Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts unveiled his education reform plan yesterday--sorta. He released a laundry list of new programs that he thinks will improve the "readiness" of Bay State students, mostly along the lines of the "broader, bolder" agenda (pre-K, health services for zero-to-five, etc.). What he didn't do is figure out how to pay for these goodies.
The most intriguing part of his plan wasn't mentioned by the governor yesterday but was floated in this Boston Globe story: a statewide teachers contract. An Administration official explained that such a measure could save time and money at the local level. That's probably true, but would be it good for school reform?
My gut says no, as a matter of realpolitik. Patrick was swept into office with the help of the state's teachers unions; they will never allow a flexible, district-friendly contract like the better ones we identified here. Instead, they will push for the lowest common denominator: a statewide contract just as restrictive as the worst of today's district contracts. That would tie all Massachusetts districts in the same red tape that currently afflicts just a few.
Still, in theory, a statewide contract could be a good thing. It's possible that affluent, suburban parents would revolt if their own public schools had to work under a restrictive statewide contract-and thus would serve as an effective counter-balance to the unions. After all, Rick Hess and Coby Loup found in our Leadership Limbo report...