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

To read this week

•  Don't miss the Wall Street Journal's coverage of the crazy world of high school sports in Florida, which lifted bans on student transfers. Education figures nowhere in that at all. (That's a gift link.)
  
  

• I love a good "isn't this neat?" story, and that UMass Med brought in Worcester high school students for a science fair in which the high school students were the judges is very fun! 

• NPR had a piece this morning on a team of three teenaged boys in the "World Series of Birding" which was a nice look at teenaged enthusiasm in a wonderful way.

• A growing number of school districts are opening parking lots for families who are unhoused to stay in.
  Best summary? 
  

  “Parking lots are a terrible option, but there are options that are worse,” said Jennifer Erb-Downward, director of housing stability programs and policy initiatives for Poverty Solutions, a University of Michigan project to promote economic mobility.

These are on the way to South Station in Boston. Aren't they nice?

Top six "wait, WHAT?" moments at Tuesday's Board of Ed

 The things that had me ranting on the way home, in chronological order:

1. Member Mary Ann Stewart AGAIN this month asking questions of a public commenter about an item not on the agenda, in this case on something on which a formal complaint has been filed against the Department, and persisting in doing so despite Chair Katherine Craven telling her not to.
   
   
2. Craven not ruling her out of order for doing so.
   
   
3. Our all learning together that MGL Ch. 15, sec. 1E does not specify "public secondary" schools for the Statewide Student Advisory Council, and so the voting student member of the Board of Ed next year is a student at a private school which is not subject to the Board's oversight.
   
   
4. Vice Chair Matt Hills asking if "from a policy perspective...not a moral perspective" if it didn't make more sense to concentrate the newcomer homeless students in districts that already serve such students, rather than districts that historically have not.
   h/t again to Chief Schools Officer Komal Bhasin for responding "with respect, our policies are influenced by our values" and to Acting Commissioner Russell Johnston for repeating and expanding on the sentiment when Hills persisted.
   
   
5. Member Marty West asking, yet again, if there isn't some way that the Board could direct districts in how they're spending their ESSER funding (yes, the funding that was directed by School Committee vote YEARS ago at this point).
   h/t to CFO Bill Bell patiently, again, explaining that the funding already had been directed and DESE had approved those plans.
   
   
6. Chair Craven responding that, if the Board couldn't do that, perhaps they could direct 3% of each district's Title I funding, as allowed under federal law?
   h/t to Acting Commissioner Johnston for observing that any such plan would have to be discussed with stakeholders, including superintendents who would now have only 97% of their expected Title I funding to direct.
   

Yesterday was haywire. Expect a coming post reviewing when everyone's terms are up!

The Board of Ed meets more than once this week

And if you thought their special Monday meeting to receive a report might be on the Racial Imbalance Advisory Council's report, which came out last week, you'd be wrong! No, Tom Kane has another report out on "education recovery"--he has a scorecard!--so they're having a special meeting. 
Gosh, it's going to be amazing when pet projects of individual Board members don't set agenda items. Also, it would be really smart if we had people OTHER THAN ECONOMISTS talking about the impact of the pandemic on kids.

Anyway, that's at 5 PM today, only online.

Tomorrow, the Board has their usual monthly meeting in Everett with a livestream at 9 AM. On the agenda (most without backups at this time): 

• an update on the Commissioner's search
• the end of year report from the State Student Advisory Council
• an update on DESE's educational vision (there's a link on newly arrived homeless students)
• an FY25 update

You're on your own for tonight, but I'll be liveblogging tomorrow. 

EDIT: I missed one: The Board of Elementary and Secondary Education meets jointly with the Board of Higher Education on Thursday at 3, in an entirely virtual meeting. That agenda includes a presentation on research of K-12 and higher ed, as well as discussions of early college and the FAFSA. 

Some things to read this last week of May

I tend to share most of my "here read this" stuff on Twitter* but for those who might find another location more congenial:

• While I am very much not in the habit of recommending retirement system pieces this Wall Street Journal (gift link!) on the Plymouth County Retirement System, which is outperforming systems many times their size, was interesting, and it's a public pension system, so, related.
  
  
• A federal judge struck down New Hampshire's version of a "divisive concepts" law. " The judge went so far as to call some elements of law 'fatally flawed.'"
  
  
• Google itself has found that most image-based misinformation online is now AI-based, and the way they conducted the research suggests the problem is even worse than they have found.
  
  
• Significant piece in Houston Landing that Texas districts were suspending homeless students, contrary to state law, and no one was doing anything about it.
  
  
• Over the weekend, the New York Times ran a searchable map on gun violence, which you may find useful (gift link).

___________________________________________________

*it's Twitter. It will always be Twitter. Surrender already, dude.

But wait, there's more!

I feel as if I am back in the days when I started this blog, when there'd be the single article about the School Committee meeting, and anything else that happened, you didn't hear about. While admittedly both voting to move to fully in-house transportation and voting to start a national search for a new superintendent are news of the headline making sort, there are other things that happened at our meetings in the past two weeks. 

Here's a rundown on the highlights:

Over the past number of weeks, we've ratified contractual agreements with EAW units A&B (that's anyone classified as a teacher plus assistant principals and the like); drivers and monitors; custodians; computer technicians; 52 week administrative secretaries;  and educational secretaries. In every case, those contracts brought them at least up to date as of the close this past fiscal year OR brought them up through the end of this one (this last is the case with the teachers). As a result, the School Committee this past week voted an increase for the non-represented (non union) employees, which is everyone from administrators to crossing guards. 
I can't talk out of turn on the units that are outstanding save to say that negotiations are ongoing. 

We had an update on the dual language program at the August 26 meeting, which, among other things, noted that the state assessing our dual language learners only in English doesn't accurately assess their actual knowledge and skill in subject matters. We asked to be apprised of which districts are running dual language programs, so we might work with them on advocacy, though this obviously is larger than the dual language program.

While the report out on the August 18 Finance and Operations subcommittee meeting attracted attention largely due to the recommendation to move fully to in-house transportation, I don't want to overlook the closing of the fiscal year. Worcester had, remember, a $372M budget for FY21, after we cut $16M once we finally got a state budget. For municipal districts, anything that isn't spent--down literally to the penny--goes back to the municipality to be certified as free cash for the end of the year. That is a difficult and complex process. 
And how much did the Worcester Public Schools give back this year?

$3. 

Thus, if a dollar went to the Worcester Public Schools for education last year, that's what it was spent on. 

And so when folks ask "how can you have confidence in the projections for transportation?" the answer is this: when you have a finance office that has been doing this (and the associated budget transfers) and the back and forth with RTTT and grants that disappear during budget seasons and all the other swings that we've seen over the past more than a decade, and yet year after year, these are the results, you trust your people and their work.

At our August 26 meeting, on Mr. Monfredo's motions, we voted to send mandating vaccinations of our employees to executive sessions to take up as part of negotiations. I'd note that the EAW leadership has already been public on their agreement with this, so it's largely a matter of working out the how and when. There are negotiations going on now regarding bargaining around issues related to back to school. 

Several of us have received concerns about how lunch is being eaten in this return to school in the pandemic time, so I had filed an item at the August 26 meeting, urging outdoor as possible and creativity everywhere. While some schools are doing some very neat things, I've continued to get heightened concerns from families around what looks a lot like regular operations at some schools, however. 

I had also filed at the August 26 meeting a request for the list of outstanding contracts the superintendent has with employees; that is, the employees whose contracts are not collectively bargained but are directly with the superintendent. We have a number of them that are expired for a year or more. That report was due back at our meeting on September 2, but we did not receive it. 

At our August 26 meeting, Ms. Clancey filed an item regarding the concerns the neighborhood around Lincoln Street School has had with community homelessness impact on the school. We heard something of an update at the meeting of attendance at the community meeting regarding this, as well as work going forward. 

At our September 2 meeting, Ms. McCullough filed an item regarding parking for students at Doherty during construction, which there are a few things going on with.

Also at our September 2 meeting, the Committee on a 6-1 (Biancheria opposing) vote agreed to send a letter to our delegation requesting that the state Department of Public Health mandate COVID-19 vaccinations for students as it is permissible, and, if that does not happen, request that the Legislature do so.

We also asked the administration to look into the recently released update that districts may provide remote education to students who are ill or quarantining due to COVID. We were told, however, that the Department recently said that they'd bar districts from using remote learning for snow days. 

Next meeting of the Committee is September 23 (moved from September 16, which is Yom Kippur). 

Education hearing on remote learning

Video is online here

The Legislature’s Education Committee is holding an oversight hearing at 11 today on remote learning and K-12 schools during COVID-19. (I’ll be tuned in, may sit on the floor of my living room to recreate the hearing experience.) Here’s the agenda. #mapoli pic.twitter.com/dA41YeqFDa

— Katie Lannan (@katielannan) May 13, 2020

Chairs Senator Jason Lewis and Rep. Alice Peisch at the State House (and masked); all others participating remotely
Peisch opens: oversight hearing: to inform the committee, the Legislature, the broader public
to inform work on rest of year and next
note difficulty of situation we are; "no roadmap on how to handle this"
thanks teachers, parents, and staff "who have been patiently educating Massachusetts's students" since schools closed
Lewis: thanks colleagues, invited panelists
since mid-March, "audacious experiment in remote learning"
acknowledge efforts and struggles in making change "literally overnight"
"we know it has not been easy"
daughter who is a junior has faced a variety of challenges
laptop, internet, quiet space, two parents home, speaks English as her first language
"many, if not most of our students, do not enjoy these benefits"
have an obligation to provide an education for our students, nonetheless
"we must ensure equitable access to high quality remote learning" to all students

Schooling at home and equity: readings

The pieces on this are coming out so fast and furious that one can barely keep up, but here's a round-up of some of what I've been reading:

This piece from Teen Vogue (you didn't notice their groundbreaking work these past years?) on how online schooling is worsening race and class divides

A look from Chalkbeat on how the Great Recession worsened things for U.S. schools and how it possible will do the same again

This article looking at how online schooling is particularly a challenge for families who don't speak English in the New York Times

Chalkbeat (who are particularly doing good work during all of this) looking at what schools have been more than educational institutions for homeless students

How for high school seniors with disabilities, this closure is like "walking off a cliff" in the Boston Globe

Worcester School Committee "Community and Schools Forum" at Worcester State

I'm blogging tonight from the "Community and Schools Forum" at Worcester State University tonight. It's co-sponsored by the Latino Education Institute, Adelante, CENTRO, Southeast Asian Coalition, and African Community Education. This is a good one, because Worcester is a majority children of color system; the stats for last year are: 

Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity (2016-17)
Race	% of District	% of State
African American	15.4	8.9
Asian	7.4	6.7
Hispanic	41.8	19.4
Native American	0.2	0.2
White	31.1	61.3
Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander	0.0	0.1
Multi-Race, Non-Hispanic	4.1	3.4

Worcester has--and will continue to have, regardless of the results of the November election--an entirely white school committee.

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."

RISE and shine!

This morning the Senate committee released the RISE Act (S.2203). The acronym (and nice job on this) is for An Act Enhancing Reform, Innovation, and Success in Education" per the Senate press release (which is a good bulleted summary). You can find MASC's response here.
So what's in it?
A lot, to be perfectly honest.

First (to focus on essentials) there is a charter cap lift in the bill. The lowest 10% performing communities (same as now) have a lift in the amount of spending on charters of up to 0.5% of net school spending per fiscal year, starting in 2019, up to a maximum of 23%.
HOWEVER (and this is a BIG however), that only happens if the state, in 2019-2025 fully funds the recommendations of the Foundation Budget Review Commission, and, in 2026 and thereafter, fully funds what they're now calling "district mitigation" (charter reimbursement). If that doesn't happen, the cap can only go up by the percentage funded.
The bill also puts no cap on Horace Mann and innovation schools (both of which are district-run) BUT those may be counted towards the percentage of spending of the cap lift (so a district could exceed 23% or lesser percentages in previous years IF the spending was on Horace Mann and/or innovation schools).
The bill also puts no cap on schools that primarily serves at risk populations (75% of enrollment).

District mitigation payments are reformulated at 100%, 50%, 25% (right now it's 100%, 25%, 25%, 25%, 25%, though the last few tend to be irrelevant as they generally aren't actually funded).

What else?

The Board of Ed is reformulated to have one of the Governor's appointees be required to be a retired teacher, jointly recommended by AFT and MTA; currently, teachers are barred from serving on the Board of Ed. It also drops the phrase barring a Board member from serving "as a member of any school committee," thus reversing that ban ('though they can't be paid by a district and serve on the Board of Ed). Those currently in office are to complete their terms.

It requires the Secretary of Administration and Finance to jointly with the Joint Ways and Means Committee create an implementation schedule for the Foundation Budget Review Commission recommendations. It specifically calls out:

...tuitioned-out special education rate, assumed in-school special education enrollment, low-income increment, low-income enrollment, foundation benefits, retired employee health insurance and English language learner increment...

...as the categories to be covered (note: those were the recommendations, but not everything mentioned; early childhood ed, inflation, as well as the question over if "assumed" was right for special ed aren't in here). It sets in place a seven year implementation schedule, to be equally implemented each year; in determining the schedule:

the secretary of administration and finance and house and senate committees on ways and means shall hold a public hearing and receive testimony from the commissioner of elementary and secondary education and other interested parties. The schedule may be amended by agreement of the senate and house ways and means committees in any of the 7 fiscal years to reflect changes in enrollment, inflation, student populations, or other factors that would affect the remaining costs in the schedule; provided, however, that the final year of the schedule shall not surpass fiscal year 2025, but the schedule may be fully implemented prior to fiscal year 2025.

In other words, yes, you get some wiggle room, but you don't get to kick the can down the road forever, and we're not taking excuses.

It is, however, as all such things are, "subject to appropriation."

The definition of "foundation benefits" is updated to include retiree benefits (which it hasn't).

In terms of implementation of the Foundation Budget Review Commission:

• The benefits rate is set by "average group insurance commission premium for all plans for the 3 previous fiscal years" (so the three year GIC rate);
• Health insurance now includes retirees in the calculation.
• The ELL rate is set at $2,361 for 2019 and is expanded to include vocational students.
• The low income rate is for students whose families are at or below 185% of the federal poverty level. Districts are divided into septiles (there's a new word to me!); the starting rate is set at $3,474 "and each subsequent septile shall increase by equal amounts up to the highest percentage septile rate of $8,179" which is to be annually adjusted for inflation.
• The in-district special ed rate is raised to 4% overall and 5% of vocational students.
• The out-of-district special ed rate is set at "4 times the statewide foundation budget per-pupil 434 amount less the sum of the statewide foundation budget per-pupil amount and out-of-district special education cost rate" (which is what the FBRC recommended).

DESE is required to "develop target percentages and standards for administrative costs."

If a student transfers into a different school during the school year, or has had substantial interruption in their schooling in the previous three years, their test scores don't count towards the school.

The bill expands those things required of Level 4 schools to Commissioner-designated Level 3 schools (the lowest performing 20%); the Board of Ed is charged with creating regulations regarding such a declaration of a "priority" school, taking:

...into account multiple indicators of school quality in making such designations, including, but not limited to: student attendance rates, dismissal rates and exclusion rates, promotion rates, graduation rates or the lack of demonstrated significant improvement for at least 2 consecutive years in core academic subjects, either in the aggregate or among subgroups of students, including designations based on special education, low-income, English language proficiency, and racial or ethnic classifications.

The teachers' union and school committee must then negotiate a waiver agreement (subject to approval of 2/3rds of those working at least 50% of their time at the school; if they can't come to agreement, the Commissioner can simply declare the school underperforming (Level 4)). The superintendent then convenes a turnaround stakeholder group. The turnaround plan then goes to the school committee for approval, as well as to the teachers' union for approval. If it doesn't get approved, the Commissioner can declare the school underperforming (Level 4). The plan goes to the Commissioner but is not subject to his approval. The "priority" designation is for two years, at which point it is reviewed by the Commissioner. (There's also a bunch of language which makes ch. 69 include "priority" schools, as well as "underperforming" (Level 4) and "chronically underperforming" (Level 5).)

It provides for regional school district planning boards and specifically allows for cities to be part of them. And there's a lot of language on this and I don't know why, so if anyone wants to clue me in, I'd appreciate it.

For the purposes of school discipline regulations, "a commonwealth charter school shall be considered a school district." They thus are held accountable for all portions of the law, including the revisions to chapter 222. They must post their policies pertaining to conduct on their websites. Charter schools thus must provide for alternative education for students suspended or expelled. Charter schools specifically must: 

...establish a panel consisting of 3 members of the board of trustees to hear appeals of disciplinary actions taken by the charter school, 1 of whom shall be the representative of the district school committee and 2 other members who shall be appointed by the chairperson of the board of trustees. Unless otherwise provided in this section, the panel shall have the same rights and responsibilities as a superintendent in hearing appeals and issuing final decisions.

...which brings us to the changes for charter schools. Their board of trustees are required to have at least one full-time teacher at the school, at least one representative of the sending district's school committee, at least two (or 25%, whichever is greater) parent or guardian of current students at the school, and high schools must have a current student member, all of whom are to be voting members of the board. Members of the Board of Trustees and their families may not materially benefit from the school (save the teacher may be paid). The same change is made for Horace Mann charters.

Charter school teachers must be evaluated as public school teachers are. They also shall if unionized acrue seniority and receive compensation equal to with that received by district teachers. Charter school teachers are to be certified by July 1, 2019, and charters must file plans about their progress towards making that happen.

Charter schools may not expand or create new schools if their suspension rate overall or for subgroups exceeds that of sending districts for the previous three years. This does not, however, apply to the alternative charters (we're getting there) and it may be waived for a subgroup if the gap is small and the Board of Ed feels they're making an effort.

Applicants for new charter schools have to meet with the superintendent of the district before applying, and they must explain how their program will compliment the district. They also must hold a joint hearing with the district school committee. Not doing so automatically disqualifies them from applying.

As part of the application process, the "superintendent may submit an analysis to the department that describes how approval of the proposed charter school may affect the district’s students," AND the Commissioner is REQUIRED to:

...explain in writing to the board that the commissioner’s decision is responsive to the district superintendent’s submission and provide an assessment of the accuracy of the analysis of the impact on the programs and services of the sending school district or districts...

Further, the Board of Ed is required to "substantially consider" materials submitted by the district in their decision on charters and:

When making a decision on an application, the board shall explain in writing how the decision takes into account the district superintendent’s submission under subsection (h) regarding how the school’s approval is expected to impact the district’s students.

It appears that the Senate believes that falls under the Board's purview.

Charter schools can only be created, renewed, expanded, or amended if they have an opt-out lottery system of some kind. This may (Bostonians, please note both the verb and the stress on it) be a unified enrollment system with the district, 'though if that is the case, the charter may only enroll students from the single district, may not displace district options in choices, and students cannot be compelled to attend a charter school. Charters that already exist may phase it in. All students eligible for enrollment are entered in the lottery ('though parents and guardians may opt their children out); those pulled may also choose not to enter the school. The charter will also create a waitlist through the lottery, from which it will backfill students into seats that open during the year for all grade levels; if the waitlist is exhausted, the charter is to conduct a new lottery.
Charter schools may offer priority enrollment to  at-risk students, students who are homeless, students who are pregnant or parenting or students who have dropped out of school.
Districts that rent space to charters can require that students in that district be given preferential enrollment, though (here and throughout) the low income percentages must be at least those of the sending district.
Charters may also preferentially enroll the children of their employees.

Charter schools are to update their waitlists monthly. They must include names and addresses, and they must include those taken off the list (either through enrollment or by request). Waitlists annually expire on July 1. Waitlists will be maintained separately for Horace Mann and Commonwealth charters; they will be available publicly (without student identifying information) on the DESE website.

Contracts and leases, partnerships, grants, and gifts must be posted on the charter school website.
No charter management organization may "exercise a proprietary claim" on practices at a charter school.
Charter schools may not charge tuition or fees. They may not require a contract be signed by parents or guardians.
DESE is charged with creating a charter and district exchange program, including the exchange of employees to share best practices.
Districts continue to provide transportation IF they and the charter agree on start times. If not, the charter school has to cover 50% of the cost. What if the district is just given a bill?
Limitations that districts put on busing also cover district charter schools; if there's transportation for specialized district programming, the charters are covered.
Districts also must provide charters with field trip transportation equal to the average field trip transportation for the prior three years provided by the district to their schools (easy in districts where we've long since stopped providing field trip transportation).

Attrition, stability, and suspensions, including those of subgroups, must reflect those of the sending district for the previous three years; there is again a provision for a waiver if it's a small gap and "the charter school has made a rigorous effort to maintain all of its students."

Charter schools are to publish an annual report, including a financial report. The department is to create regulations regarding the net asset balance of charter schools. That is all to be on the charter school's website as well.

The Commissioner is charged with collecting attrition and stability data annually and making it publicly available.

DESE has until January 1, 2017 to revise its regulations.

DESE is to make recommendations regarding the revision of definition of low income by January 1, 2017.

There is to be a charter school funding commission with a report due January 1, 2017.

There is to be a commission on school start times with a report due December 31, 2016.

The State Auditor is required to issue a report on the first five years of the changes in chapter 222. It's to be filed with the Civil Rights division of the AG's office, among others, and is due December 31, 2019. 

MASC delegates assembly

A quick summary of the actions at the MASC Delegates Assembly today (you can download our manual, which has the full text of all proposed resolutions, here)

• Resolution 1, to work for a comprehensive study on high school start times, passed.
• Resolution 2, to prioritize an agenda for support and services for children in poverty, passed.
• Resolution 3, to determine where a child's test score counts by where they are on October 1, passed.
• A "sense of the assembly" supporting a moratorium on high-stakes testing, passed 66 to 42.
• Resolution 4, to support an equitable and sustainable placement program for homeless students, passed.
• Resolution 5, to support a tax reform ballot initiative (not cited by name), failed on a counted vote.
• Resolution 6, to call for a school committee seat on the Board of Ed, passed, as did a call for an end to the MGL that bars school committee members or district employees from serving.
• Resolution 7, to call for an end of the use of TS Gold student assessment, passed.

The amendments to the bylaws passed unanimously.

Patrick Murphy of Barnstable was elected President-elect.

Beverly Hugo of Framingham was elected Vice President

Devin Sheehan of Holyoke was elected Secretary-Treasurer

...and Jake Oliveira of Ludlow becomes President in January by virtue of his election to President-elect last November.

Worcester School Committee meets TOMORROW!

The Worcester School Committee has a rare TUESDAY meeting tomorrow night at 7 pm. It is preceded by our annual school choice hearing at 6:45; you can find the meeting agenda here.
 The school choice hearing is something we are required to do annually. Each year, the Worcester School Committee has to vote on if we will allow students to choose to come to Worcester from out of town (we must allow our students to go to other districts; we can decide if we wish to take those from elsewhere.) Generally, we do, on a space available basis. The hearing is to allow any member of the public to speak on this issue prior to our vote.
There is no report of the Superintendent.
The EAW wishes to enter negotiations regarding the new requirement that all of our employees be fingerprinted so as to be screened by the national database, something which Massachusetts was the only remaining state to fail to do.
We have the reporting out of Teaching, Learning, and Student Supports; my notes on that meeting are here.
We have a few personnel items reporting out from Administration.
We have a report on state funding remaining for North High School through MSBA.
We have a report on the number of art and music teachers and the number of study halls by high school.
We have congratulations to pass along to our DECA students and to the Burncoat robotics team!
We're having a budget hearing!
We're sending the audit reports off to F&O (as we do each year).
Rep. O'Day's bill on homeless students  is before us for consideration.
Miss Biancheria is asking for a report on dropouts and one on the collaboration with the youth opportunities office.
I'm doing my annual request for a report on the demographics and MCAS scores of Worcester's charter schools.
I've also asked that we ensure that our student reps are elected (per student request, incidentally).
And I'm asking for the number and percentage of students that opted out of the March PARCC pilot with a similar report requested for the June pilot.
Mr. Monfredo is asking for MASC's legal opinion on the ongoing grant administration issue with the city.
He's also asking for a report on "the successes" of the AVID program.
Administration asks that we elect our representative and alternate to the MASC conference in November (h/t to Dr. Friel, who I believe is making sure we get the early bird rate on this!).
Mr. O'Connell is filing an item on the Norrback and Roosevelt dual language program.
Mr. Monfredo deserves congratulations for receiving the Ubuntu award from ACE!
We're being asked to recognize the good work of Professor Wagner's classes at Chandler Magnet and of Working for Worcester citywide.
We're sending our annual, required, school lunch price increase off to subcommittee (this would be an increase for the 2014-15 school year).
And we have an executive session at 6, discussing a grievance and negotiations with the instructional assistants.

Clothing needed for Andy's Attic

Have you found some pairs of mittens that don't fit this year? Some outgrown boots that have lots of life left in them? Andy's Attic over at South High could use them.

Andy's Attic is in particular need of winter coats, winter boots, sneakers, hats, mittens, gloves, belts, backpacks, men's sweatpants, pajama bottoms, new socks, new underwear, baby clothing and fleece jackets. Donations can be dropped off at the high school, 170 Apricot St., or on Sundays at Worcester Community Church of Christ, which meets at Temple Emanuel Sinai at 280 May St. Student Aaron Maday, a junior, is a member there and can help bring them to school.

For more information on how to donate to Andy's Attic, call South High at (508) 799-3325 or contact Ms. Foley at Christine@foleymail.com. The group accepts money in addition to clothes.

I'm told that they are particularly in need of children's clothes of all sizes.
And thanks for your generosity!
 ____________________________________________________
Also, speaking of needs, please do take the time to read the first chapter of this New York Times series looking at one child's experience with homelessness. 

Comments to Secretary Reville at the FY14 hearing

On Thursday afternoon, Massachusetts Secretary of Education Paul Reville was at Worcester State for a hearing on the FY14 (that's next year) state budget. I was thrilled to see members of other school committees there!
Secretary Reville was interested not only in how money should be allocated, but in suggestions we had for saving money. My points were as follows:

• The Board of Education continues to create new charter schools, while the Legislature continues to level fund charter school reimbursement.This year, the gap between what Worcester is promised in funding and is actually receiving is a half a million dollars. A freeze on new charter schools until and unless this is resolved would not only save the state money, it would stop this bill from continuing to come due at the local level. I also mentioned that I had now brought this up with both branches of government involved. We'll see if that makes any difference.
• Having the state Legislature actually follow the foundation formula, instead of "finding" extra money for particular (and not high-need) districts, would save money. Last year's "extra" $30 per pupil could have funded (just to pick one example) the charter reimbursement.
• Unfunded mandates remind a problem: the push towards the new PARCC assessment will require a vast expansion of technology, and, while the Commissioner was hopeful that MSBA would pay for it, Executive Director McCarthy was more dubious. The McKinney-Vento required transportation for homeless students is a well-intended requirement, but it costs the Worcester Public Schools $530,000 last year (and was just cut for FY13). 
• The falling off of Level 4 school funding will be happening soon. The Secretary spoke of "building district capacity to sustain support for underperforming schools," but how has district capacity been "built"? Are they not simply expecting local districts to pick up the expanded costs of these particular schools, thus forcing us to make sacrifices at our other schools, some of which are narrowly avoiding Level 4 status themselves?
• While the state does require, by both Mass General Law and regulation, a particular level of funding for schools, so long as communities remain at 95% of that or higher, all that happens is the issuing of a polite letter from DESE. Worcester has thus learned, apparently, that there are no real consequences (besides public and political embarrassment) to their failure to comply. Some real backing from the state in real consequences for continued (and intentional) non-compliance would be appreciated.

First look at HWM budget for Worcester FY13

We're still awaiting a cherry sheet from DESE, but in the meantime, we've received this evening the following information from Mr. Allen (emphasis mine):

The House Ways and Means (HWM) budget was released today.  According to the state budget documents, our Chapter 70 state aid is the same amount that was included in the Governor’s budget in January at $210,364,137.   It is interesting to note that the HWM budget includes a $40 per pupil “minimum aid” to ensure that all communities receive some increase in Chapter 70.  There is no additional funds for Worcester resulting from this “minimum aid”.  The budget also provides funds to some communities to reduce their local contribution target share down to the statutory cap of 82.5% in accordance with changes made in 2007.  Again, this funding does not provide increases for Worcester.

Sunday wrap-up

A few things I didn't get to post this week:

• Boston's pulling of pink slime made the New York Times. I've now been sent notice of so many supermarkets dropping it that I've lost track.
• GoLocalWorcester did a "we found some people who have an opinion but no information about homeless students in Worcester" post. While I don't usually out reporters calling me and then not doing anything with it, this time, I am going to say: I told you to call and get numbers. You should have called and gotten numbers. And some working knowledge of how this works.
• The editorial board of the T&G did their bimonthly (or so) "charter schools will save us all" editorial, which means it's time once again to point out that they did so without pointing out that their editor's wife works for a charter school. Journalism 101, guys. (And see Jim Gonyea for more on this.)
• The Atlanta Journal-Constitution did a massive look at test scores in cities across the country (not Worcester) and pulled out the ones with suspicious gains.
• CPPAC is having a Parent Expo next Saturday at Clark and you should go!

Compass Survey presentation

This morning, the Compass project presents the results of the 2011 survey on youth homelessness at 9 am at North High.

TLSS:homelessness

draft press release on homelessness on working with other community agencies
Biancheria: approximately 2200 students
I'm going to mention again that we count, as required, all students in foster or community care as homeless students.
working on a community effort

Standing committee today

The standing committee on Teaching, Learning, and Student Supports meets today at 5:30 in the administration building. There are three items on the agenda: homeless students, status of cheerleading, and curriculum review. There is a chance, I am told, that foreign travel may also be taken up; it depends on the City Solicitor's schedule.
Hoping to manage a liveblog!