And now for the not-so-good news from the election

My hearty congratulations to those across the country who brought in national, state, and local leadership that will better support public education!

(including Texas, where a former school board member will serve as the next Governor!)

If you're rejoicing this morning in the blue tsunami that swept the nation last night, I do not wish to take away from your joy, but I do want to point to some election results on ballot initiatives that are not good for kids.

I will update this when or if I find more.

• North Dakota voted down the ballot initiative that would add free school lunch to the state constitution. 
  I did see some mention online that some voters objected not to free meals, but to putting it into the state constitution, so we'll see where that goes. 
  
  
• Alabama put school prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance into the state constitution. 
  
  
• In a theme of continuing to target trans kids, Colorado passed, Nebraska passed, and Washington appears headed to pass a ban on trans girls' participation in sports; Arizona passed a student bathroom ban. 

Board of Ed for February: opening comments

 The agenda is here. The livestream is here. The meeting is fully remote.

tree in my backyard
why they are fully remote

Today will be (I believe) the sole appearance of  Amy Kershaw, as Acting Secretary of Education, as Steve Zrike will have started before their March meeting. 

65% of what?

 Over the weekend, Governor Healey, speaking of the proposed ballot question which would roll the income tax back to 4% from 5%, said that the question, which she opposes, could mean "65%" of all education funding would go away.

Reading that, I scratched my head as to how 65% of specifically "all education funding" would be cut, and apparently, I wasn't alone, as today, State House News Service has the following: 

...uh huh...
I'd add only that cutting education funding that specifically resolved the McDuffy suit would, I suspect, also be unconstitutional. 

Love it, hate it, read it: DESE on what happens now

 The blog post title swiped, as some may remember, from Worcester Magazine, which used it as a tag line for a number of years. You may not like what you're reading here, but we ignore the state governing body (which they are!) at our peril. 

I don't go to those meetings for my health.

If you were following yesterday's liveblogging or read the MASC update from Tuesday's Board of Ed meeting, you may have caught just how much of a muddle we've been left in through the passage of the ballot question removing the MCAS as the state's competency determination. 
And it took until now, but with articles in State House News Service, Commonwealth Beacon, Boston Herald, and MassLive, it appears that maybe now this may be becoming more widespread information. 

Am I going to say that I told you so? Yes, I am. 

As a reminder, here's what the passage of the ballot question has left us with as a state law: 

all slides are from Tuesday's presentation at the Board of Ed

The meetings where I agree with Marty West are few and far between, but his characterization of this as "a mess" is, as I said in my earlier post on this, absolutely correct. 

Board of Ed: competency determination

 anticipate bringing recommendations to Board in February

Cassandra speaks: what we just got when the state passed question 2

 During my first term on the Worcester School Committee, a colleague referred to me in deliberation as "Cassandra.*" For those not up on their classics, Cassandra was the Trojan prophetess cursed by Apollo with prophetic powers that were always correct, but never believed. She of course foresaw the downfall of her home city.
I've occasionally thought of retitling this blog "Cassandra speaks" but a) I'm not always right and b) sometimes I'm believed.
However, on 2024's question 2...
As always, the following is just me.

Quickly, two "what about education" reads this morning

 I'm at the annual joint MASC/MASS Conference this week, so I have very little time, but I did want to link to two "what about education" election reads this morning:

• In terms of the presidency, EdWeek updated overnight on that. UPDATE: here's K-12 Dive, Chalkbeat, and ABC News.
• There were lots of education issues on the ballot across the country, and Chalkbeat updated overnight on many of those. UPDATE: As The Hill notes, Republicans largely lost on ballot measures.

Two to read on the ballot question on MCAS

I've been ongoingly disappointed at how poorly informed most of the discussion of the MCAS ballot question is (insert my ongoing observation that there is actual data and things happening at the Board of Ed meetings, which should have much more attention), but here are two pieces I'd recommend: 

• The Boston University Statehouse Program has taken a look at the lack of clarity on both (yes, both) sides of the ballot question funding. You can find the piece by Ava Berger published in The Cape Cod Times, which is providing access to the article for free as a public service (subscribe to your local newspapers, people!).
  
  
• I find it helps to have outside perspective on things, so The New York Times look today at the ballot question, which puts it into the national post-pandemic context is interesting. (And that's a gift link)

Why I'm voting no on question 2 regarding the competency determination

 DISCLAIMER: I WRITE THE FOLLOWING AS ME, SPEAKING ONLY FOR ME. I DO NOT HERE (EVER) SPEAK FOR MY EMPLOYER, FOR ANY ORGANIZATION FOR WHICH I SERVE IN ANY CAPACITY, OR FOR ANYONE OTHER THAN ME.

THUS NO, YOU MAY NOT QUOTE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING IN ANY OF THOSE CAPACITIES.

However, the speech rights of any individual are strongly protected by the federal Constitution, and even more strongly protected by the state Constitution. I've been asked several times offline how I'm voting on this question; I have shared my thinking as I outline it here.

Two to read on the MCAS ballot question

 Without commenting further at this time--though I have many thoughts!--I did want to share two things that I think are below the radar to read on the ballot question ending the use of the high school MCAS as a graduation requirement: 

• The Center for State Policy Analysis at Tufts University is doing a series on the Massachusetts state ballot questions; this is the one on the MCAS question. It's really well done, and it had me finding their other ones.
  
  
• I ongoingly lament the lack of attention to the actual work being done on and around the MCAS, and the actual research (using decades of data) of John Papay at the Annenberg Institute at Brown University is something that periodically gets reported out at the Board of Ed, and otherwise doesn't seem to capture much attention (I think in part because many of those who spend a lot of time talking about the MCAS don't like the information being arrived at). He and others published this back in July.

Top posts of 2016

This was a fairly crazy year in blogging for me:I changed positions, we had a ballot question to fight, the state budget had a sudden dive from conference committee, Diane Ravitch linked to my posts twice, and Worcester got a new superintendent. I don't tend to pay a lot of attention to my analytics, as I have some fairly discrete groups of readers (not everyone follows Worcester schools, but those who do don't necessarily follow state budget news, and not everyone reads state board posts), so the numbers go up and down a lot based on content, but a check-in here is interesting, in what overall gets read.

As per always, the top hit, far and away, is the front page. There are plenty of you to pop through regularly just to see what's here. Thanks to you! You're the reason I feel I need to keep making sure new things come up here.

Specific posts, in order, are:

1. "Here Come the 9C cuts" from December 6. Halfway through the fiscal year, Governor Baker took $98 million out of the FY17 budget, and did so in a way that recreated his vetos, rather than reevaluated budgetary lines. 
2. "The Senate Passed Amendment 196" from May 27. Amendment 196 to the Senate budget barred the use of student performance data in teacher evaluation. This has now led to this being before the Board of Education, so, while the Senate amendment didn't make it out of conference committee, it may happen, anyway.
3. "Foundation what?" from February 29. A foundation budget explainer, motivated in part by my MASC work, which I probably should have done a long time ago. This one may need its own page.
4. "Interview for Special Education Director: Ronald Sinico" from October 28, 2012. Huh??  This is a great example of my not paying attention to analytics: last October, Mr. Sinico (now retired) ran for town supervisor in North Greenbush, NY; he lost the election, but in August, he raised questions about the property tax bill of the man who won. If you google Mr. Sinico's name, one of the first things that comes up...is my notes from this interview. Clicking through is not entirely surprising; what surprises me is that most of them appear (by time spent) to have actually read it!
5. "RISE and Shine!" from March 31. This took apart what actually was in the Senate's RISE Act.
6. "The Debate of the RISE Act in the Senate" from April 7. A long day on a decent bill that deserved much more consideration than it got.
7. "Here's the Answer of What's in the Question" from September 21. A response to those who throughout the Question 2 campaign kept saying it would only hit nine districts and etc, which totally wasn't true.
8. "Voting for Savage Inequalities" from October 7. A response to the suburban guilt arguments on Question 2.
9. "No, This Isn't What One Would Expect for Worcester Finalists" from March 7. Responding directly to the many who asked for some perspective on the Worcester superintendent finalists. 
10. And, bringing us full circle, "Governor Baker's FY17 Budget" from January 28. I'll do FY18 in a few weeks.

With much discussion of the foundation budget for this coming year--heck, it even made the State House News Service's list of things to watch for this session!--plus another budget from the Governor, who is less than popular with many in the Legislature now, the state moving ahead with an ESSA submission, and who knows what coming on the federal level, there'll be no lack of things to blog about! 

Happy 2017! Thanks for reading! 

I have no idea what's going on with this editorial

No, seriously: what is this? 
I assume the T&G  felt some need to push the "we can't rest on our laurels/ we don't hate charters" line again, but what's the point here?
"All is not well"
"serious problems remain"
"cities most in need of reform"
"address the issues"
"Clearly some school committees are not fulfilling their responsibilities"

Which issues? Which problems? What isn't well? WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

Okay, so I see that someone has gotten to the editorial board on so-called "Empowerment Zones," which they're now touting, despite that being exactly contrary to the above piece where they talk about the importance of local accountability. That would also be a clear example of "school committees not fulfilling their responsibilities" by literally outsourcing them.
They also tout "teacher accountability" as being something we're getting from charters...where? Again, seriously, where is that happening?
There's an attempt here to give credit to "magnets and other programs" in districts, but it's unclear for where and for what.
And then we get another plug for Worcester's new compact---which, incidentally, I still haven't seen--and the strategic plan that the School Committee appears to be outsourcing--though, come to think of it, we haven't heard about that lately, either.

Look, I get that education is complicated. I get that there is a lot here to get your mind around. But don't write vague thinkpieces that use threatening language around district schools, airly promote charters without a link to actual impacts, and make references to local ideas that haven't had any community connection. That helps literally no one, least of all kids in schools.

Professor Moe Cunningham at MASS/MASC

Friday at MASS/MASC: Professor Moe Cunningham who has been doing work on dark money in ballot question 2.
Handed a "bag of dark money," Cunningham notes "it's bottomless."

Why we're all talking about municipal bonds this morning (and why you should care)

The front page cover story in the Boston Globe this morning has a worrisome forecast for Boston, Lawrence, Fall River, and Springfield if Question 2 passes:

In e-mails sent Monday, Nicholas Lehman, an assistant vice president at Moody’s, warned that passage of the referendum would be “credit negative” for the cities.
“Depending on the Nov. 8 vote, the general credit view is the following: A vote of ‘No’ is credit positive for urban cities. A vote of ‘Yes’ is credit negative for urban cities,” Lehman wrote.

Huh? Who are these people and why should we care?

Moody's is a (some would say "the") credit rating agency. Their job is to look at various kinds of data and make projections about the ability of a debtor to pay back debt (and the likelihood of default).

In this particular case, they're talking about municipal credit ratings, which is a grade each city has on its creditworthiness. In other words: is this city able to pay back money that they owe? That grade determines both how easy it is for cities to borrow money--to "float municipal bonds," is how they do it--and how much they have to pay to do it.

Why should you care? Because that's how cities make capital improvements. Cities don't pay for rebuilding bridges, building new schools, upgrading the water system and such out of operating budgets; they float bonds and finance them over time. That's how any city (or town, or state) can pay for projects that are so expensive.

Note that this isn't the first time that Moody's has made this concern known: back in 2013, Moody's issued a announcement that charter schools were the "greatest credit challenge to school districts in economically weak urban areas." In 2015, they issued another announcement, warning that districts could enter a "downward spiral":

"The downward spiral happens when a district loses students to charters or school choice, then loses the revenues associated with those students," says Seymour. "The district cuts expenditures to cope, which weakens its educational product, encouraging more students to attend schools outside the district. The loss of those students results in additional revenue loss, and the spiral continues."

Thus this isn't just about Massachusetts, or question 2, or this election: this is the fundamental question that we're refusing to face about charter schools: how can we as a democracy, that created a system of schools in order to continue that democracy, afford--in all ways--two systems of schools?

For all our kids

from Worcester

Coffee break with Edushyster

And we talked a bit about a certain ballot question. You can read it over here. 

Pioneer's argument for yes: Help those big out-of-state charter management organizations "achieve scale"

I had to read this twice to be sure that this wasn't a joke:

The biggest reason there are so few CMOs operating in Massachusetts is the existing charter school cap, which prevents the organizations from achieving scale.

So, yes, Pioneer's argument for why you should vote yes on question 2 is so charter management organizations can come to Massachusetts and "achieve scale."
What's darkly amusing about this argument is that the Yes crew has been at some pains to separate themselves from the problems described (for example) by John Oliver regarding charter schools. It's the CMO's that in many cases have been the crux of the problems described.
Massachusetts largely does not have them (with the exceptions of KIPP and Sabis). Pioneer, however, would apparently like us to.

Or, you could vote no on 2.

No on Two event for school committee members (video)

Here's video of today's No on 2 event in Worcester. At the event were school committee members from Arlington, Cambridge, Hatfield, Holyoke, Somerville, Leominster, Ludlow, New Bedford, and Worcester, representing the 198 (and counting) school committees from across the state that have passed measures opposing the ballot question lifting the cap on charter schools.

Two No on 2 events for school committee members

As organized by the school committee members themselves...the below from State House News Service:

SUNDAY:
ANTI-QUESTION 2 RALLY IN WORCESTER: Worcester Mayor Joe Petty and Massachusetts Association of School Committees President Jake Oliveira, of Ludlow, will rally against Question 2. The ballot question would allow for up to 12 additional charter schools per year regardless of existing statutory caps. Organizers expect school committee members from as far east as Cambridge and as far west as Holyoke. (Sunday, 2 p.m., Chandler Elementary School, 114 Chandler St., Worcester)

MONDAY: 

ANTI-QUESTION 2 RALLY AT STATE HOUSE: School committee members opposed to the ballot referendum expanding access to charter schools rally in front of the State House before visiting Gov. Charlie Baker's office to deliver resolutions from more than 190 school committees in opposition to Question 2. The ballot referendum would allow for up to 12 additional charter schools annually regardless of the existing statutory caps. (Monday, 11 a.m., in front of State House)

Reflections on the recent challenges to charter schools

I highly recommend this piece from the Education Opportunity Network on what recent challenges to the charter industry reveal.

Now that the NAACP has ratified its call for a charter moratorium, charter proponents are continuing the barrage of invective and unfounded assertions rather than taking stock of their opposition’s arguments. 

Editors of the Wall Street Journal called the NAACP’s action “a disgrace.” An editorial for Forbes said the NAACP “turns its back” on black families. A post in one of the charter industry’s numerous media outlets declared, “The NAACP was founded by white people, and it still isn’t looking out for black families.” 

But the outlandish rhetoric coming from charter proponents does little to change minds and instead reveals a movement that seems incapable of handling reasonable criticism and any option other than total supremacy.

And yes, they mention Massachusetts.