Board of Ed for May: Research and evaluation

 memo is here

Craven has left; Hills now chairing

speaking on this, per the memo: Rob Curtin, Deputy Commissioner, Matt Deninger, Associate Commissioner of Planning and Research, and Kendra Winner, Research and Evaluation Coordinator

Deninger: as a former high school English teacher, it is always good to be back in a high school

March Board of Ed: midyear report from State Student Advisory Council

 This is from Isabella Chamberlain, Hudson High School, who is the SSAC chair
focusing this year on student wellness, especially emotional wellbeing; bullying and harassment; and nutrition and school nutritional environment

using state data in working through this

Chamberlain: there is a concern that recommendations are made to the Board and nothing is really done with that
midyear is so that it is while there is work being done on it
hope is that this allows a feedback loop on their work
Fisher: more than half of Black or Asian students being treated badly, you're not going to be engaged
Department's push for culturally sustaining curriculum, make sure we actually live that mission
Rocha: how can we engage just beyond the presentation
Fisher suggests members going to regional meetings
Chamberlain: want to ensure students are creating the focus
give the students the data and say the focus area has to come from that; up to them to do it
connection between Board and students but keep freedom there

October Board of Elementary and Secondary Education: opening comments

The Board of Ed meets today at 9 AM. Their agenda can be found online here. 

June Board of Ed: student data trend analysis

 Thomas Kane from Harvard University
he's an economist
"in the education policy debate, I have observed that there is one common storyline...that the folks on the reform side...will marshal statistics that things are terrible...that the status quo is unsustainable...those on the other side...are often arguing similar points...and will point to prior...policy for why"
"over time it's corrosive"

provide some history
nationally, achievement as measured by NAEP rose from 1990-2013
"have made quite a bit of progress"
I am not going to try to reproduce numbers here
notes decline in 2019-22, which started pre-pandemic
in Massachusetts increase was larger, but recent losses are larger
"a year's worth of growth is about 10.4 points"
(this always feel very made up to me)
quotes Mann on education being "the balance wheel of the social machinery"
"but the balance wheel has been under strain"
Increased economic stratification 
main countervailing force has been policy: school accountability and school finance
"merged each of the schools back to neighborhood" in NAEP results
He is presuming that the schools draw from their neighborhood in this analysis--not all do
and then looked at neighborhood income
Larger increases for lower income families, by this analysis
reading improved for low and middle income families
in MA, high poverty districts improved the most
looked at states that saw big increases in the NAEP, then looked at income over time of those born in those states; states with large NAEP growth were also places were those born those had larger income growth
["What do changes in state test scores imply for later life outcomes" Dec. 2022 NBER working paper]
"I just can't help myself; I'm an economist." on next set of data
what has the increase in achievement been worth?
for one cohort of 8th graders in 2013, he calculates at $6.4B
"Education reform did not fail."

Current challenges: respond to pandemic losses; resume progress in MA education
"would encourage us to be bold" in current challenges

"pandemic losses increased inequality in MA"
IMPORTANT POINT: THIS WAS NOT THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY DESE IN THEIR OWN PRESENTATIONS. If you recall, during the goal setting conversation, the Department was quite clear that it was not the traditionally lowest performing districts in which those losses were concentrated
Would recommend policy changes that focus on these traditionally underperforming districts

"what are some of the processes that we could create that would help accelerate improvement?"
process by which improvement could be scaled up: MA state innovation fund

Characterize this as a pep talk
"can make progress, have made progress...we currently have some major challenges"
consider what is possible in the coming years

Craven: some people voted against 1993 education
"people argue that nothing but money matters"
you said policy matters; what do you mean by that?
Kane: "there is research...looked at what happened to NAEP scores" in schools like MA pre-NCLB accountability
which is also when we put money in, so this is not holding money aside
They found large positive effects, especially in math
"more narrowing in schools that did school finance reform in the states that didn't"
"I don't think the data enables us to show which was more important, but that both were important"
Moriarty: steps one through three; I think steps 4 and 5 are extremely problematic
(this is on his slide of "resuming improvement")
Kane: I don't think any state does 4 and 5 well (that's "share" and "scale)
thinks the best way to convince people that their peer districts had compelling outcomes
"as a persuasion scaling exercise"
Hills: when you see declining gaps reverse themselves, would be curious what items you want to highlight
Kane: very few things we understand in education research, but the turnaround in math "was related to school closures"
high poverty, high minority districts "stayed closed longer"
Newton students had more resources outside of school
both Kane and Hills live in Newton
Hills: ten years ago to five years ago, how did trends reverse themselves?
Kane: resource, incentives, but also persuasion; "my hypothesis--I can't prove it!--is we'd start to see improvement again"
Plankey: was there a tapering off in other states over this time, too? "Does ed reform just sort of expire?"
Kane: "pattern of rising and then flattening is pretty universal"
Plankey: are there any states that implemented a change and reversed?
Kane: "I hope that Massachusetts would be the first."
Have to acknowledge large losses in places like Lynn
"we'll learn a lot when MCAS results come back this summer"
hopes that Massachusetts has turned it around, but don't expect it
Tutwiler: what do you mean by spread?
Kane: districts voluntarily adopting effective practices, ideally
"but state also has levels" that it can pull 
"imagine if the state held like an annual meeting" on what is going to be tested this year and what will be tested this next year
"some of the things that get tried won't work...I wouldn't be surprised if even most of them don't work"
"by identifying that 20% that worked and spreading them"
Tutwiler: appreciate naming the differences between different communities
lived in Andover, worked in Lynn and saw those differences
there are elements that exclude the control factor "there could be wisdom in those control factors..in things for us to think about"
schools that had long-term subs, or positions that they never filled, or chronic absenteeism rates that are much higher
Kane: have research on what works in chronic absenteeism, for example
start systematically sharing what works
Stewart: strikes me that when Commissioner was new was a conference sharing what works
districts to share their successes
can target a few initiatives, but don't think the state needs to share the work and be excited about it
Kane: the role the state could play is set up the things to try, and then let the folks who did it be the ones to try and then share
"and for the state to invest substantially in it...even setting aside 1% of that" for experimentation
Mohammed: thinking about experience in health care: preventable medical errors
"it wasn't until hospitals really started to work on this using many of the processes you're describing"
might be things to learn from different industries, storytelling, measurement of outcomes was key to changing trajectory of things

Plankey: catalogue of learning supports
will catalogue be updated yearly as things change? (Riley nods)

Board of Ed: Student Opportunity Act reporting -> goal setting

 which is one of my personal irritants, because of how the Commissioner has chosen to do it, so...
we should also perhaps note that this presentation has 98 slides

What happened last night at Worcester School Committee (11/18/21)

So what happened at last night's Worcester School Committee meeting? 

For those for whom the sound didn't work until a bit of a way in, Roger Nugent, president of the EAW, spoke first requesting that we amend an earlier authorization for sick bank use for an employee (extending it beyond days donated by one school to the larger employee pool, as some donations came from outside the school), and shared a petition from some members on "choice" around vaccinations.

We had TWO student reps at the meeting last night: Stacia Zoghbi (who's our ex officio, as she was elected by the other student reps to be our official non-voting member) and Julianna Manxhari; Stacia goes to Tech and Julianna to Doherty. They sent out a survey to their peers across the district--students, PLEASE TAKE IT!!--and plan to share the results of that with us at one of our next meetings. They've also asked for a seat on the superintendent's search committee (and it sounds to me as if they're going to get it). 

The report of the superintendent was from Dr. Marco Andrade (whom I mentally refer to as "the data person") with a report that was framed from the perspective on the Office on Civil Rights (a subdivision of the U.S. Department of Education) around disparities in student data on social-emotional data, achievement information, absentee and discipline data, and post-graduate education and persistence. The report is here, starting on page 28. We have significant gaps, as was noted, and this is being referred to School and Student Performance for further discussion, because (as I said at the meeting) the data is only the start; the question is what we're going to do with it.

Reporting out were both Finance and Operations and Teaching, Learning, and Student Support standing committees. F&O had the transportation report, so we approved the new position descriptions (as budgeted for in the report, and as approved as part of the plan) for that department at the same time. And yes, we're hiring!
We also had the first quarter report, and one part concerned me: 

A $400K transfer from teachers to administration would raise an eyebrow, in any case, but it have it come in for the first quarter report--when we just passed the budget in June--and to have it explained as the conversation of five EL teachers to four EL administrators, particularly when we had just received a report from that department a few months back with no mention of this is simply bad process. 
I voted for the transfer, in part because it became clear that the administration had actually hired people ahead of the transfer, which is also bad process. 

TLSS had the vocational admissions policy, and Ms. McCullough noted that the deliberation also included discussion of the recruitment of more representative applicants (as the demographics of Tech become non-representative by who applies even with the new policy), as well as some discussion of the question of interest, which will be taken up during tours. The standing committee's report was passed, which gives provisional approval. Final approval will follow a public hearing next month.
Note that later in the meeting, we accepted a grant for $130K that is directed at this question of student recruitment to Tech.

We received back a report on an item I'd filed that had been bounced back and forth several times as incomplete regarding contracts that are directly with the superintendent. I'd heard concerns months ago that contracts weren't being completed, and so filed the item back in August. Eventually, the principal contracts largely were fulfilled, but there have been a number of outstanding administration contracts that were still not completed. I'll share here what we got last night: 

Beyond the contracts still not renewed, there are two things here that concerned me. The first is this group of people marked "N/A" who, I was told, simply do not have contracts. There isn't parity across administration in who this is, though, and I'm concerned that this not being based on something solid could open us up to discrimination allegations.
The second thing, from the far right column, is several contracts that now expire in 2026; that is, some people have recently been given five year contracts. This is itself unusual--five years for public contracts is covered for other circumstances by laws--but contracts given for five years by a superintendent who herself is leaving in seven months is particularly attention grabbing, as was my subsequent understanding that questions have been raised about extending contracts that are not yet expired.
As Mayor Petty noted, there is case law around the ability of executive successor, backed by the public committee, being able to cancel extensions in such circumstances, and he told Superintendent Binienda last night that he expected any updates not already included above to come before the School Committee.

We received back an updated report from Mrs. Clancey's motion asking for information on the transfers; this was the additional elementary teachers and the additional adjustment counselors. She asked for information to be shared with the school committee about what the adjustment counselors are finding in their discussions. 
I was concerned to learn that the elementary teachers, who we'd specifically transferred to lower class size, largely have not been assigned to do so; only three are classroom teachers. 

An additional position for the Chief Diversity Officer passed (6-1; I was the 'no' vote, as I think this office continues to be poorly defined, and I think that needs to be fixed first.)

We accepted at $12,500 grant from Mass Insight for AP teacher training.

The audits are coming to F&O! (That's all we know so far. They do every year.)

Ms. McCullough filed an item looking into playground inspection and repair, so expect to see that coming.

She also asked for a reassessment of the need for crossing guards at secondary schools.

We also had clarified, on her motion, that volunteers MAY be in schools, so long as they have provided either proof of up to date vaccination or recent negative COVID test (just like employees).

And she asked about virtual tutoring. Earlier in the meeting, Miss Biancheria questioned administration about part-time tutors who are retirees possibly being hired.

I filed an item specifically on bus 38, as I haven't gotten any response to my emails to the superintendent (who has directed that communication with Durham is hers) regarding it.

We're also going to recognize all the people who don't get recognized when you build a new school building for opening South (or at least we're going to try!).

And we're going to thank the National Guard, AA Transportation, plus WPS Transportation (per the superintendent's request) and the Lieutenant Governor (per the Mayor's request) for their work on transportation in October. Other amendments were not accepted.

And then a report I hope comes back soon: 

Request administration report urgently via school level staff on student disregulation, how it is manifesting in our schools, how staff is managing and coping with such disregulation, and what resources and policy changes from this Committee are necessary to better support students, families, and staff.

We next meet on the Monday the 22nd with the superintendent search firm! 5:30! 

Student and School Performance Subcommittee meeting this Thursday at 7

The first subcommittee meeting of the new Worcester School Committee term is this coming Thursday, and it's the one I chair, Student and School Performance, on which Dianna Biancheria and Laura Clancey also serve. You can find the agenda with backups online here.

There are three items on the agenda, all of which were sent there last term, all of which we'll be taking up at the meeting. They are:

• Request that the Administration provide a report on the accountability changes made by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.
• Request that the Administration provide a report on suspensions.
• To consider establishing a committee, in conjunction with the Administration, to reduce school suspensions.

You may also note that all date back to 2018.

The first item, though it has the 2017-18 data, is (at least from my perspective) more useful as a frame for how the state accountability system works now, and as a starting point for discussions around what the district is doing with the non-MCAS (because we're going to talk about MCAS, regardless) sections of the system.
This pretty naturally flows into the discussion over state reporting over new money, as well, note, and we have an item coming to us from Thursday's meeting to that end; it isn't on this agenda, but going forward, it's a place for that discussion around the reporting on targets and goals to happen.

For the backup for the second item on suspensions, we have this data that I couldn't make heads or tails of in April. Because that release doesn't track with any other way of tracking data, it's...perhaps not the most useful way of framing the discussing. What I've been looking at is the state profile of the district, and then the schools, both overall and particularly, due to the state report last year, non-violent, non-criminal, non-drug-related offenses. Again, that's last year's data, and thus it's timely to ask for a midyear update; I don't know that we'll get that at the meeting (there's no new backup coming in here), but again, we're starting discussions at the subcommittee to continue.

Finally, the committee that was requested has been meeting, and there will be a (verbal) update on that.

I do just want to note a few things: I've intentionally pushed to have this meeting at 7--subcommittees for School Committee tend to take place before 6, but I know that doesn't work for many families, and Miss Biancheria and Mrs Clancey have been accommodating in that. 

This is the data committee, and our charge is get data out, to make it accessible, and then to inform the rest of the Committee so as to inform Committee policy and budget decisions. 

If this is of interest, I hope you'll plan to attend. 

Don't shoot the messenger

As I noted in my post on the last Worcester School Committee meeting, the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education is coming to present on the Worcester Public Schools' accountability and disciplinary data at the invitation of Mayor Petty and the Worcester School Committee at the School Committee meeting on October 17.
This invitation, of course, is as a result of the work around equity that has gone on from the Mayor's Commission on Latino Education and Excellence, but also the organizing work by students, and others, including Worcester Interfaith who has hosted the Worcester Coalition for Educational Equity.
Tomorrow the Coalition is hosting a convening about the state of the schools. The Coalition is also suggesting the community turn out to hear the report of the Department regarding Worcester's data.

In response, it seems, some who have been most allied with Superintendent Binienda are calling faith communities, arguing that this is an attack on the Superintendent, and proposing that they withdraw their support for Worcester Interfaith.

Deep breath here, folks.

Setting aside for a minute the relative propriety of such proposals, can we understand what this actually says? Organizing around the state of the schools and asking people to hear the state talk about the data the district itself reports on the schools is not an attack on the leadership of the schools.
Unless, of course, the leadership of the schools doesn't like what the data says and has no real response to it.

Those who forget the past

...are doomed not to learn anything at all from it.

Hey, remember how the Worcester Public Schools had a 2014 Blue Ribbon Technology review?

Remember how one of the things we found (if we didn't already know) was an advantage of Worcester's size was that we were able to do things in-house?
That rather than pay and pay and pay for outsourcing, and have to wait and tolerate whatever the vendors decided, we pay actual employees who work for us and do what we want (like when we added paying for school lunches online)?

One of the things that has been rather...marked...under the current administration is an ignorance--professed or real--to anything that happened before. And so I suppose one should not be surprised to see among the proposed costs for the FY20 budget is student data outsourcing (p. 10 in the text, p. 17 online):

...provides an Information Technology Implementation Coordinator (funded to start at halfway through the fiscal year) to support the bid, selection, transition, and implementation of a third-party student information system (including online grading and parent portal) to be purchased in 2020-21 and implemented in 2021-22 school year. This budget also reflects $30,000 for a temporary district-wide online grading module that can be used while the district transitions to the integrated student information system.

There has not, of course, been a cost-benefit analysis done of outsourcing student data; those costs are generally per pupil, which for a district the size of Worcester quickly becomes substantial. The current fixation on online grading not only ignores the extent to which this is already happening (raise your hands, parents, if you already get access to your children's grades online), it does not take into account what always previously had been postulated as the main roadblock, that it might be considered a change in working conditions and thus open for collective bargaining.

This is thus a nearly perfect storm of ignoring work already done, ignoring prior raised concerns that still have not been dealt with, missing the places in which the purported issue has already been dealt with, and failing to built on something that is actually a strength of the system.

This is less about the $30,000 + the half year salary (I can't tell how much, as it doesn't go into that level of detail) for this year: this is about moving ahead to tie the district to a change in how student information is managed without doing the necessary homework, including how much this is going to cost, not only in time, but also in advantage.

This is just not smart.

The House is leaving the most vulnerable kids out: UPDATED WITH WHAT'S IN

Sure enough, per State House News (paywalled):

The bill, which is being polled by the Ways and Means Committee on Tuesday afternoon, would specifically make adjustments to the formula in how it accounts for special education and health insurance costs.
The five-page bill also directs the Department of Education to conduct a study on how the formula meets the needs of low-income and English language learner students with the goal of making recommendations to the legislature on ways to serve those populations.

We did a study. Three years ago.

Time to call your reps and tell them leaving poor kids and kids learning English out is not fair, equitable, just, or okay in any way with you.

UPDATE:

I've put the bill in my Dropbox here for your perusal. I also just did a Twitter thread starting here on what's in it and what's not. Here's what it looks like:

• On in-district special education, the House bill bumps the assumed enrollment to 4% for most districts, 5% for vocationals. That's more than the Foundation Budget Review Commission's recommendation of 3.75% of regular districts, 4.75% for vocationals. Better than recommendation.
• On out-of-district special educaton, the House bill multiplies the statewide average per pupil foundation budget by THREE before subtracting the average plus the out-of-district cost rate. The Foundation Budget Review Commission multiplied by FOUR before the subtraction. Worse than recommendation.
• There is then a very, very long (longer than the funding section) section on data collection. This was part of the FBRC recommendations, but is also already being partly dealt with through MASBO working with DESE. The final section allows for a researcher "subject to appropriation" to do this. Meh.
• On ELL and low income, the House bill sends them to DESE for study, calling for an independent reseacher (which the bill does not fund), to report back in December of 2018. The House bill calls for precisely what the Foundation Budget Review Commission researched and responded to, plus work DESE has already been doing on capturing all low income students in the count. THIS STUDY HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE THREE YEARS AGO (check page 9 and following) and continues to kick the can on our most vulnerable student populations. Much worse than recommendation

What should you do now?

• Call your reps.
• Tell them you appreciate the House taking action.
• Note that this bill DOES NOT implement the recommendations of the Commission.
• Ask them to propose and support amendments to IMPLEMENT the already-studied-and-vetted-and approved recommendations on English learners and low income students. 

THE HOUSE VOTES THURSDAY. DON'T DELAY! 

Conditions of Education in Western Mass: Rennie Center

I'm at the annual Conditions of Education in Western Massachusetts, put together by the Rennie Center, in Holyoke. It appears as though today is about the Preschool Expansion Grant. The hashtag is #COE2018. 

Bay State Reading Institute case study

Up at the State House this afternoon for this:

Join us tomorrow at the Boston Statehouse as @therenniecenter releases its case study of Teacher Culture Change in three @EverettMASchool K-8 schools which partner with @BayStateReading. #mapoli #maedchat

— Bay State Reading (@BayStateReading) January 9, 2018

Updating as we go...the report does not yet appear to be online. Upshot from summary: "[Bay State Reading Institute] is not a quick fix reading intervention...leaders and teachers using performance data to differentiate classroom instruction, which, in turn enhanced teacher culture." It's worth noting, as well, that BSRI has a line item in the budget, which the Governor has tried to either eliminate or combine with other lines every year he's been in office. 

Huge disparities in student discipline, educational access found in U.S. DoE

The Office of Civil Rights within the U.S. Department of Education today released a massive collection of data from the 2013-14 school year. Among the most troubling stats:

Black preschool children are 3.6 times as likely to be suspended as are white preschool students.

In kindergarten through the 12th grade, black students are nearly four times as likely to be suspended as are white students. 

Black students also are nearly twice as likely to be expelled—removed from school with no services—as are white students.

Students with disabilities are more than twice as likely as students without disabilities to be suspended in K-12 settings. They also represent two-thirds of students who are secluded from their classmates or restrained to prevent them from moving—even though they are only 12 percent of the overall student population.

More than half of high schools do not offer calculus, four in ten do not offer physics, more than one in four do not offer chemistry, and more than one in five do not offer Algebra II

(Algebra II? How are they not offering Algebra II??) 

There's plenty of analysis out there to read: EdWeek talks about disparities in outcomes and access; UPI talks racial disparity; Think Progress focuses on suspensions; and the Washington Post points out the school counselor gap: 850,000 students went to schools without a school counselor, and 1.6 million students went to a school with a law-enforcement officer, but no counselor.

Note further that this is aggregate data; district and school level data will be released in the fall at ocrdata.ed.gov. 

DESE's report to the Legislature on charter schools

The memo is here
You heard about the count; there's more
Chuang: required to have lottery
not required to be a mirror image of sending districts, but required to have plans to work towards
"emphasize the complexity of comparability"
"statewide comparisons are tricky...because charters are predominately concentrated in urban areas"
and because of that, you'd expect that statewide charters would have to be higher need than statewide in districts
and the chart gets even messier now that we've converted to economically disadvantaged
Sagan clarifies "this is related to the federal lunch...we didn't suddenly solve poverty"
Wulfson: acceleration dating back to 2010 Achievement gap
Chuang: filtered information for new students
when you suppress to new students, gap closing faster particularly in ELL, Boston and aggregate of Gateway Cities
applicant pool reflective of students in Boston
attrition rate with another crazy graph
"a lot of noise and variability"
attrition is from end of one year to beginning of next; working on mobility, churn, stability
Sagan asks when...they're working on it
Doherty asks about cohort stability: same kids who stay all the way through
haven't done it for some time
question around backfilling (and if it masks urban public district attrition)
also question of who is leaving
Wulfson: comparison of a single school to a school district, doesn't work, as district may mask as student moves from school to school
Stewart: heard you use about five different words: would like to know nuance and differences
McKenna: get information to us and the public
anecdotal concern is that kids leave during the school year: "That information is key to this discussion."
backfilling for half the grades that they serve; must round up if you have an odd number of grades
high school only through grade 9
"have actively encouraged increasing points of access"
all of the expansions "have committed to above and beyond expansions"
have heard a lot in the news about the waitlist data
33,903 updated from fall "consistent with what happens every year as offers are made in the fall"
rollover issue in on the way of clearing out
"allowed schools to waitlists made prior" to updates
75% of schools have decided to completely eliminate rollover
next collection will establish at student level which are rolled at not; several large schools do still roll
Peyser: those parents are still actually on the waitlist, it doesn't mean those families don't want to go anymore
Wulfson: "Well,we don't know"
could take ten or more years for it to clear out
Sagan: "We don't know that the list will be any different"
Chuang: large numbers of fresh names in new report; will make distinction in next report

RECESS

What's in the Every Student Succeeds Act?

Okay, we're going to do this as the act itself actually reads; as always, h/t to EdWeek that keeps up with this all the time.Other than that, the below is entirely my work, page by page. 

Waivers: NCLB waivers expire August 1, 2016, however the plans dealing with lowest performing schools and subgroup achievement gaps are still in play until new plans are submitted for the 2017-18 school year. Those are "needs improvement, corrective action, or restructuring" schools and "priority or focus" schools.

Title I:  (for a numbers rundown, see this from the American Association of School Administrators) Most of the sections of Title I are level funded through FY20, with "the sense of Congress" being that this would revised if discretionary spending levels are adjusted. Note also that School Improvement Grants are no longer a separate program; they are folded into Title I, with the specification that the current 4% of Title I set aside for school improvement is increased to 7% of their Title I funding (of that, 95% of it needs to go to districts directly). As before, such funding may only supplement, not supplant, funding the district is otherwise receiving.

State plans: States are still required to submit plans to the U.S. DoE. There remains a peer review process, and states can appeal a rejection of their plan (but it's to the Secretary, so I'm not sure how that helps). As part of that, states must "provide assurance" that they have adopted "challenging academic achievement standards," but they are not required to submit those standards to the Secretary (this is how they're resolving the question of federal requirements and the Common Core). States must have state standards for "mathematics, reading or language arts, and science" and have English language proficiency standards; they may have standards in other subjects.

...and just in case we were unclear on the Secretary's authority:

FEDERAL CONTROL.—The Secretary shall not have the authority to mandate, direct, control, coerce, or exercise any direction or supervision over any of the challenging State academic standards adopted or implemented by a State.

Testing: In their plans, the states have to demonstrate that they have "in consultation with local educational agencies,...implemented a set of high-quality student academic assessments in mathematics, reading or language arts, and science." Emphasis there mine; has anyone been consulted? The tests must (and I'm pulling the language here, because I think this is going to come up):

(ii) be aligned with the challenging State academic standards, and provide coherent and timely information about student attainment of such standards and whether the student is performing at the student’s grade level; (iii) be used for purposes for which such assessments are valid and reliable, consistent with relevant, nationally recognized professional and technical testing standards, objectively measure academic achievement, knowledge, and skills, and be tests that do not evaluate or assess personal or family beliefs and attitudes, or publicly disclose personally identifiable information; (iv) be of adequate technical quality for each purpose required under this Act and consistent with the requirements of this section, the evidence of which shall be made public, including on the website of the State educational agency...

Students must be tested in math and ELA one a year in grades 3-8 and once in grades 9-11, and in science once in grades 3-5, once in grades 6-9, and once in grades 10-12. Schools still need to have a 95% participation rate in testing, but what happens to the schools that don't is up to the state.
The tests also must:

(vi) involve multiple up-to-date measures of student academic achievement, including measures that assess higher-order thinking skills and understanding, which may include measures of student academic growth and may be partially delivered in the form of portfolios, projects, or extended performance tasks; (viii) at the State’s discretion— ‘‘(I) be administered through a single summative assessment; or ‘‘(II) be administered through multiple statewide interim assessments during the course of the academic year that result in a single summative score that provides valid, reliable, and transparent information on student achievement or growth;

States are required to provide individual "interpretive, descriptive, and diagnostic" student reports with information that allows "parents, teachers, principals, and other school leaders to understand and address the specific academic needs of students" and they have to do so in a timely fashion. There are parallel reporting requirements for reporting out on subgroups (and no "supersubgroups" as in the waivers; each needs to be broken out, so long as it's of a statistically significant size).The test items are "(xiii) be developed, to the extent practicable, using the principles of universal design for learning."
All ELL students must be annually assessed in their English proficiency. The states have a few options on what to do with newly arrived students (in the U.S. for less than 12 months) on the other tests; they can have the student not take the tests, or they can exclude their results from accountability (but report them).
Local districts can choose a different "nationally-recognized high school academic assessment" with state approval. Regarding opting out:

Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as preempting a State or local law regarding the decision of a parent to not have the parent’s child participate in the academic assessments under this paragraph.

In other words, they kicked this one back to the states.

More on state plans: They have to include four indicators, of which three are state testing proficiency rates, ELL student proficiency, another subgroup proficiency and one more; high schools get five, adding graduation rate. The other options include student engagement, educator engagement, access to and completion of advanced coursework, post-secondary readiness, school climate/safety, or something else. For those working on other ways assessing schools, this is a crack in the door that should be pushed on! States are still required to identify lowest 5% of performing (how we get there is going to look a little different) plus high schools failing to graduate one-third or more of their students AND other schools at the state's discretion. What exactly they do with those schools is up to the states.

Interestingly, if a district has only had a student for less than half the year, the student's test score can't count against the school's accountability level. Likewise, a student who doesn't graduate counts for the high school that has had that student for the majority of high school.

Schools indentified as underperforming still need to submit school improvment plans, and the process looks fairly parallel to now (group of stakeholders analyzing local data, plan has to include "evidence-based interventions" and consider resources, and has to be approved locally and monitored by the state). The state has to establish exit criteria for this. The state is also to analyze resource allocation and provide technical assistance for any district having a significant number of schools falling into underperforming.

The bill is also speaks at length, forbidding the Secretary to specify quite a number of things, including the evaluation methods of teachers and other school professionals and forbidding data collection beyond what already happens in other sections of federal law.
States are also required to specify how they will assist local districts in increasing early childhood education; ensure that disadvantaged students are not served by inexperienced teachers, reduce bullying, reduce out-of-school suspension, reach all students, stabilize the education of students in foster care, and support homeless students. And if that sounds like a hodgepodge, that's because it is! Likewise, there are a list of assurances the states are required to submit (starts on page 109, if you're interested).
Both states and local districts must issue annual report cards.
Districts need to have annual school improvement plans as well (and what needs to be included starts on page 134). As part of that plan, districts:

shall notify the parents of each student attending any school receiving funds under this part that the parents may request, and the local educational agency will provide the parents on request (and in a timely manner), information regarding any State or local educational agency policy regarding student participation in any assessments mandated by section 1111(b)(2) and by the State or local educational agency, which shall include a policy, procedure, or parental right to opt the child out of such assessment, where applicable.

"where applicable"...hm...
Districts are also required to post on their website what assessments are used, where it comes from, how long it will take, what it will test, and when they'll have results available.
As they're still talking about "low income," the bill offers the following for how to measure that:

a local educational agency shall use the same measure of poverty, which measure shall be the number of children aged 5 through 17 in poverty counted in the most recent census data approved by the Secretary, the number of children eligible for a free or reduced price lunch under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, the number of children in families receiving assistance under the State program funded under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act, or the number of children eligible to receive medical assistance under the Medicaid Program, or a composite of such indicators, with respect to all school attendance areas in the local educational agency

Secondary school calculations may be based off estimates from the elementary schools.
Federal funds are still required to supplement not supplant local (and state) spending; it also retains the "hold harmless" provision on funding (page 199; note that it isn't entirely harmless), and the requirement of state's maintenance of effort (states have to keep funding education themselves in order to received federal funds).

Innovative assessments: As part of the Title I B assessment grants, the bill provides for "innovative assessments" in up to seven states for the first three years of the law. Those have to report out, and at the end of that time, the Secretary may extend that "demonstration authority" further.

There's a provision for local districts to enter an agreement with the Secretary for a local weighed per-pupil funding system, allowing for substantially more funding to go to their neediest student bodies. Districts can bundle their Title I, Title II, Title III, and parts of Title IV and V to do so.

Title IIA: (teacher development) There's a list of provisions for which these funds may be used starting on page 336. It does allow for pay-for-performance, but it also allows the funds to be used to reduce class size. Several mentions in this section of "human capital management"

21st Century Learning grants are in, but not for any substantial boost back up in funding.

Charter schools and magnet schools: For those who like to compare these things, the grant to expand charter schools is funded at a higher level that the grant to fund magnet schools ($270M rising to $300M versus $94M rising to $108M).

Promise Neighborhoods are in, but funding isn't specified; the same is true of community schools.

National readers note that there is a substantial section on Native American education, including a requirement that the Secretary of Education report on student suicides.

Federal impact aid is level funded until FY2020.

Speaking of definitions that might be useful, here's ESSA's definition of a "well-rounded education" (from Title VIII, page 807):

(52) WELL-ROUNDED EDUCATION.—The term ‘well-rounded education’ means courses, activities,and programming in subjects such as English, reading or language arts, writing, science, technology,engineering, mathematics, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, geography,computer science, music, career and technical education, health, physical education, and any other subject, as determined by the State or local educational agency, with the purpose of providing all students access to an enriched curriculum and educational experience.’’

Title VIII also requires the Secretary of Education to figure out how many federal employees worked on programs that no longer exist under this renewal and to cut the department by that many positions (page 813).

Waivers of federal provisions: Both schools and districts can request waivers of the provisions within the law (the schools request of the district, which turns to the state; the district requests of the state which turns to the federal department) (page 816 and following).

"Prohibition against federal mandates" speaks for itself:

IN GENERAL.—No officer or employee of the Federal Government shall, through grants, contracts, or other cooperative agreements, mandate, direct, or control a State, local educational agency, or school’s specific instructional content, academic standards and assessments,curricula, or program of instruction developed and implemented to meet the requirements of this Act (including any requirement, direction, or mandate to adopt the Common Core State Standards developed under the Common Core State Standards Initiative, any other academic standards common to a significant number of States, or any assessment, instructional content, or curriculum aligned to such standards), nor shall anything in this Act be construed to authorize such officer or employee to do so.

Likewise, the federal government can't require local or state funds be directed particular ways. Also nothing in the act shall:

require the distribution of scientifically or medically false or inaccurate materials or to prohibit the distribution of scientifically or medically true or accurate materials

Military recruiter opt-in: Districts are required to provide military recruiters with student information unless the parents specifically have directed the district to not provide it. Districts creating instead an "opt in" provision is not allowed. This came in as part of NCLB.

Free-range kids: The federal government can't make laws regarding parent-permitted school travel, but, then, they also can't limit the abilities of local or state authorities to do so.

Student privacy: There is a "sense of Congress" section requesting that the Secretary review all applicable provisions and ensure student data is protected. As I've seen pointed out elsewhere, there's no teeth in this; on the other hand, it isn't here by accident.

Regarding the First Amendment:

It is the sense of Congress that a student, teacher, school administrator, or other school employee of an elementary school or secondary school retains the individual’s rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States during the school day or while on the grounds of an elementary school or secondary school. 

Posthumous pardon for Jack Johnson (starts on page 914)

Reports: Congress is asking for reports on dropouts, subgroup sample size, access to digital learning resources, and the Title I formula (that's like FBRC federally!). 

Preschool development grants which are being administered through Health and Human Services (as Head Start is).

"Highly qualified" is over.

and, whew! That's it.

Yong Zhao, Keynote MASC

his website is here; he comments that most of his slides are on it
great to follow the state auditor
school boards "are a unique American thing"
around the world people don't understand what it is
China "saves the money and bypasses the election process" (yes, that's a joke. There will be many)
something "that America has done very well"
"you are here to work with the people...most places, they're branches of the government"
but you've lost most of the power of the last twenty years
"I'm not a member of the Tea Party; I'm fron China, and we do have tea..."
"have lost most of the most precious control"
"in your hands is the future of Massachusetts, the future of this nation"
"not how hard you work; it's what you're working on"

Foundation Budget Review Commission September meeting

I'll update as we go once we've started..
Looking at the overhead, it appears that Melissa King from DESE is presenting on "in-district special education costs compared to foundatoin budget--revised"
Chang-Diaz announces that they have appointed a consultant (and I totally did not catch the name; this room swallows sounds...David Bunker!)
minutes accepted
David Bunker (consultant) "walking through his work plan" per Chang-Diaz
he was legislative aide to Hal Lane (who he had as high school principal which means he's a Wachusett kid!)
research director for Joint Committee
elected as state rep, then to House Ways and Means as Director of Special Projects
CFO for the Executive office for Education (I just looked this up on Linked in. Does anyone know if he's getting the time off to do this or is doing it as part of his job? UPDATE from Senator Chang-Diaz's office: he left after the change in administration.)
Thank you to Senator Jehlen for saying she can't hear! Me, either!
summarize work proposal: a month left, choices to be made over the coming month
how can we use that time to be sure that places with an achievement gap get the resources they need, particularly for ELL and low income students
also other foundation assumptions that we will look at "as we can"
not only about research, but about writing final report
discussing with people in the field what they think might be useful
looking at national research
reviewing RTTT requests: many letters from superintendents referenced RTTT
asking members of the commission who would be most useful in consulting
"high achieving districts serving high numbers of low income and ELL students"
"what do you think you need and what are your recommendations about the effective use of money"
"effectively both principles will be woven in"
talking "especially to superintendents, or administrators with some business background, and business managers"
Teachers?
"teachers or administrators with some teaching background"
Chang-Diaz: talk about catagories of what is discussed and who is spoken to
Jehlen: didn't see any weighing for vocational students
Chang-Diaz: would push back on adding to the list at this point
Q1: what extra resources are needed to address the achievement gap particularly for ELL and low income students?
question is always is this something you want everyone to do or something you need to focus on particularly for these needs
whether there is any capacity to or interest in to discuss concentrations of poverty
Q2: review of national literature on weighings; national research of best practices
"fair amount of literature about that"
district level spending data, state level spending level
Race to the Top submissions, one suggestion that some had was how much they thought they needed for Race to the Top
"they may not have told us everything they need, but" may give some direction
interviews with the field
other suggestions of non-achievement gap districts
look at places that are spending above foundation:and where the funding over foundation (once special ed and health care are paid for) is going
fairly tight timeline
one meeting between now and the end of October to bring back information and then start writing for the end of October
Chang-Diaz clarifies that district-level spending data
Verdolino questions if the commission has "adequately" addressed the special ed and health insurance
he comments that "this is about my package" (thus that question will not be addressed by him)
MTA: look at current allotments to see if existing ratios can accomodate increases, if not, they may need to be changed
"We're only interested in catagories that will address the achievement gap?"
"just to be clear, we're not going to do anything about student-teacher ratio or other items, under this model?" Agreement
Chang-Diaz: is the allotment that's currently written into the foundation budget enough to produce success? He'll attempt to answer that question. The answer may be we don't know. It may be that it's not sufficient everywhere. Or the answer may be that it needs to be adjusted to communities that have high concentrations of low income or ELL.
"those populations exists in many places"
MTA: "the middle class kid, wherever, has an interest in a lower class size as well"
"it looks as though we're going to take up all the issues besides the inflation factor"
Agreement. If other things are going to be fixed, may not need to be fixed (!!)
MASS rep: cautionary notes
"when we're talking about district spending above the foundation....pay attention" to where it goes
what are we using for achievement? MCAS? PARCC? are we also using ACCESS for ELL students?
highlight on ELL allotment; recommend bumping up allotment in K-8 fo gaps of students that have come from elsewhere
Reville: outcomes model versus an input orientated model. What are we looking for in the end?
are you coming up with interventions that have been successful and how much those are? Are we going to be categorical as we ask for additional increments?
response: trying to stay away from specific interventions
bulleted points were taken from the initial report
"district's existing flexibility on what interventions are being used"
Reville "trying to discover what works and what doesn't work before we put in more money"
hope that if the evidence suggests that these types of interventions work that you'd include that so we can include that in our deliberations
Chang-Diaz: districts that co-chairs have suggested that he focus on
districts that are spending above foundation and showing strong outcomes as a district
what are they putting into professional development, etc? to get these strong results
we're not going to acknowledge that most of the districts that fund over foundation are also higher income districts that also would have higher test scores, anyway? Also just got a reminder that the Hancock case said that lower spending districts with higher test scores were NOT evidence that funding wasn't needed
MBAE: may not be right to look at district, rather than individual student needs, suggest looking at individual student needs and management and controls
Wulfson: intervening school level: may be "interschool distributional effects"
where the money for the kids who go to that school actually go to that school
Jehlen: how do you know a high achieving district? Student scores in achievement or in growth
"at this point, we almost have to look at both"
Reville: is there looking at low spending districts with high achievement?
correlation with school practices
Peisch: identifying districts with high populations of ELL and low income that are high achieving (most relevant)
Verdolino: (who suggests that if MASBO sees this, his job could be on the line) Title I is by defintion is by defintion a low income grant; if low income dollars were to segregated into a specific pot, you'd have accountability. Otherwise, I don't know how you'd have accountability
gets to be "very difficult in the cost accounting"
Chang-Diaz: other things you'd encourage David to have in his interview questions
Moreau: a little dubious about the scope he has here
very early on identifying two major expenses, yet major overhaul not being in the cards
low income increment is going to need to be address by Board regardless
no, it's going to need to be addressed by Legislature
should outline some general principles for that work
day coming for greater granularity for spending "that in and of itself will be an enormous task" suggests thus outlining it
Verdolino: are enough dollars being devoted to performing this?
might also ask if you were allowed to spend foundation budget on that category, would that be sufficient?
Jehlen: Education Trust report: assume that low income should be 40%; ours is around 30%. Should be thinking about that question as well
Schuster: comparing staffing ratios to budget will be hard statewide, but could be done district by district
could be done, would be very instructive
MASBO has undertaken exactly that; "we may be able to put that in front of you"
Schuster: schedule? Commissioners should get thoughts to Dave how?
will be sure his contact information is shared
MBAE: don't think should look at current models; should ask what districts are doing to reform their staffing models "to make new models more appropriate for kids"
MASBO working on a model, reminder going out to members who are working on it
Jehlen asks for draft ahead

in-district sped: Melissa King from DESE
some of this is looking at the same thing as previously
"only eight slides"
"What we have to say about this is pretty aggregated"
on average districts spend a lot more than is in the foundation budget
actual cots $30,161 vs $24,368
adding recommendation from commission brings it to $37,589
about 7% increase in budget and in enrollment
foundation budget is calculated using an estimate of time receiving sped services
categories don't line up precisely, nor do actual costs
not definative, if you look at sped placement, full inclusion is up to 20% of the time receiving services
could have wide variation depending on what you assume
by and large, districts spend more than is alloted for in the foundation budget
"why is there a difference in cost? Well, there are more teachers on the ground."
I totally can't read these charts, BTW...I'll see if I can snag one to at least take photos
"Obviously, staff being the biggest cost driver"
Rep Ferguson: "this was a huge issue that we spend hours talking about and looking"
"grossly underreported and underrepresented"
districts doing a great job keeping our kids in and sending them out to costly programs
This has been the biggest issue brought to me
Moreau (who says he's attempting to channel Moscovitch) need for better data and how it correlates
MASS: change in best practices from 1993, very few subseparate classrooms where teachers with only a small handful of kids
special ed teacher assigned to a co-teacher within the classroom
"that means you need more staff to be able to pull off the best practice for our students who need the support of best practices"
Verdolino: "I suspect you're employing those staff...if you look at most important lines of teachers, teaching staff and in school staff"
may actual being spent, but money is coming from outside of that category
quick math $650M short
"that's the magitude of the issue in a nutshell"
Schuster: "very clear...actual staffing levels is over 30% below foundation budget for actual teaching"
"are we wasting money by hiring more teachers than we need ?"
"I don't know what the right answer is" wonders who would know correct staffing level
"I don't know that we need much more data beyond that"
MBAE: question is how do you address the gap? address the gap going forward
"just appropriating more money wouldn't do that"
also remember Commissioner that there are programmatic ways that the gap could be addressed
Moreau: if we have no capacity to know what we're doing and trace what we're doing, we don't know how it's being spent
"general notion of more intent services" is good, but problem with going beyond
"probably being services being delivered to the student being delivered to the student by the classroom teachers"
"perhaps the gap is in" what the regular classroom teacher isn't delivering
Reminder that IEP services must be delivered by a special education licensed educator
Chang-Diaz: how predictable are the needs from year to year? are you able to pretty predictably set a budget?
within a range (of 10%) it's predictable
know that the more we do inclusion, we increase class size
Chang-Diaz question about "other teaching services" being higher
need for guidance and such being higher in that population
only way to determine actual need under language delay and such is to test in both languages, also need to translate IEPs into different languages for parents

MBAE: improve quality of information that state has:
establish a data advisory committee overseen by DESE in collaboration with executive office
"effective and efficient allocation"
add, beyond usual suspects, charter schools and collaboratives
major goals would be improving financial reporting
people who use the data express some frustration at quality and consistency of data
work to strengthen department's capacity to report and develop local capacity to use the data well
report annually to Board of Ed and Joint Committee chairs
exploration of what finacial impacts of reporting would be
anticipation of increased costs: "impossible to predict what that would be"
"want to be sure that the ways districts report don't become the tail that wags the dog of how programming is done"
only recently has Title I allowed to provide services across the whole school "so tail doesn't wag the dog" and accounting doesn't create the programming
"don't want to create the same problem that finally got solved for Title I"
state really does need more data around things like inclusion
presumably "effective and efficient" ways to do inclusion, likewise ineffective and inefficient ways
some back and forth about teacher salaries and what level of information the state gets; upshot is that teacher salaries are public record
MBAE: think that groups made up "of the usual suspects" start with current model
also should include early childhood
Reville: doing this as part of our report? Yes. And this is assumed to be under authority of Commission to establish?
Peisch: think Commissioner could, but we might consider if we want to do so
so far, both teachers' unions and the vocational association have asked to be included
Does this have a defined life? Imagine it being a committee that would end
"can be eliminated when it is no longer needed"
Verdolino: a lot would depend on the training and implementation phase
bringing them in increases the chances that they could play a role in implementation
Jehlen: want to be really excited about streamlining and duplicative reporting
make sure we include all resources
"how do you know what is effective and efficient if you don't know what the goal is? If the goal is increase MCAS achievement, what's efficient is eliminating art and music."
admission that this won't necessarily result in fewer reports being required from the state
Chang-Diaz: what's your reaction to this overall?
must be linked to what the use of the data is and how it improves work in classrooms
MOTION to include in Commission report
Moreau: there are creative minds out there that would come to the table, but they can put something together without having any feel for what it MEANS to the field; thus crucial to have those doing the work at the table and should include IT

after a break, Commission now looking at Part B of the other options before them:

• Limit the use of new funding to investments in the following initiatives to be described in a publicly accountable benchmarked school improvement plan. The parameters of those individually crafted plans would invest from the following priorities: (1) Provide greater support for low-income and ELL students; (2) Expanded teacher professional development; (3) Hiring staff at levels that support improved studentperformance; (4) Purchase and implementation of technology and instructional materials; (5) Expanded learning time (day / year / venue); (6) Add instructional coaches; (7) Provide wrap-around services that engage the entire community and families in strengthening the social emotional support system for students; (8) Provide common planning time for instructional teams;
• Designate an investment component of the Foundation Budget and require that funds allocated to the investment accounts be spent on those investment items. Underscore the importance of these investments by requiring each district to report annually on how it intends to spend its investment funds, how it intends to measure its success, and (after the first year) whether itsucceeded in reaching its goal;
• Establish a better data collection system that allows for greater access to school-level expendituresand data; 
• Ensure that additional funds attributable to low-income and ELL students are spent on programs and services that support the needs of those particular students; and
• Establish an innovation fund distributed competitively to meet specific goals asking if there are differences among suggestions

MARVA concern about competive granting which measures ability of districts to write grants
MTA: last one, adding a fund outside of the foundation budget: "how does that fit into accountability for additional funds"...different category
agreement from Chang-Diaz
"foundation budget shouldn't have anything to do with competitive grants"
MBAE: legimate question on if it should be included, but different fund for supporting ideas that are most promising ideas could have some sort of support
Peisch: certain tension between ensuring the money is well-spent and every district and every school has its own challenges, and what may be the best way to address a challenge in one school may not be the right answer for all
"have to really consider what is the best way on the one hand that the dollars get to the students that need them...and at the same time ensure that the people who are on the ground can make the decision that serve the students best"
going to require a fair amount of thought
suggest maybe looking at proposed language for the next meeting
MASS: innovation fund interpreted as start-up funds, where is sustainability after two or three years
careful of word "services" (which for Title III doesn't mean 'salaries')
MASC: distinction of "new funding": is it new funding with respect to fully recognizing special ed and health insurance or is it recognizing services to ELL and low income and such?
can understand concern of Legislature that there be some accountability issue there;if you recognize the funding that I'm spending on special education and health insurance, why wouldn't I then be able to fund art or music (or whatever had been cut meanwhile)?
also, accountable to local district voters
And also, who is going to measure it?
response that it would be included with school or district improvement plan (one of those don't run through SC)
additional funds if I receive them, additional funds will go to restoring programs lost; I don't have the flexibility in here
suggestion is "and development of whole child"
Chang-Diaz: tool for soft accountability for parents to value
MASS: to me, where community places values
Hatch: not sure you can even measure "new funding" unless you run old formula versus new formula and some districts wouldn't get any more than minimum aid
Moreau: perhaps it's simple staying in the same Reville "loose and tight" accountability
performing low, have to report more strictly to state; performing higher, less to state
in hearings, very many different thoughts: individual districts can get funds for the specific needs for a particular area
just going to interject here that the utter mistrust of local government by state authority in these sorts of things is appalling
Question is if those categories are all covered in question 1
MASC: infrastructure: maybe cut custodians, maybe cut routine maintenance
all of which are bad policy, and that's not included in here
Chang-Diaz: at some point, as we begin to broaden the area, the point becomes meaningless
"if this is the new money here, can you spend the old money on buildings?"
putting discussion on hold, bringing forward at next meeting
Peisch says forward language to chairs for next meeting for David Bunker
Next meeting is October 16

Where does the information in the app your kid is using at school go?

And has anyone checked?
Great article in the NY Times today on the growing use of apps at schools, and the lack of tracking where the information goes. While the article focuses on behavioral apps--which, as an aside? I find appalling--this certainly carries through for about anything where your child signs into a website and does anything: reads an online book and takes a quiz, practices math problems, checks test results.
While teachers have to agree to a user agreement upon setting up the site for their classes, I suspect that the experience of many is like that of the teacher in the article: they just click agree.
On a local note: there is guidance on this coming from downtown in Worcester, as part of a larger "data managment" memo (which will deal with data walls, too). I'll make sure we get it around so that everyone knows what's supposed to be happening. In the meantime? Parents, ask!

When data isn't a bad thing

As part of an interview earlier today, I was asked if I thought it was time that we got rid of "all this data" and the focus we have on it. My answer was something like part of this.
"Data" is just a fancy name for information, and information is a good thing for parents deciding on schools for their kids, for students to know what's going on with their schools, for teachers deciding on jobs...for all of us. The problem with "data"at the school level is that we've made the word mean too little, not too much.
Colorado, as linked above, is now providing statewide data on which schools have full-time nurses, school-based health centers, and thirty minutes of recess. THIS IS A GOOD IDEA*.
Here, off the top of my head, are other things I'd love for us all to know about our kids' schools**:

• class sizes
• access to library (with information on how often they go)
• amount of time spent studying social studies and science (for elementary)
• minutes of gym class, music class, art class
• if there is an art room, a music room, a gymnasium
• if there is a playground
• broadband speed access in the building
• ratio of students to: assistant principals, guidance counselors, adjustment counselors, nurses

*What I don't like is the idea of tracking individual health stats (BMI, anyone?) for students. 
**some, though not all of this, is available for Worcester Public Schools in the annual budget. Think about your own list, and let's work on this.

Sabrina Stevens: Cornerstones of Democracy (notes)

I'm a speaker tonight at the MTA Summer Institute, which means as a bonus I get to hear Sabrina Stevens, who is their keynote (lucky me!). Posting as we go..
Public education as cornerstone of democracy