September meeting of the Board of Education: opening remarks

The agenda is here. The livestream is here. Posting starts at 8:30 or thereabouts

Meeting called to order at 8:34 by Chair Sagan
"Happy New Year, as several of you have said"
"I actually got one email from somebody saying, 'I can't wait til you're all back!'"
(laughter as Sagan denies that it came from a member of the Board or from his family)
Sagan welcomes Maya Matthews as the new student rep of the year
Sagan notes that this will be Riley's first full school year
goals not only for Commissioner's report card but also priorities that he wants us to focus on
have been talking to Early Ed and Higher Ed on "more evidenced-based policy making"
"great deal more data that will look" over a long period of time
"we're not really sure a lot of the time" when making policies
"look at some set of outcomes in a new way"
other states are doing this "and may even be ahead of us"
do an outside study on what else is going on in the country; will come back and let you know what we've learned
work with other boards in an interdisciplinary way
"link some of at least economic outcomes with what experiences you had and what schools you went to"

Commissioner Riley:
update on explosions in the Merrimack Valley
"could have been a lot worse...we did lose a student"
timing...it could have been even worse
thank those who have contributed
Eversource went school by school and cleared the schools
shelters have been closing as families have been able to go home
"difficult week or so and a lot of work ahead to fix the problem"
update on case on Holyoke case on translation; optimistic on progress
school resource officer model MOU; being well-planned for all contingencies
superintendent, police chief, fire chief being coordinated with response to emergencies
MCAS results end of September
"asked Board to reserve judgment" on new accountability system

Peyser: pending supplemental budget (for FY18)
"turns out there were some additional resources available in FY18"
Governor has asked for "some significant new dollars" to be put towards education; $70M to school safety
of that $20M to physical plant; $40M to behavioral and mental health services
"to prevent the kinds of school shootings we've seen in other parts of the country"
$30M for targeted assistance; at discretion of Commissioner
"that's pending"
"this will happen over the next couple of weeks one way or another"
visits with Commissioner, Higher Ed to districts on early college high school
pathways programs: "expand careerways in comprehensive high schools"
Connecting activities has been part of Mass STEM at Work

Public comment: Emily Ruddock (?)
director of policy and public affairs for MassCreative
"so delighted to see there is an update on arts curriculum framework"
worked closely to ensure that arts participation "featured in that dashboard" on school and district report cards
"passion, professionalism, and dedication" of those reviewing updated standards
make sure all of this good work is actual implemented
need for staff person at DESE to coordinate professional development and implementation

Worcester School Committee meets Thursday, but there's a report they aren't receiving

Worcester School Committee meets Thursday for their regular meeting--the agenda is here--but there is a report they aren't getting.
Teaching, Learning, and Student Supports was scheduled to meet last week on Wednesday, in which case it would report out this week, but the meeting was cancelled. And why is decidedly odd:

Earlier this week, the administration withdrew the plan for further review, and the standing committee’s meeting on Wednesday evening at which it would have reviewed the proposal was canceled.

That's from Scott O'Connell's coverage (and good catch, Scott) of the proposed middle school health curriculum update, which Mr. O'Connell and Mr. Monfredo then describe in what might be politely phrased as florid terms.
The curriculum, however, was never reviewed, because, as we read above "administration withdrew the plan" before the meeting and cancelled the meeting.
Why?
It certainly appears as if two members of a three member committee objected to an item on an agenda, let the administration know, and got the administration to withdraw the proposal all without ever holding a public meeting, a clear abbrogation of their responsibility as elected officials.
And if you think two members of a three member subcommittee somehow both called expressing the same concern that got the meeting cancelled, well...

The follow-up article, incidentally, does a much better job of characterizing what is a national model for sex education, something which Worcester is well overdue for updating, as the city's commissioner of public health points out:

Ms. Castiel sad the relatively high rate of teen pregnancies in Worcester is evidence that families cannot be expected to handle sex education in every case, however.
“It isn’t being taught at home,” she said. “I raised two kids myself – it’s a tough issue to talk about with your kids.”
Early adolescence is ultimately a critical period for teaching students about many seemingly adult issues like sex, drugs and relationships, she argues, because it’s when they start to become exposed to them on their own.
“All this stuff starts to happen when they are kids,” she said. “This kind of education has to happen at this age.”

More on this as I have it. Also, contrast with how Martha's Vineyard is tackling this conversation

As for the agenda items that do exist this week, it's a fairly light week. Beyond recognitions and congratulations, the report of the superintendent is on early college high school.
There are the usual beginning of the year retirements, transfers, and resignations.
There are a series of grants to be accepted:

• Innovation pathways, at $140,000, which is being used to bus non-Tech kids to Tech to take a vocational class
• UMass classroom enrichment grant, at $38,000, which is being used for classroom enrichments (no specifics) in North quadrant classrooms
• Toxic Use Reduction grant, at $10,000, for the existing environmental management system
• MCC SerHacer grant, at $16,000, for Burncoat quadrant classes to have four sessions of El Sistema (super cool!)

There are also donations: 

-$446.13 from Lifetouch to Chandler Magnet School
-$385.06 from Lifetouch to Belmont Street Community School
-to support the Exhilarate Worcester Initiative at Woodland Academy:
  $800.00 from various donors
  $100.00 from the Specialty Sandwich Co.
  $250.00 from C2 Skin Bar
  $250.00 from Yoga Health Concepts Inc.
  $250.00 from Eagle Cleaning Corporation
  $500.00 from UNUM

Miss Biancheria would like a report on Manufacturing Day (October 5).
Mr. Comparetto is requesting a report on before-school care charges.
There is a single prior fiscal year payment of $71.

There is a posted executive session for "re: IUPE Local 135 and Worcester School Committee, American Arbitration Association No. 01-17-0005-2729 and related administrative agency litigation."

Education debt to our nation's children of color and their schools

Well worth a read today is this from the Alliance to Reclaim Our Schools on what they're calculating as $580 billion owed schools of primarily low-income children of color. The full report is here.
What's interesting about this is they're focusing in opening on the federal level. Title I began as 40% more funding for low income kids. IDEA was to fund 40% of the needed special education services.
And neither happened.
The report also connects it to the falling off in the level of progression in our federal tax code, in the increases in spending in prisons (and the school-to-prison pipeline), and the push towards privatization. There hasn't, in my view, been enough attention on which schools get pushed away from their democratic representation and which schools never do, so this is a solid addition.
Worth your time!

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.

The Berkshires aren't happy

Pittsfield has organized a letter to be sent to their delegation regarding the inaction on the foundation budget; thus far, they have been joined by Berkshire Hills Regional. From yesterday's Berkshire Eagle: 

The bill's derailment has frustrated, even angered, local school officials, who are trying to keep up with costs within a rural economy and diminishing student populations.
"The [school] committee deplores the failure of the General Court ... to revise the foundation budget," reads the Pittsfield Public Schools' resolution, also unanimously approved by its School Committee.

In related coverage in the Berkshire Edge:

The resolution passed by the Berkshire Hills Regional School Committee reads, in part, that, in passing the most recent budget, the state legislature “has violated the public trust by failing to revise the foundation budget funding for Massachusetts public school districts.” Furthermore, that inaction compromises the district’s programming and “constitutes a failure to recognize the ever greater financial pressure on all communities such as our member towns of Great Barrington, Stockbridge and West Stockbridge.”

Note that the Edge has links to lots that's relevant. 

On spending $100M

Tangetially education related, as spending $100M on this baseball stadium in Worcester means, well:

But does that come across to the public, I ask? Or do people not attuned to the nuances of stadium economics just hear “no new taxes” and leave it at that, even if it’s siphoning off tax money that might otherwise be available for less sportsy purposes? 

“I think the point has come across really well,” says Zimbalist. But, he adds, “you ask, do people understand this? I think in Worcester, they don’t even want to understand it. There’s a tremendous amount of excitement about bringing the team there.”

The article doesn't understand how Worcester schools are funded; otherwise, the stadium plan is categorically taken down.
It's completely irresponsible.

Worcester plans for in-house transportation

If you're interested in this plan Worcester is making to bring school busing in house, you can watch that section of last week's School Committe here; it begins at about an hour in. The longest exchange (which Scott chose not to include I assume because it didn't really go anywhere) was a lengthy expression of concern from Miss Biancheria over the length of twenty years for land rental.