Massachusetts Group 3

MA – Strong Features with Potential Application to RI

District/School State

Policy District mandate relief Increased autonomy = meeting eventual benchmarks Autonomy over curriculum Autonomy over schedule

Practice Ability to focus Collective ownership/decision making

What aspects of this approach have relevance for RI?

Increased autonomy = meeting annual benchmarks

Mandate relief – district only

Ability to focus

Freedom to choose and/or develop curriculum models

Consent of faculty or 2/3 negotiation of waivers and modifications

Developing innovative models with core stakeholders: Union, School Committee, Administrators o Focused curriculum for the school o Bargained increases in instructional time

Streamlined management practices and defined policy and procedure

What aspects of this approach raised questions/concerns?

Too many small districts o Economics o Enrollment

No relief from State mandates

Same per pupil allocation – no additional funding

2/3 approval or negotiation required for changes to the contract

Lump sum funding – what affect does that have on the district operations

School Site Councils vs. local School Committees

Question on Enrollment process (student population)

Process for a building – in at least 1 of 6 teachers (concern about autonomy for all classroom teachers)

Mode should provide traditional governance w/ greater flexibility to innovate

Diversity of districts in RI o Urban o Suburban o Rural

Smaller districts severely impacted at scale

State too small too fragmented

Need X population in smaller communities to sustain economically

Fragmentation of tax dollars -> impact on core district operations

Red Flags

Size is an obstacle - RI is too small, and has too many small districts

Size is an obstacle

No relief from state mandates (e.g. evaluations)

Doesn’t afford wide-spread innovation