I read the state graduation council report

 ...I am not going to say "so you don't have to," because I think if you have an interest in education, you probably should at least skim the report, which is online here.
As always, this is me writing as me on behalf of me only. 

This image deserves more space than it gets in the report, as it isn't bad thinking and it's a solid try at an outline. 
How is it, though, that they managed parallel structure for all but ONE of the items?
The upper left one is crying out for a noun!

"There shall be in the department a board of elementary and secondary education..."

With the inauguration of the new governor have come a number of questions of what authority the Governor has over K-12 school governance in Massachusetts. 

This involves the interaction of three sets of players: the Secretary of Education; the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education; and the Commissioner of Education

The Secretary of Education is a cabinet member of the Governor. They are appointed by the Governor, and serve at the pleasure of the Governor. They oversee an Executive Office of Education, which is not the governance system of the state.
By virtue of that appointment by the Governor, they have a voting seat on three Boards:

• The Board of Early Education
  
• The Board of Elementary and Secondary Education
• The Board of Higher Education

Governor Healey has appointed Dr. Patrick Tutwiler as Secretary of Education; this position was held by James Peyser under Governor Baker.

The Board of Elementary and Secondary Education was created by MGL Ch. 15, sec. 1E, the Board consists of eleven voting members as follows: 

    1. The Secretary of Education: As above, this is Dr. Tutwiler. His term is entirely up to the Governor, but he can serve as long as Governor Healey is Governor.

    2. The Chair of the Statewide Student Advisory Council--This student member is the only elected member of the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, as the chair is elected by their peers on the Council. They are elected in June and serve for one year. This seat is currently held by Eric Plankey, who is a senior at Westford Academy (which is the public high school in Westford). Eric's  term ends in June.

    3. A member whose term is coterminous with the Governor. That seat was held by Tricia Canavan of South Hadley; as such, this is a seat which Governor Healey now can fill with a person of her choice.

The term of all other seats is for five years, with a single renewal of an additional five years allowed.

    4. A labor representative, selected by the Governor from a list put forward by the State Labor Council, AFL-CIO. This seat is currently held by Darlene Lombos of Boston, who is the executive secretary-treasurer of the Greater Boston Labor Council. Darlene was appointed in June of 2020; as such her term should run through June of 2025, though she could be reappointed to a second five year term at that time if Governor Healey wishes.

    5. A "representative of business or industry selected by the governor with a demonstrated commitment to education." This seat is held by Katherine Craven of Brookline, who is Chief Administrative Officer of Babson College. She was appointed in August of 2014, and had her term renewed by Governor Baker; as such, her term expires in August of 2024.

    Important note: Though Craven currently serves as Chair, the Governor appoints the Chair, so  Governor Healey may appoint a different chair from among the members if she wishes.

    6. A "representative of parents of school children" selected by the Governor from a list of three put    forward by the Massachusetts Parent Teacher Association. This seat is held by Mary Ann Stewart, formerly a member of the Lexington School Committee, who was appointed in August of 2014; she was reappointed (or was she?) by Governor Baker, and thus her term expires August 2024.

The remainder of the five seats are non-specific, though the law specifies: 

No appointive member of said board shall be employed by or receive regular compensation from the department of education, or from any school system, public or independent, in the commonwealth, or serve as a member of any school committee.

 and not more than two can work for the state.
Currently, they are: 

    7. Matt Hills, Vice-Chair (elected to that position by his colleagues for the year), formerly a member of the Newton School Committee, is a Managing Director at LLM Capital Partners. He was appointed to the Board in March 2019--despite it not saying that on the Board page--thus his term should be up in March of 2024, though Governor Healey could reappoint him for a second term at that time. 

    8. Farzana Mohamed, also of Newton, was just appointed by Governor Baker this past July; as such    her term runs through July 2027, though she could be reappointed for a second term.

    9. Michael Moriarty, a former member of the Holyoke School Committee (prior to receivership), is the Executive Director of the OneHolyoke Community Development Corporation. He was appointed to the Board in September of 2015, and was reappointed by Governor Baker; as such, his term ends September of 2025.

    10. Paymon Rouhanifard of Brookline, is the former superintendent of the Camden, NJ schools under state control; he current runs Propel America. He was appointed in September 2019, and thus his term ends in September 2024, though he could be reappointed for a second term.

    11. Martin West of Newton, is a profession of education at Harvard Graduate School of Education. He was appointed in September 2017; as such, his term ended September 2022, unless he has been appointed for a second term.

Now there's something weird going on with appointment dates; the "official" website of terms of office, I am told, is here. Setting aside that the secretary of the Board (the Commissioner) is still somehow Jeff Wulfson (who was serving as interim five years ago), and the student member is two years of out date, the terms of office are strangely off, as follows:

• Lombos was only appointed in 2020; her appointment should run through 2025. The website has 2023, but the law has no three year terms.
• Craven's is correct.
• Peyser's blank (serves with Baker) is correct.
• Stewart was appointed in 2014, thus her first term did, as noted here, expire in 2019. She has continued to serve, though, so her term of service should run, one assumes, through the second five years, expiring in 2024. This is assuming that she was reappointed. 
• Moriarty's is correct.
• Canavan's blank (coterminous with Governor) is correct.
• West was appointed in 2017; as such, his first term have should run through 2022, unless he was reappointed. The site has it as 2025, but there are no eight year terms.
• Mohamed's is correct.
• Hills was appointed in 2019; as such, his first term ends in 2024. The site has it as 2027.
• Rouhanifard's is correct.

The law is quite clear on five years, allowed to be renewed once. The only exception is if someone is appointed to fill a partial term vacancy of less than three years. If the argument is that Hills, for example, first filled Sagan's additional year, that still only gets him to 2025, not to 2027. 

I don't like what looks like fudging here, and I hope that the state's former top lawyer, now running the show, straightens this little mess out.

It is, however, the Board, who you will note do NOT answer directly to whomever is currently the Governor, that appoints the Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education, who is the executive of the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, which oversees K-12 education in Massachusetts.
Currently, the Commissioner is Jeffrey Riley, former receiver of Lawrence, who was appointed Commissioner in 2018. He can serve as long as the Board wishes him to do so. He has no direct reporting line to the Governor.

Think of the relationship of the Board to the Commissioner as paralleling the School Committee to the Superintendent, with the Secretary simply serving as a voting member. 

The most read of 2022

 What a year!

Photo UP at the Durkin Administration Building this summer

In the classic manner, we do this from ten to one, remembering that the actual number one remains the face of the blog. Many of you simply wander by from time to time to see what's new. I appreciate that!

10. "We pauperize education": A letter to my delegation (from January): "Schools should be the last thing to close!" we were told over and over, yet no one did anything to create the circumstances that would make that possible. Here's my letter to the delegation (one of several I sent) regarding that.

9. Vernon Hill School (a post from 2015): This one feels a bit like cheating, because I know what drove the traffic for this. Someone on one of the Worcester community Facebook pages asked a question about Vernon Hill (which is the former Providence Street Junior High), and the photos I have in this post responded to some of the question, so I posted a link.
This does remind me, though, that I need to be more faithful about posting photos of buildings when I have them, as they're appreciated!

8. A post on Sonia Chang-Díaz (from December): The loss of Sonia in the Senate (even as her successor is great!) is something I know I will keenly feel, as will many. This is the post which doesn't do her justice, but is my best attempt. 

7. Who are those guys? A bit about the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (a post from 2017, which probably needs updating): With the change of Governor, there have been many under the impression that we'd a) get a new Commissioner (no);  and/or b) get an entirely new Board of Ed (no). I shared this link at least once to try to straighten some of that out. I should probably update it with new names, though. Maybe once we see what else happens after Thursday...

6. A legal opinion regarding health authorities in the Worcester Public Schools (from February): One of the ongoing questions of the pandemic has been who has the authority to do what (and also who does not). In particular around schools, what the authority of the school committee versus the board of health led to a few clashes. Worcester didn't have a clash so much as a sequencing question, but I posted the legal opinion of the city solicitor to clarify.

5. SCOTUS did what? (from June): It's been an alarming year in Supreme Court decisions, and education has not escaped unscathed. This is post is on the Carson v. Makin decision, requiring Maine to fund tuition to religious schools as well as secular ones. This is due to the very particular conditions of Maine education, but it has opened the doors to vouchers effectively being required to be used similarly in states where there are vouchers. 

4. What happens next in the WPS superintendent search? (from April) Posted the night the finalists were announced (at 9:32 pm), this post was designed to ensure everyone knew exactly what was happening next.

3. Remarks on Dr. Rachel Monárrez, next superintendent of the Worcester Public Schools (from April) Posted the night we voted on the next superintendent, this post is my remarks reflecting to my colleagues on my visit to San Bernardino City Unified School District. It was also a recommendation of action (which is what we did!).

2. Finalists for the Superintendent of the Worcester Public Schools (from April): Because I knew that people weren't going to be able to listen fast enough! This simply replicates the text that was shared with the School Committee the evening it was announced. 

1. Let's talk about this charter school application for Worcester (from November): My personal subtitle for this one is "what I did over my Thanksgiving break" but it was worth it, as it caught the attention needed, and that snowballed into the work that got the community mobilized. Fingers crossed we made our case strongly enough.

What's up for this year? I have fallen away from posting about what happens at Worcester School Committee meetings, which is probably something I need to get back to. Local coverage continues to fall off, and that means that the narrative of what is and isn't happening there from those who don't attend or watch meetings is often off course. There is only so much I can do, but I should do more of what I can.

Also: Ongoing work of new superintendent! New Governor and new Secretary! And a fall election under Worcester's new system.

Happy new year, and thanks as always for reading! 

"If Not You, Who Else?": a year end post of thanks

I'll do my usual year end "most read" wrap-up in the next few days, but given the year it has been--and it has been a year!--I wanted to do a post of thanks.

Sixth floor (you read that right!) windows of the
Durkin Administration Building, 20 Irving Street.
This is the top of the tower.

First, on a personal note, the support I got from the educational community, both here in Worcester and across the state, when my mom died in February was something I still keenly appreciate. Thank you for that.

Worcester got a 50% turnover in their school committee this year, and gosh, what a change! We're ensuring public process happens; we changed our rules to ensure it (and thanks to the Research Bureau for noting the rules change and the focus). We're sticking to actual district governance (and filing items that stray offline!). When something is already in subcommittee, we don't file it again! When we don't agree--and we don't, always--it's much more often over principle. Subcommittees are sticking to their work and getting their work done.
I cannot tell you of what a night and day difference working with this committee has been (and this is to give due respect to some good colleagues have had in the past). Trusting that work is going to get done, that discussion is going to stay on topic, that disagreement isn't going to be because of who brought something up, that we're going to focus on goals and policy and budget and the superintendent...it's an enormous, enormous change. I am profoundly, both as a member and as someone who lives in Worcester, grateful for that.

...which brings me to the other big change, which is the superintendent. Let me first back up and say again, though, what I said in May: the superintendent search--a thorough, national, thoughtful, professional, standards-based search--was the work of many, many people. The prior committee committed to the national search and hired the firm. The new committee kept that commitment. The community committed, as well. The search committee was thorough, thoughtful, professional, and stringent. The full committee did their due diligence--including those district visits!--and carried through a careful process. Worcester wanted this, at bottom, and, as someone who runs searches as part of my job, having my hometown want a real search that did a thorough job is still something for which I am so very grateful. And still a little amazed. And Bill Shaner is right: it felt a little miraculous, but really, it was about people insisting on a culture of professional excellence.
And we can have that! I'm really thankful that this carried through.

And so to Dr. Monárrez. In re-reading what I said that night in April (eight months ago today, in fact!), and I have only seen confirmed what I brought back. She's gone out and listened (and listened and listened) to people across the district (and the city) as her very first priority. She's also set up systems to keep that going forward. And they're doing real work (ask the student advisory!)! She's reorganized the administration to ensure the actual work of the district--students learning--is supported appropriately. She's also cleaned up outstanding issues--the MOU with the police department, the strange situation of the grants department not having fiscal oversight, the backlog of questions from the committee, the lacks of relationships with the unions and with community agencies, and on and on--that were left by those who went before. And in many cases, there are systems and processes being put into place, so things that come up have places to go, which they absolutely did not before. 
In short, we're acknowledging what's broken and we're working to fix it, in ways that building on strengths and bring in new supports where we're weak. 
And I want to note: that includes acknowledging strengths we have had right along in some administrative spots, and her recognition of that only makes me more confident in her leadership.
From a committee member perspective, I know who to ask questions of. I know I'll get answers back (and quickly! And accurately!). I know when we go into a meeting, the report of the superintendent is going to be relevant to the work of the district, that our questions will be answered or followed up on, and it will be productive. I'm also so many times better informed as to what is going on in the district now.
I am so profoundly grateful for all of these changes.
Also, if you haven't yet met her, she's genuinely great. We're very lucky.

Let me also note that the changes above have left plenty of people clearing up issues, recreating systems, working to give support and oversight that has been lacking, and was a lack not of their own making. We also have acting principals and assistant principals and others stepping up into leadership to help right the ship. I'm grateful for those doing that. 

Did you hear we took on district transportation fully in house?
Did you?
Did you?
(ok, I'll stop) This is a BIG DEAL about which we've been talking for YEARS, and gosh, so much work but also heart and soul has gone into it! I stopped by district Transportation before the break, and I wish I could bottle how much "making things work" is in that building. I've said before: this is another one that was taken on as a community project, and families came alongside those working for the district in understanding that we were making a new thing fly. We've had so much good will this school year in this project, and I'm profoundly grateful for that, as well as for everyone who is making it work.
(And if you have nice things to say about your bus drivers and monitors, send it along! They share it!)

And yes, I'm chairing Finance and Operations this term, and I'm really grateful for that. 

I never wrote a separate blog post about how profoundly grateful I felt walking out of the public hearing for the proposed Worcester Cultural Academy Charter School, so let me say now, how grateful that made me. First, there was an incredibly high level of organization in the administration and with the Committee in the responses, ensuring that the various weaknesses of the proposal were covered, often by those speaking in their own area of expertise. That is absolutely not something we have experienced in quite some time. There was also a high level of coordination with the EAW (more relationship building!) on what topics were being covered, what work was being done ahead, and more. And finally, but most importantly, the outpouring of community comment--from parents, from educators, from community members--noting not only that they didn't have a need for this school, but that they did not want their district harmed was really incredible. And again, much like what we're seeing with district administration: it is not that WPS is perfect, but that it recognizes the needs to be met and is working to improve, and it's doing so with the community. As much as I would have liked to have spent all that time and energy differently, I am grateful for the community response.

And there are so many more people and areas I could talk about locally, but I tried to cover all of that in my post from Thanksgiving!

On a state level, we are going to have a new Secretary of Education, and he's been a Gateway city superintendent. And Jim Peyser, will, we hope, never cast another vote at the Board of Education. 

We're no longer going to have Governor Baker's "I underbudgeted and didn't meet basic needs, but now there is a supplemental budget, and look! One time funding!" method of funding education. And we won't have his strange implicit hostility to public education, and his lack of wanting to understand anything about city or rural or regional or anything-outside-his-personal-experience schools. 

We're moving into what I think is going to be a third year phase in of the Student Opportunity Act, which is the most profound change to the funding of Massachusetts education in a generation. 

As some of us have been saying over and over, ESSER spending, at the halfway mark, is right on time. Those who are still talking about districts "sitting on cash" don't know how federal reimbursement works and aren't keeping up with district spending. Those in districts have known this was the case; I am grateful to see the national press is SLOWLY catching up! 

The federal budget that passed last week was not a disaster for public education. Keeping grant increases up with inflation is the underlying challenge, so that's useful. 

This is absolutely one of those posts that could go on forever, but I'm going to close. Thanks.

________________________________________________ 

The post title is from Terry Pratchett's  novel Only You Can Save Mankind (and if you haven't read Pratchett, what are you waiting for?)

Board of Ed for December: opening comments

 The agenda is here. The livestream is here. 
This is the final Board of Ed meeting of the Baker administration, and thus the final meeting for Secretary Peyser.

updating as we go

Let me say up front: I'm not here for nice words about Baker or Peyser and public education. You'll have to go find that somewhere else. If you fought off privatization efforts (remember Baker's question 2 ad?) and got the SOA signed, cheers. We made it.

Public comment: 
gifted and talented education
MCAS very inept at identifying where students are
Aversion to acceleration in this state
"I see a structural policy failure in this Department in this topic"

sophomore at Revere High School who participated in the Biggest Winner Math Challenge
"in those kids I could see a pleasure in seeking more knowledge"
"I could see the changes in the students that came" in every passing week
changed her perspective on school
teachers put in school "to help and guide me"
sophomore at Easton High School
was in Brockton gifted and talented program
Biggest Winner Math Challenge provides opportunity for those without such a program
helped learn teaching and leadership skills
sophomore at Brockton High
use math in the real world; changed the way I viewed math
worked in the video series
junior at Foxborough Regional Charter School
took over parts of the schedule after the first week 
making connections through humor
junior at Philips Academy Andover
strong interest in STEM; team leader of the Biggest Winner Math challenge
worked collaboratively to make things more engaging for the students 
sophomore at Revere High, who serves on Board of Ed's gifted and talented council
starts by recognizing Eric Plankey, student member of the Board
in then team leader in Biggest Winner Math challenge
was empowered to take on leadership roles in community
"discovered an interest in teaching I didn't know I had"
"teens need to have the opportunity to work for more programs that work for them"
Shashoy Bailey, chemistry teacher at Discovery High School in Springfield
instructor in Biggest Winner Math challenge
emigration from Jamaica
Attended school in Springfield and chose to go back to Springfield to teach
often one of the only or only Black student in classes in engineering program
systematic lack of access to resources for Black and brown children
need more programs that schools can easily access and provide for their students
seen development in program over time

Senator Nick Collins
speaking for concerns about school safety in Boston
which is not the correct place to raise at all
flagging school safety concerns to the state board (?)
likens medal detectors to library check outs
raises Sandy Hook Elementary
"I appreciate the role this Board has been playing the city of Boston"
has little confidence in Boston School Committee

Max Page, president, Mass Teachers Association
congratulations to all of us for having passed the Fair Share Amendment 

call for lifting "artificially low" inflation cap in the Student Opportunity Act
Right to strike
retirement 
end high stakes testing and receivership
poses some questions to pose to the Southbridge receiver
"how much evidence do we need" of the catastrophe of this experiment?

Hills: Commissioner's assessment subcommittee
set out a structure; and he's talking about a memo that we do not have
"student achievement how we weigh our success or failure as a Board" weighed at fifty percent
Moriarty on pandemic recovery and literacy, because he has this hobbyhorse committee that isn't under purview
"good meaningful robust discussions"

Craven turns it to Peyser
Peyser who is home sick; he's been on the Board for eighteen years
and his list of things they did that I don't think are the things are important at all
welcomes Pat Tutwiler

Commissioner: Boston Public Schools latest
equity analysis for transformational schools as compared to non
literacy focus: getting some traction
transportation: still concerned
concerned about bathroom renovations: "timelines blown early in the process"
"still have ongoing leadership challenges"
"I guess I'm disappointed that we've had elected officials come to the chamber numerous times" and it feels like balls are being dropped
early indications that Superintendent Skipper will be excellent
safety audit coming
Craven: bullying and special education
Riley: special education concerns; bullying
Hills: transportation: why did people think it positive in June?
how do you go from over 30 people interested to one bidder?

vo-tech admissions: policies being reviewed
following up with some districts that may still be impeding equitable admissions
Moriarty: what is being done to expand programs?

Riley opines off the cuff that he disagrees with the MTA prioritizing the right to strike

list of grants in learning loss, and now they're talking about a grant that I don't know what the conversation is about

Let's talk about this charter school application for Worcester

The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education this year is considering a single application for a new charter school, and it's in Worcester. You can find the application online thanks to the MTA (not on DESE, as would, you know, actually make sense); the notification the Department gives is that the application is in, and they'll be holding a hearing, as required by MGL Ch. 71, sec. 89(h) here in Worcester:

4:00–6:00 p.m. on Friday, December 9 

the Hebert Auditorium, Surprenant Building, Quinsigamond Community College

You can also email your comments to charterschools@doe.mass.edu by January 4.

First, an overview of charter schools in Massachusetts, in case this is a new conversation for you:

Now, if you're brand new to charter schools entirely, let me recommend this piece from John Oliver from 2016, keeping in mind that a) it's from six years ago and b) it's a national look:

One thing that often is touted in Massachusetts is that all charter schools under MGL Ch. 71, sec. 89, are chartered by the state: applications go to the Commissioner for consideration, who then recommends (or doesn't) charters to the Board of Ed, who then awards (or doesn't) the charter. A parallel process is followed for renewals. While this means we have dodged some of what has happened in other states, let me note that Massachusetts isn't immune to some of the issues other states have seen; the ongoing issues, dating back at least a decade, of Mystic Valley Charter (up for renewal in February, incidentally) is probably the extreme, but please note that Worcester did have a charter that collapsed in October (!) of 2013 for exactly the financial reasons the Worcester Public Schools said in public testimony were going to happen when the state first considered it in 2010. (Search "Spirit of Knowledge" in the sidebar if you'd like the whole history of that.) 

The part that will always stay with me about that experience is attending a meeting in the Mayor's office with parents of students at Spirit of Knowledge who were begging the Worcester School Committee to do something, anything, to improve their children's experiences, and being entirely powerless, as charter schools answer only to the Board of Ed. My testimony before the Board of Ed on that experience is here; I also testified before the Joint Committee on Education in 2015 about that experience, calling for local authorization, if funding that impacts local districts is being used.

And that is how charter schools are funded in Massachusetts: the foundation budget amount of each student that attends the charter school PLUS $1088 for facilities (increased due to the Student Opportunity Act) PLUS any amount over foundation that the district spends (calculated as a percentage) comes straight the Chapter 70 state aid of the district in which the student lives. If you like playing with spreadsheets, you can download the projected FY23 district by district amounts here.

That spreadsheet also includes the calculation of what is most often misunderstood about charter school tuition: there is a transition amount. When a student, for example, leaves a district school for a charter school, for the first year, 100% of the amount of state aid being transferred comes also as reimbursement to the district; this tapers to 25% for the following three years. This was fully funded for the first time ever this past year (also thanks to the Student Opportunity Act). Note that it is the INCREASE, not the ongoing cost, that is reimbursed, and only for the transition.
The argument has been that this gives the district time to make the adjustments needed to their budget due to the loss of that individual student. Given a moment of thought, however, the inapplicability of this argument becomes clear: a district doesn't lose an entire third grade class, and so can cut a teacher to save that cost. A district loses a few students here and there across grade spans, and generally there is no "savings" at all.
And a charter school in a town or city is granted by the state district-funded transportation for all in-town or city students at the same status as the district's own. Thus the charter's existence itself increases a district cost, with no benefit to district students. You can see how much this costs on a per pupil basis on this spreadsheet; for Worcester last year, it was $2771 per student, or $5.7M.

Also, possibly a discussion for another time, I continue to wonder about the constitutionality of charter schools at all in Massachusetts, given the outlines of the dismissal in 2016 of Doe v. Peyser; in particular, as I quoted in that earlier blog post: 

The education clause "obligates the Commonwealth to educate all its children." [McDuffV. 415 Mass. at 617]. This obligation does not mean that Plaintiffs have the constitutional right to choose a particular flavor of education, whether it be a trade school, a sports academy, an arts school, or a charter school. Even if the court were to deny the instant motion, thereby allowing substantial discovery to follow, Plaintiffs' action will always be addressed to the question of whether the Commonwealth is obliged to provide more of one flavor of education than another. This decision - how to allocate public education choices amongst the multitude of possible types - is best left to those elected to make those choices to be carried out by those educated and experienced to do so.

A bit about where we are with the state process:

As noted on the MTA's Policy Minute, initially there had been three applications for new charters in Massachusetts. That link also covers the proposed expansion of current charter schools. Two things that could maybe be relevant here:

• the Pioneer Valley Chinese Immersion group was not invited to apply for their proposed central Mass twin school (My personal opinion is that could be due to their continually turning up at Board of Ed meetings to try to get them to overrule the Commissioner on pretty basic stuff around their enrollment, but that's based on nothing other than attending Board of Ed meetings).
  
  
• Old Sturbridge Village Charter, which is the same administrative oversight proposing the new school in Worcester, was not moved forward for their proposed expansion into high school. 

Expansions and additions are governed by the state law on charter school spending: up to 9% of a district's required spending can be pulled out by charter schools, with up to 18% being pulled out of the lowest 10% of districts. This is the charter school "cap" which the state overwhelmingly voted to retain by rejecting question 2 in 2016. 

Because I will share this map any chance I have to: a look at exactly how unpopular lifting the charter cap was, courtesy of WBUR

Much like everything else, this list lowest 10% list, which is based on MCAS scores, was impacted by the pandemic, and so it has been frozen for 2021, 2022, and 2023 with the ratings of based on 2018 and 2019 MCAS scores.
And yes, Worcester is on that list, just. We had moved off the lowest performing list (download them and check!) for a number of years, but the 2020 list dropped us back into that group. This was never discussed at the district level; the previous administration never really did much sharing of the state accountability information, let actual reacting to it.
And that is the group that is now frozen.
We would have space under the charter cap, in any case, as 9% of Worcester net school spending does not go to charter schools, thankfully.

What's the deal with Old Sturbridge Village and charter schools?

The charter being proposed in Worcester essentially is a sibling to the Old Sturbridge Village Charter School in Sturbridge, which opened in 2017, after being rejected the previous year. It has 320 students in grades K-8. For FY22, it pulled $4.8M out of the districts of Brimfield, Brookfield, Holland, Monson, North Brookfield, Palmer, Southbridge, Spencer-East Brookfield, Sturbridge, Tantasqua, Wales, and Webster, though $1.8M of that came from Southbridge alone, where close to half the student body comes from. Southbridge is one of the three districts deemed chronically underperforming by the state. It has been under state receivership since 2016.
The dates being the same as when OSV first applied to open a charter school is in no way a coincidence. The state law is constructed such that this sapping of resources of the districts that are often only minimally funded and most need every dollar to do better is incentivized under the argument of giving families, essentially, an escape hatch, as the state has thrown up its hands (at least until recently) around actually doing its job in ensuring the constitutional requirement for a fully-funded education for each student is met.

As a side note, there is no evidence that state takeover of school districts in Massachusetts has been effective. 

It's also not a coincidence that it's Old Sturbridge Village that has been, I believe, the first and only museum to take advantage of the provision that allows for a charter to be filed jointly by (MGL Ch. 71, sec. 89(d)) "a college, university, museum or other similar non-profit entity," given who the President and CEO of OSV--who also serves as Executive Director of OSV Charter and who also is proposed to serve as Executive Director of the Worcester expansion--has been since 2007: Jim Donahue. 

Donahue, as this profile in Worcester Business Journal from 2011 notes, came on as OSV's President at at time when it wasn't entirely clear that OSV was going to make it. That changed under Donahue. Donahue's background, though, is not from the museum world: he's a charter school director.

Donahue was the director of Highlander Charter School in Providence, Rhode Island. Donahue also recently ran for City Council in Cranston, RI (there were three seats open and he came in fourth), as well as serving as co-chair of Allen Fung's campaign for the Second Congressional district in Congress (both men are Republicans; Fung lost to Magaziner).

In both the case of OSV Charter and the proposed Worcester school, Donahue serves as Executive Director under a management agreement with Old Sturbridge Village; he is appointed to that position by the OSV board. The proposed management agreement for the Worcester school, which is 28 pages long and is included starting on page 278 of the application, looks to these non-lawyer eyes like it is pretty difficult for the charter school to ever get out of; look at what "termination" spells out, starting on page 297.
The agreement states that OSV will be responsible for:

• Providing general business operations
• Providing leadership and management support to School Leaders as necessary to achieve goals as outlined in the Accountability Plan and mission and vision of the Charter;
• Preparing entitlement grant applications and reporting;
•  Recruiting School Leaders, teachers, and other administrators; using best practices for attracting a qualified, talented and diverse faculty and staff, and ensuring compliance with the provisions of MGL c. 71, §38G;
• Training and coaching of the School Leaders by the Executive Director;
• Preparing the evaluation of the Principal for the Board’s review and approval;
• Preparing a budget and monthly financial statements for the Board’s review and approval;
• Providing payroll and accounting services;
• Assisting with the selection of an independent auditor to be retained by the Board;
• Coordinating and implementing contracts with prior Board approval, consistent with the School’s policies and procedures;
• Preparing selection of benefits plans for Board approval for employees of the School governed by the Board;
• Assisting with the maintenance of human resource files for employees of the School to the extent permitted under State and federal law;
• Facilitating the purchase and procurement of all required School materials, equipment and services consistent with the School’s Fiscal Policies and Procedures and in accordance with all applicable Massachusetts statutes and regulations. An employee of OSV will be designated as procurement officer and such person will attain a Massachusetts Certified Public Purchasing Official (MCPPO) certification. OSV will ensure that at least one School employee will attain the MCPPO certification;
• Assisting School Leaders with the preparation of drafts of required government reports, including, but not limited to the annual report of the School for review and final approval by the Board;
• Administration of transportation services contract for students
• Facilitating student recruitment through community based outreach, parent information sessions, direct mail, social media, and person to person conversation. Facilitating fundraising through the identification and submission of grants proposals;
• Providing marketing and advocacy for the School under the direction of the Board;
• Administration and oversight of food services for students;
• Oversight of procurement of custodial, supplies and equipment for leased school facilities;
• Providing resources to support School goals related to Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Access (DEIA); and
• Information technology support for staff and students including but not limited to; network and communications and set-up and support for all staff and student computer devices

All of that is spelled out in greater detail in the pages that follow in the management agreement. 
There are two things to note on this: the first is that the oversight of the school remains pretty firmly under OSV: the Executive Director is to provide "training and coaching" of the principal; the principal's evaluation is to be prepared by OSV. The second is that all of the finance and operations functions are done by OSV; from the minutes of the current school, one can infer that this will be led by Tina Krasnecky, Vice President of Finance and Human Resources. 

The opening discussion outlines the relationship as follows (p. 83):

Because the accountability of the Management Organization is essential to the foundation of this partnership, and because the responsibilities of the Principal are critical to the success of WCACPS, the Board of Trustees will delegate to the Management Organization the authority and responsibility, consistent with state law, to make recommendations for recruiting, hiring, evaluating and terminating the Principal. Actions regarding the Principal must be approved by the Board. The Management Organization will provide the leadership of the Executive Director who is responsible in assisting the Board in holding the Principal accountable for managing the school’s day-to-day operations and will hold them accountable for meeting established goals that ensure the success of WCACPS.

For all of this, the school will pay OSV $12,500 per month until June of next year, and then 7% of all tuition payments once the school is operational. As the budget projects tuition being $3.3M for the first year, rising to $6.7M in year five of operation, that's a fee of $233,955 rising to $470,531 over the term of the charter.

(The budget starts on page 236. Don't worry; we'll get there.)

Now this made me curious as to how this has been working for the current school at Old Sturbridge Village. As the school doesn't post their budget online, the state doesn't publish spending broken out by account code for charter schools (which would only do us so much good, anyway), and the school doesn't include an annual budget or financial statements in their minutes on their website, this is not clear. Old Sturbridge Village also doesn't make this clear in their 990 filing (page 9 is revenue).

However, if you look at the pretty vague financial statement on page 28 of the FY 22 Old Sturbridge Village annual report, you can find a line for contracted services: 

That isn't a line that appears in the OSV Annual Report prior to the opening of the charter school. Is that $464,816 all coming from the management agreement? We can't tell without filing public document requests (with the school; the museum isn't subject to public document laws), but 7% of the $4.8M the school gets in tuition would be $336,906, so if its agreement is similar to that of the proposed school, at least most of that is chapter 70 aid, funding the museum.
Additionally, the rental line is also at least in part from the school. The modular classrooms that OSV has along the edge of their parking lot are charged rent by the museum. In the April minutes of the charter Board, we find the cost has been $323,952 (page 4), but the total cost will increase in FY23 to $687,362 (page 7), because OSV plans to rent the Oliver Wright Tavern and the Village Conference Center to the school next year for the middle school. 

...which means that OSV has been getting $650K from the school, rising to nearly a million dollars next year. 

To that, then, they'd be adding another $233K next year, rising to $460K the year after, largely for providing the financial bookkeeping, along with Donahue's executive coaching, to the Worcester school. 

While that isn't the make or break for a $12M a year institution, I imagine it doesn't hurt.
For this, by the way, Donahue makes $242,626 as of the last filing (page 7 of the 990) from Old Sturbridge Village; as best as I can tell, this is the only payment to him, as the management agreement, at least of the proposed school, makes no additional allocation. 

How does the budget work for the proposed charter school?

The proposed budget for the charter school starts on page 236 of the application, but let's start not with spending, but with revenue.

Let's start with what they're spending now:

Old Sturbridge Village is currently leasing a building in Worcester that the founding team is using as a base for our outreach efforts in the Worcester community. This is funded by a private donor that we believe will also continue to generously give to WCACPS. If a charter is granted, the WCACPS Board will have the option to assume this lease from OSV.

This is the former You, Inc. building at Holy Family Parish on Hamilton Street. 

In this planning year, their budget is $750,000, of which $500,000 is half of a million dollar planning grant that they would expect to receive from DESE if the charter were awarded; the other $250,000 (p. 87) is "a private foundation grant of $250,000" which they haven't yet received:

The applicant group has applied to a private foundation for a $1,000,000 grant to fund the start-up of WCACPS. The funder expects to make a decision on this request at its Board meeting in November 2022. Based on conversations between Jim Donahue and the foundation we are confident of receiving at least $500,000 which would be disbursed during the pre-operational period ($250,000) and the remainder in Year 1 and 2 to help fund building improvements, the purchase of a bus and other start-up costs

In other words, they're already spending money that they don't have. As the lease of the building is being carried by Old Sturbridge Village at this time--and gosh, I'd sure have some questions there if I were an OSV Trustee!--this is clearly OSV making a gamble on the finances here with ultimately there being a reward to that risk.

And note that the early years of operation likewise are dependent on this funding source to make the books balance.

There's also, throughout the application (this is from p. 96): 

The foundation discussed above is also exploring the creation of a philanthropic ecosystem through which they will make grants to the Expedition Institutions of central MA to support their development of programs in partnership with the Worcester Cultural Academy.

The crux of the program for the proposed school is the museums, but they don't have funding for this part of the program. And where is the funding for that going to come from? The Worcester donation ecosystem is not that large, and the non-profits--museums included--depend on that pool of funds in order to keep things going. Unless this somehow expands the funding involved, one could easily hurt the very institutions cited.

The allocation is WILD. First up, remember much of what we might call administrative overhead is being done through the management contract with OSV. For the first year of operation, that's budgeted at $233,955.
To that, the plan adds an administration of a principal, a vice-principal, for a total of $261,581.
As the full budget for the first year of operation is $4,090,017, they've budgeted 12% of their budget for administration.
While some of that is due to the size of the school, because the management agreement is a percentage of the tuition, that drops but only to 10% of the total budget in year five. 

Looking through the rest of the education salaries, they appear to have 10 classroom teachers, 3 English learner teachers, the science enrichment teacher, the wellness teacher, and the learning expedition coordinator, and possibly the math time math coach (?) all coming out of the lines totaling $888,080; for student support, a full time adjustment counselor, plus full time nurse, plus half time psychologist, half time OT, half time PT, if that's all "student support services" (because I can't figure out where else it would go?) totals $156,000.
And there are four paraprofessionals in a line budgeted at $133,620.

The salary line for custodial is $70,000 for TWO custodians. 

There's just not enough money in here for salaries, in any case, but in this current state of affairs, I just don't see how this gets staffed.

What exactly is the program being proposed for Worcester?

My quip to my homeschooling friends when OSV charter opened was that this was homeschooler bait: send your children to school at the Village! They can wear bonnets and milk cows and feed chickens and learn to make shoes! And of course, there are plenty of photos of that, though that is not the bulk of the experience at that school.

In the Worcester case, there is a significant amount of attention to a two hour block once a week for students for what the application refers to as "Learning Expeditionary Field Study." (Schedules start on page 228 of the application.)There are several mentions of the "short drive" to OSV (from the proposed school location on Hamilton Street, it's a 40 minute drive), and ongoing references to proposed partnerships with Worcester museums.

This is another place where it gets interesting: one can, of course, bring students to museums all one likes. There is, though, no evidence, that any actual partnerships with Worcester institutions, which the applications refers to as "Expedition Institutions" in fact exist. The application says, for example:

We anticipate that this type of relationship can be replicated at other Central Massachusetts cultural institutions such as the EcoTarium, Worcester Art Museum (WAM), Hanover Theatre and Conservatory for the Performing Arts, and more, in addition to the partnership with Old Sturbridge Village. The founding group is continuing to forge relationships and find potential opportunities within Central Massachusetts that fits our criteria for partnerships

As much as the names of Worcester institutions are featuring prominently in some of the advertising of the school, it is not Worcester museums proposing this charter, nor should one read into their names being used any support of it, as much as the application and surrounding documents lead in that direction. The only actual thing we know is that there have been initial meetings.

The proposed Worcester charter, like the one in Sturbridge, essentially would contract out their curriculum to EL Education, for which they would pay $75,000 a year for the first three years, then $40,000 a year thereafter. It seems clear from the application introduction that this is based off a visit Jim Donahue had with Ron Berger (who now is an executive at EL Education) when Berger was teaching in Shutesbury. Knowing that, the passive voice here is...a choice:

With that in mind, it was no surprise that EL Education was recommended to the museum as a school-design partner for OSACPS.

Surely someone did the actually recommending?

They plan to use iReady math, which is fairly common. 

Concerningly, their assessment grid also says that they also plan to use Fountas & Pinnell for grades 3-8, which WPS just managed to extricate itself from and has been widely noted to not follow what is known about what works in reading instruction.

What about the students?

This, of course, should really be the crux of the matter. Who is this school designed to serve? 
And that's actually a really good question. 

The school application is coming in as a "proven provider": the argument here is Jim Donahue (and those coming over from OSV Charter--about half the proposed Board is from there--have experience in running a charter school and so that gives the school a leg up.

But take a look at who OSV Charter has as students: 

OSV Charter: 4.1% African America; 0.3% Asian; 17.8% Hispanic; 0% Native American; 76.3% White;
0.3% Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander; 1.3% Multi-Race, Non-Hispanic

Here are the Worcester Public Schools' parallel demographics:

Worcester Public Schools: 16.9% African American; 6% Asian; 44.7% Hispanic; 0.2% Native American;
27.9% White; 0% Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander; 4.3% Multi-Race, Non-Hispanic

Very much not the same, and you'll see something similar in comparing selected populations:

Here's OSV Charter:

OSV Charter: First language not English, 5.3%; English language learner, 3.8%; Low income 43.8%;
Students with disabilities 19.7%; High needs, 55.6%

And the parallel numbers for the Worcester Public Schools:

Worcester Public Schools: First language not English, 58.9%; English language learner, 28.3%;
Low-income 74.3%; Students with disabilities, 21.1%; High needs, 84.1%

Thus in addition to being a much whiter and a much wealthier student population, the student body there has very few students who are learning English, and very few students whose first language isn't English. Not only is their percentage of both well below Worcester's; it's even below the state average (which is really saying something). 
In fact, they serve so few English learners, that their results for such students are not reported because there are so few students.

We literally cannot see how they do with their (less than 20) English learner students.

And as a side note: they're also nowhere near Southbridge Public Schools' demographics, either.

This, of course, speaks to lack of experience with students who are multilingual learners. While there is a section of the application (p. 60ff) designed to address English learners specifically, it opens in part:

This model is an ideal school environment for ELLs, which the leadership team has already established through OSACPS, that will enable them to overcome language barriers.

...which isn't something one can see from the student body actually being served in Sturbridge.  They don't have the experience to know that at all.
There is a heavy dependence on supplemental materials and differentiated instruction. There is not a great deal of evidence of understanding and experience of the actual needs of multilingual learners (who are not referred to as that, incidentally) in a school whose advocates envision it serving a student population that's between one- and two-thirds students who are learning English.

The application also speaks of the students in ways that strike me as worrying: the school has "a unique opportunity to serve children who fit a typically urban profile" (p. 27) in a section set aside to describe the student population served. That section instead pinballs from the proposed Board members to MCAS scores, to student demographics, to the housing authority, to rates of mental health issues, of which the section says: 

WCACPS would create a pathway for better outcomes when it comes to mental health and wellbeing for students by connecting them to cultural institutions, social services, and community organizations in the city and beyond at an early age.

And yes, the article cited does briefly review a few pieces relating mental health and museums, but this is a concerning focus when not presented in connection to further supports for students, which in this section, it is not.

There is of course much more one could say; the application is over 300 pages long, and the arguments on which it depends are larger than that. One could compare MCAS scores, but current MCAS scores are not even being used for accountability purposes, so there's not a great deal of use there. 

What we can say is this: we have a charter proposed that is not integrated to the Worcester community, that does not have the experience needed to serve our kids, that is predicated on a curricular model that is off-the-shelf, that uses a model to teach reading that is problematic, that legally binds the education to a non-profit oversight financially and administratively, and that will pull millions of dollars out of the local school district, just when the state has finally implemented the reform that would appropriately fund the district to the level constitutionally required.

We need to say no. 

Let me also note the following for Worcester residents: there are petitions going around in support of this expansion coming directly from the proposed Board. First, please don't sign or share them; second, please push back on the narrative accompanying them.
Oh, and a note on the opening of the application, which I found irritating.

October Board of Elementary and Secondary Education meeting: opening comments

Agenda 
Video

Chair Craven is remote

Public comment: single one asking that Boston add more exam schools, and complaining about "unleveling high schools": "no one cares about advanced children in this state"
"This Board doesn't engage; this is about accountability"

September Board of Ed: budget

Bell: where we stand in September
Department works on both federal and state funding
different cycles for federal and state
actively implementing close to $7B that makes up overall allocation
supplemental budget:
$100M grant program for HVAC; support districts with higher concentrations of low income students, higher impacts of COVID, higher numbers of facilities in need of program
supplemental to other funding
second year of funding to support special education schools and programs
meet the needs our schools effectively the buyers of

ESSER I: 99% claim (ends in 10 days!)

ESSER II: 53% claim rate

ESSER III: 17% claim "not surprising...we've encouraged districts to use their older funding first"

time to start working on FY24

West: national headlines about schools not spending ESSER funding
as someone steeped in this, is your reaction that these people don't know what they're talking about?
Bell: here in Massachusetts, at the end of the day, federal funding is a minority position
school districts, municipalities have an array of funding available
"somewhat of an inaccurate headline, to be honest with you"
"I don't chuckle, but I don't think it's a fair headline."
"To me, districts are doing what they should be doing...it seems to me they're on track"
"we have no reason to believe districts aren't spending it well"

Peyser scrambles wildly to undercut this argument

asks when Legislatures might be expected to act on supplementals: this isn't Bell's job, and it's an unfair question to ask him
some of that funding is past 6/30
provision
no idea what Matt Hills just said about both things could be true, as he wasn't using his mic

Riley: wish across the country for an extension in use of funding "for five year plan"
(Actually, it's due to pandemic supply lines and hiring complications for those paying attention)
hearing that there is no willingness to do this (please note: this is contrary to what was said last week in the federal update at ASBO, where it was expected, it was just a question of when), which we have communicated to districts

Canavan looking for best practices

minutes approved

August Board of Elementary and Secondary Education : public comment and MCAS

 This is the "one on the MCAS" though note that updating the state's accountability regs is also on today's agenda, as is a bullying regulation change, and an update on the budget. Because this was not a regularly scheduled meeting, I will not be liveblogging it all, but will catch up later. 

Posting as we go once the meeting starts...jumping in mid-public testimony
Interesting: the livestream missed this, but as the first panel was being introduced, there was a member of the public yelling about "no child is safe" though it was unclear on exactly what.

June Board of Ed: vocational school admissions

 really long intro here by Riley which doesn't tell you anything you didn't already know

intro document here; strikethrough regs; summary of public comment and responses

asking for authority to intervene if necessary
don't want to see this dragged out into the future and miss another vocational admission cycle

recess while the room was cleared? I think?

Peyser: support in regulations as amended
were some changes made
there was a thing here about the "authority of school committees" which I only partly caught
affirmative obligations on the part of school committees on admissions policies not having disparaty impact
affirmative obligation on the part of the Department
Strict parameters around discipline
"fair...access to this valuable resource"
diversification of student bodies in vocational schools has exceeded diversification of state
presence of admissions policy doesn't itself create disparity impact
as long as school committees are clear on their responsibilities (they aren't, I think)
more information to students and families about opportunities

Lombos: sit in labor seat, and represent labor movement beyond teachers
bottom up policy making on this issue: people most affected work to make policy
coalition has reached out to Board
"important first step" but important to continue to work with these groups

Moriarty: going to support this
think innovation of outreach to eighth graders is most important
"not being able to access your first choice when you move from eighth grade to ninth grade"
and then there's a long thing here about third grade reading

Hills: coming up with what you think the right policy is "not what you think the right political solution is"

those removed are now banging on the windows

Fernández: appreciate focus on equity piece
alignment with equity groups; is it far enough?
assurances of Board, specific timeframes on how vocational schools are doing relative to the policies
"long term, if we don't see the changes we're looking for, lottery should be on the table"
she's nearly being drowned out from by the banging 

Rouhanifard: longstanding policy matter
questions and concerns largely have been addressed in the proposal
old enough to remember when vocational education was disportionally skewed towards students of color
would love to know if schools in high demand are actually connecting students with fields 
(they aren't)
"would like to know if schools are fulfilling their mission"

Coughlin: glad to see access for students of color is something the Board is taking seriously

Stewart: Massachusetts following other states; have not been in compliance of federal civil rights mandates for last twenty years
"bring up a good policy--I don't think we're there yet, honestly"
use of grades already excluding disportionate numbers of protected classes
if more students are applying, would we expect to see more of those students at the school?
A: looking at the vocational school and those protected classes (under both state and federal law)
do they look like the sending districts?
there may be places with protected classes might apply in greater numbers; would Department intervene?
Department "will be looking at all the data...and will be very involved" 
(so, not a yes)
Stewart: I need to see that be more explicit in the regulations
"I don't feel we are there yet" on the strongest regulations possible
"We are past first steps; this is a major next step that it is important to get right"
It would be great to have that clarity; strikes me as divergent on the part of the policy
support work to date
A; this is a big next step; we're not going to be leaving schools and families out in the cold
working actively on guidance of this
Stewart: unhappy that we aren't showing a stronger support
Craven: level of compliance?
A: what the guidelines are in Title VI
legal weight: these are very helpful and illustrative in greater detail
two part test if you use criteria: depended on schools to do that going forward
districts have had to attest when receiving grants (do they?)
in tandem with MOA reviews, civil rights review
gotten more comprehensive between what is in federal guidelines and in Perkins
state has set updated plan to US DoE on how they're going to be doing that (which is on the website and I should go find that)

Morton appreciates years of work

approved

June Board of Ed opening comments

 The agenda is here. The livestream will come up here. 

Public comment
vocational schools: retain doubt that changes in vocational admission changes will make changes needed
data tells a story: admission criteria drives inequitable outcomes
grants stakeholders that don't believe this exist the responsibility of changing it
what admission outcomes need to be fixed? what outcomes are fair? which outcomes necessitate a lottery?

April 2021 Board of Elementary and Secondary Education: opening comments

 The agenda is here. The livestream will show up here. 

updating as we go once it starts

Public comment

on schools reopening
Andover mother: high school student
Three foot guidance requires students to be in hybrid model
hybrid model with half the students in a field house attending classes remotely being floated for next year
noise of 500 students in field house
"imagine if a school shooter entered" the field house
Andover has applied for a new high school for ten years
"how can I go to a bar and sit next to a stranger unmasked" and my child can't sit two feet from another

West Springfield parent says parent rep on Board didn't represent parent interests
asks Mary Ann Stewart to resign
thinks labor rep repped MTA
asks that districts not be held harmless for enrollment
districts need to understand that 
asks teachers to be opted out of MTA if they don't think they're essential workers
says he is running in West Springfield and other parents should do

testimony on career and tech ed admission
Dan French, Citizens for Public Schools
testifying on disportionately impacts of current admission process to vocational schools
students from Chelsea:
impacts of students who are not first language speakers
disproportiate disciplinary impact on students of color
Black and brown children more adultified than their white peers
are handed higher expectations with less resources
"if we want our children of color to succeed, this policy needs to change"

comprehensive health framework
lack of revised health framework which is 20 years old
two rounds of revisions; last feedback last June
"students cannot learn if they are not healthy"
critical in educating the whole child
"absence of equity in the frameworks"
reconvene the panel; share the feedback; make public comment available
so the revision can be completed

Chair Craven:
Thank you to Board members for those who have participated in anti-racism training 
"really intensive training to what the Department has been doing"
members have immersed themselves in vocation school issue

Commissioner Riley:
FAFSA completion campaign
campaign on getting it completed: billboards, social media
Dyslexia guidelines released with early ed; promoting document far and wide
Student advisory council and mental health; will have a presentation on DESE work and grants
"a lot of good work there...and a lot of it spurred on by the students"

Secretary Peyser:
Mass STEM summit coming May 6

Update on reopening:

Riley: 90% of elementary schools open for five days a week
those serve about 300,000 students (so less than a third of the full K-12 public school students)
(that doesn't mean that many kids are back in buildings) (I've since been told that this does represent actual students attending; the state's collecting this?)
6-8 by April 28
serving almost 200,000 students (again, not all of those actually in buildings)
high school "sometime next month" but "in process" and will let people know ahead
84 waiver requests, 35 approved for grade 5, 43 for incremental return, 10 denied
pool testing: program has found low positivity rates
state using federal funds to pay to the end of the year
excellence road map for next year
Hills: any elementary waivers still open? Riley, all decisions on elementary made

January Board of Ed: opening comments

 The agenda is here; the video will be here.

updating as we go

coming in late as the initial broadcast had no sound...missed several rounds of public testimony...and again...and now?

public testimony on ACCESS testimony: 
requesting suspension of ACCESS and MCAS
"why are we worrying about a test when our children are struggling with isolation"
"poor allocation of our resources"
"I really have no sensible answer" for why you're doing this now
only widening gaps, measuring who has had access to the internet
"we ask was it worth it"
"you keep asking us to make it worth, but is it worth it?"
find a different way to make it work without high stakes testing

regional vocational schools admission
Cabral: superintendent of Taunton
our responsibility to advocate for our students and our families
advocate for our children
speaks of his own family history, parents directing to access to education
admission denies some students access to vocational schools
once denied admission, they have little chance to transfer later
"many at risk students lose interest in education, because the curriculum does not seem to have" real world application
urge those with a voice in authority to create systemic changes
"should not be a one-time opportunity or a decision made by a 13 year old in 8th grade"
should not forget those new to our country
create greater opportunity for students to access opportunities and to gain them if they were denied access
"leaves comprehensive schools at the mercy of regional vocational schools"
quotes student in Taunton High in their drafting program: hoping internship with lead to full time employment

NAACP: Juan Cofield
education has been a central concern of NAACP "almost from its inception"
"in support of a change in admission policy of the voke schools" for equal access of these schools to students in the Commonwealth
students of color represent a significantly smaller number of students enrolled
"dramatic underrepresentation" of students of color in regional voke schools
"there must be an open enrollment policy for voke schools"
Constitution of the Commonwealth; 14th amendment on equal access
"should be a function of capacity" rather than the chance of the students getting in 
"currently exclusionary admission policy practice is just simply illegal and it discrimates against protected classes...it is blatant race-based discrimination"
should require a lottery system for admission for 21-22 school year

Kevin Murray, Mass Advocates for Children
sound went out again
evolution of admission for programs
"has turned these schools into another form of selective admission schools"
Commissioner has attempted to encourage voluntary changes, with no results so far
and he's speaking of some proposed changes but I don't know what those are or what group he's talking about


teacher licensure proposal
speaker: have been a substitute, general curriculum MTEL is all that stands before her
Has taken the MTEL over 20 times and have spent over $1000 on books and prep material
have been to public schools with teachers who never took the exam
"make a necessary change in public education"
lack of diversity in teaching

Chair Katherine Craven: thank Board for participation in anti-racism training
will follow up with second round in spring
Amanda Fernández on teacher diversity: except she can't hear the meeting
committee met last month and will continue to meet quarterly
Updates on current work
new potential areas of work; financial support for college students, other opportunities
Matt Hills being added to the Commissioner's review committee
Evidence-based policymaking; adopted with Board of Higher Ed
West: at Feb. 1 meeting with discuss progress on student longitudual data system

Secretary Peyser: who I think is talking about finance but is fading in and out
"vast majority of" federal resources still available "has not been drawn down"
"suggests our schools and districts are going to be going into FY22 in pretty good shape"
references Globe article on reading: incumbent on schools to provide interventions
"the early years are critical for building reading skills"
"very hard to recover" if students don't build reading skills early

Riley: announcement of guidance counselor award
dyslexia guidance
STEM Advanced Placement access opportunity