01:00 AM EDT on Sunday, April 10, 2005

THE RESPONSE that The Education Partnership has received for its report "Teacher Contracts: Restoring the Balance" has been overwhelmingly positive. We hear one word over and over and over: Finally.

Finally, a group is willing to talk about how much teacher contracts have come to hinder the work of good educators in every district across Rhode Island. Finally, a group is willing to say that we can no longer afford to let some benefits skyrocket, forcing districts to cut art and music teachers, science labs, and library services. Finally.

"Teacher Contracts: Restoring the Balance" (the full report and a two-page executive summary may be seen and downloaded on the Web, at www.edpartnership.org) is the first of what The Education Partnership expects to be annual reports on the issue of contracts and public education. The report is a critique of today's teacher contracts -- not a critique of teachers, whom we greatly respect.

Our analyses of existing contracts in Rhode Island led us to three broad conclusions:

1. The contracts restrict flexibility and school autonomy.

2. Many of the clauses in the contracts drive up the cost of education without improving the quality of our education system.

3. Teacher unions have used the bargaining process to entrench the role of the union in the contracts, weakening management rights.

Some people are already arguing that the answer is a statewide teacher contract. It is important to note that we would not join them in recommending such a contract at this time, because that would not get at the heart of the problems currently caused in collective bargaining. We could very well end up with all of the problems that we have now -- only statewide.

What should citizens do to help bring school costs under control and make sure money is spent to benefit students?

At a minimum, we hope that citizens will contact their school-committee members and ask them to dig deep into their local teacher contracts to be sure that language reduces long-term financial liability to districts. Among the things school committees should address as soon as possible:

All contracts should require teachers to share in the cost of health- and dental-insurance premiums. Many, if not all, contracts currently stipulate a co-pay for medical services and prescriptions. We are talking about cost-share of insurance premiums and co-pay of services and medicine.

Specific health-insurance providers should not be named in contracts. That stifles competition, and thus costs districts money.

Sensible policies governing sick leave and the use of substitutes should be enacted, so that less taxpayer money is squandered.

Districts should eliminate paid time off for union officers, which now allows them to conduct union business on school time, at taxpayer expense.

Citizens should also contact their legislators to support change at the state level. We believe that the following legislative changes would greatly improve our education system over the long term:

Legislation should be enacted that restricts the focus and scope of collective bargaining in public education.

Health and dental insurance for all public-school-district employees should be purchased at the state level. Money that districts save on health and dental should stay at the district level, to be used on education improvements.

Think of it: The state does not negotiate health care for state employees (or purchase other services) on a community-by-community basis. The state has a statewide state-employee health-care plan. A statewide plan for all public-school employees is the long-term solution to reducing cost and providing good care.

Evaluation programs that have been implemented in some of Rhode Island's school districts should be used as models to create a statewide teacher evaluation -- overseen by the state, implemented at the district level.

We should stop the practice of school churning called "bumping." Teachers who have a poorer evaluation should not have precedence of position over a teacher who works harder and performs better simply because of seniority. This reform would protect our excellent professionals by keeping the right teachers in the right classrooms.

The Education Partnership has now begun to engage in a meaningful dialogue by traveling all over the state to explain the report's recommendations to local school committees, community taxpayer groups and town councils.

The Partnership is only the catalyst for dialogue. Individuals and groups in local communities will have to be the mechanism for change.

Though union leaders are obviously in the business of representing the interests of their members, not students or taxpayers, we hope that those leaders, both at the local and state level, will work constructively with taxpayers, teachers, local school committees, town councils and our state legislators as we collectively move forward to enact very important financial and educational reforms. The balance needs to shift toward the common good.

Valerie Forti is president of The Education Partnership.