‘The problems of the teachers are the problems of the community,’ proclaimed Nathan C. Irby Jr., the president of the Parent Teacher Association of Samuel Chase Elementary School.”
Despite the widespread public support, the strike’s resolution was a disappointment for many. Although teachers did win a raise and assurances that the District would work to reduce class sizes, the PSTA failed to secure an agreement from the governor and the Maryland General Assembly for equitable distribution of funding to local school districts. BTU had been pushing for such a policy, recognizing that, in Berger’s words, “Reliance on local taxes to fund city schools perpetuated racialized patterns of economic injustice because the city simply could not afford what wealthier districts could.” But the PSTA did not press these demands until too late in negotiations, and settled for far less than what most striking teachers had hoped for.
To make matters worse, the government punished the PSTA for this illegal wildcat strike by stripping the Association of its collective bargaining status. Although BTU’s strike in 1967 was also illegal, it had resulted in an election that gave the union representation status for the first time. However, arguably as a result of the PSTA’s mismanagement of the strike, Baltimore teachers would have no official representation after 1974. Fortunately for BTU, the paraprofessional unit was not affected by the PSTA’s decertification, ensuring that Local 340 would continue uninterrupted. However, the teacher chapter of BTU turned in its charter to AFT in 1976, reconstituting itself as the United Teachers of Baltimore City. By rebranding themselves, they hoped to gain support from some of the disenfranchised teachers who had been members of the PSTA. According to a May 12th memo from John Schmidt to AFT President Albert Shanker, “As of July 1 there will be no bargaining agent in Baltimore as agent’s rights will be taken away from the Association as a result of their strike two years ago… As a result of the disunity and organizational rivalry, Baltimore’s teachers have not enjoyed the benefits of bargaining and, therefore, the AFT is setting up the council and inviting all individuals or organizations to affiliate. All members will be affiliated with AFT, AFL-CIO so that we may maintain the support of the Central Labor Body and Maryland State AFL-CIO behind the bargaining council.”
The newly rebranded United Teachers of Baltimore City (UTBC) initially hoped to have dual affiliation with AFT and NEA so they could put the local rivalry with what remained of the PSTA to rest once and for all. However, the Maryland State Education Association declined the offer.
In March 1975, while the details of the arrangement with AFT was still being ironed out, UTBC President John Bethea introduced the “new” union in the first issue of its newsletter, The United Teacher. According to Bethea, “UTBC is a teacher organization founded on the principle of teacher unity, and its primary purpose shall be to build strength and unity in order to achieve a quality of professional status befitting Baltimore teachers.” Bethea urged teachers to join UTBC so they could reach the minimum threshold to call for a new certification election.
In the same newsletter, Ellen Oberfelder, an English teacher at Northwestern High School, addressed why teachers need a union. “Teachers, having spent years of their lives, tens of thousands of dollars, the substance of their hopes to become the best in complex disciplines, are told the city cannot pay them a living wage. Alone, each of us is mute; together we have the clout to insist that we will not subsidize a city which finds funds for roads, buildings, a sports complex, but not for education. We are not doctors or lawyers who can render bills for our individual services. Our only strength lies in our unity and the rightness of our demands. If we do not hang together, we’ll surely hang–frustrated, anguished, and impoverished–ALONE. Teachers must join unions.”
In 1976, the BTU/UTBC issued a pamphlet titled, “In Case You’ve Forgotten… Let’s Look at the Record! BTU: 1968-72 PSTA: 1973-76”. After comparing the BTU and PSTA’s records on several different issues, the pamphlet ended with a list of “10 Good Reasons to Join BTU”:
- BTU negotiated a salary schedule for teachers that, since its inception, has increased salaries in excess of 50%.
- BTU secured pay for APC, pay differential for department heads, and summer school pay based on regular salary.
- BTU secured extra-curricular pay for teachers.
- BTU eliminated non-teaching duties for teachers.
- BTU negotiated a Health and Welfare package for all teachers. This was the first such program negotiated in the U.S.
- BTU eliminated the NTE.
- BTU bargained a fair and equitable evaluation procedure.
- BTU secured binding arbitration of grievances.
- BTU negotiated a 45-minute duty-free lunch period for teachers.
- BTU was the first organization in the state of Maryland to negotiate a written agreement with the local school board.
In the late 1970s, BTU/UTBC staged a comeback that would see the union return to its role as the dominant teacher’s organization in Baltimore.
In 1977, Hernia Jordan founded the retiree chapter. In 1978 UTBC President John Bethea demanded a salary increase for teachers and a better leave policy. He advocated for full funding of City Schools and equitable application of Title I. The union’s newsletter also blasted “petty monitoring” of teachers by school officials. The union’s teacher chapter was approaching majority status in the District, having increased to 4,400 members.
Under the leadership of chapter president Loretta Johnson, paraprofessionals won a raise in 1977. The union also won a grievance on class size. Then, on November 14th, BTU won a representation election that restored the union’s bargaining rights. BTU was once again the sole representative for the District’s 8,500 teachers and 2,500 paraprofessionals.
The AFL-CIO News announced the next day, “The Teachers have won bargaining rights in Baltimore City following a November 14 election in which nearly 95 percent of the teachers in the bargaining unit cast ballots. The BTU AFT Local #340 accumulated a total of 4,456 votes to 3,021 votes for the independent Public School Teachers Association. There were 438 challenged ballots and 69 votes for no representation.”
“This victory will demonstrate that the union is back in Baltimore,” said BTU President John Bethea. “A year ago this local had about 500 teacher members but we rebuilt it on a one-to-one basis talking up the need for positive changes in this school district.”
In 1979 BTU had an extensive bargaining session with the School Board, leading to a new union contract. National negotiators from AFT assisted the local in this process. BTU also expanded its Committee On Political Education (COPE), holding political education workshops and participating in a Legislative Night in Annapolis. The paraprofessional chapter testified for a bill that would restore their eligibility for unemployment benefits during the summer.
Paraprofessional chapter president Lorretta Johnson updated members in the March 1979 issue of the Baltimore Teacher: “Today’s paraprofessionals in local #340 continue to grow and progress as a union chapter and professionally. Many paras have returned to their own further schooling while they continue their daily classroom assignments. Over the years, paras have been enthusiastically active in a variety of programs, in in-service workshops, in C.O.P.E., and through self determination, over 400 paras have become teachers in the Baltimore City Schools…. At a time when education in large urban areas has become a greater challenge than ever, a growing partnership of educators offers new answers to multiplying problems. The teams of teachers and paraprofessionals who work in the urban classroom are better equipped to educate in the ’70s and ’80s than any individual teachers “going it alone” could ever be. The Para who works outside the classroom is also a part of this team…”
The story of the Baltimore Teachers Union’s first 45 years is a remarkable one. It started with a mere seven members, four of whom were not even K-12 teachers. Despite the seemingly insurmountable odds the union faced for decades, its members never gave up or lost their vision for a future where teachers and other education workers have control over wages and working conditions and are treated as the professionals they are, empowering them to make public schools better and more equitable for all students. While BTU faced many challenges and suffered many losses, the union had a major impact not only on teachers and paraprofessionals but on the City of Baltimore as a whole. Infighting between the BTU and its longtime rival, the PSTA, nearly destroyed both organizations, but by 1979 BTU was stronger than ever. In the years to follow, the PSTA would fade into irrelevance before finally dissolving completely in the mid-90s. Meanwhile, BTU would face a host of new challenges and conflicts, both external and internal, while also achieving new victories that would impact the lives of tens of thousands of teachers and PSRPs.
1980-1990: A Force to Be Reckoned With
As BTU entered the ‘80s, it enjoyed a level of stability that was unprecedented in its rocky history. The union was once again the sole bargaining agent for all teachers and paraprofessionals in Baltimore City Public Schools and had successfully negotiated a strong contract with the help of national negotiators from its parent organization, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT). BTU’s longtime rival, the NEA-affiliated Public School Teachers Association, rebranded itself as the Baltimore City Teachers Association (BCTA), but the organization had few remaining members and all future attempts to dethrone BTU as the bargaining agent for BCPSS teachers and PSRPs would prove futile. A new BTU alliance with parents was ultimately unsuccessful in its attempts to get a class size cap on the ballot for Baltimore voters, but the campaign did lead to commitments from District leaders to reduce class size. While many challenges still remained, BTU’s future seemed more secure than it had ever been.
On April 21, 1984, BTU celebrated its Golden Anniversary Ball at the Baltimore Convention Center. The event featured cocktails, a three course dinner, and performances by Gladys Knight and the Pips. The night closed out with dancing, an open bar, and more live music. BTU leaders used the opportunity to reflect on the union’s 50-year history and to look forward with hope to the future–much as we have been doing this school year for our 90th anniversary. In the Golden Anniversary Ball program, BTU President Irene Dandridge noted how the union “has grown and prospered over the past 50 years, as have teachers in the City of Baltimore.” Looking back at her 22 years as a teacher and BTU member before becoming president, Dandridge declared, “The Union embraced the ideas and policies that I believed in, and still does. It has been both fascinating and rewarding to participate in the Union activities that have helped guide the course of Baltimore schools during the quarter century that I have been involved. The fact that we have come so far is encouraging as we consider the course we will take over the next several years. It is the members of the BTU that have given the Union the strength necessary to work for higher salaries, better working conditions and better schools.” Dandridge closed her statement with the following words: “There is much work still ahead of us, but let’s take this time to take pride in the work behind us.” Paraprofessional Chapter President Lorretta Johnson also made a statement: “Since I began working with the BTU in 1965, the Union has called on its expertise, now 50 years strong, to bring the same benefits and collective bargaining rights to paraprofessionals that teachers have had. After being organized by the BTU, paraprofessionals, who are the lowest paid school employees, went from a salary of $75 every two weeks to an annual salary of more than $13,000 for a para with experience and college credits. And working conditions for paras are now excellent, due to the collective bargaining efforts of the BTU.” Johnson continued: “The Union is continuing to work for higher salaries, improved leave, career ladders and much more. We are able to go to the bargaining table with the power it takes to make these changes only because we have the support of so many of the paras in city schools.” Closing out her statement, Johnson proclaimed: “These 50th Anniversary festivities are truly a celebration for all of us because we have so much to be grateful for. I hope to be a part of the BTU for many more anniversaries, and to help celebrate the gains that will be made in the future. As we reflect on the progress we have made over the past 50 years, let us also renew our commitment to creating a better education system for the generations to come.”
A year later, BTU members were in a decidedly less celebratory mood. A March 7th, 1985 article in the Baltimore Sun reported that a joint survey by BTU and a community group called Baltimoreans United in Leadership Development (BUILD) showed a severe shortage of basic supplies and resources in many Baltimore Schools, including books, paper, ink, and lavatory supplies. Despite an admission from Superintendent Alice Pinderhughes that there was a problem, the supply shortage persisted in the following months and teachers and staff became more and more aggravated. On August 27th, a week before classes were to resume, BTU picketed in front of District headquarters. President Dandridge declared that the supply shortage “has reached crisis proportions and must be addressed immediately”. Dandridge told the assembled crowd, “It is their responsibility to the children of the City of Baltimore to find the money somewhere, somehow.” Superintendent Pinderhughes claimed that supplies were “adequate”, while Mayor William Donald Schaefer insisted that the City had no money for supplemental school funding. Delegate Ruth Kirk (D-Baltimore) joined the union picket line and told the Baltimore Sun that she believed $8 million was needed to bring supplies to proper level. She called on the State government to chip in more. On Oct 11th, Dandridge shared figures indicating that half of all Baltimore public schools did not have enough textbooks. School Board President Robert C. Embry Jr. told the Sun that he did not dispute Dandridge’s figures, and that the School Board was aware that teachers regularly spend their own money for classroom supplies. Embry asked Superintendent Pinderhughes to meet with Dandridge to come up with a definition of the shortage.
1985 also saw the passage of a new state law that authorized the BCPSS School Board to negotiate an agency fee with BTU, following a precedent set by Montgomery County the previous year. An agency fee, also known as a fair representation fee, is a fee paid by employees in a collective bargaining unit that choose not to join the union. Since the union is still required by law to represent these non-members in negotiations and grievances, an agency fee (which is less than full union dues) would reimburse the union for the cost of representing said non-members. Despite the fact that BCPSS had not yet agreed to any agency fee, a PR war raged in the media over the possibility that it could happen. On June 5th, President Dandridge published a letter to the editor responding to a Baltimore Sun editorial against agency fees. In her letter, Dandridge cleared up several misconceptions about agency fees and asserted that “Teacher members are tired, and rightly so, of paying for those services [for non-members] out of their own pockets.” Responding to suggestions that agency fees could be used to support political activity by the union, Dandridge pointed out that “In fact, as required by law, no portion of members’ dues can go toward political activity”, explaining that all political activity is paid for through a voluntary COPE (Committee On Political Education) fund that some members choose to pay into. On June 20th, Baltimore City Teachers Association (BCTA) President Charles Dunard published a letter against the agency fee and leveled several criticisms against BTU. Dunard claimed that “BCTA receives calls every day from teachers needing help but spurned by the BTU. In some cases, BCTA lawyers have had to intercede to force BTU to represent teachers.” Dunard accused BTU of being run by cliques and not being transparent. “BTU never opens its books to its members or reveals the salary, expenses and benefits of its two leaders, Irene Dandridge and Loretta [sic] Johnson”, Dunard claimed. On June 28th, BTU spokesperson Linda Prudente stated, “Our members are tired of footing the bill for people who are continually in grievances without paying for it.”
It would take another year for agency fees to become a reality in Baltimore. In June 1986, both the paraprofessional and teacher chapters ratified new contracts which granted BTU the right to collect agency fees from non-members at the rate of 91% of regular union dues. The new contracts also included substantial raises and a clause stating that class size “shall be lowered wherever possible”.
In April 1987, 17 teachers sued to stop BTU from deducting agency fees. The class action suit was filed by two attorneys affiliated with the National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation. The plaintiffs claimed that the BTU was violating a 1986 Supreme Court decision that says non-union members are entitled to see exactly how their dues are being spent. Lawyers claimed that the union “has given a very general statement that is not satisfactory” and accused BTU of not keeping good records. BTU spokeswoman Linda Prudente said the union has had two independent audits, one of which “showed we could have charged even a higher percentage.” Prudente went on to say, “I think Right To Work is trying to make a statement, not only in Maryland but all over the country. And the only way it can make a statement is by filing cases such as this.” The lawsuit would drag on for two years before the two sides agreed on a settlement in 1989 in which BTU would issue a partial refund but would retain the right to collect agency fees.
In September 1987, BTU reached an agreement with the school system to raise the pay of about 500 teachers who were not receiving their longevity pay increases. Teachers hired in future would be able to count their prior experience in other school districts toward their longevity.
In 1988, BTU became increasingly concerned about chaotic conditions in the District. In March, BTU blasted a confusing new middle school policy that President Dandridge said baffled teachers and principals alike. On May 21st, Dandridge published an op-ed in the Baltimore Sun citing a report by the Carnegie Foundation titled “An Imperiled Generation–Saving the Urban Schools”. After summarizing the recommendations of the report, Dandridge declared, “The school system must realize that the problems of the Baltimore schools are too much to handle under current programs. A series of new directives handed down from the administration at North Avenue just will not do the trick anymore, and this city should not be lulled into believing they will.”
On May 27th, Dandridge again criticized city school conditions. Dandridge held a press conference where she called for a Work To Rule action where teachers would stop working extra hours and only do what is required by the contract. Dandridge said that the union would set up informational picket lines, and even floated the possibility of a strike unless school leaders improved conditions. “We are so frustrated and just tired of taking all of the blame for things that are not under our control”, Dandridge exclaimed.
Dandridge called retiring Superintendent Pinderhughes a lame duck unable to make decisions, and rattled off a list of problems including authoritarian principals who do not encourage or permit input from teachers, a lack of education reform initiatives, leaving Baltimore public education in the 19th century, school buildings in poor physical condition, an ineffective principal evaluation system, a “sham” of a promotional policy, school administrators trying to whitewash problems in the middle schools, and a failure by administrators to provide support teachers to aid classroom teachers. The BTU Executive Committee voted unanimously to support the job actions. Dandridge said that the union would spend the summer organizing its membership to join the job actions which will begin at the start of the new school year. “Of course, the ultimate job action would be a strike,” Dandridge said. “We are not planning that at this time but the problems are so severe, it may come to that. This may be 1974 revisited.” For now, BTU was planning work to rule action (teaching to the contract). Teachers would not spend any time in school in excess of what their contract stipulates. “Some of our teachers work not only the six hours but eight, 10 and 12 hours. Our plans are to ask them to stop doing this.”, Dandridge explained. Dandridge also announced that BTU would hold a rally at the next school board meeting.
On May 31st, Mayor Kurt Schmoke announced his decision to reduce class size in first and second grades. Dandridge called the move “a good start”. On June 3rd, Dandridge read a list of concerns at a school board meeting, which included crowded classes, low teacher salaries, and an inability to find competent substitute teachers. Before the meeting, Dandridge and 70 teachers chanted, marched, and carried picket signs with slogans like “Don’t Blame Me for Asbestos”, and “Don’t Blame Me for the Poor Condition of School Buildings”, reported the Baltimore Sun. In August BTU filed a grievance over the forced transfer of about 100 teachers with only a month’s notice. In October, 30 teachers found out their health benefits had lapsed when they were hospitalized. They were among 260 teachers the system laid off in June. Although most of them were later rehired, the school system failed to file new authorizations for hospitalization deductions, according to the Baltimore Sun. President Dandridge described the incident as “indicative of the bureaucratic nightmare that exists within the school administration.”
On December 14th, BTU placed an ad in Baltimore Sun directed to parents of Baltimore City students. The ad highlighted the District’s failures and the need for more funding from the state. The union called on parents to support a school reform plan being formulated by BTU and BUILD, and explained that the union has developed innovative contract language designed to improve schools, increase learning, and make teachers’ jobs easier. “By allowing the teacher to do what he/she does best, the teacher *and* the students benefit.”, the ad stated. “As a parent concerned about your child’s education, you can no longer be content to sit back and watch. Demand that your elected officials, your school board and the upper level education employees become more responsive to the needs of our children on the classroom level.”
On May 8th, 1989 BTU held an open meeting to discuss the City’s offer of a 4% pay raise. The union invited parents who were concerned about a job action to attend the meeting. About 3,000 BTU members attended the meeting, and they voted unanimously to reject the City’s offer and support a Work to Rule action. Teachers would teach their regular classes but refuse to perform additional tasks like filling in for other teachers, helping in the cafeteria or chaperoning after-school activities. “Teach. Do a damn good job of teaching–and nothing else.”, said Dandridge, according to the Baltimore Sun. “The ultimate job action is a strike, which is illegal”, she said. “If we strike, I will go to jail. But I’ll go if I have to, and the reason I will go is I have spent 30 years in this school system and I’ve seen it go down, down, down, and at this point I don’t know who cares but us.” On May 18th, teachers again rejected the City’s offer and officially began the Work to Rule job action. Again, the possibility of a strike was voiced. “A strike is a last resort, and it scares teachers to death even to say the word, but I think teachers have been pushed as far as they can be.”, Dandridge commented. Despite all the passion, the job action started off fairly quietly. A Sun article on May 19th said that schools seem unaffected and that teachers were apparently unclear about what was expected of them in the work to rule protest. “I think teachers are spending today figuring out what they can and cannot do. Mostly what we’re doing is educating people.”, BTU spokesperson Linda Prudente responded. “As time goes on you’re going to see more.” On June 6th BTU and the City broke off talks, and the union asked the mayor to intervene. BTU held a rally at City Hall. On June 14th, BTU extended their contract to July 30th, to give Mayor Kurt Schmoke time to find more money in the city budget. One June 28th the City announced plans to cut 197 teachers while hiring 224 in critical fields.
As the July 30th deadline came and went, BTU continued to negotiate. Finally, on August 15th, teachers overwhelmingly approved a new three-year contract that included 8 percent raises for each of the first two years of the contract and a wage reopener for the third year with the aim of achieving parity with surrounding school districts. The result was a $4,600 salary boost for the average teacher in the first two years and an additional $9,000 for teachers moving from the 12th to the 15th step in their career ladder. 1,100 teachers voted on the contract with over 1,000 voting in favor. In an August 23rd press release, BTU President Irene Dandridge expressed her satisfaction with the ratification of the new contract, stating, “The teachers have given this contract a real vote of confidence and support. Now we can begin the 1989-90 school year concentrating on our students rather than our salaries.” Other highlights of the contract included a joint committee of the union and the school board to look at school restructuring, an increase in sick leave accumulation from 235 to 300 days, guidelines for communicable diseases, including AIDS, and increased measures to protect school safety. The contract also featured an increase in the tuition reimbursement fund, increases in coaches’ pay, and compensation for directors of secondary school bands, orchestras and choirs. Two additional committees were established to study and review the school system’s promotional policies and to make recommendations about the District’s health insurance plan. As the 1980s gave way to the ‘90s, BTU was riding high on the gains of their new contract. However, a new crisis unlike any the union had ever faced was just around the corner.
1991-1995: The Battle Against Privatization
In 1991, the budget for Baltimore City Public Schools was once again in trouble. Wages were frozen and Mayor Schmoke announced a plan to furlough schools. BTU organized protest marches and called another work to rule action. The Maryland State Teachers Association declared their own work to rule action shortly afterward. The crisis spilled over into the next year, with teachers averting the initial furloughs by giving up pay for 5 scheduled holidays, only to be hit by furloughs anyway later in the year. Supply shortages and broken down facilities only added to the misery. The union filed grievances and lawsuits and even launched a weeklong boycott of the Baltimore Sun in retaliation for negative coverage that the union deemed inaccurate.
Amidst all this drama, something else was also quietly happening in the district, going almost unnoticed at first by most teachers and PSRPs. In May 1991 City Schools announced its intention to explore the possibility of hiring a private Minnesota-based company called Education Alternatives Inc (EAI). to operate a pilot program in a handful of schools. The relatively unknown firm was starting to make a name for itself with its blend of innovative educational practices and its focus on integrating computer technology into learning. Members of the study team–including BTU President Irene Dandridge–urged the board to immediately look into the firm’s unique educational concept, named “Tesseract”, after a fantastical dimension in Madeleine L’Engel’s young adult novel, “A Wrinkle In Time”. “It’s all the things that we have wanted for our kids”, said Dandridge. “It looks to me as if it could work.” Dandridge told the Baltimore Sun that BTU would be willing to consider waiving some contract provisions in order to get the program off the ground. And so, with little hesitation, the school system proceeded to sign a contract with EAI.
As EAI assumed control of eight elementary schools and one middle school in the summer of 1992, parents were pleased to see their children’s schools get fresh coats of paint and everyone was excited to see new computers being set up in a District that had long been starved for technology. However, it didn’t take long before cracks in the facade started to appear. As teachers reported for professional development prior to the start of the new school year, many were shocked at the way they were talked down to by the company. They were also surprised to learn that the paraprofessionals they were used to working with in the classroom had been replaced by low-paid, inexperienced non-union interns, many of whom had no background in education nor in the subjects they would be helping to teach. This would later prove to be a violation of Special Education laws, but EAI administrators seemed unconcerned. After this initial introduction to their new bosses, 37 teachers out of the 160 teachers involved in the pilot program immediately asked for transfers. On August 25th, hundreds of teachers and paraprofessionals met with Superintendent Dr. Walter G. Amprey and later protested outside City Hall. “They want the community to know what’s happening to them”, Lorretta Johnson, president of BTU’s paraprofessional chapter, told the Baltimore Sun. “We were deceived. We were not treated as professional,” said Miriam Botwinik, an art teacher who was involuntarily transferred from Malcolm X and Edgewood Elementary schools, two of the schools being turned over to EAI. “We really felt that we were not being treated right,” said Irene B. Dandridge, president of the BTU.
Following the rally, the union met with Mayor Schmoke. In a news flash bulletin distributed to members, BTU leaders reported, “After more than 300 teachers and paraprofessionals picketed City Hall on Tuesday, August 25th, Mayor Kurt Schmoke met with BTU leaders to respond to BTU concerns about EAI’s effect on job security, classroom roles, implementation and educational quality.” In the bulletin, the union claimed that Mayor Schmoke had made several promises including that all paraprofessionals and school secretaries would go back to their original schools, the elimination of school staffing would be reversed, and improved communication between EAI and teachers and paraprofessionals. The 1992-93 school year would be a “phase-in year” where the union and EAI could spot problems before full implementation of the Tesseract program. The bulletin went on to say, “BTU’s and EAl’s leadership and legal counsel are meeting now to negotiate specific language outlining the employee protections that the Mayor and BTU have insisted on. BTU will update you as agreements are reached. BTU will continue to monitor the EAI Tesseract process to protect your rights, your job security, and the educational quality of Baltimore City schools.” BTU thanked all the teachers and paraprofessionals that supported the rally, and said that several schools had 100% participation at the rally. “The rally brought about direct action and served notice to the Mayor, Superintendent and EAI that unless teachers and paraprofessionals are involved from the ground up, the program will not succeed.”
While the mayor’s reassurances placated BTU members for the time being, it was only a temporary reprieve. In July 1993, a month after BTU ratified a one-year contract that won members a modest raise, Mayor Schmoke reaffirmed his backing for privatized management of public schools, including the EAI Tesseract project and the contracting of tutoring services at six schools to Sylvan Learning Systems. However, Schmoke said he would wait until there are proven results before expanding Tesseract to more schools. “We’re pleased that someone is finally saying that we need to evaluate this thing before we go any further,” said Lorretta Johnson, co-president of the BTU. However, in November, it was announced that EAI would begin managing two more schools on a limited basis. BTU objected to any expansion of the program before outside analysis of its results was complete. “It’s just too early to say if it’s working, really,” said union spokesperson Linda Prudente “And if it’s not working, why would we expand it?”
In December 1993 BTU filed a lawsuit in Circuit Court to halt the Tesseract program. President Irene Dandridge told reporters that EAI’s contract provides “absolutely no public accountability for schools.” In its suit, the union contended that Baltimore’s contract with the company violates charter requirements that the city maintain control of public schools. The lawsuit also claims that the five-year privatization venture discriminates against thousands of students because “Tesseract” schools receive more city money per student than most other public schools in the city. According to an article in the Baltimore Sun, EAI received $26.7 million to run the nine schools the previous school year, whereas it was estimated that operations would have totaled $20.6 if the school system had operated them. An Education Week article from 1992 had stated that EAI’s funding was based on average student funding for the district, but this fails to take into account the fact that 8 of the 9 schools were elementary schools, which typically cost significantly less to run than high schools, thus skewing the numbers. “The charter intended that public officials, not private companies, run our public schools,” President Dandridge said at a news conference announcing the lawsuit. “The city’s fathers appear inclined to engage in social experimentation — in a process which has no prior track record and no specific sanction by law under the charter,” she added. The school system disputed BTU’s position, denying that the contract violates the charter since EAI answered to the school board and superintendent, who still held ultimate control.
The battle over school privatization continued to intensify in 1994. In February, Frederick Douglass High School teachers, parents, students, and alumni formed a group to denounce the possible state takeover of the school as a thinly veiled attempt to privatize it. Patterson High School faced a similar threat. The schools were targeted for state intervention because of their poor performance. On May 10th, BTU leaders expressed shock and outrage at comments given by Superintendent Dr. Walter Amprey. Dr. Amprey reportedly told an audience in Hartford, Connecticut that he would like to turn over all city schools to EAI. It was later revealed that EAI had been paying for Dr. Amprey to travel the country making speeches in support of their program.
By June, pressure was mounting on Dr. Amprey and his privatization goals from an array of critics. On June 1st, BTU demanded Amprey’s resignation over letters he sent threatening mass layoffs. President Dandridge called Amprey a union buster and vowed to “work actively for his removal”. Then on June 11th, 400 Patterson High School students walked out to protest the school’s impending takeover by a private school from Maine called the Hyde School. Meanwhile, union members and parents marched on City Hall, chanting “The superintendent must go!”. Around the same time, leaders of a proposed school to be run by teachers and parents stormed out of a packed hearing when Amprey and the school board refused to tell them whether their school would receive the same funding per student as those run by EAI. On June 17th, reports revealed that EAI had failed to improve test scores like they had promised. Average scores for the 8 elementary schools declined in reading and rose only slightly in math compared with results from Spring 1992 before EAI took over the schools. “The bottom line is we have not gotten the kids in these schools back to where they were before EAI, and they certainly have not shown the kind of dramatic growth we were promised”, said Dandridge. As AFT President Albert Shanker put it in his keynote speech at the 1995 QuEST Conference in July, “The company promised that within one year, there would be significant improvement in the test scores of youngsters. But if we compare the pre- and post-EAI results, what we find is that the other schools in Baltimore, the overwhelming majority not managed by the private company, have been improving, and the schools managed by the private company have had declining test scores, so that there is a widening gap between the regular schools and those run by a private company.” In light of the scores, Mayor Schmoke halted all proposals to turn over management of additional schools to EAI. The majority of Baltimore’s City Council now opposed any further expansion of EAI’s role. On June 25th, City Council considered a charter amendment that would set up a special Office of Contract Compliance in the Department of Finance to ensure that efforts to privatize city services are well thought out and make economic sense. The writing was on the wall for EAI and the Tesseract program. The embattled company stuck it out until March of 1996 before deciding to terminate its contract when the City refused to pay them the amount they demanded.
In June 1995, Superintendent Amprey announced that he would be cutting 278 school jobs, including 49 teachers. BTU expressed surprise that more than two thirds of those targeted were school positions, despite Amprey’s repeated assurances that the layoffs would primarily affect Central Office staff. As the new school year began in September, the District implemented a new decentralization policy, turning staffing and decision-making power over to individual schools. While BTU supported the idea of decentralization, leaders expressed some apprehension about how the process was being rolled out. In November, BTU, City Union of Baltimore (CUB), and the Fraternal Order of Police settled a years-long court battle over a 1992 wage furlough. Almost all of Baltimore’s 26,294 municipal workers would finally receive back pay owed to them from that incident. “This has been a really long battle, and we really feel good for city employees,” Linda Prudente said. “We feel vindicated by this win”.
1996-2002: New Leaders, New Visions
Dr. Amprey announced in January 1996, that he planned to dock two weeks’ pay from employees, citing a budget shortfall. BTU called the move illegal and vowed to fight it in court. The union announced that it was considering a work to rule action and that it was planning a joint rally with CUB to protest the proposed salary cuts in front of City Hall. “You can’t balance the budget on the backs of teachers,” declared BTU spokesperson, Linda Prudente.
On May 6, 1996, the Baltimore Sun reported that BTU Presidents Irene Dandridge and Lorretta Johnson, along with other salaried employees of the union, had been given interest-free loans from the union treasury for the past four years, amounting to $245,00, some of which had not yet been paid back. BTU stopped the practice on the advice of their accountant. accountant’s advice. The loans were approved by the union’s executive board and did not violate any laws. According to Tim Wheeler in his book, The Life and Times of George A. Meyers, Dandridge and Johnson’s questionable financial practices were nothing new. Wheeler’s late wife, Joyce Provost Wheeler, was the Treasurer of BTU in the early ‘80s. She was the sole member of the United Action Caucus to be elected to the BTU Executive Board. Wheeler claims she was asked by BTU leadership to “sign a pile of blank checks so they would have an ample supply to spend BTU money”–something she refused to do. According to the Sun, the union had an annual budget of $2.9 million in member dues and nonmember fees, and ended last year with a deficit of $134,000. The article also revealed that Johnson earned more than $110,000 in total compensation the past year while Dandridge earned more than $99,000. Meanwhile, the top salary of a teacher’s aide was $12,935 and the top base salary of teachers was $45,318. The report came shortly before an internal BTU election. According to the Sun article, Dandridge’s two opponents had both “called for financial reforms that include disclosing the salary advances and setting policies forbidding or further restricting them, reducing the elected officers’ salary and benefits, and setting presidential term limits.”
BTU members voted for President on May 17th. Forest Park High School teacher Marcia Brown won the election with 1,014 votes, unseating incumbent Irene Dandridge after 17 years in office. Dandridge came in second with 942 votes, while Adolph McDonald finished third, picking up 130 votes. In total, 2,300 of the BTU’s 8,500 members cast ballots, a major increase from the previous election, when only 815 members voted. Despite the upset victory, only four of Brown’s candidates for Executive Board won their election, while the other 16 seats went to Dandridge’s slate. This meant that although Brown was now President of BTU, she could be outvoted by the Board on any decision that required a vote. Meanwhile, Lorretta Johnson, who was running unopposed, was re-elected as Paraprofessional Chapter President. Johnson had run on Dandridge’s slate. “The first concern for all of us is what will be good for the teachers of Baltimore City,” Brown told Dandridge, as quoted in the Baltimore Sun. “I do hope we together can continue to move the union forward.” A week later, the Sun reported that Dandridge’s supporters were already fighting incoming President Marcia Brown for control of the union. With a deepening budget deficit that was projected to reach $300,000 by the end of June, the BTU Executive Board voted to pay an undisclosed amount of severance pay to Dandridge but refused to approve a salary for Brown. The Board also approved a motion to allow the Teacher and Paraprofessional boards to meet jointly, giving Lorretta Johnson more influence over the entire union. Board member and Dandridge supporter Ron Gregory told the Sun that the action was not done to thwart Brown but to take advantage of Johnson’s greater union experience. Brown and her supporters saw it differently. “I feel sorry for Marcia,” said Peter French, a new board member from Brown’s slate. “It’s hurting her a lot. I’m glad it’s not me who has that job. People ought to know that this is their elected leader and she is not being treated well.” On May 29th, BTU voted to seek help from a private accounting firm and the national American Federation of Teachers (AFT) to deal with its growing deficit. “We’re moving forward,” BTU President Marcia Brown said after the Executive Board’s closed meeting. “The board and the president have agreed we are all going to work together for the good of the membership.”
President Brown published a letter in the Baltimore Sun on September 20th in response to an editorial that she felt unfairly portrayed BTU as being opposed to school reform. In her letter, Brown points out that BTU has not only supported but been an active partner in working on a school reform bill (SB 795), and that BTU has submitted its own proposals for a student disciplinary code and a staff evaluation policy. “The evaluation plan adopted should result in recommendations that improve student achievement. But there is evidence that supports more effective ways of evaluating teachers so that achievement can improve.”, Brown states. “Teachers are not afraid of being held accountable. We support finding a way to hold people accountable that is not intended to be just punitive but a way that results in increased achievement for students.” Brown goes on to say that fair compensation should go hand in hand with school reform. “We do support reform and the improvements that are planned for this school system, but we must bring fair and equitable salaries to our members.”, adding later, “Efforts to improve this system can’t be a one-way deal. There needs to be reciprocation.”
In October, City officials launched the New Schools Initiative, a program to explore the possibility of starting nonprofit public charter schools in Baltimore. 71 institutions and individuals submitted “letters of intent” to apply. “Technically, these schools won’t be quite like charter schools,” lawyer George Merrill told the Baltimore Sun. “Charter schools are usually more independent. They set their own admissions criteria. None of our schools will have selective admissions.” BTU President Marcia Brown said she was satisfied that safeguards were in place to protect teachers. Later that month, BTU organized a protest march against a new wave of standardized testing. Union leaders told the mayor that teachers had not had enough training in administering or grading the new tests. “Down the road, we need to look at whether this time we spend testing is the best use of instructional time,” said BTU spokesperson, Linda Prudente.
BTU President Marcia Brown published an op-ed in the Baltimore Sun on March 5th, 1997 opposing anti-union provisions in House Bill 312, a state bill intended to overhaul education in Maryland. “As it stands now, House Bill 312…limits or eliminates collective bargaining rights for teachers and paraprofessionals. Here’s why that’s bad for kids: Successful reforms in urban school districts have come through mutual cooperation between union and management. If school employees lose their contractual rights — and this bill threatens those rights — Baltimore students would lose. If teachers had been invited to be part of the team that secretly drafted the agreement that formed the basis of the legislation, we surely would be much farther along in the process of reshaping and reviving Baltimore schools.” Brown goes on to list teacher-initiated reforms that would not have happened without a union contract. Among the initiatives listed was a school restructuring plan called enterprise schools that became the basis for site-based management of schools district wide, allowing school-based teams to make decisions about how money is spent. Another union initiative Brown mentions is the new category of master teacher, where experienced teachers supervise and mentor newer teachers and share successful teaching techniques. Additionally, Brown mentions the Teacher Center, established by BTU to offer professional development workshops for teachers and paraprofessionals at a time when the District was cutting funding for staff development. Other collective bargaining wins that benefited students include contractual promises to limit class size, and language requiring teacher attendance at PTA meetings. She also describes current efforts by BTU to negotiate a stronger disciplinary code that ensures a supportive classroom environment while providing alternatives to suspension. After expounding this list of examples, Brown cites independent studies that show high SAT scores in highly unionized states and evidence that collective bargaining doesn’t interfere with school management. Brown closes out her op-ed by stating, “Teachers and paraprofessionals are willing to roll up their sleeves and do their part, but they see no reason to give up their legal right to collective bargaining to do so. It would be unjust for the legislation to pass with the union-busting provisions — or to be killed because some lawmakers won’t remove it. With some critically needed changes to this legislation and by spreading many of the proven programs already in the city schools, Baltimore schools can be a renewed source of pride for the community and the state.”
Following President Brown’s letter, BTU continued to lobby for changes to the proposed education bill. On March 10th, over 100 Baltimore school employees confronted Mayor Schmoke in the State House lobby in Annapolis. The mayor assured BTU members that he supported adding amendments to the bill to protect collective bargaining rights. However, even if the worst anti-union provisions were removed from the bill, BTU still had concerns about job transfers and losing unused sick leave. These concerns were shared by other unions, including CUB, which represented school clerical employees. In the end, the bill was signed into law with amendments protecting collective bargaining rights but without the additional protections that unions wanted. The new law also meant that after June 1st, negotiations would be handled by the School Board, not the City government.
In its last negotiation session with BTU before turning over the bargaining process to the new school board On May 24th, with only three weeks left in the school year, the City reached a rushed contract settlement with the union that granted teachers two extra days of leave, a move that left some teachers a little perplexed, according to an article in the Baltimore Sun. “This is a real mixed message that they are sending here,” said Rebecca Joseph, a sixth-grade teacher at Southeast Middle School, who helped organize a schedule to minimize the number of classes that need substitutes because of teacher absences. “Why didn’t they just end the school year two days early?” The contract was ratified but it would expire on June 30th. A new contract would need to be negotiated with the School Board over the summer.
In August, the Federation of Maryland Teachers and Public Employees (FMTPE), the state federation that BTU was affiliated with, met with its long-time rivals, the Maryland State Teachers Association (MSTA), to work together on a legislative agenda. The two organizations wanted to present a united front when the Maryland General Assembly was to convene in January. “It doesn’t mean a merger is imminent, but we are no longer viewing ourselves as rival organizations,” MSTA President Karl K. Pence told the Baltimore Sun. “We’re talking about working together, finding those areas where we can cooperate,” said Thomas O. Flood, administrator of the FMTPE. Priorities for the new coalition included pensions, student performance, teacher qualifications and standards, and staff development, union officials told the Sun.
Negotiations with the new school board in August stalled over issues of money and a new teacher performance evaluation system. With just days left before the new school year began, teachers voted to stage a work to rule job action, refusing to do anything beyond what the current contract specifically required. “We have gone along with this reform effort and have done everything that has been asked of us so far,” said BTU President Marcia Brown. “But we have needs that should be addressed, too.” When schools opened on September 3rd, some principals told the Baltimore Sun that they did not notice many teachers participating in the work to rule action. BTU President Marcia Brown told the Sun that she was not surprised that principals didn’t notice much of an effect. “Teachers and para-professionals are for the kids first, so on the first day of school, I think they saw a great need to go beyond duty to make sure the kids’ needs were met,” Brown said. “But down the road, as more school activities get started, I think principals will see more teachers just working to the contract.” On October 14th, BTU members held a rally outside the school board meeting at North Avenue headquarters to protest major contract changes proposed by the new school board that would require teachers to work more days and longer hours while cutting their sick leave. Teachers had been working without a contract for 3 1/2 months. The union wanted an across-the-board pay raise that would bring city teacher salaries closer to parity with neighboring counties. On December 9th, the school board approved a new evaluation policy for teachers and principals. Passage of the policy, which was negotiated with BTU, would allow the release of state funds to pay for the teacher salary increases the union was pushing for. “It may not be all that we wanted, but it is one that will try to improve achievement and one that will be fair,” said BTU President Marcia Brown.
In January 1998, with negotiations for a new contract approaching a successful conclusion, Marcia Brown resigned her position as President of BTU and accepted a job at North Avenue where she would work to implement the new evaluation policy that she helped design. Upon stepping down from union leadership, Brown’s Vice President, Marietta English, became the new President of BTU. Lorretta Johnson would remain the President of the Paraprofessional Chapter. President English would not have much time to settle into her new role since the next union election was only four months away. The election would bring more drama to a union still reeling from the power struggles of the past two years. Former President Irene Dandridge declared her intention to retake the Presidency after having lost it to Brown in the last election. However, the union’s election committee ruled that Dandridge was not a qualified candidate, due to an alleged lapse in her dues. On April 30th, Dandridge filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction while she tried to get on the ballot. A lower court rejected her plea for an injunction but she appealed the case to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals. That court also rejected her case, just days before the election, effectively ending Dandridge’s hopes of regaining the presidency. The election took place on May 19th. President Marietta English won the election with the support of her co-President, Lorretta Johnson. Johnson, a former ally of Dandridge who had clashed with English’s predecessor, Marcia Brown, switched her allegiance to English. English reportedly won by 377 votes, defeating four other candidates for President, not including the disqualified Dandridge. Dandridge claimed that the election was full of infractions and called for AFT to investigate. “I’m just happy I won,” President English said. “I think the teachers feel like I will bring unity to this union that it needs. They also know I’m fighting for their rights and that I believe in them.”
On July 7th, BTU President Marietta English published a letter in the Baltimore Sun, critiquing a recent mass firing of teachers. “How can we prevent the cycle of bad hiring decisions, inadequate support for teachers and mass firings from continuing?”, English asked. “This is the subject of negotiations concerning a new teachers’ contract, a prime opportunity to take even bolder steps. …Help for new teachers should be provided in a systematic, comprehensive manner by the school system.” English stated that the union already proposed a comprehensive mentoring program for new teachers but the school system rejected it. In closing, Marietta wrote, “If school administrators would turn their attention to strengthening teachers’ skills and staying the course of academic reforms, we would see very different headlines at the close of the next school year.”
The year 1999 saw a protracted contract struggle. With the school board rejecting many of the union’s proposals, demanding concessions on health care and working hours, and only offering a 1% raise for the year, negotiations dragged on for months with no solution in sight. In August, BTU leaders threatened a work to rule action if an agreement wasn’t reached by the beginning of the school year. On Sept. 6th, President English published a letter to the editor in the Baltimore Sun, in which she asked, “How does the new Board of School Commissioners expect to get and keep good teachers by offering them extra duties, lower pay than surrounding districts and higher out-of-pocket costs for basic health benefits?” The letter went on to state, “Our goal in the current negotiations is to create good conditions for teaching and learning in Baltimore schools. Our proposals would enhance teachers’ skills, ensure they are treated as professionals and make Baltimore schools competitive with other school districts.” Finally on September 18th, BTU leaders reluctantly agreed to recommend approval of an arbitrated settlement that would give teachers a 4% raise in the first year and keep their health plan unchanged. The arbitrator’s proposal “doesn’t meet the needs of Baltimore teachers,” said President English. “But a rejection of the fact-finding panel’s findings would not be in the best interests of students and teachers.”
In the Spring of 2000, BTU geared up for a new fight over privatization. As the state moved to take over three underperforming elementary schools with the intention of turning them over to a private management company, BTU offered its own plan to save the schools and urged state and city officials to reconsider. In a March 13th letter to the Baltimore Sun, President English stated, “The state board of education believes that private, for-profit vendors are the answer. I believe parents, teachers and community groups can implement programs to meet the needs of Baltimore’s children.” As the state proceeded with their plans and signed a $10.7 million per year contract with Edison Schools Inc. to operate the schools, BTU filed a lawsuit in Baltimore Circuit Court, asserting that the city and state school boards exceeded their authority by privatizing the schools. “The Baltimore Teachers Union is pursuing legal recourse to protect the rights of its members and to ensure that all of the schools in Baltimore City receive equal treatment and a fair allocation of resources,” the union said. “A fair allocation of the city’s limited resources, in BTU’s view, does not include a profit to a private-sector company.” State Superintendent Nancy S. Grasmick said they no longer had to consider union rules with regard to the three schools. “We privatized these schools,” Grasmick said. “There is no more union.”
As BTU geared up for its next internal election, Belinda Conaway-Washington, a candidate for President, filed for a court injunction to delay the vote. Conaway-Washington’s suit alleged that union leaders are “engaged in a plan and conspiracy to retain and
consolidate their positions” and “have used both time and location constraints to make it physically impossible for many BTU members to cast their ballots.” A judge denied the request for an injunction and the election was held on May 11th as originally scheduled. Four challengers sought to unseat incumbent President Marietta English, who was supported by her co-President, Lorretta Johnson. When the votes were all counted, veteran teacher Sharon Blake beat English–by a mere two votes. Of 1,628 votes cast, Blake received 559 and English received 557. The remaining votes were split among the other three candidates. “It only takes one vote to win. Every vote counts — and that is exactly what I teach and say to young people each day,” Blake exclaimed upon winning. “The message is teachers are ready to be strongly engaged and empowered in creating think tanks and a variety of task forces to engage the community in building support for schools in Baltimore City,” Blake said. She explained that in addition to fighting for increased salaries, better working conditions and improved health benefits she also planned to change the negative perception that many people have of City Schools. Marietta English challenged the election, calling on AFT to investigate. English called for a new election and urged AFT to supervise management of BTU until the investigation is complete.
In August, a judge upheld the state’s authority to privatize three elementary schools, ruling against BTU’s lawsuit. BTU President Sharon Blake said the union will appeal the ruling, calling the Edison Schools contract a threat to public education. In October, AFT published a 66 page report criticizing Edison Schools. The report describes the company’s performance as “mediocre”. “Students in Edison schools mostly perform as well as or worse than students in comparable schools; occasionally they perform better,” the report found.
Stating that it found that some of its members were disenfranchised in the extremely close May BTU election, AFT ordered a new election to be held in the fall. Sharon Blake appealed the decision to the Department of Labor, but they declined to hear the case. A new election was held on October 27th. In the election, Blake received 950 votes and Marietta English received 927 votes, ensuring that Blake would remain President of BTU. Two other candidates for president won a combined 160 votes. “The teacher members of the Baltimore Teachers Union have been asked twice in five months, `What should the direction of this organization be?'” Blake, a former social studies teacher at Frederick Douglass High School, said after the vote. “And twice in the five months, they have given the same answer.” AFT signed off on the results, stating that the election ran smoothly.
In December, President Blake urged City School chief Carmen V. Russo to reduce the excessive paperwork that teachers are required to do. Russo was receptive to the issue, having previously led a paperwork-reduction committee in Broward County, Fla. Teachers said the unnecessary paperwork takes away from instruction and planning time. “We could be creating computer programs for the kids,” said Chris Hanson, a special education teacher at Lois T.
Murray Elementary, in an interview with the Baltimore Sun. “We could be designing more lessons to fit each child. We could be taking aside a child and doing more one-on-one teaching with them.” Hanson told the school board that teachers feel overwhelmed and demoralized.
“The battle against paperwork saps us of the energy we need” to teach, he said.
In January 2001, BTU co-sponsored a free workshop for parents to teach them strategies for lobbying the General Assembly on school issues. In May, Governor Parris Glendening weighed whether or not to veto legislation that would teach students how to operate firearms. Although labeled as a gun safety class, the proposed class included a provision for a shooting range. “Under the legislation, middle or high school students in Maryland who have the propensity to shoot up their schools would learn how to handle firearms in, of all places, the very schools in which they are students,” President Sharon Blake said in a May 1st letter to Glendening.
On June 1st, Lawyers for BTU made their case against the private operation of three public elementary schools by Edison Schools, which the union maintained is illegal. President Blake said that a ruling against the union would send a message that more public schools could be privately operated. “What would stop it from being the entire system?” she said. “It could dismantle the public education system for Baltimore City.”
In November, teachers ratified a new contract that includes two consecutive 5% raises.
“This contract sends a message that the board is serious about teaching and learning in Baltimore City,” declared President Blake. In December, a report based on a survey of 1,000 teachers concluded that there is a major morale problem in Baltimore City Public Schools, despite significant progress in student achievement, financial management, and the quality of top administrators. “Teachers are left out of the whole process of determining the direction of reform,” said President Blake. “They feel isolated and non-included and imposed upon.”
BTU came to the defense of five teachers who were accused of improperly coaching students on state exams in February 2002. BTU lawyer Sabrina Willis said that the teachers believe they did not do anything wrong and will appeal the recommended disciplinary action.
“They all feel that they conducted themselves appropriately and in accordance with all of the training that they received,” she said. In a statement, President Blake said that the allegations are “so vague that it is unclear what wrongdoing is alleged to have taken place.”
Former BTU President Marietta English made a comeback on May 24th, 2002, defeating incumbent Sharon Blake 598-380 and retaking the presidency. Three other candidates also ran for the position, receiving a combined total of 61 votes. Blake later filed suit, seeking a revote because of a last minute court decision that she said impacted members’ ability to vote in the election. However, Blake’s suit was rejected, keeping English in place.
On December 16th, City Schools Chief Carmen V. Russo warned of possible cuts including potential layoffs of administrative staff and scaling back the district’s summer school program in order to make up a multi-million dollar deficit. BTU President Marietta English said school officials need to make more program or administrative cuts before laying off teachers. “No furloughs, no layoffs, no reorganization without negotiating with us.” In January, Russo proposed sweeping cuts, including the elimination of 250 full-time positions. BTU, which now represented almost 10,000 school employees, said its membership wouldn’t agree to a furlough unless school officials make concessions. The board responded that it would lay off 250 employees if the unions reject the proposed furlough. Members voted down the furlough option, telling union leaders they wanted them to go back and negotiate a better deal. “Basically it was a vote of no-confidence in the leadership of the system and a lack of trust,” said Brian Dale, Vice President of the BTU. “The overwhelming sentiment was that we didn’t cause this and so don’t take it out on us.”
2003-2009: Standing Our Ground
500 people protested at Camden Yards for better school conditions during Opening Day for the Orioles on March 31st, 2003. The protest included teachers, parents, students, and community members. According to the Baltimore Sun, it was the largest city school demonstration in years. At the base of the Babe Ruth statue, rally organizer Tyrone Powers said the march was just the start of a movement that will continue until state and local leaders are making education a priority. “We will continue to fight for our children. … They will no longer be poisoned in our schools. The proper books will be given to them. The facilities will be fixed,” he said. “Or we will be in places like these, where they don’t want us, over and over again. We are saying on this day, `The revolution on education has begun in Baltimore City.’” Dozens of students at Mergenthaler High School staged a walkout under threat of suspension in order to come to the rally. “We are smart enough to know that we are put last in the Baltimore City school system,” said Joi Bunton, 16, a junior at Mergenthaler Vocational-Technical High School. “We came here to prove that we deserve better.” The rally voiced concerns about a variety of problems in Baltimore schools, including poor facilities, inadequate textbooks, school safety, and water fountains contaminated with lead.
In January 2004, City Schools Chief Bonnie S. Copeland threatened to lay off 1,200 workers and asked unions to choose between layoffs, furloughs, or pay cuts. In early February, Mayor Martin O’Malley offered to provide an $8 million loan to City Schools if BTU and other unions agreed to a 3.5% pay cut. Many BTU members, however, were fed up with the seemingly endless onslaught of cuts and were in no mood to sacrifice more. “It’s just gotten to where it has reached a boiling point,” Alan Rebar, a teacher at Highlandtown Elementary
School, told a reporter from the Baltimore Sun. “It’s to the point where people are saying, `This is enough. Draw a line. Stand and fight.'” BTU members were not the only ones upset about the budget crisis and the proposed cuts. The Baltimore Sun reported on February 12th that parents, community members and school officials were demanding criminal investigations, threatening lawsuits and calling for a shake-up of the school board. On February 12th, teachers and paraprofessionals overwhelmingly voted to reject the proposed pay cut. About 5,000 BTU members showed up at the Baltimore Convention Center to vote. The final tally was 3,824 against the proposed deal and 1,402 in favor. Many people noted that teachers and paras had not been this angry and frustrated since the massive strike that had taken place in 1974. “The mood is the same as it was 30 years ago,” said Neil Ross, a BTU field staff member who had been a teacher during that strike. “The anger is the same. There’s the same feeling of helplessness.” “I could see the fury in their eyes”, observed BTU President Marietta English.
In March, thousands of teachers and paraprofessionals protested in Annapolis, demanding that Governor Ehrlich release funding for Baltimore City Public Schools to help solve the District’s $58 million deficit. “All the governor can think about is union-busting, because that is what this is,” said Lorretta Johnson, President of BTU’s Paraprofessional Chapter. A week later, BCPSS students marched on City Hall and the Maryland State Department of Education, echoing the union’s demands. “Has your mom ever asked you if you want one cookie now or two cookies later?”, City College High School student Samuel Ball-Brau asked a reporter. “O’Malley took that cookie and left no cookies for the rest of us.” The conflict dragged on for over a year, with no clear resolution. Then, in July 2005, the union negotiated a two year contract that would give teachers and paraprofessionals an immediate 2 percent raise, with an additional 1 percent increase the following January. In return, BTU members agreed to contribute more to their health care plan and to give up the right to convert sick days into cash. While it was not everything the union wanted, BTU members had managed to weather the storm and instead of taking a pay cut, they received their first pay increase in three years.
Tensions between the union and school board temporarily relaxed, only to escalate again when the contract approached its expiration date. BTU members rejected a proposed contract that called for numerous concessions from teachers and paraprofessionals. “These negotiations have been an insult to us,” said President English. “What they’re asking is ridiculous.” At a union rally, English compared the system’s treatment of teachers to slavery. Negotiations stalled, the old contract expired, and as a new school year started in August 2007, BTU called a work to rule job action. “It is appalling that teachers who dedicated their lives working in Baltimore City public schools have to begin a school year without a new contract, when every other district in the state has a contract and their school board respects them as dignified working people,” President English told reporters. “We intend to demand the same respect.” Talks between union leaders and City Schools CEO Dr. Andres Alonso in October broke down and the two sides remained at impasse–an impasse that would continue for several more months as teachers and paras continued to work without a contract. Finally, in April 2008, an arbitrated settlement was ratified. As part of the compromise, high school teachers would be required to give up one of their five weekly planning periods for collaborative planning but elementary teachers would only be required to do the same if they were given at least four planning periods per week (which was more planning time than had been guaranteed to elementary teachers in previous contracts). The next month, Marietta English soundly defeated her old rival, Sharon Blake, to remain President of BTU. Since 2002, English had faced multiple challengers for her position but had been re-elected by a significant margin each time. Some of English’s opponents had accused her administration of creating unfair election policies designed to keep incumbent candidates in office–accusations that English and her team flatly denied.
2010-2018: A Changing Paradigm
In June 2010, the BTU expanded what used to be called the Paraprofessional chapter into the Paraprofessional and School Related Personnel (PSRP) chapter, adding more than 500 new members representing more than 100 classifications of employees ranging from secretaries and office assistants to food service and transportation workers as well as a wide array of white collar specialists based at Central Office. The newly constituted PSRP chapter was codified in a four-year contract ratified the next year and continued to be recognized in subsequent contracts up to the present day. The BTU constitution was also amended to incorporate this change. In the new constitution, the position of Paraprofessional Chapter President, which had been occupied by Lorretta Johnson for 35 years, was eliminated. Johnson, though still involved in BTU negotiations, was now primarily focused on her roles as President of AFT Maryland and Vice President of the national AFT. Under the new constitution, BTU would only have one president who would preside over both the Teacher and PSRP chapters.
In 2010, the Obama administration offered millions of dollars in federal aid to districts that agreed to a program of education reforms. While all the major school districts in the greater Baltimore area were quick to apply for the new “Race to the Top” funding, most local teachers’ unions declined to sign on to the plan when it was first announced, concerned about changes to curriculum and teacher evaluations that went hand in hand with the release of funds. BTU President Marietta English, however, announced that she would sign on to the plan. “Baltimore City stands to gain the most money if the program is funded and the union would not stand in the way of them receiving that money,” English said in a statement. BTU leaders proceeded to work with Dr. Alonso and the School District to draft a “landmark” contract that would meet the requirements to unlock the Race to the Top money. The new proposed contract would replace the old seniority-based pay scale with new career pathways centered on the attainment of “Achievement Units” (AUs). AUs would be awarded annually for teacher performance on a new evaluation system that was being drafted. Additional AUs could be earned by completing coursework or by taking on additional responsibilities that contribute to student achievement or the professional development of colleagues. BTU leadership enthusiastically promoted the contract as a way to give teachers the ability to control their own career advancement and move up the pay scale faster while getting compensated for extracurricular activities that they were already doing. Many members, however, remained unconvinced. Some teachers argued that the new system amounted to merit pay and gave school administrators and District officials too much power over teachers’ paychecks. Teachers worried that they would be denied raises over factors that were not under their control. Critics questioned whether the District would really fulfil its vague promises of granting AUs for extracurricular activities when the details had not been fleshed out. Moreover, many teachers asked what would happen when the temporary influx of Race to the Top money ran out, as it inevitably would at some point.
While BTU leadership and staff lobbied its members to vote yes, holding school-based “information sessions” where they spouted pro-contract talking points and passed out “Vote Yes” buttons, a new rank and file caucus within the BTU called Educators for Democratic Schools (EDS), circulated pamphlets urging teachers to vote no on the contract. Over 2,000 teachers showed up at Baltimore Polytechnic Institute to cast their votes. When the dust had settled, it was apparent that the contract had been voted down by approximately 58% of the voting membership. Undeterred by this setback and eager to make the deadline to qualify for federal funding, President English and Dr. Alonso scrambled to clean up some of the contract language and quickly negotiated a one-time immediate $1,500 stipend for all teachers. A new ratification vote was scheduled for November 16th and BTU leadership worked feverishly to convince members to vote for the revised contract. English and her staff organized carpools to turn out supporters to vote. According to an article in Education Week, Building Representatives were released from school early and treated to a hearty meal and a gift while union leadership addressed them about getting out the “Yes” vote. These efforts, combined with the immediate gratification of the stipend, proved successful in reversing the outcome of the previous vote. BTU members voted 1,902-1,045 to approve the “landmark” contract and the School Board ratified it shortly afterward. “Something historic has happened here in Baltimore,” announced President English after the vote. Although the new contract had been passed, many questions remained about the details of the new evaluation system and the process of earning AUs and moving up the new pay scale. As part of the contract, a Joint Government Panel (JGP) made up of half District representatives and half Union representatives was formed to hammer out the finer points and approve AU projects on a case by case basis.
It did not take long for problems to arise from the new policy. In February 2012, the Baltimore Sun reported that that a large number of BCPSS teachers–as many as 60% in some schools–received unsatisfactory evaluations on their midyear evaluations, with many of them being put on Performance Improvement Plans (PIPs) that can be a precursor to termination. Teachers contended that these bad evaluations were being meted out by principals under pressure by District leadership to avoid paying teachers raises under the new pay-for-performance system. “We always said this contract is going to make the evaluation process into a much bigger deal, where personal attacks can turn into pay cuts and threaten people’s job security, and that seems to be exactly what is happening,” said Iris Kirsch, an English teacher at Heritage High School who had been part of the push by EDS to vote down the contract in 2010. In 2014, EDS urged BTU leaders to give members more time to discuss a new contract that would continue the AU system. An EDS leaflet issued at the time cited a Nashville study that shows that merit pay does not lead to student gains. The group called instead for a limit on Total Student Load (a limit on the maximum number of students assigned to one teacher) and blasted the proposed 1% annual pay increases as insufficient to keep up with inflation. “We need to dump AU’s and return – with no loss in pay – to REAL annual raises that respect our hard work and protect us from inflation.”, declared the leaflet. Despite these objections by some members, the new contract was ratified. However, in June, BTU filed a class action grievance over last-minute changes to the evaluation system. The district unilaterally changed the “cut scores” for teacher evaluations, resulting in the loss of expected raises for many teachers who would have been rated “highly effective” based on the evaluation guidelines that had previously been announced. “The BTU never agreed to change the percentages within the evaluation.”, President English stated in an email to members. Teachers complained that their ratings–and thus their salaries–were impacted by highly subjective classroom observations that did not accurately reflect their overall performance. “The city would have the public believe that the difference between a highly effective and developing teacher is that one doesn’t have what it takes,” Bobbi O’Brien, a ninth grade teacher at Patterson High School, told the Baltimore Sun. “When really it’s whether or not I can showcase all of the skills I have as a teacher in two 90-minute periods of the school year.” Iris Kirsch called the last minute change an insult to teachers. “Even the people who focused on all the things you could do to get a higher evaluation, who put all their eggs in one basket, are being robbed,” she said. “It’s just so demoralizing.”
An important piece of legislation to come out of this era was HB 860, the Baltimore City Public Schools Construction and Revitalization Act of 2013. Years of massive lobbying efforts from BTU and other unions, parent and student groups, community organizations, as well as City Schools CEO Dr. Andres Alonso, Mayor Stephanie Rawlings Blake, and several other local politicians resulted in the passage of this law, which would authorize $1 billion in loans to renovate or replace dozens of crumbling public school buildings in Baltimore. Dubbed the 21st Century Schools project, funding and oversight for the plan would be jointly provided by the State of Maryland, the City of Baltimore, and the Maryland Stadium Authority. Corey Grisson Jr., a Patterson High School student who had attended a large rally in Annapolis In February 2013, reflected on the passage of the bill in the Patterson Press, a student newspaper. “That day was one of the greatest days of my life. I have never before been somewhere where everybody around me wanted the same thing. It feels good to be part of history.”, Grisson wrote. The 21st Century Schools program would run into many bumps in the road in the years to come, requiring ongoing advocacy from BTU and others. Nonetheless, it was a critical reform in a district plagued by decades of underfunding that had resulted in decaying school buildings without adequate heating and cooling systems, infested by pests and lacking technology and even safe drinking water. Despite the infusion of hope that the 21st Century Schools program brought, these facilities problems would escalate into a major crisis within the next few years.
By 2015, Governor Hogan’s budget cuts were already drawing ire from BTU leaders. On May 22nd of that year, President English published an op-ed blasting Hogan for his announcement that he would withhold over $11 million from Baltimore City schools. “Many community schools offer wraparound services, including GED training, mental health care, health and wellness classes and much more; by cutting GCEI, Governor Hogan is effectively cutting those very programs he himself acknowledges the residents asked him for in the wake of the Freddie Gray protest.”, English wrote, referencing statements made by the Governor after the weeks of unrest that followed the April 2015 death of Baltimore resident Freddie Gray while in police custody. “We are concerned about what the decision to waste valuable funding will mean for our students and the teachers and parents who work so diligently to support and educate them. Cutting down on resources, expanding classroom size and potentially eliminating positions due to budget cuts aren’t the actions Baltimore and Marylanders need.”, English asserted.
Overtesting was another hot-button issue in 2015. Responding to pressure from critics, the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) announced a reduction in the hours that schools would spend testing students on the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) test, many teachers argued that this reduction was not enough. Robert Dietzen, a teacher at City Neighbors Hamilton, wrote a letter to the Baltimore Sun with input from over 50 colleagues, decrying the lost instructional time his students suffered as they struggled with technical problems and other barriers to taking the test. “During testing we had to stand by and watch as children, frustrated by technical problems and flustered by the vague and unnecessarily complicated language of the test, furrowed their brows or broke down crying. In some cases, children even slapped their own heads in frustration. If left in place, PARCC will continue turning all kids — even the highly engaged ones — off”, Dietzen wrote. He objected to the enormous resources the District devotes to standardized testing that could be used for high quality instruction instead. “Rather than continuing to pour our limited resources into a test that is so obviously flawed in both design and implementation, we should be putting our time, money, and effort into classrooms so that teachers can teach, students can learn and we can create great schools together.”, proclaimed Dietzen. “We must now be doing everything we can to repeal, repel and revoke PARCC — completely — for the sake of our children and our schools.”
In the May 2016 BTU officers election, President Marietta English narrowly defended her position against challenger Kimberly Mooney in what was by far the closest election since English’s return to power in 2002. Mooney, a Spanish teacher at Roland Park Elementary/Middle School, received 179 fewer votes than English. Among teacher chapter members, English only received 9 more votes than Mooney. “This is an earthquake inside BTU,” veteran teacher Alan Rebar, told reporters. “It absolutely reflects a lot of teachers being frustrated or angry about business as usual.”
That same year, a comprehensive new set of education reforms promised to transform the education system in Maryland when the Maryland General Assembly unanimously passed House Bill 999, establishing the Commission on Innovation and Excellence in Education–also known as the Kirwan Commission. The ambitious new plan called for increased school funding and major salary increases for teachers and other school personnel and incentives for teachers to advance their professional training through processes such as National Board Certification. BTU and other unions were cautiously optimistic about the Commission, but had concerns about how the new policies would be funded as well as the details of potential new accountability measures that would go hand in hand with any increase in salaries. BTU appointed Morgan Showalter to represent the union on the Kirwan Commission. Showalter used this position to push for priorities the union supported, including “whole child” interventions that addressed the Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) needs of students. “The problems that struggling learners face are often societal as well as academic. Let us use our educational resources to not just create students who can read, but also those who are additionally safe, active, nourished, creative, freethinking and self-regulating members of society.”, Morgan wrote in a 2018 op-ed in the Baltimore Sun. The Kirwan plan, which became known as the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future, eventually became law on April 3rd, 2019, when the Maryland General Assembly overrode Governor Larry Hogan’s veto. However, the bill was never fully funded, a fact that would lead to problems down the road.
In October 2017, BTU members voted overwhelmingly to ratify a contract that included a one percent increase and allowed members to save their health care benefits through the end of 2019, though at a higher cost than in the past. (An additional cost of living adjustment was to be negotiated the next year.) The lackluster contract was indicative of a long and bitter impasse in the negotiations that led up to the contract, and a sign of the District’s deep financial troubles. Earlier that year, teachers at Tench Tilghman Elementary-Middle School staged an apparent sick-out to protest the District’s threat to lay off over 1,000 employees to make up for a $130 million budget shortfall. The action was condemned by District leaders as well as BTU President Marietta English, who warned teachers that any action perceived as a work stoppage could violate a state law that prohibits teachers from striking. In June, 115 employees were laid off, including 60 BTU members, many of whom were classroom teachers, librarians, and counselors. BTU filed a grievance over the timing of the layoffs, arguing that the union was not given enough time to propose alternatives that might have saved jobs. “These negotiations have been long and tiring,” BTU President Marietta English said in a statement after the passage of the new contract. “In the end, in an environment where the future of healthcare is largely uncertain, our educators agreed to pay more to guarantee the quality healthcare they deserve for the next two years.” In an effort to revitalize City Schools and provide more funding, BTU launched an outreach campaign called Bring Back Baltimore, with the goal of re-enrolling students who had stopped attending Baltimore City Public Schools for a variety of reasons. 40 teachers and school-based staff knocked on 36,000 doors. According to a statement from President English, the campaign resulted in the enrollment of 329 new pre-K students and the re-enrollment of 17 students who had dropped out of school–thereby cutting the District’s projected enrollment shortage by a third.
For many years, Baltimore City Public Schools had suffered from facilities problems, including inadequate heating and a lack of air conditioning in many schools. These problems erupted into a full-blown crisis in 2018. As students and staff returned from Winter Break on January 2nd, four Baltimore schools had to close due to heating and/or water issues exacerbated by a cold snap. At some schools, students had to wait for hours with no heat before eventually being dismissed. Other schools that suffered through similar conditions did not close at all. Photos of children huddled over their desks in coats, hats, scarves and gloves, flooded social media and quickly gained attention from journalists. Teachers shared photos of thermometers showing frigid temperatures inside schools. Parents demanded answers and members of City Council expressed concern. BTU called on the District to close schools until heating issues could be repaired citywide. “These dangerously low temperatures have a major impact on the learning environment our educators are working to provide for their students,” President English said. “There’s no way they can teach, and children can learn, in classrooms with no heat.” The next day, BTU hand-delivered a letter from President English to City Schools CEO Sonja Santelises, urging her again to shut down schools citywide. “I implore that you close schools in the District until your facilities crew has had time to properly assess and fix the heating issues within the affected schools in Baltimore City,” the letter said. Santelises said the District was addressing the problem and that some schools might be closed on a case to case basis, but she wanted to avoid “knee jerk” decisions, pointing out that many families rely on schools for free meals and after-school care. English responded that teachers cannot be expected to work in buildings with “bursting boilers, drafty windows, frigid temperatures in classrooms.” Students spoke to reporters about the situation. “It’s too cold. How are you supposed to study for midterms when you’re shaking?” asked Tyquira Townsend, a senior at Baltimore Polytechnic Institute, which had remained open all day.
As the crisis continued, fingers were pointed in every direction as District leaders, City officials, and Governor Hogan deflected blame onto each other. The revelation that City Schools had returned $66 million in state funds for heating repairs because they failed to comply with state regulations led Governor Hogan to accuse Baltimore of “mismanagement” while city leaders blamed the problem on funding inequities, arguing that more affluent districts were able to comply with state deadlines because they have the money to pay for repairs upfront and get reimbursed by the state later. “There’s decades of under-investment in school facilities to blame,” said State Senator Bill Ferguson. “There’s not one person or entity or place where things went wrong. It is years and years of under-investment in capital infrastructure that we are seeing explode before our eyes literally.” Ferguson joined many others in calling on the state government for emergency funding. On January 22nd, over 100 angry parents and community members took over a City Schools town hall meeting at Dunbar High School, demanding systematic change. “We understand the facilities problems and the systemic racism and the underfunding, but we need more communication,” said Joseph Kane, president of the Waverly Elementary/Middle School parent-teacher organization. “And we need more money going to Baltimore City Public Schools from Baltimore City.” At the meeting, Dr. Santelises announced that the District was in the process of creating a new policy where areas would be kept above 60 degrees or students would be moved. President English met with district officials to discuss creating an inclement weather policy for both cold and warm weather “to avoid placing our educators and students back into environments that are not conducive to learning.” A January 25th op-ed in the Baltimore Sun by teacher Delilah Holmes argued that teachers have been putting up with inexcusable conditions for far too long. “As teachers and residents of this city, we need to commit to not accepting unacceptable circumstances for our children. My students have value. They deserve better. As a city, let’s raise our expectations and demand better for them from our leaders.”, the letter stated.
In March 2018, BTU leaders spoke out against President Trump’s proposal to arm teachers following a deadly school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. As many Baltimore students planned walk-outs to advocate for gun control legislation, BTU President Marietta English told reporters that educators and families in Baltimore don’t want guns in school. “Enough is enough —it is time for the administration to stop kicking the can down the road when it comes to common sense gun legislation and keeping our children safe,” English said.
Public sector unions across the country suffered a major blow in June 2018 when the Supreme Court announced its decision in the case Janus vs. A.F.S.C.M.E. The ruling struck down the right of unions to deduct “fair representation fees” from non-members to pay for the cost of fulfilling the union’s legal obligation to represent every employee in their bargaining unit. The ruling represented a major financial hit for BTU and thousands of other unions nationwide. “With today’s ruling, the anti-union and anti-worker forces think they’ve won,” President English said in a statement. “They couldn’t be more wrong,” Opponents of unions hoped that the Supreme Court ruling would lead to a mass exodus from unions, permanently crippling the American labor movement. That did not happen, as most union members understood the importance of continuing to pay union dues to defend their hard-fought salaries and benefits and to protect their rights on the job. However, the loss of fees from non-members was still devastating for BTU, leading the union to incur a dangerous amount of debt. It would take years of careful management by future BTU leaders to restore the union to financial health.
The new school year saw the return of the facilities crisis of the past winter. Instead of freezing classrooms, students and staff now had to endure extreme heat. Despite the unveiling of five new or renovated schools funded by the 21st Century Schools project, more than 60 school buildings in Baltimore still lacked air conditioning or had “inadequate cooling,” according to the City Schools website. Those 60 schools shut down early on September 4th but not until after students and staff suffered through hours in classrooms with temperatures well over 90 degrees. “The fact that more than 60 of our schools are operating without air conditioning indicates how dire the need is for increased funding for our schools.”, President English stated in an email. “No child, or educator, should have to try to learn in a classroom that’s extremely hot,” Under a new policy created earlier that year, the District was supposed to dismiss schools without adequate AC three hours early on days when the outside heat index reaches 100 degrees by 10:30 a.m. “or when the interior temperature in a majority of classrooms in most schools reaches 85 degrees, and students cannot be relocated to cooler areas of buildings.” BTU members complained that this policy was too difficult to enforce. The district was not measuring temperatures in a timely or accurate manner, they argued. Furthermore, moving students to cooler areas of the building would mean combining classes in a way that would make teaching and learning next to impossible. Meanwhile, multiple staff members and students were reportedly experiencing health problems as a result of the heat and related issues, sometimes resulting in trips to the hospital. Against the backdrop of this facilities crisis, BTU also filed a grievance against the District’s plan to potentially take away days from Spring Break to make up for closures due to inclement weather.
2019-2024: Fighting For Our Future
Following a series of serious assaults by students, BTU organized a safety task force made up of teachers, PSRPs, students, principals and parents to review the Baltimore City Public Schools Code of Conduct and recommend changes. At a press conference on May 10th, 2019 the union’s safety task force announced its recommendations. The task force called for systematic training of staff on the Code of Conduct as well as more in depth training on strategies and programs like restorative practices to help students deal with trauma and learn to de-escalate arguments. The union also called for stricter consequences for students who commit assault.
On May 13th, 2019, Middle school teacher Diamonté Brown defeated Marietta English to become the first new President of BTU in two decades. Brown received 901 votes, while English received 839. Additionally, Brown’s slate won 19 of the 20 officer positions on the Teacher Chapter Executive Board. Among those newly elected officers was Kimberly Mooney, who had run against English in 2016 and was now part of Brown’s team. English’s slate won all 20 PSRP officer positions, ensuring that her supporters would continue to have significant influence over union policy under the new administration. Brown and her team had run on a platform of making BTU more accountable, transparent, and member driven, with a focus on promoting social justice and “bargaining for the common good”. The English campaign had touted their experience, arguing that they were better qualified to lead the union and build on their previous contract gains. Upon winning the election, BTU President Diamonté Brown called for unity, promising to be a president for the members who didn’t vote for her as well as those who did. “As of now, we have a clean slate and we should be able to move forward together with positivity if our real intention is to make Baltimore City Public Schools better for our kids, our families, our educators, and our PSRPs,” Brown said. Marietta English, however, was unwilling to concede, arguing that there had been “egregious violations of the elections process”. Brown’s slate had also filed complaints of violations by the English campaign. Due to the dueling allegations from both sides, the BTU Nominations and Elections Committee called for a new election. However, an investigation and hearing by the national American Federation of Teachers determined that any violations that may have occurred were not significant enough to change the outcome of the election. AFT dismissed the need for a revote and confirmed that Diamonté Brown was the rightful President of BTU. “Now we will work together to advance members’ interest,” President Brown declared. Brown told the Baltimore Sun that her top goals would be to increase membership engagement, fight for equity and increase partnerships between the education professions, such as teachers and PSRPs.
In August 2019, BTU organized a fan drive, soliciting donations of electric fans for use in classrooms. The purpose of the drive was to provide immediate relief to teachers and students suffering from overheated classrooms while also raising awareness around the urgent need for air conditioning and other school renovations. “We know that the Baltimore City public school system will not be adequately equipped to handle the high temperatures that our students and teachers will be subjected to while in our classrooms,” President Diamonté Brown told reporters. “What we decided to do is at least give teachers and students and PSRPs some relief.” On the second day of the new school year, about 50 schools without air conditioning dismissed students early because of high temperatures. BTU leaders once again reiterated the need for a long-term fix. “Our scholars continue to suffer academically because their instructional time is interrupted due to these extreme conditions”, President Brown observed. On September 19th, the Baltimore Sun published an op-ed co-written by President Brown and Randi Weingarten, the national President of AFT. The letter described the negative impact of extreme temperatures on student learning and pointed out that City Schools had a $3 billion maintenance backlog due to decades of underfunding. “The city is asking teachers to go to work and kids to go to school every day in buildings that are literally falling apart.”, the letter asserted. Brown and Weingarten finished the letter by calling for the passage of the Rebuild America’s Schools Act, which would provide $100 billion for school infrastructure across the country.
BTU members overwhelmingly ratified a new contract on September 26th, 2019. The Teacher Chapter contract was ratified by 96.2% of voting members while PSRPs ratified a wage reopener by 98.2%. The new agreements represented a successful collaboration between old and new leadership of BTU since some provisions of the contract had already been negotiated prior to the election of President Brown. Brown and her team worked hand in hand with Lorretta Johnson and other former and current BTU leaders to ensure a smooth transition as they completed the negotiation process. The new agreements granted raises to both teachers and PSRPs.
In October, hundreds of BTU members wearing yellow union T-shirts and carrying signs filled School District headquarters at North Avenue to speak out against the District’s proposal for unannounced formal observations. Under the existing evaluation system, a major part of teachers’ annual evaluation on which their raises (by way of accruing “Achievement Units”) were based hinged on two formal observations that were scheduled in advance by mutual agreement between the teacher and the qualified observer. A pre-observation conference would be held where teachers had an opportunity to ask questions and get feedback on their lesson plans before being observed at the appointed time and scored on a rubric called the Instructional Framework. Under the changes now being proposed by the District, those formal observations would now be unannounced. Teachers would be formally observed without warning and would essentially have no say in when they were observed, nor be given any time to prepare for their observations. These changes had apparently been in the works for some time but had not been publicized until the District was ready to present their plan to the School Board for approval. BTU members spoke at the meeting, urging the school board to reconsider the plan and to take more time to get input from the teachers who it would impact. An article in the Baltimore Sun remarked on the “youthful” energy that BTU’s new leadership was infusing into the union, taking more of an activist approach to union organizing as part of a national resurgence taking place in the broader labor movement. Larry Gaines, a veteran PSRP, told the sun that he had been receiving much more communication from the union than in the past. “When they came on board, I started getting emails right away,” he said. “And it wasn’t long after that they said, ‘Put on your fighting clothes because we have an issue.’ ” While BTU was not able to stop the unannounced observations policy altogether, they succeeded in pushing the Board to change the number of unannounced observations from two to one and to include language that empowered teachers to reschedule unannounced observations when circumstances warranted it. The union viewed this as a partial victory that would help set the tone for future interactions with the School Board. “When we agree on something and feel there’s an opportunity to collaborate, we do,” President Brown said. “When we feel like we need to challenge the district and push back or urge them to make certain decisions, we play that role as well.”
City Schools CEO Dr. Sonja Santelises announced in December that the District could face a $60 million budget gap by 2021 if the additional funding proposed by the Kirwan plan was not approved. “We’re tired of hearing what we can’t do,” said President Brown after a budget presentation by the District that Brown called “insulting”. “We want you to tell us how we’re going to get it done.” City Council President Brandon Scott and City Councilperson Zeke Cohen also expressed disappointment.
Concerns over budget cuts and Kirwan funding continued into 2020 until a more immediate crisis pushed all other issues to the backburner. On March 12th, 2020, Governor Larry Hogan ordered the closing of all public schools in Maryland for two weeks beginning on Monday, March 16th to prevent the spread of the novel coronavirus, COVID-19. Those two weeks would be extended as the pandemic worsened and before long it became apparent that students and staff would not return to school in-person for the remainder of the school year. The sudden closure of schools created enormous challenges for students, parents, and school staff throughout the state but nowhere was the crisis felt more than in Baltimore. Workers and volunteers, including many BTU members, scrambled to set up distribution networks for the free meals that most BCPSS students depended on. Meanwhile teachers and other school staff worked feverishly to create a plan for online learning while confronting the reality that many Baltimore families lacked computers and internet access. Thousands of laptops were ordered for students and staff and new rules and procedures for virtual teaching were created on the fly. BTU also had to adapt quickly to the new situation. “We were just starting to transition BTU systems into more current systems, and so we had to immediately do things like purchase laptops for staff members and figure out a system where we can communicate with each other outside of the building, and make certain members could communicate with us.”, President Brown reflected in a recent interview with the Baltimore Educator. “And then, while having to figure out how to keep a whole staff–my own staff, the Baltimore teachers union staff–safe, we also had to figure out how we were going to keep all BTU members and students safe.”
One of the first actions BTU took during the pandemic was to launch a Digital Divide campaign in collaboration with parents, students, and community organizations. The goal of the campaign was to increase student access to computers and internet and to close the technology gap that disproportionately impacted low-income families and people of color. In April, the union sent a letter —signed by 50 other organizations —to city officials urging them to make an emergency financial investment to purchase technology for the “tens of thousands” of students who needed computers or internet access in their homes so they could continue to learn during the pandemic. “In order for our students to compete with their peers and for them to access a 21st-century education, it is imperative for them to have access to technology,” Brown said in the letter. On April 27th, Baltimore’s City Council voted to use at least $9 million from the Baltimore Children and Youth Fund to provide students with food, laptops and internet for distance learning. On May 26th, BTU supported a student-led press conference calling on Comcast to provide free high-speed internet to Baltimore families so that students could participate in virtual learning. Other community leaders, including two members of City Council, also spoke at the rally. According to a press release issued by the coalition, 40.7% of Baltimore residents did not have broadband internet access. “How many students will we lose during this crisis that we will never get back?”, asked BTU building rep, city council candidate, and SOMOS advisor Franca Muller Paz. SOMOS and its allies called on Comcast to permanently increase Internet Essentials upload speeds and extend free access to Comcast’s Internet Essentials package until 60 days after public schools have fully reopened as well as providing free Xfinity hotspots to the public during that period. On August 3rd, BTU and the Prince George’s County Educators Association organized a car and bike rally with parents, students, and teachers at Comcast headquarters as part of a National Day of Resistance. Participants braved a tropical storm to turn out with dozens of sign-laden vehicles, including a yellow school bus. “They gave us crumbs,” President Brown said of Comcast, calling their Internet Essentials plan “absolutely insufficient for meeting the demands of our students and our educators.” The next day, Franca Muller Paz published an op-ed in the Baltimore Sun stated that “the Internet Essentials service is so slow that two siblings cannot be in their digital classroom at the same time.” Muller Paz warned, “If we do not solve this problem, we face an educational deficit that will affect our nation’s children for years to come.”
Meanwhile, BTU filed a grievance in June over four extra unpaid workdays that were added to the end of the school year. BTU contended that its members worked four days —March 16th through March 19th—when school buildings were first shut down. The school district refused to acknowledge those four days as work days. President Brown said that teachers and PSRPs are willing to go the extra mile for their students but they can’t work for free. “We are standing up for ourselves. We love our students. Everyone knows that we go above and beyond every day,” President Brown declared.
BTU issued a statement of solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement in June 2020, following the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis and the subsequent protests that rocked the nation. “We must remind ourselves and proclaim to our friends in labor across the country that we did not join our union just to protect our labor, but that we joined our union for the justice that could be had when we use our labor to fight and agitate for the greater good. As Baltimore educators, we have a duty to educate our young citizens and prepare them to fight for a more just world that will finally recognize that Black Lives Matter.”, the statement read. “We commit to building relationships with our students that create a space where they can grow and learn. We promise to support work that builds strong and deep relationships between students and educators. We must support our students as they lead the fight for justice in Baltimore because without their voices as Dr. King stated ‘justice too long delayed is justice denied.’ ”
In early July, BCPSS announced a proposed plan for re-opening schools in the fall. The plan for relaxing social distancing to only four feet and requiring face masks for all staff and students when buildings reopen. While the plan did allow for parents to opt for virtual learning if they chose to, the goal was to institute a hybrid model for older students with a rotating cycle of in-person and virtual learning while transitioning the youngest students to be entirely in-person. BTU raised strong concerns about the plan and the lack of precautions the District was taking. “The proposals should be way more heavily focused on protecting human life, not figuring out how we can get students in school buildings with relaxed social distancing,” said President Brown. A few days later, it was announced that school budgets would not increase in the new school year, despite rising costs due to the pandemic. “How do we meet the needs of students and create stability for the long term?” asked President Brown in a statement. Brown argued that the budget “is inadequate to address the historical neglect of the black community in Baltimore and the needs of the growing immigrant population.” She also called for the budget process to be more democratic, with more input from parents and teachers. On July 14th, BTU issued a joint statement with the Maryland State Education Association and the Maryland PTA calling on state officials to start the academic year in a virtual-only setting, due to the substantial dangers posed by the continuing COVID-19 pandemic. “It is more convenient to teach in person. However, right now it is not the safest way,” said President Brown at a joint press conference with the leaders of the other two organizations. Responding to claims that children may be less susceptible to COVID-19, the joint statement concludes, “Not only does this completely ignore the adults in schools who would undoubtedly have a higher rate of transmission and death, but it also presupposes that there is a number of deaths of students and educators that is acceptable. There is not.” The joint statement was part of a larger Safe Schools campaign being organized by BTU with the support of its community allies. Hundreds of rank and file BTU members volunteered to actively support the campaign in a variety of ways, creating an ad-hoc COVID-19 Task Force. The task force created an online petition in July calling for schools to remain virtual until it was safe to return to school in person which quickly garnered thousands of signatures. The petition included a detailed list of demands, divided into three categories:
- Providing high quality virtual learning in an equitable way (including free access to laptops and high-speed internet for all students and staff)
- Only reopening physical schools when active COVID cases had been reduced to near zero for a month, widespread rapid response testing and contract tracing was in place for staff, students, and families
- Adequate PPE, nursing and custodial staff, ventilation, spacing, and small class sizes that comply with CDC guidelines.
Although some of these demands would be revised as the pandemic took its course, making schools safe before physically reopening while also ensuring that students were given the best possible virtual education in the interim remained the goal. While elected leadership and BTU staff negotiated with the School District, the COVID-19 Task Force helped gather data, plan protests, forge connections with parents and community groups, contact School Board commissioners and other decision-makers, and promote the Safe Schools campaign on social media with hashtags like #OnlyWhenSafe, #SafeNotSilenced, and #MakeItMakeSense. Although the Task Force was disbanded in 2021, many of its members continued their work under the auspices of official BTU committees such as the Organizing Committee, the Communications Committee, and the Safety Committee. These rank and file members played a critical role in getting the union’s message out to the wider community. Teachers were often characterized as selfish by District leadership, politicians, and the media for wanting to delay the physical reopening of schools. BTU members used every tool at their disposal to communicate the data-driven reasons why BCPSS’ reopening plan posed a threat to the lives of students, families, and staff, and that teachers and PSRPs were also eager to return in person but only when it was safe to do so.
Bowing to public pressure and unable to ignore the worsening pandemic, District leaders postponed their reopening plans and classes remained virtual during the month of September 2020. Nonetheless, the District still planned to reopen some schools on a limited basis before the end of the Fall semester, a move that BTU considered premature, especially since the District had not implemented many of the safety precautions the union believed were necessary to make reopening safe. A September 1st email from President Brown to the membership stated, “Governor Hogan is offering a $10 million grant for districts that open school buildings at the same time as the start of the second wave of COVID-19, and Baltimore City Public Schools seems to be leaning towards embracing the Governor’s bribe.” Pointing out that this amount of money was completely insufficient to cover the estimated cost of reopening and that this was the same governor who vetoed billions of dollars of Kirwan education funding, President Brown urged the School Board to reject Hogan’s offer and focus on making schools safe. “We all want our children to thrive. But in order to do that, they need to survive this pandemic. Families, teachers, PSRPs, and community members see the threats to Baltimore’s children clearly because to us they are more than a test score.”
On September 30th, BTU and the Parent and Community Advisory Board (PCAB) staged a joint protest outside of School Board Headquarters at North Avenue, projecting the hashtag #safenotsilenced onto the wall of the building, and distributing blue and yellow masks with the same message written on it. The socially distanced protest featured passionate speeches from BTU members, parents, and students, and a dramatic “die in” to illustrate the factors that put many staff members and students at higher risk of COVID-related death. The protesters called for no return to in-person instruction for the rest of 2020.
“The district continues to refer to its reopening plan and safety guide when asked how they plan to protect the BCPSS community. Unfortunately, the celebrated reopening plans and safety guide are incomplete, everchanging, and not being implemented with fidelity”, said President Brown in a press release before the protest. “Until the district can show us that they can implement their own reopening plans and safety guidelines correctly, it’s still not safe.” Leaders of PCAB echoed this message, declaring “The Parent and Community Advisory Board for Baltimore City Public Schools demands that Baltimore City leadership rejects any plan that reopens schools for in-person learning while it’s still not safe…the safety and health of our children, families, teachers, and staff is non-negotiable.”
On October 14th, District leaders blindsided BTU members by announcing in the press its intention to begin bringing back some teachers and staff in-person within the next few weeks. District leaders did not communicate anything about this plan to school-based staff or even to BTU leadership until after it was already being publicized in the media. BTU responded by calling an emergency General Membership Meeting via Zoom. An email from the union to members explained, “This morning, BTU leadership learned that more members will be directed to return to work in school buildings with students. We learned this in the same way as many of you, by reading the Baltimore Sun…The emails you have sent to the board made a difference. If the school district could, they would send all of us back, but you speaking up prevented that. Now, they are trying to divide and conquer us, and subject even more BTU members, our students and their families to an unnecessary risk instead of taking the steps necessary to make virtual learning a success for all students and ensure everyone’s safety. We hope that you will join this important union meeting tonight.” The response from members was overwhelming. So many members joined the virtual meeting that the Zoom call exceeded its limit of 1,000 participants and some members were not able to get in. During the meeting, BTU leaders shared everything they know about the developing situation, reiterated the reasons why the union opposed the District’s reopening plan, and discussed ways that members could get involved. President Brown made it clear that she would support whatever the membership wanted to do. The call ended with breakout groups where members brainstormed a wide range of actions the union could take. The next day, BTU publicly reiterated their position that it was still not safe for a return to in-person instruction and urged parents not to send their children back in November, for their own safety as well as the safety of teachers and other school staff. “What we know is the buildings are not safe for our staff or students to be in at this time,” said President Brown, stating that the union “is prepared to take actions to continue to fight for the lives of our students and staff”. While some parents did opt to send their children back in November, the vast majority did not. Although parents were becoming increasingly overwhelmed with the challenges associated with keeping their children at home, the majority seemed to agree with BTU that it was not yet safe to return. BTU was also able to successfully insist that any teachers and instructional staff that returned in November would only do so on a purely voluntary basis and that no-one would be penalized for choosing to remain virtual. BTU closely monitored conditions in schools that had partially returned in-person, making recommendations and raising the alarm whenever health and safety protocols were violated. Meanwhile, the union continued to oppose any further reopening until at least the end of the first semester in January.
By the time January 2021 had rolled around, the conversation had shifted to the subject of vaccines. With the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines approved for emergency use, the union argued that it only made sense to wait until teachers have the opportunity to get vaccinated before returning to classrooms. The District’s plan was to start expanding in-person classes in elementary schools in mid-February, with middle and high school students beginning to return in March. Although some teachers started to receive their first COVID shot in January, there was a very long waiting list and it was clear that most teachers would not be fully vaccinated for months. While City Schools leaders admitted that they only expected 20% to 25% of families to elect to send their children into school buildings, they insisted on pushing forward with their plans. Most teachers disagreed with the decision. “We are on cusp of having vaccinations for teachers. I think a large portion of the teachers would be willing to go back if they are vaccinated with the second shot and have immunity,” said BTU member Ryan Kaiser, the district’s 2015 Teacher of the Year. BTU responded to the District’s announcement by announcing a car caravan protest to coincide with the February 3rd School Board meeting. On the morning of the day that the protest was to take place, School District officials announced that they were delaying the reopening plan by two weeks. Invigorated by this temporary reprieve, dozens of BTU members covered their cars with signs with messages like “Still Not Safe” and “We can’t teach if we’re dead” and circled the block surrounding School District Headquarters where Dr. Santelises was addressing the School Board. With a cacophony of blaring horns and traffic brought to a standstill, the protest was livestreamed on the internet and footage was broadcast on the evening news. Applauding the delay, the BTU called on school officials to take several actions to ensure in-person learning is safe, including:
- Make sure school staff is fully vaccinated before returning to their facility
- Complete all school ventilation upgrades
- Ensure that minimum health metrics (positivity rate and case rate) are reached for a week
- Establish a “robust, reliable and proactive” testing program for staff and students
“We want to make certain that all of our buildings have the proper ventilation upgrades. We want to make certain that all the staff that have to go into buildings–and the staff that are currently in the buildings–are fully vaccinated before bringing any more students or staff members back,” President Brown told the Baltimore Afro American. “We also want to make certain that there is increased transparency for community members, staff, and students.”
Shortly after the first wave of new students returned to classrooms in March 2021, pooled testing results revealed positive COVID cases among staff and students in 14 elementary schools. Students and staff in “pods” that tested positive were sent home to quarantine until they receive the results of individual tests. “That data alarms many members, especially those who are mandated back into buildings before completing their vaccine dose/s and waiting period since six additional grades are now slated to return on top of the current load,” BTU Vice President Corey Gaber told reporters. On March 18th, the District closed the Belair-Edison School after multiple cases of COVID were confirmed by testing. “It affirms that the district wasn’t ready to expand in-person learning as safely as it could,” said President Brown. For the remainder of the school year, BTU continued to monitor COVID testing and advocate for improved health and safety measures. By the end of the school year, most teachers were fully vaccinated. The large majority of them finished out the year teaching virtually. Of those who returned, many had volunteered to do so, although some were mandated to return. As summer finally rolled around, teachers breathed a sigh of relief. The union had succeeded to a large extent in pushing back on the District’s reckless initial plans and bought staff and students enough time to reduce the risks of reopening in person. The next school year would pose new challenges, as schools prepared to re-open at full capacity for the first time in a year and a half.
In August 2021, teachers ratified a contract that included a 4.5% pay increase over two years, improved benefits and a laptop provided by the school district. The agreement provided for the largest increase in pay in a decade and protections for health benefits. The contract also included health and safety measures for the coming school year. The union also asked for improvements to school facilities, including better HVAC systems, but was unable to get that language into the contract. “We didn’t win everything we came to the table to fight for, so we will continue fighting for what we deserve, because when we fight, we win,” President Brown said in a statement.
As schools resumed, many educators expressed concern that social distancing and other mitigation measures were not being implemented well enough. The first week of COVID testing showed 26 students and 12 employees testing positive for the virus. “I think there’s a lot of mixed emotions about how we’re starting off the school year,” President Brown told the Baltimore Sun. “There’s a consensus on the fact that we all feel the school board and district leadership could have been better prepared. But at the same time, everyone is expecting us to bite the bullet and figure it out.” One element of the District’s policy for the new school year was to implement a vaccine mandate for all school employees. The policy was to be negotiated with the union, which was not opposed to a mandate in principle but had concerns about how it would be enforced. The vaccine deadline was initially set for November 1st, but school officials postponed it to give staff more time to complete their vaccinations. BTU agreed with the delay. “Given the extraordinary shortfalls in staffing for substitute teachers and other positions, we are concerned that haphazard implementation would leave schools dangerously understaffed despite having the highest vaccination rates in the state, as well as a far more rigorous testing program than exists in any other large Maryland district,” said BTU Vice President Zach Taylor.
In December a new wave of COVID-19 caused a massive upsurge in infections. The highly contagious omicron variant had brought Maryland’s average positivity rate to upwards of 12%, and it was widely feared that that number would increase over the winter holidays. Faced with this tremendous intensification of COVID-19 transmissions” within schools and in the wider community, on December 22nd, BTU called on District leaders to close all school buildings and return to virtual instruction through January 7th. “A school-by-school, wait-and-see approach creates crises in schools and confusion across the district,” Brown stated in a letter. “We need district-wide action now.” The student group SOMOS, echoed the call for returning virtual learning. The union also called for staff and students to be tested before returning to school in January, in case they were infected over the holidays. Although District leadership refused to return to virtual learning, they did agree to extend winter break by two days to allow for testing. However, the results of those tests would not be ready by the time students returned, potentially exposing thousands of students to infection. President Brown said the plan to reopen schools without ensuring everyone tests negative “is a fundamental failure.” “Maddeningly, this will lead to less in-person learning and more disjointed instruction due to staffing shortages and half-full classrooms as students are quarantined and parents opt to protect their children by keeping them home,” Brown said. The Parent Community Advisory Board also called for a delay. BTU held a press conference in January 2022, again urging the District to return to virtual learning until more testing could be conducted. “Basic safety measures need to be in place,” said BTU member Amber Phelps at the conference. Phelps had tested positive for COVID in December. “Basic safety measures need to be in place,” Phelps said. BTU also announced that it had already collected 13,000 masks as part of a campaign it was launching to gather protective gear for schools. When the test results came in, they revealed that thousands of students and staff may have been infected with COVID-19. On January 10th, the District announced it was closing 57 of its 155 schools. Teachers and students at those schools would switch to virtual learning. “This last-second announcement is voluntary chaos,” said President Brown. “Had the district chosen to follow the BTU’s plan, we would already know more fully who is positive, be ready to return in person, wouldn’t have needlessly spread the virus and would have given parents time to plan”.
On May 25th, 2022, BTU President Diamonté Brown was re-elected in a landslide, receiving nearly 74% of the vote over opponent Harry Preston. Brown’s slate swept the Teacher Chapter Executive Board, while picking up three seats on the PSRP Executive Board. Brown’s slate also won all 71 spots on BTU’s delegation to the 2022 AFT convention in Boston. With 1,818 members voting in the election, it was the highest turnout for a BTU officer election in over 20 years. More than two thirds of voters cast mail-in ballots, an option that was not available to most members in previous elections.
As another school year came to an end, BTU members looked ahead to the challenges of the next year. Reports in August 2022 showed a large number of teacher vacancies. President Brown blamed the District’s hiring process. “A lot of people want to work for Baltimore City Public Schools, but because whatever systems are in place, and our district makes it so difficult to actually become a hire, we end up losing a lot of people that would be working here,” Brown told reporters. BTU continued their mask drive over the summer, securing donations of 40,000 KN95 masks in August to be distributed to teachers, staff and students. “Masks are going to be a constant need, like composition books and pencils,” said Cristina Duncan Evans, teacher chapter chair for BTU. “They’ll protect everyone from COVID, flu and other infectious diseases,” she said. “If they’re offered, a lot of teachers and students will wear them.” Masks would be optional in the upcoming school year, one of many examples of how schools across Maryland planned to relax COVID safety protocols. Baltimore City remained the only jurisdiction that planned to continue regular in-school screening of asymptomatic staff and students, a practice that BTU fought for. However, testing would now only occur biweekly and contact tracing was to be discontinued.
In September, the shooting death of a Merganthaler Vo-Tech student led to calls by BTU and others for more conflict resolution in schools. President Brown said the emphasis should be on creating lasting mental health supports in schools, rather than focusing on increased security or punishment. “It’s difficult to value others when you aren’t able to see value in yourself,” she said. The previous year Baltimore City Council, at the urging of BTU and other organizations, passed the Elijah Cummings Healing City Act, which created a program to train city employees in trauma informed care techniques. “These moments of tragedy give you an opportunity to pause and refocus,” said City Councilmember Zeke Cohen. “We need to make this an urgent priority.”
In November 2022, voters elected two new members of the School Board. BTU-endorsed candidate Ashley Esposito and BTU member and Patterson High School teacher Kwame Kenyatta-Bey beat out several other candidates to become the first elected commissioners of what had been an all-appointed board. BTU had strongly advocated for the School Board to be at least partially elected. Both new commissioners pledged to be a voice for all stakeholders, including teachers and PSRPs.
A new study by a local nonprofit organization found that teachers reported being overworked at “unsustainable” levels as they attempted to recover from challenges exacerbated by the pandemic. Educators reported being asked to do unmanageable amounts of work with not enough time and said that expectations from administrators and District leaders were unrealistic. The report was released the day after the BTU called on the School Board for an increase in pay. “What’s keeping educators here when they can earn more money under significantly better working conditions in another district?” asked BTU member Nathan Ferrell. On December 14th, the Baltimore Sun reported that Baltimore has the lowest salaries for teachers with a master’s degree, averaging $64,405 in 2020–an 11.4% decrease from 2010. Starting salaries for Baltimore City teachers with bachelor’s degrees had also fallen behind those in other districts. “It’s a sign that our district has not put much effort in competing with other counties”, said BTU Teacher Chapter Chair Cristina Duncan Evans. “We’ve been fighting with the district to increase salaries for beginning teachers, but they haven’t made that a priority. It’s a position that impacts our students.” Another report in February 2023 showed that the teacher shortage had also extended to substitute teachers, who were increasingly hard to find since the start of the pandemic. The District had begun to hire virtual substitutes who connect with students in a physical classroom via Zoom but this created some problems. “Some of our paraprofessionals have concerns because they have been left with the class when the virtual sub goes into a breakout room with the students who are listening,” said Duncan Evans.
BTU raised concerns over a four-day summer programming schedule implemented by the district in 2023. In a statement, President Brown said that the shortened schedule was yet another example of the district’s failure to carry out its core functions. Pay raises were not processed on time at the start of the 2022-23 school year, she said, and there was a lack of communication with educators applying for summer jobs. “Students deserve high-quality and consistent summer programming,” Brown said in the statement. “We call on City Schools, City
Council, and the Mayor’s Office to work together to ensure every student has access to safe and engaging summer programming.”
On October 25th, District leadership voted to unilaterally decertify the compensation system tied to Achievement Units (AUs) and career pathways for the 2024-2025 school year. “The district’s action to decertify our pay structure is chaotic and disorganized, as they do not yet have a clear plan for next steps, they have not meaningfully collaborated with the BTU, nor have they received clear guidance from the State on the new legal requirements for a career ladder option.”, said BTU Teacher Chapter Treasurer Zach Taylor in an email to members the next day. Taylor explained that the teacher contract stipulates that under these circumstances the existing pay scale was to be converted into a traditional salary scale with no loss of salary or benefits. Taylor went on to state that District leadership took this action to push forward a premature career ladder aligned with the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future. The Blueprint required all school systems to create a career ladder by 2024-2025 that offers new leadership opportunities and increased compensation for National Board Certification. However, the new career ladder would need to be collectively bargained with the union and there is nothing that prevented the District from offering the AU/pathway structure as long as the new requirements were also met. “Our demands regarding a new pay structure will come from the membership, as we work to correct historic inequities in our current system,” wrote Taylor.
In May 2024, BCPSS began rolling out a new $5.4 million artificial intelligence-based weapon detection system called EVOLV. Many Baltimore teachers and students remained skeptical, questioning its effectiveness, its cost, and its potential negative impact on students. “I think that we have kind of normalized the process of invasive screenings.”, BTU Teacher Chapter Chair Cristina Duncan Evans told reporters. And it’s fair to bring up concerns that it’s not an appropriate interaction to have with students.”
BTU filed a grievance in June 2024 over the District’s decision not to honor continuing education credits earned by teachers from online coursework through Idaho State University, claiming that the courses were not sufficiently rigorous. The District’s action came after the courses had already been pre-approved as eligible for AUs. “This unilateral and retroactive change is a naked attempt to discourage staff from accessing our well-established system to take college courses and advance intervals on our career pathways”, the union wrote in an email to members on June 4th.
The School Board signed a one year contract renewal with CEO Dr. Sonja Santelises on June 12th, 2024. BTU members packed the Board meeting to protest chronic problems with late payments and recent contract violations. President Brown did not express strong opinions one way or another about the contract extension. “We’re more interested in what the board is using the one-year extension for,” Brown said. “We hope it’s for a national search.” BTU had been urging the School Board to embark on a transparent national search for the most qualified candidate to replace Santelises rather than making a backroom deal behind closed doors. On July 16th, BTU members rallied outside the BCPSS headquarters to reiterate their demand for a national search. “We want an explicit statement from our school board that tells us that they are going to give us a national, transparent, public search,” said President Brown. BTU Member Engagement Specialist Nathan Ferrell, said a national search would be an opportunity for the School Board to correct past wrongs, such as violating the state Open Meetings Act and failing to hold listening sessions with Baltimore families. “Baltimore City’s [school] board hid the last search from the public entirely and appears poised to repeat the same mistake,” Ferrell said.
On November 13th, Baltimore City Schools CEO Sonja Santelises committed to spending $50 million to replace over 7,500 door locks in schools all over the District. BTU members had pushed the District to make such a commitment, giving testimony in support of the move at School Board meetings. Doors that lock from the inside had been identified as a safety priority by members of BTU’s Organizing Committee. However, after the Trump administration decided in April 2025 to eliminate federal funds related to pandemic relief, Dr. Santelises announced that the lock replacement initiative would be put on hold.
Following months of stalled negotiations and with the threat of losing millions of dollars in future funds through the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future, BTU and the School Board ratified a two year contract in December 2024. The agreement included a 3% base increase in salary each year and an additional increase for teachers with master’s degrees. The contract meets the Blueprint’s requirements for funding, as the new career ladder includes leadership roles and opportunities for career advancement without leaving the classroom. The contract includes “real-time compensation” for coursework and additional roles and responsibilities that teachers take, along with increased compensation for teachers with National Board Certification (dependent on funding from the state). Any remaining AUs that teachers have pending would be converted to cash payments. 52% of Teacher Chapter members voted on the contract, with 99% of them voting in favor.
As we look back at the first 90 years of the Baltimore Teachers Union, there is a great deal for union members to be proud of. The seven daring educators who signed their name to local 340’s charter application in 1934 could scarcely have imagined the fruits that would grow from the seed they had planted. Through struggle, dedication, and solidarity, educators in Baltimore have overcome challenge after challenge to build a union that would become a strong voice for over 8,000 teachers, PSRPs, and Related Service Providers. While many more challenges lie ahead, there is much reason to be hopeful for what we can achieve in the next 90 years.
APPENDIX: HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS
Local 115 Charter Application (1919)
Local 340 Charter Application (1934)
Letter from Kenneth Douty to AFT on Socialist Party letterhead (1934)
The Baltimore Teacher newsletter (1940-1979)
Posters advertising BTU speaking events (1941)
American Teacher article about 1967 BTU strike – Page 1
American Teacher article about 1967 BTU strike – Page 2
Article about firing of Jody Johns (1967)
American Teacher article about Jody Johns winning job back (1968)
Article about BTU getting playgrounds reopened (1968)
Planned Effective Educational Change pamphlet (1969)
American Teacher article about 1974 strike
Article about attempt to unify BTU and PSTA (1974)
The United Teacher (1975) – Page 1
The United Teacher (1975) – Page 2
The United Teacher (1975) – Page 3
The United Teacher (1975) – Page 4
The United Teacher (1975) – Page 5
Letter to Albert Shanker about de-chartering BTU (1976) – Page 1
Letter to Albert Shanker about de-chartering BTU (1976) – Page 2
“In Case You’ve Forgotten” pamphlet (1976)
Press release announcing BTU regaining bargaining rights (1978) – Page 1
Press release announcing BTU regaining bargaining rights (1978) – Page 2
Golden Anniversary Ball program (1984)
Press release announcing new contract (1989)
BTU News Flash about EAI (1992)
American Teacher article about EAI (1994)
Speech by Albert Shanker at 1995 QuEST Conference
BTU contracts archived by the Kheel Center for Labor-Management Documentation at Cornell University:
1980-1982 (Paraprofessional Unit)
1982-1984 (Paraprofessional Unit)
1984-1986 (Paraprofessional Unit)
1986-1988 (Paraprofessional Unit)
1988-1990 (Paraprofessional Unit)
1993 Addendum (Paraprofessional Unit)