Mayoral Academy Debate Continues

Cranston Mayor Allan Fung could only sit and watch as teachers, school committee members and residents continued to criticize his plan to open a mayoral academy at the second public hearing on the matter on Tuesday night.

The meeting had be moved from the Council Chambers at City Hall to the Cranston East auditorium to accommodate the large crowd.

The featured many residents and teachers who spoke out against the Mayor's plan.

Opponents of the plan argue the charter school lottery system is unfair.

“If he doesn’t get in, where’s my choice,” said Renae Chaves about her son, Rowan.

The academy plans to eventually accommodate 1,800 students, but its proposal states after the first 5 years it will only be up to 976 students. Cranston Public Schools currently serves 10,800 students. Students will be chosen for the school by lottery.

Supporters of the academy said that choice would be an asset for parents.

Detractors claim the academy will take needed resources away from underfunded, but aptly performing Cranston public schools. The risk is a weakening of the school district, they said.

“His [plan] is to create a new school that will take precious tax dollars that could go to our existing schools,” said School Committee Chairwoman Andrea Iannazzi.

She said that the Mayor’s internal audit of the school budget earlier this year concluded the district would need an additional $3.9 million just to meet the Basic Education Program. 

Michael Magee, the chairman of RI Mayoral Academies, said that funds will follow the child. Each child gets about $13,600 from the funding formula in Rhode Island. As a result the academy will receive its funds based on the number of Cranston and Providence students that attend the school.

“Providence and Cranston families will get to decide whether any Providence or Cranston dollars will go to that school,” Magee said. "If no Cranston parent decides to send their child to the academy, then no Cranston funds will be used to support it."

Opponents have also said Achievement First is going to sap resources out of the district to enrich its corporate backers.

“They’re not about family values, they’re about valuing families,” said Steve Smith, president of the Providence teachers’ union.

Achievement First plans to spend 10 percent of its operations income on administration. This has led opponents to say they will be “siphoning” off funds from Cranston.

Supporters of the mayoral academy pointed to the most recent Cranston school budget and said that the 24 percent that Cranston spends on administration is taking valuable money away from teachers and classroom materials.

Supporters and detractors took turns at the microphone and the night began to feel like a boxing match with speakers going blow for blow. There were those who saw the academy as a unique opportunity to explore new ideas in education, but there were those who said we should be exploring new ideas in the current schools.

For Annette Bourne, a Cranston parent and member of the Cranston Education Advisory Board, the tone of this discussion has lost sight of the noble goal of addressing Rhode Island’s education problems. She noted that not only are Rhode Island’s general public school test scores low in math and science, but so are its charter schools.

She said this discussion has turned into a fight for political clout when it really should be about picking the right reforms for Rhode Island’s children.

“I am someone who is suspicious of the term market-driven reform,”  Bourne, chair of the advisory board, said. “I am confused and somewhat wary of these new public choices. I have not been given a new public choice on police or fire nor do I expect there will be a public choice available for who paves my street. Forgive me if I sometimes think what is under the cover of dealing with performance issues is really about management.

“As I listen to the proposals before us I am most saddened that it is immediately seen as either with us or against us. What should be a thoughtful, engaged and exciting discussion among our educators and leaders is portrayed as a black and white discussion.”