Providence’s public schools may remain under state control until 2027. Three senators who represent parts of the city want to change the state law that made the takeover possible.
The Crowley Act was first introduced in 1997 and lets the state education department seize control of underperforming school districts. The act’s sparse instructions for state intervention — about 380 words in all — is not exactly adored by present-day lawmakers, its unpopularity concentrated in the capital city of Providence, where the school system’s many stakeholders continue to lament the state’s 2019 seizure of its schools.
“I am one of three councilors back in 2019 that actually testified against the takeover by the state,” said Providence City Councilor Helen Anthony at a meeting Wednesday of the Rhode Island Senate Committee on Education. “One of the reasons that I was strongly in opposition to the takeover was because of the Crowley Act itself. It was woefully inadequate, in my opinion still is, in what it does [and] doesn’t do.”
Anthony was testifying in support of two bills, S0860 and S0861, by Sen. Sam Zurier, a Providence Democrat who previously visited city councilors to discuss his plans to codify a better receivership model should state takeovers happen again. The bills belong to a suite of four pieces of legislation crafted during a special legislative study commission led by Zurier in 2023 and 2024 that sought new ways to structure the relationship between the many stakeholders in the Providence public school system.
Zurier’s tweaks to the state’s framework for intervention are based on the Springfield Empowerment Zone in neighboring Massachusetts, where a school district staved off state control through a radical revision of teachers’ union contracts.
“That vision, I am pleased to report, is union-friendly,” Zurier said of the Springfield initiative, noting that 96% of the district’s unionized teachers approved of the most recent contract.
Zurier’s bills would apply to Providence only and would create a statute authorizing a third-party receiver to manage the district, rather than the state doing so directly. The state would appoint the receiver, who would be “a nonprofit entity or an individual with a demonstrated record of success in improving low-performing schools or districts or the academic performance of disadvantaged students,” according to one of the bill texts.
The receivership would be authorized for up to three years, and allow the third party to oversee staffing and budget decisions, teacher renewals and a turnaround plan with clear metrics to determine the takeover’s success. The receiver would also have some power to modify collective bargaining agreements, and Zurier’s bill specifies time periods for contract and dispute arbitration.
The current Crowley Act fails to specify much in its regulation of state takeovers in its two paragraphs on the process of state intervention, compared to the 10 pages of regulations in one of Zurier’s bills.
“I know it’s strange to be thinking about amending the Crowley Act when the city of Providence is considering returning to local control, but I think it’s absolutely critical,” Anthony said, arguing that the bills have value for school districts statewide. “Even though this is Providence specific, they will ensure future interventions are more effective, more accountable, and ideally less necessary.”
Former Providence schools superintendent Susan Lusi told senators that Zurier’s bills “will create legal clarity regarding the state’s authority moving forward.”
One example of the Crowley Act’s ambiguities: Last year’s protracted legal battle between the state and Providence in which a judge agreed the city owed at least $15 million to plug up deficits in the state-controlled budget. The parties had contradictory interpretations of the city’s statutory obligations for school funding under the Crowley Act.
Rather than dismiss the possibility of state control, Zurier’s bill is actually meant to codify a stronger form of receivership, should it happen again.
“None of this could have happened in Springfield if they weren’t scared of a state takeover under the rigorous Massachusetts law,” Zurier said. “The argument is that you need to have a structure like this in order to…incentivize people to do the right thing.”
Jeremy Sencer, testifying on behalf of the Rhode Island Federation of Teachers, disagreed.
“We can do many of the things, if not all, of the things that they do in the Springfield Empowerment Zone,” said Sencer, who was part of Zurier’s study commission. “It is possible, but that requires building trust, and we are not going to have trust at the end of a threat. It’s just not going to happen after this takeover…You cannot legislate trust.”
Contemplating alternatives to takeover
Two other Providence Democratic senators on the education committee offered alternate visions of state takeovers. Sen. Jake Bissaillon’s S922 would permit state takeovers but only for individual schools, not entire districts. Union representatives spoke in favor of this approach, which stemmed from Bissaillon’s utter dissatisfaction with the state takeover.
“What grade would you give the takeover over the last six years?” Bissaillon asked Anthony when she spoke on Zurier’s bill.
The city councilor gave the takeover a “C,” but when Bissaillon spoke on his bill, he graded it without a curve: “The takeover in 2019 completely foundered…I think I would give it an F for abject failure.”
Sen. Tiara Mack also offered a school-based solution, with legislation that would require Providence schools to “form local elected school-based councils” at each of the district’s public schools, according to the bill text.
All four bills were held for further study, which is standard practice.
The same day state senators mused on the mechanics of receivership, the collective voices of Providence public school students were compiled in a document released by OurSchoolsPVD, an assembly of youth-led activist groups that began in 2019 in response to the state takeover.
The 11-page “community needs” document details the trends and prominent concerns about the city’s schools shared by students themselves at a December event,.
The students’ collected opinions reflected a ground-level vantage point, describing a number of more material and social issues like poor school buildings with mold and falling ceilings, subpar transportation and curriculums that don’t make space for students of different backgrounds or center people of color.
The report noted that “People are not satisfied with school leadership broadly…They are frustrated by a lack of progress, transparency, accountability, and care for students.”
But the biggest complaint was a general lack of support, which was mentioned 54 times by students who attended the event.
“There is overwhelming agreement that students feel unsupported in school,” the report states.
This story was originally published by the Rhode Island Current.
