What happened at the first April Worcester School Committee meeting?

 with apologies for this taking until now; I got to enjoy a really lovely weekend in Chicago, and am playing catch-up. As always, this is from me as a member of the Committee. 

The agenda is here; the video of the meeting can be viewed here.

I should note that the meeting started with two hours of executive session, including deliberations on the contracts with our bus drivers, our paraprofessionals, and units A & B, which are teachers and assistant principals. It's against the ground rules agreed to by both the EAW and the Worcester School Committee at the beginning of negotiations for me to say any more than that.

The Grafton Street chorus not only sang the National Anthem, but "This Land is Your Land."

Note that among the items on the consent agenda were several relating to recent athletic successes, and some generosity that has gotten the Burncoat High orchestra to Washington, D.C. this week.
(The consent agenda puts a group of items of which approve is reasonably expected, and has us take them with a single vote. Any member can pull an item off the consent agenda for separate approval with a 2/3rd approval.)

I was swamped enough that I didn't get a chance to put up a blog post to explain reconsideration, but if you search the blog, you can find earlier explanations. Both Laura Clancey and I filed for reconsideration on the Governance report, she to send the dress code back to standing committee for further discussion, me to take up the process of the strategic plan now with the report from Hanover Research (contracted to support the work) in hand. 
Reconsideration cannot be deliberated, but the member filing is required to file an explanation as to why with the request for reconsideration. In this case, both reconsiderations passed unanimously, so the dress code is not yet amended  (this is why nothing is done until it passes full committee!) and goes back to standing committee, and the process described by Dr. Monárrez for the strategic plan (let me give you a separate post on that) goes forward. 

We had also held two items (which also get to go first): the Human Resources position description, which, with a few additional edits, we approved; and Sue Mailman withdrew the bill she'd requested endorsement of on vocational school buildings.

The report of the superintendent was on social emotional learning and student mental health supports. Let me note here that we on the Committee have received emails from a number of staff members about planned reorganization of the social emotional learning department; we did hear a bit about that on Thursday in response to questions, and I am confident that we'll hear more.

The report came about 20 minutes into the meeting (if you'd like to review on the video), and included a substantial number of statistics, some of our students specifically, some national, regarding their mental health and resiliency. 

The presentation was about twenty minutes, and it was followed by at least that of questions, so I'd say there's a significant amount of Committee attention to what is being done here and what is still to come.

We approved one prior year payment and three grants, including one for a new meat slicer at Claremont Academy; one for summer work with English learners; and one to fund work with refugee families from Brazil, Central America, and Haiti (the area from which we get the largest number of people currently) in ensuring they are well connected to the school district.

You may have heard we unanimously passed a boycott of Old Sturbridge Village. I wrote about why over here. 

We sent items on the use of AirPods to administration; on vaping detectors to F&O; on signs for North High basketball to the City Council; on suspension of the voluntary uniform policy until there's a way out to Governance; on moving dance teams under athletics to administration.

Administration will be bringing forward a recommendation for a new reading curriculum to Teaching, Learning, and Student Supports subcommittee this coming week after a pilot this year. They've been collating the feedback that they have received from staff; that will go through subcommittee to the full committee. You can find what we know so far here.

We passed a description for the Physical Security Systems Technician (this was in the FY23 budget; it had just never been brought forward); this is the person who runs the "stuff" (like cameras) of our security systems. 

We did some updating on policies, something which you'll see in a number of upcoming meetings; I had noticed a few worrying things in our policies, so over February break, I did a full review of our current WPS policies compared to the state model policies. I'll be putting them on the agenda in batches. The first batch we updated ensured that we are following federal and civil rights legislation in our list of protected classes. This is a substantial list, and it also includes the note on the Crown Act, passed last year. 

We also updated the policy on school calendar (which I thought was a little bit funny); in spring of 2020, the Commissioner dropped 10 school days for the calendar for professional development (due to the pandemic). Worcester changed our policy...and never changed it back. It still said we were going 170 school days. We cannot, of course--our policy doesn't change state regulation!--so we changed it back to 180 days.

Dr. Monárrez will bring back the descriptions of the Director of Nursing and the Director of Climate and Culture positions with the budget, so we can see how they fit. 

We sent a proposed revised Wellness Policy to Governance for consideration.

We sent a proposed Unifed PE to TLSS for consideration.

A proposal from Jermoh Kamara that we endorse S.340/H.583 “An Act enabling all students to thrive: protecting a high quality, diverse educator workforce” which would remove seniority as considered in layoffs, was withdrawn.

A proposal that we endorse H.1367 "An Act to facilitate additional financial student assistance," which would require students to complete the FAFSA in order to graduate (unless they had a signed waiver), was voted down, as was the item accompanying it, to request financial assistance for implementation. 

And that was the meeting! Note that our next regular meeting is Thursday, April 27. 

Boycott

It felt as if the website editors were having some fun this morning...

On tomorrow night's Worcester School Committee agenda, I have placed the following item: 

To request that the Administration arrange for an alternative LEAP trip in lieu of the current trip to Old Sturbridge Village; further, request that the Administration ensures that no Worcester Public Schools funds voluntarily are allocated to Old Sturbridge Village, Inc. or its affiliates.

I am not going to say too much about this here now, lest I predeliberate ahead of the meeting, but I'll note news here, here ('though that is a little confusing), and here.  

And if you haven't reviewed the request for an investigation filed by the Worcester School Committee, you can find that here. 

Rebellion in Seattle

I'm behind on posting updates on this one!
A boycott of the MAP (Measures of Academic Progress) test at Garfield High School in Seattle announced last week by teachers has now spread to several other Seattle schools:

Eleven teachers at ORCA K-8, a Seattle alternative school, are boycotting along with the Garfield teachers, and some at Salmon Bay K-8 are considering doing the same.  Teachers at other Seattle schools also have sent letters of support for the protesting teachers, as have a number of other groups.  They include the Garfield PTSA, the Garfield High student government, the Seattle Student Senate, the Seattle Education Association and Parents Across America’s Seattle chapter.

A statement supporting the boycott was released over the weekend by nationally-known education leaders, including Jonathan Kozol, Yong Zhao, Karen Lewis, Brian Jones, Nancy Carlsson-Paige and a growing list of others; you can sign a petition in support here.
One of the teachers boycotting wrote a column explaining why:

Seattle’s ninth- and 10th-grade students already take five state-required standardized tests, with 11th- and 12th-graders taking three. Seattle Public Schools staff admitted to a Garfield teacher the MAP test is not valid at the high-school level, because the margin of error is greater than expected gains.
In addition, teachers are forbidden to see contents of the MAP test so they can’t prepare students. Teachers who have looked over the shoulders of students taking the test can tell you that it asks questions students are not expected by state standards to learn until later grades.

If you are in the Seattle area, there is a rally tomorrow in support of the teachers.