Springfield might be getting all its schools back

 You may have missed it in all the [waves hands in air], but Springfield, it appears, is moving to take back authority over its schools in its Empowerment Zone. 

More than a decade ago, Springfield and state entered into an agreement to place some of the city’s most troubled schools under the control of the Springfield Empowerment Zone Partnership, a collaborative effort of the Springfield Public Schools, the state Department of Elementary and Secondary Education and the Springfield Education Association, with assistance from some business partners.

In November, officials agreed that Duggan Academy, Van Sickle Academy, Chestnut Accelerated Middle School, Discovery Poly Tech and four schools within High School of Commerce have reached achievement goals and are ready to return to the control of the Springfield district.

The state initially set the transition to take place this summer, but school officials successfully put off that move for a year to give educators enough time to plan for a smooth transition, said Superintendent Sonia Dinnall. The plan was discussed this past week at a School Committee meeting.

I'd missed that there had been a discussion already last year--did that get any coverage at all?--but this is in keeping with Massachusetts moving away from not having democratically-elected local control of its schools, with Holyoke now out of receivership and Southbridge moving there.

March Board of Ed: Springfield Empowerment Zone

 Backup is here
Springfield appears to be coming in remotely? Superintendent Warwick and Mayor Sarno on camera
Sarno: "the empowerment zone has been a success here in the city of Springfield"
"I think hybrid is key, what your system does well"
"it's all about relationships"
Warwick: and there's a whole long thing here about MSBA
"it's good to have options"
"We definitely needed more flexibility with" our unions
"we needed fast action for our schools"
"part of it is our governance framework" (which is not having the school committee as the governance board)
"model that engages the community" put "in collaboration with the community"
flexible model made a difference for our schools

Craven: really wanted to have this discussion today "in stark opposition to other topics"
place where we're working together

co-executive directors of the partnership board
Matt Brunell, Colleen Curran co-executive directors of empowerment zone
"productive impact"
seven years in 
school-level autonomy
"transparent benchmarking"

They have this image:

Launching nine new schools
"of the eight original principals, only two remain" and they now manage multiple schools
example of data being used: lifetime learnings
restructuring
early adopters of diversification grant: gap on Latinx educators and leaders
variability among schools: pathway to equitable leadership
corrective actions given by state on special ed students
multiyear approach to improve outcomes for students: four special education director-level hires added
building educator capacity
school-based model for developing IEPs
fifth year programs for a sheltered college experience (how can they fund that?)
Discovery High School: long term diversification program and for science
freshmen in college classes 

Caris Livingston: exciting to hear about putting students at the forefront
ask how trust was developed: "I think it begins with courage"
Listening

Hillst: how decided which schools are in the Zone?
and whose approval is needed?
Curran: primarily Level 4 designation 
High School of Commerce added
Woo adds superintendent allows for non-profit to run schools
West: is the bargaining unit just those at the school?
Curran: contract is bargained with SEA
carves out a "terrific amount of conditions that can be set at the school level"

West: question I want to ask is 'what's the end game?'
"and if it is a better model of governance, why not turn the whole district into the empowerment zone, or would that raise matter of scale"
Brunell: says his Jesuit education is going to come out in his answer
larger policy questions not for him
"But for us the work is the sixteen schools in front of us"
Sarno: having gone through financial receivership in city
"we sort of incorporated it with the flexibility; it works"
Warwick: to take away contractual flexibility would be difficult
"and there's no public demand"

Moriarty: looking at state data with caution
a challenge
comparative analysis of what is happening with your graduating students
Sarno notes Springfield has universal pre-K, Warwick says launching this year

Joint Committee on Ways and Means on FY20 education funding

We're at Bristol Community College (across the street from Fall River's new Durfee High project) for the Joint Committee on Ways and Means hearing on education accounts. This Committee is jointly chaired by Senator Michael Rodriguez of Westport and Representative Aaron Michelwitz of Boston. Note that generally the administration makes their pitch first, thus we'll hear early on from Lt. Governor Polito, Secretary Peyser, and the three Commissioners (early ed, K-12, and higher ed). 
Posting once we start 
Vice Chair Denise Garlick introduces Rep. Carole Fiola (of Fall River) and Sen. Jason Lewis (of Winchester, Assistant Vice-Chair), who will be co-chairing today. 
President of Bristol Community College welcoming the joint committee...two members from Fall River School Committee and one from New Bedford School Committee here today

What you read here in 2018

Here's the yearly top ten list, with our usual beyond first place winner: once again, far and away the main landing page got the most hits. I'll endeavor to continue to make that worth your while!

The actual blog posts that got the most hits in 2018:

1-3: This year has lasted FOREVER, so I had forgotten: we got a new commissioner of education in K-12 education in Massachusetts this year! (Yes, that was this past year!) Thus it isn't suprising that the top three posts were what I could find online on the three finalists for commissioner: Angélica Infante-Green, Penny Schwinn, and now-Commissioner Jeffrey Riley. That is in order, and it doesn't surprise me that the post on Riley received the fewest hits, as he was the best known locally (and Infante-Green definitely had people pulling for her). I am a bit proud of managing to dig up quotes from the Globe's archives for that post, though.
I'm also going to note that just missing the top ten list is this post on what we missed in the Commissioner appointment process.

4. This April post about regional transportation came next, which I'm pleased to see: it is one of the things in school budgeting that either really matters to your district or really doesn't, and thus there are many who don't get why regional districts care so much about this.

5. The proposed rule change for what is considered for those applying for immigration to the U.S. came in next, and I'm glad we're finally seeing the way in which all these sorts of things impact our schools.

6. My grandfather died this past April. He was, among many other things, a school board member. This post is about Sam Dawson.

7. On bad ideas that just won't die as the empowerment zone presented--for a select few--in Worcester came in next. Watch for this one to continue to be pushed as we brace ourselves for another Baker term.

8. The Senate voting their foundation budget bill out of Senate Ways and Means came in next.

9. The July House bill giving less than half a loaf of the changes needed in the foundation budget came in next, as we all rushed to figure out what was in the very last minute proposal. Let's do better this session, eh?

10. An appropriate closure to the list: this April post on the conversation Worcester (still) isn't having came in next. Is there going to be a time that Worcester talks about racism's impact on schools?

As for 2019: We have a new Legislature to watch (and harry about not kicking the can on foundation funding). The Board of Ed has a full slate through June.
Oh, and Worcester is in an election year. There will be plenty to cover!

Empower whom?

As someone who does go to meetings about public education during the day, I remain acutely and uncomfortably aware as I do of who cannot. If you work a 9 to 5 job with a half hour for lunch--let alone if you work three jobs with no time for lunch at all--there's a decent chance you're not going to the Board of Education, nor any of the sort of think-tank type meetings that swirl around education, as much else.
Public education belongs to all of us, however, and the more business that is done in places removed from the public eye and public access, the weaker our democracy is, as public education is the foundation of democracy (as always, not my opinion; the state's Constitutional argument for public education).

Thus it was that Empower Schools presented earlier this week at noon on a weekday to a conference room at lunch.

While it's generally referenced as "non-profit," Empower doesn't appear to have an independent tax existence; its 990 form is that of the National Center on Time and Learning/ Mass 2020, which were ("are" in the case of NCTL; Mass2020 doesn't appear to have an online presence any longer) earlier projects and interests of Chris Gabrieli, in that case on extended learning time (NCTL he founded in 2007 as an outgrowth of Mass2020 which he founded in 2000). He also (in between Empower and NCTL) founded Transforming Education in 2009.
Gabrieli, who now mostly is in the public eye due to his position as Chair of the Board of Higher Ed and in Empower, at one point was best known for having run for governor in the Democratic primary in 2006 after races for lieutenant governor in 2002 and Congress in 1998. After he lost to Deval Patrick in the primary, Patrick appointed him to chair the Springfield Finance Control Board, which ran municipal finances from 2004 to 2009. He made his money (before all of this) as a venture capitalist of which this quote from the article regarding Gabrieli's run for governor is on point:

"You're always conceptually selling," Hardymon, a professor at Harvard Business School, said of the venture business. "You have to shape ideas and get people to buy into them. That's the raw material he had in spades."

And essentially, that's what the meeting was: this was Empower's sales pitch.
Note, by the way, that it isn't that Gabrieli is making anything out of this; he doesn't draw a salary, per the 990 from Empower, and by all accounts, he doesn't need to.
You don't only buy things with money, however.

The opening of his presentation is indicative of where this is coming from:

Okay, so that's Camden Public Schools whose "governance change" was state takeover under Governor Christie in 2013; Denver Public Schools whose "governance change" was a pro-charter board and superintendent (no longer the case); two mayoral-control cities; the iZones, which are more of the "innovation zone" models; the Education Achievement Authority of Michigan ("could fairly be regarded as a train wreck of educational policy") and the (New Orleans) Recovery School District (which I really hope someone's been writing a book or two on) which is going away; teacher-powered schools (which appears to include everything from Mission Hill to the BTU pilot), the Mind Trust (which grew from the "hey let's let the Indianapolis mayor allow for charter schools" idea), pilot schools in LA, and the Boston Teachers' Union logo, which I assume is a reference to the Boston Teachers Union School.

So: State control; charterizing; mayoral control; innovation schools; or teacher-run schools...pretty much covers those examples. 

Which brings me back to the question of whom we are empowering here?

The state run districts clearly have removed power from anywhere near the people who live in the place the schools are. While mayoral control generally is argued for as "making one person responsible," it has generally meant that those who care about schools don't have a place to go with their concerns (particularly when it comes to political action). Charters, we know, don't answer to their communities (and don't have to). Pilots and teacher-run schools may answer to those inside the building; it's not always clear if they anwer to those outside the building. 

We've been living in an age of accountability; it is stunning to hear advocated that the local ability to hold accountable those running the schools should be removed.

Empower itself doesn't have a lot of evidence that what they're doing is working on turnaround in Springfield (link is to my notes from their Board of Ed presentation earlier this school year). Empower, of course, came into Springfield as a result of the threat of state takeover, a question about which Gabrieli ducked at his presentation this week. And this is Springfield's third year. That may explain why the Empowerment Zone in Springfield is now interested in other methods of assessment beyond the test scores that brought them into Springfield: 

Springfield is doing this: 

One wonders if they should talk to MCIEA. In any case, the irony is rich. 

This may answer why in Worcester Gabrieli was talking more about "innovation zones" and less about turnaround. The innovations outlined may look familiar to those who know Massachusetts innovation schools:

Why this would be necessary in a district with nine innovation schools (as many as Boston) which have the same ability to create and use autonomies that the zone schools do would be impossible to understand were it not for the one district: they don't answer to a publicly elected board. 

"School committees come and go; superintendents come and go," said Gabrieli when asked what might preclude the school committee from creating a zone. And thus one wants a "zone" outside the elected and appointed process, so it will continue forward, come what may.

Perhaps there are some to whom that sounds like a good thing; to me, it sounds invented by someone who doesn't understand democratic goverance (and if that sounds ironic from me, imagine that). Local democracy is messy, and thus is harder to control; that was much of the discussion of Jennifer Berkshire and Jack Schneider's conversation last June about school boards. It also continually brings me back to this column on democracy being a two-way street when it comes to schools. 

The local body has to answer to the whole community, even those outside the innovation creation. They have to take questions at public meetings that have to be publicly accessible. 

Local democratic governance isn't perfect--there's a reason why there are, for example, civil rights oversight of districts--but to paraphrase Churchill, it beats the others that have been tried. 

I put a few other things that didn't fit here in this post. 

If you're not at the table, you're on the menu...and guess who is coming to lunch?

First they tried the ballot box, and that failed.
Then they tried the Legislature, and so far, that's stalling (Fingers crossed, of course).
So what do they have left? Private influence.

I speak here of the general notion that it's okay to not have local democratic oversight of one's schools. That was, we know, one of the main two reasons--the other being funding--that Question 2 lost last year.

I've previously on the blog referred to this whole notion as the "zombie" bill, because it will not die, no matter how often it appears to be beaten back.

And now it's coming to Worcester as a "possibility" being presented by the Worcester Education Collaborative "[a]s we head into the next phase our strategic plan work."
You won't find it on their website or their Facebook page, because unless you are among the "leaders of our city’s key sectors," you probably didn't get the email inviting you to a series of lunches now that the strategic plan is out, discussing "novel aspects of the plan or the external factors that may impact bringing it fully to fruition."*

Unless Chris Gabrieli himself is coming to present on how the Empowerment Zone "may impact bringing [the strategic plan] fully to fruition," I'm going go with this being a "novel aspect of the plan" (on which more this week, I promise) even though it is not mentioned anywhere in the plan, unless it's being presented as a "demonstrated best practice regionally" on page 11.

My understanding is that one idea that had been floated during the strategic plan process--but failed--is that of an appointed school committee. As that is the first "novel aspect" that one notes of the Empowerment Zone in Springfield--they do not answer to Springfield's elected school committee--the zombie continues onward.

The Springfield Empowerment Zone currently runs all of Springfield's middle schools and one high school. They have been presented as the Massachusetts poster child of "Third Way Education," the notion that public schools and charter schools can coordinate (which gets some nice debunking here). It's a little odd, though, because the bill that's actually being considered isn't even how Springfield's zone runs, and thus expansion is vehemently opposed (with reason) by the teachers' unions.

The one thing that the Empowerment Zone has had going for it right along, of course, is a stratospheric level of support from Governor Baker and Secretary Peyser, and an unparallel amount of press coverage (no, I'm not going to link. Go Google it if you like.). While one assumes this will not garner local press coverage (as it isn't public) unless carefully selected, meeting with carefully selected "leaders" is of course precisely how one goes about circumventing the democratic--and public--process.

The one thing it hasn't had is any results worth pointing to. Yeah, still.

My fear, of course, is given the Worcester bubble (we don't do a great job of keeping up with things happening elsewhere), this will just sound like a novel idea to Worcester's leaders and they'll be on board.

It's up to us to make sure they know better.

I should perhaps also point out that this goes back to the very concerning opening of the Worcester Education Collaborative, which eight years ago launched by having Paul Grogan come out from the Boston Foundation, who not surprisingly used his time to laud charter schools.

I'll close the same way I closed a blog post on this from last year:

Calling such institutions "empowerment zones" is rather like calling subdivisions "Forest Way," in that it represents what isn't there. The first thing that happens with an empowerment zone, after all, is the school committee votes to surrender its authority to a board elected by, and representing, no one. 

Consider this a warning. As always, you aren't going to see this happen in the suburbs.

__________________
*yeah, me, either. Good sources.

Vote of Board of Elementary and Secondary Education on new Commissioner of Education

The meeting is scheduled to start at 12:30...posting as we go...
Everyone here save Chair Sagan and Secretary Peyser. Isn't that interesting? 
And the Chair is here...

Meeting being called to order at 12:39

Board of Ed for December: Springfield Empowerment Zone

Wulfson: established in 2014 "innovative approach to underperforming schools"
middle schools and one high school
"garnering a lot of interest from educators"

Johnston: receivers coming before you ever month
Springfield "an in-district receivership model"
Board hasn't heard from Springfield in two years; in third year of implementation

Gabrieli, chair of empowerment zone along with co-chairs
"one crisp goal...reach a 50/50 set of goal"

Here’s the first slide summary of results from the Springfield Empowerment zone #MAEdu pic.twitter.com/B3Wkv9ltgH

— Tracy O'Connell Novick (@TracyNovick) December 19, 2017

The Board of Ed meets for December next week

Didn't they just meet? They're early for December due to the holidays.
You can find the agenda here.
After the round of opening remarks, the first report is one from the Springfield Empowerment Zone. I do want to flag here, by the way, that the Zone has now been incorporated into the regular circulation of monthly reports from the receivership districts, 'though Springfield is not a receivership district. The description here, as elsewhere, continues to tap dance past the whole "hey, we took away the local democratic governance model" by sprinkling the words LOCAL AUTONOMY all over it.

In any case...

There will be an update on the Commissioner's search. As a reminder, the deadline to apply is this Friday (December 15); the screening committee meets December 18. They will then do some interviews, meet again in early January to vote to forward finalists to the full Board, who will interview those finalists on January 17 and 18. The Board is expected to vote on January 23, at their regular January meeting. EDITING to add a link to this Ed Week article on state commissioner salaries; our previous commissioner did make less money than a number of our superintendents.

Did you know there's an Accountability and Assistance Advisory Council?

The School and District Accountability and Assistance Advisory Council (AAAC) advises on matters pertaining to the development and implementation of the Commonwealth's School and District Accountability and Assistance system.

Me, either. They're reporting out next week on their work this year. Two things that they weighed in on that I found interesting: they suggested that the state "categorize districts and schools using meaningful descriptors instead of numbers" and they also raised two concerns related to classifying districts as Level 3 due to non-participation in testing.

And speaking of accountability, there is an update on the state's accountability system. Key sentence:

The enactment of ESSA in 2015 and our state's transition to a Next-Generation MCAS assessment have given us the opportunity to rethink the design of our accountability system.

There is as yet no backup (maybe they're going for a big unveiling?), but the highlights the memo does let us know about are as follows:

• The inclusion of additional accountability indicators, which will provide information about school performance and student opportunities beyond test scores; 
• A focus on raising the performance of each school's lowest performing students in addition to the performance of the school as a whole; 
• and The discontinuation of accountability and assistance levels (Levels 1 to 5), which will be replaced with accountability categories that better define the progress that schools are making and the type of support or assistance they may receive from the Department.

So, a big deal (and why I keep complaining on Twitter about people focusing on the level system: WE WON'T HAVE THE SAME SYSTEM ANYMORE.); here's hoping I can keep up with the presentation in the liveblog! 

The Board is voting on the increase in tuition for virtual schools, bringing them out of the school choice amount and into something closer to the foundation budget amount.

And, as promised, the Board is getting an update on the LOOK bill and ELL students in general.

You may also be interested in the Board's letter about FY19, a report on grants, and an update on Commissioner's actions on charter schools.

Joint Committee hearing on start times, recess, innovation zones

The agenda is here, 'though I don't, as yet, know in what order they'll be taking testimony.
The hearing starts at 10. Posting as we go. 
It appears they'll be taking the "zone" bills first. They are H.304 and S.279
Senator Chang-Diaz is calling the joint committee hearing to order. More on the House than the Senate side represented.
"We have a full house today; we anticipate going very long today."

May meeting of the Board of Education: opening remarks

You can find the agenda here. Note that we'll hear from Scituate as part of the opening this morning, as Sciutate High School is hosting today.
Also, interesting note for DESE watchers: the Commissioner is not here today, so Deputy Commissioner Wulfson is sitting in.

Congratulations to Katherine Craven who is home with a new daughter!

Welcome today to Scituate High School.
"flies under the radar, but is doing some exceptionally well things here"

"Conditions of Education in the Commonwealth: Putting Students at the Center of Reform"

The event posting is here. Hashtag is #COE2017

Notes from Holyoke's panel on the foundation budget

As I was on last night's MASC panel in Holyoke, I wasn't able to liveblog or tweet. Here are a few notes on the discussion, however. Either on the panel or represented by staff were Rep. John Velis of Westfield, Rep. Aaron Vega of Holyoke, Rep. Solomon Goldstein-Rose of Amherst, and Senator Eric Lesser (who was represented by Joel McAuliffe). 

On possible changes before the Fair Share amendment: Solomon-Rose has proposed a bill that would close a dividend loophole and bring in $880M a year; the bill specifies half for FBRC and half for charter reimbursement. While it doesn't have good prospects for passage, there are ideas on the table.

On budget and specifically on charter reimbursement: Vega: "Nothing's going to change in the next six months"
"Taking the pros and cons off the table, we're not doing out commitment to charter reimbursement."
Velis: "If we say we're going to do something, we need to do it."

On what gets focused on: Velis: "What are our constituents saying? Hold us accountable."

On what wasn't included in FBRC: This from me. It increases the recognized percent of special education, but still doesn't recognize actual need in special education. Preschool is "recognized" but is not a recommendation. The low income recommendation isn't spelled out, so there's more work to be done on that. FBRC also intentionally did not touch the question of funding; the local/state split is going to have to come up sometime.

On how to handle the tension over need and funding increases: Vega comments that there is a discussion to have no one lose anything, but to have increases in funding to go highest need districts and communities first.

On if Fair Share will pass: Solomon-Rose says it's polling at 70%

On regional transportation: referencing earlier comments on charter reimbursement, Vega echoes that it is a commitment that was made, and they need to be held accountable.

On the increasing amount that health care is taking in the state budget and what options are: Solomon-Rose supports single payer. There is a bill in the Legislature sponsored by Senator Eldridge that would study that and report back. GIC could be opened to everyone, or could be expanded. The state could bulk-purchase drugs.

On the interconnectedness of everything: Lesser's focus on high-speed rail is about making the jobs in Boston connected to the affordable housing in Western Mass. Bringing back families would also support school enrollment.

On Lesser's empowerment zone bill: "We have heard from a lot of you." There will be changes to it; it's a bill. "We want your input on it." Get in touch with your own reps and senators, as "we're open to anything."

Closing words from a Mohawk Regional member: Referencing MassBudget's comparison of city to suburbs, "Why should a child in Newton get more funding that a child in Lynn?"
"We need to organize--and maybe sue--to adequately fund education."

Lack-of-empowerment zones

Over the weekend, you may have caught this laudatory piece from MassLive on Springfield's Empowerment Zone. There was a parallel article in the Globe, so clearly the charm offensive is on. Thus it was no big surprise to see an equally laudatory Globe editorial supporting HD445 and SD1209, the bills that would allow empowerment zones across the state, including zones declared by the state by the Commissioner with only a single Level 4 school.
Did you notice what's missing in this push?
Any evidence of success.
As MassLive noted in June:

Only time and data will tell whether the interventions put in place under the auspices of the Empowerment Zone are working.

We haven't had that yet.
As the Globe article (but not the editorial) notes:

...a turnaround could take years to achieve. Test scores at the zone’s highest-performing middle school are in the bottom 9th percentile statewide, meaning more than 90 percent of other similar schools scored better. The worst-performing school is in the bottom 1st percentile.

We don't know yet that this does anything positive. You can see the first year of results, which were not great, on page 18 and 19 in this report here.
We do have other examples of what works in Massachusetts, but somehow those never make it into bills.

It's important to note that the above bills go beyond what have been touted as "empowering" bills in the past, which would have expanded district power (to redo contracts, for example). The bills would allow the Commissioner to declare an "empowerment zone" in any district that has a single Level 4 school, which could include other schools that aren't underperforming! 

Empowerment zones don't answer to their local communities. They bypass the local school committee and create a quasi-private board to run schools.

I thought we knew that was a bad idea in Massachusetts?

Push for the third way is coming

Today's Scott Lehigh column in the Globe sounded the opening bars of what's clearly going to be a push from the ed reformers: Third Way Ed is back. This is building on the Springfield Empowerment Zone (side note: has anyone seen actual results from that?), which, having now added Commerce High to it, is clearly a preferred option to the Commissioner.

Calling such institutions "empowerment zones" is rather like calling subdivisions "Forest Way," in that it represents what isn't there. The first thing that happens with an empowerment zone, after all, is the school committee votes to surrender its authority to a board elected by, and representing, no one.

Consider this a warning. As always, you aren't going to see this happen in the suburbs.

November Board of Ed in sum

Good news all: the Board of Ed had a livestream this time!
The bad news is they're doing it through a website that requires a log-in, and on a site that doesn't keep the video.
sigh...
This isn't new technology; there are good ways to do this. Let's try harder, please!

The Board of Ed opened with comments from the Chair and the Commissioner. There then was a significant public comment period, largely of parents and community members from the Mattahunt School in Boston, which the Boston School Committee voted earlier this month to close next year in response due to the Commissioner's letter of "concern," presaging a declaration of Level 5/state takeover status. I think it only fair to note that the Mattapan community is largely a community of color, and there were multiple notes of the closings of rounds of schools in communities of color in Boston (as has been true across the country). The district plans to reopen the school as an early childhood center. The testimony was eloquent in the concern over the loss of a neighborhood resource and a space of learning and "home" for children, many of whom have faced significant trauma in their lives already.

The Board voted to send the revised ELA and math standards out for public comment. As yet, how to do that is not posted; I will share once it is.
Likewise, after an extensive discussion, the Board voted to send the revised educator evaluation regulations out of public comment. Note that this would also change the evaluation of administrators, also moving a student impact section into one of the existing standards (standard I for administrators). There is some significant disagreement among the Board members about the evaluation system as it stands, the role of student testing within it, and the relative importance of this. Most are deferring to Roland Fryer regarding the research on this.

The Board then discussed the two schools "of concern," beginning with Commerce High School in Springfield. The Springfield Empowerment Zone voted to add Commerce in October. As MassLive notes in the above linked article,"Schools in the zone are independently governed," and thus are not under the governing of the School Committee. This satisfied the Commissioner, who thus did not recommend that Commerce be declared level 5.

The discussion of the Mattahunt largely centered around the amount of control the Board had at this point, with several comments (including two from the Commissioner) that they didn't want to "second guess the school committee." Two things that were news: the Boston Public Schools administration had internally discussed closing the Mattahunt last summer (it had seemed that this had only been motivated by this latest state action); the proposals put forward by the community to the Boston Public Schools administration were not shared with the Commissioner (to gauge reaction) prior to the vote of the Boston School Committee. The initial discussion concluded with no action taken by the Board; a later comment by member Doherty that he was not satisfied with this led to the Commissioner's agreeing to Chair Sagan's proposal that he would speak with Superintendent Chang of Boston, informing him that the Board had heard impassioned testimony, were pained that the School Committee felt they had no other options than to close the school, and "remain open to what the district has to offer."

The Board briefly discussed their recommendation to the Secretary to inform the Governor's FY18 budget. While they may have discussed the foundation budget review commission in their budget subcommittee, it is mentioned nowhere in their recommendation. Do note, however, their recommendation of a new account for "reform/targeted assistance initiatives...leveraged to improve student learning."

The Board voted to send out for public comment proposed changes in the recovery high school regulations. They approved both amendments to charter schools (adding West Boylston to Parker Essential's region and adding 400 seats to Foxborough Charter).

The Board heard an update on standards setting on MCAS 2.0.
They also had a brief presentation on school discipline data from last year.

Commerce high School: Springfield (Board of Ed)

backup is here

Chester: liked to hear from school district prior to exercising takeover option
Springfield empowerment zone has voted to accept Commerce
Commerce will stay as Level 4; Commerce needs a new turnaround plan

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.

Novick Reports: Third Way in sum

as sent to the Mass Association of School Committees' list-serv earlier today:

This morning, Mass Inc and Empower Schools co-hosted “The Emerging Third Way: Blazing an Optimistic Path Ahead in K-12 Education” at the ICA in Boston. For those on Twitter, the hashtag was #ThirdWayEd. The “Third Way” prior to the event was described as:

• convergence on "best practice" for which they cite school controlled hiring (and cite charter schools) and extended day (likewise, cited charter schools)
• collaborative alignment with charters (for example, a unified enrollment system)
• "empowerment zone" as in Springfield, where the "charter-like" powers were cited as an example

U.S. Secretary of Education John King was the featured speaker, ‘though he spoke at the end, and his comments largely were not connected with the overarching theme.

My liveblog from this morning is here. Margaret Driscoll of Melrose also attended, and her notes from this morning are here.

Most of what was presented is summarized by the bullet points above.

Coming a week after the Springfield Empowerment Zone Project’s presentation at the Board of Education, today’s event, which included everyone from the Commissioner to the Joint Chairs to representation from a myriad of think tanks, and had at least one panel flown in from Denver, did feel as if it were intended to be a presentation of a foregone conclusion.  The charter schools were held up as an example of all best practices spoken of, and the freedom of the empowerment zone (where the oversight lies no longer with the School Committee but with the zone’s board) referenced repeatedly. 

PS: Edushyster was there, as well. And what Ben Forman posted about is not what they talked about on Tuesday. 

Third Way at the ICA

You can follow the Twitter action here. posting as we go once we start
Note that we are sitting in the dark. Panels are not being introduced as "all bios are in the program," which we can't read because we're in the dark...
oh, look! A video! "It isn't us or them...it's us and them"
"about synergy and progress"
"bold steps, away from what always has been done..."
"it's here, and we are living it"
Brett Alessi, Managing Partner, Empower Schools, opening today
"It's not a destination, it's a mindset"
"this work is really hard"
"intersection of policy and politics"
"regulatory entrepreneurship"
Ben Forman, Mass Inc
thanks Chris Gabrieli, at "leading edge of education"
"have always understood that education held the key"
"much higher level of innovation" needed
refers to "one of the most innovative guys out there--Secretary Peyser"
Peyser: compliments Forman on the turnout today
thrilled to be here, important event
"introduction to the public policy dialogue"
"those of you who know me probably think of me as a charter guy...and it's true"
belief that schools not districts are the unit of change
districts, etc "establishing the conditions within which great schools can emerge and thrive"
world class standards and assessments, accessible timely and meaningful data
transparent, predictable and sustainable finance systems
"authority to act with accountability for results"
"it's that last one that proved the most problematic"
"if you can't give me the authority to manage my schools and manage these variables"
command and control leading to compliance
"so far it sounds like I'm making the argument for more charter schools--and I am"
but they are not the only solution
four schools a year "I think we can do better if and when the cap gets lifted in November" and calls for applause
believe that system change has to happen one school at a time
"supplement, not replace charter growth"
replicate the conditions that allow charters to succeed
"need to break out of our present dialectic of districts versus charters"
Gabrieli: let me talk about our sense of urgency
names first way as district schools, second way as charter schools
"now sadly seen in opposition"
"third way emerges as a solution"
"additive and complimentary even synergistic"
Universal service, democratic voice, and...no idea. Orange was hard to read
"convergencing on powerful practices, district-charter alignment, empowerment zone"
"particularly promising scaleable" practice: Springfield, Denver
note that Springfield just happened; there are no results on Springfield
contract specific to zone
"depends on win-win structures"
collaborative and voluntary, builds on best, locally and beyond
promises the results and scale
"we have a lot in common, but we take our own path"

three charter school leaders:
Komel Bhasin from Up Academy in Lawrence: importance of parents, push kids higher up the ladder
"aiming for the same goal, starting in a difference place"
working with newcomers to this country...working with a different population
can't just scale things up
<>could handle five or six on a case-by-case basis, when you have fifty or sixty, need systems
parents don't get to vote with their feet; need to allow them to vote with their mouth
need to have a role in shaping policy
demographics don't necessarily mirror the communities in which we work
"really not speculating about what the needs of our communities are" but ensuring they're actually heard
Anna Breen from KIPP now at Rise Academy in Springfield
sometimes at charter school feel like impact is really limited within the four walls of the building
now need to think about impact on stakeholders throughout the system
great not to have to do it all on her own
resources the system can provide
Nate Higgins, now Bronx Prep Charter, heading to Impact Prep in Springfield: inspired to give back
"it's a lot of work"

Lawrence panel:
"while public policy can make people do things, it cannot make people do things well"
Jeff Riley, receiver : problem is too big for a civil war
"I can assure you that parents don't care; they just want a good school for their kids."
"I hate to break it to you: test scores aren't everything."
"other parts matter"
mirror the suburban experience for our kids; "best way for our children"
Shalimar Quiles "this is personal for me"
product of Lawrence schools, have nieces, nephews, cousins
"how we actually got here
"great teaching, high quality enrichment, school-based decision-making"
subtract the titles and the types
"let's get them ready based on what those models look like"
"adults least connected to our communities have created" have made decisions about schools
student, Lawrence Public Schools:
pretty exciting
I can not only change myself to be a leader, I can change other students to not be a follower and be a leader, and that's what I'm proud of today"
and then she sang, which was lovely
Riley: put the focus on the district schools
put the authority on the schools, parents, students
"I believe in the teachers' union...I think we have to do this together with people"

Denver panel:
David Osborne: closed "over fifty failing schools, opened seventy schools, expanded charters rapidly"
wrote innovation school law
"produced results"
"most of the academic growth has come from charter sector"
I should perhaps point out that he's asserting all of this as good things
"desperation" is why they made the changes
Michael Bennett was district superintendent "embraced charters, began to expand charters"
4/3 school board, "bitter battles and stay with it"
then "raised lots of money" and converted board to 7-0
autonomy and what they had that:
former board member Mary Seawell joined the Gates Foundation
unified enrollment; transportation in zone
"charters as district opportunities"
charters with district boundaries, taking kids in special edthis may be the first mention of special ed today
"take away these false dicotomies...gives opportunities"
Ross Osborne (BPS) speaks of portfolio of options in Boston Public Schools
schools hiring earlier in year now
working closely with the Boston Teachers Union on that
Osborne: thinks we're in the midst of a sixty year transformation of public policy

Springfield panel: moderated by James Morton, Board of Ed
Springfield superintendent Warwick: "okay to steal really good ideas"
invited Gabrieli in to talk about some middle schools
"as a long-time principal, I loved autonomy"
Tim Collins "embraced the idea as well"
Collins: empowering the schools, powering the principals, teachers, and the students
"nothing new" we've been doing this for years
I "have been at this in Springfield for 43 years"
unlike the past years, where the locus of decision making has shifted to DC, Malden
"not a matter of replacing a dictator with a junta"
teacher leadership elected by staff
people doing work should have a voice in leadership
"civil rights issue of our time": foundation budget needs fundamental reconsideration
arts, shop, kids need that spark "that's what we should be all about"
"when we face that poverty, face the opioid epidemic" kids need those experiences and options
"we can accomplish what we want for all the children, not just the charter school children, all the children"
Russell Johnston, DESE: turnaround hasn't been successful in many places
I feel honor-bound to point out that some of those places have been DESE-run turnarounds 
done research at what has been successful
"have discovered a lot of the what"
Springfield zone is "the how"
Warwick was really pleased when Collins came to table
cites Gabrieli brought to table
Collins gave schools serious school improvement grants and then turnaround
"hope we will put resources into Gateway schools" principals
Mike Calvanese, principal in Springfield "full budget and "a plan
when other people are making the decisions for you, easy to push off responsibility
working with teachers, need to have two way system of communication
Zachary Rahn: working to become innovation school
"have to flip the script of what the center service center is"
went department by department" and asked if that's something really needed (that's called zero based budgeting and is best practice for districts; aka, it isn't uncommon or a charter innovation)
Lori Butterfield: principal in Lawrence
primary role as a school leader is help teachers grow and develop
working with their strengths, their weaknesses, and targeting their PD
have expanded their day
more than 100 additional hours of PD; go deep within priorities
"no longer a one-sized fits all model"


Tripp Jones: from Empower Schools asking questions of state leaders in the audience
calls on Commissioner Chester to talk about "how you see this Third Way fitting into your toolbox"who takes this opportunity to comment that he is "not going to comment" on "the unions" not wanting student test data in evaluations
"have every conviction that we can do better by these students"
three districts, four schools under state receivership
goal is to improve education
"enlisted proven providers" included charters
critical elements: time, staffing, collective bargaining
Bentley School in Salem, Dearborn School in Boston "where districts have taken the initiative"
"as the charter debate plays forward this fall...hope we can recruit our high-performing charters want to embrace turnaround assignments"
Senator Chang-Diaz: answer to question is in this room
"here very little about the third way...we hear very little about it on Beacon Hill"
"we just don't have the time and luxury of this civil war"
parents really don't care...just want quality option for their kids
"please do right by both of my children"
"I know it can be done..." Rise Act
Peisch: top priority is to close the achievement gap
"don't think (current climate) has been helpful"
more access to autonomies in Level 4 stage
"bring the discussion back to..what is in the best interest of the students"
Paul Grogan: would guess from press coverage that only thing Boston Foundation cares about is charter schools; lion share of funding goes to district
pilot school chapter in Boston: allowing other options within district
John King, Secretary of Ed he's being interviewed by Gabrieli
principles that drove start of Roxbury Prep drive work this day
having great teachers, making sure they're well supported, well rounded curriculum, strong school culture
everyone in school community feels responsible for school achievement
King: a lot of truth to that thesis
making sure autonomy is real and accountability is real
and democracy is real
King: for kids it doesn't matter if it's a charter school and a district school
showing things are possible
"home was this very unpredictable place...school a place where I could be a kid, when I couldn't be outside of school"
autonomy in curriculum?
King: know that kids who get a well-rounded education are better leaders as a result
reading not just about decoding
also worthy pursuits on their own: how the world works, where they came from, appreciation for beauty..."a well-rounded education is a right, and we have a responsibility to provide that"
reading and math as "essential but not sufficient"
King: broaden definition of educational excellence
what about absenteeism? access to advanced coursework?
build beyond that to other indicators of college and career readiness
how states respond to chronic underperformance: states could be more innovative
create a dual language school
King: lots of reasons to be optimistic; high school graduation rate; reduction in drop out of black and Latino students, more in college investment in early childhood ed
bipartisan education law
MA still has 30-40 point achievement gap...that's a gap we have to close
And that was it!