It's a two meeting week for the Board of Ed

 As a reminder: the Board has a special meeting tonight (Monday) at 5 PM virtually, specifically on the recently released graduation report. 

They have their regular June meeting tomorrow at 9 AM (yes, both agendas are a single page) in Everett. That agenda includes the end of the school year things--the Mitchell Chester award, the end of year report from the student rep from the State Student Advisory Council--along with some end of year informational reports (off agenda) including both the chronically underperforming schools report, and the non-operating school districts report (my personal favorite Massachusetts education trivia question!). 

There is also a report on civics education (you might remember this was a request of the chair at the last meeting) and a report on the operating conditions of Pioneer Valley Chinese Immersion Charter School, who the Commissioner is recommending being released from their current conditions but:

 While I recommend that the Board remove the current conditions, concerns remain about the board’s governance practices, such as an Open Meeting Law violation and other deficiencies in complying with the Open Meeting Law; inconsistent implementation of the board’s review and approval processes; and, based on review of board and committee meeting minutes and observations of board meetings, indications that board trainings have not led to improved governance practices or a clearer understanding of the role and responsibilities of the governing body. 

This is pretty interesting, as (as you would see if you searched their history on this blog), PVCICS has had what I'd call a storied history when it comes to their relationship with the state that charters them. Among other interchanges, they're the only example I remember of Paul Sagan, when he was chair, being utterly exasperated by something publicly, when they applied over the head of the Commissioner for an expansion that had been refused by the Commissioner. I would say that they have a culture of going their own way, so to speak. Speaking so directly to their governance is interesting. 

There are also two rounds of regulations up for vote: special education (which is aligning regulations with state and federal law) and interpretation and translation. I did a brief thread on my own comment on the proposed regs yesterday on Bluesky, but I do recommend reading the public comment summary overall. 

I won't be on for tonight's meeting, but I'll be posting tomorrow from Everett. 

Do they read all the comments? Yes! There's mine.

December 2025 Board of Elementary and Secondary Education: opening comments

 The agenda is here. The meeting will be livestreamed here.

I'm doing this one remotely so I can switch over to the consensus revenue hearing at noon. Updating as we go...

Public comment:

Jodie Alencar: adult education learner, speaking of his experience learning English as an immigrant from Brazil
"I am one of the faces of adult education in Massachusetts"

October Board of Ed: accountability update

 on underperforming and chronically underperforming schools

THREE SCHOOLS COMING OUT OF SUCH STATUS TODAY; ONE DISTRICT

Let's talk about this charter school application for Worcester

The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education this year is considering a single application for a new charter school, and it's in Worcester. You can find the application online thanks to the MTA (not on DESE, as would, you know, actually make sense); the notification the Department gives is that the application is in, and they'll be holding a hearing, as required by MGL Ch. 71, sec. 89(h) here in Worcester:

4:00–6:00 p.m. on Friday, December 9 

the Hebert Auditorium, Surprenant Building, Quinsigamond Community College

You can also email your comments to charterschools@doe.mass.edu by January 4.

First, an overview of charter schools in Massachusetts, in case this is a new conversation for you:

Now, if you're brand new to charter schools entirely, let me recommend this piece from John Oliver from 2016, keeping in mind that a) it's from six years ago and b) it's a national look:

One thing that often is touted in Massachusetts is that all charter schools under MGL Ch. 71, sec. 89, are chartered by the state: applications go to the Commissioner for consideration, who then recommends (or doesn't) charters to the Board of Ed, who then awards (or doesn't) the charter. A parallel process is followed for renewals. While this means we have dodged some of what has happened in other states, let me note that Massachusetts isn't immune to some of the issues other states have seen; the ongoing issues, dating back at least a decade, of Mystic Valley Charter (up for renewal in February, incidentally) is probably the extreme, but please note that Worcester did have a charter that collapsed in October (!) of 2013 for exactly the financial reasons the Worcester Public Schools said in public testimony were going to happen when the state first considered it in 2010. (Search "Spirit of Knowledge" in the sidebar if you'd like the whole history of that.) 

The part that will always stay with me about that experience is attending a meeting in the Mayor's office with parents of students at Spirit of Knowledge who were begging the Worcester School Committee to do something, anything, to improve their children's experiences, and being entirely powerless, as charter schools answer only to the Board of Ed. My testimony before the Board of Ed on that experience is here; I also testified before the Joint Committee on Education in 2015 about that experience, calling for local authorization, if funding that impacts local districts is being used.

And that is how charter schools are funded in Massachusetts: the foundation budget amount of each student that attends the charter school PLUS $1088 for facilities (increased due to the Student Opportunity Act) PLUS any amount over foundation that the district spends (calculated as a percentage) comes straight the Chapter 70 state aid of the district in which the student lives. If you like playing with spreadsheets, you can download the projected FY23 district by district amounts here.

That spreadsheet also includes the calculation of what is most often misunderstood about charter school tuition: there is a transition amount. When a student, for example, leaves a district school for a charter school, for the first year, 100% of the amount of state aid being transferred comes also as reimbursement to the district; this tapers to 25% for the following three years. This was fully funded for the first time ever this past year (also thanks to the Student Opportunity Act). Note that it is the INCREASE, not the ongoing cost, that is reimbursed, and only for the transition.
The argument has been that this gives the district time to make the adjustments needed to their budget due to the loss of that individual student. Given a moment of thought, however, the inapplicability of this argument becomes clear: a district doesn't lose an entire third grade class, and so can cut a teacher to save that cost. A district loses a few students here and there across grade spans, and generally there is no "savings" at all.
And a charter school in a town or city is granted by the state district-funded transportation for all in-town or city students at the same status as the district's own. Thus the charter's existence itself increases a district cost, with no benefit to district students. You can see how much this costs on a per pupil basis on this spreadsheet; for Worcester last year, it was $2771 per student, or $5.7M.

Also, possibly a discussion for another time, I continue to wonder about the constitutionality of charter schools at all in Massachusetts, given the outlines of the dismissal in 2016 of Doe v. Peyser; in particular, as I quoted in that earlier blog post: 

The education clause "obligates the Commonwealth to educate all its children." [McDuffV. 415 Mass. at 617]. This obligation does not mean that Plaintiffs have the constitutional right to choose a particular flavor of education, whether it be a trade school, a sports academy, an arts school, or a charter school. Even if the court were to deny the instant motion, thereby allowing substantial discovery to follow, Plaintiffs' action will always be addressed to the question of whether the Commonwealth is obliged to provide more of one flavor of education than another. This decision - how to allocate public education choices amongst the multitude of possible types - is best left to those elected to make those choices to be carried out by those educated and experienced to do so.

A bit about where we are with the state process:

As noted on the MTA's Policy Minute, initially there had been three applications for new charters in Massachusetts. That link also covers the proposed expansion of current charter schools. Two things that could maybe be relevant here:

• the Pioneer Valley Chinese Immersion group was not invited to apply for their proposed central Mass twin school (My personal opinion is that could be due to their continually turning up at Board of Ed meetings to try to get them to overrule the Commissioner on pretty basic stuff around their enrollment, but that's based on nothing other than attending Board of Ed meetings).
  
  
• Old Sturbridge Village Charter, which is the same administrative oversight proposing the new school in Worcester, was not moved forward for their proposed expansion into high school. 

Expansions and additions are governed by the state law on charter school spending: up to 9% of a district's required spending can be pulled out by charter schools, with up to 18% being pulled out of the lowest 10% of districts. This is the charter school "cap" which the state overwhelmingly voted to retain by rejecting question 2 in 2016. 

Because I will share this map any chance I have to: a look at exactly how unpopular lifting the charter cap was, courtesy of WBUR

Much like everything else, this list lowest 10% list, which is based on MCAS scores, was impacted by the pandemic, and so it has been frozen for 2021, 2022, and 2023 with the ratings of based on 2018 and 2019 MCAS scores.
And yes, Worcester is on that list, just. We had moved off the lowest performing list (download them and check!) for a number of years, but the 2020 list dropped us back into that group. This was never discussed at the district level; the previous administration never really did much sharing of the state accountability information, let actual reacting to it.
And that is the group that is now frozen.
We would have space under the charter cap, in any case, as 9% of Worcester net school spending does not go to charter schools, thankfully.

What's the deal with Old Sturbridge Village and charter schools?

The charter being proposed in Worcester essentially is a sibling to the Old Sturbridge Village Charter School in Sturbridge, which opened in 2017, after being rejected the previous year. It has 320 students in grades K-8. For FY22, it pulled $4.8M out of the districts of Brimfield, Brookfield, Holland, Monson, North Brookfield, Palmer, Southbridge, Spencer-East Brookfield, Sturbridge, Tantasqua, Wales, and Webster, though $1.8M of that came from Southbridge alone, where close to half the student body comes from. Southbridge is one of the three districts deemed chronically underperforming by the state. It has been under state receivership since 2016.
The dates being the same as when OSV first applied to open a charter school is in no way a coincidence. The state law is constructed such that this sapping of resources of the districts that are often only minimally funded and most need every dollar to do better is incentivized under the argument of giving families, essentially, an escape hatch, as the state has thrown up its hands (at least until recently) around actually doing its job in ensuring the constitutional requirement for a fully-funded education for each student is met.

As a side note, there is no evidence that state takeover of school districts in Massachusetts has been effective. 

It's also not a coincidence that it's Old Sturbridge Village that has been, I believe, the first and only museum to take advantage of the provision that allows for a charter to be filed jointly by (MGL Ch. 71, sec. 89(d)) "a college, university, museum or other similar non-profit entity," given who the President and CEO of OSV--who also serves as Executive Director of OSV Charter and who also is proposed to serve as Executive Director of the Worcester expansion--has been since 2007: Jim Donahue. 

Donahue, as this profile in Worcester Business Journal from 2011 notes, came on as OSV's President at at time when it wasn't entirely clear that OSV was going to make it. That changed under Donahue. Donahue's background, though, is not from the museum world: he's a charter school director.

Donahue was the director of Highlander Charter School in Providence, Rhode Island. Donahue also recently ran for City Council in Cranston, RI (there were three seats open and he came in fourth), as well as serving as co-chair of Allen Fung's campaign for the Second Congressional district in Congress (both men are Republicans; Fung lost to Magaziner).

In both the case of OSV Charter and the proposed Worcester school, Donahue serves as Executive Director under a management agreement with Old Sturbridge Village; he is appointed to that position by the OSV board. The proposed management agreement for the Worcester school, which is 28 pages long and is included starting on page 278 of the application, looks to these non-lawyer eyes like it is pretty difficult for the charter school to ever get out of; look at what "termination" spells out, starting on page 297.
The agreement states that OSV will be responsible for:

• Providing general business operations
• Providing leadership and management support to School Leaders as necessary to achieve goals as outlined in the Accountability Plan and mission and vision of the Charter;
• Preparing entitlement grant applications and reporting;
•  Recruiting School Leaders, teachers, and other administrators; using best practices for attracting a qualified, talented and diverse faculty and staff, and ensuring compliance with the provisions of MGL c. 71, §38G;
• Training and coaching of the School Leaders by the Executive Director;
• Preparing the evaluation of the Principal for the Board’s review and approval;
• Preparing a budget and monthly financial statements for the Board’s review and approval;
• Providing payroll and accounting services;
• Assisting with the selection of an independent auditor to be retained by the Board;
• Coordinating and implementing contracts with prior Board approval, consistent with the School’s policies and procedures;
• Preparing selection of benefits plans for Board approval for employees of the School governed by the Board;
• Assisting with the maintenance of human resource files for employees of the School to the extent permitted under State and federal law;
• Facilitating the purchase and procurement of all required School materials, equipment and services consistent with the School’s Fiscal Policies and Procedures and in accordance with all applicable Massachusetts statutes and regulations. An employee of OSV will be designated as procurement officer and such person will attain a Massachusetts Certified Public Purchasing Official (MCPPO) certification. OSV will ensure that at least one School employee will attain the MCPPO certification;
• Assisting School Leaders with the preparation of drafts of required government reports, including, but not limited to the annual report of the School for review and final approval by the Board;
• Administration of transportation services contract for students
• Facilitating student recruitment through community based outreach, parent information sessions, direct mail, social media, and person to person conversation. Facilitating fundraising through the identification and submission of grants proposals;
• Providing marketing and advocacy for the School under the direction of the Board;
• Administration and oversight of food services for students;
• Oversight of procurement of custodial, supplies and equipment for leased school facilities;
• Providing resources to support School goals related to Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Access (DEIA); and
• Information technology support for staff and students including but not limited to; network and communications and set-up and support for all staff and student computer devices

All of that is spelled out in greater detail in the pages that follow in the management agreement. 
There are two things to note on this: the first is that the oversight of the school remains pretty firmly under OSV: the Executive Director is to provide "training and coaching" of the principal; the principal's evaluation is to be prepared by OSV. The second is that all of the finance and operations functions are done by OSV; from the minutes of the current school, one can infer that this will be led by Tina Krasnecky, Vice President of Finance and Human Resources. 

The opening discussion outlines the relationship as follows (p. 83):

Because the accountability of the Management Organization is essential to the foundation of this partnership, and because the responsibilities of the Principal are critical to the success of WCACPS, the Board of Trustees will delegate to the Management Organization the authority and responsibility, consistent with state law, to make recommendations for recruiting, hiring, evaluating and terminating the Principal. Actions regarding the Principal must be approved by the Board. The Management Organization will provide the leadership of the Executive Director who is responsible in assisting the Board in holding the Principal accountable for managing the school’s day-to-day operations and will hold them accountable for meeting established goals that ensure the success of WCACPS.

For all of this, the school will pay OSV $12,500 per month until June of next year, and then 7% of all tuition payments once the school is operational. As the budget projects tuition being $3.3M for the first year, rising to $6.7M in year five of operation, that's a fee of $233,955 rising to $470,531 over the term of the charter.

(The budget starts on page 236. Don't worry; we'll get there.)

Now this made me curious as to how this has been working for the current school at Old Sturbridge Village. As the school doesn't post their budget online, the state doesn't publish spending broken out by account code for charter schools (which would only do us so much good, anyway), and the school doesn't include an annual budget or financial statements in their minutes on their website, this is not clear. Old Sturbridge Village also doesn't make this clear in their 990 filing (page 9 is revenue).

However, if you look at the pretty vague financial statement on page 28 of the FY 22 Old Sturbridge Village annual report, you can find a line for contracted services: 

That isn't a line that appears in the OSV Annual Report prior to the opening of the charter school. Is that $464,816 all coming from the management agreement? We can't tell without filing public document requests (with the school; the museum isn't subject to public document laws), but 7% of the $4.8M the school gets in tuition would be $336,906, so if its agreement is similar to that of the proposed school, at least most of that is chapter 70 aid, funding the museum.
Additionally, the rental line is also at least in part from the school. The modular classrooms that OSV has along the edge of their parking lot are charged rent by the museum. In the April minutes of the charter Board, we find the cost has been $323,952 (page 4), but the total cost will increase in FY23 to $687,362 (page 7), because OSV plans to rent the Oliver Wright Tavern and the Village Conference Center to the school next year for the middle school. 

...which means that OSV has been getting $650K from the school, rising to nearly a million dollars next year. 

To that, then, they'd be adding another $233K next year, rising to $460K the year after, largely for providing the financial bookkeeping, along with Donahue's executive coaching, to the Worcester school. 

While that isn't the make or break for a $12M a year institution, I imagine it doesn't hurt.
For this, by the way, Donahue makes $242,626 as of the last filing (page 7 of the 990) from Old Sturbridge Village; as best as I can tell, this is the only payment to him, as the management agreement, at least of the proposed school, makes no additional allocation. 

How does the budget work for the proposed charter school?

The proposed budget for the charter school starts on page 236 of the application, but let's start not with spending, but with revenue.

Let's start with what they're spending now:

Old Sturbridge Village is currently leasing a building in Worcester that the founding team is using as a base for our outreach efforts in the Worcester community. This is funded by a private donor that we believe will also continue to generously give to WCACPS. If a charter is granted, the WCACPS Board will have the option to assume this lease from OSV.

This is the former You, Inc. building at Holy Family Parish on Hamilton Street. 

In this planning year, their budget is $750,000, of which $500,000 is half of a million dollar planning grant that they would expect to receive from DESE if the charter were awarded; the other $250,000 (p. 87) is "a private foundation grant of $250,000" which they haven't yet received:

The applicant group has applied to a private foundation for a $1,000,000 grant to fund the start-up of WCACPS. The funder expects to make a decision on this request at its Board meeting in November 2022. Based on conversations between Jim Donahue and the foundation we are confident of receiving at least $500,000 which would be disbursed during the pre-operational period ($250,000) and the remainder in Year 1 and 2 to help fund building improvements, the purchase of a bus and other start-up costs

In other words, they're already spending money that they don't have. As the lease of the building is being carried by Old Sturbridge Village at this time--and gosh, I'd sure have some questions there if I were an OSV Trustee!--this is clearly OSV making a gamble on the finances here with ultimately there being a reward to that risk.

And note that the early years of operation likewise are dependent on this funding source to make the books balance.

There's also, throughout the application (this is from p. 96): 

The foundation discussed above is also exploring the creation of a philanthropic ecosystem through which they will make grants to the Expedition Institutions of central MA to support their development of programs in partnership with the Worcester Cultural Academy.

The crux of the program for the proposed school is the museums, but they don't have funding for this part of the program. And where is the funding for that going to come from? The Worcester donation ecosystem is not that large, and the non-profits--museums included--depend on that pool of funds in order to keep things going. Unless this somehow expands the funding involved, one could easily hurt the very institutions cited.

The allocation is WILD. First up, remember much of what we might call administrative overhead is being done through the management contract with OSV. For the first year of operation, that's budgeted at $233,955.
To that, the plan adds an administration of a principal, a vice-principal, for a total of $261,581.
As the full budget for the first year of operation is $4,090,017, they've budgeted 12% of their budget for administration.
While some of that is due to the size of the school, because the management agreement is a percentage of the tuition, that drops but only to 10% of the total budget in year five. 

Looking through the rest of the education salaries, they appear to have 10 classroom teachers, 3 English learner teachers, the science enrichment teacher, the wellness teacher, and the learning expedition coordinator, and possibly the math time math coach (?) all coming out of the lines totaling $888,080; for student support, a full time adjustment counselor, plus full time nurse, plus half time psychologist, half time OT, half time PT, if that's all "student support services" (because I can't figure out where else it would go?) totals $156,000.
And there are four paraprofessionals in a line budgeted at $133,620.

The salary line for custodial is $70,000 for TWO custodians. 

There's just not enough money in here for salaries, in any case, but in this current state of affairs, I just don't see how this gets staffed.

What exactly is the program being proposed for Worcester?

My quip to my homeschooling friends when OSV charter opened was that this was homeschooler bait: send your children to school at the Village! They can wear bonnets and milk cows and feed chickens and learn to make shoes! And of course, there are plenty of photos of that, though that is not the bulk of the experience at that school.

In the Worcester case, there is a significant amount of attention to a two hour block once a week for students for what the application refers to as "Learning Expeditionary Field Study." (Schedules start on page 228 of the application.)There are several mentions of the "short drive" to OSV (from the proposed school location on Hamilton Street, it's a 40 minute drive), and ongoing references to proposed partnerships with Worcester museums.

This is another place where it gets interesting: one can, of course, bring students to museums all one likes. There is, though, no evidence, that any actual partnerships with Worcester institutions, which the applications refers to as "Expedition Institutions" in fact exist. The application says, for example:

We anticipate that this type of relationship can be replicated at other Central Massachusetts cultural institutions such as the EcoTarium, Worcester Art Museum (WAM), Hanover Theatre and Conservatory for the Performing Arts, and more, in addition to the partnership with Old Sturbridge Village. The founding group is continuing to forge relationships and find potential opportunities within Central Massachusetts that fits our criteria for partnerships

As much as the names of Worcester institutions are featuring prominently in some of the advertising of the school, it is not Worcester museums proposing this charter, nor should one read into their names being used any support of it, as much as the application and surrounding documents lead in that direction. The only actual thing we know is that there have been initial meetings.

The proposed Worcester charter, like the one in Sturbridge, essentially would contract out their curriculum to EL Education, for which they would pay $75,000 a year for the first three years, then $40,000 a year thereafter. It seems clear from the application introduction that this is based off a visit Jim Donahue had with Ron Berger (who now is an executive at EL Education) when Berger was teaching in Shutesbury. Knowing that, the passive voice here is...a choice:

With that in mind, it was no surprise that EL Education was recommended to the museum as a school-design partner for OSACPS.

Surely someone did the actually recommending?

They plan to use iReady math, which is fairly common. 

Concerningly, their assessment grid also says that they also plan to use Fountas & Pinnell for grades 3-8, which WPS just managed to extricate itself from and has been widely noted to not follow what is known about what works in reading instruction.

What about the students?

This, of course, should really be the crux of the matter. Who is this school designed to serve? 
And that's actually a really good question. 

The school application is coming in as a "proven provider": the argument here is Jim Donahue (and those coming over from OSV Charter--about half the proposed Board is from there--have experience in running a charter school and so that gives the school a leg up.

But take a look at who OSV Charter has as students: 

OSV Charter: 4.1% African America; 0.3% Asian; 17.8% Hispanic; 0% Native American; 76.3% White;
0.3% Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander; 1.3% Multi-Race, Non-Hispanic

Here are the Worcester Public Schools' parallel demographics:

Worcester Public Schools: 16.9% African American; 6% Asian; 44.7% Hispanic; 0.2% Native American;
27.9% White; 0% Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander; 4.3% Multi-Race, Non-Hispanic

Very much not the same, and you'll see something similar in comparing selected populations:

Here's OSV Charter:

OSV Charter: First language not English, 5.3%; English language learner, 3.8%; Low income 43.8%;
Students with disabilities 19.7%; High needs, 55.6%

And the parallel numbers for the Worcester Public Schools:

Worcester Public Schools: First language not English, 58.9%; English language learner, 28.3%;
Low-income 74.3%; Students with disabilities, 21.1%; High needs, 84.1%

Thus in addition to being a much whiter and a much wealthier student population, the student body there has very few students who are learning English, and very few students whose first language isn't English. Not only is their percentage of both well below Worcester's; it's even below the state average (which is really saying something). 
In fact, they serve so few English learners, that their results for such students are not reported because there are so few students.

We literally cannot see how they do with their (less than 20) English learner students.

And as a side note: they're also nowhere near Southbridge Public Schools' demographics, either.

This, of course, speaks to lack of experience with students who are multilingual learners. While there is a section of the application (p. 60ff) designed to address English learners specifically, it opens in part:

This model is an ideal school environment for ELLs, which the leadership team has already established through OSACPS, that will enable them to overcome language barriers.

...which isn't something one can see from the student body actually being served in Sturbridge.  They don't have the experience to know that at all.
There is a heavy dependence on supplemental materials and differentiated instruction. There is not a great deal of evidence of understanding and experience of the actual needs of multilingual learners (who are not referred to as that, incidentally) in a school whose advocates envision it serving a student population that's between one- and two-thirds students who are learning English.

The application also speaks of the students in ways that strike me as worrying: the school has "a unique opportunity to serve children who fit a typically urban profile" (p. 27) in a section set aside to describe the student population served. That section instead pinballs from the proposed Board members to MCAS scores, to student demographics, to the housing authority, to rates of mental health issues, of which the section says: 

WCACPS would create a pathway for better outcomes when it comes to mental health and wellbeing for students by connecting them to cultural institutions, social services, and community organizations in the city and beyond at an early age.

And yes, the article cited does briefly review a few pieces relating mental health and museums, but this is a concerning focus when not presented in connection to further supports for students, which in this section, it is not.

There is of course much more one could say; the application is over 300 pages long, and the arguments on which it depends are larger than that. One could compare MCAS scores, but current MCAS scores are not even being used for accountability purposes, so there's not a great deal of use there. 

What we can say is this: we have a charter proposed that is not integrated to the Worcester community, that does not have the experience needed to serve our kids, that is predicated on a curricular model that is off-the-shelf, that uses a model to teach reading that is problematic, that legally binds the education to a non-profit oversight financially and administratively, and that will pull millions of dollars out of the local school district, just when the state has finally implemented the reform that would appropriately fund the district to the level constitutionally required.

We need to say no. 

Let me also note the following for Worcester residents: there are petitions going around in support of this expansion coming directly from the proposed Board. First, please don't sign or share them; second, please push back on the narrative accompanying them.
Oh, and a note on the opening of the application, which I found irritating.

Governor Baker submits a school funding bill: H 70

note that for the most part, the Legislature doesn't as yet have bill numbers for what is filed; thus everything is "SD" and "HD" until they have numbers, which is for "Senate Docket" and "House Docket." Somehow the Governor jumped the queue and already has a bill number, which is (as some have pointed out, an appropriate) H.70.
(I always wonder about these things and there never seems anyone to ask, so I try to include them.)
This is "An Act to Ensure Equity and Excellence in Education," which demonstrates that the Senate has better acronym writers. It has been referred to the Joint Committee on Education.
It's also probably good to note that there is at least some indication that this isn't a popular bill. 


The thing that is most important to know about House bill 70 is that is the product of more than one author and more than one motivation. There is a Governor Baker-oriented school funding bill with some Foundation Budget Review Commission implementation with some additional funding pieces including a draconian (literally?) funding consequence for underperforming schools, on the one hand. There is also a bill that combs through the school funding law as it currently exists and updates it to the way that we actually operate; that part comes to us, I believe, from the school finance people at DESE.
That last part is fine. We could argue over if this is really how we want to run things or if we want to make other changes, but making the actual law reflect reality on the pieces behind the calculation (not the foundation budget itself) is a reasonable thing to do.
These two pieces are intermixed, though, so disentangling the parts is necessary.

The Governor sends along a filing letter presenting his argument and his perspective on what he is doing. I don't know who wrote it--it sounds like Secretary Peyser, but that could mean nothing--but certainly expresses what I have seen of Governor Baker's view on education.

The piece that I want to wave a giant red flag on is the piece expanding the Commissioner's power, which of course has nothing to do with the foundation budget at all:

• the first bit is that currently a turnaround plan created by a described stakeholder group (MGL Ch. 69, section 1J, subsection e) is issued by the superintendent: "the superintendent shall issue a final turnaround plan for the school and the plan shall be made publicly available." The union or the school committee may then appeal the plan to the Commissioner. This bill would have the superintendent submit the plan to the Commissioner and only after his approval would the plan be publicly available. This would, obviously, render moot after that any appeal to the Commissioner by school committee or union. This is a big deal. 
• not only the superintendent, but also the commissioner will conduct an annual review of any school deemed underperforming; this is a change from what is done right now. It's not clear how that would be possible. The kind of review done by DESE is a comprehensive, time consuming endeavor by all involved. 
• the actions of the commissioner if a school substantially fails to meet goals, the commissioiner can appoint an examiner, require changes, or appoint an external partner; all of these are provided in the law already, but this section puts it together.
• the big issue is the funding piece of this, as the bill allows the commissioner if he "determines that the district is taking insufficient steps to implement changes to the turnaround plan" to take away the district's Ch. 70 aid at the beginning of the school year (if you were looking for evidence that whomever behind this is missing how school budgets work, there you go!) up to an amount equal to per pupil allocation times the number of students in the school--this in essence means that school's foundation budget. That funding would be set aside in a "Public School Turnaround Fund" of the state "until such time as the district implements the changes as determined by the commissioner." In turn, the district could not lower the school's funding, but could only be taking out of non "direct access to students." If we did this, Massachusetts would join the ranks of states that have made the grave error of taking away funding from underperforming schools. This builds on the myth that districts are overspending or spending ill on administration--most are not--and that services that don't directly access students don't serve them. This is, to give but one example, the reverse of what the state itself found in Southbridge, where it found the district was under-administered. We absolutely should not do this.

About the foundation budget piece: 

• while it keeps being said that the bill fully implements the recommendations of the Foundation Budget Review Commission, it does not in a very specific way: while the bill does implement changing the assumed in-district special education enrollment from 3.75% to 4% for regular districts, it does not shift vocational schools/districts from 4% to 5%. Those from DESE whom I have heard speak to this have argued that the needs of special education students at vocational schools were not as high as the fully population of students in special education elsewhere, thus the shift was not warranted. That wasn't the argument put forward by the Commission. 
• the bill does, as of FY21, boost out-of-district special education to three times the state average per pupil foundation budget
• the bill does, as of FY21, tie health insurance inflation to the GIC rate annually. It resets the rate for FY20 at about a 30% increase over the actual proposed budget for FY20. Offhand, I don't think that gets us where we need to be in terms of the current gaps between spending and foundation budget allotment.
• it keeps English learner as an increment, as added by the Senate this past year, and makes the increment between 27 and 33% of the base rate, progressively weighted to the higher grades (the bill uses the same numbers actually proposed in the FY20 budget). As the Foundation Budget Review Commission gave an actual dollar amount in 2015, it isn't right to make that comparison, and the progressive funding (which is the way these bills seem to be going) is a positive step. 
• it includes additional funding for poor students, keeping the decile ranking system and current direct certification counts, and using the same dollar amounts in the first five deciles that are used in the FY20 budget, but weighing the latter increments more heavily, with decile 10 topping out at $500 per pupil more than the FY20 budget does. What this doesn't do is break more than 50% of the base rate per pupil, however, save in high decile younger grades. It takes the smallest step possible within implementation, which recommended between 50-100%. They do also (as in the FY20) add the "high needs" category for decile 9 and 10 and 20% EL.
• there is not any inclusion of a data commission. This, to me, more than anything, says that someone (DESE?) thinks that work is done; see below for more on that. It was, however, a Commission recommendation.
• Note that on all of the places where it includes a dollar amount effective FY20 that is different than the actual budget for FY20, the budget is what would happen, but the bill then would become the goal rate towards which implementation was moving. 

Pieces that are neither of the above:

• The bill creates two trust funds, one for further regionalization encouragement and another for to stash the above money that would be taken from districts with underperforming schools at the Commissioner's discretion. 
• The bill requires spending reporting by foundation budget category and can require it by enrollment and by program area, which is kind of a way of wrestling with the question of if we have enough data without requiring a data commission (this is a super DESE way of handling this, by the way; they know the data exists, so they're just requiring that it get reported).
• The bill creates a regionalization assistance program and creates at Regionalization Fund for grants for planning and implementation. It gives priority to rural areas (without defining them) and other districts with persistent enrollment declines. 
• It changes the charter funding in a couple of ways. First, it boosts the facilities component that all charters get to $938 and then indexes it to inflation (that number has been the same for quite a number of years). It shifts back to 100% for the first year, 60% for the second, 40% for the third year of what they are calling transitional assistance. Most importantly, the bill changes who gets tuition reimbursement: transitional assistance funds the difference between the current charter enrollment MINUS the highest enrollment of the previous five years, thus only districts where charter schools are actively growing will receive this funding. It also creates and codifies "supplemental charter assistance" for districts that have low Ch. 70 and high charter numbers; this year, that means $6M for Boston and two towns on Martha's Vineyard (please tell me how THAT is the highest and best use!) It also ties both these sections together to be funded at the same pace.
• The bill creates a commission on rural schools to come back with trends, projections, and recommendations for rural schools in the state, and their report would be due June 30, 2020. 

The wonky "we do this but it isn't written down" bits are as follows:

• it spells out the components (and only the components!) being currently used in the foundation budget (in section 11). Note that this is part of what caught those who wrote the House bill (which we'll get to eventually, as well), as they used old language on preschool and "bilingual" students. This includes definitions of combined effort yield, excess effort, effort reduction, municipal revenue growth factor (in fact, it spells out how to calculate it!), minimum aid, net school spending, and so on, which in many cases were not codified. Note that this would put into the law something which was done this year, which is requiring that districts with a combined effort yield equal to or greater than 175% of its foundation budget be responsible for the full 82.5% of its foundation budget.
• it eliminates a bimonthly recalculation of the ch. 70 formula so that it can work with the state budget cycle (section 12)
• it gets rid of the idea of "overburden aid" which we haven't been doing in years (section 13)
• it codifies net school spending as a requirement and requires the Commissioner let districts know of their minimum local contributions by March 1 (which happens now through the Governor's budget, 'though that isn't necessarily where it ends up). It also drops a 30 day waiting period on preliminary estimates, and drops an old method of calculating regional vocational funding (section 14) 
• it repeals an automatic reduction in local required appropriation if the final state appropriation is reduced (section 15)
• it codifies taking school choice and charter tuition from a district's Chapter 70 appropriation. (section 17) Did you know this wasn't in the MGL? I didn't!
• it repeals the original phase-in of the law from 1994 (section 18)
• it codifies that in any year in which there isn't enough funding to do everything, foundation aid gets funded first (section 19)

And the bill states that it will go into effect July 1.

Board of Ed meets on Tuesday

You can find agenda here.
After the usual round of comments, including those from the public, the first report is "highlight the work of teacher-leaders" from across the state regarding the revision of the arts curriculum, STEM, and reviewing curricular products (which they're calling CUrriculum RAtings by TEachers [CURATE] and this administration's fondness for semi-acronyms that use parts of words is going to drive me round the bend). I've been asked a great deal recently what I'm seeing of the new commissioner: I'd ask if you remember any reports like this in the past. You won't. There's some of the change.
There is an update on the three of the four chronically underperforming schools that are under state receivership. (The fourth is in Holyoke and will be updated when Holyoke is next in.)
There is a report on Adult Education (which I didn't realize was managed by DESE, either).
And there's a report back on the response to the new accountability system, which will be interesting.

If you're curious as to what the final letter to Secretary Peyser on the FY20 budget looked like, it's posted as a backup.
You can also find a (Word doc) of grants approved by the Commissioner.
Tuesday, 8:30 am, in Malden!

October Board of Education: accountability

There's a memo here, but there's a PowerPoint presentation here, too, which I'll grab some charts from.
Riley: get an overall impression of how we're at

The Board of Ed meets Tuesday, September 18

Back to their regular schedule; their agenda is here.
After opening comments, they're starting their year by voting in a new vice-chair (the chair is a Governor appointment).
Commissioner Riley is presenting his goals for the coming year. There's some good things here (I'm summarizing)!

• implementation of the history/social studies standards and development of the new arts standards
• communication and outreach on celebrating teachers, creating a working committee on diversifying the teaching force, convening major stakeholders in the spring to discuss a path forward, visiting 100 schools
• HEY! "I will collaborate with the Governor's office, Legislature, and stakeholders to promote and advance necessary changes in the foundation budget that will ultimately lead to an accurate reflection of the needs of all students in the Commonwealth." !!!!
• targeted intervention of underperforming schools BUT look at what that looks like to him: "may include improvement of instructional practices to accelerate learning, culturally responsive teaching and learning, and increased engagement opportunities for students." 
• analyze and refine the new accountability system
• "lead the promotion of racial equity, diversity, and cultural proficiency" at DESE
• "assess the responsibilities and functions of the agency"

There is a presentation of and by Massachusetts Teacher of the Year Jamil Siddiqui.

There's an update on the arts curriculum framework, which is in the "writing and revising" phase.

There's an update on what we are still clunkily calling the "next generation MCAS" and the high school proficiency standard. Participation this past spring was over 99%. This year's sophomores will take the high school version of the new MCAS, and next summer, their scores will be scaled to a standard held to passing as now, which will hold for two years. The Commissioner is likewise recommending that a parallel path be established with the new science high school test. The class of 2023 (this year's eighth graders) will be those first held to a new standard, which will be developed starting next fall; watch for public input sessions. Note also this language in closing: 

I am committed to investigating ways that we can reduce the amount of time that is spent on testing, while maintaining the quality of the tests and the validity of the results. I am also interested in ways that we can return results more quickly, especially to teachers.

There's also (will the wonders never cease!) an administration-generated update on the foundation budget, including the bits implemented in the FY19 budget (an update I've been meaning to do myself), and a note on DESE involvement in the conference committee, which I think is worth quoting in full:

This past July, the Department staff were actively engaged by the legislative conference committee that was considering statutory changes to Chapter 70 in order to provide technical support and financial projections needed by the committee to inform their deliberations. Ultimately, the conferees were not able to resolve their differences, but it is clear that there is a high level of interest in exploring long-term, statutory changes to the foundation budget in areas that had been addressed at varied levels of detail by the FBRC.
During the course of this consultative work, the Department modeled the impact of four types of changes to the formula:
Raising rates for employee benefits and fixed charges toward goals based on FBRC calculations
Raising special education rates and increasing special education assumed enrollment percentages
Raising rates for out-of-district special education toward FBRC goal rates to close gap with Circuit Breaker, which we modeled by setting the goal at 3 times the statewide foundation per pupil
Increasing percentages for assumed in-district special education enrollment toward FBRC goals of 4 percent for non-vocational students and 5 percent for vocational students
Establishing ELL student increments consistent with the increments outlined in the FBRC report. The new ELL increments that we were asked to model for all grade levels was based on the difference between the ELL middle school rate and the non-ELL middle school rate that existed under the rate structure used through FY18.
We were also asked to model various approaches to substantially increasing the increments associated with economically disadvantaged students based on the relative concentration of low-income students being served by particular districts.
Given our experience at the end of the legislative session and our continuing conversations with the Administration, we anticipate that we will be asked to provide substantial support to both the legislature and the Administration as they work on their respective legislative proposals as part of their FY20 budget development process. Most immediately, DESE will be actively working with the Executive Office of Education to model the impact of various possible changes to foundation budgets and related school finance programs and provide input on any related statutory language that might be required, as needed.

There will also (why is this always at the end?) an overview of the FY19 budget and a look ahead to FY20.
That's Tuesday at 8:30 and yes, there will be liveblogging.

Don't miss how unusual this is: state speaks up on North High

I tweeted this out over the holiday, but I thought it should have a more permanent residence: don't miss what's happening in this article from the 25th on North High. It is very, very unusual for the state to speak up, outside the release of new results, about a specific school. For DESE to break its silence, something's up.
And of course, Russell Johnston chooses his words with care (like anyone from the state who knows he's going to be quoted). So look at what he says:

the department’s interest this year in seeing improvements at North High School was not an abrupt decision, but rather based on relatively long-standing concerns about the school’s under-performance.

We don't, in other words, have a new emergency; we have the ongoing concern the state has had for years. That Johnston would feel the need to clarify that is very telling.
And about Superintendent Binienda's remarks that the school was in danger of being Level 4 next spring?

(Johnston) dispelled the notion that North High is in imminent danger of being downgraded by the state, however, saying it’s “not automatic” the state would take action even if the school continues to struggle.

So, no, the "fear the state" line isn't accurate. And note, in part, why:

Complicating the matter is that the state is still revising accountability standards for schools.

You, of course, already knew that because you read the updates from the Board of Ed: the state's reasons for declaring underperformance are shifting and growing more broad:

The new underperforming designation is most likely what North High could fall into in subsequent years if it continues to lag, Mr. Johnston said, although he added such a downgrade would be made “at the discretion of the (state’s education) commissioner,” and not triggered by low test scores. The new accountability system is supposed to take into account more than just how students perform on the MCAS.

That "supposed to" is probably a little weak; we're already tied to that due to the state's federal ESSA plan, which has already been accepted.
Which makes the superintendent's closing remark:

“The big thing is really getting those scores up,” she said.

...all the more head-scratching.
I also want to flag this Q&A in Worcester Magazine from a few weeks back, because there is a LOT going on there. 

Clickbait

Last night around 10pm, I saw the following article post from the Boston Globe: "Two dozen Boston risk being declared underperforming." It opens as follows:

More than two dozen schools in Boston with low standardized test scores are at risk of being declared “underperforming” by the state, an action that can lead to the removal of principals and teachers, according to a School Department analysis.
The 26 schools are spread across nearly every neighborhood, from East Boston to West Roxbury. Officials are expected to learn the fate of each school when the state releases the latest round of MCAS data at the end of October.

It also says:

The analysis flagged 11 schools for being at the greatest risk of being declared underperforming because their MCAS scores rank very low in comparison to other schools statewide.

Now, if you pay close attention to what's been posted on here, you, too, are shaking your head at this article. The simple fact of the matter is the Board of Education voted that all schools taking the new MCAS would be held harmless with regard to test scores this year. This is a reset year; most schools simply are not going to get a new accountability level, because this is the first year of scores from the new MCAS. The only exceptions are schools that have low participation (by whole population or subgroup) which will go to Level 3 plus schools that already are Level 4 or 5.

Secondary schools, remember, still have the 10th graders taking the old version of the MCAS for now, so they could have changes made, but that is the minority of schools here mentioned.

Puzzled, I sent out some tweets:

.@GlobeVaznis I'm confused by this article: nowhere does it discuss the "hold harmless with regard to test scores" passed by the BoE #MAEdu https://t.co/i1Umrhg5Q6

— Tracy Novick (@TracyNovick) September 18, 2017

(there's a thread there if you follow the link)
I also added this commentary:

New test.
Acting Commissioner.
Board vote on hold harmless with regard to test scores on new MCAS.
Lower budget.
This makes no sense. https://t.co/dCcJFg5hVB

— Tracy Novick (@TracyNovick) September 18, 2017

I tagged in the Boston Superintendent Tommy Chang, and that elicited this response:

Tracy, you are right. Elementary schools are held harmless. MCAS data is from 2 years ago.

— Tommy Chang (@SuptChang) September 18, 2017

In piecing it together, it appears that this originated with the Boston School Committee receiving a report on their Level 3 schools at last week's meeting. You can find the presentation they saw here. Rather than an article which focused on what was and was not working at those schools--which is kind of supposed to be the entire point of this whole discussion--we instead saw an alarmist vision of state takeovers for something like a fifth of Boston Schools.

As a side note: at some point we should talk about the state's capacity at this point. I've mentioned this in passing before, but DESE is down lots of staff, particularly since Race to the Top ended. Level 4 and 5 schools take lots of staff hours to coordinate with districts. Also, Level 4 schools come with School Turnaround Grants, which now have to come out of Title I funds (there isn't a separate line for them). I'm not going to say DESE can't or won't declare more schools, but we shouldn't discount what it takes on the other end for them to do so. 

I sent out a recap this morning, since that was competing with the Emmys:

Ok, to recap for those who were NOT discussing school accountability levels at 10 pm last night (lucky you!): confusing @BostonGlobe article

— Tracy Novick (@TracyNovick) September 18, 2017

You'll need to follow the thread there.
Later this morning, DESE sent out the following:

There will not be any new K-8 Level 4s this year due to next-gen test. (However, improvement work is still important!) #maedu

— Massachusetts K-12 (@MASchoolsK12) September 18, 2017

Thus as best as I can tell, what we have is a fairly straightforward School Committee report that turned into clickbait.

The problem, of course, is that this feeds into a whole bunch of other issues: there is MASSIVE parental mistrust of the planning of the Boston Public Schools, and every move is seen as leading to school closures or takovers. The state's having taken over three districts and a number of schools is seen as threatening by anyone with any school that isn't consistently Level 1. Lots of people find the accountability leveling confusing, and the past few years of switching tests and systems has only made that worse. And we don't have nearly enough press paying consistent attention to these sorts of issues, such that we can get clear, consistent reporting to people who care about these issues but don't do it full time.

Honestly, we deserve much better than this. There are lots of little pieces of blame to go around here, but I'm laying as much as I know at the Globe's door. The crux of what they printed today was untrue, alarmist, and actively harmful.

So what did the Legislature pass?

Yesterday, the House and Senate both passed a budget agreed to by conference committee. It was filed that morning, meaning, as noted by State House News reporter Katie Lannan:

7 hours and 56 minutes from release to enactment. #mapoli https://t.co/5JOFwHQzcS

— Katie Lannan (@katielannan) July 7, 2017

Not, let's say, a triumph for public process. Among other issues, this got us a IIA report, which puts the numbers and account numbers in a spreadsheet, which included only the House numbers, not the conference committee numbers (causing some of  us not a small degree of angst!).

The budget now goes to the Governor, who has ten days to consider it and, if he wishes, to issue vetoes, which, in its turn, the Legislature can override. In other words: we're closer, but we're not done yet.

So what's in it for public education?

Chapter 70 came back at $4.746B, which is right between the House and the Senate numbers. As best as I can tell--I have yet to find the actual Chapter 70 language on this--they did this by keeping the $30/pupil minimum increase, keeping--and possibly adding to?--the insurance increase in the foundation budget, but not taking on the Senate's special education implementation of the Foundation Budget Review Committee's recommendation. Let me emphasize that on my part that is SPECULATION, again, because I haven't seen either an explanation or actual language (which should have been part of H3800). That means that most foundation budgets will be higher than both House 1 and the passed House budget, but not as high as they would have been with the Senate budget. As for state aid, the majority of districts were seeing their increase through the $30/pupil, so that doesn't change ('though do recall that the Governor's budget had set that at $20/pupil, so our foundation budget charts are not yet updated). And if anyone finds or has the actual language, please let me know; I'd be interested.

This means, of course, that two years on from the Foundation Budget Review Commission, with districts across the state repeating that we need finance reform, the only change we saw was the fragmentary one in health insurance. This isn't how one truly values public education.

Oh, and Senator Chang-Diaz was one of two votes against it.

The Department's budget is just over $14M, and continues to contain a boatload of earmarks, which I won't go into here, 'though at some point I have a whole rant on that.

METCO is $20.5M, splitting the difference between House and Senate.

Regional transportation reimbursement is $61.5M (which had been as high as $62M, so it also splits the difference).

The circuit breaker, something specified by Senator Karen Spilka as a "painful" cut, passed at $281,231,181, lower than BOTH House and Senate. Note, however, that it is $50,000 lower than what the Senate passed, which, in a budget of this size (and an account of this size) makes that more of a symbolic cut than anything.

Likewise, McKinney-Vento reimbursement was cut from both houses, being passed at just over $80M; this is an account which has never been fully funded.

Note that all of these previous three are reimbursements, meaning the district fronts the money and gets the money back from the state afterwards. There is here, then, less of a hit on the starting end, but we'll see budgets straining on by midyear.

Targeted intervention in underperforming schools passed at $7.2M, which is lower than either house had passed.

The MCAS line passed at $26.9M, also lower than either budget previously passed.

Extended learning time passed at $13.9M, lower than either.

Innovation schools split the different with a budget of $165,000; that's $150,000 with $15,000 earmarked for Pentucket Regional.

There had been no difference in the amount set aside for charter school reimbursement--an acknowledged-as-underfunded $80.5M--so that passed as previous.

Those are most of the major lines. As always, if you have questions, please let me know.

What happened with ESSA this week?

On Monday, the U.S. Department of Education issued regulations on the Every Student Succeeds Act around school accountability. The Department's summary is here; EdWeek does their summary here.\
First, do note that regulations are under the purview of the administration, so it's completely unclear what happens when the Trump administration comes in at the end of January.
That said, we do have regulations, so, a few pieces of note:

• states now don't have to ID schools for "comprehensive support" until the 2018-19 year, which is a year later than was originally proposed.
• the summative evaluation versus how schools are identified for support has been fleshed out a bit (if that interests you, I'd read the US Ed summary)
• the "at least one additional indicator" now has to have "a positive impact on student learning," which is more flexible than the draft language (and, should we all push, could give states much much more to consider) 
• states can set their own maximum subgroup size, but if it's bigger than 30, they must justify why it is good for kids that it is that big.
• "consistent underperformance" was original over a two year period, now is tweaked a bit to allow for more time if it can be justified
• 95% participation on testing is still required, but if states decide to come up with their own systems of dealing with that, they can have different remedies for different rates of participation (those that barely missed possibly having something less draconian).
• ELL's are to become proficient in English on a "research-based" timeline.

Also a reminder that there are TWO MORE DESE input sessions on ESSA implementation: tonight at Holyoke High and Tuesday night at Collins Middle in Salem, both at 6 pm. (Sorry for the lack of coverage on these; I have had, and still have, meetings opposite every single one.) 

Southbridge

Chester: received last week final district review
declared underperforming in 2004
pretty alarming review
visiting district Friday
"I ran into no one...who called into question the findings of the review"
"nothing in my visit suggested to me that the review was inaccurate"

Southbridge in the crosshairs

Much in the way that it usually isn't good to be called to the principal's office, districts generally want to stay off the Board of Ed's agenda. I mentioned this last month when it was referenced by the Commissioner in passing.
As the T&G comments, the follow-up on that is tomorrow. There is a 106-page report regarding the district (I'm still reading that), a timeline going back to 2003, and (I haven't seen one of these before) a rundown to state spending, as controlled by DESE, in the district since 2005. As best as I can tell, these latter two seem to be a sort of "don't blame us!" from DESE regarding the district.
I'll be there, so notes to follow tomorrow. 

Mea culpa, moving on, and what's next

First, my apologies. For those of you who have grown used to being able to find out "what does Tracy say" on what's happening in the Worcester Public Schools, I let you down yesterday. When the news broke about Superintendent Boone's acceptance of the position of Norfolk Superintendent at about 10:30 yesterday, my phone blew up with messages, and from that point on, I was returning calls, being interviewed, and otherwise running. I never got to a full keyboard. It's the first time I've experienced quite that as a headlong collision, and yesterday, blogging lost out. I'm sorry.

As much as I know everyone loves a good conspiracy theory, I feel honor bound to point out that Norfolk has had three superintendents in the past five years, with the most recent having his contract terminated in March after 70% of Norfolk's schools failed to earn certification and the district missed deadlines for Title I, resulting in the fortiture of $1.6 million. The board bought out that contract for a full year's pay. The position was posted in May, with applications due in July. This wasn't a recent decision (or reaction).
And, yes, in Virginia, the entire process can take place in executive session.

As a side note, I should point out that the current Norfolk school board is appointed by their City Council, though this current board is the last that will be, as Norfolk voted overwhelmingly to move to an elected board starting this coming spring.

So did I know? No. Am I surprised? No. I follow the national press on school districts, and Norfolk has had a rough couple of years. It's the district in which Superintendent Boone had much of her prior experience, and it's where her family lives. Seeing that district struggle would I think give any of us cause to think twice.

Let's be really clear: the Worcester Public Schools are an excellent argument for hiring anyone involved in what we're doing. From the graduation rate gains (nine points in six years) to the dropout rate declining to the largest number of innovation schools in the state to the pulling schools out of Level 4 status (ourselves, not by outside providers) to gains in kids taking APs and going to college to rising enrollment (yes, they're rising) to millions of dollars in building repairs to expanding programs (and I could go on, and that's all in the budget...)...we're a good argument for hiring her. We--any of us involved in public education in Worcester--should be proud of the job we're doing here. We're a city with a strong parochial school system, two charter schools, and a homeschooling community, and we in the public schools educate 85% of the kids who live in the city. That's an argument of itself.

And anyone telling you otherwise doesn't know much about education.

So what does that mean for us now?

If you look at the agenda that was posted this afternoon for Thursday's meeting, we have two items in executive session. The first is to discuss Superintendent Boone's contract, as there's a clause regarding notification of her leaving that a December start date in Norfolk conflicts with (I should perhaps point out that's my assumption based on what I've seen reported from Norfolk; I know no more than is the item). The second is connected to Mayor Petty's recommendation, which appears on the public section of the agenda, that Marco Rodrigues be appointed interim superintendent. We also have items on the public section to send out an RFP for a search firm and to set a timeline for the search.

Only a bit more from me, lest I stray into predeliberation and thus violate the Open Meeting Law:

The Worcester Public Schools are the third largest employer in the city, with nearly 4000 employees. We have 50 buildings, 44 schools, 25,000 students. We have a budget of $350 million. That's a lot to oversee. More than anything else, the actual administration of all that is the job of the superintendent, and it needs to be done, daily. It can't be put off. It can't be ignored. And it isn't something you can pick up overnight.

Executive session is scheduled for 6 on Thursday night, with the public meeting scheduled (I use the word deliberately) to begin at 7.

NCLB comes home to roost

The talk about complying with NCLB waivers from Secretary Duncan may have caused us to forget: there are states that don't have waivers. Because it is now that magic year in which no child is to be left behind--2014--states that do not have waivers, and are thus still under the law, must have every child testing up to standards or have the schools declared underperforming.
No surprise: nearly all schools are getting that tag.
States and schools aren't simply taking this, though. Vermont's Secretary of Education Rebecca Holcombe fulfilled the requirement that parents be informed of their schools "low performing" label with this thoughtful letter, disagreeing with this label and discussing what makes for a quality education.
Washington state, which recently lost its waiver due to disagreements over teacher evaluation, likewise has more clear information coming out to parents along with the required notification: 28 superintendents have signed a letter to parents disagreeing with the label.
A number of the states without a waiver are finding that, labels or not, they are freer and more able to move ahead, as they don't have to negotiate with the Department of Education when making decisions.
I'm sure there's a lesson in here somewhere.