Jim Murphy: Ward 8

Jim Murphy is a candidate for the Newton school committee in Ward 8. Learn more about his views from his campaign website, the Beacon’s profile, and his responses to the Beacon’s candidate survey:

Would you support a Proposition 2 1/2 operating override to fund schools and other city expenses?

Yes. I have two caveats: One, I can’t speak for other city expenses, so I won’t. I think NPS has been chronically underfunded and that gimmicks have papered-over the problem. Additionally, the way the budget is allocated can appear random. It causes low confidence in budget transparency, and I think that’s why the 2023 override failed, even as the debt exclusions for new school construction passed: With the exclusions, taxpayers knew what they were paying for. I followed this year’s process very closely, so I see the needs, but people being asked to write checks shouldn’t have to do that. So my second caveat is that we need a full accounting of what it costs to run our schools before we ask taxpayers to pony-up. If we do that, and if School Committee members refuse to take underfunding lying down, then I think taxpayers will listen. 

This year’s budget proposal was a good start. Give me more of it to work with, and I’d be willing to make the case to voters.

Did you support the NTA going on strike last year?

Yes. Unlike my opponent and some of the city officials who have endorsed him, I took a clear stance back then. No one wants a strike, and they don’t happen when good faith exists. The School Committee insisted on an obscenely low-ball offer to classroom aides, and it reneged on a previous contract agreement to provide classroom aides in exchange for full-day kindergarten. Had the committee acted in good faith and done right by the kids, for that matter, there would not have been a strike at all.  

I’d also argue that the current model of negotiations, marked by secrecy and zero-sum thinking, incentivizes the kind of bad faith we saw. My opponent has taken no position on this that I know of, but if elected, I will move to scrap it in favor of a more collaborative, interest-based, open model of bargaining. It won’t eliminate disagreements, but it will set a tone of mutual respect and common purpose that I believe maintains good faith and takes job-actions off the table.

Would you keep the district’s multilevel classroom learning?

No. I’d scrap the across-the-board requirement because sweeping change without family and faculty input, training, and support is never a good idea. However, they have have had success in some subject areas, which I think should stay. My opponent proposes an “automatic enrollment” scheme that ought to raise eyebrows. It’s used in in North Carolina and several other states, but the research on it is thin, and it focuses on standardized testing.  My website will more fully explain problems with it; for now I’ll say it’s another top-down initiative, and tone-deaf at best.

The broader problem, however, is that we’re too focused on credentialing and not enough on deep learning. This ignores decades of solid research on child-centered teaching, which emphasizes choice, curiosity, and the student-teacher relationship. Instead, we cling to methods derived from factory work, centered on standardization and managerialism. That’s great for consultants and curriculum sales, but not so much for kids.

Would you support the district joining School Choice, which would permit parents to send their children to public school in communities other than that in which they reside?

Yes. By law, a district’s participation in school choice is assumed unless it opts-out by June 1 of each year. We currently opt-out, but I’d be willing to reconsider if shown that it makes good fiscal sense (reimbursement for school choice students is capped at $5000.00 per student) and if we track the number of students with careful consideration of our own school population projections. The latter point is crucial because, once we take students in, they have the right to stay until graduation, even if we later opt-out of the program. My response to the building closure question below will provide additional insight on my thinking, but here I’ll say that it’s important for Newton to tackle the issue of declining enrollment with an eye toward long-term solutions. That means being very, very careful if we decide to participate in school choice.

Would you support keeping the schools’ DEI initiatives even if it may mean losing millions of dollars in federal funding?

Yes. Let’s be clear: The Trump Administration fully intends to gut education, so it’s not like meeting any of his demands will prevent the loss of funding. Fortunately, Massachusetts is using Fair Share Amendment money to blunt the impact of those cuts, and to provide additional special education funding from which NPS will benefit.  I worked to pass that initiative; my opponent did not. His concern with school funding is much more recent.

It’s truly disheartening that “DEI” has become such a catch-all invective, but we should remain true to the most vulnerable in our schools.  A fundamental mission of public education is to equip our youth to maintain the values of democratic self-rule, and that means embracing diversity in our classrooms, promoting equal opportunity for all, and making every parent’s child feel included and valued. Those are preconditions for learning; it’s also America at its best.

Are you prepared to close one or more of the city’s elementary schools if data supports doing so?

Yes. Prepared, yes; liking the possibility, no. Ultimately, it turns on school population, which is affected by demographic trends, private school opt-outs, and housing affordability. 

There’s little we can do to control the general school-age population, though school choice might help manage the impact a little. Private school opt-outs are a different matter. If NPS can offer more opportunities for students whose parents might otherwise choose private schools, then we can keep more of them here. I’m talking about classrooms that are about exploration rather than test-preparation, special education supports that allow more students to be successful, and extracurriculars that are fully funded.

Then there’s housing, and on this I believe School Committee members must be more than just managers. They need to be advocates, and housing is an area where strong advocacy can have a big impact. Get the housing right and maybe we don’t have to close schools after all.

What one big idea or initiative would you champion, once elected?

I have two: The first is to discuss NPS’s public health response to what the Trump administration is doing to medical research, vaccines, and preparedness. That way, if we find ourselves in another public health emergency, I believe we can all be on the same page.

The second is making the NPS Portrait of a Graduate the nexus of our policy-making and planning. It lays out a good picture of what graduates should take with them. However, I don’t much see it in the long-range plan that was recently passed. I know the long-range plan will shape policy, but I’m not as convinced the Portrait will have as much clout. Now that MCAS will no longer be required for graduation, there is work being done to come up with new requirements. As of now, that work includes a portrait of a learner. If we advocate for this effort, it could allow NPS to really put its Portrait at the center of teaching and learning. I’m already involved in this at the state level and would champion it here as well.