Johnston: what outcomes are envisioned as a result?
"Our vision is that as a result of their public education in Massachusetts, students will attain academic knowledge and skills, understand and value self and others, and engage with the world"
Showing posts with label districts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label districts. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 21, 2024
Tuesday, June 23, 2020
What we don't talk about in Massachusetts
The big Boston Globe piece this weekend on two classes teaching lessons on racism and the district response--well worth reading, if you have not--followed the usual Massachusetts habit of not talking about our school district context, as I tweeted out that morning.
I grew up here and I always have to remind myself of exactly where Milton is:
...it shares a substantial border with Mattapan, which is one of the historically Black sections of Boston.
And the Milton Public Schools look like this:
I grew up here and I always have to remind myself of exactly where Milton is:
And the Milton Public Schools look like this:
And the (next door) Boston Public Schools look like this:
And the thing is, in Massachusetts, we largely don't even blink at seeing numbers this disparate in districts that are right next to each other. It's not just true of Boston; it's true of Worcester and Springfield and most of the cities in the state.
That doesn't happen by accident.
I was thinking of this again this past week in part after reading this post by two sisters Caroline and Emily Joyner, who grew up in Southborough and graduated from Algonquin Regional High School, where I taught until 2001. They rode the bus with Devin Brosnan, who is among the officers charged in the killing of Rayshard Brooks in Atlanta, and with Matt Colligan, who was among those at the Unite the Right demonstration in Charlottesville last year. I would urge you to go read their post. Algonquin, reflecting the towns of Northboro and Southborough from which it draws, is a very white district.
We have a lot of very white districts in Massachusetts.
We have a lot of very white districts in Massachusetts.
That's doesn't happen by accident, either.
It's been observed over and again, but we tend to think of ourselves as good blue Massachusetts, far too often not doing much observing as where we are and how we got there. The disparities in school districts that city leaders called out this morning isn't accidental. It's created. It was created and it is, still, sustained.
Wednesday, April 17, 2019
Spring break reading
I've caught my breath enough to catch up a bit some of the more national publications. These are some things I'm reading, and I'll add reflections as I have them.
- Washington Post has an interesting piece of what it looks like to live not viewing your (white) child as the exception with the escape hatch in Washington, D.C.
“I want my kids to know they are no better than any other kids from any other background and to pull them out of their feeder school because it’s predominantly black school, that sends the wrong message,” Clapp said.
- Ed Build has released an interactive update on efforts across the country of predominately white, weathlier districts to secede from their predominately students of color and/or poorer school districts. There is coverage by Vox on this here.You might also read this piece in Hechinger Report by Emmanuel Felton (writing a book on METCO!), which works out where this is happening (not just the South!) and some of the reasons why.
If you're in Massachusetts, please recall that this isn't happening here only because we have never had regionalized districts for the purposes of integration at all; it can't fall apart because they never came together. I'll also note that Felton uses Newton, MA, as an example of the sort of wealth disparities associated with school funding, as it brings in more taxes than the entire city of Detroit.
- I haven't read this yet, but the Learning Policy Institute has evaluated ESSA plans around equity. They focus on:
- suspension rates;
- school climate;
- chronic absenteeism;
- extended-year graduation rate; and
- access to a college- and career-ready curriculum.
Three of these Massachusetts included in the ESSA current plan.
Sunday, September 10, 2017
Worcester: preliminary election on Tuesday! A few thoughts on D5
Worcester districts 1 and 5 have a preliminary election on Tuesday; in both cases, the four names on the ballot will be narrowed to two for the November election. I live in D5, and I haven't been following D1 closely. I will say that I've worked with Ed Moynihan, and if I lived in D1, I'd vote for Ed. What follows are some thoughts on the D5 race, in part drawn from Nicole's liveblog of the forum earlier this week, in part drawn from what I've found in my mailbox.
In full disclosure: of the three candidates running active campaigns, I've met Matt Wally twice, have lived down the street from Paul Franco for twelve years, and know Doug Arbetter pretty well.
From an education policy perspective, the City Council races are relevant for where they actually have a purview on school policy, From past experience, I can tell you that councilors often appear to have no idea where that is. The refreshing thing about this year's district race is that we at least don't appear to have candidates who are overstepping. It's not as clear that we have a solid group stepping up.
The main place Council purview falls on schools is the budget, of course, and as Worcester has yet to fight its way up to a full percent over foundation, and at a time when Worcester is owed on the order of $100M a year in foundation funding from the state, it might have been good if anyone (anyone?) had asked about that as an issue. It does not appear that they did; I have seen no mention in the forum or in interviews of Worcester's funding (as a measure of foundation) nor of state funding for schools.
I have on my table the mailers of the three candidates: the only one who mentioned school funding at all was Doug Arbetter.
Yes, yes, you're thinking, Tracy continually goes on and on about foundation and that's your thing. Well, if the district is owed another $100M on the school budget, I'd expect any candidate who professes to care about education to know and care about that.
This is not, however, the only place that schools are mentioned on the mailers, though, to be fair: both Franco and Wally talk about South and Doherty, which Arbetter does not:
Yes, South High is in District 5, as much as that may be a surprise: D5 is, as Cyrus Moulton points out in his coverage, truly the west side of Worcester. That isn't necessary what Worcester thinks of as the "West Side" of Worcester (roughly, north of Park Avenue). Note the difference in focus: Wally (as he echoed in Nicole's forum coverage) is concerned about paying for the schools; he said that he disagreed with the decision the Council made not to add to the North High stabilization fund. Franco's "will stand the test of time" language appears to be remarking on the age of the buildings we're replacing, that is 40 and 50 years old respectively. MSBA's standards are for buildings to last fifty years. Wally's point is something that arguably is within the Council's purview (as they vote the capital budget); unless Franco is appointed to a building committee, I'm less certain his is.
That's it for specific mentions on schools by the candidates, which in itself is disappointing. There's a few other things of note on the mailers, though:
Arbetter's is the only one that mentions political party; Worcester's elections are (at least nominally) non-partisan. Interestingly, if you get the city Republican party's updates on Facebook, you'd know that Franco's a Republican, though he doesn't mention it on his mailers.
The big push that Franco talks about on the right of his mailer, around property that isn't developed, largely has to do with the owners not wanting to move forward with projects. As you might gather from Nicole's blog, Franco's experience on the Conservation Commission largely (in his case) was around his working "with" developers to develop property, rather than to preserve open space. This sets up an interesting conundrum: does he privilege the rights of the property owners, or is he advocating for the city to take these properties by eminent domain?
Wally, as the other two do, hits public safety in his mailer, but he also links to his current seat on the Parks and Rec Commission by mentioning parks improvements.
It's pretty clear from Nicole's blog that Wally is hoping to position himself as the "centerist" candidate in contrast to Franco the conservative and Arbetter the progressive. Both Franco and Wally hit the policing theme hard in their T&G interview, something Arbetter, who appears to be focusing on taxation, does not. I'm not sure what "today's approach to policing" is, as mentioned by Franco. There has been no discussion of police in the schools, nor of the nearly million dollars a year that is now costing the district. In the forum, Arbetter captured the question of pedestrian safety--key, in a city in which half the schoolchildren walk--best, though all spoke of sidewalks.
When it comes to my vote on Tuesday, I'll echo what I've heard lots of people say since January (or even last November): resistance starts locally. I want, and I think my city needs, a city councilor who of course is going to keep all our people safe and use best practices to do so; a city councilor who of course is going to protect the rights of LBGTQ people; a city councilor who of course sees women as equals, not as pawns; a city councilor who of course supports the right of all to worship (or not) as they choose in safety; a city councilor who of course doesn't resort to fearmongering for political ends.
We also need a candidate who will clearly disavow those who do otherwise.
Earlier this week, only Doug Arbetter did.
I'll be voting for him on Tuesday.
In full disclosure: of the three candidates running active campaigns, I've met Matt Wally twice, have lived down the street from Paul Franco for twelve years, and know Doug Arbetter pretty well.
From an education policy perspective, the City Council races are relevant for where they actually have a purview on school policy, From past experience, I can tell you that councilors often appear to have no idea where that is. The refreshing thing about this year's district race is that we at least don't appear to have candidates who are overstepping. It's not as clear that we have a solid group stepping up.
The main place Council purview falls on schools is the budget, of course, and as Worcester has yet to fight its way up to a full percent over foundation, and at a time when Worcester is owed on the order of $100M a year in foundation funding from the state, it might have been good if anyone (anyone?) had asked about that as an issue. It does not appear that they did; I have seen no mention in the forum or in interviews of Worcester's funding (as a measure of foundation) nor of state funding for schools.
I have on my table the mailers of the three candidates: the only one who mentioned school funding at all was Doug Arbetter.
 |
| from Doug Arbetter's mailer |
Yes, yes, you're thinking, Tracy continually goes on and on about foundation and that's your thing. Well, if the district is owed another $100M on the school budget, I'd expect any candidate who professes to care about education to know and care about that.
This is not, however, the only place that schools are mentioned on the mailers, though, to be fair: both Franco and Wally talk about South and Doherty, which Arbetter does not:
 |
| from Paul Franco's mailer |
 |
| from Matt Wally's mailer |
Yes, South High is in District 5, as much as that may be a surprise: D5 is, as Cyrus Moulton points out in his coverage, truly the west side of Worcester. That isn't necessary what Worcester thinks of as the "West Side" of Worcester (roughly, north of Park Avenue). Note the difference in focus: Wally (as he echoed in Nicole's forum coverage) is concerned about paying for the schools; he said that he disagreed with the decision the Council made not to add to the North High stabilization fund. Franco's "will stand the test of time" language appears to be remarking on the age of the buildings we're replacing, that is 40 and 50 years old respectively. MSBA's standards are for buildings to last fifty years. Wally's point is something that arguably is within the Council's purview (as they vote the capital budget); unless Franco is appointed to a building committee, I'm less certain his is.
That's it for specific mentions on schools by the candidates, which in itself is disappointing. There's a few other things of note on the mailers, though:
 |
| Doug Arbetter mailer |
 |
| Paul Franco mailer (with edits) |
 |
| Matt Wally mailer |
It's pretty clear from Nicole's blog that Wally is hoping to position himself as the "centerist" candidate in contrast to Franco the conservative and Arbetter the progressive. Both Franco and Wally hit the policing theme hard in their T&G interview, something Arbetter, who appears to be focusing on taxation, does not. I'm not sure what "today's approach to policing" is, as mentioned by Franco. There has been no discussion of police in the schools, nor of the nearly million dollars a year that is now costing the district. In the forum, Arbetter captured the question of pedestrian safety--key, in a city in which half the schoolchildren walk--best, though all spoke of sidewalks.
When it comes to my vote on Tuesday, I'll echo what I've heard lots of people say since January (or even last November): resistance starts locally. I want, and I think my city needs, a city councilor who of course is going to keep all our people safe and use best practices to do so; a city councilor who of course is going to protect the rights of LBGTQ people; a city councilor who of course sees women as equals, not as pawns; a city councilor who of course supports the right of all to worship (or not) as they choose in safety; a city councilor who of course doesn't resort to fearmongering for political ends.
We also need a candidate who will clearly disavow those who do otherwise.
Earlier this week, only Doug Arbetter did.
I'll be voting for him on Tuesday.
Sunday, February 26, 2017
Your silence is speaking
Crossposted from Facebook
Something I've been thinking a lot about this past week:
Not every district is active on social media, so I don't expect that we all have seen every district's response.
But if you are a district that has
immigrant students,
Muslim students,
refugee students,
transgender students
--and that's every district--
and you have NOT said anything these past weeks about their safety and their importance to you, at this time that they are directly threatened?
Your silence is speaking volumes.
Something I've been thinking a lot about this past week:
Not every district is active on social media, so I don't expect that we all have seen every district's response.
But if you are a district that has
immigrant students,
Muslim students,
refugee students,
transgender students
--and that's every district--
and you have NOT said anything these past weeks about their safety and their importance to you, at this time that they are directly threatened?
Your silence is speaking volumes.
Tuesday, February 23, 2016
Board of Ed considers new charters for Brockton and Springfield
memo is here
Sagan: strong work by the staff, and those who put forward the proposals
list of those who review and analyze and critique
thanks Board who went to hearings for schools that were forwarded and those who were not
"at least one member of the Board attend"
Chester: comments on the front end that apply for both of these proposals
"set a very high bar" for charters
received 10 prospectuses; invited 7 to apply; 2 declined; 5 applied; 1 was withdrawn; 4 final considered; 2 being recommended
"when I bring a charter school recommendation forward, it isn't because of a calculus of what a district has not done"
'though that's actually part by reg of what is considered
both districts doing strong work
"in no way reflects that I don't think that Brockton isn't paying attention to what it should be paying attention to"
New Heights has applied twice in the past; in both cases "we felt they were not ready for prime time"
some back and forth about what is being taken up when
Springfield
Sagan: no comment from Springfield superintendent? Anything to conclude on that?
Chester: I would not try to speculate on why
Stewart: did have comparison of current charters in Springfield and the Springfield Public Schools
Chuang: judging this application on its merits
Stewart: head of teachers' union, teacher in system
support from charter board
Collins' "comments were really profound, I thought"
"does have an impact when another school comes in, in terms of drawing away resources in that regard"
Moriarty: general tenor was very supportive, particularly in the Brightwood neighborhood
"already a known quantity in the city of Springfield"
objections "were broader objections to any charter school"
Sagan: "constituents don't exist yet" for charter school
McKenna; would like to understand what kind of support the leadership will get from "Building Excellent Schools"
leader "has been out of college five years...no formal training in education"
is "participating in fellowship program right now"
will have mentor who founded Excel-Chelsea
professional development and coaching for the board as well
McKenna; "handing the lives of a lot of at risk kids basically to the unknown"
Sagan relates another charter that worked...
McKenna: need more assurance that the supports that are needed are "going to be there, because it's asking a lot"
relating choice of family to be sent here from Dominican Republic
"drill sergeant with a heart"
worked at Upward Bound, came face to face with the achievement gap
went to Teach for America
"my students accomplished so much in my classroom"
"have worked tirelessly to get where I am...I understand the challenges that come with opening a school"
McKenna: "I don't doubt any of that. But that was not my question."
Fryer: is somehow involved in this program?
"It looked more like a cult than a program" when he went to talk to them (enthusiasm)
(McKenna comments that this doesn't make her feel any better)
"everyone was working on plans..."
"it's not like the cup of superstar principals in western Mass runneth over"
Chester: very deliberate ramp up
Doherty: I don't think it will be a surprise to anyone that I will be speaking against this motion and the others to expand others
had good fortune to be on AFT Board when Al Shanker began to talk about charter schools
experiment with new ways of teaching and especially those kids who were disadvantaged
"we've gone way, way beyond that"
creating " a separate track that is separate and unequal"
"all of the research and all of the studies show that charter schools in the Commonwealth" serve a disparate population
amount of money being drained from traditional schools to charter schools: $400M across the state
all of these school districts are being left behind with more difficult children to educate, limited resources
thinks attrition rate has been misrepresented
think that when the figures come out on the waitlist "will be very much exaggerated"
"nobody is talking about the waitlist of children to get into quality preschools and kindergarten"
would rather see money going to early childhood education
policies that may be good for a small number of students
"we have a responsibility to provide the best possible education for all the children in the Commonwealth, not just some of them"
Stewart: feel like we're at a tipping point with regard to schools in urban areas
reimbursements have not kept up
assumes districts can absorb 75%
Springfield is not in a position for this
"need to think about how this is impacting our cities"
Noyce: very common for people from the district to come and say that this will hurt others
struggle with role of Board
see role as carrying out laws that Commonwealth has passed
"don't think it's up to us to say that we shouldn't have more charter schools if the law says"
law doesn't say to consider financial impact
strong charter application faced with concern "that something like $200 per student" is being lost
"if the money didn't go to charter schools, it wouldn't be spent on preschool; it's being spent on other things in the district"
Doherty: my view on the role of this Board to do what is best for all of the children in this Commonwealth
"just because the law allows...doesn't mean we have to go up to the limit"
Peyser: "charter critics believe that giving parents choices a zero sum game"
think that it inherently makes district schools weaker
funding increases and academic gains across the state over this time
"think that they're confusing the demand among elected officials with the demand among parents"
"we need to encourage improvement and further success in those schools"
complains that comments are the same that he's heard for twenty years
charters are a little over 4%
"a modest increase"
"I do think we ought to look at the proposals on their merits"
Willyard: parents who choose to enroll their students in charters
"we're not a judicial body...not up to use if we should lower to cap"
McKenna: as a former member of the Boston School Committee? There are a lot of reasons that the Boston schools improved (aka, it wasn't the charter schools, Mr. Secretary)
Stewart: charter schools do not exist in isolation; they're individual fiefdoms within a district
"we need to be looking at a holistic approach"
Springfield charter granted 8-2, Stewart and Doherty opposed
Brockton: Chester "confident" that they've brought a stronger proposal
got a partner for early college "that's done this work across the country"
grade 13 proposal no longer part of it
"innovative components including summer bridge program"
three towns that are not contiguous geographically
proposing that school be required to provide transportation plan
"entering and exiting students....not planning to push any students out...there was some lack of clarity about that in the application...feel confident about that at this time"
recommending adoption
Chuang notes early college discussion with higher ed board last month
Sagan: model to cover costs?
Chuang: detailed and intricate model
size of model is very deliberate, something to look at in terms of deployment of resources
based on kinds of rates that Massasoit already charges high schools who do dual enrollment
Noyce: EdWorks: non-profit? Yes
regional school:is there a balance of how many students from each? application speaks to what the balance be
anticipate majority would be Brockton
Wulfson: but it's a lottery enrollment...
Noyce: large numbers testifying both for and against
certainly elected officials and school administrators testified against it
Brockton a high performing urban school district that offers many opportunities
parents who testified that as good as Brockton might be, they wanted something different
all students being offered options
Chuang: 6-12 with this program of this size isn't an option currently
Stewart: what really impressed me was the innovation being offered in Brockton Public Schools
elected from Brockton, many from Taunton at hearing
a lot of what I heard from many families who were supporting said their kids were afraid to go to a big school
"efforts by Brockton to make a big school feel small"
many more coming against the school
Doherty "I won't repeat what I said before; obviously it wasn't persuasive"
when we have a situation when the mayor, the school committee, and the delegation
"I think it's inappropriate to force down the throat of a community" a school that they don't want
Sagan argues that this would have kept board from receivership in Holyoke
constituency doesn't exist yet for charter
Fryer: how does this work in terms of charter cap
Chuang: cap is district-specific: not near 9% in Brockton
Moriarty: Rep Cronin suggestion that there isn't evidence of sufficient support
asks for clarification
Chuang: have vetted demand; don't do own assessment
"parent choice is a dynamic thing"
will look to see if they have the enrollment that they have projected
"rubber will meet the road by the next Board meeting"
they'll either have the students or not
McKenna will vote against
"there's a question about desire as opposed to need"
set up a shiny new thing "there are always people who are going to say yes"
is there unmet need? "I'm not so sure of that"
"hard to see"
"I'm not so sure it's so new and shiny"
and this time it's more complicated
have concerns about their ability to pull it off
"every child goes to college...I don't think every child goes to college or should go to college"
"I don't think that's the need in Brockton"
not easy to do
"I don't have confidence that the group of people bringing it forward can do it; I don't have confidence that there is need for it"
Chester: "I hadn't thought of need being a criteria"
McKenna points out that it is...and it is...
Chester: number of kids who need remediation in public colleges and universities
"I'm very intrigued by a proposal here that ensures that kids leave high school ready for college level work"
McKenna: early college is best used as retention in high school
data on whether it lowers remediation is a very different kind of issue
Just going to point out here that McKenna is past president of Lesley and current president of Suffolk; she doesn't really need to have college retention explained to her.
Peyser: proposal does talk about two paths
may be others who aren't ready to do college courses, intend to have path for them
"I don't think it's success lies on all of those students going to college"
Sagan: haven't been here when there were recommendations that were not approved
"enthusiastic about trying it and see"
Brockton approved 7-3
Sagan: strong work by the staff, and those who put forward the proposals
list of those who review and analyze and critique
thanks Board who went to hearings for schools that were forwarded and those who were not
"at least one member of the Board attend"
Chester: comments on the front end that apply for both of these proposals
"set a very high bar" for charters
received 10 prospectuses; invited 7 to apply; 2 declined; 5 applied; 1 was withdrawn; 4 final considered; 2 being recommended
"when I bring a charter school recommendation forward, it isn't because of a calculus of what a district has not done"
'though that's actually part by reg of what is considered
both districts doing strong work
"in no way reflects that I don't think that Brockton isn't paying attention to what it should be paying attention to"
New Heights has applied twice in the past; in both cases "we felt they were not ready for prime time"
some back and forth about what is being taken up when
Springfield
Sagan: no comment from Springfield superintendent? Anything to conclude on that?
Chester: I would not try to speculate on why
Stewart: did have comparison of current charters in Springfield and the Springfield Public Schools
Chuang: judging this application on its merits
Stewart: head of teachers' union, teacher in system
support from charter board
Collins' "comments were really profound, I thought"
"does have an impact when another school comes in, in terms of drawing away resources in that regard"
Moriarty: general tenor was very supportive, particularly in the Brightwood neighborhood
"already a known quantity in the city of Springfield"
objections "were broader objections to any charter school"
Sagan: "constituents don't exist yet" for charter school
McKenna; would like to understand what kind of support the leadership will get from "Building Excellent Schools"
leader "has been out of college five years...no formal training in education"
is "participating in fellowship program right now"
will have mentor who founded Excel-Chelsea
professional development and coaching for the board as well
McKenna; "handing the lives of a lot of at risk kids basically to the unknown"
Sagan relates another charter that worked...
McKenna: need more assurance that the supports that are needed are "going to be there, because it's asking a lot"
relating choice of family to be sent here from Dominican Republic
"drill sergeant with a heart"
worked at Upward Bound, came face to face with the achievement gap
went to Teach for America
"my students accomplished so much in my classroom"
"have worked tirelessly to get where I am...I understand the challenges that come with opening a school"
McKenna: "I don't doubt any of that. But that was not my question."
Fryer: is somehow involved in this program?
"It looked more like a cult than a program" when he went to talk to them (enthusiasm)
(McKenna comments that this doesn't make her feel any better)
"everyone was working on plans..."
"it's not like the cup of superstar principals in western Mass runneth over"
Chester: very deliberate ramp up
Doherty: I don't think it will be a surprise to anyone that I will be speaking against this motion and the others to expand others
had good fortune to be on AFT Board when Al Shanker began to talk about charter schools
experiment with new ways of teaching and especially those kids who were disadvantaged
"we've gone way, way beyond that"
creating " a separate track that is separate and unequal"
"all of the research and all of the studies show that charter schools in the Commonwealth" serve a disparate population
amount of money being drained from traditional schools to charter schools: $400M across the state
all of these school districts are being left behind with more difficult children to educate, limited resources
thinks attrition rate has been misrepresented
think that when the figures come out on the waitlist "will be very much exaggerated"
"nobody is talking about the waitlist of children to get into quality preschools and kindergarten"
would rather see money going to early childhood education
policies that may be good for a small number of students
"we have a responsibility to provide the best possible education for all the children in the Commonwealth, not just some of them"
Stewart: feel like we're at a tipping point with regard to schools in urban areas
reimbursements have not kept up
assumes districts can absorb 75%
Springfield is not in a position for this
"need to think about how this is impacting our cities"
Noyce: very common for people from the district to come and say that this will hurt others
struggle with role of Board
see role as carrying out laws that Commonwealth has passed
"don't think it's up to us to say that we shouldn't have more charter schools if the law says"
law doesn't say to consider financial impact
strong charter application faced with concern "that something like $200 per student" is being lost
"if the money didn't go to charter schools, it wouldn't be spent on preschool; it's being spent on other things in the district"
Doherty: my view on the role of this Board to do what is best for all of the children in this Commonwealth
"just because the law allows...doesn't mean we have to go up to the limit"
Peyser: "charter critics believe that giving parents choices a zero sum game"
think that it inherently makes district schools weaker
funding increases and academic gains across the state over this time
"think that they're confusing the demand among elected officials with the demand among parents"
"we need to encourage improvement and further success in those schools"
complains that comments are the same that he's heard for twenty years
charters are a little over 4%
"a modest increase"
"I do think we ought to look at the proposals on their merits"
Willyard: parents who choose to enroll their students in charters
"we're not a judicial body...not up to use if we should lower to cap"
McKenna: as a former member of the Boston School Committee? There are a lot of reasons that the Boston schools improved (aka, it wasn't the charter schools, Mr. Secretary)
Stewart: charter schools do not exist in isolation; they're individual fiefdoms within a district
"we need to be looking at a holistic approach"
Springfield charter granted 8-2, Stewart and Doherty opposed
Brockton: Chester "confident" that they've brought a stronger proposal
got a partner for early college "that's done this work across the country"
grade 13 proposal no longer part of it
"innovative components including summer bridge program"
three towns that are not contiguous geographically
proposing that school be required to provide transportation plan
"entering and exiting students....not planning to push any students out...there was some lack of clarity about that in the application...feel confident about that at this time"
recommending adoption
Chuang notes early college discussion with higher ed board last month
Sagan: model to cover costs?
Chuang: detailed and intricate model
size of model is very deliberate, something to look at in terms of deployment of resources
based on kinds of rates that Massasoit already charges high schools who do dual enrollment
Noyce: EdWorks: non-profit? Yes
regional school:is there a balance of how many students from each? application speaks to what the balance be
anticipate majority would be Brockton
Wulfson: but it's a lottery enrollment...
Noyce: large numbers testifying both for and against
certainly elected officials and school administrators testified against it
Brockton a high performing urban school district that offers many opportunities
parents who testified that as good as Brockton might be, they wanted something different
all students being offered options
Chuang: 6-12 with this program of this size isn't an option currently
Stewart: what really impressed me was the innovation being offered in Brockton Public Schools
elected from Brockton, many from Taunton at hearing
a lot of what I heard from many families who were supporting said their kids were afraid to go to a big school
"efforts by Brockton to make a big school feel small"
many more coming against the school
Doherty "I won't repeat what I said before; obviously it wasn't persuasive"
when we have a situation when the mayor, the school committee, and the delegation
"I think it's inappropriate to force down the throat of a community" a school that they don't want
Sagan argues that this would have kept board from receivership in Holyoke
constituency doesn't exist yet for charter
Fryer: how does this work in terms of charter cap
Chuang: cap is district-specific: not near 9% in Brockton
Moriarty: Rep Cronin suggestion that there isn't evidence of sufficient support
asks for clarification
Chuang: have vetted demand; don't do own assessment
"parent choice is a dynamic thing"
will look to see if they have the enrollment that they have projected
"rubber will meet the road by the next Board meeting"
they'll either have the students or not
McKenna will vote against
"there's a question about desire as opposed to need"
set up a shiny new thing "there are always people who are going to say yes"
is there unmet need? "I'm not so sure of that"
"hard to see"
"I'm not so sure it's so new and shiny"
and this time it's more complicated
have concerns about their ability to pull it off
"every child goes to college...I don't think every child goes to college or should go to college"
"I don't think that's the need in Brockton"
not easy to do
"I don't have confidence that the group of people bringing it forward can do it; I don't have confidence that there is need for it"
Chester: "I hadn't thought of need being a criteria"
McKenna points out that it is...and it is...
Chester: number of kids who need remediation in public colleges and universities
"I'm very intrigued by a proposal here that ensures that kids leave high school ready for college level work"
McKenna: early college is best used as retention in high school
data on whether it lowers remediation is a very different kind of issue
Just going to point out here that McKenna is past president of Lesley and current president of Suffolk; she doesn't really need to have college retention explained to her.
Peyser: proposal does talk about two paths
may be others who aren't ready to do college courses, intend to have path for them
"I don't think it's success lies on all of those students going to college"
Sagan: haven't been here when there were recommendations that were not approved
"enthusiastic about trying it and see"
Brockton approved 7-3
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Be careful what you ask for
With 33 states and the District of Columbia now all approved for NCLB waivers, the federal Department of Education has the unenviable task of keeping track of what I heard someone today refer to as "34 different versions of NCLB."
For its part, the Education Department is gearing up to manage a new portfolio of states that have adopted vastly different grading systems, diverse ways of tracking the achievement of small groups of students deemed academically at risk, and new ways of evaluating teachers. Gone, for the most part, is a one-size-fits-all accountability law.At the federal level, "there are big management challenges to doing this right," said Cynthia G. Brown, the vice president for education policy at the Center for American Progress, a Washington think tank. "If we're going to learn the lessons of this new state flexibility, the federal government is going to have to monitor it carefully and do deep analysis. My concern, very frankly, is they don't have enough resources devoted to it."Education Department officials say they recognize the challenge but are prepared.The article further notes that they are doing this at the same time that they are also tracking states' implementation of what they promised in their Race to the Top applications, all of which have phased-in pieces. The fed did threaten to take back Hawaii's grant last year when they felt the state was not making sufficient progress in their promised changes; Hawaii is now considered "high risk." It remains to be seen if they can juggle both of those monitoring activities, to which they've now added nearly 900 districts competing in a district round of Race to the Top.
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Let's not
(let's not even say we did)
Race to the Top! It was such a great, popular successful idea...oh, wait.
Anyway, Secretary Duncan has decided that it was such a great idea that we needed to do it now at the DISTRICT level!
(cue applause)
The claim is that this new competition "asks districts “to show us how they can personalize and individualize education for a set of students in their schools,”" but as Rick Hess notes:
More from Hess on this here.
Race to the Top! It was such a great, popular successful idea...oh, wait.
Anyway, Secretary Duncan has decided that it was such a great idea that we needed to do it now at the DISTRICT level!
(cue applause)
The claim is that this new competition "asks districts “to show us how they can personalize and individualize education for a set of students in their schools,”" but as Rick Hess notes:
It also manages to subvert the democratic process (Hess again):...the performance metrics reflect a pinched focus on the handful of things we know how to measure. Duncan said he's seeking "personalized learning environments" that focus on "competency-based education" in order to promote "school[s] that meets the unique needs of our children." Yet, ED specifies that performance will be demonstrated via six metrics: summative assessments, decreasing the achievement gaps, graduation rates, college enrollment rates, student attendance, and teacher attendance. These metrics are at odds with Duncan's handsome verbiage. There's no room for applicants to propose documenting performance in advanced science, world languages, the arts, history, student engagement, or much else. This limitation is a much bigger problem at the district than at the state level. State-level levers and measures are necessarily crude, since they're writing rules that must be applied across scores or even hundreds of districts to hundreds or thousands of schools. But those same strictures need not apply at the district level. It's unfortunate to see the feds telling purportedly "leading" districts to nonetheless lend an outsized, compliance-driven import to just these measures.
The U.S. Department of Education is now going to get into the business of telling local, elected bodies how to evaluate themselves. By 2014-15, districts will have to promise to implement evaluation systems that take student outcomes into account for school boards (along with every other breathing soul in a district). This is an especially novel innovation in democratic government--school boards are elected or appointed bodies who serve at the pleasure of their voters or an elected official. Perhaps the Department of Transportation will next start requiring city councils to be evaluated based on transit performance But the move is par for the course from a Department that has shown little disregard for pesky Constitutional constraints....and all for remarkably little money (in a district budget sense): districts the size of DC are up for $20 million.
More from Hess on this here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)