EDITORIAL

Statewide contract for teachers worth pursuing

Posted 12/2/14

The idea of creating a statewide contract for teachers is not new, having been raised on several occasions over the last two decades. But it has returned to the forefront of public discourse in a …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in
EDITORIAL

Statewide contract for teachers worth pursuing

Posted

The idea of creating a statewide contract for teachers is not new, having been raised on several occasions over the last two decades. But it has returned to the forefront of public discourse in a significant way in recent weeks.

Robert Healey, the Cool Moose Party founder and this year’s Moderate Party candidate for governor, drew attention when he expressed his support for a statewide contract during the campaign.

Then, last week, Senate President M. Teresa Paiva Weed (D-Newport) told those on hand for the Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce’s annual meeting that it is “time for us to take a serious look at developing a statewide teacher contract for Rhode Island.”

Putting such an arrangement in place would be highly complicated, with a range of considerations and obstacles to be addressed. Given the other matters facing the state’s leadership, particularly in terms of bridging budget gaps, it would seem the chances of building consensus behind and gaining traction toward such a move are slim, at least in the short term.

Yet, as with the Healey-backed proposal to institute instant runoff voting, or IRV, the statewide contract is worth pursuing if for no other reason than to foster an important discussion about the fundamentals of how Rhode Island operates.

The primary selling point for a statewide contract is the potential for cost savings, although to what extent those would be realized is far from certain. A 2004 cost-benefit analysis of a unified salary schedule for the state’s teachers found a particularly wide range of potential outcomes, from more than $60 million in savings to nearly $50 million in additional costs. Healey’s argument is that by moving the fiscal burden of teacher contracts from the local to state levels, property taxes would be significantly reduced in cities and towns.

Precisely how such a tectonic shift would impact the quality of education in the Ocean State is the subject of debate. Healey suggests removing contractual issues from the purview of school committees would free local officials to focus their attention exclusively on educational matters. Others assert that school committees would in fact be left with little leverage over those matters were they to lose contractual negotiating authority.

Looming largest as obstacles are the realities of the current system. Various localities have their own dynamics and agreements in place, and the state currently has two teachers’ unions – the National Education Association of Rhode Island and the state’s chapter of the American Federation of Teachers. Bringing those disparate parties under the umbrella of a single contract is a daunting proposition, although some top union and education officials have indicated openness to discussing statewide oversight of teachers’ health or retirement benefits.

Despite all the uncertainty, we support the pursuit of a statewide contract for teachers. The concept of regionalizing services and finding efficiencies in local and state government is frequently touted but rarely acted upon by our leaders. When such agreements do come to fruition, they are typically smaller in scope and unlikely to make a dramatic impact in the broader financial picture.

A more aggressive, sweeping approach is needed. We do not mean to suggest that local autonomy lacks virtue, nor that shared and combined services represent a solution in all cases. But we feel regionalizing and consolidating provides the clearest path to lowering the bottom line – and alleviating the burden on taxpayers – while maintaining vital services and ensuring their continued quality.

Time will tell whether this latest push for a statewide contract leads to real action. House Speaker Nicholas Mattiello (D-Cranston) was non-committal in the wake of Paiva Weed’s comments, and he has already announced his intention to pursue the exemption of pension and Social Security benefits from the state’s income tax. That proposal would seem to have more political mileage, even if we fear it would prove counterproductive.

Regardless, we are pleased to see such an issue at the statewide contract for teachers on the public’s radar. If nothing else, we hope it draws people into the process, fosters outside-the-box thinking and serves as the spark for a meaningful, lasting conversation about how our state functions.

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here