Today we celebrate, tomorrow we organize: PPS Acceleration School Scheme temporarily defeated

In the June 12 bargaining session with Portland Association of Teachers (PAT), Portland Public Schools leadership announced they are withdrawing their Acceleration Schools proposal for now. Among other wins for PAT membership in this limited-term bargain, such as a package of improvements to attract, support, and retain educators of color, this withdrawal is a win that many of those of us organizing against Acceleration Schools are celebrating. Based on the track record of those behind the proposal as well as research revealing the destructive nature of the model in other areas of the country, many of us came to quickly believe that the scheme was a backdoor attempt to open up the district to eventual charter and corporate control of schools. 

To have the proposal tied to the same vote as the Cost of Living Adjustment for PAT members, likely a strategic move on the part of the district to smoothly push through their school reform agenda, would have been problematic. PAT members who have been overdue for a COLA for two years may have voted to ratify the tentative agreement based solely on their fear of losing the pay adjustment provision included in the agreement. The COLA concern would have potentially precipitated a yes vote while overshadowing the damaging effect of Acceleration Schools, described in a previous post on this blog as dangerous to collective bargaining, union rights, and bad because such schools create a top-down, test-driven school culture as well as instability for teachers and students alike.  

District legal council, Brian Hungerford, said of the district's Acceleration Scheme in the bargaining session yesterday: 

"On the Acceleration Schools MOU, I think we have not made a secret since the beginning, that was our biggest point of importance for us as a team, for the Board, for the Superintendent. . . That obviously has been something we spent a lot of time on and a lot of work on. . . (We're) just trying to see where there is a path forward on this, and we are really struggling on that. And we are particularly feeling that there likely is not a path forward to mutual agreement by the end of this weekend on that Acceleration Schools MOU, which is disappointing because, again, that is the item that we had put a lot of focus on. So that put us in a position of where do we move from here? How do we move from here? And is there a way to move things forward? Do we just say, let's move this process to the fall, to the fall bargain? What do we do? . . . I think there is mutual interest and extreme interest from the district. . . so we do have a response to try to provide you, to try and bring resolution in this limited-term bargain that does not include an MOU on Acceleration Schools." 

And so the district removed the Acceleration Schools MOU from the proposal. 

While it is important to celebrate our victories, albeit temporary, we must be on the lookout for a new and possibly renamed and revamped Acceleration Schools proposal coming from PPS leadership in the fall since this model, as stated above, was such a priority for them, and since the Superintendent's leadership team has arguably been hired for their expertise in and enthusiasm for school reform and charterization. Furthermore, the School Board with the newly elected members will likely be more "innovation-," charter-, and private/public partnership-friendly than the last, making it more challenging to resist this interest convergence among district leadership. 

Today we celebrate, tomorrow we continue to push back ahead of fall against the new reincarnation of the Acceleration Schools proposal likely designed to be yet more "palatable" to penetrate through the wall of critical resistance from the rank-and-file as well as the broader community.