Oh, ok

I haven't posted here about Worcester and May and Hammond last Monday, as I've said plenty elsewhere it's more relevant, but on a general note, let's first say that if you're going to speak or write about it, you should be sure you've reviewed this extensive thread by Sam Bishop:
as well as Bill Shaner's bonus "Worcesteria" this week.
That would have been useful in informing what Nick Kotsopoulos wrote in his column today.

Partway through, though, Nick heads over into what is very much my universe:

The argument being made for defunding the Police Department is that its money could be put to better use, such as for the public schools. On more than a few times, those who addressed the council talked about how the public school budget has been slashed.
Mind you, the recommended School Department budget for next fiscal year is $388.45 million, which is 5.3% or nearly $19 million more than the current year budget. Not what I would exactly call a “slashed” budget.
Not that the Worcester Public Schools can’t use more money; it certainly could. But the fact that the school budget is almost $19 million more than this year doesn’t fit the narrative. At the same time, the recommended $52.7 million Police Department budget is only $254,320 more than this year.

You might remember that I already called this out once this year, when the city presented this framing along with its FY21 budget. I also noted it again when I wrote about the FY21 Worcester Public Schools budget. Let's say this again:

Of the "nearly $19 million more" for FY21 proposed for the Worcester Public Schools, $1.1 million comes from local funds

The vast, vast majority of Worcester Public Schools funding comes from the state. That has been true, that is true, that will continue (we hope!) to be true (as otherwise we're sunk). To continue to perpetuate the misinformation that somehow the city is being generous to the school is, simply wrong.
And one thing that makes me sad about this is that I've talked with Nick in the past and I know he knows how WPS is funded.

Here's how the city is doing over what is the STATE MANDATED REQUIRED MINIMUM:

What this means in plain terms is that the city went up only by the state required minimum, as the increase on transportation was just be eaten by prior years.
(No, transportation isn't covered in required spending, so to stay "even" the city would need to cover both the required spending increase and the contractual transportation increase--which they ddin't do--and that is why some of us would also like to drive some of that funding back to schools.)

The irony in all of this, by the way, is that if the City Council DID go through the process of moving funds from the allocation to police in the schools, it wouldn't increase the Worcester Public Schools' budget at all.

It would just mean we could spend that money on something else. 

In case you missed this editorial

From Reps. Mary Keefe and Aaron Vega on the Promise Act and what we owe the children of the Commonwealth

Foundation budget editorial in the T&G calls out the Legislature

Good editorial today in the Telegram, calling out the Legislature on their lack of action on the foundation budget:

What’s painful is that this issue didn’t happen overnight - it’s been building for years. Any excuses that the Legislature “ran out of time” during this two-year session ignores warnings going back a decade. The 1993 Education Reform Act, with foresight, includes a mechanism for a periodic review of the formula. A foundation budget review commission, headed by legislative and state education leaders, and incorporating a wide variety of participants that included teacher unions, began meeting in 2014 and issued a report in 2015, more than a year before the just-ended legislative term began in 2017. And if that weren’t enough, there were the threats of new suits against the state emanating from cities such as Worcester and Brockton.

I think it's a little hyper-focused on the revenue end--if anyone was, that was the House--but it hits the main points well, particularly that it isn't as if this snuck up on the Legislature all of a sudden. 

I really want to like this editorial

I do...it gets so much right! It gets that we need all four parts implemented! It gets that studies have been done! It gets that kids can't wait!
And then...we fall into this:

The Senate’s approach could lead to misallocation of resources. For instance, it’s unlikely that the cost of educating a 15-year-old from Central America with limited literacy in his or her native language is the same as educating a 5-year-old native Spanish speaker. While the 2015 foundation budget review commission recommends a flat increment added to the rate per pupil, a study like the one proposed in the House would ensure that such differences are reflected in funding.

First of all, Boston Globe, this is precisely the sort of thing a newspaper is supposed to be good at: you're supposed to follow an issue, report on it, and then, when a year or more later, people make the same tired arguments, you can say, "Hey, we had this debate already and HERE was the answer that was decided!"
Except you didn't follow the FBRC meetings that closely, so you don't know that this precisely argument--do you tie the money to particular spending---was had at length in the meetings. The conclusion? THE STATE OWES THE DISTRICTS THIS MONEY FOR SERVICES PROVIDED! The districts are already providing services to kids; they just aren't being funded for it. You don't get to layer on NEW requirements. KNOCK IT OFF!

Plus let's be real for a minute: the top rate this year for ELL is $2354 for middle school students, which has been the highest rate since this part was implemented. The recommendation from the Commission was that all students be moved to this rate. Thus for every ELL student they serve, a district gets at most $2354 on top of the amount of funding that comes along for that child already.

What do we need for kids who are learning English? We need additional curriculum. We need maybe some additional services (both for them and their families). Most of all, of course, we need teachers.
Do some quick math: for every ten kids learning English, a district gets $23,540...not going to get a teacher for that. Or for twenty...you have to get quite a number of kids before you have enough funding to hire an additional teacher.

Can we get a grip for a minute and realize that A) this isn't a ton of funding and B) we already know what districts are going to do with it. They're going to do what districts did, for example, when kids from Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands showed up and the funding came through: they're going to get those kids the services they need!

You came so close, Boston Globe! 

"Heart of the Commonwealth, represent!"

I'd always recommend you read Charlie Pierce in Esquire, but today's column has both some nice reflections from his father's time as a Worcester Public School administrator:

My father worked in what were then called “inner-city” schools. When he left the classroom—he actually taught fourth-period Bio—he became the vice-principal on whom disciplinary matters fell. He was notably tough, but he also was a realist. He had a running feud with one phys-ed teacher whose class was scheduled for the first thing in the morning. He kept sending kids who fell asleep down to my father’s office. The first thing my father asked them was whether or not they had had anything to eat that morning. If the answer was no, he’d give them some money and send them to a diner down the street. Then, he’d wait for the gym teacher to come down and yell at him. “Charlie,” he once told me, “You can’t teach a hungry child. It’s pointless.”

...as well as a great analogy on how the high school students are taking on the fringe right:

But the real high comedy has been to watch the conservative intelligentsia embark on a serious fool’s errand—namely, trying to battle with educated teenagers on social media. I mean, don’t any of these people have kids between the ages of 10 and 20? This is like the Redcoats marching back to Boston from Lexington and Concord. They’re taking fire from behind every tree and every stonewall, and they’re getting slaughtered on platforms they’ve probably never heard of.

But go read it all. 

"We are not consumers, but citizens, when it comes to schools"

Excellent opinion piece in The Hechinger Report:

Public schools are a public good that we have forged together through public conversations, elected school boards, and democratic policymaking. Within schools, we should deliberate, craft, and institute the aims we seek. Moreover, public schools are special because they impart the skills and knowledge necessary for future generations to continue to deliberate the public goods they will uphold. Public schools are places where children learn how to exchange and respond to the ideas of others as they balance their own individual needs with needs in their communities. They are places where children learn to be a public.

But do read it all.  

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.

Excellent school governance piece by Joshua Starr

Many school system leaders pay too little attention to formal policy, which is a mistake since you can draw a straight line between a policy, subsequent rule changes, and resource allocation. Equity, school assignment/admissions, and curriculum policies can form the backbone of a leader’s efforts to improve outcomes for children. Policy changes should be made transparently with the public, and they should be based on data. An open discussion about a proposed policy gives the leader opportunities to lay bare the issues that may be preventing improvement. If done properly, the process for creating a new policy or changing an old one can be a powerful engagement tool for the public. Once a policy is set, the school board is bound to uphold it, and the leader has an opportunity to align resources to the desired state.

The full piece is here.

Excellent Globe editorial on the foundation budget review commission

Excellent and timely editorial in the Globe this morning:

The ruling holds up an unflattering mirror to Massachusetts, where the school-aid formula, also known as Chapter 70, has remained unchanged for 23 years. In that time, the educational landscape has been profoundly altered by a variety of factors, especially demographics and special-education needs. The formula is designed to have an equalizing effect, with less wealthy districts receiving more state aid than wealthier ones. But the system’s starting point, known as the foundation budget (the funding level needed to provide an adequate education to all students in a district), has been found to underestimate the cost of educating students by at least $1 billion. Per-pupil spending ranges from more than $25,000 (in Cambridge and Provincetown) to about $11,000 (Southampton and Grafton). It is politically difficult, to say the least, for a group of legislators to negotiate a new funding formula, especially if it’s a zero-sum game that will give to some school districts while taking from others. Efforts torevise the funding formula have centered on adding money to the school-aid budget, a politically easier task were there additional funding to be had. But there isn’t. Governor Charlie Baker and legislative leaders face making cuts as budget funding gaps continue to surface.

"Count me among them."

John E. Walsh, former chair of the state Democratic party, on why he's voting no on Question 2:

When a parent hears from a friend how much their community or a neighboring district already loses to the state charter funding formula and then how Question 2 allows unlimited expansion with no local control, the weakness of Question 2’s approach will become clear. Parents, educators, local taxpayers, and the local elected leaders who must balance school budgets each year are organizing against a state mandate that would allow state bureaucrats to approve 12 new charters schools a year, every year, forever, with no limit on how much money a single district could lose. This would nearly triple the number of charter schools in just 10 years – each year taking more and more resources from local district schools that are educating the highest performing students in the nation.

Well worth reading and sharing it all. 

Clive nails it

a smidge behind on posting this:

Last year, members of the Worcester School Committee hyperboosted their campaign against the stewardship of former Superintendent of Schools Melinda Boone by using a number of student fights at North High to gin up fears around safety in the Worcester public schools.  

Students such as Coralys Dejesus tried to give these committee members a much-needed perspective. In a local article she said, "These past few days have been a nightmare to the North High community because what the media fails to capture, and what the rumors fail to spread, is the brilliance that is North High."  

That didn’t dissuade these committee members, whose fearmongering would suggest to some that they were in charge of a correctional facility rather than a public school system.  

Now that they ran Ms. Boone out of town and have their superintendent of choice, these committee members are singing a different tune.

In a Telegram & Gazette article this week, we found out that the number of students leaving the school district through the school choice program is accelerating. We were told that one of the reasons for that flight might be the perception some parents have that the Worcester public schools are unsafe. 

So, now some School Committee members want to create a video highlighting the school system’s greatness. 

“We could give it out to real estate brokers and other organizations to let people know about the progress going on in the Worcester public schools,” committee member John Monfredo said. “We don’t do a good job selling ourselves. I think we are trending up (as a district), but we have to let parents know.”  

A good place to start, John, is for you to stop manufacturing the safety issues these school choice parents are apparently fleeing.

Good editorial in the Springfield Republican today

on the Rise Act:

Shadowing this debate is an often unspoken skepticism about whether public education can be lifted. In some quarters, a sense of hopelessness exists that feeds into the notion that charter schools are a rescue operation for education, not just an alternative.

That's a terrible, untrue and self-defeating attitude and one the RISE Act rebuts. Problems exist in public education but they also exist in charter schools, starting with the selectivity involved in the admission process.

Why to study the liberal arts

From Nicholas Kristoff

(with bonus quote from John Adams)

You should read this about North

Great column today from Janice Harvey on the community that is North High School. 

In fact, every teacher I spoke with who manned a bus said the kids they supervised were, for the most part, calm, cheerful and patient. And LOUD. But, hey, I’ll take loud over whiny and impatient any day. Leave that behavior to the adults in these situations. No devices were found, and we filed back in, hungry, to a scrambled schedule. K-9 units trotted on their way, the FBI agents finally disappeared in that weird way they have of vanishing without notice.

And then read about their TED talks. Good stuff.

Transportation matters, but it won't affect foundation

I'm always pleased to see the T&G give space to covering something as important as the WPS budget, so good reading today on the coverage of yesterday's Research Bureau/WEC event. It's also nice to see Mr. Sinacola's kind words (?) on the budget, 'though taking credit "even a small role" for our managing the fiscal cliff from stimulus aid is a bit rich.
I do have question the efficacy of something raised by City Manager Augustus, Mayor Petty, and Mr. Sinacola, however: counting transportation towards foundation. The issue, as presented, is that transportation, which this year will cost WPS $14 million a year, does not count towards the foundation budget. Thus, from a particular perspective, the city spends $14 million that "doesn't count" when the state calculations how much we spend on schools, and, the argument goes, that isn't fair.
The thing is, though, that transportation doesn't count towards ANYONE's foundation. If the state suddenly started counting transportation towards foundation, all that does is raise EVERYONE's requirement towards foundation. Thus, if transportation were to count towards foundation, and get folded in, the requirements on funding would just expand to add that account.
What it wouldn't do is make any difference in any of the other accounts...and thus it wouldn't make any difference in where we are on funding. The level would be higher, but we'd be in the same place.
We'd still be underfunded.

And while you're reading T&G columns

...do read Clive today on levels, charter schools, and MCAS:

There is nothing wrong in expecting more from schools with otherwise reasonably good academic track records, and if the MCAS were being used to help these schools get even better, no one would be complaining. 

But that is not what is happening here. Instead, the MCAS is being used to demonize rather than to improve traditional public education. 

Is the Commissioner listening?

My "As I See It" is printed in today's Telegram and Gazette.
Or if that link doesn't work for you, it's here.

"Hartford admitted a Trojan horse to disrupt public education and disable democracy"

And should you ever wonder about why things like public acceptance of grants (along with backup documentation) matter, read Sarah Darer Littleton's blockbuster piece this weekend on the tangled web of private money and lack of public process in Hartford.

Nearly missed it!

Go read Mr. Southwick's column today for some Worcester Public Schools history!

And today in people not knowing that they're talking about

Goodness, we're having quite a week in the Telegram and Gazette "As I See It" section, aren't we? The Pioneer Institute yesterday and DFER today!
Should you have forgotten who DFER is, here's a quick reminder of whom we're dealing with and why we should not be listening to them on, well, probably anything. They don't--mercifully--have much of a presence in Massachusetts (and Massachusetts election laws prevent them from flooding elections with funds the way that they have elsewhere in the country, at least directly), but let us not forget where this is coming from.
That said, the editorial itself is essentially alarmist rhetoric, not even doing much with the report from NCTQ: "crisis," "especially dire," "below average" and on and on: BE AFRAID! BE VERY AFRAID!
And the report from which this all draws is round two of NCTQ: NCTQ, which comes to this with a foundational bias, which has terrible methodology (yes, that's from last year, but they used the same system this year), and in some ways made it even worse than it had been before. And the ratings, make no mistake, have some schools running scared, with what are going to be bad results on teaching and learning in classrooms at the colleges and universities.
The best analogy I've seen for this is if you rated restaurants by take out menus, without ever visiting the restaurants or eating the food; I'd only add that you're having it all done by critics who don't like to eat.
Why are we giving these people any attention? They don't know what they're talking about.