Putting some national context on local fervor

 I had already posted to this piece by NBC News about the wave of national emotion over claims around critical race theory in schools; I now want to point you towards this Time cover story around what effectively is more of a debate over how we teach history--though not solely history--in schools. 

What happened in Loudon County, VA earlier this week is not a thing that is isolated. This protest (I guess it's a protest?) that took place in Medway this weekend is similarly motivated; I assume that the questions being raised in Dudley-Charlton may be as well. This was also on the floor of Congress this week, when Secretary Cardoza spoke. 

As we talk about this, I want to emphasize this from the Time piece: 

It’s a debate between people who think children shouldn’t be burdened with the past, and those who want kids to learn how the legacy of that past shapes American society today. Is our national history merely a tool to inspire patriotism, or is it, as historians argue, a valuable lesson in the good, the bad and the ugly? As this new front in the culture wars shows, our understanding of the past is a key factor in how we envision our future. This is a story about the story—and the myths—America tells about itself.

If you never talk about what really came before, and if we are not honest about what is broken, we cannot do better. To not tell the truth to our students is to disempower them as the next generation that will run our democracy. It is, in short, to not do our job as public educators, which is to equip children to grow up to participate in democratic governance. 

And I also want to say that we cannot and should not run from this as policy makers. We have a responsibility to continue to assert calmly that we teach to state standards in history, that we uphold equity in our work, and that we continue to work to ensure children are able to take up the work of making a more--yes, emphasis mine--perfect union. 

June Board of Ed: budget!

 Bell: budget is in conference committee
pretty much know what it looks like from a state education aid perspective runs through the numbers
$40M for enrollment return costs: student enrollment increasing in a district could seek reimbursement
House $15M COVID-related summer remediation
Senate $6M social emotional behavioral health needs
(thus needs resolution in conference committee)
state aid for rural school districts: rural state aid account (either 3 or 4 M depending on conference)
continuing commitment to adult learners

federal side: outside of usual federal funding streams
COVID relief funding: ESSER
$2.9B in three programs: spend through 9/30/22, 9/30/23, 9/30/24 (I,II,III respectively)
applications: all have applied for I, 43% of districts have applied II, 2 have applied for III
process of investing and using this "generational funding"

West: ARRA districts faced a fiscal cliff
we're in a period where we expect increments of increased funding in the coming years? is there then a smoother transition?
it depends on if your district is one that gets those increased funds
Have we done any modeling on what districts can anticipate?
can we provide guidance for districts to avoid that adjustment
Bell: guidance issued was to the question of districts being thoughtful on use that it does sunset
the SOA on aid you can anticipate
"actual financial modeling...we're available to assist"
"can't actually get out in front of what the Legislature will appropriate"
not to say that districts can't model; "districts that are thinking about it are already down that road"
"certainly happy to be a partner if districts run their own models"
want to be respectful of appropriators 

June Board of Ed: regulation amendments

 accountability regulations passed
This effectively is a freeze

charter school regulations passed
again effectively freezes the list

teacher regulation passed
this is the staffing flexibility

sending holding in place the MCAS standard for passing at the high school level out for public comment
Hills: connection with pandemic?
Riley: allow work of group to continue (in setting of new standard)
Curtin: do work and allow for adequate notification of new high school class
West: recommend work to be jump started
Peyser: timeline needed for bringing work back to 
sent out to public comment 

June Board of Ed: Kaleidoscope Collective

 and there's an intro here

Komal Bhasin
Michelle Ryan
Sam Ribnick (innovative assessment)

deep engagement with standard in school

now there's an alarm going off? I think? or a siren?

"but what about MCAS?"
state eco system that supports deeper learning
state assessment that embodies deeper learning
relevant, real-world, interactive
mastery, identity, creativity
building knowledge, producing authentic work, developing 21st century skills
tasks with a deep sense of relevance and purpose can foster deep engagement
interactive and foster development of interpersonal skills are important in developing global citizens
"take a deep look at representation in the classroom"
relevance of grade level standard
problems to solve in groups
task adjustment protocol; equity pause: places where tasks may need scaffolds)
focus on facilitation
teach and then reflect on student work

innovative science assessment: was a 9th grade teacher with the MCAS science assessment at the end of the year
"we got to March" and added time and resources to ensure that students would pass
what does the assessment look like at the end of the year?
"building on so much of what we know works well about the MCAS" but making big changes in three areas:
simulations allow students interact with real science work
storyline in a purposeful context that is culturally responsive
diverse characters doing science 
and there's a chart here with a timeline that I don't know that I can represent quickly in words
2023-24 is prepping for statewide use, though; pilot this year was proof of concept
settings students can change as they conduct word
all characters but particularly adults in positions of expertise and positions of power are diverse
storyline told through what looks like a graphic novel format
now there's a video with little swimming fish that simulating a science experiment
Peyser asks about open response questions: draw on science process in the context of that meaningful storyline
teachers on assessment design committee; teachers helped shape these tasks
goal is to listen to those who are most impacted by this: students on how testing impacts their instructional environment and teachers so not just having opinion but listening 
supporting tryouts in classrooms even before pilot
student comments in the survey: interactive, hands-on, simulations, didn't seem as stressful; felt they could show their knowledge
was some concern over open response
teacher: "you can't memorize your way through this one"
will allow to move away from MCAS prep; "students can do so much more"

bimonthly convenings of Kaleidoscope: intro a strategy, study implementation and impact, engage stakeholders, iterate on strategy introduced
found effective and useful
"to produce and calibrate a suite of tools" including "the deeper learning continuum"
teachers "as savvy consumers" of materials
embed in equity: DEI can't live in a separate PD session, but needs to be embedded
educators "want a pathway not a blueprint"
"initiative coherence is more important than 'initiative collective'"

Kaleidoscope: continued evaluation, future cohorts, scalability; larger pilot and new innovative tasks and moving forward on innovative assessment; webinar July 12 at noon bit.ly/innovativescience21
plan for innovative science assessment is 2025

Hills: size of districts? other tests becoming innovative?
Bhasin: school conditions rather and district: small and medium
Ribnick: not yet piloting on high schools
Riley: introductory overview; they'll come back with findings

West: I didn't understand his first comment; something about introducing variation in student
less ineffective test prep if we transitioned to this type of assessment
why do you think that? would there be fewer standards covered?
really? 
Ribnick: tasks that have a series of related questions related to same scenario
I missed part of his answer
Peyser: balance in number of standards
cost of these sorts of assessments when you come back

Lombos: other states implementing?
Bhasin: not a lot of collaboration with other states at this point

More coming on this 

June Board of Ed: vocational school admissions

 really long intro here by Riley which doesn't tell you anything you didn't already know

intro document here; strikethrough regs; summary of public comment and responses

asking for authority to intervene if necessary
don't want to see this dragged out into the future and miss another vocational admission cycle

recess while the room was cleared? I think?

Peyser: support in regulations as amended
were some changes made
there was a thing here about the "authority of school committees" which I only partly caught
affirmative obligations on the part of school committees on admissions policies not having disparaty impact
affirmative obligation on the part of the Department
Strict parameters around discipline
"fair...access to this valuable resource"
diversification of student bodies in vocational schools has exceeded diversification of state
presence of admissions policy doesn't itself create disparity impact
as long as school committees are clear on their responsibilities (they aren't, I think)
more information to students and families about opportunities

Lombos: sit in labor seat, and represent labor movement beyond teachers
bottom up policy making on this issue: people most affected work to make policy
coalition has reached out to Board
"important first step" but important to continue to work with these groups

Moriarty: going to support this
think innovation of outreach to eighth graders is most important
"not being able to access your first choice when you move from eighth grade to ninth grade"
and then there's a long thing here about third grade reading

Hills: coming up with what you think the right policy is "not what you think the right political solution is"

those removed are now banging on the windows

Fernández: appreciate focus on equity piece
alignment with equity groups; is it far enough?
assurances of Board, specific timeframes on how vocational schools are doing relative to the policies
"long term, if we don't see the changes we're looking for, lottery should be on the table"
she's nearly being drowned out from by the banging 

Rouhanifard: longstanding policy matter
questions and concerns largely have been addressed in the proposal
old enough to remember when vocational education was disportionally skewed towards students of color
would love to know if schools in high demand are actually connecting students with fields 
(they aren't)
"would like to know if schools are fulfilling their mission"

Coughlin: glad to see access for students of color is something the Board is taking seriously

Stewart: Massachusetts following other states; have not been in compliance of federal civil rights mandates for last twenty years
"bring up a good policy--I don't think we're there yet, honestly"
use of grades already excluding disportionate numbers of protected classes
if more students are applying, would we expect to see more of those students at the school?
A: looking at the vocational school and those protected classes (under both state and federal law)
do they look like the sending districts?
there may be places with protected classes might apply in greater numbers; would Department intervene?
Department "will be looking at all the data...and will be very involved" 
(so, not a yes)
Stewart: I need to see that be more explicit in the regulations
"I don't feel we are there yet" on the strongest regulations possible
"We are past first steps; this is a major next step that it is important to get right"
It would be great to have that clarity; strikes me as divergent on the part of the policy
support work to date
A; this is a big next step; we're not going to be leaving schools and families out in the cold
working actively on guidance of this
Stewart: unhappy that we aren't showing a stronger support
Craven: level of compliance?
A: what the guidelines are in Title VI
legal weight: these are very helpful and illustrative in greater detail
two part test if you use criteria: depended on schools to do that going forward
districts have had to attest when receiving grants (do they?)
in tandem with MOA reviews, civil rights review
gotten more comprehensive between what is in federal guidelines and in Perkins
state has set updated plan to US DoE on how they're going to be doing that (which is on the website and I should go find that)

Morton appreciates years of work

approved

June Board of Ed opening comments

 The agenda is here. The livestream will come up here. 

Public comment
vocational schools: retain doubt that changes in vocational admission changes will make changes needed
data tells a story: admission criteria drives inequitable outcomes
grants stakeholders that don't believe this exist the responsibility of changing it
what admission outcomes need to be fixed? what outcomes are fair? which outcomes necessitate a lottery?

Coming later this week on here--I promise

 ...will be a not-at-all-live blog of the second round of Worcester School Committee deliberations.

But this kind of breaks my heart: 

I just want to note here that the Worcester School Committee passed a $466M budget Thursday, about which our local daily has written not a word. https://t.co/MFEnrJKVwC

— Tracy O'Connell Novick (@TracyNovick) June 20, 2021

Even setting aside the slavish devotion of much of our local media to the Woo Sox, it's really a giant miss for there to be literally no coverage of the budget deliberation of a $466M budget.

And it wasn't passed without real deliberation. Not having this covered means that there are many who will not know some substantive differences between the committee and administration and among the committee itself.

Sure, I'll blog it--I started this blog as a response to lack of coverage, in any case--but that's not enough, not the least of which is because I am myself one of the participants in the deliberation.