DESE released this just a few minutes ago.
There's much to be said about the U.S. Department of Education's Thursday demand that states and districts sign that they "aren't doing DEI" to continue to receive federal funds, but the thing that keeps coming to mind for me is this Monty Python skit:
You know, DEI! You know what we mean!
No, we don't, Secretary McMahon. Please be more specific!
Plenty of press last week on the announcement* of the Worcester School Committee voting to become part of the lawsuit against President Trump, Secretary of Education McMahon, and the U.S. Department of Education, which argues that the elimination of the Department would be harmful, and in fact, the cuts of employees that have already occurred are harmful, mostly due to federal funding.
If, like me, you learned the word "declarant" from this, welcome. This means that Worcester is not itself actually suing--that's Somerville Public Schools, Easthampton** Public Schools, AFT-MA, AFSCME, and AAPU--but is supporting the position of the plaintiffs officially.
Note, by the way, that's the School Committee taking action here, as they're essentially the legal entity of the district (for all that they mostly weren't the "face" of the press).
______________________
*I think? This appears to have only been done in executive session?
** for those surprised by Maureen Binienda's vote in favor: she's currently the interim superintendent of Easthampton
The end of the federal ESSER extension announced by Trump Secretary of Education McMahon Friday hit the Massachusetts news wires today, largely because the executive branch issued a frankly not very helpful press release, which goes for impact without starting with what the funding actually is.
And now we have news articles and headlines that are only making that worse, so in lieu of banging my head against the train window here, let's try to parse more of this out.
Cheering for large sections of today's New Bedford Light interview with Superintendent Andrew O'Leary:
Soon after Trump took office this year, O’Leary got some social media and talk radio flak because he had sent out a letter to school staff informing them that the New Bedford district follows state guidelines that restrict building and information access from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement authorities.
O’Leary feels strongly about his system’s immigrant students. He spoke at a Saturday City Hall rally, objecting to a March 21 New Bedford raid where, he said, several children who attend city schools “woke up to terror” when federal agents in military fatigues broke the door to their home.
He says the criticism hasn’t bothered him because as superintendent he’s the person who can better deal with rebukes so staff can go about their jobs educating and protecting children. He is particularly concerned, he said, about continuing the New Bedford schools’ inclusive philosophy toward marginalized populations like undocumented immigrants and transgender and nonbinary people.
“All the criticism came to me because you have seen scenarios out there, around the state and around the nation, where this individual teacher and this individual principal got targeted,” he said. His voice then grew quiet. “I would hate to see that” in New Bedford, he said.
And also:
Business roundtable-type organizations, he said, have incorrectly convinced the public that schools should be about producing skilled, high-earning graduates for the commercial sector.
That’s the wrong paradigm, according to the superintendent.
“I think we’ve listened to the wrong people around that, and what it does is, it diminishes what a school actually is for: its community,” he said. “It’s a place where students grow and flourish and develop as young people who can contribute to society in all sorts of ways.”
O’Leary is doing nothing less than laying down a marker that the New Bedford schools are not about business or careers or even getting into college, but rather about boosting the people of the city and how they feel about themselves.
“What concerns me the most is that these are community assets,” he said. “Schools are the hubs of neighborhoods. Schools, where our young people are, are one of the most important things that society invests in, and they belong to the community.”
Public schools have traditionally been thought of as something for the whole group, not for one individual, he said.
“Eroding a community asset is something we should raise concern about,” O’Leary said.
Yes, indeed! More of this, please!
It is time once again for another of my “skunk at the garden party” posts; partly in response to last week's Ways and Means hearing on education and local aid, I want to flag something which is not, generally, being mentioned.
Yesterday, after not only its appointment but its first meeting, Governor Healey announced the formation and membership of her K-12 graduation council.
I do just first want to say that I dislike this thing where the Governor's office only announces things afterwards. It feels to me like an attempt to avoid critique.
Can we be blunt? The group is way too big to make meaningful recommendations.
More importantly, this group has some membership, alongside those you'd expect, that's gives some troubling insight into what voices she thinks need to be at the table on graduation.
Students, teachers, MASS, MASC, MTA, AFT, higher ed...great.
The business roundtable? MBAE (again)? Mass Taxpayers? Can we stop with "we educate children to become workers" already?
And the House minority really brought back Jim Peyser?
This continues my concern that the Governor herself doesn't have a lot of interest in public education, and is leaving it to the latter of the "Healey-Driscoll administration," whose history in Salem showed no great concern over the push for privatization.
Anyway, they're having listening sessions across the state, though those haven't been announced yet.
Just once I'd like someone setting something like this up in Massachusetts to cite the actual CONSTITUTIONAL reason we have education in Massachusetts. Until then, I guess you'll only see that on my sign at protests.
As EdWeek reports, the U.S. Department of Education told states on Friday that all extensions on ESSER spending were cancelled:
McMahon alerted state education chiefs in a letter dated Friday that the deadline to spend all remaining funds was that same day at 5 p.m. EST.
She said the additional time “was not justified” and that states and school districts “have had ample time to liquidate obligations.”
Because the department can reconsider its decisions, McMahon wrote in the letter obtained by Education Week, “you could not rely on the Department adhering to its original decision.”
“By failing to meet the clear deadline in the regulation, you ran the risk that the Department would deny your extension request,” McMahon said. “Extending deadlines for COVID-related grants, which are in fact taxpayer funds, years after the COVID pandemic ended is not consistent with the Department’s priorities and thus not a worthwhile exercise of its discretion.”
May I add as an aside: how snarkily unprofessional in tone is this?
I haven't seen an number yet on how much is outstanding.
Also, because of the way federal funding to districts flows--they draw against the state, which then draws down from the federal government--it's not clear who is going to be left holding the bag, so to speak, on the contracts already committed to that now have to be paid.
Remember that at least some of this was funding overdue facilities projects that ran into supply line issues (remember those?) during the pandemic, and thus needed the time for completion.
McMahon's letter does extent a new wavier option:
McMahon said in her letter to state schools chiefs that it would now consider extensions “on an individual project-specific basis.” It asked states to submit a statement explaining why an extension is “necessary to mitigate the effects of COVID on American students’ education” and “why the Department should exercise its discretion to grant your request.”
Coming on the heels of that very weird video threatening Maine, I can only guess what one will have to agree to in order to get an extension.
As there is more, I will share it.
NOTE: this does not impact most districts (including, yes, Worcester) as most districts have fully expended their ESSER funding already. There are some that received extensions for very particular circumstances, though
____________________________________
*taking notes from our former Governor and Commissioner, one presumes
Interesting to note today that there's been another Commissioner's screening committee meeting posted for Monday
This after they'd met Tuesday after the Board meeting at which Chair Craven sure seemed to imply they'd be announcing finalists shortly. They're planning interviews in April (and frankly, some of us would like to know when!)
subtitle: no, it isn't an ESSER fiscal cliff, and you're not paying attention if you think it is
You don't have to read far this year to see school budgets in Massachusetts (and elsewhere!) are tough this year. I won't regale you with headlines--you can go take your pick if you like--but positions are being cut, programs being cut or downsized, OR (and sometimes "and") overrides being advocated for.
I know that there were those who are certain that the end of ESSER would signal terrible times in education because those school committees and administrators somehow would miss that the funding was short term. I believe this says more about those who wrote such things than it does about local governance teams.
 |
| a crocus for new beginnings |
I expect that we'll have the names of the finalists released at some point--the Board is doing public interviews in April--so ahead of that, here's my thought:
I hope they hire someone who can run the Department.
I know this is seen as a high-profile position, and people have ideas about those with "VISION" and so forth.
The thing is, though, that the Commissioner's actual job isn't that. Setting vision is the job of the Board, not the Commissioner. The Commissioner's job is implementation.
The Commissioner runs (we hope!) a several hundred person organization, which oversees the education of nearly a million students in Massachusetts. They propose and then implement state regulations, the state standards, and the myriad of interactions that involves districts and the federal government.
It's actually supposed to be the opposite of a glamorous job. You want someone who reads fine print; who knows laws; who can manage people who work for them and who can diplomatically manage relationships with those who don't.
And I hope someone who can both recognize and have the ethics to be public when it isn't working.
I worry a lot that people see "oh, the COMMISSIONER" and think headlines. A good one won't.
I don't know that we'll get that. I hope we do.
The most discussed regulation change in years is out for public comment: a change to vocational school admission, in which the largest change would require that only attendance (27 days or more over 7th and 8th grade) and discipline (of the most serious kind) be part of the consideration.
As always, everything that follows here is just from me personally:
I am pretty sure that I have told this story before, but I will share again: my own view of admission to vocational programs was heavily shaped by my first year teaching. At the high school at which I taught in New Hampshire, the vocational school was only for 11th and 12th grade; students attended the comprehensive high school for 9th and 10th grade, and were admitted to the vocational school for junior and senior years.
In one of my sophomore classes, I had a student who struggled a lot in English. He also was the son of a local auto shop owner, and he'd been in and out of the garage since he could walk. He drove a car he'd rebuilt himself--if you wanted to get him talking, ask about his car--and all he wanted in life was to go work with his dad and eventually take over the garage.
He would never never never have gotten into a vocational school in Massachusetts.*
I ran into a lot of kids like that over the years in Worcester: kids whose families had businesses in programs we had systems for at Worcester Tech, who could never get in. And at the same time, I saw at very close hand how students who had top grades, who honestly had no interest in vocational programs at all, were directed there by many.**
We actually as a state have a stake in this one, as a vocational student (they're called that in the foundation budget) "counts" for more than 50% more funding per student than a comprehensive high school student in the state funding system. We have actual dollars on the table here.
At ground, this comes back to if we're really about educating all students. We say, a lot, that the thing about public schools is that they educate all kids. Your having had a rough time in middle school, or being someone who gets sick a lot isn't supposed to mean you don't get the same education.
Either that really is a shared responsibility we all stand behind, or, well, we have to stop saying it.
______________
*he did in New Hampshire.
**Worcester has worked at this, though we're not there yet. And no, adding chapter 74 programs everywhere is not actually the answer, because that isn't the same thing.
Johnston: to increase college access and affordability
trends of college enrollment slowly increasing in the state after a decade of declining enrollment
huge increases in community college enrollment (preliminarily 24%); many taking advantage of tuition and fee free community college
Johnston: Management organizations can only contract with charter schools in Massachusetts through the Board
(I think it is fair to say it is discouraged)
passes
Johnston: when Board renewed certificates, both received conditions
renewals and conditions related to renewals are powers of the Board
both have made progress on conditions
both rose from single percentage in accountability status; now in 20's
recommend that the Board extend current conditions
further recommend TECCA conditions based on recent financial audit
Passes
Johnston: hope that future commissioner is watching to carry forward
planning teams aligning with strategic objectives
how will we know that a project will change outcomes for students?
goal to have catalog of aligned supports in May for school districts
This being done by Ioannis Asikis, student member
how are student concerns identified and addressed through SSAC?
SSAC make decisions about education policy and student rights
chair serves as student member to the Board of Ed
DESE charged SSAC to align goals with Department's vision and strategic objections
Sugeily Santos of the Curley School in Boston
focuses on My CAP (my career and academic plan)
she opens with thanks
"what you sow, you reap"
living proof of these words
dignity is the worth and respect that every person deserves
went to Boston Public Schools, encountered educators who embodied the meaning of dignity
all students mattered, felt seen and valued
we support for students to overcome challenges and reach their potential
My CAP encourage students to dream
principal worked to reduce caseload to better serve each student individually
advocate for support necessary to allow us to be effective
Am I holding myself to the same standard I hold for my students?
belief that every child deserves to be seen, heard, and valued
Craven: what is preventing all schools from using My CAP?
Santos: teacher buy in is high; time, as student want to keep talking
Grant: supports as she is competing nationally?
application completed by August 15
will be judged on what she's done already
looking for data on impact on school and community
Stewart: advice for others?
Santos: counselor speak from the heart
system of mentorship, essential, first year won't be as scary
screening committee wrapped up interviews last week
in process of recommending finalists
interviews in finalists in public during April most likely not in Everett
Can we announce these things please?
Her name is Dr. Christina Grant
A quick Google says she is Executive Director of the Center for Education Policy Research at Harvard University.
(With Marty West, that brings Harvard-held seats to two.)
Has been a member of Chiefs for Change, formerly state superintendent in Washington, D.C., coming there from:
...after working as chief of charter schools and innovation for Philadelphia’s school district, according to her biography.
She was a teacher in Harlem through Teach for America
(two winces there on TFA and charters)
I'll update as I find more.
The agenda is here. The livestream is here.
I'm covering this one remotely because seven hours of the public hearing yesterday WORE ME OUT!
I would assume today will include many nice words about Russell Johnston, as this is his last meeting. He has borne out my experience with MA Commissioners: our interim commissioners are our best ones.
 |
| sign from Amherst Regional |
Coming to you live today from the Joint Committee on Ways and Means hearing at UMass Amherst. A number of the surrounding districts are here--Quabbin Regional brought a bus; Amherst Regional walked over--and I just hope someone told all these people that they don't take public testimony. If you're here and need power, by the way, I have a power strip at one of the outlets, so come over if you need it.
I'll post as we go. Note that they have us in what is the airplane hanger of an auditorium on the first floor of the Campus Center, so I can barely see the committee members; I'm making no promises on being able to identify speakers.
They'll start with intros then have the Secretary with the three Commissioners.
Former Massachusetts Commissioner Jeff Riley, now part of MIT's "Day of AI" staff, was in New Hampshire last week on this one:
They said AI can do things like help grade papers, sort lesson plans and communicate with parents.
Yes, let's definitely remove educators from giving feedback to students on their learning, planning the learning, and--I don't even need to rephrase this one!--communicating with families! Good plan!
Riley's push?
"...I think we can try to hold back the tide. We can bury our heads in the sand, or we can try to surf the wave. And what we're asking people today is to try to surf the wave of AI and do it safely and productively."
This is of course the same old argument we've heard since forever that whatever-the-new-thing is default is good, and how dare you, those educated and trained in actually doing it, question it?
Question it. And don't fall for this line, either.
Yesterday, at a press event for which he was 45 minutes late, in front of children and some of the worst Governors in the country on education, President Trump signed an executive order entitled "Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities", which directs the Secretary of Education:
...to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law, take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and return authority over education to the States and local communities while ensuring the effective and uninterrupted delivery of services, programs, and benefits on which Americans rely.
I am going to point out again that closing the Department while at the same time "ensuring the effective and uninterrupted delivery of services, programs, and benefits" would be very difficult at best, and with a Department that was slashed in half without regards to programs, and in an administration that, at its most basic level, neither knows nor cares how things actually work, it isn't going to happen at all. And that's before you try to get that through Congress.
My response for those who have asked me what is going to happed at the federal level with education has become the repeated line from this Saturday Night Live skit:
"Nobody knows."
The Wall Street Journal (that's a gift link) has a good rundown of what we know at this time. In terms of immediate impact:
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Thursday that the department would still oversee major programs including student loans and major funding streams for schools. Trump said during the signing ceremony that many of the agency’s largest programs would be preserved.
This was followed today, of course, by Trump riffing in the Oval Office, at which he appeared to say that loans are moving to the Small Business Administration (which just cut its staff by 40%), and special education and school nutrition (which isn't in U.S. Ed) to Health and Human Services.
...and no, he doesn't have the power to assign those to other departments, either.
While the funding that flows through the Department has been so tightly linked to the Department itself in the popular mind that there are often seen as one and the same* they are not the same. There have been attempts at massive cuts of staff at the Department; the current year funding remains intact, and next year's funding will need to go through Congress.
NPR had a piece this morning postulating that the real coming danger to federal funding is through cuts that have already been made to the National Center for Education Statistics:
For Title I, NCES works with the U.S. Census Bureau to analyze school district boundaries, income levels and other characteristics that help the Department of Education determine grant eligibility.
But by the end of the day on Friday, all but three NCES staffers will be locked out of their computers and on administrative leave.
"The key issue is that – as things stand now -- the data needed to drive the next round of Title I, and grants to rural schools, and grants to other programs, isn't going to happen as a result of the cuts to NCES staff and contracts," said one former NCES employee.
Several employees told NPR that, after the layoffs, it is unlikely the REAP program will be able to get money to schools for the 2026-27 school year.
The same goes for Title I, with an added challenge: The Trump administration is poised to shrink the ranks of the Census Bureau. A reduction in its staff could further complicate the distribution of Title I funding.
That is something to watch closely, then.
The possible political consequences of any loss in federal funding were (amusingly) highlighted in Politico by conservative education commentary person Rick Hess:
“It seems very likely in races this fall that Democrats will cut ads with Elon Musk waving that chainsaw, and then you’ll see some mom talking about how her child with special needs can’t get the support they used to get,” he said.
Fall is a long way away, though.
________________________________
*Actual report this morning locally: “In his first two months since returning to office, Trump has ordered significant cuts to federal education funding”
This is simply not true at all.
Jeffrey Villars, who has been the receiver since 2018, is resigning effective April 30.
William Metzger, the Executive Director of Human Resources and District Records Officer/Business Administration, is being named interim receiver, effective May 1.
Southbridge has been moving along its steps out of receivership.
In light of the Joint Ways and Means hearing on Monday (on education and local aid)
 |
| spring flowers on the Boston Greenway this week |
One of the, rightful in my view, complaints about responses to the Trump administration has been that others aren't meeting the moment: whether it's Senator Schumer and others caving on the continuing resolution or Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison caving on their legal work or please add whatever you like to this list which is already depressing.
I have been mulling since Governor Healey filed her budget this January. While I posted about the budget from a regular perspective then, the light in which I think we really should be considering FY26 is in light of the national scene. We did have some of this, of course, back at the consensus revenue hearing back in December--
I'd sum it up as "We feel pretty good about where revenue is heading next year EXCEPT for the giant unknown of the federal government, which YIKES."
--and there continue to be murmurings at the state level again about revenue, but I haven't seen a lot of discussion of what all of this should mean for expenditures.
Noting again that we do not have the capacity to make up federal funding for the state budget if we lose it all, what are some of the things about which the budget should concern itself?
It would seem to me, as a state that intends to uphold the civil rights of all, and to fight off efforts to make our lives actively worse, that making sure people can live here rises up.
That's housing, not just building more but being sure we use what we have.
It is making sure that people have the education and skills they need to get and keep jobs here; I think here, among other things, of the ongoingly level funded adult education line (though I know that this year, there is funding elsewhere).
It's actively offering support--mental health support? legal support?--for so many bearing the brunt of the federal mess, like immigrants, trans people and their families, veterans, and I feel as if this list could go on.
It's certainly appropriately funding the AG's office, so those there can continue to wrestle with the federal administration on their disastrous attempts to break things.
That's not a full list--it isn't intended to be one--but I do think we have to frame the budget in this manner. I'd love for us to think of it this way.
While this week’s education news has been dominated by Columbia, previous weeks focused on the K-12 landscape. Developments included the appointment of a Secretary of Education with no education expertise, unable even to correctly identify the IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) - one of our nation’s largest pieces of federal education and civil rights legislation, which she is charged by Congress to administer. The administration laid off half of the Department of Education’s workforce. The firings have all but shuttered the more than 150 year old National Center for Education Statistics, on which countless areas of education research, including “The Nation’s Report Card” via the National Assessment of Educational Progress and studies that focus on measuring equity, rely. These are the staffpeople who ensure that Congressionally-approved funds for Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (for children living in poverty), the IDEA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act for disabled students, and federal financial aid to higher education make their way to their intended students, families, and communities. Major staff reductions at the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights intentionally impede this division from ensuring equitable treatment of children in our nation’s schools.
As in higher education, the Trump administration not only seeks to usurp the Congressional power of the purse but does so in the name of false and misleading representations of the state of our educational institutions. Whatever claims to the contrary, American public education is governed chiefly by state constitutions and local school districts. They decide what students learn, how teachers teach, and how student success is measured. When, for example, executive orders seek to disregard that law and tradition, we applaud leaders who, like Maine Governor Janet Mills, respond with “See you in court!”.
As experts on teaching and learning, we know that the most profound moments of learning are usually uncomfortable, as they may lead people to question taken-for-granted assumptions about themselves and the society they inhabit. The goal of good teaching is not to eliminate that discomfort, but to give it a productive use. The barrage of Executive Orders, threats to the Department of Education, and mandates such as the March 13 letter are aimed at restricting discourse and generating fear in teachers and students, especially those most vulnerable: non-US citizens, racially or ethnically minoritized populations, gender and sexually diverse and expansive people, and disabled people. Teaching and learning are much more difficult when one is afraid, and pedagogy can easily turn to rote memorization and repetition in order to avoid controversy.
While the White House accuses elementary and secondary schools as well as higher education of indoctrinating students, against the evidence, what we see is an attack on the capacity for criticism — paving the way for authoritarianism and fascism. The idea that directing criticism at the US or its geopolitical allies is un-American runs counter to much of the history of this nation. As James Baldwin once stated, “I love America more than any other country in the world and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.” It is extremely hard, if not impossible, for people of any age to do the difficult work of learning, of understanding multiple perspectives on an issue, of offering counterpoints to commonly assumed views, when people are scared of losing their livelihoods and/or their visas, being arrested or deported, or being deemed enemies of the state by the highest office in the land.
As educators and researchers concerned with justice and equity, we cannot stay silent.
 |
| Flag in a school I was in last week |
 |
| Smith College Palm House |
I highly recommend ProPublica's work with the Bangor Daily News on SIX federal agencies investigating Maine.
Some view Maine as a test case for how the Trump administration may try to force its policies on states, regardless of existing state laws. In public comments, residents have invoked the state’s motto to rally Mainers: “Dirigo,” Latin for “I lead.”
“It’s Maine now, but what state is it going to be next? This is not just a Maine issue, but Maine spoke up. So right now, it’s, ‘Let’s make an example out of Maine,’” said Kris Pitts, executive co-director of the nonprofit MaineTransNet.
Reductions in force are established processes for cutting positions in a workforce. The federal government has a series of regulations that oversee how this happens.
Those have yet to be followed for the cuts last night at the Department of Education; thus, while the press release calls it a "reduction in force," it isn't clear that it is. While I have yet to see legal action, I'd expect it.
You can read about the cuts in The Hill; K-12 Dive; NPR; EdWeek; New York Times.
Besides many, many people who care a lot about public education, and in many cases, have been doing their jobs for years, losing their jobs (which, to be clear, is bad enough!*), what does this mean?
Someone from the Department shared a list of who had been cut last night on Bluesky, and James Murphy of Ed Reform Now posted an analysis of who is gone. While the largest number of employees have been cut from FAFSA (insert the hollow laugh of the parent of a college student), by percentages of total employees compared to 2024, the big hits are the Office of Civil Rights and the Institute of Education Sciences:
 |
| from James Murphy's post here |
Good thread here from Stephen Sawchuk on what having a half a Department may look like
You know those websites that exist to answer a single question? "Is it Christmas?" is a classic; there was (is?) "Is Henry Kissinger Dead?" for another. I've wondered for the past week or so if someone should grab "Is there a U.S. Department of Education?" given the state of the news.
The answer (as of this blog post) is:
YES
Need a reason to call Congress today?
Yesterday, the United States Department of Agriculture cut two programs for the current fiscal year: one, the Local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreement Program, that nationally is about $500M, provides support for local food banks; and the Local Food for Schools program, that nationally funds $660M for schools. Both were the result of a December expansion of prior programs to provide for locally-grown, minimally-processed food from local farmers to go to local food banks and schools.
Per Politico, USDA:
...confirmed that funding, previously announced last October, “is no longer available and those agreements will be terminated following 60-day notification.”
The spokesperson added: “These programs, created under the former Administration via Executive authority, no longer effectuate the goals of the agency. LFPA and LFPA Plus agreements that were in place prior to LFPA 25, which still have substantial financial resources remaining, will continue to be in effect for the remainder of the period of performance.”
I personally fail to see which aspects of USDA's goals aren't "effectuate[d]" through funding local farmers to provide healthy food for the hungry.
In Massachusetts, this is $12.2M. Asked yesterday about it, Governor Healey's response was a harbinger of where we're at here:
When she was asked whether the state had a plan to backfill that loss of federal support, Healey, flanked by Lt. Gov. Kim Driscoll, state Senate President Karen Spilka, D-Middlesex/Norfolk, and House Speaker Ronald J. Mariano, D-3rd Norfolk, didn’t mince words.
“Are you kidding?” she shot back.
“I think people have got to understand the scope of what we’re talking about here ... the scope is so vast when you’re talking about federal funding,” she said. “We’re talking about tens of billions of dollars,” she continued.
Healey’s $62 billion budget proposal for the new fiscal year that starts July 1 is premised on more than $16 billion in assistance from Washington.
That money funds a host of programs, including MassHealth, as Medicaid is known in the Bay State, as well as public education.
“And that’s not even accounting for the funding that doesn’t even come to us,” Healey continued. “There’s money that comes directly to not-for-profits, and to organizations and to school districts directly that is also subject to just being cut completely. So, the numbers are so huge that there is no way the state can begin to fill the void and pick up the tab.”
It is important to note that even Massachusetts, even with $8B in the rainy day fund, does not have the capacity to make up for the full weight of federal funding. We could try; we could do some things; we cannot do it all.
Something to complain to your reps and senators about. in particular because this is the first time we've seen USDA funding for school nutrition cut or frozen. That does not bode well.
Craven: "due credit and praise" to Johnston
March 28 is his last day
finalists will be selected by board members on search committee (four)
new commissioner for July 1
Secretary Pat Tutwiler is willing and able to serve "on top of his responsibilities" as Secretary
will not accept additional compensation
Secretary makes appointment on recommendation of a 2/3rd vote
effective March 29, 2025
Motion, second
Hills: not in support of this
think Tutwiler "would make an outstanding commissioner"
soft power, hard power
"has to do with the structure that has been set up in the laws over the past year"
"there are several different statutes that this would be in violation of"
"at some point, it actually matters what's written in the statute"
Mohamed: "if it doesn't violate statute, I think it violates principles of good governments"
"don't think a person can serve as supervisor of himself"
will vote no on this item
Tutwiler: Commissioner doesn't report to the Secretary; the Commissioner reports to the Board
(on which the Secretary serves)
Moriarty: comfortable with this and support it
"I don't think the secretary as it exists in statute is that old"
"I think it's a novel question, not one that" has a history
Johnston receiver while at the Department (but he didn't report to himself; it both positions he reported to the Commissioner)
"and if it's a mulligan, we correct it at our next meeting"
Stewart asking if it's legal for him not to take compensation
Motion to recommend to the Secretary that he appoint himself acting commissioner (the Secretary appoints upon a 2/3rd recommendation from the Board)
7-2-1, 2/3 vote as required (Hills and Mohamed opposed, Tutwiler abstains)
motion passes
No one asked me but speaking as always only for me:
Just saying up front: I'm not planning on liveblogging public comments. The news tonight is the question of acting Commissioner. Agenda is here. Note that the regulations proposed have been updated since the last meeting; they can be found here.
Updating as we go
Note that added to the special Board of Ed meeting for Monday night--set to take further public comment on the proposed changes to the regulations on CTE admission--is appointment of an acting commissioner.
I don't know that it's been generally circulated as yet, but current Acting Commissioner Russell Johnston is leaving at the end of March. As the Board's next regular meeting is March 25, it's more timely to make that appointment now.
No clue from the posting as to who is being tapped on that one.
...and I admit that I am skimming, but this is what they have on education:
 |
| Also, let's talk about how dumb this Y axis is. The bottom is 22,500. The change is not nearly as dramatic as it looks, and let's consider why the city would be exaggerating it. |
...plus a map of where the schools are.
I think, for a district that approaching where it was in enrollment when it closed eight school buildings, we probably need more than that.
The FAQ released last Friday by the United States Department of Education on race in schools earned a 'softened tone' headline from the Washington Post (that's a gift link), which is fair, but I also want to note what they do NOT say.
Here's the response to question 14, which is about consequences of not following their guidance and decisions:
If OCR determines that a school failed to comply with the civil rights laws that it enforces, OCR will contact the school and will attempt to secure its willingness to negotiate a voluntary resolution agreement. If the school agrees to resolve the complaint, OCR and the school will negotiate a written resolution agreement to be signed by the school that describes the specific remedial actions it will take to address the area(s) of noncompliance identified by OCR. OCR will monitor implementation of the resolution agreement’s terms. If a school is unwilling to negotiate a resolution agreement, OCR will inform the school of the consequences, which may result in OCR initiating enforcement through administrative proceedings or referring the case to the Department of Justice for judicial proceedings.
Do you notice what that does not say?
We will take away your Title I funding. We will take away your IDEA funding.
I'm not sure who they've hired or not--they also have this "be a snitch and report your district"* portal still up--but it looks like maybe a lawyer looked at this one.
__________________
*obligatory: gosh wouldn't it be a shame if it were flooded with silly nonsense from faked email addresses?
As announced by Secretary Tutwiler today:
Note this in particular:
This joint guidance reaffirms that these recent federal actions do not prohibit diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in admissions and access to higher education or other educational settings. It also includes steps that K-12 schools can take to set their students up for success. Schools and higher education institutions should continue to take affirmative steps, within the law, to create and maintain a positive school climate where all students feel safe, supported, respected and ready to learn. This includes reviewing current practices to ensure they comply with all applicable anti-discrimination, anti-bullying and civil rights laws.
You can find the full statement online here.
Note that this confirms what I said earlier this week: no district or classroom is going this alone. This is a shared responsibility.
 |
| Lynn students politely asking to be heard about KIPP Lynn. If only Pioneer Valley students could have been there. |
Sorry, my laptop ran out of charge during this part...moving tweets from my phone over!
proposed amendments can be found here
Johnston: public comment will be strengthen further
this actually is just aligning with decisions that get made elsewhere about those in particular state positions
and it passes
last night, they discussed the proposal to continue the alternative assessment pilot, post-pilot
new endorsement in media arts
new name and level in comprehensive health, preK-8 and 9-12
(changing from Health/Family Consumer Science in all levels)
flexibility to allow for the bilingual education endorsement to serve as an alternative to the Sheltered English Immersion endorsement
increase flexibility for 12 credit option; at least 6 of 12 to address subject matter knowledge
emergency licenses no longer extended beyond June 30, 2027
remove outdated language
proposal is to open to public comment through April 4
Board planned vote on May 20
sent out for public comment
and we're going out of order to competency determination
and on to charter school expansion
The Board of Ed meets today at nine. You can find the agenda here. You can find a livestream here.
 |
| Please enjoy this photo of swans preening on the Malden River this morning. |
It is a "something for nearly everyone" agenda today--vocational admission! charter schools! teacher licensure! graduation requirements! who is going to be the Commissioner, anyway!--and there is a full room (the usual DESE staff in the back of the room are, I assume, watching from their offices), so I assume public comment will go on awhile.
I will further observe that we are getting another good "who has access" view, where Lynn (bless them) has packed the room, and the Pioneer Valley, which is just as outraged, is not as represented, because do you know how hard it is to get here from Hadley for 9 AM??
 |
| Dedication to Ben Aaronovitch’s “Broken Homes” |
As the Board tomorrow will vote on FIVE1--FIVE!!--charter school expansions, I think it is crucial to note that the Board that will vote is one in which Governor Healey continues to leave one seat open and two members whose terms have very very clearly expired.
Katherine Craven was appointed in August of 2014. There is no reality in which February of 2025 is not beyond her two five year terms provided by law.
Mary Ann Stewart was also appointed in August of 2014; it is now well beyond two five year terms.
Paymon Rouhanifard has not been seen in over a year (more?) at this point, leaving his seat vacant by state law.
Whatever the votes are tomorrow, this is not the Board2 that should be voting this.
______________________________________________________________
1Note that one--Edward M. Kennedy in Boston-- is a Horace Mann, which means it is under control and consent of the local school committee.In case you missed Maine Governor Janet Mills stand up to President Trump earlier this week, you can watch the video here.
While it's (naturally) her refusal to back down that's making the news, what she said matters a lot: her response was "I'm complying with state and federal law."
Executive orders and "Dear Colleague" letters are not federal law.
Please repeat that as often as necessary.
Given the thin-skinned nature of the executive, it isn't surprising that the next investigation by what we used to call the U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights, but will need to come up with another name for was one into Maine.
What is new on this one, and this worries me because this is where free lunch is funded from, is that the United States Department of Agriculture also launched an investigation into the University of Maine. This isn't school nutrition, but it is concerning to see this also coming from that department.
Don't, however, think you can go along and somehow get along with this administration. They're coming for everyone, sooner or later.
This seems to be running rather below the radar1 but, the Wallingford-Swathmore School Board of Directors, outside of Pennsylvania, will vote Monday night to name Russell Johnston, currently Massachusetts Acting Commissioner of Education, as their next superintendent. As the local Daily Times reports:
The district said it conducted an extensive search process and expects to appoint Johnston on Monday night and give him a five-year contract. The terms were not yet provided...
“It is my great honor to join the Wallingford-Swarthmore School District, and I am energized to join a school community that is so committed to excellent and equitable learning opportunities for all students,” Johnston said. “I am particularly drawn to the District’s strong focus on academic excellence, as well as an emphasis on fine arts and co-curricular activities. I am also eager to support the District’s work in ensuring every student, without exception, is provided the opportunities and support needed to succeed.“I lead by listening, and I am very much looking forward to listening to and learning from the students, staff, parents, and school community in Wallingford-Swarthmore.”
Johnston was selected from an extensive candidate pool, during a rigorous six-month search2 led by a national educational search firm. Information gathered from focus groups and surveys across the school community was used to develop a candidate profile, the district said.
As the district currently has an interim superintendent3after having reached a separation agreement with their prior superintendent4 last Augus,5 the transition will be this spring:
After May 1, Wallingford-Swarthmore interim Superintendent Dr. Jim Scanlon is expected to transition into a revised interim role with the district for the duration of the school year, to support Johnston through a smooth transition and to provide continuity in leadership, the district said.
That reads to me like Johnston is starting in May? Or is that just when the transition is starting?
Either way, it would appear that Johnston isn't staying on as Acting until we get the next Commissioner in place (unless the Board really starts picking up their pace).
One hopes this means that they'll spend more than five minutes on the "update" that they get at their meeting--this is part of the Monday night agenda--as they have been for the past few months.
In particular, this adds to the elephant in the room that Vice Chair Hills raised which has gone not only unanswered, but unaddressed entirely: if the current incumbent of longstanding service does not want the position, and now plans neither to be there for the transition but not even to be in the state, what does that say about the job?
It is the Board, as the body that hires and evaluates the Commissioner, to pursue and answer that question. Something is not good about the working conditions of that office. I do not know what it is; I'm not in a position to. But if they don't answer that, they're setting the next person up.
_______________________________ |
| This is an actual sign at the MRI clinic on Shrewsbury Street. Sometimes, no more comment is needed. |
Earlier this week, I was asked what the impact would be on the districts seeing most of the state aid increases from the Student Opportunity Act once we hit the goal rates in FY27.
When the Board of Ed meets next week, they'll be voting to send out for public comment a revision to vocational school admission regulation that, to use the Boston Globe summary:
...that would bar the schools from ranking students based on selective criteria like grades, recommendations from guidance counselors, and personal interviews. Instead, they would be limited to using attendance and discipline as screening criteria for students to enter the lottery pool.
It has certainly seemed to me, as one who has been watching this closely, that the sense was that the state would lose a discrimination case on this. Nonetheless, an important step.
And there was one this week in the First Circuit Court of Appeals, where the decision went for the Ludlow School Committee in Foote v. Ludlow School Committee:
As this opinion has endeavored to illuminate, we acknowledge the fundamental importance of the rights asserted by the Parents to be informed of, and to direct, significant aspects of their child's life--including their socialization, education, and health. Be that as it may--as this opinion has also made effort to explicate --parental rights are not unlimited. Parents may not invoke the Due Process Clause to create a preferred educational experience for their child in public school. As per our understanding of Supreme Court precedent, our pluralistic society assigns those curricular and administrative decisions to the expertise of school officials, charged with the responsibility of educating children. And the Protocol of nondisclosure as to a student's at-school gender expression without the student's consent does not restrict parental rights in a way courts have recognized as a violation of the guarantees of substantive due process. All told, the Parents have failed to state a claim that Ludlow's Protocol as applied to their family violated their constitutional right to direct the upbringing of their child.
A fourteen year old middle schooler who attends a U.S. Department of Defense school on the U.S. base in Stuttgart, Germany organized a student walkout during Secretary of Defense Hegseth's visit earlier this week.
I thought this, in Ohio Capital Journal, was quite good:
But lawyers and Title IX experts told States Newsroom it remains to be seen how exactly schools across the country will enforce the executive order and how the administration would rescind federal funds for any schools failing to adhere.
Shiwali Patel, a Title IX expert and senior director of safe and inclusive schools at the National Women’s Law Center, said the “blatantly discriminatory” order is “extremely broad” and raises “a lot of questions.”
“It touches educational institutions, it touches international competitions, it touches immigration of trans women athletes, it calls for these convenings, it calls for state attorneys general to identify some enforcement mechanisms,” Patel said.
The order asks the assistant to the president for domestic policy to bring together state attorneys general to “identify best practices” in enforcing the ban.
The assistant is also responsible for bringing together “representatives of major athletic organizations and governing bodies” to promote such policies regarding trans athletes’ participation in women’s sports.
Elana Redfield, a lawyer and federal policy director at the Williams Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law, which focuses on laws and policies affecting LGBTQ+ people, pointed out that the executive order “contains kind of broad language, including addressing locker rooms.”
“So, it suggests that any kind of space … for example, PE classes or locker rooms for use in elementary and high school, middle schools as well — those kinds of spaces would be affected,” she said.
Kelli Rodriguez, assistant dean for academic affairs at Seattle University School of Law, said it’s going to be “really confusing for a while” and “a lot of waiting and seeing.”
Rodriguez, who is also the director of sports law at Seattle University School of Law, said “the one thing that’s different is that the executive order calls for, potentially, ramifications or punitive actions if institutions don’t comply.”
“I don’t know what that means yet, I think that’s one of the things that’s kind of outstanding — we’ll see what that means from an enforcement standpoint,” she said, noting that she thinks many schools right now are “very anxious” for what exactly those punitive actions would look like when it comes to federal funding.
Rodriguez also said she expects to see state attorneys general, individual athletes, parents of athletes and institutions challenge the executive order.
 |
| January prayer intentions of Pope Francis From the Sunday, January 26, 2025 bulletin of the Cathedral of St. Paul, Worcester |
As an adult who now works in public policy, this time, the thing that struck me was that those who stood on Lexington Green were just the local small town local people. The names you know--both John Hancock and Samuel Adams had been in the town overnight, and of course Paul Revere had gone back and forth--were gone by the time the British regulars marched onto the town common, and most of us probably can't name anyone from those who stood there*.
And when the men in fancy uniforms, representing the might of the British Empire, marched onto the Green and ordered those there to disperse, the local people didn't do it. Just because someone in a uniform who had an official position told them to do something, they knew that wasn't enough to make it the right, or even legally required, thing to do.
I was thinking a lot about this over the week, in reading comments from many of my fellow citizens who appear to be under the impression that just because people in uniforms show up and start ordering people to do things, that we are required to do them.
Deferring to those in uniform simply because of their uniform or their position not only isn't legally required; it's fundamentally unAmerican.
_______________________________
*noted exception: the people of Lexington, who named an elementary school after one: Jonathan Harrington, Jr.
I hope that you didn't miss this weekend the news that Elon Musk and those working for/with him have gained access to the U.S. Treasury payment system.
Before Trump’s inauguration, members of his transition landing team wanted to know granular details about the bureau’s proprietary computer systems, including “each step in the disbursement process.” They also wanted to visit field offices where government workers, in Philadelphia or Kansas, work on computers that disburse payments.
The requests puzzled many career officials initially. The transition operation hadn’t requested substantive briefings on any of Treasury’s other critical areas of operation, multiple people familiar with the matter said. Veterans of past transition efforts, representing presidents of both parties, couldn’t recall precedent for the Trump team’s entreaty.
That group wanted to know how to stop particular payments, and were told, by then-Acting Secretary of the Treasury David Lebryk "we don't do that."
And let's stop for a moment and acknowledge that THIS is what is needed here. Thanks to Mr. Lebryk, as well as the officials described below at USAID, for doing so.
With Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent sworn in this week, he granted Musk and his crew such access. Lebryk was placed on leave and then retired; he had been with the Treasury for three decades.
The NY Intelligencer gathers a lot of reporting here, wins on the grabber headline:
and sums this up as:
So now Musk and DOGE have access to and potentially power over what is basically America’s checkbook, weeks before another debt ceiling crisis looms, at a time when Musk is vowing to somehow cut a hysterically large amount of federal spending, and during a chaotic period in which he and other officials in the Trump administration are running roughshod across the federal government like they have unchecked power.
And here's a gift link to the Wall Street Journal, which also covers a standoff at USAID
The thing that I am struggling to wrap my head around is this: so-called "DOGE" is only a federal entity by executive order. These are not federal employees, it appears with paychecks who have filled out requisite tax forms; they do not have background checks or clearances for such access. Musk, for sure, has a massive conflict of interest in doing anything anywhere near the federal government.
If what, per Wired, was happening this week at the Technology Transformation Services (part of the General Services Administration) is anything to go by, they may not have government worker I.D.s or email addresses.
I would have thought that it would have taken a number of steps--not just the yes or no of the top official--for anyone to be cleared to have access to the actual payment system of the United States government.
Your average Massachusetts public school employee goes through more than this, by a lot. Having lots of steps to go through with more than one person involved is how we do things like keep public spending ethically.
This K-12 Dive piece from December tackles that topic. Construction gets hit both by a tariff on goods from Canada and by a crackdown on immigration.
If your vegetable drawer looks like mine, you may have wondered about school nutrition; note:
When it comes to the food served in cafeterias, K-12 food services are required by law to buy “to the maximum extent practicable, domestic commodities or products,” according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Not mentioned? Fuel.
Not mentioned, of course, is that if budgets OVERALL tighten, money for schools ALSO will get tighter (and, for example, I'd suspect overrides get a little more tricky).
Note, also: the tariffs aren't popular.
