While media attention was (and is) still being showered on the unfortunate situation in Central Falls, Providence Public Schools’ superintendent Tom Brady announced the plans for the 5 schools targeted for reform by the state’s turnaround list. Four of the schools–Charlotte B. Woods Elementary, Lillian Feinstein Elementary @ Sackett St., Roger Williams Middle School, and Cooley Health, Science, and Technology High School–have been slated for a unique approach to the “restart” option. Feinstein High School will be closed, as it was also recommended for closure based on the “facilities master plan.” Without delving into the legitimate concerns people have raised about the decision to close down Feinstein HS given its relatively strong academic outcomes as compared to other Providence public high schools, I want to reflect quickly upon the “restart” recommendations put forward for each of the other four schools.
My next RTTT analysis post will go into more detail about the various school turnaround models promoted by RTTT. But, the “restart” option is actually in the RTTT initiative as an avenue for charter schools and other outside education management entities to enter into and take over district schools. This is how most everyone has framed the “restart” option. Kudos to RIDE, PPSD, and the PTU for seeing in this model a different possibility, one that maintains schools as part of the district and secures teachers’ jobs, but that also enables dramatic reforms. Changes that will benefit students, like extended learning time, common and collaborative teacher planning time, and more effective (and hopefully informative) teacher evaluation practices, are on the table at these Providence schools and have the support of both teachers and administration. As Central Falls taught us, this is no small feat.
Now, labor-management tensions and battles make for news headlines. Meanwhile, when labor and management come together to respectfully engage their differences and move forward based on their common interests–in this case hopefully the education of students (naively hopeful, perhaps)–the news gets buried. The diligent planning and engagement process orchestrated by the Providence Public Schools to come a decision regarding these changes should be lauded for its focus on compromise and collaboration between the teachers’ union and the district.
Such arrangements, which deviate from the main collective bargaining agreement with the consent of the teachers who work at a particular school site are the basis for promising school management models found in both Boston and New York City (amongst other places, I’m sure). In Boston, the Boston Teachers Union worked with the district to create a collection of “pilot” schools at which teachers, who would remain full dues-paying BTU members, would negotiate school-based work agreements that could deviate from the main contract. Similarly, there are a set of schools in New York City that are district schools, but with “School-Based Options” (SBO) that take effect when a 55% majority of the school-based union chapter agrees to specific contract modifications. At the school I taught in, for example, we would vote every year to maintain our practice of weekly faculty meetings, over and above the monthly meetings required by the contract. We did this not for additional pay, for there was none, but because we believed that in order to run a more effective school we should be communicating and learning together as an entire faculty at least on a weekly basis. In part, these innovative arrangements were established in the mid-1990s to stave off an influx of charter school operators who would have operated outside of teacher union and district purview, draining members and money from the union and district. The PPSD/PTU take on the “restart” option offered by the state seems to follow in the same vein, perhaps representing a back door opening to an opportunity for Providence “pilot/SBO” schools.
I do not want for a minute to take away from the significance of what seems like cordial relations between these two parties, and I am actually hopeful that this newfound collaborative spirit will result in better schools for students. BUT, and you know there is always a “but,” I also see an opportunity here that doesn’t seem to be on the table. Look at it this way: if the picture has been painted as a labor-management collaboration, what major stakeholder group is missing? Students and students’ families. If Providence is going to use the “restart” model as a way to innovate new labor-management relations, why not also see it as a way to authentically engage and empower parents, students, and other community-based stakeholders as leaders and decision-makers alongside the education professionals? As long as we’re exploring the possibilities of new leadership and management models, why not push the envelope and truly empower some indigenous leadership (because, let’s face it, most teachers and administrators are NOT from the communities in which they teach and lead)? So, while I applaud the collaborative efforts that seem to be moving forward, I strongly urge district officials and teachers to be even more forward thinking and seek out parent, student, and community-based leadership that will help them build and sustain the wonderful schools our city’s children so desperately need, desire, and deserve.
The ProJo called the union-management collaboration “revolutionary” for Providence, but I’ll believe that when I see these same educational leaders genuinely look to parents, students, and everyday community members for leadership and guidance. When all of these stakeholders have equal power and say in what goes on in our schools, then maybe we can start talking about an educational revolution. Until then, it’s up to those of us who are and/or work with parents, youth, and community-based organizations to stake our claim and our right to have control over our public education system.
