Ed. Note: During August, Fig City News conducted interviews with each of the 10 School Committee candidates who are running in competitive elections. This notice was sent to all candidates prior to the interviews. All interviews were completed before any were published.
Your website highlights your career in anti-poverty advocacy and justice programs. How does that background inform your views about the School Committee?
I’m a lawyer, and spent my career working in public service: at two civil rights law firms, and two large nonprofits providing free legal services to people who can’t afford a lawyer. The experience in those roles overseeing large, diverse organizations that are people-centered, and serving diverse populations, directly relate to the School Committee.
I also oversaw nonprofit budgets, which have important similarities with municipal and school budgets, including limitations on increasing revenue. It’s important to use the money you do have creatively, strategically, innovatively to provide services.
Also, the nonprofits where I worked were both unionized. I was a member of a legal services worker union, and then I was promoted out of the bargaining unit and became part of management. I’ve had the opportunity to experience both sides of the bargaining table, and navigated through some complex issues to reach fair, sustainable contracts that benefited the organization overall.
As a lawyer who’s been deeply involved in policy advocacy, I’ve read and understood policies to figure out how to implement them, which is something the School Committee must do, in addition to developing new policies. I’ve spent a lot of time on community engagement in different ways. In order to pass any kind of policy, you need to convince the community that it’s important. So I’ve spent a lot of time listening and learning from diverse groups of people about their thoughts on a particular issue, and crafting solutions that meet everybody’s needs.
You said you were at a nonprofit that had a unionized workforce. Isn’t collective bargaining typically opposite a corporate or government employer?
Many large nonprofits are unionized, it’s certainly not universal, but the two big legal aid organizations I worked for [in Chicago and Los Angeles], had been unionized for many years before I got there. I’ve never worked at a unionized for-profit company, so I can’t directly compare it, but I think there are similarities in the sense that the union’s role is to advocate for what its members feel like they need around working conditions. And those working conditions are almost always connected, especially in a mission-driven organization like a school district or nonprofit, to its work.
The legal services union had two goals. They advocated for what their members needed to be successful in their jobs, as well as what they thought the clients of the organization needed to receive. To me, that’s quite similar to what goes on in the school district. There’s a contract that lasts for a certain number of years and close to its expiry you move into the formal negotiating process. I’ve seen success in what’s called interest-based bargaining, where the parties, instead of coming to the table first with their positions, talk in a bigger, more holistic way about what each side is interested in achieving. It can sometimes take a little more time at the beginning, but it opens up the dialogue and usually helps lead to a faster, more fair and sustainable contract process.
Earlier, you said that you were involved in running a large, diverse, organization that had analogies to NPS. Which one were you referring to?
I was in the most senior role at the Legal Aid Organization in Los Angeles, which was called Bet Tzedek. It was founded by Jewish lawyers and community advocates in the 1970s, and had a project providing legal services to low-income Holocaust survivors. It served a diverse population, so it was important to the organization to have a diverse staff at all levels: lawyers, managers, paralegals, interpreters, desk clerks.
Anna Nolin has discussed interest-based bargaining. On the eve of the strike, the two parties were many millions of dollars apart. That seems like more of a math problem than a communication problem. How does interest-based bargaining solve that?
I think it’s a math problem that grew out of a long-running communication problem. From what I observed, from the outside looking in as the NTA contract was expiring, we were going month after month without a resolution.
I have no insider knowledge of the bargaining rooms, but I was paying attention because it was important to me, and I had some experience in the union space. It felt like the contract had expired, the negotiations had been stalled for months, and that was a result of months, possibly years, of a failure to really communicate effectively, including between the School Committee and City leadership about what resources were needed. Interest-based bargaining isn’t a magic potion. It can’t solve problems that have accumulated over the years. It’s an important tool, but it has to be preceded by thoughtful, intentional effort to create, grow, and maintain a relationship between all the parties. You’re bargaining every 3-4 years, so in that space in between, it’s important there be both formal and informal conversations going on.
Outside of the union space, I’ve negotiated a lot of settlements as a lawyer, representing clients who have sued big government agencies and companies, co-workers, and a whole variety of different contentious issues. The approach to those negotiations may be a little colder, because you’re not dealing with repeat players. You’re suing an employer who fired you a year ago, you have no interest in going back [there], and they have no interest in hiring you again. So you’re not looking to maintain a relationship. My experience with workplace unions is the opposite: You’re going to see each other at work the next day, and you’ll be back at the bargaining table in three years. Union-management relationships that I’ve seen be successful are not based on six months of negotiations, but years of building good relationships, being honest about challenges, sharing information and ideas, respecting and listening to everybody’s concerns, and collaborating. It’s called collective bargaining because management and union are collectively coming together.
I’ve talked to members of the current and past School Committees, and current and past union leadership, because I’m focused on how we move forward in a more positive way to negotiate the next contract, which is soon: 2027. In the past, there were substantial time periods where there was a lot of daily, informal and formal communication between union and management, and the School Committee felt connected to folks who worked in the building and to Union leadership.
They didn’t agree all the time, but could work on things collaboratively. In the last, certainly five to ten years, that has started to fall away. We saw in the stalemate the complete breakdown of the relationship, as demonstrated by the strike, was several years of neglect of those important relationships. That left us where, even if they had brought in a fantastic interest-based bargaining facilitator at the last moment, I’m not sure that person could have solved that math problem because they were already so stuck.
During the strike, you were critical of the current School Committee, consistent with what you just said about communication. What informed those views during the strike, and have they evolved since?
I attended some community forums about the strike, and shared some information on social media about upcoming events or deadlines. The main goal was to support the educators and ensure whatever the conflict was between the union and School Committee wasn’t bleeding over into educators feeling like they were not respected or valued by the Newton community. I attended a couple of meetings where I felt like the language being used by some people was more personally directed at educators as individuals rather than: “This is a difficult situation having trouble reaching a resolution, and we hope that they get there soon.”
It was a collective failure. The committee, mayor, and union collectively failed to resolve the contract, which was devastating for everybody in Newton. I also shared my feelings to the extent I could with union leaders and members who I was in touch with during the strike. At community forums, when City leaders and School Committee members were speaking, I directed some of my criticism towards them. I emailed the mayor, who I had helped elect. I respected a lot of her decisions but thought that she wasn’t doing everything she should and could to move it forward. I was hearing that she wasn’t attending meetings she was invited to, and I thought some of the language used in her citywide communications was feeding into this “us-versus-them” vitriol. I don’t know that I have changed any of those assessments.
There was plenty of blame to go around. When bargaining fails, it’s generally a collective failure, and I think this was exactly that. I have come to appreciate even more the amount of nuance and work that goes into growing the kind of relationship you need to have a successful negotiation. Newton is a large district with a lot of educators, so it’s a large union full of smart, mission-driven people who care about their jobs and have strong opinions about what they need to be the best educators they can be. The city, I understand, is facing some real financial challenges. During the strike, I was calling on everybody I could to do everything they could to get our kids back in school.
Your website says you have experience solving these kinds of issues and bringing parties together. How would you do that on the School Committee?
The goal of the next School Committee is to think strategically about building that relationship. Having regular meetings between the union leadership, the superintendent’s office, and certain members of the School Committee long before we’re bargaining, just to check in about things. Maybe having more subcommittees look at specific issues. I would like to hear from union leadership how a stronger relationship could be facilitated. I think everybody is waiting to see who the personalities are going to be to figure out what that looks like. For example, I’ve spoken to former School Committee members who’ve had standing coffees with the union president, not to talk about any particular issue, but to keep an open door. There needs to be more thoughtful and intentional efforts to facilitate that kind of communication.
Also, preparations for negotiations need to start early. Certain pieces of information are useful and necessary to have at any productive negotiation. Some of that is financial, some is other aspects of the contract, but you don’t have to wait until the bargaining table to start to surface issues and brainstorm solutions.
What were your thoughts on this past spring’s budget debate? If you’re elected, what perspective would you bring?
I’ll start with some positive things, since NPS has had a challenging last 5-6 years, and — reflected in conversations I’ve had – people feel anxious and unsure. First, the current School Committee was right to ask Dr. Nolin to build a new budget from zero, starting from the ground and saying “What do our schools need? What do those things cost, and what would I like to do with the budget next year?” The result of that was an informative, transparent budget. I credit the School Committee and the superintendent for working together, and my understanding is that’s different from previous years.
Also, it was a learning opportunity for all of us who weren’t on the School Committee nor working in the schools. For example how the Mayor serves a dual role both as a member of the School Committee and also having ultimate authority to set the NPS allocation, and then the School Committee’s role in allocating those dollars. It brought a lot of sunlight and attention to a process that maybe hadn’t been that well understood.
The less positive part was the uncertainty and frustration. The final result was, thankfully, a budget that avoided laying off any classroom teachers. I’m glad, but it was a budget held together with bubble gum and Scotch tape. There was a lot of one-time-only funding and temporary uses of funds. It didn’t accomplish raising the base budget for the schools in a meaningful way to build on next year. I was glad to see the advocacy of folks on the School Committee who took the somewhat unusual step of saying to the mayor, this allocation is simply not enough, even though the they have no hard power to force a different number.We need this not to be an annual crisis, and have more stability and sustainability. It took a lot of time and attention from the superintendent and her team to fill the budget gap.
It also created, or added, to a feeling of unease within the community. Educators who work in Newton, for several weeks in the spring, thought their contracts might not be renewed in the fall. My understanding was that several teachers at my son’s elementary school were in that situation. It was hard for the school community to contemplate that they wouldn’t be there, and hard on them. We’re lucky they didn’t decide to find another job in those couple of weeks, so they’re coming back this fall. That kind of uncertainty around hiring and retention isn’t good for organizational health. I am hopeful and determined to help to get us to a place where the annual budget season is more predictable, and moves forward in a more efficient and confidence-inspiring way.
Is increasing the allocation to NPS above what it’s recently been part of the answer to sustainability?
Yes, we need to find a way to increase the base allocation that comes from the mayor. I understand there are challenges. Newton, like every other city we read about, across the country, but certainly in Massachusetts, is facing a real math problem. Costs are rising at a rate we haven’t seen in a long time because of the period of inflation, healthcare and transportation costs, things that the City can’t directly control. Material costs, construction projects, and road paving – everything has gotten more expensive. While at the same time, the growth of tax revenue, particularly in a city like Newton, which is fairly built out, is essentially capped at 2.5% by Proposition 2 1/2, unless there is new development or other fundamental changes.
As we start to think about potential tools at the City’s disposal, like making adjustments to the pension debt payment plan, raising revenue through new kinds of fees, encouraging new development that will eventually result in new tax revenue to the city, but not in the immediate term –I am hopeful that, under a new mayor’s leadership and new School Committee and City Council members, and returning City Council members, who think deeply about this issue too – that we’re going to find a way to balance our budget so that every department within the City gets what it needs. That includes NPS, who have faced the same, if not higher, rising costs than some of the other departments, due to how many folks are employed by the district and how things like an increase in health costs hit NPS hard.
How does being an NPS parent inform your campaign?
I grew up in Newton and went to Angier, Brown, and South. My kids are now going to Angier, Brown, and South, which is remarkable because I was gone for 30 years, but that’s how the stars align. We moved from Los Angeles in 2021, so my kids are starting their fifth year in NPS. Their experiences have been really excellent, with engaged, innovative, and interesting teachers; dynamic and fun classmates. The curriculum has met their needs really well. I want to keep those good things going and be a cheerleader, but not polyanna-ish.
It’s important for everybody to feel proud and invested in NPS, [in order] to work to make the improvements. Angier has been on the leading edge of introducing the Multi-Tier System of Support (MTSS) concept into NPS, and I’ve seen first-hand the incredible positive impacts. You really get the sense that each student is getting what they need, and freeing classroom teachers to focus on the whole class, instead of spending the bulk of their time on one or two students. I’ve heard the principal at Angier say once the program was fully in place, they reduced the number of 1:1 aides by a lot. Some of the students who [still] had 1:1 could actually receive that support. It’s both a success in terms of the academic growth of individual students and the school overall. It’s an upfront strategic investment, that well executed, has resulted in a substantial savings of money because of the cost of those aides who are not needed in the same numbers.
I’m also hoping to work on digital health. My kids are in the generation that got cell phones during COVID, then had an explosion of technology in their lives: Chromebooks issued by NPS, the number of classmates with devices, and social media. It’s reached the point where it’s detrimental to focus, critical thinking, developing healthy social relationships, and self confidence. I was really [glad] to see the cell phone policy that went into effect, with support from the School Committee. We need to build on that, though, fairly urgently, to help restore some health and balance around technology.
We need to take a look at more restrictive policies. That might include bell-to-bell policies in the high school. Right now in the high schools, you can’t have your phone out during academic time, but you can during other school time. There’s state legislation pending that might require schools to adopt bell-to-bell policies, we’re not there yet, but it’s worth considering. We’d probably need to make adjustments, given [Newton’s] high schools are open campus, but we should push in the direction of kids spending less time on personal devices during the school day. We need to do a better job of teaching digital media literacy. None of what I’m saying is meant to be anti-tech. It’s about when and how students use technology productively. I’ve heard from a number of teachers who say they need more training on how to use technologies and how to help students to use it. A couple of teachers reflected to me, for example, when Chromebooks were issued to everybody, there wasn’t much training on how to use [them] as educational tools and how to make decisions about which assignments they should be used for, versus pen and paper.
Also, schools have an important role to play in helping develop new community norms around technology. I’ve been doing a lot of reading around how communities shift, and all that research says it has to be a collective decision. There has to be a community norm around, for example, kids generally don’t get cell phones until they’re in eighth or ninth grade, and they don’t have access to social media until [age] 15 or 16. It’s not an enforced rule, but that people come together with their neighbors and classmates to make similar decisions. It’s hard to be the only 12-year-old without a cell phone or the only 13-year-old who doesn’t [have access to] social media. To encourage that, you have to provide information and practical advice to parents so they can have what they need to make healthy decisions for their own kids.
If I could go back in time, I would change the way our kids were given access to certain technology. I appreciate learning from others’ choices they’ve made and how that’s encouraged. [It’s] a healthy and balanced use of technology that’s not interfering with sleep, self confidence, stamina, or reading a book. We hear from teachers that kids have trouble focusing for long periods of time, reading extended passages, and a lot of the research indicates that’s the impact of the age of technology that we’re living in.
Some parents might have gotten their child a cell phone earlier than eighth grade for family reasons – single-parent households, families with challenging healthcare or working situations – where they have to communicate with their kid during the day or after school. What would you say to someone who reads what you just said and thinks “I don’t want the community judging me for getting my kid a cell phone”?
None of what I said was meant to imply any kind of judgment. I’m reflecting what I’ve felt myself as a parent – and what I heard from other parents – is the pressure to give access to certain technology. There are good reasons why kids might need more access to phones because of personal circumstances. I wouldn’t want to get in the way of that. All of the policy proposals I’ve seen that are any good have lots of carve-outs for people who need [them]. There are some health-tracking apps that are important to people with diabetes, for example. In terms of contacting your child during the school day, I know [NPS] does a lot of work to make sure folks in the office are answering the phones and can get messages to kids as needed. Certainly if they need their phones after school for arranging transportation or getting in touch with somebody, absolutely, they should have them. Let’s share information and ideas amongst ourselves, try to make the best decisions we can.
Over the past year, the NPS Office of DEI has been downsized and folded into the HR Department. Its responsibilities, at least based on public memos, are now staff-facing rather than student-facing. Do you agree with those changes? What are your views on DEI going forward in NPS?
I don’t know much about the reasoning behind those changes. I saw them referenced in documents and at School Committee meetings. It’s not clear what drove those structural changes. I’m trying to set up some meetings with folks who work in that office to find out more. Therefore I don’t know whether they’re a positive or not. I think the concept of DEI connects to values that resonate with most people in Newton, and that I’ve heard reflected back to me in the hundreds of conversations I’ve had. There’s almost universal agreement that people in Newton want our schools to be places where all students and families, regardless of background identity, feel safe and welcome. We want to have systems and practices so that every student has equal access to resources and opportunity. I’ve heard Dr. Nolin talk about DEI many times, but one time she was on a panel with some other educators – I can’t remember the exact context of it, but she boiled DEI in schools down to students needing a sense of comfort and belonging, so they can fully access the education.
That connects to the staff, which makes it possible for students of all identities to feel seen and connected to staff members of diverse identities. My sincere hope is that Newton is continuing to work very hard on all of those things. I can’t speak to the specific restructuring that you mentioned at the beginning. My impression from all the folks I’ve talked to working in the schools at all different levels, including in central administration, is that everyone is really committed to all of those values, I would keep [them] top of mind if I was on the School Committee.
Is there anything that we didn’t cover that you’d like to convey to our readers?
I’ve never run for political office before. I’m not necessarily interested in politics for politics’ sake. Running for public office in your hometown is invigorating, intense, fascinating, and a lot of work. I’m doing it to step up for the schools because they’re so important to me, and I think that I can help. I have a lot of fairly unique experiences and perspectives that will help me from day one. I have no other agenda or reason for doing this other than to be of service to a community that I care an awful lot about.
