Editorial
March 17, 2007

Undermining pilot schools

Boston teachers overwhelmingly embraced a new contract this week that gives them a roughly 13 percent salary boost over four years, in addition to their normal step raises based on seniority. No one doubts that the school department will deliver on those raises as promised. But Bostonians shouldn't feel as confident that the teachers will make good on their agreement to participate in the creation of at least seven new pilot schools.

Pilot schools offer a way for principals and teachers to provide flexibility in budgeting, scheduling, staffing, and governance. The structure is similar to state charter schools, with the notable exception that the local district retains both the students and the per capita cost of educating them. Yet recent attempts to create pilot schools in Boston have met with interference on the part of teachers union officials who look with suspicion on any model that weakens union work rules.

Staffers at the Kennedy School in Jamaica Plain voted to become a pilot school last October, but their plans were dashed when union president Richard Stutman invoked a murky bylaw that forced a new and unsuccessful vote. Stutman vetoed another pro-pilot vote at the Gardner School in Allston in 2004, although that project eventually went forward. Current contract language that smoothes the way for new pilot schools is pointless if the union's top leaders remain intent on finding new ways to beat back each proposal.

In lotteries earlier this month, education-minded parents of roughly 6,000 children sought 1,000 seats in state charter schools, including 13 schools in Boston. These families see charter schools as a road to educational attainment and prosperity. The potential for similar support exists for pilot schools in Boston -- provided the union stops undermining a reform it has endorsed on paper.

© Copyright 2007 Globe Newspaper Company.