exploding a few myths of the coming Massachusetts school year

•  We do not have new graduation requirements. The council created to submit a report has done so. Those are, as I noted in my post about it, recommendations, most of which will take new legislation to implement.
  I know there are timelines in the report, but what the timelines don't take into account is the authorities necessary to fulfill the requirements. 
  Not only is that not happening for this coming school year, I would suspect that it unlikely to happen for next school year, either, as the Legislature will begin a new term in the spring. New term means new committee assignments, and so things won't get moving until spring at least.
  
  
• We do not have a state-mandated cell phone policy in schools. Yes, both the House and the Senate passed cell phones in schools bills, but they are wildly different. While that did go to conference committee, the Legislature ended formal sessions on July 31. We will only see non-controversial legislation passed in informal session, which is what remains.
  If you're seeing a new cell phone policy in your district, that is something your district is choosing to do; it is not required by state law. 
  
  
• We will not see a major revision of the school funding system ahead of the next budget. The new Foundation Budget Review Commission's report is not due until October 2028. 
  Sorry, but the next budget--the first post-SOA budget--is not going to be assisted in this fashion.  

good Globe follow-up on the House social media bill

I'm impressed by the follow-up article from the Boston Globe on the House's disaster of a bill passed last week.*

Civil liberties groups and organizations in favor of tech privacy — including some that are backing the bills — warn the proposals could backfire and make online activity even less private by requiring users to submit personal information to verify their ages or parental status.

Some restrictions, experts argue, would also face First Amendment challenges by limiting young people’s speech and vulnerable groups’ abilities to find community online. 

They also note that this means we're not fulfilling our responsibility to students:

 “Children need to learn how to use social media so they aren’t using it irresponsibly, and we need to learn how to use our phones,” said Max Nash, a junior at Mashpee High School who formed the Coalition for Student Mental Health to lobby for alternative tech policies. “But that requires education and not a ban.”

I appreciate Rep. Gordon in general, but this is such an odd thing to own up to: 

Representative Kenneth Gordon, who chairs the education committee, said lawmakers shaped the bill to closely follow a similar law in Florida, whose under-14 social media ban has faced court challenges for two years. 

Florida + court challenges seemed like a good path to follow?

And all of this here:

 Both the Healey and House proposals would require age verification measures that civil liberties groups and privacy experts say are excessive. All users — not just minors — could be required to give tech companies more personal information, such as photos of government IDs, to prove their age, they warned.

Healey’s proposal, for instance, would require social media companies to provide a host of age-specific data that could require checking users’ ages.

People who don’t have such IDs, or might be hesitant to provide them, could then be unable to access a wide range of online content. The bill includes a broad definition of social media sites, including nearly any platform with personal accounts and user-generated content, which opponents argue could encompass sites such as the popular information forum Wikipedia.

That ID hurdle has formed the basis of First Amendment challenges in many states, according to Paul Taske, co-director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, a tech industry-funded group that has successfully sued to have the law set aside in several cases.

“Ultimately, the laws suffer from the same core constitutional infirmity: They block or restrict access for users, particularly minors, but also adults when it comes to speech that is lawful for everyone,” Taske said.

Cybersecurity experts warn that children could bypass the checks, and hackers could seek to steal data collected. Parental consent requirements could present further security issues, with little way for parents to reliably prove their relation to a user, opening the door for nefarious actors who abuse online reporting systems.

More than 400 cybersecurity experts, including from MIT, Tufts University, and Boston University, issued a public letter last month calling for a moratorium on online age verification laws they said “might cause more harm than good.”

“This policy will inevitably massively reduce privacy online by forcing users to reveal more information to service providers than they do nowadays,” the group wrote.

The age verification measures could also run counter to the goals of a separate date privacy bill the state Senate passed last fall and is backed by the ACLU of Massachusetts and other groups. That legislation would allow companies to collect only “reasonably necessary” personal data and permit consumers to opt out of data collection. Companies would also be barred from selling children’s data.

Plus, of course, there are those who have positive uses for social media that would be barred by this bill: 

Advocacy organizations also raised concerns about other First Amendment violations, including for users who might face the most repercussions from verification measures and social media restrictions.

Such a law, some argue, could limit teenagers’ abilities to organize political activity, hear the latest news, express themselves creatively, or find community online.

Teddy Walker, a 21-year-old Bostonian who is trans and a leader of a group organized to protect trans rights, said he was isolated and depressed as a teenager until he found solace in Instagram and YouTube trans communities.

“It really helped give me the language and understanding for who I am,” Walker said. The proposed parental restrictions could “lead to trans youth and trans kids being less safe, being less able to access that content online that was so life-saving and life-affirming for me.”

Sing it with Noah Kahan, all: 

you're a mess, you're a mess, good God, you're a mess!

__________________________________________________________________

*And how often do I say that? 

The House passed the most draconian social media ban in the country

From State House News Service this evening:  

The House on Wednesday put Massachusetts on track to join a handful of other states in placing restrictions on children’s social media use – an issue that is playing out in courts across the country. The House passed legislation on a 129-25 vote, largely along party lines, prohibiting social media use for children under 14 and requiring that social media platforms obtain parental consent for users aged 14 and 15. Representatives said the legislation closely follows a similar law in Florida, which is still being challenged in court two years after it was passed. The legislation leaves many of the regulatory decisions surrounding how to enforce the policy amid an ever-evolving online landscape up to Attorney General Andrea Campbell. Reps added language to the bill that limits some parental monitoring of social media usage "to protect certain vulnerable populations," Rep. Peisch said on the floor, and adds further protections for 14- and 15-year-olds related to the "addictive nature" of some platforms. The bill also bans students from using their cellphones throughout the school day. The House dispensed with almost all of the 29 amendments filed on the legislation through two consolidated amendments.

"on party lines" means it was Democrats who voted to violate young people's privacy, Democrats who voted to make them less safe in school, Democrats who voted to require that we all turn our information over to social media companies.  

I cannot even.

Update: here’s the vote:

on the cell phone and social media bill before the Mass House

 Tomorrow, the Mass House is voting on a bill on social media and cell phones for youth that includes, as the post from WBUR puts it: 

...prohibiting social media use for children under 14, requiring platforms to obtain parental consent for users ages 14 and 15, and banning students from using cellphones in schools.

The Boston Globe adds that it also would share information posted with the parents of young people between the ages of 14 and 15. 

This is terrible in so many ways!

I sent the following email off to my state rep John Mahoney yesterday:

 John,

I am writing to urge you to vote against the proposed bill regarding social media and cell phones that will be before you this week.

Young people in marginalized communities very frequently find support on social media platforms, in many cases, support that they cannot find in their own families and communities. Barring them from those platforms, and, at under age 15, pushing anything they submit to their parents is not only an inappropriate violation of their privacy (which, yes, they have); it may well endanger young people. The rates of rejection and abuse of young people who are gay and trans is high, even in Massachusetts. 

Doing age checks requires ALL of us to submit OUR data to social media companies; this is not something I wish to do, and it is wildly irresponsible for the legislature to expect that of us.

Young people who are currently endangered by the federal government also should not have their communication devices (which also include cameras) [taken] from them at the schoolhouse door. That is the opposite of supportive.

This is, top to bottom, a bad bill, John. Please oppose it.

Thank you,

Tracy Novick 

_______________________________
Do I need to remind you again that my blog posts are just from me as me? Here's that reminder. 

And in the Yondr v actual students contest

 ...the students are going to win every time [gift link]

I thought this, from student journalist Joel Nam, was quite relevant (and not only on this): 

Let’s not pretend this outcome wasn’t inevitable. Any policy that hinges on student integrity, mass compliance and daily administrative policing is doomed from the start.

That full piece can be found here.  

Wise words from South Dakota on state oversight and cell phones

 Excellent commentary piece from South Dakota: 

....passage of the bill flies in the face of local control for school boards. While SB 198 leaves it up to local boards to decide on discipline and what constitutes a school day, it takes away their power to decide on the use of cellphones in a one-size-fits-all policy.

The beauty of local school boards is that they reflect the wants and needs of their communities. Some have students squirrel away their phones all day. Others give students access to their phones during lunch. Still others use the freedom for students to have a phone during the school day as a lesson in responsibility.

Banning student cellphone use in schools sounds good on the surface. So did substituting ag classes for science classes and allowing athletes to substitute sports participation for a gym credit. Whenever the Legislature gets into the business of micromanaging school districts, there are pitfalls aplenty.

Board of Ed for January: opening comments (and a bit on Lawrence from me)

Today's Board of Ed meeting has been moved to fully remote--you can catch the livestream here--which I presume means that they're actually allowing remote public comment (which they should do all the time, not that anyone asked me). In addition to two rounds of regulations coming back for votes (on the seal of biliteracy and on student records), the main presentations are on educator preparation and "accelerated early literacy program" and the Commissioner's goals. 

My driveway yesterday,
for some perspective on why the meeting is remote

While we wait, I'm going to write a little about Lawrence, which I've been meaning to write about...

The big news, of course, remains that the Commissioner has appointed Deputy Commissioner Lauren Woo as the receiver of Lawrence, meaning that the strange appointed board that didn't seem accountable to anyone at all is out. I suspect, and it was explicitly stated in the letter to Lawrence, that this is designed to move them closer to being out of receivership: 

In the letter, Education Commissioner Pedro Martinez said an individual as receiver, rather than an organization, could better prepare the Lawrence School Committee to take over leadership of the school district when it’s ready.

“This change is designed to support a thoughtful and phased-in transition while also allowing the work to move efficiently,” Martinez said in the letter.

Also of note, the Department actually responded to the letter sent by Lawrence School Committee member Jonathan Guzman about current Superintendent Ralph Carrero: 

“Since the appointment of the current leadership, Lawrence Public Schools has descended into a culture of fear, intimidation, and retaliation,” Guzman said in the letter.

The letter claims that “promotions and hiring decisions” were made based on “personal and political connections” and that 23 people were hired who “are known to have personal and political ties to leadership.”

The current leadership was also accused of “belittling staff in front of peers, employing intimidation tactics, and engaging in retaliatory actions,” Guzman wrote.

“The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education has seen Mr. Guzman’s letter and appreciate him bringing his concerns to us,” a spokesperson for the agency said in a statement sent to the Globe on Friday.

“We take these allegations seriously and will work with the receiver to take appropriate next steps. The Department also continues to work closely with Lawrence Public Schools to support its students and staff.”

Deigning to answer--something I don't think we previously saw a lot of--acknowledges that the Lawrence School Committee has legitimacy in representing the city and its students, which is also something we haven't seen much of previously. 

Before you paint all access to social media for young people with the same brush

 ...please be sure and review the results of the recent "Online Experiences and Mental Health of LGBTQ+ Young People" from The Trevor Project. Opening line: 

Most LGBTQ+ young people agreed that they go online to connect with people because it is difficult finding others to relate to and connect with in their daily lives.

Dragons to slay this the new school year

Statue of St. George slaying a dragon.
Sainte-Georges, Quebec, Canada

As we've entered this school year, I've noticed as I keep an eye on things across the country that we have some reoccurring things that don't serve kids well that we can actually fix. Yes! These are things that are within our power!
Here then are eight dragons to slay this back to school season:

Board of Elementary and Secondary Education for January: opening comments

 The Board of Elementary and Secondary Education holds their regular monthly meeting today in Everett. The agenda can be found here. There will be a livestream here.

We're awaiting a quorum in a Board meeting room that is overcapacity (they just started sending DESE folks to their desks to watch), and the press thinks the news today is cell phones. It is enough to make one despair. 

Updating as we go

Worcester School Committee meets Thursday, September 5

You can find the agenda here.
Should you be wondering if the Worcester Educational Collaborative's weekly question for candidates makes any difference at all, you might go read this week's responses on balancing constituent needs and the work of the committee, which was published Tuesday, August 27, and then look at how many agenda items that reflect challengers' concerns were filed on Wednesday, August 28.
Right. So.

There is no report of the superintendent.
As I noted in my own response to WEC's question, there is again an enormous number of recognitions and appreciations.
There are some beginning of the year appointments.

There's a response to the item asking about the teaching of cursive in the Worcester Public Schools; this is one of the better responses I've seen in some time, as it cites the state standards, reviews where the state is going, lays out where the district is and plans to be, and brings it home with research. 

There's a question about mold at Columbus Park (see above on filing items that should simply be referred to administration for solution).

There's a one page request for acceptance for an $80,000 security grant upon which the only description is "locks and cameras" with program location "the Worcester Public Schools." That's a lot of money to spend so vaguely.

There's likewise a one page request for acceptance of an innovation pathways grant of $28,683, and...I have no idea what it is being spent on, as here's what it says:

• To support the development of new and effective strategies to scale high-quality career pathways, and significantly expand student access to, participation in, and successful completion of pathways that culminate in meantiful postsecondary and workforce credentials
• To provide participating students with supportive, rigorous academic experiences and career development education relevant to their next stepss after high school
• To enhance a student's ability to gain awareness and prepardness of future employment opportunities

I mean, it's the innovation pathways, so it has stuff to do with getting kids to work, but what is the $28K going to?

xkcd 1860: Communicating

There's likewise a one page request for acceptance for the $116,250 21st Century Exemplar program which is going to Burncoat Middle "to provide activities rooted in project based learning practices that were developed around the need for enhanced literacy programming." So the funding buys...what?

Lest you think I'm being overly particular, I know for a fact that the district had to supply significantly more information than this to the state to get the grant, and the district within recent memory was reporting enough information to know where the money was actually going on grants.

Miss McCullough is asking for a report on the JumpStart orientation programs at the secondary schools. I assume, incidentally, that there will at some point be a report of the superintendent on back to school?

The usual settling up from the prior fiscal year is on here without a backup at this point; it'll be referred to Finance and Operations.

The auditors are coming! The reports aren't attached; this will go to Finance and Operations, too.

Mr. Monfredo thinks there should be:

half day professional development for staff in light of the training provided to principals that dealt with SEL, the impact of homelessness and foster children and on disciplinary alternatives.

Just a reminder that professional development time in the Worcester Public Schools is very, very limited.

Mr. Monfredo also offers this:

Request that the Administration continue its collaborative work with various agencies in dealing with the needs of homeless and foster children and consider reviewing the Cincinnati model entitled “Kids in School Rule.”

Yes, that is really a "keep doing what you're doing" item.

There's a request to pay a prior fiscal year item $2,323.00 to CliftonLarsonAllen, LLP for the student activities account audit which is a little odd.

Mr. O'Connell is coming in with two alternative district policies banning cell phones in different ways, both of which made the rounds of the news this summer: San Mateo and Crestwood. It's always interesting to me which ones get picked; one could just have easily cited Stoughton's: 

Stoughton High School Student Handbook changes for 2019-2020 regarding the Electronic Device Policy.

Parents and guardians please review this policy below with your child & encourage responsible and appropriate use of electronic devices during the school day. @StoughtonPS pic.twitter.com/plisODjFt1

— Alan Bontya (@BlackKnightsAP) August 29, 2019

Note also that, so long as the district both requires technology to complete work and does not provide said technology, having a cell phone ban is literally barring students from doing their work, or requiring that they violate district policy to do so.

The Committee is requested to accept donations:
– $67.55 from a donor to the Worcester Public Schools
– $100.00 from a donor to the Patricia Falcone Memorial Scholarship
– $3,820.00 from Worcester Area Mission Society for the Summer Cubs Program held at Woodland Academy

Mr. O'Connell has put the updated superintendent rubric on the agenda for consideration; note that the redraft is only for superintendents, not for district administrators as on the agenda.

The Committee is also being asked to accept (surely we could even just group these together?) the Comprehensive School Health grant for $200,000. While the backup on this one is of no more use than any of the other grants on the agenda, luckily we know from the FY20 budget what this grant is going for: "trauma informed teams" that would go to schools in most need (that's on page 262). More specifics about how many positions are being hired should be included here, however.

Mr. O'Connell (on August 28) suggests that the School Committee should establish goals for itself. Note that during Mr. O'Connell's extensive tenure, I do not believe he has ever before made this proposal.
...and wants to review the siting of Doherty (citing the city charter, which I don't think is going to carry weight with the MSBA).
...and wants to send leftover food home with kids (as you no doubt saw on Facebook this summer).
...and wants to know when site councils are meeting (as he does this one time each year; it does not get connected to goals or evaluation at any point).


Mr. Comparetto asks for an update on ongoing transportation issues. Note that the Committee was to have the Durham bid and the WPS report on the in-house alternative by now. Keep your eye on the schedule of Finance and Operations meetings, as that report will appear there first. This is the appropriate place to bring your concerns about WPS transportation. I would think it would have to happen before the next full committee meeting on September 19. UPDATE: Note Scott O'Connell's article on this; Finance and Operations expected to meeting 9/1716, with the full committee taking it up 9/19. Again, this is the right place to bring your transportation concerns.

There is another prior year payment of $5,252.25 to Harbor Networks; since there's no backup, we don't know for what, but they do "managed IT services" which leaves more questions than answers, really. 


Mr. Comparetto, on an item co-sponsored by Mr. Foley, Miss McCullough, and Mr. Monfredo (that's interesting) calls for:

Request the establishment of an inclusive and transparent process for selecting and implementing a comprehensive Sex Education Curriculum that is age-appropriate, evidence-based, medically-accurate and LGBTQ inclusive in the Worcester Public Schools.

And yes, the candidates have been asked about that quite a bit.

Miss Biancheria would like a count on Worcester Tech enrollment and applicants; a list of Ch. 74 programs and enrollment; and AP courses, enrollments, and results (they won't be able to do a full list of this as some of the sizes will be too small; FERPA violation); and to "highlight its successes in the STEM/STEAM programs" during a week in October.

There's prior fiscal year payments totalling $7800 going to nurses, which does actually have a backup.

Miss McCullough, no doubt noting the ongoing calls these past weeks for class supply lists, request clear links to such lists, as well as calendars and forms. Might we go a step further and remind all involved that such lists can only always be optional, which is not something I saw emphasized nearly enough? For these to be expected in a district like Worcester is, bluntly, wrong.

And there's an executive session at 6: three collective bargaining sessions and three litigation consultations.

Worcester School Committee meets Thursday, March 7

I know it's confusing, as they just met last week; February does that!
The agenda is here.
There are the usual array of resignations, appointments, and thanks.

The report on the superintendent is on technology (and can we talk about how hard it is to read a scan of a PowerPoint sideways?). Page 21 gets to access, with 2:1 access (planned? I think?) in K-2, 1:1 on carts in 3-6 and in general in 7-12, but the key point there is "funding to be identified." This ties in explicitly with the motion last week to re-examine the cell phone policy; note that with the big push towards technology use in the classrooms but the dearth of actual technology, students are using smartphones in the classroom and for homework. The district absolutely should not be making this push towards use without supplying devices and then punishing students for using the devices they have. Also, it's a relief to see student information staying in house; that gets shockingly expensive quickly, and WPS being able to staff and adapt is a district strength.
I'm a little puzzled by this appearing now, though, as it was one of the goals on which the superintendent was evaluated back in November.

The other item of note is the response of the administration on Advanced Placement courses, and I don't just say this as a parent who has a couple hundred dollars in checks to the high schools here on the desk next to me. While it lists the courses and reports the costs, it doesn't mention two things that are of central import in understanding this in Worcester: the first is how few other options there are at the high schools when it comes to what might otherwise be "honors" or "advanced" courses. Once you get to junior year (and I say this as a parent of kids in two high schools), your options get very, very limited beyond AP (and most students are urged into AP's in any case). The other key part of the contract that has not been mentioned in the backup is this:

The exams--the part that costs money--are not optional; this is a required cost for a course, and the cost of the exams--and the vast majority of the exams, despite the mention, are not covered by grants--is borne by students, in a district in which most of our kids are poor.

There is a response to an item on contractor wages for school construction projects.
There is a request for approval for new courses (these usually go to subcommittee for consideration):

• Acting Character Study Magnet
• Introduction to Networking
• Advanced Acting I Magnet
• Language and Literature Through the Arts
• Advanced Acting II Magnet
• Machine Operations
• Advanced Technical Theater
• Media Arts III
• African American Literature
• Media Arts IV
• American Literature
• Meteorology
• CNA and Health Care Skills
• Musical Theater for Performance Majors
• Comparative Mythology
• Neuropathophysiology and Film
• Construction Techniques and Specifications Course Application
• News and Media Literacy OCPL
• Computer Science Discoveries (For Middle School)
• Personal Financial Literacy OCPL
• Directing I Magnet
• Playwriting Magnet
• Directing II Magnet
• SAT Math Preparation
• Economics
• Shakespeare- Tragedies and Comedies
• Ensemble I Magnet
• Technical Theater II & Design II Magnet
• Ensemble II Magnet
• Theater Lab Acting
• History of Theater Magnet
• Theater Lab technical Theater
• Integrated Dance
• Urban Agriculture and Food Systems
• Introduction to Acting Magnet
• US Government and Politics
• Contemporary World Religions

...which is a lot? Remember that just because it exists, doesn't mean it is offered. 

There is a request that the committee vote to accept:

• a $150K English Learners pathways grant which appears to be for professional development for "bilingual education," if I have waded through the edu-lingo correctly. No word on the link with current programs, including the dual language one.
• a $7540 planning grant for implementation of the updated history and social studies standards 

Mr. O'Connell would like Worcester to participate in Massachusetts State Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate Diploma Program (APIB) Fee Subsidy Program  (which...doesn't seem to exist? I can't find this anywhere.).

There is an executive session posted for two grievances, collective bargaining with IAs, bus monitors, plumbers/steamfitters, and tradesmen, and contract negotiations with the superintendent. 

Worcester School Committee meets Thursday, February 28

And the agenda is here. Much of it, the--finally!--report of the superintendent on FY20 included, is items held from last meeting due to the three hours of public testimony on sex ed.

Relatedly, if for some reason you didn't read Bill Shaner's comprehensive cover story in last week's Worcester Magazine on Worcester's long and winding road to not getting anywhere on sex ed, you really should.

That FY20 report appears also to be the only place as yet that anyone has compared actual impacts of the three (as yet) bills proposed in the Legislature on reforming the foundation budget, 'though of course it only does so for Worcester. Scott O'Connell asked Secretary Peyser about the lesser funding in the Governor's bill in his interview covered in yesterday's T&G, to which Peyser gave the meaningless response that he thinks "people should wait to see how these proposals unfold,” before responding. Not when we have actual analysis in front of us, thank you.


A number of the other items that have been held from the prior meeting are related to transportation, responded to here.  Also of note: going to subcommittee is this:

To review bid specifications for student transportation services and award contract to lowest responsive and responsible bidder for a contract term to begin in June 2020.

That's the bid for school buses! If you haven't been happy with the WPS bus service, now is the time to speak up (and keep an eye out for that Finance and Operations subcommittee meeting)! Goodness knows I plan to.

There are an array of recognitions, thanks, appointments, and such.

There's also still a prior year payment (of $48 to Learnwell Education) and I am curious if anyone at any point is going to bring up that this is not good practice.

There is...I wouldn't really even call this a response...an acknowledgement of the request for information on how the district plans to implement civics education ("we're going to pilot some things" is not an answer). The bill is much longer than quoted, has many more pieces than referenced, and this should reassure those asking not at all.

There is a muli-part response to an item on a specific dyslexia program (the link goes to the part that actually responding about the program; there is a summary of district sped literacy initiatives here, a summary of the dyslexia screening law here, a dyslexia evaluation checklist here, and what appears to be a copy of an individual's discussion of types of dyslexia here), of which the upshot appears to be no, we're not going to do anything with this.

I am going to interrupt myself for a moment here to call attention to how little sense the amount of time and attention being given to those items. Should there be a response to the second? Maybe, although evaluation of the appropriate models of learning ability is precisely why one has professionals; responding to a multi-grade requirement imposed by the state that may well require additional funding should take more than a sentence, on the other hand.

Mr. O'Connell and several other members propose to comment on the state health education standards (which won't be set out for public comment for a bit as yet).

Several members wish to support HR 141, which would make those who get a government pension, currently not eligible for Social Security eligible; you can read the argument from those in favor here. 

There's a request for an update on bringing down school suspensions.
There's a request to administration to change policy in the handbook regarding headwear (as that's under policy, the committee can just do it).
There's a request from Mr. Comparetto and others to use some of the taxes from marijuana for schools, and also to increase school funding "in light of new revenues coming into the city."
Five members have co-sponsored an item to support the PROMISE act (Note that this will go nicely after a presentation that shows that easily being the best of the bills for WPS of those thus far proposed.)
Mr. Comparetto also wants to reduce state spending on prisons and spend money on schools.
Miss Biancheria wants an update on the use of the Shannon Grant.
She also wants an update on lawsuits.
Mr. Monfredo, who is under the impression the school districts bans cell phone use in school (it does not) wants to consult with "secondary school principals" about their use. Perhaps we're missing several groups of people there?
Miss McCullough is asking for an update on graduation rates by ethnic categories.
Mr. O'Connell wants an update on a court case.
The Committee is being asked to approve:

• a STARS Residency grant for $5000 for Neighborhood Strings to be at Clark Street School 
• an Amplify grant for $1000 for Burncoat UNITES
• donations to Woodland Academy of $172.00 from various donors from a school fundraiser and $700.00 from Target for field trip 

There is also a posting for an non-specific executive session, which is not something that one can do legally under the Open Meeting Law.

Students speak up; do we listen?

I wasn't able to be part of the #MarchforOurLives today, as I had class. But I'm noticing something in the (adult) posting about the events across the country.

Young people's voices are being respected and magnified.

Listen, for example, to Naomi Wadler, age 11, speak of the too-often ignored gun deaths of black girls and women:


Or Ryan Deitsch on how we need to arm teachers and students:

"We need to arm our teachers with pencils, pens, paper, and the money they need." -@Ryan_Deitsch #MarchForOurLives pic.twitter.com/EzRr0c578g

— March For Our Lives (@AMarch4OurLives) March 24, 2018

Or read the eloquent students quoted more locally here in Worcester:

"I'm here to protest the gun violence because I think it is ridiculous that students are afraid of going to school, afraid that something is going to happen to them and just have meltdowns, breakdowns over just being afraid to walk out the door and go to school," Reese Lane said, adding it was important for him to attend a local rally.
 "Boston is a big place, but just one big place won't do it, we need multiple people to come together to end gun violence for good," he said.

It is amazing that millions of adults across the country gathered today to listen to children and young adults speak clearly and strongly against gun violence and for gun control.

How often do we listen?
Did you note, in the above MassLive article, its framing? The reporter went to an adult midway through and closed with the adult in the article. And that is part of what makes today unusual; we let the students lead. We let them open, we let them close, we didn't feel the need to put training wheels or bumpers or guidance around these protests.

Why was this only today?
Do we think that Naomi lacks this sort of insight around disparitiees in discipline policies? She is eleven, but that has been plenty of time for her to have a keen eye on inequities and racism. I imagine she would have some things to say about policies around discipline in a host of areas.

Do we think that Ryan lacks this sort of insight around budgets in general? Allocation of resources sounds like something he may have some thoughts about.

Do we think that Reece lacks this sort of insight around how is school functions and what school climate is like? It sounds as though he has given that some thought.

How often do we ask students big questions about the major place they spend their time? How often do we ask them how policies that are about THEM actually impact them? Do we ask if they work or not? What the consequences are? How often do we ask any students about budgeting? Do we ask what it's like to have a class of thirty in algebra? To not have books? To be told the class you'd been planning for years to sign up for is gone? Or the program or team you'd spent years practicing for won't be funded next year?

And how often, when they do tell us, do we take them seriously? When they tell us they don't get enough sleep, when they tell us mobile devices are a learning tool, when they tell us that, yes, their walkout is about guns, do we listen?
Or do we pat them on the head and tell them the grown-ups will make the decisions for them?

There are a lot of adults today who listened to children and young adults today and cheered.
There are a lot of adults tonight and this weekend who will share and magnify those voices on social media.

Was that just a good feeling on a sunny Saturday?
Or will you do the same when they have something to tell you about how the place they spend most of their time runs?

Worcester School Committee meets Thursday and Brockton is coming

Let's call it the McDuffy Redux meeting, as the report of the superintendent, the Dickensian "A Tale of Two Cities" will involve Brockton. My understanding is that at least the superintendent, finance admin, and possibly some school committee from Brockton will be in attendance.
And no, I can't go and liveblog; I have a meeting myself that night!

The Governance subcommittee meeting is reporting out, including a clarification that, yes, students can use cell phones at after-school events.

There are appointments, resignations, and recognitions.

There is a brief report on the EPIC grant on a pipeline of teachers.

There is a request for a report on Earth Day participation; a request that the Future Teachers program be expanded; for a report on school libraries.

Administration wants the Committee members to get back to them on co-sponsorship of items earlier (by Thursday noon).

There is a request to accept an innovation pathway grant for Worcester Tech; to approve prior fiscal year payments of $6,366.84 for Seven Hills Groton, MA Pediatric Center and of $4,396 for Durridge Radon Implementation; to accept donations of $10,000, on behalf on the Digital Federal Credit Union (DCU), for scholarships to graduating seniors, $25,000, on behalf of the Hanover Insurance Group Foundation, for the Hanover Insurance Academy for the Arts at Burncoat Middle School, $350, on behalf of the Boston Museum of Science, to Woodland Academy for bus funding for the student’s field trip to the museum.

Oh, and Worcester F&O, as we mentioned, is being nationally recognized for being awesome again.

There is an executive session for a worker's comp case, and for bargaining with administrative secretaries.

On banning devices

For as long as we've had classrooms, there have been device bans...

Speaking of student-centered learning

Among the questions asked last week of candidates to the Worcester School Committee was one on "student-centered learning." All spoke, in some fashion, in support of it. Mr. O'Connell, in fact, went on at some length at how this was something that Worcester doesn't do enough of.

Worcester just didn't do enough of it again.

A group of students delivered a set of policy proposals to the superintendent yesterday, having, per the report, first asked candidates to sign off on it. They were, it appears, largely dismissed (including by Mr. O'Connell).

Contrary to Miss Biancheria's comment that this "isn't how you get things done," having candidates promise to support policy proposals is exactly how one gets things done, or at least moving, in an election year. Surely we haven't all forgotten the yearly "lowest residential tax rate" pledge the Shrewsbury Street Neighborhood Association extracted from candidates?

As is clear from the above sequence, yes, it takes more than nice noises to get elected officials to do something. Perhaps someone could remind the students that they have (as required by law) a representative on the Worcester School Committee. Time to start making use of that.

Worcester School Committee this week

A quick post as there are two posted Worcester School Committee meetings this week:

• There's a posted executive session for this evening in the Mayor's office to discuss collective bargaining for teachers. One assumes that this is to update the committee on the tentative agreement that was announced yesterday; the teachers vote on it on Thursday. It appears the outline is 7% over the next three years, plus 1% for last year, with the health insurance changes that other units cityside have taken.
• There's also a regular meeting of the school committee on Thursday night. The executive session is for teachers (possibly to ratify the contract, I'd assume), custodians, nurses, and computer techs, plus a grievance. They're honoring Dave Perda, who was recently appointed the superintendent of the Roman Catholic diocesan schools. They're hearing the reports from Governance and TLSS earlier this month.The first item looks like an effort towards a consent agenda, though that falls apart over the course of the rest of the agenda.There are a series of donations and prior year payments, including one "in the amount of $2,082.59 for the Secretary to the School Committee," and I don't know who that is (the School Committee has a secretary?!). Mr. Monfredo suggests updating the staff cell phone policy in light of changes in school safety procedure; he also wants the City Manager to discuss bus passes for students involved in activities with the WRTA. Mr. O'Connell is requesting energy audits for non-WPS-owned buildings (so...St. Casimir and the YMCA?), would like a list of Know Your School nights and site council meetings. Miss Biancheria is looking for another round of advertising, plus possibly lights at Belmont Street School (that's the one that has the pedestrian bridge). Miss McCullough is requesting consideration of the use of work at home during snow cancellations; you can read more about such efforts here.  

For whom do we make policy?

I want to give a h/t to the student representatives in Worcester, doing their job by requesting a revision in the cell phone policy:

“Most of us are looking for more trust and access to do tasks we wouldn’t be able to do without our devices,” Ms. Miller said. Some students, for example, have expressed disappointment that they can no longer listen to music through headphones outside of class, which they found helped them concentrate and study, she said.
 Others have said they can’t do their schoolwork as efficiently without access to their phones. Ms. Miller gave the example of some classes that lack enough textbooks so students use their phones to take pictures of pages of their classmates’ books. Ms. Miller also argued that students want to be better prepared for college and the workplace, where cellphone use is generally accepted.
 Valenia Bergier, a senior at Burncoat High School and also a student representative on the School Committee, said the new cellphone policy seems counter to school officials’ recent emphasis on expanding technology in the schools. “Yet we’re being denied our most accessible piece of technology: our phones,” she said.

I posted about this earlier in the year, but I'll echo Ms. Bergier again: the district can't afford 1 to 1 technology, yet it is barring the use of (nearly) 1 to 1 technology that currently is in its buildings. The policy consideration never included students--from Ms. Binienda's comments, it's clear it still does not--and it represents a position that again puts our kids at a disadvantage.
That isn't what school policies should do.

Worcester School Committee meets tonight

in about ten minutes...sorry for the late posting! 
The agenda is here. The big thing on the agenda is the opening of school report, which is not posted.
There are several recognitions.
Governance and Employee Issues is reporting out. 
There is a substantial list of new hires and transfers.
There are four backups on the response to Miss Biancheria's request regarding a pilot at Sullivan and Burncoat Middle of the Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment.
Miss Biancheria has an item on Constitution Day (the week of Sept. 12).
Mr. O'Connell wants to recognize Robert F. Pezzella for being the Columbus Day Parade grand marshal this year.
He also would like a report on the Seeds to STEM program through WPI.
There is a request that several donations be received.
There is a report on how Worcester Public Schools will be testing water for lead.
Miss McCullough is requesting that administration teach responsible social media and cell phone use.
Mr. O'Connell, doubling down on Mr. Monfredo's motion, is concerned about wifi radiation.
Mr. O'Connell would also like a list of school council dates.
He would also like enrollment class sizes and the October 1 student enrollment report (which I assume will come back together, as the two are the same).
Miss Biancheria would like a list of services available at Worcester Tech.
Mr. O'Connell would like to recognize Worcester Tech for receiving a grant.
Mr. Monfredo would like a community service committee.
Administration is requesting approval of several nurses.


There was also an executive session on negotiations with Bus Drivers and Monitors, Custodians, Nurses, Teachers, and Instructional Assistants.