“We took on the cor­po­rate giants and won,” said Con­cord teacher Mer­rie Najimy, pres­i­dent of her local union. ​“We did it the old-fash­ioned way, by orga­niz­ing and build­ing relationships.”

One of a few sil­ver lin­ings in an oth­er­wise doom-and-gloom Elec­tion Day was in Mass­a­chu­setts — where, despite being out­spent by cor­po­rate edu­ca­tion reform­ers, a teacher-led coali­tion beat back char­ter school expansion.

An exist­ing cap lim­its Mass­a­chu­setts to 120 total char­ter schools, and lim­its their num­ber and fund­ing per dis­trict. More char­ter spend­ing is allowed in ​“under­per­form­ing” districts.

Although the state isn’t close to its over­all cap, many large and urban dis­tricts have hit their lim­its, includ­ing Boston, Spring­field, Worch­ester, Lawrence, Holyoke, and Low­ell. Already the state has pro­ject­ed that its pub­lic schools will lose $450 mil­lion to char­ters in 2017.

Ques­tion 2 would have lift­ed the cap and allowed up to 12 new char­ter schools each year — open­ing the flood­gates to pri­va­tize pub­lic edu­ca­tion. But vot­ers said no, 62 to 38 percent.

This was the state’s most expen­sive bal­lot mea­sure, with $40 mil­lion spent in all. The pro-char­ter side spent $24 mil­lion, includ­ing $2 mil­lion from the Wal­ton fam­i­ly, $500,000 from for­mer New York City May­or Michael Bloomberg, and $15 mil­lion from the pro-char­ter group Fam­i­lies for Excel­lent Schools. Local state banks and cor­po­ra­tions chipped in $500,000; indi­vid­ual hedge fund man­agers and cor­po­rate heads, $1 million.

Unions were the main source of fund­ing for the oppo­si­tion. The statewide Mass­a­chu­setts Teach­ers Asso­ci­a­tion put up more than $7 mil­lion, its nation­al union (NEA) gave $5 mil­lion, and the AFT, which rep­re­sents Boston teach­ers, gave $2 million.

But coun­ter­ing the deep pock­ets of the measure’s cor­po­rate back­ers was going to take more than glossy mail­ers and com­mer­cials. Pres­i­dent Bar­bara Made­loni and allies on the union’s board and in the Edu­ca­tors for a Demo­c­ra­t­ic Union (EDU) cau­cus argued for a grass­roots effort from rank-and-file teach­ers. Teacher del­e­gates endorsed the plan at their May annu­al meeting.

When we fight, we win

The No on 2 cam­paign reflects a sea change in the union’s mode of oper­a­tion. Faced with sim­i­lar attacks before, MTA had tak­en a dif­fer­ent path.

In 2012, the nation­al edu­ca­tion reform group Stand for Chil­dren insert­ed itself into Mass­a­chu­setts pol­i­tics, demand­ing that leg­is­la­tors reform teach­ers’ col­lec­tive bar­gain­ing or face a more restric­tive bal­lot initiative.

Leg­is­la­tors and the union sup­port­ed a back­door com­pro­mise, agree­ing to base teacher lay­offs on eval­u­a­tions rather than seniority.

Out­raged at this move, rank-and-file teach­ers and local pres­i­dents formed the EDU cau­cus and sup­port­ed Madeloni’s suc­cess­ful run for statewide pres­i­dent.

Once elect­ed, Made­loni and allies fought to change the MTA’s approach. They argued that fight­ing out­right to defend the char­ter cap, rather than seek­ing a com­pro­mise with their attack­ers, was the best way to defeat the effort — and to build the union.

“This time we said, ​‘We are going to fight, and we have to involve mem­bers. You are not going to win with­out the mem­bers,’” said MTA board mem­ber Dan Clawson.

The fight pro­duced a quick polit­i­cal turn­around. In Feb­ru­ary, Ques­tion 2 was polling with more than 50 per­cent sup­port — but in Novem­ber, it went down to resound­ing defeat. ​“We thought the char­ter schools were unstop­pable,” Claw­son said. ​“As a result of this we are much stronger than we were before.”

Hit­ting the doors

As in many cam­paigns, the key was teach­ers and allies knock­ing on doors. They talked to vot­ers about why lift­ing the char­ter cap would divert much-need­ed funds from pub­lic schools and weak­en demo­c­ra­t­ic con­trol over education.

This was a big step for the statewide union’s 110,000 mem­bers, who weren’t used to grass­roots orga­niz­ing and activism. Till now, those who did vol­un­teer in polit­i­cal cam­paigns were typ­i­cal­ly phone bank­ing for can­di­dates — rather than for an issue impor­tant to them and their union.

EDU played a key role in dri­ving MTA mem­bers across the state into the No on 2 cam­paign. Cau­cus mem­bers put on hold their oth­er pri­or­i­ties — run­ning for union lead­er­ship spots, push­ing res­o­lu­tions inside the union — to focus on get­ting mem­bers involved to fight the bal­lot mea­sure. They orga­nized can­vass­es after EDU meet­ings and drove turnout in their own locals.

On top of mem­ber par­tic­i­pa­tion, coali­tion work was essen­tial to the win. More than 200 local school boards sided with MTA and No on 2. The Save Our Pub­lic Schools coali­tion includ­ed the NAACP, par­ent groups, politi­cians, a vari­ety of com­mu­ni­ty groups, and unions.

Keep the cap

The mes­sage of cor­po­rate-backed char­ter boost­ers, includ­ing the state’s Repub­li­can gov­er­nor, was that lift­ing the cap would help stu­dents in the dis­tricts where char­ter expan­sion has hit its ceil­ing — giv­ing par­ents more choic­es to get their kids off char­ter wait­ing lists and out of fail­ing pub­lic schools.

Teach­ers and allies had to dis­pel a dis­hon­est mes­sage. For one thing, it’s mis­lead­ing to add up the num­ber of stu­dents on char­ter school wait­ing lists as proof of the char­ters’ pop­u­lar­i­ty. A stu­dent can be on mul­ti­ple wait­ing lists at one time, or even enrolled in one char­ter and on a wait­ing list on anoth­er. Boston’s pub­lic schools have wait­ing lists, too.

And out­side of the large urban dis­tricts that are already feel­ing the char­ter threat, MTA had to con­nect the issue to sub­ur­ban teach­ers. Though the imme­di­ate impact would be felt in areas like Boston, the cap pro­tects all dis­tricts. Lift­ing it would make any dis­trict vul­ner­a­ble, if char­ter com­pa­nies decid­ed to set their sights there in the future.

“We won’t get a char­ter school in Con­cord because [the dis­trict] isn’t under­per­form­ing,” Najimy said. ​“But they could come in with a char­ter that offers a for­eign-lan­guage pro­gram” to lure par­ents and stu­dents in more afflu­ent districts.

And while 12 schools per year may not seem like a lot, a 1 per­cent enroll­ment increase at char­ter schools per year could trans­form the state in a decade.

A drain on pub­lic schools

MTA mem­bers focused their con­ver­sa­tions on why the bud­get impact on pub­lic schools is far big­ger than the num­ber of stu­dents who opt out. The mon­ey does fol­low each stu­dent — but that doesn’t fac­tor in the over­head and oper­at­ing costs it takes to run a school or a district.

In cities with many char­ter schools, the pub­lic schools and char­ters com­pete for stu­dents and funds. If pub­lic school enroll­ment drops, the bud­get shrinks so much that the dis­trict lays off teach­ers, expands class sizes, or even clos­es entire schools.

Mil­wau­kee was one of the first cities where pri­vate char­ter schools took root 20 years ago. Since then the dis­trict has lost 44 per­cent of the pub­lic school stu­dent population.

“As char­ter schools expand­ed, our union did not draw a hard line in the sand,” spe­cial edu­ca­tion teacher Amy Mizialko, vice pres­i­dent of the Mil­wau­kee teach­ers union, recent­ly wrote for Labor Notes. ​“It didn’t occur to us in the 1990s and 2000s that we could lose stu­dents on this scale. But that’s changed as we’ve watched the sys­tem­at­ic pri­va­ti­za­tion of schools not only here, but in New Orleans, Philadel­phia, Bridge­port, Detroit, Mem­phis, Atlanta, Lit­tle Rock, and Newark.”

Mizialko wrote that the lat­est leg­isla­tive attempt to hand up to three schools a year over to pri­va­tiz­ers would have pushed Mil­wau­kee ​“dan­ger­ous­ly near a tip­ping point to the planned extinc­tion of our school dis­trict.” Through school-site and dis­trictwide protests, the teach­ers fought it off.

In Mass­a­chu­setts, when even a sin­gle char­ter school came to the town of Hull 12 years ago, said teacher and local pres­i­dent Deb­o­rah McCarthy, ​“we began to expe­ri­ence a bud­get short­fall as a result of mon­ey being diverted.”

Boston isn’t the only dis­trict where the pub­lic schools are under-resourced, McCarthy said. ​“You hear all the time, ​‘This is about the urban schools,’” she said. ​“It’s not true. We don’t have a librar­i­an. Our stu­dents aren’t being ser­viced for their emo­tion­al needs.”

Teach­ers point­ed out that Mass­a­chu­setts schools are under­fund­ed by $1 bil­lion — and argued that the real rem­e­dy is increase fund­ing and resources for all pub­lic schools.

To dri­ve home the real­i­ty that Ques­tion 2’s effects would be felt beyond the urban dis­tricts, MTA pro­duced an inter­ac­tive online map show­ing how much mon­ey each dis­trict was already los­ing to char­ter schools.

“The most per­sua­sive argu­ment was, ​‘This is tak­ing mon­ey out of your pub­lic schools, and [lift­ing the cap] will take even more mon­ey out of your pub­lic schools,” Made­loni said.

One-on-one con­ver­sa­tions

Recruit­ing teach­ers to can­vass was a chal­lenge for the union. But when teach­ers did come out, they were warm­ly received at the doors.

“We got such affir­ma­tion,” Najimy said. ​“This proved to teach­ers that we are respect­ed, that we are the voice of author­i­ty. Every­body is ask­ing the teach­ers how we should vote on this. That moti­vates peo­ple to do more.”

Teach­ers were encour­aged to orga­nize house meet­ings. McCarthy orga­nized a polit­i­cal forum, invit­ing can­di­dates run­ning for state office.

She also vis­it­ed her district’s three schools to talk with mem­bers there; held a ​“No on 2” sign at busy inter­sec­tions; gave out but­tons, bumper stick­ers, and yard signs; phone banked; and door knocked.

“It’s out of my com­fort zone,” McCarthy said, but ​“I think of oth­ers who have gone before me in fights for racial equal­i­ty. My kids in my class­room are worth fight­ing for.”

MTA’s ear­ly coali­tion work pro­duced some key polit­i­cal endorse­ments from Democ­rats, who are often open to sup­port­ing char­ter schools. Gen­er­al­ly pro-char­ter Boston May­or Mar­ti Walsh came out against lift­ing the cap. Sen­a­tors Eliz­a­beth War­ren and Bernie Sanders gave the cam­paign a pro­gres­sive boost.

Activists cred­it the grass­roots out­reach for sway­ing these leg­is­la­tors. ​“They are com­ing to us on our terms, instead of them expect­ing us to come to them and throw­ing us crumbs,” Najimy said. ​“Crumbs aren’t good enough for our kids.”

Eye of the storm

In Boston — by far the state’s most pop­u­lous city, and with the most char­ters — it wasn’t such a hard a lift to con­vey the urgency of the bal­lot mea­sure, said Jes­si­ca Tang, the orga­niz­ing direc­tor for the Boston Teach­ers Union. BTU is part of AFT, but worked in coor­di­na­tion with the NEA-affil­i­at­ed MTA.

“The heart of the issue is fund­ing. We already lose half of state aid to 19 char­ter schools,” Tang said. ​“It’s also about equi­ty. We serve a dif­fer­ent pop­u­la­tion of stu­dents than char­ters. We have two times the stu­dents with severe dis­abil­i­ties. We have more Eng­lish lan­guage learn­ers. We have stu­dents who have just come into our dis­trict, speak­ing zero English.”

Boston’s char­ter schools are plagued with high sus­pen­sion rates. Amid ris­ing nation­wide scruti­ny of how sus­pen­sions and dis­ci­plines tar­get stu­dents of col­or, par­ents and activists are see­ing in a new light the ​“no excus­es” poli­cies that char­ter schools often tout.

Lift­ing the char­ter cap would also have under­mined local con­trol, Tang said. ​“We will have no say in where new char­ter schools will go,” she said. ​“That’s hard when we do long-term planning.”

The No on 2 cam­paign con­tin­ued Boston’s ongo­ing fight for fund­ing. Sup­port­ed by teach­ers, stu­dents walked out of schools in March and May to protest bud­get cuts. On Octo­ber 6, teach­ers, par­ents, and stu­dents held ​“walk-ins” at 115 schools around the city to draw atten­tion to the No On 2 campaign.

Already-active par­ents stepped up to counter the pro-char­ter mis­in­for­ma­tion, Tang said. Par­ents start­ed a hash­tag, #vis­i­tusChar­lie—refer­ring to the pro-Ques­tion 2 gov­er­nor who claimed to care about Boston stu­dents — and cir­cu­lat­ed online peti­tions against the measure.

The week before the elec­tion, 100 Boston teach­ers plus teach­ers from neigh­bor­ing dis­tricts joined a day of phone bank­ing and canvassing.

“We’ve had so many teach­ers say this is the first time they’ve phone banked,” Tang said. Though char­ter sup­port­ers dom­i­nat­ed in radio and TV ads, she said, ​“our teach­ers on the ground have been spread­ing the word.”

Next steps

Next, Mass­a­chu­setts teach­ers locals and their coali­tion plan to fight for fair­er eval­u­a­tions and increased state fund­ing. ​“Once we win this fight, we stick togeth­er to start to tack­le the oth­ers,” Najimy said.

The No on 2 vic­to­ry offers a ray of hope to union mem­bers and pub­lic edu­ca­tion activists, even as they grap­ple with the news of Trump’s pres­i­den­tial win. Build­ing pow­er local­ly will help not just on the statewide edu­ca­tion fights, Made­loni points out, but also in the big picture.

“It’s real­ly impor­tant that we did this work to beat Ques­tion 2, because we need what we built to face the next few years,” Made­loni said. ​“It would have been even scari­er if Trump had been elect­ed and we had not done this work.

“Work­ers would be alone and alien­at­ed from know­ing them­selves as pow­er­ful. That’s the thing we are say­ing to our­selves and to our coali­tion part­ners: ​‘We are lucky to have some­thing to build from.’”