March 7 meeting of the Worcester School Committee

 The agenda is here. The report of the superintendent is here. The video of the meeting is here.

The National Anthem was sung by City View Elementary School's chorus.

The consent agenda passed as proposed.

There was a recognition of Worcester State University hosting the student MLK breakfast for 30 years, and one of Christopher Lefebrve, a Doherty ninth grader, for being selected for the annual National All American Youth Football all star game. 

There was no public comment nor any petitions. 

The report of the superintendent starts about 17 minutes into the meeting. As noted at the beginning--and this matters later on!--this report specifically focused on the alternative programs, which are the Gerald Creamer Center and the Challenge (middle school) and Reach (9 and 10 grade) programs; the report also reviewed the referral support programs (as these have come up in Committee items), which are the Turn It Around program, the Safety Center, and Assessment and Stabilization Programs.
That means that the report is not on the Worcester Alternative School (which used to be housed at St. Casimir's) and the Academic Center for Transition, which the district refers to as "public day schools." Those programs both focus on children whose education is guided by individual education plans (IEPs).
That means the item regarding the naming of the Alternative School is held for the report on special education the first week of April. 

The report largely was given by Dr. Shannon Conley, the Director of Alternative Education, though supported by Annie Azarolza, the Chief Academic Support Officer, and Tom Toney, Administrative Director of Positive Youth Development. This report supports the third of the superintendent's goals for this year: 

collaboratively lead school teams in identifying and using multiple sources of evidence of assess, respond, and improve outcomes in all schools with an intentional focus on historically underserved youth.

In her introduction, Dr. Monárrez explained that this is discussing what would be considered Tier III programs for students who are best served in a different program; "they're just as brilliant as the rest" of our students, she said.

It's important to note that part of the significant work of taking stock that Dr. Monárrez has put into action since her entering office was agreeing to a report put together by the Rennie Center on WPS's alternative programs. That report came out last summer, so some of the findings have already been begun to be worked on, in particularly with Dr. Conley, whose position was created and who was appointed to it also last summer.
The alternative programs in Worcester are in separate buildings, intentionally, and are not designed to serve exclusively students who have IEPs.
The Rennie Center found that the programs have welcoming cultures; passionate, committed staff; a culture of inclusion; small learning environments to engage students; and an openness and willingness to change. At the same time, the programs lack a common mission, which led to a blurring of programs for students with special education needs specifically and those need alternative supports for other reasons; have an inconsistent referral process; lack a continuum of care in middle school; and "perhaps the greatest challenge" is that they have a negative stigma. They also are challenged with ensuring that special education students are in the least restrictive environment, as required by law. The report recommended that the passion and culture be built on, with a vision and mission being developed for the programs; that equitable accessibility was ensured; that clear program and goals with benchmarks for entrance and exits be created; and that high quality programming be provided. 

It was requested that enrollment data be shared, and the administration did so, as seen below: 

Conley did note that the shift in student data systems in '22-23 meant that in particular in Challenge and Reach are not necessarily dependable. She also explained that these enrollment numbers are over the course of a full year in every case.
She explained the shift due to prior requirements: for Creamer, high schools were capped in their referrals, and had to have 10 credits; that meant that students might instead be referred to Reach, regardless of their age. This year that requirement was removed, thus students who are older than a typical sophomore are no longer at Reach, but at Creamer. That allowed a change to a non-semester system at Reach. 
Creamer also includes both day and evening students, and now houses the youth adult program of New Citizens Center. 
The average class size is 13.

Mr. Toney outlined referrals to the Safety Center program, which is a 3 day program for students who have committed unsafe behavior. The elementary program is at Elm Park, and the secondary program at the Fanning Building. The Turn It Around program, a two day program at Forest Grove, works with students on substance use; it previously was a five day program, but now allows for staff to visit schools for work on substance abuse, as well as being responsive to caregiver feedback. Toney observed that the substantial drop in referral to these programs represents hard work at the schools in intervening or avoiding the reasons for such referrals at all.

Assessment and Stabilization Programs to stabilize students demonstrated elevated behavioral and social emotional issues in the classroom; the plan is for students to attend 30-45 days or fewer to stabilize them to be put into the least restrictive environment. It is now housed at Sullivan for middle and at Goddard for elementary, allowing for students to be in a lesser restrictive environment. 

There then were two speakers who have been students in these programs, and they were delightful. Go listen to them speak about their experiences.

Conley said that stakeholders have been providing input into the programs, which resulted a shared guidebook, which also provided a coordinated referral process. The program also now has a shared site council. Challenge and Reach now has student individual plans, working with the students' sending schools. The Q teams have been working with the staff and using strategies that work with the students before them. Programs are developing personalized learning plans and unique visions for the programs. The work is to ensure that students are getting an equitable and high quality learning environment in the least restrictive environment. They're also working on partnerships with the community. And they, like all in the Worcester Public Schools, are working to implement the Vision of a Learner. 

Dr. Monárrez said that the early intervention, the preventative work put into place is seen here to be making a difference; intervening early enough when it is necessary also allows for students to be able to engage in learning. She also noted while students may need to learn in different settings, that every child needs inclusionary practices: "they still need to believe that they can achieve like everybody else." and that every child needs that in their lives, from the adults in their lives, whatever setting in which they are educated. 

The Committee then moved to questions. While Bill Shaner outlined part of what happened next, I would start the recounting a bit earlier. Member Binienda was recognized first, and so began this week's edition of attempting to out-superintend the superintendent. Binienda had a long series of questions, some of which were not on the topic clearly outlined, many of which were well outside of School Committee purview, a large number of which were based on what she'd "heard" or "been told," and (to add commentary for a moment) a number of which were outrageous given her own history. 

Here is how that was responded to:

Monárrez opens by noting again the context of the report, and then notes that how we define "success" matters. Conley continues to bring back the attention to what the report is on, outlines the changes that have been made and why, often in order to meet the students more effectively and within the requirements of the obligations the district has to them. Several times, Conley corrects incorrect information from the questions, sometimes repeating information that was given earlier in the report. She does so evenly, in every case connecting the responses and the changes to the needs of students and to best practices, and often to how these programs now better connect to the rest of the district. She is measured throughout her response.
It is then that the interchange that Bill recounts happens: Binienda pushes, repeatedly, on the two hour classes at the evening Gerald Creamer Center. While it was never mentioned in the meeting, this is the program at which Binienda's daughter works in the evening. As such, under state law, she has an ethical conflict on anything having to do with the staffing, the funding, the employment conditions of that program and must recuse herself. We could not be farther removed from that here.
The response, though, of Dr. Monárrez beautifully represents the contrast (this is Bill's clipped video) we have in past leadership and current leadership. After asking if Binienda is saying that students in an alternative program are incapable of doing a two hour class--Binienda says two hour classes are "only for AP students" and maybe vocational students--Monárrez says: 

I would actually say that children who need more time are the children who would be at a tier III and they need more time with their classroom teacher to process information, to practice the language, to develop and do hands-on learning with their peers and with the teacher. My experience as a teacher of English language development: I taught two hour courses with my children and it benefited them. I'm not quite sure why we would think that a child who is in an alternative setting could not benefit from a two hour setting. I'm not quite sure what educational research we're using to determine that, but children are capable of what we put in front of them, and they will rise to that occasion. 

Conley then corrects information put forward by Binienda again. 

Member Mailman said "I hear a lot of hope" in the changes to achieve inclusionary practices. She also asked about the cost of the programming; Monárrez said the five programs listed is "close to $12 million." Mailman then asked if we have any sense of budgeting for the coming year. Monárrez said administration is looking at meeting the needs of all children, doing as much work with students in tier I, and currently looking at that. Monárrez offered to bring back a breakdown of the programs. 

Member Biancheria asked about world language and gym classes for night students. Conley said at this time, those are not offered; she said that some students have already completed that when they enter Creamer. She said that they adjust and adapt the programming based on what students need for credits; typically, students at the night program do not need those credits. Biancheria asked if it isn't provided, is the budget going to provide that need that doesn't exist, as she was just told that they adjust the program based on what students need, and they don't at this time. Biancheria then made a motion to "look at funding" so what students need can be provided; Conley said that such adjustments are made based on what students are needing for classes. The motion passed. 

Both TLSS and FOG reported out on their last meetings. Note that this includes three years of school calendars. 

The grant items were passed without comment or question.

Biancheria's request regarding the alternative schools was held, as she asked for the parameters under which students are referred. Binienda's request regarding disciplinary referrals was held for the report of the superintendent on April 18.

The easement for Crown Castle Fiber at North High was passed without discussion. 

McCullough's item regarding naming something at Doherty for Lt. Menard was sent to FOG. 

The statement of interest for Burncoat Middle passed on a voice vote without discussion.

The course changes were passed due to time being short, but were also referred to TLSS. Dr. Morse said she appreciated the Committee's grace in passing them at the full Committee level due to time constraints. Mailman asked about location; Morse said the courses are particular asks of particular schools. In response to a question from Mailman, Morse agreed that the Ch. 74 programs are for the new Doherty program; the biomedical course is the first year, with a whole buildout to be planned for the following year. 
Binienda interjected that students previously could--one presumes drive? themselves to--take courses at other high schools if those were not offered at their own school. 

Binienda's request for information regarding climate and culture specialists was sent to administration. 

And the meeting was adjourned.