That number is

$44,946.26

That's how much the cleanup of mercury at Grafton Street School cost the Worcester Public Schools.
Full breakdown of costs in this week's agenda backup here.

Generous neighbors

Thank you to Millbury Savings Bank for a generous donation promised this morning to Vernon Hill and Quinsigamond Schools. They'll be the schools' new neighbor on the corner of Providence and Millbury Streets.

Another brick in the wall

ThinkProgress is reporting that 111 Republicans running for Congress want to abolish the federal Department of Education. Before we all get too excited (one way or the other), it's worth noting that this has been even a plank of the Republican Party platform before, but it's never gotten enough support from actually serving, actually elected representatives and senators to get it passed. No telling if it will this time.
Also, per the comments following the ThinkProgress post, let's keep even this in some perspective. The federal education department was created as part of President Johnson's War on Poverty; that makes it a fairly new federal department. Even if the Republicans did muster the votes to elminate the federal DoE, this would not somehow magically make education in the United States vanish. We did have education in this country prior to the 1960's! Education is largely--though less so now than fifteen years ago--managed, controlled, and even funded by state and local governments. Losing funding would hurt communities with heavy Title I enrollments (like Worcester), but in the scope of education funding nationally, the federal government is a relatively minor player, even after the $4 billion of Race to the Top.
This is not, I hasten to add, to say that I think we cut the DoE off. The original argument for the creation of the department--that national equity in education is lacking, and it's in the interest of the American people as a whole to change that--is still a valid one. I'd say we need to work on how we're doing it, as some of the policies currently being pursued increase, rather than decrease, inequity.

A Declaration of Conscience for Teachers

Anthony Cody over at Living in Dialogue has posted the twenty year old "Declaration of Conscience for Teachers."
The preamble reads in part:

Education in the United States is at such a crossroad. At the same time that schools have rededicated themselves to equal educational opportunity for all, laws and policies are being imposed on schools that limit the ability of diligent teachers to use their professional judgment to further the personal development and welfare of their students.

There are strong pressures today to dehumanize, to depersonalize, to industrialize our schools. In the name of cost effectiveness, of efficiency, of system, of accountability, of minimal competency, of a return to the basics, schools are being turned into sterile, hostile institutions at war with the young people they are intended to serve.

As teachers we hereby declare ourselves to be in opposition to the industrialization of our schools. We pledge ourselves to become advocates on behalf of our students.

And I would only add that I would extend this to all educators: that principals, administrators, superintendents, and yes, school committee members should hold themselves to such a pledge.

Stotsky: questions from the audience

Councilor Lukes: was trained as a teacher "education courses long on puff and short on substance"
"can't teach somebody how to be a teacher...have to prove themselves in the battlefield of the classrooms"
tenure, seniority, contract provisions
"once we hire those teachers, and they prove to themselves and to us that" they can't do it
one party politics in Massachusetts, power of teachers' unions
I seem to have missed her question here, which was on the importance of actual classroom experience in evaluating teachers, and being able to get rid of those who are not doing a great job

Sandra Stotsky on teacher quality (with commentary)

Sorry for the late posting on this one. Professor Sandra Stotsky was the Research Bureau's guest lecturer yesterday at a breakfast at Mass College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences. I thought it very cool to see, by my count, one city councilor, two upper level school administrators, and the city manager (!) at an event on teacher quality. As you'll see below, I question some of the information they got, but nonetheless, the interest is good. Note that the Research Bureau also has the video of this posted on their website. (I stand corrected; it isn't up yet!)
My comments, as always, in italics.

Stotsky: examinations for new superintendents in the 19th century

"the Race to the Top application that came out from the US Dept of Ed" made it "very clear that the US Dept of Ed doesn't think that we have the type of teachers we need"

"far more weight given to" improving the teachers we have, rather than getting good new ones" (okay, can I put out there that both might be important? Speaking as someone who has a small role in running a school system, we've got 24,000 kids in Worcester who are going to show up tomorrow morning at school. We need actual teachers in the classroom.)

"not much about how we make sure that those who get in are like those in Finland, Singapore, Korea and so forth" (I'll post on greater length on this later, but I find it interesting how only parts of the systems in these countries are the ones that get spoken of. How they chose to run their schools is VERY different from the national direction of education in the US right now, for example.)

School closings in Boston

A three hour hearing last night in Boston around the potential closing of eight schools was lively, it sounds like.

It was loud and angry. Before the meeting started, a crowd was chanting, “Save our schools.” This chanting went on for about 20 minutes. Several hundred parents — some with their children — and teachers came with signs and T-shirts. When the meeting started, they charged the stage as school committee members started to take their seats. Boston school police had to get in front of the stage to keep them away.

 The School Committee--which is not an elected body, and so does not answer to these or any parents--votes next week on the plan. The superintendent claims (I can't find this online; I heard it yesterday on the radio) that the schools are not being closed only on the basis of MCAS scores, but then explained that the decision was based on...MCAS scores, crunched three ways (sound familiar?).