Chester at MASC / MASS

Commissioner Chester spoke after Secretary Reville
It is "not often the case that we realize how well thought of we are" around the country and internationally
Last year, Chester said

1. support teacher development
2. support curriculum and instruction
3. accountability and assistance
4. student and family supports

are his priorities and those of the state department. He's impressed at how well those four line up with the priorities of the Obama administration under RTTT (notable exception: no mention in RTTT about student and family supports)

He calls RTTT an "unprecendented opportunity" from the fed; "dollars are substantial, potentially substantial"

He says he's "recruiting YOU" (superintendents and school committee members) to get on board with this--money will not flow as entitlements, has to be earned

"you are going to have to make a commitment" (at which point I heard muttered, "where's your commitment to us?")

Measures of "effectiveness" rather than qualifications of teachers--qualifications aren't a good predictor. "very interested in looking at test scores when we have them" also "principals rating teachers, superintendents rating principals, and, in high schools, students rating teachers"

(yes, you read that last part right)

part of an improvement strategy

not all districts have to participate; more money for the rest

"to be treated as professionals is to get honest feedback," he says, using himself as an example of someone who is a professional who gets honest feedback

Leaves us with this proverb: "when the water hole goes dry, the animals start to look at one another differently"

Reville at MASC / MASS

I won't liveblog all that I hear at the Mass Association of School Committees/Superintendent's conference this weekend, but I thought that some of you might be interested in the remarks made by Secretary of Education Paul Reville and Commissioner of Education Mitchell Chester Wednesday evening at the opening dinner.

Reville begins by lauding the work done by superintendents, school committees, teachers, principals to make us number one in the country, but we still have "gaps as large or larger" than other states. The "future of the economy and society" depends on fixing it this; they plan to do "with urgency" and do it in cooperation with the education field. After 16 years of ed reform, what we are doing isn't "wholly adequate."
We want for our students "success in life," "as life-long learners," "as citizens"
The Readiness Project was designed to "deliver on the promise" keeping in mind that accountability and choice in education "are here to stay."
That said, he "understand(s) the pain and drain"of charter schools on budgets (explains that charter schools strictly limited under bill passed by Senate)
"unprecendented flexibility and autonomy" in districts to "challenge the mainstream" = the readiness schools

Reville said that the Ed Reform bill was not only about "getting an opportunity to get federal dollars," that it was "as much a moral rationale" as a financial one
Suggests that the Gates foundation might follow RTTT dollars with money of their own (they recently donated $10 million to the KIPP charters)
fears a referendum proposed by charter proponents that would lift the cap entirely (let me interject here briefly that he mentioned this several times now and later. Why he assumes such a referendum would be won by the charter proponents--they say it would, but, then, one assumes they would--and why we should be governing based on threatened referenda escapes me)

On to the budget!
comments that education has been a high priority to the Patrick administration, that when they cut the budget, they did not cut foundation funding (except Worcester lost all foundation funding from the state, which was supplanted by stimulus money. The state did not hold Worcester harmless.)
the state is hoping to avoid further 9c and ch. 70 cuts for this year; working with unions to cut back there instead

six readiness centers are opening around the state to "systematically improve the quality of teaching" and to do the "joint work of setting expectations" and integrating...

Doing more of what we're already doing?

A new study out by Columbia University is draws a conclusion that Worcester ought to be looking closely at as we "Race to the Top": it seems that magnet school programs and other programs that mix students with others out of their neighborhoods have a greater rate of success than those that create charter and other programs in their neighborhoods. EdWeek's summary:

After examining the nation's eight remaining desegregation programs that enable disadvantaged students to cross school district boundary lines to attend more-affluent, suburban public schools, the researchers conclude that the programs are "far more successful than recent choice and accountability policies at closing the achievement gap and offering meaningful school choices."

It's a fascinating conclusion that runs counter to most of the methods and strategies at work in public education right now to close the achievement gap. The authors acknowledge that the programs--in Boston, East Palo Alto, Calif., Hartford, Conn., Indianapolis, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Rochester, N.Y., and St. Louis--are "out of sync" with current practice. Except for the program in Minneapolis, all have been in place for at least two decades, and all the programs stem from court rulings and legislation meant to create equitable educational opportunities for disadvantaged students.

Worcester's magnets were originally constructed as a desegregation effort; they don't have the scope of Boston's METCO program, but they do a similar thing.

Across the Atlantic

The Queen's annual speech to Parliament took place in London earlier today. (For those not up on their British government, the Queen presents "Her Government's" plans for the year in a speech to both houses of Parliament. In this case, Labour is in power and thus is presenting its plans for the year.) It included this line which has caused a bit of a fervor:

Legislation will be brought forward to introduce guarantees for pupils and parents to raise educational standards.

The question here is whether one can indeed "guarantee" a quality education. Is this opening school districts to suits from parents who feel that their child has not received one? And what is the responsibility of the national government?

Ed Reform '09 passes Senate with amendments

The big news is that Senate Bill 2205 passed, 28-11,but just what is in it is something I'm having trouble getting. Both the coverage by the Globe and the T&G (which I can't find online) are vague at best (clearly they were running up against press deadlines). The most complete information I've found is here in the Dedham paper, plus the MTA is keeping its members up-to-date on the provisions that most affect them. Part of the reason for the lack of information?

The redrafted policies, tacked onto a bill that senators said was the most significant education reform bill since 1993, were not available during debate. It will take some time for the House and for legislative clerks to sort through the many changes made to the bill.

Here's what I do know:

• the charter cap is lifted
• contracts have to be negotiated for 30 days before going to arbitration
• Horace Mann conversion is subject to a building teacher vote
• an adequacy study is included

It now goes to the House, which from the various pieces I've read, has little appetite to take it up today. Tonight, the Legislature recesses until January.
Good time to get in touch with representatives!

Why all public schools are failing...except yours.

Gerald Bracey died this past fall, and we are going to miss him. Here's his explanation for why all public schools are failing...but yours.

What happens when Duncan runs your schools?

I fear because it got buried in most national papers (p. A17 of the New York Times, for example), you may have missed the University of Chicago's study of just what happens to kids when you close schools.
For those of you who haven't followed the national press on this, Arne Duncan became Secretary of Education under President Obama after running Chicago's public schools. Duncan was appointed by Mayor Richard Daley (yes, Chicago's schools run on the "strong mayor" model) as CPS Chief Executive Officer. Duncan was a big part of implementing the "Renaissance 2010" program, which has, to say the least, been controversal. Duncan has closed numerous schools (22 have closed since 2001, 'though not all of that was under Duncan), fired teachers and principals, and thrown neighborhoods into turmoil.

Has it done any good?

Not so much, it seems.

• When it's announced that a school will close, student test scores go down.
• Once a school has closed, student achievement returns to what it was prior to the announced closing.
• Student improvement, long term, depends entirely on the sort of school the student ends up in (and most students, in the Chicago study, ended up in schools that mirrored the schools from which they'd come).

This is the "chronically underperforming" question now before the Massachusetts Legislature and this is part of Race to the Top. Worth keeping a close eye on.