Wait, what? moments from last week's Board of Ed

Due to the Consensus Revenue hearing starting at noon, I did not liveblog the last section of the Board of Ed meeting last Tuesday, which was on the interim graduation report. I did watch it later in the day--you can read my MASC coverage here--but much like the Commissioner's goals, feedback was not so much focused on the report as it was talking around associated items. 

Please enjoy this waving snowman from Palmer.
The snowman has nothing to do with the post,
but we need to take our happy things where we can.

There were five eyebrow raising moments during the meeting--two from the Commissioner's priorities, and three from the graduation discussion--that I want to be sure we don't miss, as much as everyone's attention right now may be elsewhere. 

• During the section on the Commissioner's priorities, there was an extended Official Fan Club of Tom Kane meeting between Hills, West, Grant, with at one point their bandying about the suggestion that the Department could contract out to him analysis of data (with this being followed at one point by a quick comment that was in sum "but your work is good, too, Rob Curtin!"). Grant was pushing for there to be "real time" analysis of classroom interventions to see what was working (with the suggestion being that money should follow what did).
  Kane is an economist. He has (as West, to his credit, noted) a fairly narrow analysis. He is also not the second coming of Elvis. Let's all calm down, please.
  
  
• Member Grant made it clear, during the discussion of the Commissioner's goals, that the "powers" of the Board and Commissioner to hold "accountable" schools and districts were something she thinks should be used more. She said "during the pandemic, there were historic investments made, and we do not have data" showing results, which demonstrates that she shares the common misconception as to why those "historic investments" were actually made.
  Read the federal bill, folks.
  
  
• According, at least, to Vice Chair Hills, the interim graduation report changed on December 1, after publication, and remains internally inconsistent regarding how end-of-coursework assessments are being handled. The video of this section, which is the discussion, starts at about three hours and thirty minutes in. I know nothing of this, as I did not see the report on that date and I have not closely reviewed it. 
  Nonetheless, that is something of note. As Hills noted, this suggests that this is a document of many editors.
  
  
• Grant--who, the longer she's on, makes it more and more clear that she is of the 90's era version of ed reform, which was the fear of those of us who saw both TFA and charter schools on her resume--proposed that philanthropy should fund the implementation of the graduation requirements.
  This is, of course, 180 degrees out of phase with the public education for the public good at the public expense which is the foundational and constitutional principle of Massachusetts.
  
  
• During the same portion of the discussion, which came as a result of Members Fisher and Smidy (and thank goodness for people who are closer to districts and classrooms!) noting that the new graduation requirements sounded great but EXPENSIVE and RESOURCE-RICH, Chair Craven commented that, as districts had shrinking enrollment (as was discussed by AFT-MA President Jessica Tang in her opening comments), they will have, surely, lots of money--"$40,000 or $50,000 a student!'--to spend on these requirements. 
  This is so very very wrong that I am speechless. Ms. Tang's point was that districts are in fiscal crisis, so, no, districts are not in a position to take on this significant new expense. 

Let's keep our eyes on these.