Student discipline data: Board of Ed

slight uptick from last year
non-drug non-violent non-criminal is 52.3% of discipline types
highest proportion grades 7-12
1% in K, up to 3% in 4
grade 9 has highest with 16.8% of suspensions
7.9% of students in Commissioner's districts were suspended; 8.7% of charter schools; 7.6% of regional vo-tech; and 4.3% of students in all schools
cross district conversations between and among districts with higher rates
next: template for an action plan; due in two parts: winter for steps this year, this summer for outcomes plus plans for upcoming year
presentation to Commissioner around next steps
districts that were identified in June to participate in professional learning network; one phone call and one gathering
all had to submit a plan
discussion of big picture: what is impacting students on not getting into classrooms (includes absenteeism)
Chester cites district that was using suspension the most on kids who skipped class
Peyser: do we track services provided to those on out-of-school suspensions or expulsions?
Yes, broad categories
Stewart would like to see other resources considered by other districts; mindfulness work
Morton: illegal substances, other services needed for those students
likewise sexual assault
what kinds of services are being provided to those students?

May Board of Ed: TL/DR

Too Long/Didn't Read
as sent out to MASC members earlier today

While only the Commissioner spoke during the opening comment period, there were a few things that I’d call to your attention. The Commissioner mentioned the work around the teacher certification system, calling attention to this article from WBUR this morning (which, as it is based off of Secretary Peyser’s remarks a few weeks ago, heads the state in a very different direction on this). He gave an update on the state’s work on gathering feedback, as they are charged to, around the state’s new plans under the federal ESEA renewal (ESSA). Thus far for most, that largely involves what is discussed here, largely the survey. Finally, he announced that next month he will be announcing a cohort of schools with high suspension rates overall (or rates out of line within their demographics) for a working group to lower those suspension and expulsion rates.

The main presentation was on the Springfield Empowerment Zone. For those not familiar, this is a hybrid of a state receivership situation, involving the state, the school district, the city, and several partners, including charter school providers. Springfield has not been declared Level 5; this focuses specifically on nine middle schools, all of which were Level 4. It was clear from the presentation that Commissioner Chester thinks very positively of this development, and Secretary Peyser was pursuing questions around long-term plans and possible expansion.

The other big topic covered today was an update on the testing. Currently, 70% of districts are taking the PARCC; 30% are taking the MCAS. The state reports minimal issues with the online testing this year (‘though they note that there are many fewer districts doing the testing online this year), and they report no increase in test refusal. Much else was largely a summary from Chair Sagan of yesterday’s assessment subcommittee meeting. At this time, there have been two bids received, one from Measured Progress and one from American Institutes for Research. Deputy Commissioner Wulfson noted that both branches of the legislature level-funded the assessment line item; he remarked that the funding “is not going to be sufficient to do everything we want it to in a high quality way.” There was an exchange regarding the intellectual property question (following the online release of some of the questions and the resulting takedown notices from PARCC); the answer appears to be “it depends,” as some of the information was developed under the federal funding from Race to the Top, while some was developed under contract directly with the states (and what is under whose intellectual property at this time depends). Going forward, this will be part of the state’s contract with PARCC.

The Board received updates on Holyoke and Southbridge.

There was a presentation of some student survey data from the state student advisory council (which unfortunately did not have the backup available), which is to be developed further.

The Board had a fairly brief update on the state budget (the Senate is deliberating now).

Finally, they announced the dates for next year’s meetings.

As always, errors are mine and questions are welcome! 

May Board of Education meeting: opening comments

The agenda for today can be found here. 
We're at the Pioneer Charter School of Science 

Chester: Mass Teacher of the Year announced
"very celebratory, very energizing"
Chester speaks of poem at the session: "contrast between thinking that you're active and participating because you're on social media" versus real participation 
civics and literacy conference
early literacy conference
annual spring convening
discussion of educator preparation (as covered by WBUR this morning): "a kind of provoking discussion"
under new federal law (ESSA) each state must submit a plan to US DoE
in process of gathering feedback from a range of stakeholders
Sagan: that's due in a year? What's the process? What is the Board's role?
Chester: we will keep the Board updated, "give you a chance to react to emerging ideas"
will bring a report in the fall
Stewart: is the listening just through the link? or taking place across the state?
Chester: "this is an overview of the plan, we can get your more specifics"
I'm interupting the liveblog here to give a few notes on a handout that was only available at the meeting itself: The state sees this work around assessment in three phases, to wit:

1. listening (April to June): asking questions of "our stakeholder community" about purpose and design of the state's accountability and assistance system
2. modeling (June to September): developing specific proposals based on this feedback
3. proposing (September to December): sharing draft proposals and further refining and improving

During this listening phase, the state has available the online feedback form, plus are "developing a master list of over 100 stakeholder groups that may which to be part of discussions; holding series of focus groups within those groups; participating in meetings and presentations with organizations that might like to provide more detailed feedback; and gathering formal input from those within the governance structure of the state.

Chester: I anticipate sometime in early to mid June, going to identify a cohort of schools in the Commonwealth that we will be working with "in a problem solving mode" who have high rates of suspension or outliers in who is suspended
this is based on first year of data
"work with the schools in a constructive, problem-solving way"
Sagan: presume there will be a lot of press focus on that when it comes out
Chester: we're anticipating the same thing
"my message will be...it's concerning to see a school that's using suspension/expulsion at disparate rates...need to better understand why that's happening..not jump to conclusions"
"very much a problem solving approach"
No comments from the Secretary, no public comments today

March meeting of the Board of Ed: opening comments

Posting this morning from the March Board of Ed meeting, which begins at 8:30. The agenda is here.  Starting as usual with opening comments from the Chair, Commissioner, Secretary, and the public.
Updates as we go once we start

Sagan: the Commissioner has a lot of updates
Chester: introducing Southbridge receiver, Jessica Huizenga, assistant superintendent Cambridge
Huizenga: all kids deserve an equitable education, somehow has been lost in Southbridge
personal as her mother came here speaking no English, many kids like that in Southbridge
Willyard: appreciate a face rather than a logo being receiver

Discipline policy

Boone: sent out in advance of the agenda
consultation from the City Solicitor, as well
as a result of Legislative action as it relates to suspension and expulsion
Rodrigues: two specific areas that needed to be refurbished: Code of Conduct, and Due Process
to be sure we didn't have any conflicting messages
 Novick: refer whatever is passed to Governance for ongoing community conversation
request quarterly reports to Governance from administration on implimentation
update to language for next year based on experiences
concerns around timeline and process, due to state timelines
PreK-grade 3 suspension should not be happening at all
O'Connell: does not want to make changes:

• of eliminating "zero tolerance" language; believes this has legal implications; concern with federal civil rights statute
• Rule 9:excessive tardiness (which administration has recommended eliminating)
• Rule 10: repeated violations (which administration has recommended eliminating)

Boone: ahead of the curve since 2009, we can maintain "zero tolerance" for certain behavior, we cannot have a one-size-fits all policy. "It is the veil of zero tolerance that has gotten us to this point of overuse of suspension." School Committee has heard previously of students put into court pipeline through "disruption of school assembly" charges. Every charge must be investigated fully individually.

Rodrigues: removal of zero tolerance language is consistent with guidance from US DoE and DoJ. "continued process of this in our handbook may open us up to litigation"

class missed two or more times (or late two or more times) must notify parents per attendance policy now

Ramirez: thank for putting a lot of thought into this in a quick manner

happy to see language from zero tolerance being changed

concern with using "obey" rather than "follow" rules of conduct

extremely happy to see excessive tardiness being taken out; students walk a long distance to get to school

concerns that we may not have answers yet: Gateway City, have many languages, need translation services

what are the options for education (for students suspended)?

Boone: concern on translators has been discussed with principals; shortened time frame challenge, as well

ongoing education: opportunities in place, as we are a larger district, will provide to school committee, both in and out of district

Rodrigues: once a student is suspended for ten consecutive days or more, then alternative education deployed then; through collaboratives, in district, and tutoring

Biancheria: great deal of information here, twelve additional questions, at least here

questions, principals have questions

"the law is the law is the law, and we have to work with it, but let's get it to standing committee"

Foley: support motion to send it to Governance, an awful lot of work to be done here

reflect on the fact that we have reduce our suspensions

"embrance what Mr. Robarge said today about reflecting on these issues"

take a look at the languages and our policies

let's not leave the vague language in there that has caused some of the problems in there

Monfredo: only the first step, has to be the first step

don't want to leave it to the end of the year to make changes

O'Connell: don't want to make changes tonight, but make that part of consideration at subcommittee

vote on O'Connell's motion to retain language on zero tolerance and rules FAILS

vote to approve, as well as send then to Governance PASSES
motion to suspend the rules to reconsider PASSES; reconsideration FAILS
aka: we're going with what was recommended

Worcester School Committee meets Thursday, August 21 at 4 pm!

Last summer meeting this year! You can find the agenda here.
First up is the first round of the usual summer retirements, resignations, leaves, transfers, and hires.
We have the results of the annual teacher survey, which is coming in as the report of the Superintendent.
We have a report on the average class size at the secondary level (along with the number of teachers carrying more than 125 students).
As I mentioned earlier, we have several proposed changes to the student disciplinary policy, in response to state changes in regulation. Ms. Biancheria also has sought an answer to what change this makes in School Committee involvement in discipline.
Mr. Foley is publicizing the events of September 6, honoring the 1774 events in Worcester.
Worcester Tech is being given $5000 for their robotics team, for School Committe to receive.
Mr. Monfredo is looking for summer school test results.
He's also asking for an update on the Comprehensive Community Responsibility Framework.
Mr. O'Connell recognizes the 2014 Master Mechanic Award, going to Worcester Tech this fall.
We have the innovation plans for:

• Chandler Magnet
• Goddard Scholars
• Goddard School
• University Park Campus
• Woodland Academy

They are up for three year approval by the School Committee.

Ms. Biancheria would like a report on A.P. classes.

She'd also like information on  internships.

Mr. O'Connell is asking about computer coding classes being offered.

We're also being asked to approve a prior year payment totalling $1988.32. 

We will have an executive session AFTER the meeting, to get an update on negotiations with our nurses.

Proposed discipline policy changes

At next week's meeting, the Worcester School Committee will be considering a proposed series of changes to the discipline policies in the student handbook. This is in response to the new regulations from the state.
Note: contrary to what GoLocal reported today, these are proposed changes; there are no changes until they're voted by the School Committee. 
I've only done a preliminary review, but I'm uneasy about a number of the changes proposed (quite aside from what's necessary due to the change in regulation), as it doesn't appear to me that we're really tackling what the point of the regulations changes were.
You can find the letter with the legal overview here. The code of conduct (with proposed changes) is here. The legal policies are here.
While they are not policy changes, we also have been notified of a number of new letters and forms: notice of disciplinary charges to parent/guardian;  notice of in-school suspension; notice of short-term suspension; notice of long-term suspension; emergency temporary removal letter; and notice to the superintendent (from a principal) of the intent to suspend a pre-kindergarten to third grade student.
Please take a look at them and let us know what you think.
As always, you can get me at novickt (at) worc.k12.ma.us or all of us at SchoolCommittee (at) worc.k12.ma.us. Alternatively, the meeting at which this will be discussed is at 4pm Thursday, August 21 at City Hall. 

Apples to apples

When you're comparing data points, it's important to make sure the categories are actually parallel. Thus I was troubled yesterday at the forum on out-of-school suspension by a chart comparing Worcester's out-of-school suspension rate with other districts.
The Worcester Public Schools do not expel students. We haven't for years. The most harsh punishment we met out is a long term out-of-school suspension (for, say, a year or half a year) with alternative placement (meaning that the student is placed in one of the alternative programs).
Thus our out-of-school suspension rate is equivalent to expulsions PLUS out-of-school suspensions for the districts that do expel students, like Boston.
That comparison wasn't made yesterday, nor in today's headline.
______________________________________
None of which is to say, incidentally, that we don't have problem. The percentage of students that are out-of-school suspended is skewed off from the makeup of the student body; Latino boys are most often suspended, entirely out of proportion to their percentage of the student body. The number of students in the younger grades--that we even have students being suspended in the younger grades!--is definitely a problem.
There have been conversations in the past about this. They haven't gone anywhere. You'll be hearing more.