Wait, what? moments from last week's Board of Ed

Due to the Consensus Revenue hearing starting at noon, I did not liveblog the last section of the Board of Ed meeting last Tuesday, which was on the interim graduation report. I did watch it later in the day--you can read my MASC coverage here--but much like the Commissioner's goals, feedback was not so much focused on the report as it was talking around associated items. 

Please enjoy this waving snowman from Palmer.
The snowman has nothing to do with the post,
but we need to take our happy things where we can.

There were five eyebrow raising moments during the meeting--two from the Commissioner's priorities, and three from the graduation discussion--that I want to be sure we don't miss, as much as everyone's attention right now may be elsewhere. 

May Board of Ed: competency determination

 Tutwiler: thank Curtin for him and his team for preparation of conversation; "your work is greatly appreciated"

Moving right along: Board of Ed membership

Periodically, I am asked about the length of terms of the current Board of Ed members, particularly given that we have a largely Baker-appointed Board and an ostensibly more education-friendly Governor now. While the state does have this chart, it's not fully updated, has weirdly set everything to June expiration dates (which isn't in state law), and has more than one ending date just plain wrong.

I did the first version of this post in 2017, with an update in January of last year.

The Board of Ed meets in January: accountability

 and the backup is here

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.

To echo the Commissioner's comment on loss of federal funding

which has also been a theme in Worcester finance presentations for as long as I have been paying attention...
You might note this article from EdWeek, which looks at each state's Title I and Title IIA allocations. Massachusetts loses in both columns:

• Title I is a 2.9% drop, of $7M.
• Title IIA is a 4.5% drop, of $1.6M.

I also think it's worth noting that Member West assumed the news was good, because Title I was increased. Much like with the state budget's impact on districts, though: what matters is where it goes.

It's not coming here.

Do also note, however, that Massachusetts overall spends something more than $16B (billion, with a B) on K-12 education, so this isn't a lot in that context. This is more a question of where it goes. It goes to high poverty kids and to teacher professional development.
I'd argue that this makes the Foundation Budget Review Commission implementation MORE urgent, because low income is, yes, one of the recommendations, and we should push that if we're going to be shorted on Title I. And Title IIA is supporting a LOT of professional development that's being underfunded, sometimes to frightening levels, due to the lack of reconsideration of the foundation budget.