Feedback on the WPS rezoning

Submitted this evening to alignment@worcesterschools.net

I went to the most recent meeting

Thank you for providing a method for feedback for the proposals for rezoning the Worcester Public Schools.
Because I have been following this process entirely through the printed reports, I assumed that I was simply missing the place that the foundational data for decision-making, that of demographic changes proposed, were being shared. I attended this past week's subcommittee meeting in expectation of seeing what had, at least, changed for that between proposals one and two.
Nothing of the kind was shared, and, I found from asking after the meeting, nothing of the kind has been requested by the district.
Frankly, this is so foundational that it is difficult to view this as an oversight; one wonders instead if this was simply not going to be raised. It was noted to me that equity between and among students of the district is not among the priorities set by the district for this work. Upon looking, I found this to be the case; those "goal and focus areas" are:
🔹Address school capacity imbalances
🔹Adjust pathways from elementary to middle to high school
🔹Potentially expand full-day preschool
🔹Potentially expand school bus transportation through adjusting school day start- and end-times
I am not clear on who set these--I'd assume significant policy changes like these were voted by the School Committee, but I do not know that for certain--but again, the oversight of improving the equity for students across the district, a district that has within its borders vast chasms of inequity of access, of building condition variation, of external support, of expectation, of green space, of HVAC, and so on down the list, is a shocking oversight.
It does, however, explain how the most significant changes from proposal 1 to proposal 2 could happen. If equity were at the heart of the work, the heckler's veto of double digits of emails plus a news article would never have removed from consideration the restoration of St. Nicholas Avenue to a neighborhood elementary school. A school that has half the number of English learners and a 30% lower poverty than the district average is not one that needs further advantage from district consideration (and I say this as the parent of a WAMS graduate). The lines of Nelson Place and Norrback, I submit, are not those that should most concern policymakers in the district, either.
Thus, my first piece of feedback is for the Committee to rectify that oversight in the direction given to the consultant who is, after all, only doing as asked. For the district to undergo such a major undertaking ignoring, intentionally or not, which children are impacted and where is an abrogation of your responsibility to us all. Are your decisions going to make our district more segregated by income, race, ethnicity, and language than it already is? Will you be further concentrating advantage?
Right now, you literally do not know.
My understanding is that this data is not only being tracked but is readily available. Please ask for it and use it.
I would also suggest that the process itself is problematic, insofar as some number of bits of feedback are enough to remove prospects from the table (leading to, I note today, possibly further misleading press coverage) for another round of proposals. The district cannot--or at least should not--make decisions purely based on the objections of a handful of those most involved. These decisions will, I suspect, outlive the attendance of all by the youngest of current students. They must be made from that perspective.

In passing, it was noted that part of how the schools are being balanced out is through the movement of sub-separate classrooms that are not considered--I guess?--really part of the schools in which they sit. For a particularly vulnerable population to be shifted through this behind the scenes slight of hand, potentially further disrupting the education of those least able to hack it, and who have parents whose plates are already far too full, simply isn't fair.

If you are going to make this big a change, this is your time to change high school start times. The science on this is incontrovertible, and we have now known that for decades. It is not in keeping with the academic best interest of students for high school to start at 7:20, period. This is also not an impossible change; we have models within the state where the entire athletic league changed high school start times at once (and we have had that information also for years now). Certainly, Worcester is of a size to lead this change. If you will be expanding services for preschool (though I observe that rather important deference to resources), you can also expand before and after school offerings. There is a right way to do this. We know what that is. Keeping high school at 7:20 is not it.

Finally (for now), I was puzzled by how access to specialized high school offerings was framed. My understanding within my WPS experience was always that programs were at particular schools in order to keep students at those schools (and in many cases, to make some provision for those who could not attend Worcester Tech). It appears that someone has now suggested that equalizing access should be provided to all programs across the district, creating a new puzzle of how this should be done.
Somehow, this is still involving what purport to be advanced programs that are continuing to admit through MCAS scores, as well, though we know there is no tie between giftedness and MCAS performance. I'd suggest to you that it is well past time for consideration of just what advantage is being conferred and to whom through such admission, in this case, as well. Those programs also were created to keep and attract particular students to particular schools; let us not deceive ourselves by pretending otherwise.
Thank you again for providing a means of feedback.

The Board of Ed meets this week

 And it is MCAS and Accountability release week.

The agenda for the Board of Ed can be found here. The MCAS data will go up on the school and district profiles at 10 AM Tuesday. As a reminder, always check the accountability data, as it's much more complex than just the testing, which will inevitably grab the headlines. 

(Yes, that's why that whole section of the website will be offline starting at 3 tomorrow.)

In addition to the release of MCAS data and accountability status, the Board has some start-of-the-year housekeeping--election of the vice chair, introduction of the new student member, the appointment of subcommittees--plus something on the literacy law implementation, which expanded the Department's authorities on determining what curricula is used, a power that had belonged to school committees in Massachusetts until now. 

There's also an update on DESE's strategic plan. In one of the ongoingly places I find the relationship between the Commissioner and Board confusing, it appears the Commissioner is simply announcing it, not presenting it for approval, despite (I'd assume?) the Board being in charge of setting of goals and overall direction. 

the first appointees to the Foundation Budget Review Commission

 While some of the Commission is set by the legislation, some are appointed. Governor Healey today announced her picks: 

 Governor Maura Healey has appointed Kristen Smidy and Amy O’Leary to the Foundation Budget Review Commission. 

Smidy is the former superintendent of the Gateway Regional School District and currently serves on the Board of Ed; O'Leary is the  Executive Director of Strategies for Children. Both are from western Mass, which the Governor notes in her press release. 

Worth a read this week

 Things I have been reading: 

• This story from The 74 on how Boulder, Colorado parents worked with their district to change (very much in process) how students with autism are worked with in the district.:
  

  Modern practitioners defend the intervention, saying ABA no longer subjects children to physical punishment. Yet documentation of its harms is mounting, as researchers — including autistic adults who underwent ABA as youngsters — gather evidence that the therapy has caused widespread PTSD. Autistic children may no longer be subjected to electric shocks or slaps to the face — and the word “aversive” may sound kinder than “punishment” — but they are routinely denied food, toys and comfort items, as well as adult attention, a strategy practitioners industrywide call “planned ignoring.” ABA providers still frequently restrain children or confine them in isolation — practices recognized as so dangerous and traumatic as to be illegal in most circumstances in Colorado schools.

   I learned from this that the person who created ABA, Ole Ivar Lovaas, also created conversion therapy, which is of course banned many places. 
  
  

• The Boston Globe looks at parents who are organizing for more recess in schools. From this I learned that there is a national "Say Yes to Recess" group. 
  I will say, though, that I'm a little tired of the Globe doing this "in a bill pending before the state legislature" coverage when the Legislature is done with formal sessions. 
  
  

• In the state ballot questions campaigns here in Massachusetts, it's Smith and Wesson bankrolling the "no" vote on question 9 (which would repeal some gun control measures), with the largest funding for "yes," which keeps the legal language, seeing its biggest funding from the teachers' union. You can find that reporting here.
  
  

  

  not hard, eh? Vote yes on 9.

  
  
• Connecticut, which is among the states that allows no religious exemption to school vaccine requirements, just had that requirement upheld in the courts.

What could one do with the Department of Education?

 As the current administration daily posts another round of  nonsense about "returning education to the states"--the place education has been overseen since we have had a constitution*--the framing of an alternative has been kind of weak. "Let's not destroy the U.S. Department of Education" is a good start, but reaffirming the mission of the Department has been rather lacking.

I was intrigued, then, to read Kevin Carey's piece in Democracy entitled "A Department of Education--and then some" which outlines a bigger vision:

The Department of Children and Learning (DCL) would do everything ED is charged with by statute while incorporating children’s programs currently located in other federal agencies, including the school lunch benefits located at the Department of Agriculture and the Head Start and child-care programs housed at the Department of Health and Human Services. As any parent can tell you, health, nutrition, and learning all go together.

The DCL would be organized around three main purposes: funding, research, and civil rights. Its mission would be ensuring that foundational education services and the latest scientific findings and technological advances are available to all students, regardless of who they are or where they come from. Existing programs that don’t contribute to this core mission would be replaced.

What is particularly interesting to me is that Carey actually talks about what very, very seldom is: school districts:

But as it is practiced in U.S. education, “local control” is a false promise. It means that local school districts—and in the privatization era, individual families—are left alone to search and struggle for enough resources to purchase what an indifferent and unforgiving market chooses to provide. It means that students destined to compete in a global economy are tied down by how much money their neighbors happen to pay in property taxes. It condemns teachers to crumbling buildings and outdated curricula. It means that the various institutions charged with the care and education of children don’t communicate, coordinate, or collaborate. “Local control” is a long con. It exploits parental anxiety by pretending to give people power, then leaves them feeling individually responsible for our collective failure.

Local communities have the right and responsibility to decide who will teach their children and lead their public schools. Those accountable for school performance should be as close to parents and voters as possible. Critical organizational decisions shouldn’t be routed through a central bureaucracy in Washington. State governments ultimately determine academic standards for their children. At the same time, all local school districts should have enough money to hire great teachers who are versed in the latest research findings and empowered by the newest education technologies. And all children should have equal rights to a free, high-quality education tailored to their specific strengths and needs, regardless of their race, family income, native language, immigration status, or disability.

As I've just again had the class I teach explore the New America map of segregation and income inequality among school districts, the vivid extremes in inequity and segregation are fresh in my mind.

And we do not talk about it, let alone do anything to actually change it. 

*and happy Constitution Day!