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
Interest in attending a CTE school; thinking about student agency, so not including in required considerations
plan is to meet again March 10, in part because not all public comment could be accommodated today
Robinson: grounded in serving all students with equitable opportunities
"real world, relevant, interactive"
Sending districts access and informed choice for middle school students
Admission: Require lottery if more applicants than seats consistent with local agreements
Selective criteria limited only to:
•Attendance only for no more than two years prior to attendance, only 10 or more unexcused absences
•Discipline, limited to major infractions only
Students shall not be ranked or tiered based on selective criteria
Fisher: Excited about interest
Concern about disproportionate impact of using absences on students
May not see absence issue if students then attend the school
Hills supports use of absences and discipline
“There’s a trade off here”
Schools are structured such that if students with attendance issues get in and those continue “harm a lot more than the students that don’t get in…it harms programs”
don't even have "watered down" version of interest
Thanks “adults in the room” because there were people “taking this from zero to Mack Five”
Moriarty: why do we need to tell middle schools to tell students their options, “but apparently we do”
Unfunded mandate of putting kids on buses may come up
asks if parents are not part of application process (uh, depends?)
This is not chronic absenteeism.: “I know a lot of things can be done to turn an unexcused absence into an excused absence…kids can solve that.”
(I am ongoingly amazed by the level of privilege presumed by these comments.)
“What about transient students…students on McKinney-Vento?” :Don’t want a barrier, hard and fast rules; need a good deal of discretion on the part of the adults
Fisher: chronic absenteeism: it’s ten versus 18
“It is a really low number”
Turning unexcused to excused “is power and privilege”
thank you!
West: seems like it would be quite possible to do some simulations
Could look backwards to see how it would play out
(that wouldn't be the same...)
Rocha: discomfort around number of absences, particularly around requirements to provide doctor’s notes for an unexcused absence, which may be beyond working class
...which is why Worcester, for example, no longer requires them. It is super privileged to presume otherwise.
Stewart: not comfortable around two selective criteria
Kids in elementary and middle school getting dinged on attendance issues
Really need to work with students on discipline
Hills: look forward public comment AND the Board “exercising its regulatory authority”
Need to be careful about “asserting over and over” that it’s discriminatory
Look “at what the school needs to be successful” (really?)
(There’s an interesting contrast here with his comments earlier about legal bounds)
Says he doesn’t know that families can’t access process to move unexcused to excused absences
I do not know how you can be a policy maker and show this lack of interest in the realities of families.
“competing needs…one of which is for these schools to be successful”
(hm. How does that align with his votes on charter schools earlier and their impact locally on public districts?)
Fisher: agree we need data, but if we look at students who didn’t meet selective criteria, we don’t have students who didn’t apply
Appreciate what school leaders are saying they need for success, but they are basing it on students who haven’t even entered yet
Craven: that middle school interest point doesn’t winnow out the student who might be better in an academic rather than vocational setting
this is basically being held for a special meeting on March 10, but THEN will go out to public comment
No comments:
Post a Comment