Report on school construction from Mass Inc and WRRB

 This was released yesterday

How great is the clever title?
A building foundation...the foundation budget?

The upshot is that if Shrewsbury has nine schools, and Worcester has fifty schools, and each can build one new school at a time, when we get to the end of any set of time, Shrewsbury can rebuild all of its schools before Worcester has rebuilt a fifth of theirs.

new report on MA school building funding equity coming

 ...and while I cannot go to the release, some of you may wish to!

Worcester Regional Research Bureau and MassInc are coming out with a joint report entitled "Fixing the Foundation: Uneven Access to Modern Schools and a Blueprint for a More Equitable Future." It's being released in an event October 7 from 10 AM to 12 at the State House.

You can find all the information and a way to RSVP here. 

I'll be sure and share the report once it is out! 

New Bedford Light interviews Superintendent Andrew O'Leary

 Cheering for large sections of today's New Bedford Light interview with Superintendent Andrew O'Leary: 

Soon after Trump took office this year, O’Leary got some social media and talk radio flak because he had sent out a letter to school staff informing them that the New Bedford district follows state guidelines that restrict building and information access from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement authorities.

O’Leary feels strongly about his system’s immigrant students. He spoke at a Saturday City Hall rally, objecting to a March 21 New Bedford raid where, he said, several children who attend city schools “woke up to terror” when federal agents in military fatigues broke the door to their home.  

He says the criticism hasn’t bothered him because as superintendent he’s the person who can better deal with rebukes so staff can go about their jobs educating and protecting children. He is particularly concerned, he said, about continuing the New Bedford schools’ inclusive philosophy toward marginalized populations like undocumented immigrants and transgender and nonbinary people.

“All the criticism came to me because you have seen scenarios out there, around the state and around the nation, where this individual teacher and this individual principal got targeted,” he said. His voice then grew quiet. “I would hate to see that” in New Bedford, he said.

And also: 

 Business roundtable-type organizations, he said, have incorrectly convinced the public that schools should be about producing skilled, high-earning graduates for the commercial sector.

That’s the wrong paradigm, according to the superintendent.

“I think we’ve listened to the wrong people around that, and what it does is, it diminishes what a school actually is for: its community,” he said. “It’s a place where students grow and flourish and develop as young people who can contribute to society in all sorts of ways.”

O’Leary is doing nothing less than laying down a marker that the New Bedford schools are not about business or careers or even getting into college, but rather about boosting the people of the city and how they feel about themselves.

“What concerns me the most is that these are community assets,” he said. “Schools are the hubs of neighborhoods. Schools, where our young people are, are one of the most important things that society invests in, and they belong to the community.”

Public schools have traditionally been thought of as something for the whole group, not for one individual, he said.

“Eroding a community asset is something we should raise concern about,” O’Leary said.

Yes, indeed! More of this, please!  

Joint Committee on Education Informational Oversight Hearing

 You can find the livestream here; note that testimony today is by invitation, though anyone is welcome to send in written testimony to the co-chairs at Jason.Lewis@masenate.gov and Alice.Peisch@mahouse.gov.

updating as we go

So what's the deal with the low income measurement?

Why is there discussion/controversy/activism about the low income implementation in school funding in the House 2 budget?

As I mentioned when I ran through the Governor's proposed budget back in January, most of the sections of the Foundation Budget Review Commission's recommendations and the Student Opportunity Law that had to do with funding were implemented at 1/7th of the goal, under the general understanding that this will be phased in over seven years.
Not low income.
What did happen with low income was this: the law provided for a one year "best option" count on students: for each district, the state looked at the direct certification count--the one we've been using, through the matching of students via the databases--and also ran the FY16 percentage of students that were low income then (the last year that everyone was being credited on free/reduced lunch, 'though some districts had already switched), and each district got the higher of those two counts.
Note that if you download the FY16 spreadsheet, you can double-check your number by calculating your percentage of low income students that year. I assume that there were business offices that did this ahead of time. And each of the FY21 preliminary foundation budget sheets has, in the bottom right corner, a comparison of the FY16 percentage applied to this year's enrollment and this year's direct certification:

Here's Worcester's. See the blue box? 

That "best of," as has been widely noted, added about 46,000 students statewide to the count of low income. Those students, of course, were not all in one district, and, as with any such count, there were districts that benefited more than others. Worcester picked by 2000 more students for this year; as Mike noted, Northbridge actually lost kids even with the FY16 count being used (it would have gone lower if it were only direct cert) and so on.
However, as a result of the the increased count of students, the state of course had to increase the amount of funding going to that line. In order to keep to the overall $300M or so planned--the overall 1/7th--the rate change was only implemented by 4/100ths, not the 1/7th of the other sections.

This was part of the Mass Taxpayers' Foundation presentation yesterday
to the Connecticut Valley Superintendents' Roundtable.
We were told it is a slide that DESE doesn't like.

This isn't a thing that I or anyone else cooked up; you can find it right on DESE's page on FY21 under "Foundation Budget Rates."
As noted in the above slide that you probably can't read, this means the rates for low income will then have to pick up the difference over the next six years in order to meet the seven year generally understood goal.
It also, as a side note, means that some of the money gets postponed having inflation applied by a year.
The slide also notes, however, that the final section of the law says that the changes are to be implemented in "an equitable and consistent manner."
Thus the question is: is this equitable? is this consistent? does it line up with the intent of the law? is in line with what was fought so hard for?

A number of us are arguing that it doesn't.

Two additional notes after the jump:

On reporting on the Student Opportunity Act funding

Section 1S of the Student Opportunity Act says the following:

(a)The commissioner shall establish statewide targets for addressing persistent disparities in achievement among student subgroups in the aggregate and within subcategories, including, but not limited to, subject matter and relevant grade levels. The targets shall include annual benchmarks on the progress expected to be achieved in the aggregate and by subcategory.
(b) Each district shall establish targets for addressing persistent disparities in achievement among student subgroups consistent with the targets established by the department. Each district shall develop an evidence-based 3-year plan to meet its targets. Each district’s plan shall be developed by the superintendent in consultation with the school committee and shall consider input and recommendations from parents and other relevant community stakeholders, including but not limited to, special education and English learner parent advisory councils, school improvement councils and educators in the school district.

The sequence thus is supposed to be:

1. the Commisssioner establishes statewide targets for addressing academic disparities
2. those targets should include annual benchmarks
3. districts then are to establish their own targets in line with the state's targets
4. districts are to write a plan on how they're going to get to the targets

Guess what we don't have?
State targets.

Nonetheless, the Department released the guidance around reporting on Student Opportunity Act funding earlier this week. Districts receiving more than $1.5M over FY20 will need to fill out the long form; those receiving less than $1.5M will need to fill out a short form. Everyone's forms are due April 1 (that last in the law).

So all of this input and all of the subsequent budgetary planning is supposed to be subject to the targets we're supposed to be aiming for: it is literally written into law. But that section--the target section--is the section the Department has decided that we're holding off on until later, once we have this year's data.

You might think, therefore, that we'd then hold off on the plans until we have the targets we're going to reach for, but no:

We're going to--and I am not making this up--write up plans on how we're going to reach the targets WITHOUT HAVING THE TARGETS.
And the plans are due April 1.

Thus keeping always in mind that this is the underlying premise of this exercise, let's talk about what the expectations beyond that are.

Both the short and the long form are designed around four commitments, which fall somewhat in line with the intent of the law:

1. Intentionally focus on student subgroups who are not achieving at the same high levels as their peers;
2. Adopt, deepen or continue specific evidence-based programs to close opportunity and achievement gaps for student subgroups and allocate resources to support these programs;
3. Monitor success in reducing disparities in achievement among student subgroups over three years with a small number of metrics and targets; and
4. Engage families, particularly those families representing student subgroups most in need of support, about how best to meet their students’ needs.

The plan descriptions also focus on "doing a few things well" and "focus on implementation."
The cover letter from the Commissioner says DESE "will focus primarily on the extent to which districts are implementing evidence-based programs that will close these gaps in their communities."

Now, you might remember during the work of the Foundation Budget Review Commission, MassBudget did a series of reports on what kinds of things helped close the opportunity gaps, particularly for kids who are poor: early childhood education, wraparound services, extended day, and smaller class sizes were four of the areas looked at. This and other research then made its way into the Commission's report.
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem as though much of that made its way into the hands of those putting together the reporting requirements for DESE, as the only one of those things that gets mentioned is preschool. In particular, the Commissioner says that he is interested in, and intends to put the granting power of the Department behind:

1. expanded early childhood and evidenced-based early literacy, together as a single item. Others will no doubt note that this isn't really as much of a thing; you can be a good reader and read late; you can have great early childhood education that isn't literacy-focused.
2. early college programs, which is definitely all the rage right now, definitely still something we're working out how to do, and isn't necessarily hitting the students who might benefit the most
3. diversifying the educator and administrator workforce, which is certainly important, but is something that most are still working out how to do.

While those are definitely the focus of the Commissioner, to make those three things the driving force in how Massachusetts spends new funding, quite apart from the items that are within the law itself is abrupt and moves us away from the ongoing conversations we have had around equity and meeting actual needs over the past several years.
In other words, these are the Commissioner's priorities: does that make them the priorities of K-12 education in Massachusetts, which is much much larger than that?
The Commissioner closes his opening letter by calling the law:

a historic opportunity for Massachusetts to propel our state to become a national leader, not just in overall achievement, but for all children in the Commonwealth.

...because if we aren't beating New Jersey, where are we?
Quite seriously, though, we can lead and BE AN EXAMPLE to others who we could hope COULD ALSO DO WELL FOR THEIR CHILDREN.
Education isn't a zero sum game; our state doing better doesn't mean others have to do worse.

The law, you might recall, actually has ten options for evidence-based programs (still in section 1S):(A) expanded learning time in the form of a longer school day or school year; 
(B) increased opportunity for common planning time for teachers;  
(C) social services to support students’ social-emotional and physical health; 
(D) hiring school personnel that best support improved student performance; 
(E) increased or improved professional development; 
(F) purchase of curriculum materials and equipment that are aligned with the statewide curriculum frameworks; 
(G) expanding early education and pre-kindergarten programming within the district in consultation or in partnership with community-based organizations; 
(H) diversifying the educator and administrator workforce; 
(I) developing additional pathways to strengthen college and career readiness; and 
(J) any other program determined to be evidence-based by the commissioner
...plus there's a "you can argue with the Commissioner" allowance.
Those, of course, are more largely reflective both of the research of MassBudget and of the larger discussions that surrounded the Foundation Budget Review Commission.

The Department has now converted that list into seventeen items, divided into four parts:
Enhanced Core Instruction
1. Expanded access to full-day, high-quality pre-kindergarten for 4-year-olds, including potential collaboration with other local providers (SOA categories D, F, and G)
2. Research-based early literacy programs in pre-kindergarten and early elementary grades (E, F, and G)
3. Early College programs focused primarily on students under-represented in higher education (I)
4. Supporting educators to implement high-quality, aligned curriculum (E and F)
5. Expanded access to career-technical education, including “After Dark” district-vocational partnerships and innovation pathways reflecting local labor market priorities (I)
Targeted Student Supports
6. Increased personnel and services to support holistic student needs (C and D)
7. Inclusion/co-teaching for students with disabilities and English learners (D and E)
8. Acceleration Academies and/or summer learning to support skill development and accelerate advanced learners (A and E)
9. Dropout prevention and recovery programs (I)
Talent Development
10. Diversifying the educator/administrator workforce through recruitment and retention (D and H)
11. Leadership pipeline development programs for schools (D and E)
12. Increased staffing to expand student access to arts, athletics, and enrichment, and strategic scheduling to enable common planning time for teachers (B and D)
13. Strategies to recruit and retain educators/administrators in hard-to-staff schools and positions (D)
Conditions for Student Success
14. Community partnerships for in-school enrichment and wraparound services (C)
15. Parent-teacher home visiting programs (E)
16. Labor-management partnerships to improve student performance (E)
17. Facilities improvements to create healthy and safe school environments (J)

The Commissioner's priorities (in red above) are ones he says he "encourages" and "will likely offer multiplier funds" in, again, despite those not being shared priorities across the process.

Plans must make the four commitments above, focusing on subgroups, choosing three metrics for measurement and monitoring. If DESE metrics are chosen, the Department will update the plan for districts in the fall when they set targets; otherwise, districts will need to update their plans with targets in the fall.
But the plans are due April 1
Districts not only need to describe how families were engaged in this process; they also need to describe their "ongoing plan for engaging families." This despite clear and repeated directions from the Department that this plan is not to be a large scale new plan; how many districts already have family engagement plans?
Do note (bottom of page 7 of the long form description) that a school committee vote is required.

The Department has decided what it believes to be "new Chapter 70 revenue" and has provided a spreadsheet to the districts receiving the largest amounts of how much they are expected to expend in as "new" funding. This is based on an assumed 2.44% inflation rate (this is the 15 year average foundation budget inflation rate, lowest and highest eliminated) applied to the funding; all the rest counts as "new" aid.
As I noted online earlier today, this ignores the actual functioning of the foundation budget. Yes, the budget is subject to both a 1.99% inflation rate for most and a 2.43% inflation rate for health care. It is at ground, though, a student-based, enrollment-driven formula. Changes in student count and demographics drive changes in the formula. Some of the changes--some of the Gateway cities increases--are enrollment changes, not formula changes. To ignore that is to ignore the fundamentals, and it does a real disservice to the districts that are working through changes in both. It leaves them unable to use the funds intended to serve those students for those students.

There were several places where I was torn on the right reaction; this was one(p.8):

We also encourage districts, to the extent possible, to allocate other new or existing resources to evidence-based programs, sufficient to significantly improve student outcomes and close achievement gaps over time. 

Did...you miss the entire prior discussion? What "other new or existing resources"? The ENTIRE reason we are doing this is these districts DO NOT HAVE ANY OTHER RESOURCES and they haven't had enough from the state for years!
I would note the same for the districts that are receiving incremental minimum per pupil changes, 'though it appears to me that it is largely conceded that explaining you'll be doing some of what you're already doing will suffice.

The Department then provides a sample plan, and...wow. First, please tell me that no district serving majority students of color uses "majority minority" in describing itself. This created district not only has MCAS scores; it has recently done a student survey and it has had the funding to be tracking the college persistence of graduates.
...this doesn't sound like a district that is receiving a boost in state funding.
Not surprisingly, this district has decided that two of the Commissioner's priorities are swell, so they're doing preK and early college, plus adopting acceleration academies (which is what the Commissioner ran in Lawrence, so while DESE may not be funding them, you're good there, too).

And then we get into the math. This made-up district, we're told, has "a minimum" of $2.8M of "new funding" in FY21, to which the district is adding $100,000. This puts it a bit over Holyoke, which, just to give you an idea of how this works, is having HALF of its increase in state funding attributed as new funding. Again, this is without regard to how the district is in fact getting to that funding level.
This district is going to create eight new preschool classrooms, implying (as there is no facility cost) that they have eight classrooms standing open in their district (is this true in any of our cities?). They are hiring enough staff for a 1:10 student ratio. There is a great deal of eliding of teacher and staff time towards training (the principals are paid for PD; don't the teachers need it?), not only in the early childhood section, but throughout the entire report (not all of which is budgeted). The early college section will have "intense academic coaching" which requires staff and time; faculty will "work with their college counterparts to align curriculum" which is staff time; buses will take students to the colleges, which is a transportation cost. We're told that "[r]obust, individualized academic and guidance supports will then be developed and provided" BY WHOM? WHEN?
...I could go on, but the whole of the plan is like that. There is tons of eliding of staff time and resources without accounting for the ACTUAL COST OF THINGS.

This is not a good use of our time.
This is not a good accounting of resources.
This is not a good process.
We deserve better than this. 

How is Worcester handling the April 1 reporting plan under the new funding?

This is from my last updated version of 70 on 70, regarding the required plans.

If you go to about 1: 26 on the video of the Worcester School Committee meeting from Thursday, you can find, first, Superintendent Binienda shares the presentation the urban superintendents received last week from the Commissioner on the reporting requirements under the Student Opportunity Act, and subsequently, the discussion. These came in, mainly, under items from Mayor Petty about process both until April 1 and then afterwards.

Some of this is still being worked out in particulars, but what we do know is:

1. The full School Committee is holding a hearing in each of the four quadrants over the course of February. At the meeting, Mondays (save the Presidents' Day holiday) were mentioned as possible dates, stretching to the first one in March. As yet, we do not have that confirmed, nor do we have locations nailed down but I'll share once we do.
2. Site councils were specifically noted as being integral not only within the act, but also by the state and within the deliberation. Budgetary review is under their purview. 
3. The act also specifically recognizes the Special Education and English Learner Parent Advisory Councils, which were also specifically referenced in the deliberation.

I also added in passing that our student advisory council (we have one! Did you know?) would be an excellent resource for student input, were they willing. 

While the first hearing, if this schedule holds, will be before the next regular meeting, the next regular meeting should have the FY21 budget as the report of the superintendent, and thus will be the next source of good information on specifics of what we can expect for funding. There's also usually at least some initial deliberation around priorities by the Committee.

The Governor's budget is out this coming Wednesday, January 22. 

Worcester Public Schools' enrollment changes: it's complicated

Today's Telegram and Gazette front page headline: "Worcester school enrollment sees biggest decline in 12 years"

...sigh...

Let's first acknowledge that the main reason this matters in Worcester is that Worcester is a foundation funded district: the district is funded at just above foundation (if that; I expect we fell below it this year), so enrollment changes and inflation = budget changes. Period. Scott O'Connell knows this from covering Worcester, thus the article.
And it will matter that, as Mr. Allen notes:

Specifically, Allen said, the district would be starting off with a net decline of $3.7 million because of the drop in enrollment.

But the headline, and even the article, miss the story of the Worcester Public Schools and enrollment.
Yes, a difference of 371 students to this year from last year is the biggest single year drop since 2008.
It is not, however, the biggest single year change--the district gained 432 students from 2015-16 to 2016-17, for example--nor is the enrollment in the school district dropping year over year over time.

Here's the previous ten years of district enrollment:

FY20 WPS budget, p. 410. Yes, there is a typo in the year.

To give a little more perspective on this, here's a chart that goes farther back from the FY15 budget:

Yes, I am being lazy and taking a picture of the page; it's p. 334 in the budget book.

As Jack Foley noted Thursday night when we were discussing the air quality report on Columbus Park, Worcester closed eight schools in the early 2000's. As you can see in the above chart, the district hit the lowest point in 2007-08, but has climbed back up above the levels at which the schools were closed.
So now we have over 25,000 students in eight fewer buildings.
Nelson Place was built for larger enrollment (in part due to special education), but that only takes on so much.
We were told Thursday night that about half of our schools have classrooms that are in basement spaces.
Also, there are eight classrooms of Chandler Elementary that have classes at the Main Street Y; they aren't even in the building.

And we haven't been talking about this.

On Thursday, the School Committee recommitted the Facilities Master Plan to the Finance and Operations subcommittee and asked that updating it--it only includes schools build prior to 1990, as those would be possible for MSBA renovation and rebuild--be considered as part of the upcoming budget.

We really have to talk about the lack of space, the lack of updates, the lack of funding for regular work on buildings, for our schools. New high schools are great and are needed, but a new South and a new Doherty takes care of 11% of our students.

It is also crucial that we put district enrollment changes in context. This isn't some huge drop of students; this isn't large numbers of students moving out; this is how it nets out over a large number of schools.

I will add, though, that there is one thing that raises a question in my mind, having now run the school by school changes: what happened in Head Start? Why the drop from 551 to 393?
School by school changes (from the 2019-20 and 2018-29 district profile pages) after the jump:

Top ten (plus?) read posts of 2019

As we close out the year, I did one of my periodic checks of the analytics to see what you all have been reading around here in 2019.
As always, far and away the most read is the front page, whatever it happens to be. I'm still stunned/amazed/impressed at how many of you simply swing by to see what is on the front page without coming in from anywhere in particular or to see anything in particular. Frankly, this is what pushes me to be faithful in posting (and makes me feel guilty when I am not!). I will continue to endeavor to make sure you have something to read when you come by!

So to the top ten actual posts:

1. It sometimes happens that someone about whom I have had reason to blog hits the news for some other reason, and the magic of Google will take people here. So it was when Rhode Island selected one of the finalists for Massachusetts Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education, Angélica Infante-Green, for their own new Commissioner of Education back in March. Google turned up my liveblog of her interview for the Massachusetts position in January of 2018, and Rhode Islanders came here to read what she'd said then. While the big news out of Rhode Island has been the state takeover of the Providence schools, she hasn't held back on other (in some cases, related) issues, including teacher diversity, racism, and the needs of English learners. One hopes she is heard on the need for accompanying resources. 

   My latest take (actually, Providence down their with them in my most recent model runs, but yes Woonsocket still last) pic.twitter.com/DRGME9d8MQ

   — Bruce Baker (@SchlFinance101) October 19, 2019



2. I am still angry about this, particularly as I see victory laps from his office, so let's not forget this post from October 3, calling out Governor Baker's blatant attempt to sink the Senate's passage of the Student Opportunity Act. It's the second most read post this year. Thank you to everyone who read it, everyone who shared it, everyone who got it, and everyone who remembers.
   This is why the Senate for certain and this year the House (and prior years, everyone in the House who fought for full implementation) gets credit from me, but short of the single "proof it happened" photo, you're not going to see me given Governor Baker credit for his signature. He tried to sink the bill. I will not forget that.


3. Demonstrating that those interview liveblogs just keep on giving, Tennessee appointed Penny Schwinn, who had been the third finalist for Massachusetts Commissioner, Education Commissioner in January, and her interview liveblog was the third most read blog post. Schwinn was told by lawmakers to slow down changes in Tennessee's accountability system; I am confused how this would work: "Schwinn has mentioned a 'best-of model' as one option, allowing schools to choose whether they want to be evaluated mainly on growth or on proficiency." Tennessee til now had emphasized student growth in their measures.
   This coming year, Tennessee will be among the states implementing a voucher program (do read Jennifer Berkshire on this!). Gosh, best wishes, Tennessee!


4. Back in February, the Worcester School Committee--finally--took up sex ed after twists and turns in which the only positive upshots were that Bill Shaner's coverage of it got an award and the entire field of candidates for the Worcester School Committee committed to comprehensive sex ed* in the new term. My post on reviewing the then-proposed Michigan model is here.
   
   *whatever that means, as I said on 508: A Show About Worcester back in May. I guess that is part of what we'll find out this coming year!


5. This was--hurrah, hurrah!--the year we finally, finally, finally got the foundation budget overhauled, and so the filing of Senator Sonia Chang-Díaz and Representative Aaron Vega and Mary Keefe's Promise Act is the "five golden rings" (da-da-da-dat) of this year's top ten. I have to be honest: the Legislature made me work for it this year, what with explaining how the Boston piece worked here, what the possible holdup was on negotiations around the bill (it looks like maybe I was kind of right?), and chasing down the pieces of the final Student Opportunity Act (see number 10). I know I learned a lot: I hope some of you did, too!


6. Bringing us back to the reason why I started the blog in the first place--you're never going to get everything in a newspaper article!--the sixth most read post was the liveblog of the Worcester Doherty building committee meeting at which they were to vote a preferred option and didn't. This was the one at which the Chandler Magnet community showed up and reminded folks that that wasn't empty space over on Chandler Street.
   Don't forget that lesson.


7. One of the things about which I was reminded this spring was this: Worcester, for all that we are sometimes insular, plays on a pretty big stage. When the second largest city in the state, with the third largest public school system, has sustained public concerns expressed regarding systemic bias that then impacts the negotiation of the superintendent's contract renewal, the state (not just DESE, though that's true) pays attention. The seventh most read post was just my running through the released student disciplinary data from the district and comparing it to the student disciplinary data that the state had posted from the district, following an earlier post.I did find myself for much of April attempting to at least share what was happening in Worcester.
   We shouldn't forget that, either.


8. The Boston Globe's new foundation-funded education shop did a long piece on the Boston Public Schools' bathrooms, which left me with decidedly mixed feelings. 


9. Thankfully, it isn't often that we have a crossover into public education of the ongoing fight for transparency and accountability around sex abuse in the Roman Catholic Church, but this year we did, and it hit Massachusetts. I am still very very concerned about how the Department did not, frankly, choose to handle this, from my seat as a mother and from a district policy level. There should have been an open call from the Department for anyone with any concerns or history to contact someone outside the Department; that should have gone out to every district with a request that it be shared through every district channel.
   DESE officials have a lot of implicit trust around children that comes with their positions, and I really don't think the Department did what it needed to in order to keep and maintain that trust. 


10. And then we had a bill! And I had all sorts of people tweeting me gifs of their waiting for me to read it!
    And lo and behold, it actually passed and was signed.

This did not make the top ten, but it came close, and it's making me laugh, because it may be that kind of a year again: you gotta make up snow days.
And seniors? You can't get out earlier than the 168th day of school (sorry!). 

And in 2020?
Locally, yes, I'll be blogging the Worcester School Committee and other meetings; as per past practice, I don't tweet from the floor, but blogging is my taking notes, so that you'll have.
At the state level, we have the Student Opportunity Act to implement (with those district spending plans due in April!). The Board of Ed is considering vocational schools admissions, we're still implementing the ESSA plan (will there be alterations?), and I, anyway, am still wondering about the vision of K-12 education coming out of Malden now.
And, nationally, we of course have a president to elect!

I feel very, very lucky to do what I do. Thanks for reading, but thanks also for asking questions, for pushing me on policies, and for all, named and otherwise, who answer my sometimes repetitive and often inconveniently timed questions.
I couldn't do it without you. 

For the coming year, I can't say it better than Molly Ivins:

So keep fighting for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don't forget to have fun doing it. Be outrageous... rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. 
And when you get through celebrating the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was!

Happy 2020! 

On bathrooms, urban schools, and press coverage

There's a big story in today's Boston Globe about the bathrooms in the Boston Public Schools, and I have to say that I really have some mixed feelings about it.

This isn't just a Boston thing, at all.

First, let's be really clear: kids deserve on-demand (yes, really) access to clean, functional, easily accessible bathrooms where they feel and are safe and comfortable. Bathrooms are and have been a marker in the battle for civil rights. That isn't too much to ask; it's a basic public health issue, and, as is noted in the article, not providing that has real impacts on student learning (which is what we're about, after all).

I also appreciate Bianca Vázquez Toness very appropriately calling out that is communicates to students how much they and their educations are valued:

It is not a conventional measure of success or failure in the city’s schools, but it is a telling one: What does it say to the children of the schools that they are expected, as they strive to learn, to put up with such facilities? Or avoid them at all cost — and great discomfort?

As parent and as a former teacher, the knee-jerk reaction of limiting bathroom access--very much not just a Boston issue--drives me bananas. There's no way it should be happening. Stop locking bathrooms as a measure of student control. That's just wrong.
It is true, again, that parent advocacy has a direct impact on learning conditions. That shouldn't be the determining factor.
And if and when what we have is a custodial issue, then as in any other circumstance of people not doing their jobs OR (and this happens!) not having enough staff to do their jobs well, then we very much ought to fix that. 
(There are national measures for custodial staffing that can be referenced on this.)

It's important to read this, however, in the context of the Globe article from last week on crumbling school infrastructure. For that, the Globe went to Lynn, which itself is interesting, but I know enough about Boston's school buildings to know that one could write the same article about Boston...or Worcester.

Worcester has fifty school buildings.
MSBA estimates a fifty year lifespan for new schools.
Given those two pieces of information, how often should Worcester be opening a new school?

Every. Single. Year.

And Boston has more than twice as buildings than that, and it simply hasn't been rebuilding and renovating at the rate needed to keep up with that replacement cycle. I was in the English High last week for the bill signing, and I used the bathroom (a staff bathroom) while I was there. It was clean, and people were doing their best, but they were doing their best with heavily used, outdated facilities and not enough money.
And that's true there and in Worcester and in Lynn and in Springfield...
Not tying this back to that funding article does, I think, a disservice to those who have been struggling to make it work in the Boston schools, and I know that there are plenty of them.

As this is Boston, let me also note this: the Boston School Committee's ability to advocate for the schools to the city is, in my personal view, hamstrung by their being a committee appointed by the Mayor. For those appointed by the Mayor to go to the Mayor and fight for more capital funding for schools seems...well, not to be working. Again, that's my personal opinion.
Either way, Boston isn't getting schools built and renovated quickly. And if you were parent with a rising kindergartner, what would be your reaction to this article?

When gifted programs aren't really about giftedness

...and there's some question if they ever are.
This from New York City:

A group of selective schools and programs geared to students labeled gifted and talented is filled mostly with white and Asian children. The rest of the system is open to all students and is predominantly black and Hispanic.
Now, a high-level panel appointed by Mayor Bill de Blasio is recommending that the city do away with most of these selective programs in an effort to desegregate the system, which has 1.1 million students and is by far the largest in the country.

The same demographics are true, of course, of Boston Latin, and, while Worcester sticks its "gifted" programs as subprograms into schools so their demographics are masked, it's a good bet that Worcester's are, as well.
Tough to argue that's giftedness. All eyes on New York on if the decision is made that's good for all students--as "gifted" students aren't hurt by learning with the general population--or the political efficient one.

If Buffalo can...

I appear to be on a bit of a theme here on "why can't we?" but if the Buffalo Public Schools have managed to overcome the complications around providing internet access to students in their neighborhoods, surely Worcester could?

The two neighborhoods were specifically targeted, because they are in what’s referred to as “digital deserts” – lower-income neighborhoods where more than half of all households don’t have home internet or cellular service.
In this case, HarpData would, basically, situate wireless antennas atop the eight district schools and other buildings near them to extend the district’s Wi-Fi signal into the neighborhoods...
Their signal would reach as many as 5,500 students who live inside a two-mile radius of one of the eight schools. Students then would be able to use their passwords to log on at home the same as they would at school.

The concern I have in the past heard in Worcester (and note that this is a broadband rather than device issue) is that federal funding requires particular filters. I've noticed that Worcester already chooses to apply that requirement more broadly than other districts (banning access more widely); it would seem that Buffalo is simply applying their own filter to the service offered.

Mussotte et al v. Peyser et al press conference liveblog

Learn those names, because here comes the lawsuit.
Live feed coming from the conference on this page.

The front row: the plantiffs
Taking this photo kind of broke my heart. 

Juan Cofield, NAACP
“We felt it necessary given the harm that continues to be done to our children”

Access matters

Yesterday, MassLive noted the lack of home internet access among two groups of students: those in rural areas (still an issue) and those (of low income) in urban areas. MassLive notes how Springfield and Holyoke have worked with families on this:

At the beginning of every school year, Springfield and Holyoke families can purchase internet services through Comcast at a discount — $9.95 a month, with the option to purchase an internet-ready computer for less than $150. Households with school-age children eligible for free and reduced-price lunches, all households living in U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development-assisted housing and low-income veterans are eligible for the Internet Essentials program.

That's in addition to Springfield having a one-to-one program from grade 3 up, with high school students able to bring them home, and Holyoke having free mobile devices in their middle schools.

As for Worcester? While the push to do work online at the secondary level is the same here, there has been no district effort to work with families on home access; it's been years since the district even surveyed internet access, let alone device access. While the student in this AP article is in Hartford, her experience is something some Worcester students experience as well:

With no computer or internet at home, Raegan Byrd's homework assignments present a nightly challenge: How much can she get done using just her smartphone?
On the tiny screen, she switches between web pages for research projects, losing track of tabs whenever friends send messages. She uses her thumbs to tap out school papers, but when glitches keep her from submitting assignments electronically, she writes them out by hand.
"At least I have something, instead of nothing, to explain the situation," said Raegan, a high school senior in Hartford.

 In Massachusetts, requiring students to depend on family access without providing such access is in violation of a free public education. Per DESE guidance of November 2016 (note that's a doc; page 10):

1. Are schools obligated to provide students with a device if one is required for learning and instruction? 

Yes. Under Chapter 71, Section 48 of the Massachusetts General Laws, schools must purchase at public expense textbooks and other instructional materials and supplies intended for use and re-use over a period of years. Schools then in turn "loan" those instructional materials free of charge to students, who must return them at the end of the school year.
Costly tools such as a tablet or other computer or graphing calculator fall in the category of instructional materials and supplies that, similar to textbooks, are intended for schools to purchase and use and re-use over a period of years. If such technology is required, schools may encourage each student to purchase these devices. Students are likely to do so because they may need those devices for future classes and other use outside of school. Schools are advised to be prepared to provide such devices free of charge to students whose families do not choose to buy them or cannot afford to do so. If students need such devices to complete out-of-school assignments, schools must provide that access.

Students need such devices to complete out-of-school assignments in Worcester.

What's happening next door

I've done a bit of tweeting about Rhode Island's efforts to turn around (sorry for the tired verb) education system--they've hired Angélica Infante-Green as their new education commissioner, who of course was a finalist for the Massachusetts education commissioner and may represent a sort of road not taken (an outsider, a Latina, and so forth)--particularly as a number of districts are having eyebrow-raising budget seasons this spring; take a look at Warwick, or Lincoln, or Coventry. All of this is after Rhode Island adopted the MCAS--yes, the Massachusetts state test--as their own state assessment and results in the first year were weak. There's been lots of political fomenting since, 'though what I haven't heard about is any sort of comprehensive funding overhaul.

The Boston Globe has a piece today on the most recent bit, which is the discussion of if the state should take over the Providence school system. The first part that made me sit back in my chair:

[Mayor] Elorza has faced public criticism from members of the council and the Providence Teachers Union for insisting that he interview most people coming to work for the school department, from principals down to crossing guards. A spokesperson for Elorza acknowledged the mayor does like to meet with applicants before they are hired but argued he does not interfere with school department decisions.
When it comes to signing off on contracts with vendors, the council has come under fire for a requirement that it approve all agreements worth more than $5,000. The process has led school department employees to joke that it can cost more than $5,000 in man hours just to prepare a small contract to go before the council. Council leadership has defended the practice, arguing city government needs checks and balances.

...there's somebody who needs some roles and responsbilities work here, and it isn't the school committee.
There is plenty else at work here--Rhode Island, after all, has the same redlined New England districts that Massachusetts does, meaning that the need is concentrated in their cities. Add to that Providence's size relative to the rest of the state, where a district about the same size as Worcester is close to a fifth of the entire state public school enrollment. Infante-Green has been careful not to talk about a "takeover" speaking instead of partnerships, 'though one should of course always approach such terms with care. At this point, all that has been happening is a comprehensive review (which is how we know the bit above from the Globe) with results due later this month.
While Rhode Island hasn't had the same comprehensive funding reform Massachusetts has had once and is over due to have again, it also hasn't had any of the related reforms (catch any Massachusetts mayor insisting as above, for example) around who has what sort of authorities. Between that and the relative proportion of the population involved, expect there to be more Legislative action that might otherwise be the case.

regarding Worcester and funding reform

I'm not testifying today--just typing!--but I've found that my original testimony before the Foundation Budget Review Commission from over four years ago has held up well.

There are times at which it is no longer “effective” or “efficient” spending.
Sometimes a cut is just a cut.
The education and programs we were able to provide in 2000 were much closer to that which we should be offering our children in class sizes, in course offerings, in after-school programs, in support services, in supplies, in technology...across the board.

Of course, now the gaps are larger.

This is noted quite well in yesterday's WGBH article:

The early aughts were a boom time in Worcester Public Schools. The district offered afterschool programs, free pre-kindergarten and career pathway training in high school. These are all programs the district thought worked for boosting opportunities and achievement for low-income students.
But in 2004, as the cost of teachers’ health benefits and special education started to balloon faster than revenue, the district started making drastic cuts.

They were a boom time, of course, because the foundation budget was fully implemented and health insurance costs hadn't yet started to balloon.

I appreciated Rebecca Cusick's point on this in her op-ed earlier this week:

While accountability has increased and undergone a series of reforms since 1993, the funding formula has not. It’s time for some reciprocal accountability. Students and schools are compared to each other with the assumption that they are equal, while clearly, they are not. Education funding reform is the single best strategy for improving education for all kids.

What does local accountability look like? Discussion with Ben Forman of Mass Inc

Ben Forman of Mass Inc, who wrote the piece on local accountability recently, came out to talk to me last week about local accountability. We also got into local elections, site councils, criminal justice reform, housing stability, who runs and who doesn't, and turnarounds.
Thanks, Ben!

Board of Ed in January: Alma del Mar charter expansion

Riley: charter expansion request from two schools; one being brought forward today
heartened that mayor, superintendent, Alma agreed
"promising new path forward for district/charter collaboration in the Commonwealth"
two votes:

1. the deal
2. expansion of 594 seats "this is the recommendation that I would have brought forward if we were solely working through the charter expansion process"

criteria are set forth in statutory language and regulations
"Alma del Mar have met the regulations and so it is incumbent upon me to bring it forward"
hm...not sure that's true
"out of respect for our students and our families"
"proof point for the Commonwealth"
will continue to bring forward charters in traditional process

New Bedford superintendent, Alma executive director first
Will Gardner, executive director, founder
start in kindergarden, high demand, rich in content
450 students, K-8
middle schoolers "are now the top performing students in the city"
building relationships; home visit for every student
cell phone for all staffers "to put plenty of money in the bank with those families"
"focus on a targeted geographic area"
in line with vision superintendent and mayor had for district
"share a vision, as soon as possible, that every family will be surrounded by high performing" options
Superintendent Anderson
"has fournded as a charter school founding principal"...and he does the rest of his history
"all communities desire a well-rounded education for all children"
worked quickly to establish relationships with educational agencies in New Bedford
Morton: suspension?
Anderson: using resources fairly
looking into cultivating students to take ownership of their actions
Gardner: "we have to make a lot of hard choices...culture that's really safe"
says earlier rates were incorrect
middle schools are comparable; "hard to compare elementary schools, as not all are reporting, or reporting in the same way"
Stewart: public process?
Riley: timeline trucated as families need to make decisions
conveyance of building, then legislative action
Anderson: let parents know, and were going through boundary exercises, anyway
"all of our schools are having these visioning sessions...on how we're moving forward"
Stewart: the details of this particular deal are a week old
enrollment process: will choose from a neighborhood, different
what other innovations have you thought about for this schools?
Gardner: was community activist, working with groups throughout the city
had a history of collaborating with the district

McKenna: interesting and innovative model
"all interested in the same thing: kids and education"
"ripe for other collaborations and innovations that are possible"
social workers are a huge help in families and placements
ensuring that you have good special education staff
encourage you to work with professional development in these areas, and "your suspension rates will improve"
"collaboration is the answer for kids, not fighting together"
Moriarty: highlight 3% chronic absenteeism rate
"mindfulness of how important it is to have families and children"
"if you can continue to talk about that, so you can get New Bedford to that, we'll be in a better world"
Fernández: don't believe we can move forward without a shared vision across
LOOK act, thinking collaboratively
move forward with teacher and leader diversity in your district
work collectively, leveraged across districts
Sagan: exactly why Board has selected you [Riley]to be the Commissioner
Gardner could have just barreled forward
town "could just fight, and say at least we've put the political points on the Board, even if we didn't win"
Peyser: we do need to build bridges between districts and charters
"choice is an important element in charter schools...but so are neighborhood schools"
"opens the door for charter schools to be both schools of choice and neighborhood schools"

Doherty abstains
Stewart votes no
nine in favor for the first motion

second motion: Stewart and Doherty no
nine in favor

When the Commissioner goes "Let's Make a Deal" on charter expansion

At the beginning of yesterday's Board of Ed meeting, Commissioner Riley announced a deal that the mayor of New Bedford and the leadership of Alma del Mar Charter School had agreed to around Alma's charter expansion. The school had applied for over 1000 seats in expansion, something naturally opposed by the city. Instead, Riley announced, the school would get over 400 seats, a building that the New Bedford Public Schools have closed, and be assigned an enrollment zone, much as the New Bedford schools have.
I tweeted this out earlier, but I want to be sure it's up and out there: the deal was hailed as Solomonic, but Solomon didn't actually cut the baby in half. As Chair Sagan pointed out last night, the option remains with the Commissioner to move forward with recommending the full more than 1000 seats. He also has a markedly pro-charter board who one assumes would support such a move. It is thus crucial to note that this "deal" wasn't made with everyone at the table having the same agency; the city and school district have this implicit threat hanging over them. It need not be made explicit, as everyone knows how this works.
The charter school gets half the seats they asked for, for now--nothing prevents them from later expansion--a building, and the support of at least some of New Bedford's leadership. The district gets...a pat on the back? And a charter school having assigned pupils, who may or may not wish to attend; I know I would be dubious as a parent, having no local recourse if I had issues with my child's school.
Obviously, I can't and don't speak for New Bedford, but I am also (as one who also lives in an urban district) dubious about mayors cutting deals on behalf of the school system (chair or not). Superintendents and school committees should be those at the table.
The Commissioner also floated the availability of targeted assistance grants for this work: that isn't how those are supposed to work. Any district seeking those should question how those decisions are now being made, if they're instead being handed out in advance.
Let's also recognize that this entirely ignores the underlying issues: of local democratic governance, of local spending decisions (which New Bedford loses, incidentally), of true public education.

January Board of Ed: New Bedford charter matters

new plan in the best interest of the kids in all the city
letter of intent among all three parties laying out a path forward: New Bedford, Alma del Mar, DESE
Alma expand by 450 students on new building
neighborhood zone to be created by the district to attend this campus of Alma
Alma would gain a city facility would open 2019; gr. 1, 2, 6
will apply for grants
"a deal that has been a long time in coming"
"to be able to provide local control to give folks a chance to work together for something that works best for their community...is what matters most"
still more work to do
"to keep trying to find common ground in these debates" rather than further division
going need agreements to go into greater detail
also will need legislation on Beacon Hill to make this work
asking for the Board's support, as well
will make motion at next meeting; January 22 meeting hope to have representatives from all parties to discuss further
Sagan: this could be a real breakthrough moment
"try to find some third ways forward...bridge some of the divide"
Doherty: teachers' union, parents involved?
Riley: understanding is that mayor has let others know
"and other legislative leaders"
Stewart: speak of legislation?
Riley: will need some legislation to cover this sort of model: variation on Commonwealth
allow city and charter school to talk to each other to get a better more nuanced deal
Stewart: Governor?
Riley: signalled they're supportive
"seems like we've got a local deal and something to go forward"
Moriarty: middle ground in 2019, devil in details
McKenna: after you get this settled, will you get the government open again?
Sagan: notes that if this doesn't go through, still a charter application that he can move on