We have to hold some things in common to have a public system

 ...and that is what this lawsuit before SCOTUS is designed to break. 

At issue is some Maryland parents who want to be able to opt their children out, not of health classes, but any lesson involving LGBTQ+ themes. Note that this means things as innocuous as the mention of a an uncle married to a man in a picture book.

As always, I highly recommend reading Chris Geidner on this over at Law Dork.

Erasing human beings who exist from elementary education is a deeply, deeply disturbing argument to make, and families arguing that they have a "right" for their children not to know that LGBTQ+ people ARE, and being (it appears) agreed with by a preponderance of the Supreme Court is horrific. 

And that is bad enough, and I very much am not putting this as "canaries in coal mines" because we don't sacrifice anyone, but we're fools if we think it stops there. 

There are those who have religious principles that women shouldn't work, that there shouldn't be interracial marriage, that children shouldn't develop any independence of thought, and on and on. As a former high school English teacher, I do not know how you put together a curricula in these circumstances. As someone who writes policy now, I do not know how you write policy for this.

And someone who believes deeply that we have public education so that we have a democracy in which we all participate, I recognize this as undermining its very foundations. 

And that's why you never presume the vote on a board

 ...because even if you watch them all the time, you can be surprised.

So, a Commissioner who acknowledges the role of school boards and came from the school finance side?

This could be fun.

Board of Ed recommendation of the next Commissioner of K-12 Education

 A single agenda item today:

Selection of Commissioner for Recommendation to Secretary — Discussion and Vote

It's (now) a fully remote meeting, which will be going up here (watch that page; the video itself will be a new link off that page once it starts).

Please enjoy these daffodils on the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway

Updating as we go

On the next Commissioner (and the elephant that is still in the room)

 Okay, people, this is officially too many succession plans for me to keep track of.
Anyway, I will remind you as always that this is from only me, no one else. 

One of the things that those who govern organizations, including educational ones, should have an awareness of is the bench; that is, who is being prepared for leadership. Educational organizations vary in size, of course, so not every organization has one (or much of one). There are also educational leaders that don't spend time and energy on preparing others for leadership. Nonetheless, who's on the bench, who isn't, who is prepared, who isn't--these are questions that boards should have an awareness of.

Thus when an educational leader steps down, a reasonable board at least asks the question of who in the organization is prepared to lead it. That isn't always going to be the right answer--there are, for example, times when a break with the previous leadership is very necessary--but it should at least be asked. 

A bench (this one overlooks Curtis Pond in Worcester)

It's not clear that the Board of Ed ever really did this. It essentially only came up as Russell Johnston was leaving. 

On Pope Francis

 You don't come here for this but nonetheless:

• Lovely compilation of photos of Pope Francis via Jim McDermott
  
  
• Similarly, from Vatican News, a shepherd "with the smell of his sheep"
  
  
• The Pope's final "Urbi et Orbi" ("to the city and the world") message from yesterday, which includes: “May the principle of humanity never fail to be the hallmark of our daily actions.”
  
  
• This remarkable set of memories from his visit to the White House in 2015.
  
  
• Father James Martin, S.J. on how he changed the lives of LGBTQ people
  
  
• A solid compilation of his thoughts on education can be found here.
  
  
  

And in terms of what comes next:

• Here's what happens after a pope dies
• And what this conclave will look like, given the very high number of voting cardinals appointed by Pope Francis

Apologies for the flood of posts

 If you are someone who has these posts emailed to you, you received a flood of them yesterday. Sorry about that! The system was stuck and resetting. I hope it is back to normal (once a day at 3 PM when there is something new) now. 

You can sign up to have them emailed here.

Things to read this week

•  on federal education funding, Elleka Yost from ASBO International wrote this piece, which beats my "nobody knows" answer
  
  
• this state Supreme Court decision from Wisconsin is my favorite school finance story of the week. You might remember Governor Tony Evers vetoed the "20-" in a school funding bill in 2023 to change the end date to 2425. The court says that was within his veto power.
  
  
• this piece on Beverly Hills (yes, 90201) shutting out students after the wildfires in California rather hit home, I have to say
  
  
• My latest edition of "70 on 70" (for this round "60 on 70") at last Friday's MASC Learning Lunch was recorded and is online, for those looking to better understand the Massachusetts school funding system. We got into hold harmless and minimum aid funding of the past few years in this one towards the end. 

Commissioner interviews recording and feedback

The full video of the three interviews for Commissioner can be found here. 

Note that the Board is soliciting feedback, which you can submit here. Do it before Tuesday! 

Numbers on House Ways and Means

 I'm off to the Good Friday Way of the Cross, but the spreadsheet for FY26 state education accounts is now updated. It looks like it is important to view with the supplemental budget which is still moving through the state legislature. 

FAQ on superintendents in Massachusetts

 I will let what I said stand on its own regarding Dr. Monárrez, but I'm seeing some questions come up that are pretty straightforward "how does the superintendency in Massachusetts and elsewhere work?" questions, so let's look at those. As always, I post this in my personal capacity.
I'll add to this if I see more. 

Is three years "short" for a superintendency?

Not really. This is actually a somewhat difficult thing to nail down, but frequently, it's said that city superintendents on average have a tenure of between 3 and 5 years, with a 2018 look from the Broad Center coming in a bit higher. 

While Worcester isn't among the 100 largest school districts, it has more in common with those districts than we do with our neighbors.

Is this an unusual time for such an announcement to happen?

No, this is exactly when a lot of these announcements happen, for the simple reason that it is when a lot of hiring happens. In fact, we're about at the anniversary of Dr. Monárrez being appointed. 

Does the district now need a superintendent?

Yes, districts in Massachusetts are required to have a superintendent.

Does there have to be a search?

No, there is no requirement that searches be conducted before an appointment.

What are the requirements of the school committee appointing a superintendent?

They have to conduct the vote in a properly posted public session, and they have to appoint someone who either holds or is eligible to hold a licensure for superintendent in Massachusetts.

Is there anyone who cannot be appointed?

Yes, because a school committee member cannot be a teacher or a superintendent in the district in which they are on the committee, a superintendent cannot be a member of their own school committee, per MGL Ch. 71, sec. 52.

Also, one cannot be a member of the appointing authority and apply for a position, under the conflict of interest laws (MGL Ch. 268A). 

Letter from Dr. Monárrez

 And while the Board of Ed continues question selection, some Worcester news...

Dear Worcester Public Schools Community,

I am writing to you with mixed emotion. After deep reflection, I have accepted a Superintendent position in California and will step down as Superintendent of Worcester Public Schools at the end of June 2025. I have come from this decision taking into account the needs of my family. As many of you know, my husband, Jesus, is retired, and this next chapter in our lives will allow us to spend more time together with our family and friends in our home state of California.

Serving as your superintendent has been an incredible honor. Over the past three years, under our guiding mantra—from here, anywhere… together—we have made meaningful progress toward greater equity and opportunity for our scholars. We have strengthened specialized programming options, expanded inclusionary practices, and remained steadfast in keeping scholars in school. We have fostered a safer, more welcoming environment for both students and staff, bolstered by robust safety training and a deepened sense of belonging in part through our school-based culture and climate teams. Our youngest scholars are reading at the highest level since my arrival.

We have transformed how we engage with families and the community, ensuring that communication is clear, accessible, and inclusive. With the successful rollout of our five-year strategic plan, Our Promise to the Future, we have built a strong foundation for the district’s continued growth. Our creation of the quadrant teams have brought district staff closer to schools, strengthening connections between educators and children. We celebrated the opening of the new Doherty Memorial High School and launched the long-awaited Burncoat High School construction project. And over the past three years, we have doubled the annual funding toward facilities and school safety, from $8.2 million to $16.6 million.

Most importantly, we have lifted the voices of those we serve. The Superintendent’s Student Advisory Committee, Family and Community Engagement Roundtable, and Educator Advisory Council have provided essential perspectives in shaping our work. Our collaboration with the Educational Association of Worcester has resulted in a stronger partnership and a significant reduction in staff grievances. And with the launch of Vision of a Learner, we have set a clear path for what it means to be future-ready upon graduation.

Through it all, the greatest privilege of my time here has been elevating the brilliance of our scholars. Their achievements, creativity, and resilience inspire me daily.

I have informed members of the Worcester School Committee, including Mayor Joseph M. Petty, along with my WPS Cabinet team and key stakeholders of my decision. I am committed to ensuring a smooth transition. I have made myself available to discuss the transition plan and offer my support to the School Committee in any way necessary.

I extend my deepest gratitude to the Worcester School Committee members along with many local and state elected officials, our city and state leaders, our dedicated educators and staff, our families, and our many community partners for your support and commitment to our scholars. I am confident that the momentum we have built together will carry Worcester Public Schools forward to even greater success.

As we look to the future, I encourage everyone to remain on a journey of excellence embracing this quote.  “Excellence can be obtained if you ... care more than others think is wise; ... risk more than others think is safe; . . . dream more than others think is practical; ... expect more than others think is possible.”  I want to share my deep appreciation and love for the families, staff and community members of WPS who practice this mindset each and every day. 

With appreciation,

Rachel H. Monárrez, Ph.D.

Superintendent 

Worcester Public Schools

 The T&G has coverage here. 

Interviews for the Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education

 

Coming to you live from Mass Bay Community College in Wellesley

My rundown of the finalists can be found here. My initial perspective on them can be found here.

There is a livestream of this, which will be going up here. UPDATED: video is here.

Posting as we go. 

Jack Elsey, Lily Laux, Pedro Martinez to be interviewed

and Craven just said a whole bunch of things including the schedule which I missed because I was trying to find the livestream...sigh...it also isn't written down, as best as I can tell

The Board is soliciting feedback on the finalists here. 

Regarding the finalists for Commissioner

As per usual, this is only my personal opinion.

When asked for my (own personal) opinion about what we need in the next Commissioner, I have said two things: 

Meanwhile, state budget season continues

 and the House Ways and Means budget is posted. 

Three finalists for Commissioner of Education

 ...as reported by State House News Service shared by WWLP: 

The state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education announced Tuesday that it will conduct public interviews Thursday with three finalists for the open Department of Elementary and Secondary Education commissioner job.

Board members will consider Jack Elsey, Lily Laux and Pedro Martinez.

Elsey previously worked as chief of innovation and incubation at Chicago Public Schools and as assistant superintendent at Detroit Public Schools. In 2022, he founded the Michigan Educator Workforce Initiative, which Massachusetts officials described as "an organization committed to addressing the teacher shortage crisis and building a more robust educator pipeline for Michigan."

Laux works as executive director of Economic Mobility Systems. Before that, she spent seven years as deputy commissioner of school programs at the Texas Education Agency, a role that involved overseeing academics and efforts to shift from a "compliance focused" approach to an "outcomes-driven" one, DESE said.

Martinez leads Chicago Public Schools, the fourth-largest district in the nation. He previously worked as superintendent of the San Antonio Independent School District.

You can find the Boston Globe report here, and Chalkbeat, which has a Chicago bureau, focuses most only Martinez here. 

please enjoy this sign left at an Orange line station in Boston after the march

I am going to strain to keep this post very straightforward, and I'll give some preliminary thoughts in another post.  

While the finalists for Commissioner are not yet posted (watch this space)

 ...the interviews and the selection meeting now are. 

• Interviews are 2 to 8 (oof) Thursday (the 17) at Mass Bay Community College Auditorium
• Selection for recommendation to the Secretary (who actually appoints) 2 to 4 at DESE in Everett on Tuesday the 22

Both are public meetings and both will be livestreamed.

The Speaker says 'no' on education formula review this year

 From State House News Service from last week (which no one appears to have picked up, so this is behind a paywall; I assure you this is the whole education funding section): 

No Chapter 70 Reform In The House This Year

Though Mariano promised that the House Ways and Means budget proposal will continue funding free school meals for all public school students and commit to fully funding the Student Opportunity Act, he told reporters that reform of the school funding formula is off the table.

Superintendents, school committee members and public school students have made their case at budget hearings for the state to overhaul the Chapter 70 funding formula for public schools, saying that small- to mid-sized districts are facing a financial crisis resulting in teacher layoffs, program cuts and even school closures.

Asked after the chamber event if the House would consider changes to the formula this year — something that Senate President Karen Spilka has signaled an interest in — Mariano said no.

"No. Too much uncertainty," he said, shaking his head.

He did say the House plans to continue funding Commonwealth Cares for Children early education and child care grants, a $475 million program that began with federal dollars during COVID-19 and the state has since taken on.

Overall, Mariano said the House would spend "more than a billion dollars" on the EEC sector. Gov. Maura Healey recommended $1.8 billion in state support for early childhood education in her fiscal year 2026 budget, a 20% increase from fiscal 2025.

Mariano said the House plans to take up legislation aimed to bolster access to early college programming for Bay State students, and voiced his support for three-year college degrees. The Board of Higher Education is considering regulations to allow students to achieve their bachelor's degree with less than the typically-mandated 120-credits.

"I was pleased to see that the Board of Higher Education moved to consider adopting this innovative approach. A reduced bachelor's degree would be especially beneficial to non-traditional students, and it will allow graduates to enter the workforce sooner and with less debt. This is the kind of fresh idea we need in education right now," he said during his speech to business leaders.

 "Too much uncertainty" includes "whatever we do is going to cost more," of course.

I am doomed to have the same discussion over and over forever

 The FY24 net school spending report was released yesterday.

if you click this, it will get bigger

Here’s a zoom in of the current year:

In words, that's "you didn't meet required spending last year by $5,548,031; you are required to make up for it this year, and you are not budgeted to do so."

Massachusetts responds

 DESE released this just a few minutes ago. 

While not as combative as Minnesota's, it does footnote the greeting, which one must admire. That isn't just passive aggressive--though it is!--it also points out how they're dodging someone taking responsibility for this mess.

And footnote 3! The Paperwork Reduction Act! 

Also note that this is the state saying districts have no responsibility to respond on their own. 

"you know what we mean" certification from U.S. Ed

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!

Worcester did what?

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

Massachusetts may be "under attack" but so is everywhere else

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.

New Bedford Light interviews Superintendent Andrew O'Leary

 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!  

What isn’t being mentioned in state school funding advocacy: a 🦨 at the garden party post

 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.

With thanks to my husband for his photos of actual Worcester skunks

Departing Southbridge receiver is going to Region 20 in Connecticut

 and some of his quotes in this interview are...a choice.

Who Governor Healey thinks should be at the table on graduation is concerning

 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. 

The U.S. Department of Education cancelled all the ESSER spending extensions Friday night*

 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

Yet another screening committee meeting on the Commissioner's search

 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!)

Why are so many schools facing budget crunches this year?

 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.

Not that anyone asked me about the search for a new commissioner

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. 

Vocational admissions: out for public comment

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. 

Board of Ed for March: college access

 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

Board of Ed for March: Management organization (Uncommon Schools)

 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

Board of Ed for March: Commonwealth Virtual Schools

 there is this backup

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

Board of Ed in March: educational vision and time out rooms

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

Board of Ed for March: State Student Advisory mid-year report

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

Board of Ed for March: School counselor of the year

 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

Board of Ed for March: update on Commissioner's search

screening committee wrapped up interviews last week
in process of recommending finalists
interviews in finalists in public during April most likely not in Everett

oh we apparently have a new Board of Ed member: Dr. Christina Grant

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. 

Board of Elementary and Secondary Education for March: opening comments

 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.

Joint Committee on Ways and Means hearing on education and local aid

 

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.

the former MA Commissioner is pushing AI in schools

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. 

Yep, Trump signed the Executive order

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.

Some Southbridge news

 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. 

To consider: a budget that meets the moment

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.

Statement from the faculty at Teachers' College, Columbia University

 To read, to share: 

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. 

Our local districts deserve better than this

Flag in a school I was in last week

 I was in a local district budget hearing when the news broke last week that half the U.S. Department of Education was being laid off. It was within minutes of a school committee member asking the question that is getting asked in every school budget discussion I've been to this year--what about federal grants?--and so the timeliness was quite something.

"Are you kidding?": we're not making up total losses in federal funding from the state budget

One of the questions that has been swirling quite a bit lately has been: if all the federal money vanishes, can (or can't) the state make up the difference. 

Let me note here that my frame of reference here is Massachusetts, so your local results may vary, but I do think that Governor Healey's response when asked this question--"Are you kidding?"--was accurate. I'm not saying we can't do anything, but I do think the scope of what is supported by federal funds is something that may be a lot to wrap our heads around.

To read this week

Smith College Palm House

• The former principal deputy under secretary at the US Department of Education explains what the Department, the "least understood and most efficient cabinet agency," actually does.
  
  
• Excellent coverage from The Hechinger Report on Ryan Walter's one man crusade in Oklahoma. This particularly does a nice job of talking to practicing Christians who don't want it to be the state religion. 
  
  
• AI is still completely and massively failing to give accurate information. 
  
  
• Students at Department of Defense schools around the globe are continuing to protest.
  
  
• I really appreciated Jim McDermott's ode to what universities can do.

The word for this is bullying

 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.

Halving the Department of Education

 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 

I think just "FAFSA" alone is concerning, but note that some of that office's duties are ensuring that funding for higher education through student aid is used in ethical ways.

The Office of Civil Rights is of course what ensures schools protect and preserve students' civil rights; that's race, gender, special education, language, and more. While we've already seen signs of the office being weaponized (as I warned about in November), they have a VERY legitimate function. With an even smaller office, the prioritization of the ideological use of the office, one assumes, will take priority over families who need the OCR to work to ensure their students are appropriately treated by their schools.

IES is one of the quiet functions that few know exists, but many have used. If you've seen (or said) anything comparing one state to another on educational outcomes, or cited state education spending, or any of many, many other data points, you used IES. The New York Times has a useful piece on this, as well as the research funded by the Department, today. The lack of accountability--for states! for the country!--is not good here. 

Program Administration also worries me. While school districts have the big grants for the current year now, those granting systems don't run themselves, and that, plus a lot of other Department functions take people doing things. It's that sort of thing--the dribbles of "wait, no one is doing that??" that I will say I dread.

Now we have half as many people doing this work. And I have to say that I have little confidence that the cut was done in any way that ensures the functions we need are served. 

______________________

*If you lost your job yesterday, I am sorry. Your work is valuable and valued.

Just to offer: MASC did a Learning Lunch in January on what the U.S. Department of Education does (and what it means for districts) and you can find the video here. 

And what does this mean?

 Good thread here from Stephen Sawchuk on what having a half a Department may look like

“the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law"

 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

USDA cancels a billion dollars in food funding for schools and food banks supporting local farms

 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. 

Special meeting of the Board of Ed March 10: acting commissioner

 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: 

1. Serving on a Board whilst also working for it would certainly appear a conflict. 
2. Taking the second role at the same time on would appear to somewhat denigrate what is necessary for either. 
3. And having the Governor's appointment serve as the Board's appointment SUPER crosses the quasi-independence of the Department

Special meeting of the Board of Ed: March 10 CTE regulations

 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

New acting commissioner being appointed Monday evening

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. 

Worcester has a housing report on the Council agenda tomorrow

 ...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. 

Agenda is here; report is here.

Damn right, Maine will see you in court

 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?

MA Statement on equal access to education

 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.