Committee hears testimony on Providence receivership bills; sponsors say they are part of study commission package

Senate bills 8‑60 and 8‑61, introduced as part of a four‑bill package recommended by the Senate Study Commission on the Providence Public Schools, received an extended hearing in the Senate Education Committee. The bills would establish a receivership process for a possible state takeover of Providence public schools and set out roles, powers and requirements for turnaround plans.

Senator (as listed in the transcript) Zuri Zuriya, who presented the bills, told the committee the package was recommended by the study commission and that the bills are intended to enact structural reforms exclusively for the Providence Public Schools. He described the package as a framework to support shared accountability and a culture of collaboration and attached the commission report and supporting exhibits to the committee record.

Susan Lucy, former superintendent of Providence Public Schools (2011–2015) and ex officio member of the study commission, testified in support, saying the bills would "remove legislative barriers to improvement" and create legal clarity around the state's authority in interventions. Helen Anthony, finance chair of the Providence City Council, testified in strong support and said the current Crowley Act and the prior takeover lacked sufficient process, measurable turnaround benchmarks, transparency and stable leadership.

Drew Eccleston, Deputy Commissioner for System Transformation at the Rhode Island Department of Education, also testified in support of the two bills' design, saying the proposed model would provide a receiver the powers needed to facilitate change and would set out strategic planning elements and metrics that align with research on turnaround leadership.

Jeremy Sencer (recorded in the transcript as "Jeremy Sensor/Sencer"), representing the Rhode Island Federation of Teachers, criticized the idea of receivership and warned against reasserting state takeover authority. He said community members across constituencies "loathe" the 2019 takeover and urged the committee to focus on building trust and community engagement rather than enabling future takeovers by statute.

Witnesses described national examples the commission relied on, including the Springfield, Massachusetts Empowerment Zone and instances in Baltimore and Lawrence, Massachusetts. Testimony and the commission report compare outcomes and models and debate whether the threat of receivership can be used as leverage to secure voluntary, collaborative reforms.

After testimony and questions, the committee received a motion to hold S.B. 860; the motion was moved and seconded and carried. S.B. 861 was also held. The transcript shows the bills were held for further consideration; specific amendments and next steps were not specified in the hearing record.

Key points from testimony • Supporters (Susan Lucy; Drew Eccleston; Helen Anthony) said the bills would clarify state authority, require measurable turnaround plans, increase transparency, and invest in leadership development. • Opponents or skeptical witnesses (Jeremy Sencer) said past state intervention in Providence damaged trust, marginalized communities, and that legislative changes should focus on preventing harmful takeovers rather than enabling them. • The study commission report and exhibits were submitted to the committee record and referenced frequently by the sponsor as the basis for the bills.

Committee action A motion to hold S.B. 860 was made and seconded; the chair put the motion and the committee held S.B. 860 and S.B. 861 for further work. No roll‑call vote tallies or named movers/seconders were recorded in the public transcript for the hold motions.