California may reverse their ban on bilingual education

Among the 18 ballot measures up for a vote in California this year is one that would reverse the statewide ban on bilingual education:

Bilingual education, particularly for primary school children, has become increasingly popular among native English speakers over the past decade, said Wood. That's primarily because studies have shown that a multilingual brain is nimbler and better able to deal with ambiguities and resolve conflicts. Some research shows multilingual people are even able to resist Alzheimer’s disease and other forms of dementia longer. 

Currently, California is one of four states -- the others are Arizona, Massachusetts and New Hampshire -- with laws constraining the use of bilingual education programs, according to the U.S. Department of Education.

Right, Massachusetts.

Oy. What chances, then, does MA have to bring it back? In California, the Battle Over Bilingual Education Is Back https://t.co/xE7AmPpEKO

— Marcela E. Garcia (@marcela_elisa) October 13, 2016

This last legislative session, as I posted, there was a bill that made it out of committee that would have done just that. A new legislative session means, of course, that we have to start over again in January.
Add it to the list!

New Worcester compact?

Reading today's coverage of last night's invitation-only first 100 days presentation from Superintendent Binienda:

• there's a new "Worcester compact"
• which was already signed by the Worcester School Committee
• which was not publicly vetted/available/discussed
• which is being signed by invited (?) members of the Worcester community
• which has no involvement (?) of teachers, parents, or students

And we're hearing praise about transparency. 

Okay, then. 

Voting for savage inequalities

reference is to Jonathan Kozol's classic

Recently, those pushing for cap lift have been piling on the suburban guilt. It was all over the column I referenced yesterday; it was a big part of the Newton School Committee public testimony last night. Some of this is about wealth, a lot of this is about race, but it is all intended to make those who have a lot feel badly about those who don't and vote for cap lift to make themselves feel better.

As a parent in one of those urban communities, I am telling you: spare us.

I am a parent in a community in which the vast majority of our school funding comes from the state. Worcester is unable to fund its schools on its own. Under McDuffy, Worcester, along with Springfield, Fall River, Lowell, and many of the other urban districts, is majority state funded.

That isn't true of most of the places the cap lifters are trying to send on a guilt trip. Most suburbs get a minimum 15% of their foundation budget in state aid. They are majority local funded.
And most fund well over the minimum requirement.

As I've said numerous times, to some extent, this is actually required: the foundation budget hasn't been reconsidered for twenty years, and the districts that can make up the gaps themselves are doing so.

Many districts cannot.

This includes mine.

Should the ballot cap lift pass, and the state suddenly be faced with funding the reimbursements of up to 12 new schools a year, every year, something is going to have to give. There is no plan in the ballot question for dealing with the funding, and there is nothing in the plan to change reimbursement or any other funding rates.

It will start, of course, with continuing to not fully fund reimbursements. As the number of schools, and reimbursements, and facilities fees get larger and larger, the state's going to have to look at state education aid.

When that happens, it isn't going to be Newton, funded in FY16 at 165% of foundation, or Cambridge, funded in FY16 at 227% of foundation, or--pick a W: Weston? 208% Wellesley? 165%--that get hit.
Will it hurt them if they lose their state aid? Yes.
Will it devastate their budgets? No.

Worcester and its peer communities have no such local resources, though. Thus their district public school children--which are the vast majority of schoolchildren in those districts--will be those hurt.

If you start to feel guilty about other people's children in "those" districts, think about this:

Keep in mind where most of them go to school.
Remember how those schools are funded.
Remember who will really be hurt by a cap lift.
And vote no on question two.

Newton's fine, thanks for asking

The well-funded privatizers over at the 74 are VERY CONCERNED about Newton this morning, penning a "heartbreaking article" off one parent's quest for a seat at a Boston charter school.

Don't cry for us, Newton.
That the entire state is now voting on whether or not Brooke Charter gets more seats is due to the ballot question being on the statewide ballot.

If you didn't want Newton to have an opinion, you shouldn't have put it on the ballot.

And if you're interested in a Boston parent's perspective, here's one.

Worcester School Committee meets Thursday, October 6

The Worcester School Committee meets Thursday, October 6 at 7 pm. You can find the agenda here.

After a few recognitions, the report of the superintendent is a testing and accountability update (not posted as yet).

Former Mayor Ray Mariano is petitioning the School Committee to allow testing for PCBs to go forward in Burncoat and Doherty High Schools. This would require the School Committee to drop the appeal they have made of the state Labor Relations Board ruling, allowing the testing to go forward. For more on this issue (not at all limited to Worcester), see the EPA's page.

There are a number of retirements, resignations, and new appointments.

There are reports coming back on graduation expenses, the outdoor work at the Parent Information Center, clearing of City View and Belmont Street School grounds (twice, because it was filed twice), painting of crosswalks,  the removal of guard shacks at Burncoat and South, and one clarifying that grant v. general fund positions will now be shown in charts as well as in words.

Mr. Foley is calling for recognition of International Walk to School Day (tomorrow, October 5).

Mr. Monfredo wants to add five IAs each year, starting with level 3 schools, until all kindergarten classes have an IA.

He'd also like to invite high school students to sing the National Anthem at each meeting and to recognize paraprofessionals.

And he echoes former Mayor Mariano's call to allow PCB testing.

Ms. McCullough would like to recognize National Manufacturing Day and is asking about the feasibility of a girls ice hockey team.

Mr. O'Connell is asking that Peace Day be recognized, as well as those who volunteered at Belmont Street School for the United Way's Day of Caring.

Ms. Colorio wishes to discuss WPS policy on employees wearing political apparel, appending a single page of the larger Office of Campaign and Political Finance guidance on the rights and restrictions on political activity of public employees.

She also wishes the committee to take a position on question 4 (done, so far as I know, only by a single other school committee statewide)

Miss Biancheria would like to review the job description of an Applied Behavioral Analyst and understand how the positions are budgeted, and request a presentation on the Safe Schools Summit from the District Attorney.

The School Committee is being asked to consider amending the prior fiscal year payment for an Instructional Assistant from $6,220.01 to $6,376.23; to approve a prior fiscal year payment in the amount of $301.50 made payable to ABACS, LLC for services rendered to students in June 2015; to approve a prior fiscal year payment in the amount of $1,334.00 for a Summer 2016 Cohort provided by the Massachusetts Association of Vocational Administrators (MAVA).

They're being asked to vote acceptance of the Financial Innovation Fund Grant from the Treasurer's Office.

They're being asked to vote acceptance of a High School Chemistry Grant.

They're being asked to accept donations for Tatnuck Magnet, Burncoat Prep, Lincoln Street, Canterbury Street, and Worcester Tech.

There is also an executive session beforehand at 6, regarding negotiations with cafeteria employees, administrative secretaries, instructional assistants, OT and PT assistants, educational secretaries, and nurses.

no liveblog this week 

Doe v Peyser (cap lift lawsuit) DISMISSED

You may or may not remember in all of the attention being paid to the ballot campaign, but there has also been a lawsuit pending around lifting the charter cap as well, Doe v. Peyser. Brought by some of Boston's more "prominent" (to quote the Globe) lawyers, it argued that the children suing were not able to get into charter schools they wished to due to the charter cap," an arbitrary impediment to their ability to obtain a quality education."
This afternoon, the case was dismissed in Superior Court. (That's the Scribd link; if Dropbox would work better, I've put it here.) It was dismissed on both the question of the education clause (that's our much-beloved Chapter 5 section 2 of the state constitution, backed up by McDuffy, Hancock, and so forth) and on the question of the equal protection clause (the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution). On the first question, Judge Heidi Brieger writes:

The education clause "obligates the Commonwealth to educate all its children." [McDuffV. 415 Mass. at 617]. This obligation does not mean that Plaintiffs have the constitutional right to choose a particular flavor of education, whether it be a trade school, a sports academy, an arts school, or a charter school. Even if the court were to deny the instant motion, thereby allowing substantial discovery to follow, Plaintiffs' action will always be addressed to the question of whether the Commonwealth is obliged to provide more of one flavor of education than another. This decision - how to allocate public education choices amongst the multitude of possible types - is best left to those elected to make those choices to be carried out by those educated and experienced to do so.

On the second question:

Both Commonwealth and Horace Mann charter schools are funded by the school districts from which they draw students or in which they are located. Consequently, public funding for charter schools necessarily affects the public funding of non-charter schools in the district. Defendants argue, and the court agrees, that the Legislature's charter school cap reflects an effort to allocate education funding between and among all the Commonwealth's students and therefore has a rational basis and cannot violate the equal protection clause.

In both cases, emphasis is mine.

This does raise the question: even if the ballot question were to pass, would be struck down by the courts?

I was going to do my usual 'Worcester School Committee meets" post but

the agenda isn't posted yet.
To come.