While Democratic Party delegates are boozing it up at their convention in Buffalo this week, public schools in the same city are serving as a sort of case study for how hard it is to start a dynamic new public school that meets the needs of real students when all the grownups in the system have veto power over the details. (Remember this story the next time someone tells you it is easy to follow the rules that are currently in place when starting a new public school - charter or otherwise.)

Buffalo school officials - to their credit - are trying to push forward plans to provide an innovative new alternative school program for struggling students (many of whom also are chronically disruptive or violent kids.) In fact, while it won't be a charter school, the founders make no bones about the fact that it will be modeled after a highly successful charter school in Fresno, Calif.

The school plans to provide each student with a laptop, will go into the student's home and provide Internet service (if necessary,) run on a flexible class schedule between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., and enter into a partnership (a.k.a. "outsourcing") for technology and curriculum with a private firm in Maryland, among many other things.

School officials are very excited about the possibilities.

Except, as you would expect, there is some bigtime foot-dragging going on. The bureaucracy has been slow to get its act together (when any one member of the education cartel doesn't dig any portion of an idea, there is practically de facto veto power in the form of the idea-killing delay...,) and, oh yeah, the teachers union isn't exactly willing just yet to allow management to set the damned thing up.

In the understatement of the holiday weekend, the Buffalo News notes that "union issues are also a major factor."

School officials did what they were supposed to do - they included the Buffalo Teachers Federation in the planning process for this thing. And now they are probably wondering why they even bothered. Union president Phil Rumore, like usual, says the union loves, loves, loves the plan, but insists that the contract is a real problem here.

From the story:

School officials want to hire teachers without regard to seniority, to institute flexible hours, to have social services agencies at the school on a full-time basis and to have as many as 15 students in a class, rather than 10.

All those elements will need the approval of the Buffalo Teachers Federation and perhaps other district unions.

The district wants to negotiate a side agreement, sort of like a site-based contract, but the union wants this to be part of a new contract for all teachers or it won't allow it at all.

So, is this another one of those disconnects between real teacher voice and the elected union representatives? Seriously. Don't freak out yet. The public school leaders in Buffalo are making it clear what this new alternative school will be all about. They aren't hiding the unique schedule, the required flexibility, etc. If a Buffalo teacher doesn't want to teach there, what exactly is the problem? They don't have to.

But just suppose, for the sake of argument, that a teacher WANTS to be a part of this special program in Buffalo. How come their voice doesn't count? Why is Phil Rumore the one who gets to say whether this public school lives or dies?

(Before you jump down my throat here: yes, yes, yes, of course I understand that this is just posturing on Rumore's part. He says that he even likes the "concept" but that he is worried about the details, blah, blah, blah. It's his job to hold these plans up in exchange for other unrelated stuff for his rank-and-file. Of course, I get that. But that's kind of the problem, here, isn't it? It's worth remembering the hoops that Rumore is making the public school system jump through in this case the next time someone tells you how easy it is to start an interesting new public school under the existing labor contracts. It may be easy for Rumore to start a new school if he's negotiating with his own shadow, but for anyone else in Buffalo - including its regular Joe teaching force - it's a whole different story.)

PS - On an unrelated note, if you click through to the Edwize post linked above, be sure to read the comment from the NYC teacher who argues that 8 a.m. school start times are discriminatory. It's a classic - some sort of a plot on the part of the UFT and the city to force teachers to live in the city! You get a feel for what both the union leaders and school management both are up against in this crazy world.