“I still believe in hope*

From my notebook
From last April 

Okay, so clearly my New Year's Day post on the state senate potentially taking up school funding came from a place of skepticism.

But Senator Jo Comerford is clearly so excited and happy on her Instagram post from the same day that I feel like a heel for only that take, so let's try for the optimism that is the thing one needs to keep on trying in this field of education. Our kids, after all, deserve better.

Screaming into the void on IA

 

Headline in "The Hill": AI read to hit its stride in schools in 2025
No, I am not linking to the article.

Sometimes it is a consolation rather than a problem that education tends to operate as a pendulum. Anyone around schools for any length of time knows that much that comes into schools being trumpeted as the next big thing goes away. 

Something that you may have missed is the judge in the Hingham High AI-cheating case denied the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction in a decision you can read here or can read Benjamin Riley having some fun with here. A preliminary injunction--my I am not a lawyer explanation!--is based on the likelihood of the judge deciding the case in that side's favor, and in this case, the judge's answer was "not at all likely." As the decision says:

Despite Plaintiffs’ strenuous efforts to frame this case as one of “first impression in the Commonwealth” about how to deal with an emerging technology, Court need not parse the terms of the Handbook as if it were a criminal statute27 to decide whether Grammarly can reasonably be considered an “author” as the term is used in the Handbook. The Supreme Court has expressly eschewed such an approach. See Bethel Sch. Dist. No. 403, 478 U.S. at 686 (“Given the school’s need to be able to impose disciplinary sanctions for a wide range of unanticipated conduct disruptive of the educational process, the school disciplinary rules need not be as detailed as a criminal code which imposes criminal sanctions.”).  

In any event, the Handbook defines plagiarism as “the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one’s own work.” Docket No. 24-1, at 25. Even if I were to credit RNH’s testimony that he was “confused” about what uses of AI were permitted, it strains credulity to suppose that RNH actually believed that copying and pasting, without attribution, text that had been generated by Grammarly was consistent with any standard of academic honesty.  

I'll only add: no appropriate attribution is possible, as the actual sources of such generated text are unknowable.  

It's a useful decision to read.

_______________________________________________
While I'd known of the courts' general reluctance to look over the shoulders of school officials (within bounds), I'd not previously read either of the closing citations:

As the Supreme Court has noted:  

    It is not the role of the federal courts to set aside decisions of school administrators which the court may view as lacking a basis in wisdom or compassion. Public high school students do have substantive and procedural rights while at school. But § 1983 does not extend the right to relitigate in federal court evidentiary questions arising in school disciplinary proceedings or the proper construction of school regulations. The system of public education that has evolved in this Nation relies necessarily upon the discretion and judgment of school administrators and school board members and § 1983 was not intended to be a vehicle for federal court correction of errors in the exercise of that discretion which do not rise to the level of violations of specific constitutional guarantees. 

Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308, 326 (1975) (citations omitted). 

In sum, “the Nation’s youth is primarily the responsibility of parents, teachers, and state and local school officials, and not of federal judges.” Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 273 (1988). This case well illustrates the good sense in that division of labor.

I was not actually going to post on Lawrence

 ...which, State House News Service reports, has now lost its fully elected school committee, as Governor Healey has now signed the bill empowering mayoral appointment for some of the seats. 

Lawrence, of course, has been in receivership since 2011, faithfully electing a school committee that lacks authority over its own district ever since. Rather than moving out of receivership, it moved to a receivership committee; it is difficult not to see Lawrence's fate tied far too closely with the previous Commissioner, the only one with power to remove it from receivership, having served as a receiver there himself. Riley, of course, did not remove any district from receivership during his time; Acting Commissioner Johnston has moved Holyoke out, despite having served less than a year, as yet. 

It was the remark in support of the mayoral appointment that particularly catches my ire: "There was a superintendent that was indicted. All of us knew what was going on with that superintendent. Yet that person kept getting bonuses, was never fired," as State House News Reports.

Yes, the former Lawrence superintendent was indicted in 2014. 
Lawrence's mayor, though he avoided being himself legally held responsible, at the time was subject to a federal investigation, as well as a host of...a lot of mess, including a lot of people close to him actually being held legally responsible.

All of that is bad. But here's the thing: not only is no one saying that because the mayor in 2011 was at least contiguous to a lot of bad stuff, Lawrence should never elected a mayor; the argument is that the current mayor should have more power and the school committee less because the superintendent in 2011 did bad stuff. 

This makes no sense. And it does a disservice to the people of Lawrence. 

And frankly, the way the Legislature and the Governor just went along with this is lousy.

Also, this is being regarded, by many who keep an eye on such things, as lack of support for local elected control of schools. That this could be a pattern was the source of Senator Fattman's objection to the bill; those in Boston hoping to regain elected control of their own schools are watching; and frankly, anywhere that the school committee occasionally goes head to head with the municipal side is a bit shaken today.

Not good. 

___
PS: The T&G appears to have reviewed the above and taken it that this is a move towards trying to get Lawrence out of receivership. It has no bearing on that. This isn't a "new pathway" out; that's just off base.

on state education funding in the new Legislative term

 Senate President Spilka, per State House News Service*: 

As for education funding, Spilka said she's heard from a lot of senators that their districts are having issues with education funding, even as the Student Opportunity Act has ramped up investments.

"So I think every 10 years or so, it should be re-evaluated and looked at... Things are changing so rapidly in schools and in education, so it's time to take a look at at the formula," she said.

...one hopes by "formula," she means the municipal contribution side as well as the foundation budget; you might remember that the Foundation Budget Review Commissioner was just that.  

As I've said, I remain very concerned that what is being heard by legislators is less than solid on what is working on and what is not. And I am quite certain that what is not being heard is how really not great we are as a state on equity and effort. That is what should be the biggest push of any proposed reform.

_____________________

*paywalled; I'll keep an eye out for a repost

Some things I really hope we get right in 2025

Let there be goblin hordes, let there be terrible environmental threats, let there be giant 

mutated slugs if you really must, but let there also be Hope. It may be a grim, thin hope, an Arthurian sword at sunset, but let us know that we do not live in vain.

Terry Pratchett, "When Children Read Fantasy"

As the turn of the calendar gives one of the "looking back/looking forward" opportunities, I thought I'd put together some hopes I have of this coming calendar year, if only, as the great Pratchett put it, to "know that we do not live in vain."

Checking in on some major stories

•  Sure seems like it was a wise decision for the Worcester City Council and Worcester School Committee to remove police from the Worcester Public Schools back in 2021 on the recommendation of then-City Manager Augustus during the superintendency of Maureen Binienda, doesn't it?
  
  
• Barring action (or lack thereof) by the Governor, Lawrence, which hasn't had an empowered school committee since 2011, is on its way to no longer having a fully elected one, as the Senate passed the mayor's planned takeover of seats last week, after an 11th hour effort by Senator Fattman (who represents Southbridge) to stop it; cheers to Senators Jehlen and Elbridge who spoke in opposition as well. 
  We're well accustomed to blaming lack of local control of DESE; this one sits squarely on Lawrence City Hall collaborating with the state legislature. 
  
  
• In this same "we're past extra innings" time, we also saw the school bus camera ticketing bill emerge from the Senate, and it's on Governor Healey's desk. It'll now be up to local districts to actually implement it (please take this as a hint to get ready to do so). 
  
  
  
• The Education Law Center's 2024 "Making the Grade" report on school funding equity by state (using 2021-22 data) again demonstrates that Massachusetts isn't what it thinks of itself as:
  
  
  Yes, that's a D in both distribution and effort.
  
  Read the report itself for what those mean, but the ability of local communities to raise any kind of money they vote for just their school plus the Massachusetts devotion to increasing funding without any attachment to need, enrollment, or local ability to contribute combines to come home to roost here. We're perpetuating inequity, and far too much of the advocacy is pushing for more the same sort of increasing of disparities. 
  
  

No sugarplums

 with apologies, of course, to Clement C. Moore.

(not that kind of spin)

'Twas the Friday before Christmas
And all through the city
Not creature examined
A press release so pretty.

"Ten million!" it said
On every channel,
"For a difficult budget
we must work to handle!"

"More children," it said
"They must be supported,
"And our new Burncoat High
"we're funding!" it purported.

(Not mentioned as yet?
The head-scratching omission
From MSBA's list:
Burncoat Middle's addition?)

While free cash to schools
Is better than none
And planning for schools
Is better when done

The municipal spin
On this was nearly transcension
And lest we be left
Under misapprehension:

Our city, like all
throughout our fair state,
Is required 
To pull its fair weight.

This 'foundation budget'
Most far exceed.
Worcester, alas, 
Does not follow this lead.

Cutting so close
Puts us in constant peril,
And this year, indeed,
The shave was too narrow.

Yet to be sure the students'
Highest needs were met
Buses are sent
To a greater extent.

Out-of-district tuition
May count; buses don't.
And so the dollars moved
Where the press release won't.

It may not make headlines
As nicely as that,
But being unclear
The reasons fall flat.

When the public is not given
The facts of the case
We cannot make good decisions
And we're aren't in our place

Of being good watchdogs
And being prepared
For FY26
And all that entails.

Let me give here a nod
'Fore I close out this verse:
Worry less about spin
More about what you disburse.