What happened at the April 27 Worcester School Committee meeting

The thing about democracy, beloveds, is that it is not neat, orderly, or quiet.
It requires a certain relish for confusion.
Molly Ivins 

Here is the agenda for this past Thursday's Worcester School Committee meeting. The video is here.

Note that we had an executive session regarding negotiations with the teachers, the paraprofessionals, the custodians, and the computer technicians. I cannot discuss that further under state law, 'though you probably saw coverage of teachers and paras coming to speak to public session, which was the majority of public testimony, though we did also hear from several teachers in favor of the proposed literacy curriculum, and a parent speaking on the plans (or lack thereof) for the dual language program.
Please don't miss the Goddard Elementary student council (about 39 minutes in) addressing their public petition to us on bottle filling stations for their school. If that is of interest, we'll discuss it at our May 22 Finance and Operations standing committee meeting.
The report of the Superintendent was on "innovating for the future," and brought us a new draft on what was portrait of a graduate, but is now being revised. Right now it is (in draft form) "vision of a learner," and it looks like this: 

...'though this is still being revised. 
There was also a discussion of the Spark plan, which is work that will be citywide on the following: 

The plan is to run Wawecus Elementary as essentially a pilot school for this work, with Spark teachers (a position that will be stipended per administration) to spread it across the district.

We had the March report out from Finance and Operations which was entirely on transportation, and then we took the report out of Monday's Teaching, Learning, and Student Support, which was on the proposed new elementary ELA curriculum. 
I have posted my own comments on the curriculum already; Member Clancey's motion to move the curriculum forward passed 6-1 (Kamara opposed). I also made the motion to  reconsider our vote, allowing the administration to move forward with purchasing the curriculum without further delay.

Member Molly McCullough requested that we ensure we are following state regulation in setting seniors' last days.

Member Sue Mailman's item on updating lottery procedures for the next school year was amended for it to be an update for us to consider next year, as the lotteries for next school year have already taken place. 

Two items I filed--asking for updates on CNAs and on future plans for the social-emotional learning department--went to administration for a report back before the proposed budget. I believe that those will be part of the report of the Superintendent at the next meeting. On CNAs, those are positions that are filled through a contract, and if it is renewed is the question. On the SEL department, the plan is to change some lines of reporting and assignment. In both cases, I want to be sure we're doing things with people rather than to them.

I also requested that the administration clarify the plans for the rising seniors in the dual language program, for whom there is, as yet, no plan. This is not the first time that this class, which is the class with whom the program rises, has been left in this position in May. Those of us who are parents--this does include me--are really really tired. 

Member Jermoh Kamara also requested that we keep in mind holidays when set our meetings.

We also sent four policies to Governance for revision, because the authority of the School Committee had been deliberately striped out of them by the previous administration, who had filed the revised policies without School Committee approval.

Oddly, the version of the agenda on the website didn't have the redline version, so let me show you why this matters, as I noted in the meeting:

Under MGL Ch. 71, sec. 37, policy making authority is granted to the School Committee, not to administration. Policy CHD is designed to be a "what if" for emergencies, but any policies put into place without School Committee evaluation MUST go back to the School Committee for review.
The previous administration, in direct contradiction of Massachusetts General Law, struck the Committee review and approval.

Because budgetary authority is the School Committee's, naturally the provision for the management of buildings and grounds starts there. This was struck from policy EC by the previous administration.

One relevant from the same meeting: MGL Ch. 71, section 1 put curricula approval under the Committee, but this starting place for policy was struck by the previous administration.

MGL Ch. 71, section 38M quite clearly outlines an election process that results in a student advisory council that is required by that law to meet with the School Committee every other month. That was, by the previous administration, reassigned--in contravention of the law--to the superintendent. 
Even more concerningly, the entire section regarding the student ex officio member--again, required by state law--was struck by the previous administration.

And again, none of these changes were passed by the School Committee. They were placed into our policy manual by the previous administration without the legal authority required

Consider that as we consider things later this year.