Connected? Reporting this week from Boston

 At 4 PM last Friday, October 2, State House News Service sent an article entitled as follows: 

Headline reads "Ads critical of Boston Public Schools removed from T"

NBC 10 picked up the article, which you can read here. 

Saturday's edition of the Boston Globe included this column from Adrian Walker, headlined "Dark Money comes for the Boston Public Schools," in which he attempted to chase down who it was that was funding the new "Next Chapter Boston" and their $1.5M ad buy. 

This then spun over the weekend into accusations of who could possibly have made the call to pull the ads, cries of censorship, and no movement towards any discovery of who was funding the ads that would have followed Boston secondary school students on their way to school each morning. 

Should we ever get to the bottom of who funded the ads, it is, as Walker notes: 

People who suddenly pour big money into something like that aren’t just trying to “raise awareness” — whatever that really means. They are trying to influence public policy. And the public has a right to know who they are, and what they really want.

The website, for what it's worth, offers a sign-up and a letter calling for "measurable, public goals" in clear language alongside an explanation of how the budget is being used for "evidence-based instructional practices and curriculum in all subjects."
And maybe that's it. But I think that's a lot of advertising for that.

My guess as to what they want is this: I don't think it is a coincidence that these ads went up the same week that the U.S. Treasury released the rules on the federal voucher program. Massachusetts, as has been noted this week, is neither in nor out; Governor Healey had said she was awaiting the rules to decide. Her response last week was:

 “Well, you know, what I understand is that Treasury has released temporary regulations. I don’t know what that means. So, you know, what I’ve said from the beginning is this, and I’ll continue to say, we need to make sure that nothing harms public education.”

Having the local public transit scream that the largest public school system in the state was failing its students would give an extra push to any riding who might have influence on Beacon Hill as Healey is continuing to decide. 

As others, including Marketplace, have noted, it is private education that is most likely to benefit from these programs. And when we talk about private education (especially in a place like Massachusetts), we tend to think of college prep schools with brick buildings on leafy campuses. For states that already have vouchers, though, that isn't what you should think about. You should think about a few reporters at the local brew pub coming one fire inspection away from approval as a private school, as ProPublica reported this week, in a piece in which they applied to create of a private school in North Carolina, Arkansas, and West Virginia.

And even as it isn't that easy in Massachusetts, where private schools have to be approved by their local school committee, within a limited purview, the chance to use federal funds (the dollars here would have been federal tax dollars) for non-public, non-publicly-allocated and -accountable uses is deeply concerning.

And possibly was worth $1.5M in advertising. 

Here comes Alpha Schools in Massachusetts

 The Boston School Committee this week approved the opening of an Alpha School in Boston. I think those comments quoted are of note: 

The approval was largely a formality. Under state law, the committee had to evaluate whether Alpha met the basic requirements for a school in Massachusetts, though the board has no supervisory role over private schools.

Superintendent Mary Skipper called those state requirements “fundamentals” that don’t guarantee that a proposed private school will succeed.

“I can say that what lies on paper, and what actually it takes [to] make it successful, are very different things,” Skipper said.

Board members also criticized the state evaluation process because it takes resources from Boston’s public school system.

“We are basically approving competitors at a time when resources are short and parents have needs and the needs are great,” said Jeri Robinson, the committee’s chairperson.

Don't think Boston will be the end of it; my understanding is that they have also applied to open in at least Lexington.  

Things to read this week: happy May

Every decision about a school is one that *someone* cared enough to make.
I am always grateful for those who chose to ensure there are springtime flowers.
I took a second outside of a policy meeting in Millis this week to enjoy this tree,
which also smelled amazing.

I have a load of tabs open of things I'd suggest you read--so many are technology in schools, that I will work to give that its own post here!--so here's a round-up:

Liberty of the truth

Statue of Mary Barrett Dyer by Sylvia Shaw Judson
in front of the Massachusetts State House. The quote on the base reads, 
 “My life not availeth me in comparison to the liberty of the truth.”
Dyer was hanged in 1660 on Boston Common not far from where her statue sits today.

In the midst of the flurry of news surrounding the Diocese of Worcester ending the Worcester Public Schools' lease of the former St. Stephen's Elementary, where La Familia currently is, a reporter asked me if I thought it was due to the district's continuing to teach comprehensive health education in the building, something we know the diocese did not wish to have happen ('though it was not, of course, actually barred by the terms of the lease). 

One can't say, of course, what internal calculations the Chancery made before exercising the clause in the lease that allows them to end it early. I do want to note, again, though, that it raises a very grave question regarding the lease the now-approved Worcester Cultural Academy Charter School has with the diocese.
That lease--currently a lease between Old Sturbridge Village itself and the Diocese--we're told contains the following clause:

Neither Lessee nor any of its employees, servants, agents or invitees shall make any use of the [building] which would be inconsistent with the doctrines or teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, as determined by the Roman Catholic Bishop of Worcester in his ecclesiastical capacity of Ordinary of the Diocese of Worcester in his sole discretion.

It's worth noting how very particular this language is: it does not put what happens in that building under Roman Catholic canon law, or under Roman Catholic teaching as overseen by the Vatican. This is particular to the Bishop as ordinary of the Worcester diocese. 

OSV (and dual charter school) Executive Director Jim Donahue at the time this was made public said:

Once the school is approved, we will review the terms with the Diocese once more to ensure they are acceptable to them and to us.

I would say it is now fair to speculate as to what would be "acceptable" to the Diocese, given their decision of last week.

That this wasn't of graver concern to the Department in their approval process (despite it being brought to their attention) displays a disturbing lack of understanding of the current context of the separation of church and state when it comes to public schools.

Last year's Carson v. Maine Supreme Court decision, rested on the question of the use of vouchers--which are public education dollars--going to religious schools. Maine had barred that; SCOTUS found that this was discrimination. But as many (including me) noted at the time, this opened the question of religious charter schools. In fact, that is where the Oklahoma Attorney General went. 

While Article 103 of the Massachusetts State Constitution bars state funding:

for the purpose of founding, maintaining or aiding any infirmary, hospital, institution, primary or secondary school, or charitable or religious undertaking which is not publicly owned and under the exclusive control, order and supervision of public officers or public agents authorized by the Commonwealth or federal authority or both

which makes us a non-voucher state, the state allowing a charter to operate only "under the doctrines and teachings of the Roman Catholic church" as determined by the local bishop would certainly seem to open a door some are eager to, even as it is barred by the state constitution.

The Pilot piece quoted above was quick to tag the Massachusetts provision as part of the Know Nothing efforts of the Blaine amendment era, but also notes that the separation of church and state goes back farther than that in Massachusetts. And it should, with good reason. 

The Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution is often said to stem from a reaction to the legacy of religious wars in Europe. But here in Massachusetts, we have a legacy much closer to us on the dangers of state making provision for religion. 

I opened this post with a photo of the statue of Mary Dyer that sits next to the public entrance of the Massachusetts State House. Dyer was hanged by the Massachusetts Bay Colony on Boston Common in 1660 due to her preaching, after continually being warned not to, the Quaker faith. 
She did not adhere to the state faith. And she was killed by the state for it.
By our state, Massachusetts. 

November Board of Ed: later blog

 Duty called elsewhere on Tuesday, and thus, you get this much later

The agenda is here; the livestream is here.

Periodic liveblog of the Worcester School Committee meeting

on minutes, including the executive session minutes, as Petty moves to a voice vote, Comparetto objects to the level of detail included, said he had asked about this, and says he hopes they will do better moving forward
the minutes pass as is

new principals are here to be introduced; Comparetto asks why there no longer is a public process; Superintendent says that there was (if there was, the parents weren't informed of it); she also lists why the acting principals are acting principals; in one case, it is a request of the person, in others time

on the Chief Diversity Officer position, the Mayor takes the floor: "a number of school districts are doing this, across the Commonwealth and across the country...and I think people are watching...that's why this has to be done right"
individual report to superintendent, housed in the HR office
"my suggestion is you take out" the requirement for building-based administration, "or maybe move it to preference"
"maybe do this as you do this like principals...just go through the process"
"somehow get the community involved"
NAACP and the Latino community...have some sort of inclusion, diversity, and advisory committee
O'Connell suggests "desired qualifications...to expand the pool of candidates"
"doing that did bring in a good pool of candidates...this is a suggestion for the superintendent to take into account"
suggests adding a paragraph on recruitment
"she can adopt it or not as she sees fit"
Foley: what is the purpose of this job "if you had to summerize in a sentence or two"
Binienda: "purpose is to recruit and retain...particularly teachers and administrators of color"
Foley: intent to make Title IX coordinator?
Binienda: no, Pezzella is Title IX coordinator
HR: "understanding the importance of welcomeness, the importance of tolerance, "the importance of greeting everyone" with welcome will be part of job
Foley: on the front end, rather than processing complaints and going through the process
would concur that "recent building experience [being required]...may not get the pool you want to have...I think it would expand the pool that way" to drop it
"I'm not sure I'd call it a Chief Diversity Officer...I don't see quite the systemic move to change" of that position
this is a recruitment and retention specialist
Comparetto: "did I hear it right that Pezzella is coordinator of Title IX?"
Binienda: yes, he has been trained by legal
Comparetto: Title IX was a follow-up to the civil rights, seems as though someone in that position should have relevant experience
Q: when will this be posted?
HR: if the SC approves the posting tonight, typically posting on Friday
Petty: pay range? based on experience?
it's budgeted for $120K

O'Connell asks that the report from the students regarding teaching diversity be forwarded to them prior to the recognition, noting that it was not
"if it does concern any...practices...we should be moving on" that we could do so
Petty says "let's set the date, anyway"

to a lengthy back and forth that seemed to be based on approval of private schools being not something Miss Biancheria was familiar with (it seemed?), you might read DESE's guidance and also the Worcester Public Schools' policy LBC.

Worcester School Committee meets Thursday

Remember, the budget session starts at 4 pm. The School Committee received an update of the recommended account sequence, which notes the changes made thus far.
They've got...most of the budget to get through. Past practice is they roll through budget until 6, recess to executive session, come back at 7 for the regular session, and then finish the budget as needed. There is not, however, a posted executive session, so maybe they'll just keep rolling with budget. Though it isn't on the posted agenda on the school website, there is an executive session on the city website: negotiations with aides and monitors, and a clarification and accretion petition from the EAW on large bus drivers (these clarify who is or is not in a bargaining unit...perhaps this is in relation to possible changes in who runs transportation?).
The regular agenda can be found online here.
I did some tweeting over the weekend on the agenda, if you want a short version.

Worcester School Committee meets Thursday, November 20

There is a regular meeting of the Worcester School Committee this Thursday at 7 pm. You can find the agenda here.
After a couple of recognitions, the report of the superintendent is actually the report of the school committee this week: Superintendent Boone's annual evaluation. We had to get our individual evaluations in by Friday; Mayor Petty is charged with compiling them into a single joint document. If you're curious, the form we're required by state regs to fill out is here. I imagine we'll have a flurry of document posting close to the meeting itself; I've set mine to post once the meeting is starting.
Also on the agenda: the report out of the Teaching, Learning, and Student Support meeting on the math curriculum. This should include a revised contract with the clause allowing a termination after one year for any reason.
We have some personnel items, including the retirement of June Eressy, who has served in a number of roles in the district, most recently as principal of Chandler Elementary. Best wishes, June!
The various items from last time, filed by Miss Biancheria, held due to absence at the meeting, because of her mother's illness, are up this week.
We're being asked to approve the private Center for Applied Behavioral Instruction (yes, this is under our purview. New private schools? Yes. New charter schools? No.).
I'm asking that administration share with us the communcation they intend to send to parents who refuse the PARCC or MCAS for their children, as well as the process that they intend to follow with those students.
I'm sending the homework policy off to Governance (we haven't looked at in awhile).
We've had some generous donations to Andy's Attic, for which we are thankful.
We're being asked to approve a $5000 grant for Columbus Park.
We're being asked to approve a $1000 grant for the Books for Babies program.
Mr. O'Connell is asking that we recognize the recent donation of muscial equipment to Worcester East Middle school.
We're being asked to approve a donation of $294.76 from the Kiducation fund.

And we'll have an executive session at 6 pm to discuss two contract negotiations and a lawsuit.

NPR on Romney and vouchers

NPR had a piece this morning discussing Governor Romney's support of vouchers as well as a campaign in which everyone loves "school choice." The point Rick Hess makes on vouchers is important:

Hess says that even if all of those federal dollars come in a backpack with the kid, it would amount to about $2,500 to $3,000 per child. He argues that's just not enough money to entice good schools, especially in the suburbs, to take low-income kids from struggling, inner-city schools.

Nor, of course, is that even close to tuition at a private school.
This is part of a larger national "school choice" push. Usually, that is code for vouchers, 'though this presidential administration has been using it for charter schools. In either case, it represents a fundamental reworking of what we're doing when we publicly fund education.
A democracy necessitates an educated citizenry. If everyone gets a say in who runs things, everyone needs to be able to have some understanding of basic science, economics, history, and so forth, and of course, everyone needs a measure of basic literacy. In order to continue to have a democracy, you need to continue to educate the next generation.
What you are doing is creating your next generation of voters.
(This is partly why, by the way, the discussions over science get so heated. If we educate the next generation on what we're actually doing to the Earth's climate, they may decide to do something about it.)
Thus we all have an interest in the education of children, and so we are all responsible for funding it. At the same time, however, we have a measure of oversight of that education. That's why we elect school boards (as well as representatives and senators and governors). The curriculum they are learning, as well as the circumstances in which they learn it, matters to all of us, whether we have children at all or children in public education.
If you give the public funds away to private schools or to charter schools, you are giving to entities that do not have public accountability. Public accountability isn't just "we can close you if your test scores are lousy." It means your budget books are open. It means your hiring processes are in line with state and federal laws (no exceptions). It means your curriculum is open to public debate and process.
None of which is true for these other systems.
We as Americans have a fundamental interest in the education of the next generation. School choice, when used this way, prevents us from pursuing that interest and maintaining responsibility for the continuation of democracy.
There's no reason for this to be in conflict with parents pursuing what is best for their child. We need, however, not to lose sight of the reason for which we have a public education system in the first place.

Huge NY Times report on public givebacks to private education

Here.

“A very small percentage of that money will be set aside for a needs-based scholarship fund,” Wyatt Bozeman, an administrator at the school near Atlanta, said during an informational session. “The rest of the money will be channeled to the family that raised it.”

A handout circulated at the meeting instructed families to donate, qualify for a tax credit and then apply for a scholarship for their own children, many of whom were already attending the school.

Well worth reading.

Obedience and negotiation

Really interesting article in the New York Times over the weekend on Catholic teachers negotiating a new contract. It's a whole different universe when the management with whom you're negotiating is one to which you profess a measure of obedience.