Tangled Finances and the Ed. Partnership's Demise

It appears that the collapse of the Education Partnership may have more to it than a drying up of revenue:

The Education Partnership, an advocacy organization backed by local businesses, went into receivership last month, in part because several contracts to produce research and reports for municipalities and school districts fell through, said Shine. He was appointed permanent receiver by the court yesterday after serving as temporary receiver since June 18. At the hearing, Shine gave an update to the judge on what he has discovered about the organization's finances.

Shine said that money from different sources — including federal grants earmarked for specific programs, grants from private sources and scholarship money — apparently was mingled with the Education Partnership's operational expenses. "There were no separate escrow accounts," Shine said.

The "mingled" finances may or may not have been the underlying sickness that led to the Partnership's demise, but it certainly would have been in the best interests of those counting on the group, especially scholarship recipients, had the money set aside for their benefit been, well, set aside. A failure to receive "contracts to produce research and reports for municipalities and school districts" shouldn't have affected dedicated revenue streams, although it would be interesting to know the story behind the loss of those contracts.

Rhode Island High School Capstone Projects Lauded

I missed this (and this) back in May (h/t Matt J.), but it's worth noting that RI's compulsory High School Capstone Projects are being eyeballed across the country, according to a ProJo report about a symposium convened to discuss RI's program.

Some states are considering the merits of adding such student exhibitions to their own graduation requirements, relying less on standardized tests that in some cases have done little to improve student performance or better prepare graduates for life after high school. In Massachusetts, for example, a study released last month found that thousands of high school graduates arrive at college unable to do the work required of them, despite having passed the state MCAS exam.

***

“I believe Rhode Island is the wave of the future,” said Ray Pechone, co-executive director of the School Redesign Network at Stanford University and former head of curriculum and teacher assessment for the Connecticut State Department of Education. “The state is really a pioneer.”

How often do we here that!? To continue.....

Pechone said that 27 states use portfolios or projects as part of their diploma system, but usually as an alternative to traditional measures such as test scores. Another 23 states use “high-stakes tests” to determine whether a student should graduate.

Rhode Island, in contrast, uses three measures: grades from four years of classes; results from standardized tests administered in October of junior year; and “performance-based assessments,” such as portfolios, senior project or end-of-course exams.

Education commissioner Peter McWalters, who came in for high praise amongst this group, spoke to the symposium:

“The exhibition movement isn’t new,” McWalters told the audience in his introductory remarks. Elite private schools had a history of requiring seniors to recite Greek and Latin and prove their mastery of subjects prior to graduation, for example. Standardized testing is most valuable “as a dipstick, a barometer,” of how both students and schools are doing, but should not be used as the sole factor for graduating, McWalters said.

“Do these kids, when we say they are proficient, do they have a deep understanding? Does that understanding show up when they land in college or the work force? Because it all means nothing if they end up at the community college needing remedial courses. That has to be our final measure of how well this new system works — where do they land after high school?”

What makes Rhode Island stand out is that all three elements are considered essential and that students are expected to complete work in all three areas, Pechone said.

“Rhode Island is using good, New England, old-fashioned common sense in recognizing that four years of courses and grades and tests should count for something,” Pechone said.

Confession: I don't have kids old enough to go through this, but as Justin pointed out back in March, expanding the basis for evaluation in this way seems like a good idea all around. I don't know if these individualized presentations can be used to evaluate the overall ability of a school and its staff, but I think that there is more to performing an adequate school evaluation than the application of some rather broad labels (though they were a good start) and maybe the performance of students on these projects can be added to that mix.

By the way, the article also points out that the symposium was hosted by the Coalition of Essential Schools, who have promoted innovative pedagogy throughout the country for many years. CES is affiliated with a few schools in Rhode Island and a whole host of public and charter schools in various states.

The Northern Rhode Island "Democrats For School Choice" Ride Again!

A year ago it was North Providence interim-Mayor John Sisto who was the honorary chair of the movement to allow relatives of Rhode Island pols to attend the public school of their choice, free of charge. This election cycle, according to a Gerry Goldstein report in this week's Valley Breeze, it looks like Smithfield Town Council President Stephen Archambault will be leading the charge…

With the campaign barely under way as both parties were readying to file their endorsed slates, the Republicans issued a press release Tuesday, June 24, saying that an investigation has revealed that "two nephews and one niece of Town Council President Archambault have been illicitly attending school in Smithfield for the last eight years"....

Archambault said it has always been his understanding that while the students involved did indeed have partial residence in another town, they live the majority of their time in Smithfield.

He said he recalls that the children's mother, his sister, explained the situation to the School Department eight years ago and that any complications seemed to be resolved....

He confirmed that the School Department investigated after receiving an e-mail tip, and that the evidence gathered indicated a student or students "may not be living in Smithfield."

My reaction to this news item is the same as my reaction to the original Sisto item: if Councilman Archambault thinks it's a good idea for the relatives of town councilmen to be able to choose the public schools their children attend, shouldn't they be in favor of extending that right to every family in Rhode Island? If school choice is good for the families of our pols, wouldn't it be good for the families of regular citizens too?

Education Partnership Ceases Operation

This will come as a surprise to those (non-insiders) who follow Rhode Island's public policy debates; from Jennifer D. Jordan of the Projo...

The Education Partnership, a nonprofit advocacy organization that produced reports and consulted with local school districts, has closed its doors and filed for receivership in Superior Court, unable to pay its bills....

“The Board decided that it is necessary for the protection of the business and assets of the Corporation and for the protection of the Corporation’s creditors, that the Corporation seek from the Superior Court the appointment of a receiver … The Board has taken this action due to the overwhelming financial difficulties recently experienced by the Corporation which have made it impossible for the Corporation to continue to carry out its purpose,” the directors wrote.

House Debate on Article 38 (Education) Of the Budget

The House debated Article 38, Sub A of the Budget this evening. Below is my liveblog of the debate, for the record. (I see Matt covered it too, including a list of who voted how--wonder how he got the list so fast?).

SPOILER ALERT: Mayoral Academies were ultimately approved.
=======================

Rep. Constantino proposed removing the ability of the education commissioner to grant a variance to mayoral academies regarding section 16-77-11. Basically makes it compulsory for these schools to live by many of the same rules as charter schools, with a few key exceptions related to issues surrounding teacher's tenure and retirement. Passed almost unanimously.
========================

Rep. Loughlin voted to amend to this section in an effort to allow local school districts to apply for relief from "unfunded mandates" by showing how they can effectively meet requirements outlined by mandates without following the proscribed outline. Rep. Gemma argued that this effectively allows School Committees to override the General Assembly. He pointed out that these groups already spend like crazy and then hand off fiscal problems to the City Councils and Mayors.

Rep. Smith praised the desire to bring local control back, but he had little faith in the ability of such bodies as the Providence School Committee to provide proper oversight. Rep. Mumford supported the amendment. Explained it allowed towns to review mandates and then identify which mandates they would seek relief from. She explained each city and town had different needs and some could abide by some mandates while others may not. The reason that no specific mandates were identified was to provide each locality the ability to identify those that were acutely onerous.

Rep. Gorham and Watson both pointed out that a vote for this measure would allow legislators to tell their constituents that they voted to hold the line on property taxes by seeking relief this way. The amendment failed 54-16.
============================
Rep. Rice offered an amendment attempts to make Mayoral Academies abide by same rules as Charter Schools.

Rep. Constantino urged opposition, stating it essentially guts the Mayoral Academy bill. Pointed out that they've already taken out the ability of the Ed. Commissioner to waive several items (amendment offered by Constantino himself).

Rep. Savage extolled the virtues of charter schools, "incubators and laboratories" which should give us "an abundance of educational practices". Offered up examples of successes of business-supported schools such as the Textron Academy or the CVS Highlander School. Supports Mayoral Academies in concept, but opposes this legislation calling it a "carve-out of a carve-out" which would exempt them from even more than Charter Schools. Calls it an intentional assault on teachers and particularly disliked the fact that the teachers wouldn't be able to collectively bargain nor would they be considered public employees. (By the way, he's a Republican from East Providence and a retired school principal).

Rep. Fox stood up and said this was about leadership and thinking outside the box. Folks are so frustrated they just want to shake the box. He also extolled the virtues of teachers, but also pointed out that the state's current Charter School law didn't go far enough in allowing for innovation. This legislation would allow Mayors to take a leading role in the education of their citizens. Noted he and Rep. Constantino approached it as skeptics, but they couldn't deny the success in other places, such as Harlem. Also explained how current contracts stifle flexibility and innovation. Pointed out that there is no funding in the bill and that future funding has to be approved by the General Assembly. Alluded to various foundations that support this idea. Could they all be wrong? Hit on the point that we are trying to get our kids to compete worldwide and schools like these have done just that in other states. This amendment will kill all of that.

Rep. Trillo said he finally agrees with Leader Fox on something. Called the idea of Mayoral Academies a "lively experiment" and this amendment will tie our hands right out of the gate. Applauds Mayor McKee. Why would we be afraid of it? This could give us ideas that could be applied to our public schools. He recognized the unions have a problem with it. Accepting the amendment will just create another weak charter school. Rep. McManus also opposed amendment.

Rep. Singleton (Republican, Cumberland outgoing) supports the amendment and claimed most of the Legislature had no idea what they were doing. Blamed politicians for causing the problem and not fixing them on their own, but kicking the can to Mayors via the Mayoral Academies. Basically didn't like the idea that only a chosen few in his district would benefit and attempted to use the self-selectivity argument (the kids with interested parents would succeed, etc.). Said that the private money would dry up in a couple years. (By the way, he's moving to Massachusetts, too).

Rep. Walsh, a retired teacher, explained how she cared about kids. Takes the Mayoral Academy as an affront to teachers. Supported Rice's amendment. Claimed that Legislature didn't have enough time to hear about the particulars.

Rep. Gemma explained that City of Warwick investigated this. Said he was tired of dancing around the issue. It's all about the money. Explained how the people of Potowamut are trying to convert their now closed public school to a charter. 90% of all school budgets are salaries, pensions and benefits, 2% discretionary. Teachers had to buy paper, pencils. Marvelous people. The worst person to ask about charter schools is an educator. They have a particular point of view. Gives credit to Mayor McKee. Wants his Mayor to have the power over education spending. Gives him another option. Don't kill the idea in the cradle.

Rep. Coaty opposed the amendment. Stated we need to pass the bill unencumbered, unlike the charter school laws. Explained that Providence spends $13,000 on their students at Hope High and they don't have textbooks. How could that happen? This bill would help urban and at risk students. Now is the time to pass the bill. That it didn't come up in January is not a reason to kill it.

Rep. Baldelli-Hunt supports McKee's plan and opposes the amendment. Vouched for Mayor McKee's pledge to spend the next 10 years working on education for RI kids. Argued that these schools provide opportunity for students who aren't cookie cutter.

Rep. Smith ( a public school teacher) wondered if we'd be talking about Mayoral Health Care facilities or Mayoral Gas Stations down the line. Basically opposed the idea because not all kids would be provided the same opportunity. Argued that teachers should have a say in more items via collective bargaining, not less. Said teachers in Providence were held accountable for a lack of a curriculum. Also complained that there was only one hearing then the Mayoral academy plan was in the budget.

Rep. Brien opposed amendment. Referred to a letter he received stating that the Mayoral Academy proposal needed to be removed and listed a bunch of opponents. Referred to NEA President Bob Walsh's ads in local newspapers. Called this amendment the poison pill. This is about allowing parents the opportunity to choose where they send their kids. Cited Beacon Charter in Woonsocket as one of the best in the nation. Addressed the accountability issue: charters are more accountable. They participate in regular oversight as well as re-authorization process. If they don't perform, they are closed down.

Rep. Lima supports new ideas, thinks school system is in trouble, but the problem with this idea is that we'd be taking public dollars away from majority of students and giving it to the lucky few. {Again, the class warfare argument}. Said she support it if we took public funds off the table. Pension costs and salaries are too high? Lets address at the collective bargaining table, not this way. Let private companies do it, not public money. Supports amendment.

Rep. Menard, whose wife is a teacher, says Mayoral Academies are saying we need a third tier of schools. Public schools, charter schools and now Mayoral Academies. Explained the hard work his wife does, how he and his wife provide educational resources. Talks about fixing the current problems in public and charter schools instead of adding a new one.

Rep. Vaudreuil re-focused on the central point that the bill was to allow the creation of a plan, not an actual school.

Rep. Rice added that she appreciates innovative ideas and choice. Said this amendment said this doesn't prevent anything, but puts them on the same level playing field as other charter schools. Then moved the goalposts and said this doesn't need to be passed now, anyway, because the deadline isn't until November 2009. Also wondered why these Mayors didn't focus on the students they have now (huh?). Parrotted Lima's argument that if it was just private money, she'd be fine. Wan't comfortable with the idea that they didn't know what it would be.

Rep. Mumford opposed amendment. Also a teacher. Explained that RI's charter schools were the most restrictive. Mayoral Academies have bi-partisan support aiming to help students. Even with their hands tied, charter schools are succeeding. Let's see what happens when we untie the hands of just one Mayoral Academy.

Rep. Savage stood up again and noted that the success noted by fellow legislators at our charter schools were staffed by public school teachers. As far as charter schools being too restrictive, then lets work towards loosening those restrictions. Says we are talking about public funding of private schools. Seems to believe that only public school teachers can do the job.

Rep. Gorham stood up to glad hand everybody for a good debate and for the sort of bipartisanship being shown. Yet he didn't expect that the passage of an idea would encounter so much opposition. This is basically a study commission. No funding involved.

Rep. Silva opposed the amendment and supported the idea of Mayoral Academies.

Rep Gablinske opposed amendment and asked sponsor on whose behalf it was sponsored. Rep. Rice refused to answer the question. Mayoral Academies are a response to the pendulum swinging too far to the left. Our schools have become about adult comfort not educational achievement.

Rep. Constantino noted that House Finance Committee had this bill and got testimony and hearings. As year went on, they knew the budget cuts would hurt many people. Explained that Charter Schools association now supports the Mayoral Academies. Remembers how teacher unions opposed charter schools. Knows how labor unions helped teachers 40 years ago and how that seemed radical then. This doesn't depreciate teachers. This gives RI kids the opportunity to be educated differently. Of all the things in this budget, this one idea gives a child hope. Urged to vote against argument.

Rep. Menard questioned whether Charter School Association was for it, remembered that they testified against it in hearings. What did Rep. Constantino know that he didn't and why did they all of a sudden support it. Constantino responded that their Board took a vote and now support it. Menard questioned that.

The amendment failed 30-41.

=============================

Rep. Savage had three amendments. One he wasn't going to offer and he answered that this particular one was identical to Rice's and that it came from "my mind." Offered another amendment attempting to make Mayoral Academies privately funded only.

Rep. Constantino urged opposition.

Rep. Gemma called it even worse than the other amendment.

Amendment failed 26-41

Rep. Savage decided not to offer up final amendment.
=============================

Rep. Menard moved to vote on sections 2 and 3 of the articles separately.

This idea passed relatively easy.
=============================
Article 38 prevailed nearly unanimously (only 8 opposed).

Mayoral Academies Jump Another Hurdle

Cumberland Mayor Dan McKee's plan to start up a mayoral academy in Blackstone Valley received the endorsement of the House Finance Committee last week. After initial opposition, the Rhode Island League of Charter Schools has come on board, the ProJo reports. And support for the plan is growing amongst Democratic politicians:

“It’s time to think outside the box,” said House Majority Leader Gordon D. Fox through a spokesman. “As Franklin Roosevelt once said, ‘it is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something!’ I think it’s worth trying this mayoral academy....Based on their desire to recruit the best teachers, engage parents as partners and put student achievement first, I believe it is important to give them the opportunity to develop their plan for ultimate approval by the Board of Regents,” Fox said.

Some of the progressive grassroots are arguing for the idea, including Progreso Latino chief executive officer Ramon Martinez, according to the ProJo. But not everyone is happy, especially the leaders of the teacher's unions.

Robert A. Walsh, executive director of the National Education Association Rhode Island, said he was “blindsided” by the proposal.

“We’re kind of in shock,” he said “This is one of those last-minute surprises that you dread in the [budget] process.” Since then, Walsh, a usually powerful voice on Smith Hill, says he’s been unable to get Fox to return his phone calls.

Walsh and the American Federation of Teachers and Health Professionals have blasted what they call McKee’s plan to “experiment with kids,” while “ignoring decades of progress in setting standards for public education,” and sacrificing vital teacher protections that could lead to lower-paying jobs with greater turnover.

“Mayor McKee seems to be motivated by a myth that there’s some magic way to do it better,” Walsh said, “… but a group of mayors that have no background in education,” being given “carte blanche” to build a school is not the answer, he said.

Despite the rhetoric about how these schools could hurt the kids, the real issue for the union leaders is protecting the pay and benefits of their members. That's fine, that's what the leadership is paid to do. (As the ProJo story explains, Mayor McKee has called upon some education experts to help him with his plan. Besides, McKee's idea still has to pass muster with the Board of Regents). However, instead of this apparent knee-jerk opposition, perhaps the unions could join their traditional allies and try to be part of the process going forward. But to join the team, they would have to be willing to make some concessions, especially in the areas of hiring and firing flexibility (management rights) and pay. And if we allow history to be our guide, we know that the teacher unions have a hard time with compromise if it means "losing" anything.

The bill goes to the House for debate tomorrow. Today there will be a rally in support of the measure at the State House.

Where Do They Go from Here?

Here's a question, which I present without insinuation in any direction: What can one glean from the fact that none of Tiverton High School's top 10 students are going to Ivy League colleges? Does it say something about the school system? About Ivy League schools? About the increasing difficulty of getting into top schools lately?

Here's a list of the higher-ed plans of the district's top 10, in order from top student down (taken from a Sakonnet Times article that is wisely not online):

1. Chemical engineering at the University of Southern California
2. Engineering at the University of Rhode Island
3. Engineering at Northwestern University
4. Engineering at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
5. Biology at Providence College
6. Graphic design and music at the University of Tampa
7. Bilingual speech pathology at Bridgewater State College
8. Engineering at the University of Rhode Island
9. Occupational therapy at Ithaca College
10. Nursing at Northeastern University

I'm not a fawner for the Ivies by a long shot; indeed, I'd be impressed to see a top 10 student taking time away from college to learn a bit about being an adult and working. Perhaps the top 10 caliber schools have shifted a bit in the fifteen years since I graduated high school, but is there any significance, here?

Driving Out the Desirables

Add this to the list of lists that place Rhode Island on the wrong side:

As of the most recent state report card issued by the National Association for Gifted Children, Rhode Island ranks at the bottom in nearly all categories, earning the state the dubious label of "most in need" with regard to critical indicators of quality gifted-education.

Failing to accommodate those with a higher capacity to learn is yet another way in which the socialist underpinnings of the state create the conditions for rot, with the expectation that talented, productive people will merely stay put while walls are built around them and their quality of life is threatened. Instead of egalitarianism, you get productive people fleeing the state and talented children departing the schools (which drags down scores and adversely affects the learning environment for all children).

Through personal channels, I recently heard the story of a Tiverton middle schooler who's pestering her parents to send her to private school because she's not being challenged. Children only have one opportunity to slide down the educational ramp that determines their momentum for much of their lives. After graduation, it's a much harder slog. In this, as in so many ways, Rhode Island fails its citizens.

Charter School Offers Freedom for Students and Teachers

The ProJo had an excellent piece over the weekend on the Learning Community charter school in Central Falls. It showed the sort of problems faced by today's educators in an urban community and also highlighted the sort of innovative thinking it takes to get results. And that's all that most parents want: results. If the current system were working, I suspect most of us would be satisfied with the current industrial education model. But it isn't working and throwing more money to fund the same broken system isn't the answer.

“I can tell you what the difference is between the Learning Community and regular public schools,” says Fran Gallo, superintendent of the Central Falls School Department, who sends administrators and teachers to visit the charter school. “They are child focused while the public system is adult focused. We are not doing our children justice with a system that does not promote who they are and address their needs. At the Learning Community, you see that fully in play every day. Children first. That’s the difference.”

I don't think that the majority of public school teachers actually place themselves ahead of their students, but the system they are working in has evolved to effectively work that way.

That's why charter schools and other non-traditional methods of education (like mayoral academies) need to be expanded in the state. In the case of the Learning Community, it has been more successful--both educationally and fiscally--than nearby public schools:

The school’s budget — a mixture of federal, state, local funds and some private donations — is about $3.7 million a year. Its per-pupil cost is approximately $11,600. That’s far lower than in Providence ($15,000), Central Falls ($14,900) and Pawtucket ($12,800), all of which have more students with severe learning disabilities, who cost more to educate.

The Learning Community outperformed those three districts on the latest round of state testing, with 59 percent proficient in reading and 54 percent in math.

Besides helping the individuals enrolled in those types of schools--and probably more importantly--these schools develop new and successful methods that can be evaluated to determine if they are transferable to our public school system. Yet, there are still those systemic barriers in our public school system that don't allow that sort of private-to-public feedback loop to function.

But it doesn't have to be that way. In a related story, teachers at the Learning Community explain the difference:

Kate Smith came to the Learning Community two years ago, after having worked in traditional public schools in Newport and Washington, D.C.

A relatively new teacher, she says the Central Falls charter school immediately felt different to her.... “There’s a lot more freedom in terms of what you can teach, and you work with a lot of passionate educators,” Smith, 27, says. “It’s also a lot of work, but in a good way....I feel like every single teacher here works as hard as the next person.”

...Smith says the biggest difference she’s found at the charter school is how seriously teachers’ concerns are taken and how quickly the small school is able to respond.

“There is so much freedom in the curriculum,” she says. “When you walk into a regular public school, you are given the curriculum the school uses whether you like it or not. Here, we design our curriculum, taking into account the state standards.”

Smith isn't unique among teachers, whether they teach in private, public or charter schools. But she is allowed to implement innovation at the classroom level and can throw out a "plan" if it doesn't work. It is that sort of flexibility and "buy-in" that we need to encourage--and allow--in our public schools. But we need to be willing to make the fundamental change required to do so.

Graduation Rates even Worse: Time for Some Flexibility

The latest "Exhibit A" of the old maxim that there are "lies, damn lies and statistics" comes with news that RI is graduating even fewer seniors out of High School than we thought.

Rhode Island’s high school graduation rate is 19 percentage points lower than previously reported, and at 70.1 percent hovers just under the national average of 70.6 percent, according to a new, more accurate method of tracking students.

Under the old formula, the state Department of Education reported that slightly more than 89 percent of the Class of 2007 had graduated. But, under the new formula, the percentage plummeted.

The new figure means about 3,000 students who should have received diplomas last year dropped out over a four-year period.

State education officials say that the old method for calculating graduation rates counted students who took longer than four years to graduate, while the new method, which is endorsed by the U.S. Department of Education and the National Governors Association, does not, resulting in a 6 percentage point increase in the dropout rate.

In addition, many students who left school were previously recorded as “unknown” and were not counted as dropouts. The new system requires those students to be included in the dropout category.

If we didn't have enough reason before, maybe this latest can provide the last bit of impetus to take up Cumberland Mayor Daniel McKee's plan and open up those Mayoral Academies (PDF <--read it!)? The bill is in the House (PDF) and Gordon Fox approves, even though the entrenched education establishment in RI (including currently operating charter schools) are opposed to the idea. Who likes competition, right? It's simple, really: to date, the unions and administrators and school boards and politicians haven't seen fit to shake things up within the confines of the current system. Thus, because our education system has become ossified and inflexible, only innovation and something new will see us out of our current straits. If it's REALLY about the children, shouldn't we all be willing to try something new--something that has proven itself in other states--and work together to ensure success? To crib from somewhere....YES WE CAN!

Exhibit #473 for the Prosecution's Case That the NEA Has Less to Do with Education than Left-Wing Politics

Yes, that's an organization composed mainly of teachers offering up unimaginative slogans that promote left-wing clichés:

In the Fair Funding Formula, Some Communities Will Be Treated More Fairly Than Others

And the frontrunner for this year's Emperor's New Clothes Award for Stating the Obvious is Richmond Town Councilor Henry R. Oppenheimer, for his recent comments on the General Assembly's latest version of an educational "funding formula".

Andrew Martin of the Chariho Times reports on the effect the proposed "funding formula" would have on Chariho District…

The bill, S2650, also named the “Fair Share Education Funding Formula,” focuses on sending more money to the urban schools in the state. As a result, less funding would go toward the rural and suburban schools. Also, it would aggregate the three towns in the Chariho Regional School District – Charlestown, Richmond and Hopkinton – and the aid would be dispersed equally.

Basically, the bill would eliminate the regional bonus for regional school districts. For Chariho, it would equate to a loss of $12 million. The district gets $14.8 million now, but under this bill, it would only receive $2 million. According to [Richmond Councilor Oppenheimer], there would be total loss in Washington County of $37 million.

Here is Councilman Oppenheimer's award-deserving response, where he rightly questions the General Assembly's comprehension of the concept of "fair"...

"I guess [the bill] is fair in the eyes of the beholder, but in my eyes it wasn’t very fair," he said in reference to the bill’s title.

“It says that it cannot be disputed that this new system would enhance fairness and equality. If I lived in Providence where [state aid] goes up, I might believe that. But not one Washington County town would get an increase,” Oppenheimer said.

Martin also reports that the Richmond and Hopkinton Town Councils are officially notifying their statehouse delegations that they want to be notified anytime an education "funding formula" bill is introduced in the legislature...

The councilor then asked to have a strongly-worded letter written to the town’s legislators opposing the bill and any other legislation of its kind in the future. Also, Oppenheimer said he wants the town to be notified any time a bill like this goes before the General Assembly.

Hopkinton council President Vincenzo Cordone asked to have a similar letter written at the Monday, May 19 town meeting.

Apparently, the town councils believe their state reps need assistance in determining if education bills submitted to the legislature are really in their communities' best interests. City and town councils in other Rhode Island communities would be wise to offer their legislators the same help too.

Promises Bought and Futures Sold

Julia Steiny is must-reading today:

After collecting my thoughts and temper, I wrote back. It seemed to me that teaching a child to read was the principal mission of any school and was, therefore, funded. Rhode Island has one of the highest per-pupil expenditures in the nation. If not to teach reading, what is it going to the schools for? The Regents were only trying to get children actual help, instead of letting them be subjected to Jurassic practices like being put in the dumb-kids' reading group or passed on for the next teacher to deal with. That help seemed well funded already, at least to me. ...

Too many people in Rhode Island are in the habit of thinking that the schools have the right to do whatever it is they're already doing, effective or not, and expect that anything better has to be paid for as an extra. When research and experience in other states identify an educational best practice — for example, tailoring strategies to each struggling reader — our state's taxpayers have to pay extra to implement it.

The problem is that reform-minded diktats from the state never touch on the core problem, which Steiny rightly identifies as unlimited collective bargaining rights, leading to such outcomes as this:

... the existing resources continue to shift away from kids to support benefits for adults. The Educational Intelligence Agency, a national watchdog, reports that Rhode Island's public school population has dropped 4.6 percent since 2000-'01, while compensation to teachers went up 37 percent. Nationally, the average state enrollment has increased 2.5 percent since 2000-'01 while compensation went up 24.5 percent.

Frankly, I have a negative emotional reaction to unfunded mandates: If the educational bureaucracy of the state — with which the unions have made it their business to exert influence — wishes to send down requirements, then it seems only fair that the money to support them oughtn't be derived from sources with which they are not connected (i.e., local and property taxes). But perhaps a case-by-case assessment is necessary. Really, how much funding is needed for the development of reading plans for individual students? That sounds like something that schools and teachers ought to do as a matter of course.

It may be that the very quality of unfunded mandates to which I have an adverse reaction speaks in their favor. They put pressure on an artificially constrained system, and the central and most costly constraint is the unionization of the teachers. In a system in which every new task or idea requires additional money, stuffing more of them into the bag will increase the awareness of those who ultimately have to carry it — taxpayers — and eventually enough of them will come to realize that our public servants have become our masters, foisting what ought to be their responsibilities onto our shoulders.

If we want to see this detrimental pressure removed from our educational system, we need take only one step: end the unionization of public school teachers. Taking that step, we could just watch how quickly the system would learn to right itself.

A Glimpse of the Problem's Roots

This factoid, coming out of the revolt in Tiverton, keeps ringing in my ears:

... Mr. Cotta and other officials said that legally the school budget cannot be cut below what it was for this year...

Is that true? If so, it's insane! Efficiencies, need, and priorities can't shift? I'll have to look into that one and add it to the top 10 list of Laws That Must Change in Rhode Island.

Diagnosing RI's Problem with the Third "R"

According to Jennifer D. Jordan of the Projo, a statewide mathematics "summit" held yesterday at Rhode Island College identified the following areas as contributing to the state's 22%-proficiency rate in high-school math achievement…

• Some classroom teachers lack deep content knowledge in math, which makes it impossible for them to help their students reach the higher standards.
• Many schools continue to “track” students, steering some students into easier math classes and away from higher-level algebra, geometry and calculus courses demanded by colleges and needed by today’s work force.
• Students are too dependent on calculators and lack the ability to perform high-level work on their own.
• Teachers are struggling to “differentiate instruction,” preventing them from adequately helping non-traditional learners, special-education students and others who find math challenging.

Seeing the "tracking" item on this list worries me. One well-known problem with standards established by remote bureaucracies -- in education and elsewhere -- is that, if not carefully thought-out, they can incentivize taking resources away from people and practices that are working best, i.e. already well-exceeding the standard. California's superintendent of public instruction explained this phenomenon to Time Magazine last year…

The do-or-die [adequate yearly progress] system creates perverse incentives. It rewards schools that focus on kids on the edge of achieving grade-level proficiency....There's no incentive for schools to do much of anything for the kids who are on grade level or above, which is one reason the law is unpopular in wealthier, high-achieving communities. And sadly, says [California Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell], "NCLB provides no incentive to work on the kids far below the bar."

Identifying tracking as a problem, in effect saying that it's OK to slow down the progress of more-proficient mathematics students, as long as a shift in emphasis helps speed up the progress of less-proficient ones, is a classic example of this.

Ending Bumping

Perhaps no practice is a better distillation of the blight that is teacher unionization than bumping. I'm with Julia Steiny in thinking that it ought to end, but the suggestions of the Business Education Partnership that she describes in her column, yesterday, are worth considering as half-way measures:

To professionalize education personnel practices, Blais and her colleagues put the focus squarely on evaluation. Rhode Island is one of only a handful of states that do not mandate that teachers be evaluated. In fact, most Rhode Island teachers are never evaluated in any meaningful or helpful way.

Blais says the key to an effective and fair evaluation system is to use several different measures, instead of just one principal's say-so. Evaluations should include objective, quantifiable information, such as student achievement, as well as administrator and peer observations. The resulting evaluations should place teachers at one of four levels: master, pre-master, basic and below basic.

With these categories in hand, teachers would no longer be interchangeable. Any teacher with two consecutive below-basic evaluations could be let go. (At last!) No basic teacher could bump a master, no matter how long he or she has been in the system. Only master teachers should be peer evaluators.

It is an abomination that, in a profession that begs for inspiration, we permit no measure of quality.

Re: Re: Another Reason to Private School in Rhode Island

Actually, what struck me about Rhody's comment was how this early sentence betrays the ridiculousness of his point:

If any of us were sent back to work under a court order, our attitude might not be that great, either.

Most of us, I venture to suggest, cannot envision circumstances in which a court would have to order us back to work. We take jobs understanding the general structure of the career ladder and expecting that raises will be related to: 1) our performance, and 2) our employers' fortunes. The idea of banding with coworkers for a work stoppage with the intention of procuring even larger raises despite the employer's well-known financial hardships and a lack of notable improvement (to say the least) probably strikes the majority of us as a species of lunacy.

The same assessment of general experience applies to Monique's suggestion that elected officials ought to negotiate task-by-task responsibilities into contracts. Who among us has that degree of clarity when it comes to occupational delineation? Most of us do the jobs for which we were hired — broadly defined — undertaking all that is necessary.

If the job description is to educate children according to standards set by the community and the state, and the state and community define being educated as being able to produce a final project, then it is the job of the teachers to ensure that each student is able to clear the bar. Period. "You didn't negotiate for fifteen minutes of advice as I walked to the car" would be a profoundly selfish and unprofessional insistence, and there is little distance between that and acting as "an adult adviser."

Re: Another Reason to Private School in Rhode Island

Under Justin's post, commenter Rhody remarks:

The teachers are back to school (under a court order), they don't have a new contract, and still people are kicking them.

If any of us were sent back to work under a court order, our attitude might not be that great, either. Remember, kids coming out of college who want to be teachers see this, and will be more inclined to find professions where they can make more money without being trashed on talk radio, letters to the editor, blogs, etc.

Back to work under a court order and without a contract may mean work-to-rule but it does not mean work for free. Further, even if they are working under the terms of the expired contract, presumed to be less advantageous than the one to be signed, as Rhode Island teachers, they are still the ninth highest paid in the country. [This is as of 2005. Links to newer comparisons are welcome.]

My criticism for the conditions in Tiverton and for the larger issue of the state of our education system is not directed at teachers but is reserved solely for elected officials at the local level. They have executed, with other people's money, contracts of increasing generosity that have no bearing on whether the education of students has been advantaged (it has not) or on whether the contracts are fiscally viable (they are not).

It is interesting, by the way, how much is missing from the specific terms of these contracts. If the elected officials who negotiate and approve the funding for teacher contracts had included these and other requirements in the prior contract, seniors in Tiverton and other work-to-rule districts would not be experiencing such problems.

Another Reason to Private School in Rhode Island

Here's another shining example of what public sector unions — specifically teachers' unions, specifically the NEA — have wrought:

The state Department of Education does not endorse the high school's plan for students to stand before their English classes to present their senior projects — a new graduation requirement here this year. ...

Most of the problems Tiverton High faces with its graduation plan can be traced to a long-running labor dispute involving teachers, who have been working under court order since last September. ...

Until now, a high school teacher has volunteered as a senior project coordinator, recruiting outside mentors to help students delve into their special interests and organizing and training judges for the culminating presentations.

But with the contract dispute permeating labor-management relations since last September, teachers have not volunteered to do much beyond their required duties. ...

Nor do the prescribed duties include teachers fulfilling another new state requirement that all high school students have an adult adviser: someone who knows them well and can help them over the rough spots that often occur in adolescence.

The General Assembly should end public sector unionization — specifically teacher unionization.

Mitigating the College Oversell

Our society appears to be in the process of deciding that college oughtn't be a foregone conclusion for every young American. Indeed, Marty Nemko calls the Bachelor's degree "America's Most Overrated Product":

Even worse, most of those college dropouts leave the campus having learned little of value, and with a mountain of debt and devastated self-esteem from their unsuccessful struggles. Perhaps worst of all, even those who do manage to graduate too rarely end up in careers that require a college education. So it's not surprising that when you hop into a cab or walk into a restaurant, you're likely to meet workers who spent years and their family's life savings on college, only to end up with a job they could have done as a high-school dropout.

Such students are not aberrations. Today, amazingly, a majority of the students whom colleges admit are grossly underprepared. Only 23 percent of the 1.3 million high-school graduates of 2007 who took the ACT examination were ready for college-level work in the core subjects of English, math, reading, and science.

Perhaps more surprising, even those high-school students who are fully qualified to attend college are increasingly unlikely to derive enough benefit to justify the often six-figure cost and four to six years (or more) it takes to graduate. Research suggests that more than 40 percent of freshmen at four-year institutions do not graduate in six years. Colleges trumpet the statistic that, over their lifetimes, college graduates earn more than nongraduates, but that's terribly misleading. You could lock the collegebound in a closet for four years, and they'd still go on to earn more than the pool of non-collegebound — they're brighter, more motivated, and have better family connections.

College can be a rewarding and edifying experience, if the student is determined to make it one. The average family should raise the question around the dinner table, however, with the understanding that the right answer can be "not necessary." If, after a few years of life in the workforce, the young adult concludes that higher education would represent time well spent, then by that very thought process, the conclusion is more apt to prove true.

Senator Barack Obama: Republicans Have Better Ideas on Education

From yesterday's Fox News Sunday...

Chris Wallace: Over the years, John McCain has broken with his party and risked his career on a number of issues, campaign finance, immigration reform, banning torture. As a president, can you name a hot button issue where you would be willing to cross (ph) Democratic party line and say you know what, Republicans have a better idea here.

Senator Barack Obama: Well, I think there are a whole host of areas where Republicans in some cases may have a better idea.

CW: Such as.

BO: Well, on issues of regulation, I think that back in the ‘60s and ‘70s, a lot of the way we regulated industry was top down command and control. We’re going to tell businesses exactly how to do things...

And I think that the Republican party and people who thought about the margins (ph) came with the notion that you know what, if you simply set some guidelines, some rules and incentives for businesses, let them figure out how they’re going to for example reduce pollution. And a cap and trade system, for example, is a smarter way of doing it, controlling pollution, than dictating every single rule that a company has to abide by, which creates a lot of bureaucracy and red tape and oftentimes is less efficient.

I think that on issues of education, I have been very clear about the fact, and sometimes I have gotten in trouble with the teachers union on this, that we should be experimenting with charter schools. We should be experimenting with different ways of compensating teachers. That –

CW: You mean merit pay?

BO: Well, merit pay, the way it has been designed I think that is based on just single standardized I think is a big mistake, because the way we measure performance may be skewed by whether or not the kids are coming in the school already three years or four years behind.

But I think that having assessment tools and then saying, you know what, teachers who are on career paths to become better teachers, developing themselves professionally, that we should pay excellence more. I think that’s a good idea...

A Problem of Scope

John McDaid rightly tweaks me for my overly hasty reaction to Berkshire Advisors' audit of the Portsmouth school district. The report is thorough, thoughtful, and likely enlightening for employees of the district... within its scope.

In large part, my complaint still stands. Indeed, John begins a related post on his own blog thus:

There is nothing wrong with the Portsmouth schools that a few tweaks and more money can't fix. That was the message last night from the consulting firm Berkshire Advisors after their months-long performance audit of the school department.

Well, gee.

As helpful as the individual suggestions may be, a comparative analysis of Portsmouth versus Barrington, Smithfield, Tiverton, North Kingstown, East Greenwich, Middletown, South Kingstown, and Exeter-West Greenwich is inherently limited in scope. So, for instance, we do get the insight that the teachers' contracts require the district to spend too much of its purchased teacher-time on preparation and departmental administration, but this intriguing statement is left floating:

Many parents are concerned about the lack of opportunities for gifted and talented and high achieving children. In fact, in focus groups some parents reported moving their children who are gifted and talented to private schools while continuing to enroll their children with special needs in the Portsmouth schools.

I suspect that a survey of Portsmouth residents with children in private school would provide some very interesting feedback in this area. To what degree, for example, do Rhode Island schools lose their most promising students — whose participation teachers would most definitely value in "inclusion classrooms" — because parents perceive public schools to be mainly a drag on their opportunities?

How, for another example, does the school department's provision of "high quality education to Portsmouth students with limited resources" compare, not with some nearby districts, but with private schools within the town's own borders? How does the quality compare? How the resources?

Those who follow public happenings in Rhode Island may be inclined to see the report in quite another context: the tendency of officials and representatives to stop their inquiries just short of the line at which the tough questions and tougher decisions begin to come into view.

What a Crock

Pat Crowley's complaints about a letter that Governor Carcieri apparently sent to Bob Walsh, Crowley's NEA boss, are transparently two-faced in so many ways that I won't enumerate them. Simply put, the idea that Walsh would respond otherwise than with the mind-numbing reply that Crowley publishes is laughable. It is, let's just say, improbable that the scene in the office was of Walsh demanding that Crowley come to his office, closing the door behind him, and lecturing him about the messes that he gets the organization in. More likely, the message from above was more akin to: "You must be doing something right." The governor's office surely understood as much.

The tragedy of the matter is that opportunity exists for a more profitable discourse. For a taste of the light so thoroughly extinguished, consider a comment to Crowley's post by Mike in RI:

It's precisely posts like this Pat that should cause concern. Why the hostility? I care very much about what you have to say publicly because I do believe you represent teachers. As a teacher I watch carefully the public statements and behavior of anyone who speaks on the topic of education. You Pat seem more than eager to stir the controversial pot, and therefore you are sure to garner more attention from teachers. I haven't seen any letters-to-the-editor from Marcia Reback picking a fight with the governor publicly, calling his wife a racist, or sharing her opinions about the Catholic church. She hasn't picketed local businesses, or flipped off those with whom she disagrees. If she had I would be sharing my thoughts with her personally. As an RIFT member it is my dues that pay her salary. You are NEA Pat, so I am not afforded that opportunity.

Feel free to review each and every one of my comments on this blog or any other. You will find that none of them were ever made during the time when school was in session. As a public employee, I feel it important to keep separate my opinions about politics and things not related to education out of respect for my students and parents. Therefore I will not use my name.

And just to clarify, are you suggesting that you wrote a letter to the ProJo with your Lincoln address and the editors changed it to Cranston? That seems odd.

Pat, you are passionate about your causes, and I have a great deal of respect for that. You must have been very good as a union organizer with the Teamsters. I mean that honestly. But teachers' unions are more professional in nature, and play a public role in communities across the state. We work with children and their families, and our approach must be very different from that of the Teamsters. I feel the political hostility you often exhibit publicly is a detriment to the cause of public education, which is my passion. Picking fights with the governor might make you feel good, but does little to help teachers and only angers more of the public that pays our salaries.

The only response to Mike came from RIFuturite Evan, dismissing him outright on the basis of past "conservative rants." The point is that, if Walsh had his own reservations about the hues with which Crowley paints his professional organization, he'd have at least mustered an empathetic response to what is clearly a sincere and thoughtful point on Mike's part.

And the reality is that, if Crowley weren't a high-ranker with the NEA, he'd be just another progressive crank, easily ignored and sparsely published. The damage that the educators' union is doing to education in Rhode Island is an affront to decency and an insult to intellectual endeavors.

Why Should a Study Focus on the Underlying Problem?

Here's the laugh line from Jill Rodrigues's Sakonnet Times story on the professional study that concluded — shockingly — that the Portsmouth school system needs more money:

Although much of that money is spent on salaries and benefits, the consultants did not weigh in on contract provisions and their impacts on the district.

Reading some of the details from Berkshire Advisors' report gives one the sense of a skewed mentality articulated: The school district needs to spend more on everything (except nurses), increasing programs for everybody from those with special needs to those with especially talents, but the money is just supposed to be found.

Frankly, the district would have made a modest advance in that regard by saving its consultation expenditures and asking any Rhode Island parent with some common sense what he or she believes the problem to be. More and more, the practical answer is: a lack of vouchers for private school.

More Funding Formula Numbers

Abby Fox of the East Greenwich Pendulum has some more data on what certain members of the legislature think of as a "fair" "funding formula"…

• East Greenwich’s state aid would be cut by the full amount -- $1,949,761 – to $0.
• Narragansett’s almost identical share, $1,897,159, would also drop to $0.
• Newport’s share would be cut by more than $11 million to $0.
• South Kingstown’s portion would be cut by more than $10 million to $0.
• Westerly’s would be cut by more than $6 million, to $0.
• Portsmouth’s aid would be cut by more than $6 million, to $0.
• Block Island’s aid would be cut by $106,345, to $0.
• Jamestown’s would drop by $531,908, to $0.
• Barrington…would actually see its state aid increase to $28,507, for a total amount of $2,628,033.
• Providence’s share…would soar under the proposed legislation, by nearly $50 million, leading to a total state aid of $243,784,089.
• Central Falls…would decrease by $2,553,047, for a total of $41,320,826.

Even supposedly cold-hearted fiscal-conservatives are inclined to look at those numbers, scratch their heads, and wonder about the wisdom of cutting aid to Central Falls while increasing aid to Barrington? But that's the kind of bizarreness you end up with when you try to distribute resources via bureaucratic formula.

On a broader level, it is disappointing that so many of our legislators see the role of government as fundamentally coercive, i.e. an engine for taking resources from one group of people, and give them to another that they like better, instead of cooperative effort to help people come together and solve problems.

This Year's Funding Formula Plan: Worse Than Ever

A Projo letter-to-the editor from West Greenwich resident Cynthia A. Walsh provides an excellent example of how education "funding formula" rhetoric has been used to confuse people about the true purpose of the proposal. Ms. Walsh celebrates the ideal of local control that is possible in smaller towns…

The only time we end up with serious problems is when the State of Rhode Island decides to tell us what we can and cannot do.

For example, there is the 5 percent property-tax-increase cap, which handcuffs local officials and deprives local taxpayers of the right to decide how much of their money is spent and on what. This cap may be a necessary evil in the cities and the suburban ring, where government is big, anonymous and unresponsive to its citizens and where it is the perception that the only thing that drives said government is political power and personal corruption, but that is not how things work in rural Rhode Island [but] one of the many joys of living in a rural community is that if you have a problem, your local government is accessible and responsive.

…yet also advocates for a new "funding formula" for education in Rhode Island…

I know [State Representative Nick Gorham] wants to help the communities he represents. If he could turn his attention to a new formula for public-school funding, that would help.

The problem is, in the form it has been so far discussed, a new "funding formula" would move money away from many small towns in Rhode Island and to the control of the "big, anonymous and unresponsive" units of government that Ms. Walsh decries. The odds that Rhode Island's pols will implement a funding formula that would help W. Greenwich anytime soon are slight.

Earlier this month, South Kingstown's Superintendent of Schools presented the details of this years' version of the "funding formula" to the SK school committee. Sarah Traver of the Narragansett Times reports…

Superintendent Robert Hicks said he recently attended a panel discussion on school finance and the panel discussed a legislative proposal entitled S 2650. This legislature would implement a school finance formula that was developed by a consultant last year using only existing funds. “I think if this piece of legislation passes it will be a loss of $10 million for South Kingstown, $102 million loss to suburban communities all over (Rhode Island),” Hicks said....

The specific legislation proposed would implement, over three years, the proposed formula utilizing only existing funds....Suburban communities are then faced with cutting their budgets or increasing property taxes. The total loss in state aid to the 22 communities in Rhode Island would be $102,857,727. An average increase in the school levy would be 16 percent reaching a high in Newport of 63 percent. The rate in South Kingstown would be 22 percent, the fifth highest in the state.

If the suburbs would be losing out, which communities would be benefiting most, you wonder? Tatiana Pina had a few specific community numbers in a recent Projo article on the Woonsocket schools…

The [Fair Share Education Funding Formula bill] proposes redistributing state funds to towns and cities bases on the wealth of the community, student enrollment and the the number of special education students, English language learners and children from poor families. The bill is sponsored by Representatives Edith H. Ajello, D-Providence, and John A. Savage, R-East Providence, and Senators Rhoda E. Perry D-Providence, and Hanna M. Gallo, D-Cranston. “The formula has been used across the country. It does not increase funding but redistributes it based on these factors, making it fairer,” [Woonsocket Superintendent Maureen B. Macera] said.

Under the new system, Woonsocket would stand to get an additional $13,164,914 to be phased in over three years. Pawtucket would receive an additional $10,772,350, Providence would receive $49,674,333 and Cranston would get $14,604,658.

According to Portsmouth resident John McDaid of the Hard Deadlines blog, this year's funding formula proposal is so extreme, some communities could get zeroed out of state-aid entirely…

The committee also reviewed the numbers from the school funding formula proposed in general assembly bill H7957. Under this draconian legislation, Portsmouth would lose ALL school funding over the next three years. Yeah, you read that right. No state aid at all. Just for 2009, we would lose $1.5M, which exceeds the total allowable increase under the S3050 tax cap.

Senate Majority Leader Teresa Paiva-Weed and our Senator Chuck Levesque have both spoken out against this bill, as has Rep. Amy Rice.

This bill is not likely to pass (I suspect it will go the "held for further study" route in committee). But it is an illustration of the objective that many of your legislators have in mind when they think about a "funding formula", i.e. forcing 22 Rhode Island communities to raise their local taxes by $102.8 million dollars just to maintain their own local level of school spending, so that Providence can receive half that total in new state aid, and 16 other communities can divvy up the other half.

I wonder if Cynthia A. Walsh was aware of the details of this plan when she wrote that a new funding formula should be a top legislative priority?

Two final points:

1. Earlier this year, I was curious as to why Providence Mayor David Cicilline didn't mention the funding formula in his state of the city address. Now, I suspect it's because he realized that no Rhode Island politician with gubernatorial aspirations could afford to be associated in any way with this stink-bomb of a plan.
2. That this plan is even being considered shows why we need desperately in this state to change to a system where money follows the choices of parents and students through some sort of open districting plan and/or voucher plan, instead of being allocated in accordance with the preferences of clutching and grabbing state legislators. How long will it be before a set of communities with a majority-plus-one representatives in the legislature figure out that, under the current system, they can raid the communities with a majority-minus-one at will?

To understand more about the real purpose of the funding formula, click here.

Teacher Buyout In Warwick?

Russell J. Moore of the Warwick Beacon reports that the American Federation of Teachers has a longer-then-usual-term proposal for addressing the school financing situation in Warwick…

The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) is asking the school department to seriously consider offering teachers a retirement incentive that they believe would save the department millions without compromising the quality of education.

The plan, which has already been implemented in communities throughout the country, would pay teachers somewhere between $50,000 to $70,000 over a five-year period if they agreed to either retire or resign.

The move, argues Jule Gould, a National representative of the AFT, would save money by allowing the district to either hire new teachers at a step one pay scale—just over $30,000 per year—and replace step 10 teachers, who earn close to $70,000 per year. Or, he said, the district could opt to not replace the teachers at all.

The buyout plan would allow the district to reduce staff without violating their layoff clause, which only allows them to layoff 20 teachers per year.

The Warwick Teacher’s Union has ran ads in the Beacon in recent weeks, stating the union “has been exploring ways to save funds while keeping standards high for each and every Warwick student.”

While the ad isn’t specific as to what it is referring to, the AFT confirmed that a buyout plan, at this point, is all they have in mind.

The Right to Know What's Happenin' With Chariho

It looks like the attempt by the National Education Association to place restrictions on school committee members' communication with the public in the Chariho district has come to an end. NEA Assistant Executive Director Peter Gingras, who last year filed a Labor Relations Board complaint against the Chariho School Committee making the vague assertion that Committeeman William Felkner's publishing of the Chariho School Parents Forum blog constituted an attempt "to communicate directly with bargaining unit members represented by the union", has notified the LRB that he wishes to withdraw the complaint.

Over at CSPF, Committeeman Felkner has posted a letter written by Hopkinton resident Mary Botelle which eloquently describes the multiple flaws in the premise of the NEA complaint…

1. Freedom of speech and assembly are guaranteed to all citizens. In this era, websites provide an electronic form of assembly and the written word replaces the spoken word. Therefore, Chariho School Parents' Forum, managed by William Felkner, provides parents and taxpayers with a method of making their concerns and opinions known…
2. Section 16-2-9.1 of the General Laws entitled Code of Basic Management Principles and Ethical School Standards (copy enclosed) provides the standards to be followed by school committees.

   It is to be noted that subsection (4) and (5) refer to communication with the public:

   (4) Accept and encourage a variety of opinions from and communication with all parts of the community.

   (5) Make public relevant institutional information in order to promote communication and understanding between the school system and the community.

   Therefore, it is clear that the committee should invite the community to participate so that decisions made will reflect the will of the community, and to provide information so that the community will be properly informed.

To its credit, the LRB never appeared to take the complaint very seriously. However the process dragged on, in part, because Chariho Superintendent Barry Ricci and the Chariho school board's lawyer seemed unable to summon any enthusiasm for defending the free speech and due process rights of school committee members, or for defending the right of the public to be given as much information as possible about school committee proceedings. The lesson here is to be wary of the nexus between government bureaucrats and labor unions; they sometimes act under the assumption that they can agree to bargain away the Constitutional rights of the general public. Expect this issue to pop-up in Rhode Island in various forms over the next few years.

After Further Thought

I've most likely been overstating the number of Tiverton teachers who stand to lose their jobs if the union remains implacable. Thirty-four notices of potential layoffs went out to meet a deadline; one position was eliminated in the school budget as passed; so I've been saying that intransigence might result in the actual layoffs of the other thirty-three.

The probability, however, is that the school committee sought to allow itself options should circumstances require positions to be eliminated. Their situation would have to be dire indeed for such a large portion of the workforce to be let go.

My point remains, though: union persistence will cost some members dearly, and a negotiating collective that is willing to push things that far would seek to soak up any new funds that become available.