Wheels within wheels

Much of the confusion over the Worcester Level 4 schools is that we're dealing with several levels of rules and regulations at once.

• There's the here-in-the-city part, which is that the superintendent is the manager for the Worcester Public Schools, and can move--and fire--staff, while the School Committee is the group that evaluates the superintendent.
• There's the state part, which is the Commissioner of Education declaring two of our schools Level 4 schools, and there being a plan under the new state law for those schools, along with regulations (currently in public comment) about those schools.
• There's the federal part, which, as the federal government has, under Article X of the Constitution, extremely circumscribed powers over education, and so can only tie federal money to regulations. In this particular case, this is what the Obama administration is calling School Transformation Grants (which were School Improvement Grants), with a tie to the Race to the Top funds.

All of these things are in play at once when we talk about Chandler Elementary and Union Hill.

To start from the fed, if you don't take the money, you're not tied by the federal government's rules. The four part turnaround plan comes from Washington, not Boston (or Malden). The STG money is made available for schools the states have deemed underperforming; if you get that tag, you can apply for the federal money. But you have to play by the federal rules.

The state does have regulatory control over schools. The new ed law said that underperforming schools were to be measured by:

...multiple indicators of school quality in making determinations...such as student attendance, dismissal rates and exclusion rates, promotion rates, graduation rates or the lack of demonstrated significant improvements for 2 or more consecutive years in core academic subject, either in the aggregate or among subgroups of students...

What our schools actually WERE measured on, as explained by the superintendent Thursday night and in explanatory paperwork that went out to the Legislature, is the MCAS exam. MCAS results were crunched a couple of different ways, but it was all MCAS scores.
Further, the regulations now being proposed while including other measures, say that schools will be measured:

1. annual growth in MCAS performance for students at the school as compared with peers across the Commonwealth (for years available, up to four),
2. in the case of high schools, graduation and dropout rates for high schools,
3. other indicators of school performance including student attendance, suspension, exclusion, and promotion rates upon the determination of each indicator's reliability and validity.

which, while it includes some of the same things, is a very different list in terms of importance and emphasis, isn't it? (That last phrase "upon the determination of each indicator's reliability and validity is particularly dismissive.)
If this strikes you as a list that is in any way problematic, you can let the Department of Ed know by Friday by emailing them at csullivan@doe.mass.edu . I'd urge you to do so.
Also, if you see any inherit conflict between what the law says and what the new regs say, you might let your legislators know. They did pass the law, after all, with the expectation that the Board of Ed would follow it.

Those schools, again according to the new state law, must have a stakeholder group generated. There's a lengthy list of who gets represented (basically, anyone who's anyone gets a seat: teachers, parents, admin, school committee, city admin, and so forth). That group is to generate the turnaround plan.
Here's the part about jobs: that plan may include having the principal and half the teachers reapply for their jobs. But it doesn't have to. Also, note that this comes from the community, not from either the commissioner or the school administration. That plan then goes through several varieties of approval (from the superintendent, from the commissioner) and everyone gets to give input.
That's where the "who gets fired/stays/rehired" part comes in from the state and that's the part we have to do, regardless of who takes money. The Legislature gave a great deal of power to the Commissioner in this law, yes, but a great deal of power is supposed to rest with the community, as well.

I'll let you sort out how well that's being done.

That said, there is definitely pressure coming from the state to simply use the federal rules in our turnaround models. Since the Commissioner has to sign off on the plans, could he just say "Hey, you have to choose one of these"?
Possibly. I'd like to see him have to say that, as I don't think it was the intention of the law.

As for the city: there was some city oversight being exercised on Thursday night, as the School Committee holds the purse strings for the Worcester Public Schools. Technically, that means they have grant oversight (though, from what I understand, they don't tend to use that oversight). As choosing one of the four turnaround models is required for applying for federal funds, the open question was: do we want to apply for that money if it requires us to use these models?
I've said plenty here in the past (and a bit on Thursday) about where those models come from and if they in fact work. As, in the end, the policy decisions of the Worcester Public Schools rests with the School Committee, weighing these policies is part of the job.

And if you have an opinion, well, you can find our email addresses here.

Again, where it was left: the administration is discovering the relationship between Race to the Top requirements and STG (and the turnaround models) and the due date of the grant application. At that point, the School Committee will vote on whether WPS ought to apply for federal funds.
Sorry for such a lengthy post. I've been flooded with questions on who has to do what the past few days, and I hope this cleared it up a bit.