Dear Neighbors:
I hope this Memorial Day weekend provides you an opportunity to reflect on the contributions of our country’s veterans. For many years, I enjoyed spending time with Sam Granoff of blessed memory, a D-Day veteran who was a fixture at our synagogue’s Minyan service. In this week’s letter, I discuss the transition of the Providence Public Schools to local control.
A. The City’s Proposal
On May 15, the Senate Finance Committee reviewed Bill S-669, which would mandate the July 1 conclusion of the State’s takeover of the Providence Public Schools. The bill is based upon the City’s Transition Plan to guide local authorities towards leadership and management of a school district that can generate better outcomes for Providence students beyond those achieved prior to the State’s 2019 takeover.
B. Testimony From Witnesses
At the hearing, the School Department made two principal arguments in opposition, namely (1) the City needed more time to build capacity and (2) the Transition Plan lacks sufficient depth and detail. Others testified in support of the bill, contending that (1) the takeover is not succeeding, and (2) local control is preferable to State control, all other things being equal. I consider this argument inadequate and disappointing, as it offers little hope of improvement in the future.
C. My Analysis
1. The School Board’s Role
I find several elements of the City’s Transition Plan to be interesting, including its emphasis upon the School Board’s role as the lead agency in governance and policy development. Prior to the takeover, both the Mayor’s office and the City Council asserted authority over the Providence Public Schools in ways that created friction to the detriment of children. It is politically difficult for a Mayor to yield control and responsibility over the schools to the School Board. Recent Providence Mayors have made campaign promises to improve the schools, leading voters to expect the Mayor to assume responsibilities that State law assigns to school committees. While I was careful as a City Council member not to “step on” School Board prerogatives, my approach was unusual. From my School Board days, I remember learning of efforts by City Council members to obtain favorable school assignments for children or jobs for their friends.
I also appreciate the Transition Plan’s support for the legislative reforms recommended by the Senate Study Commission and summarized in my May 11 letter. In this way, the City’s Transition Plan recognizes that a simple return to local control without structural reforms does not promise better outcomes than before.
2. Supporting A Successful Transition
The City’s transition to a hybrid School Board (half elected and half appointed) has brought a cohort of new members who face a learning curve of at least a year, at a time when the Board’s responsibilities are expected to increase dramatically. Also, the recently settled lawsuit between the City and the School Department over finances impaired working relationships that need to be restored to ensure a successful transition. The City and the School Department are meeting regularly to develop and implement a more thorough and achievable transition plan.
I see a possible (though not inevitable) path to attain that goal at the end of next school year (i.e. summer of 2026). To keep both sides focused on the goals of completing the necessary work cooperatively, I believe it is best at this time to avoid mandatory legislation with a fixed deadline.