Boomers cutting the cord

About six months ago, Adrien and I came to the realization that, despite 200+ channels offered by our favorite cable provider, we were more often than not finding little entertainment of value on television. Mostly we ended up watching television to "kill time" - not a particularly compelling reason for sitting in front of the tube after dinner.  And then, there was the over $200 a month bill.So with that realization, we started to become intrigued with the idea of cutting the cord - getting rid of our cable television access. And yes, I do know boomers are notorious for not quite being on the cutting edge of technology. Yet we persisted.The television we gravitated to really was a short list. Once we started to keep track of what we really wanted to watch on television, it was fairly easy to match up streaming providers (Hulu, Roku, etc.) to our habits. Although we had an older Apple TV, we upgraded so that we could take advantage of DVR capabilities offered by streaming providers like Hulu-live.What we discovered was that we might lose one of the local (Boston) channels (WCVB). We also let go of local cable access coverage of meetings (yea, I was that person), and watch local PBS affiliate,  WGBH, via the Internet.  By choosing the more costly live-streaming packaged offered by Hulu (Hulu-live) we can still access local sports coverage (Red Sox!). Another advantage is that any changes to account types (i.e., from regular Hulu to Hulu-live) so far do not incur any penalties or change of service charges.The feature we've had to get accustomed to is queuing up programs that we are interested in rather than channel surfing.  Our previously acquired Netflix account is easily accessed through an Apple TV app. Using Amazon Prime is naturally a little more difficult, but with a little more effort (Airplay and playing through an iPad) still accessible.We kept the same Internet access speed (200 Mbps), curtailed landline and cable. By doing so, our monthly "entertainment" costs are about $60 a month less - nearly $1,000 savings a year. At this point we are still evaluating whether the "live" feature of Hulu-live is worth the $40/month charge; regular old Hulu (with limited commercials) is $12 a month. If we discover that live TV broadcast is not something we regularly watch, we'll be able to cut our entertainment charges even more.In my opinion, however, the greatest advantage for us is that when we do sit down to watch television, we're doing so for a reason or with a particular show in mind. Reading, conversation, and dinnertimes are a lot calmer.  So far, so good.

Are we over-coaching developing readers?

One of the texts I've reviewed for a course I'm leading this summer is Jan Burkins and Kim Yaris' Who's doing the work: How to say less so readers can do more. What do you, as teacher, do when a student is stuck in their reading? Do you go into wait-time mode or try to move things along with hints or suggestions of strategies? And if you do either of these, what is the student's response or reaction?Sometimes when we think we are moving responsibility for learning to our students, the shift is not as significant as we think. Case in point: when a student successfully uses a decoding strategy to uncover a challenging word, does the student look to you, the teacher, for affirmation.  Surely that's something I was guilty of doing.However, when students come to rely on that affirmation and teacher praise as an indication of whether or not the word was called correctly, that is scaffolding that has over-served its usefulness in steering students toward a gradual release of responsibility.  We set the students up for dependency, not independency.In real reading - the kind that students engage in on their own either in school or later in life as adult readers - what happens when a decoding challenge the meaning of the print breaks down? Will a teacher always be there to nod a yes or to give hints?The end game for reading instruction is to enable a reader to develop so that he or she knows that to do when confronted with reading challenges.  Instead of leading a student through the use of a specific strategy (get your mouth ready, think about what makes sense), what if the prompts from a teacher were more open-ended:

What do you notice?

What can you try?

There are undoubtedly times when explicitly teaching strategies for decoding and comprehension are not only appropriate, they are essential. How else would a reader learn about them? But once the strategy has been introduced, practiced and become part of a reader's repertoire, shouldn't we, as coaches, allow the reader to decide what to do?Over coaching developing readers is something I became aware of as an active and as a retired teacher.  More open-ended questions and less controlled coaching not applies to reading. Think of the implications for problem-solving in math.So I ask: are we empowering our students to truly be independent? Or, as Yaris and Burkins point out, are we creating learners who are dependent upon our affirmation and approval? Are we allowing students to be independent learners?

The promise of "yet"

Words have lots of power.How many times have you, as learners, encountered can't statements? Can't as in "I can't do math" or "I can't draw" or "I can't" just about anything. I think it was my grandmother who used to say "can't never did anything".  And she was - and still is - right.I was thinking about the power of "can't" during yoga practice this week. It used to happen that when I was in a public class and a balance pose as simple as tree pose was called, my whole body would break into an anxiety sweat. I can't balance on one leg, I would tell myself. I'm too clumsy, too old.Then, one day, I switched the narrative to add in the word "yet". I can't do this... yet. Through those 3 letters, I could feel my attitude changing. "I may fall out of tree pose today, but some day I will nail it." In fact in time, that's exactly what happened.When I was actively teaching, students often would say "I can't" to everything from a writing topic to division. Adding the word yet to their statements - I can't do this yet - often made a difference for them too.Three letters. Those three letters can make all the difference for every student.

Meanwhile, back at the DOE

This past Tuesday, June 6, 2017, Secretary Betsy DeVos gave testimony in front of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies. An overview of Secretary DeVos' testimony can be found on mlive here.The presidential version of the 2018 budget details a whopping $10.6 Billion in cuts to programs supporting students of all levels.  Last week, I posted what the effect of cuts to three Federal grant programs might be on Lowell Public Schools. Using a back-of-the-envelope estimate based on the FY2018 school budget proposal, Lowell Public Schools would be out close to $3 Million in funding for 21st Century Schools, Title II (Teacher Quality) and Title III (ELL support).Layering on the devastation caused by a (state) Foundation Budget that is severely out of whack and underfunded, the fiscal future for urban districts such as Lowell does not look very bright. Several superintendents ago, the Lowell Schools had a Superintendent who told staff that "less is more". Well, in this case, less is actually less, and our students are going to bear the brunt.During her testimony in front of that Senate subcommittee, Ms. DeVos stated the need to cut Title funding (i.e., nearly everything funded through the Department of Education with the exception (so far) of Title I).  As usual, making up facts that fit a narrative for redirecting federal funding was evident:

"This budget does so by putting an emphasis on programs that are proven to help students while taking a hard look at those that are well-intended, but haven't yielded meaningful results," she continued.

Where are the reports and research that back this up, Ms. DeVos?  Are we to believe that providing students from higher poverty/economic need districts such as Lowell with after school and summer activities doesn't yield anything "meaningful"? What exactly does constitutes meaningful for you? A higher test score?I most vehemently disagree with that statement by Secretary DeVos.  In a Gateway City, such as Lowell or Brockton, or any number of cities across the US, there are many families living in poverty and struggling. And despite many challenges, sometimes overwhelming challenges resulting from poverty and trauma, our Gateway cities strive to provide a comprehensive, adequate and free education to every student.Allowing students the opportunity to participate in and explore activities beyond the school day gives these children a safe and supervised environment and their parents the peace of mind knowing that their child(ren) is well cared for during the time between the end of school and suppertime. I would call THAT meaningful, yet apparently Ms. DeVos would not.But back to the federal budget that was the overarching topic of discussion during Ms. DeVos' testimony.  As Michigan billionaire and school privatization champion Ms. DeVos, is okay with cutting or eliminating funding of some of the more substantial federal grants. Using the theme of giving parents "choice" of school settings, the Secretary of Education intends to funnel the funds eliminated or cutback into a voucher program. funding religious and private schools. DeVos intends to implement a voucher program without guarantees that would protect vulnerable students' rights or ethical oversight of for-profit education management firms even when federal funding is involved.  For more on that, read Valerie Strauss' June 6 Answer Sheet analysis.  In place of "less is more", I am more inclined to agree with this assessment of the federal education budget proposals from Senator Leahy:

"The Department of Education budget can summed up very quickly in one word: 'abysmal,'" said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.

Abysmal it is. And abysmal it will be for our students.

What happens if....

Today, May 23, is the "official" announcement of the federal budget proposal. "Official" because the numbers have been floating around in the ether for a while now.  Within the proposal from the White House budget is the idea of cuts impacting education to the tune of  $10.6 Billion less.Valerie Strauss from the Washington Post, has analyzed the proposed cuts to education and details them here. The Washington Post also carries another story of overall education cuts proposed in the Trump FY18 budget. According to the Post article, the reduction in federal education spending will be used to fund the voucher program DOE Secretary DeVos is so enamored with.Reductions to federal grant programs will have a great impact on our local schools and the services provided to students. Here is what the proposal might mean in terms of local education:21^st Century Community Learning Centers, $1,164.5 billionLowell's FY18 lists several grant funded items

• $587,232 funding for LHS, Shaughnessy, Morey, Robinson, Greenhalge, Stoklosa after school programs,
• $104,777 funding for after school programs Bartlett, McAuliffe and additional funding for LHS
• $ 91,600 funding for Lincoln School after school programming
• $ 94,200 additional after school programming, McAuliffe School

Total for after school programming $877,809

21st Century Out of school programming (summer programs) $179,600

21st Century funding for Special Education inclusions $ 93,720

This means the potential lost of funding impact totaling $1,151,129 (FY18 budget numbers) and, more importantly, the loss of before and after school programming for Lowell students at 9 schools.

A quick once over reveals additional grant cuts from a reduction or loss of Title IIA (Teacher quality, including mentoring of new staff), $1,170,759 (FY18),  and Title III (Limited English Proficiency support programs), $691,283.

If you, like I, think this could be a hugely negative impact on our children, please consider contacting Representatives and Senators. To find local House representatives, click whoismyrepresentative and enter your ZIP code. The list of Senators  and contact information is here. And, if you are curious as to what happens when a staffer picks up, here are some terrific tips.

17 May 2017: Budget Hearing and Regular School Committee Meeting

All Members present for both meetings.

Budget Hearing, Part 3

Somehow in the flurry of budget activities over the last week I lost track of last night’s Budget Hearing which preceded the regular School Committee Meeting.  So if you were hoping to add a public comment to the funding proposals, you are out of luck.  The Hearing portion has ended, but there are still revisions and corrections being made to the final document. That will be voted on at the end of the month, sent to City Council and (hopefully) approved.At the start of the Budget Hearing, Mayor Kennedy announces some positive news: the Senate version of the Commonwealth’s budget includes a $611K increase for Lowell. Additionally, Mayor Kennedy has received word that the City will increase its contribution to the schools by $257K. This additional funding should enable the Schools to restore the library aide positions.The two positions that had been put in abeyance (a school psychologist and a clerk - both potentially eliminated as personnel retirements which the Schools propose not to replace), were discussed. The essence of these discussions is that, while the School Committee is appreciative of the additional funding by the City, these positions also need to be restored. Ms. Martin brings up the re-classification of the School Resource Officers (SRO). There are 3 SRO positions that are not being eliminated, but the expenses associated with them are be reclassified (for lack of a better term). Under the proposed budget, the expenses associated with 3 of the SROs will shift back to the City in order to maintain consistency.Ms. Martin reminds the members that she has placed a motion on the upcoming meeting agenda (Item 7.VIII) to requests both City and School Finance Subcommittees meet to discuss the FY18 Budget and also to review Maintenance of Effort and contracts. She advocates for leaving the budget as it sits until the discussion can take place.Superintendent Khelfaoui brings up 2 corrections to be made to budget proposal. One is a line item correction to a previous calculation and the other is to add $257K addition from the City.Mr. Gignac makes 2 motions:

• Amend line item in Account 2300 Library to reinstate Library aides (7 yeas, approved).
• Amend 5100/5200 Benefits to include the costs benefit restorations for the Library Aide positions. (7 yeas, approved)

Mr. Gignac makes a motion to fund the school psychologist position (placed in abeyance in the previous meeting) by reducing the proposed budget for substitutes (p 18 of budget, Line 207). Lots of discussion here. During the regular school committee meeting which will follow, a Report of the Superintendent details suggested substitute teacher pay increases (Item 9.I), and Ms. Doherty is concerned that the budgeted amount for substitutes in FY18 will not be enough if Mr. Gignac’s motion carries. Mayor Kennedy cautions that the City will not be favorably able to provide the additional $150K (estimated) to restore both the School Psychologist and the Clerk positions currently in abeyance. Mr. Gendron notes the potential for “salary adjustments”. After much discussion, including commentary by school psychologist, Sheela Pyles, the motion does carry. (7 yeas, approved)Ms. Martin returns to topic of Maintenance of Effort and potential impact on School FY18 Budget. Mayor Kennedy suggests that the discussions with City re Maintenance of Effort will be long and perhaps spill beyond the start of Fiscal 18.  Therefore, waiting for any impact resulting from discussion with the City side about Maintenance of Effort is not advisable.In the end, amounts in the budget book were adjusted as follows and the Public Hearing closed.

• Suspense Account increased to include Senate proposal and City increase. I believe that the new amount is $1,000,377 (in Suspense).
• Page 18: $59,700,560 (reduction in substitute account)
• Page 29: $4,501,964 (increase of 1 school psychologist)
• Total on p 11 is now $162,942,846 (7 yeas, approved)

Budget hearing adjourns and regular meeting begins.

Regular Meeting

The discussions during the Regular School Committee Meeting were quickly dispensed with. Three budget-based items to note:

1. Motion 7.VIII [Connie Martin]: Request that the Mayor facilitate a joint meeting of the Finance Subcommittees of both the Lowell City Council and the Lowell School Committtee for the purpose of discussing the FY18 Budget and the current review of Net School Spending and ongoing contract negotiations. (approved)
2. Report and Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of Wednesday, May 8 2017 [Robert Gignac, Chair]. Accepted as a report of progress. Link here.
3. Report of the Superintendent: Proposed Substitute Salary Increases. After a short disucssion to explain the research Ms. Sheehy conducted to reach the rate increases proposed, the Report was approved (7 yeas).

The agenda and supporting documentation can be found of the Lowell City Agenda and Minutes web page.

Are we just getting by?

Tuesday evening, I spoke before the City Council to encourage that body to meet with City of Lowell school administration before approving the budget that was before them. You read that correctly, I was advocating that the Council not approve the budget. Why? I don't believe that the City's contribution to the school budget adequately considers our public school students. Here are my remarks:

Former Presidential Advisor Paul Begala once stated, a budget is a “profoundly moral document” in that it enumerates those things that we view as priorities. We fund those ideas and things which we value.As a retired elementary teacher with 30 years experience, it was my privilege to teach in the Lowell Public Schools for 20 years. And while I appreciate the City’s efforts to meet minimum Net School Spending requirements during the last several years, that effort should not stop at the minimum. We should not expect to just “get by”.The educational challenges to communities such as Lowell are deep and sometimes complicated. Children attending our City’s public schools often have needs complicated by language, by poverty, and by culture. Stagnant computations of Chapter 70 aid, based on 20 year old formulae mean our schools operate with fewer resources to support these students. Increasingly, funding is redirected to charter schools in the City and this complicates the fiscal picture even further.Tonight, the City Council considers a Home Rule petition, and I applaud you all for insisting that the Commonwealth meet its obligations for fully funding charter school tuition reimbursement. It is unacceptable for the Commonwealth to shrug off that reimbursement promise and leave urban communities like Lowell with fewer and fewer resources.Yet however complex the issues may be, it is still the responsibility of our community to ensure that funding for schools is adequate. Those funds must guarantee that students and public schools in Lowell continue to be a reflection of what we, as community value.Over the span of my teaching career, there were often years when that minimum contribution was not met. During those times, our students lost out on opportunities as positions such as Science Specialists and Librarians were eliminated.  Our school buildings delayed repairs or improvements that now loom ahead as major undertakings.Is education is important? Is it something that Lowell values? Or is it sufficient to minimally fund the schools and just get by?Doing the minimum does not suffice for our children, and it should not be okay for our school budget either.A reduction in personnel is felt when positions are eliminated and other staff members pick up the slack. We get by. More often than you realize, supplies and resources needed for classrooms are funded out of teachers’ pockets, sometimes amounting to thousands of dollars a year. And once again, we get by.The Lowell Public Schools is an asset to our community for which we can all be proud. It is not sufficient to just “get by”. Our City leaders need to envision the schools that will fully serve our children and fund that vision. Instead of beginning with a minimum budget number and fitting school expenditures to that amount, what if we look at what is needed first and then worked together to fund that?We need to move beyond the "just getting by." We need to strive for more than a minimum.And so, I urge the City Council to increase funding for the 2018 proposed school budget. I urge you not to vote to approve the budget before you until both School and City administrations have met to discuss solutions to this fiscal crunch.Let’s demonstrate that here in Lowell, we value our public schools and that our schools and our children are a priority.

10 May 2017: About the Proposed Budget

It's budget time in Lowell and the predictions look a bit grim. I won't second guess (most) of the reasoning behind proposed budget amounts, but I am dismayed that the belt tightening has been mind numbing. As a former educator in Lowell, even without children (or grandchildren) in the City Schools, I feel compelled to speak up. Those are "my" kids who are moving along through a terrific urban district and they deserve as many opportunities as we can provide. Here's a letter that I sent to our School Committee Members this morning. I plan to attend tonight's Budget Hearing (Butler School, 6:30 pm), LISTEN and then advocate for them as best I can. I hope many of you will do this as well. Let's work together to ensure that Lowell Public Schools meet our students' needs.

Dear School Committee Members,I am writing to you today in support of one of the budget proposals, and also in hopes of engaging your support of another.As Mr. Gendron said at the last Committee Meeting, the good news is that the budget is balanced and that there has been a herculean effort to preserve current school department employees.  That being said, there is much to reflect on.I fully support the effort to create a CSA Day School to accommodate Lowell students needing services as outlined in IEPs. Bringing services that had been contracted through out-of-district placements is not only expensive, but worrisome for parents. Students receiving these services at collaboratives and other placement agencies often are on buses or vans for lengthy rides out of their community. By tapping in to talent and expertise in the area of Autism within our own education community, not only are parents and students able to eliminate long, tiring rides to service agencies, then the schools can ensure that education funding is spent judiciously in support of the children.  In my opinion, the School Committee should support this effort as a long-term solution to meeting the needs of children right here in Lowell.I am, however, deeply disappointed in the effort to eliminate Library Aides from the K-8 public schools.  As a former educator, now retired, I am concerned with the short-sightedness of this action. Library Aides not only check out materials for staff and for students, they maintain the school libraries as a welcoming environment in which to pursue literacy. Books that are in need of repair, are fixed and reshelved. New and replacement materials are added to school libraries. Weekly book exchanges are a time when students can explore new reading genres. The Library Aides also assist students using electronic card catalogues, a research skill that will be necessary as a student moves from grade to grade.  Without the assistance provided by Library Aides will these valuable literacy and library skills still exist in the coming years? I do not think they will and I wonder if in a few years, the School Committee will be decrying the loss of library skills.The budget prepared by the School Department has been trimmed, and is a representation of consensus by school administrators as to what can be done with the reduced funds coming from the City.  These fund are not adequate.I implore the School Committee to engage the City Manager and City Council in a further discussion for funding. While the loss of available funds to a larger-than-anticipated transportation bid is understandable, the loss of monies due to expansion of grade levels at local charter schools is not.Last evening’s City Council approved funding to fix the roofs at three schools. My questions are: a) will these repairs become part of the City’s in-kind contribution charged back to the school department and b) would these repairs have been needed had the City met Net School Spending amounts in prior years when those repairs may have been minor ones? And finally, c) should our current students “pay” for reduced opportunities at schools because of short-sighted budgeting that occurred in years past.I urge the School Committee members to meet with the City Council and City Manager and demand increased access to funding for one of the greatest assests in the City of Lowell: our public schools.

03 May 2017: School Committee

At last night's meeting, the School Committee met for the first time since the beginning of April. This was the first time the public got a glimpse at the proposed budget (see link within the Meeting Packet here), and the first time the rationale for the budget was shared with the public and the School Committee.The Superintendent's Contract was approved by a 5 yea (E. Kennedy, A. Descoteaux, S. Gendron, R. Gignac, R. Hoey) to 2 nay (C. Martin and J. Doherty) vote.

Spotlight on Excellence

The Spotlight on Excellence segment was dedicated to this past Spring's Knowledge Bowl competition between teams from all Lowell Public School Middle Schools, including first-time entrants from the STEM Academy (the STEM has just this year expanded to include fifth grade).  After a quick presentation by Carolyn Rocheleau, coordinator for this effort, and Liam Skinner, Principal at the Daley School (this year's winning team), Daley School students impressively and passionately spoke to the Committee about their experiences as Knowledge Bowl participants. To paraphrase one student, the Knowledge Bowl is a time when those students who love trivia and academic trivia in particular can feel the same camaraderie that students in athletic competitions feel.

Public Hearing: School Budget 2017-18

If there is a bright spot in this budget, it is that a) the Superintendent and his leadership team have crafted a balanced budget and b) the positions that are "lost" are due to retirements and not reductions in staff.  That's the good news.The proposed budget is posted online and definitely worth a look. This document is, as Paul Begala once said a morally profound document in that we fund what we value. Do we value our schools? Here's a little background on where some of the numbers come from.The cash contributed by the City to the school budget is about $3 million lower than the current fiscal year, even though the state has proposed an increase (about $5.4 million) in Chapter 70 funding. The fiscal contribution by the City to the Lowell Public Budget is made up from two parts, Net Cash and Indirect (or in-kind). Anticipated increased expenses that the City provides means that contributions in "cash" toward the School Department's budget is lower. For example, tuitions to Charter Schools will be increased as the grade levels at one of the Lowell charter schools is expanded next Fall. The transportation bid came in at a "much higher" level (if I understood Mr. Frisch correctly, approximately $1.2 million more), and there is a 4.8% increase in health insurance premiums.The City is meeting Net School Spending (a requirement from the Commonwealth) at the required level. Many of our neighbors in surrounding cities and towns fund budgets that are significantly higher (thanks to Paul Schlictman for this graphic!) and you may be wondering why. The need to add to the state's funding is necessitated by the calculations for per pupil costs are old and out of date - 25 years out of date as it turns out. Out of dat calculations lead to artificially lowere state funding (And yes, there was an effort to re-set these calculations to be realistic; however, the bi-partisan proposal to do so was not enacted by the Legislature).All of this is contributory to the proposals made for 2018 and presented at School Committee. This is a less-than-bare-bones budget and unless the School Committee can advocate for an increase in the cash contribution from the City, there will be a need for some very difficult decisions.Just a head-up to those interested in how this budget plays out: the next budget hearing will be Wednesday, May 10 at 6:30 pm (I didn't catch the location, so check the LPSD website for details). There will be a chance for the Public to speak in opposition if so desired.Library Aide PositionsOne of those difficult decisions is the proposed budget is elimination of school library aides. The proposal before the School Committee is to offer paraprofessional open positions to the aides (currently 23 positions of which 3 are long-term subs. Three library aides have decided to retire). Technically, no one will lose a position if they don't object to assuming a paraprofessional position. The libraries won't close, but library (sounds like this is just check-in and check-out books?) would be "covered" by other staff. Several Committee members expressed dismay at this development and questioned the logistics of "covering" library services.The schools have already eliminated all but the High School Librarian (Library Media Specialist). As good as the Aides are and as much as each one goes above and beyond their job descriptions to make a school library a great space for learning important library skills, this has been a detriment. To eliminate the last vestige of a library program in the elementary and middle schools is, in my opinion, a HUGE mistake, just as it was a mistake to eliminate the library media specialists and the instructional technology specialists before that.Bringing Out-of-District Placements In-DistrictThe Special Education Department has made a concerted effort to be mindful of OOD tuition costs. One of the proposals that has been in development for the last few years is to accommodate students who might be sent out-of-district (OOD) within the Lowell Public Schools.Those OOD placements often include 6-figure tuition costs and involve transporting children to collaboratives quite a distance from home.  Parents have expressed concern that their children have long bus or van rides and have expressed some preference toward including their child within the Lowell schools.  This would, in the long run, reap a cost-benefit to the School District and an educational benefit to students and their families.To meet these needs, the proposal is to create four additional Pre-K CSA (autism) classrooms to service an increased number of students district-wide. In addition, there is a proposal to create a Special Education Day School to accommodate students who have been in local CSA classrooms. By committing funds to these two endeavors, an anticipated saving of $1.7 million (in out of district placement tuitions) should result. In other words, by investing in Lowell's capacity to accommodate these students within the District and with District funding, there will be less need for OOD tuition payments.Other School Committee BusinessWhile the Budget presentation was the major focus of attention, there were two motions put forward, one of which could have possible implications for Lowell Public School budgets.7.I (Robert Hoey): Requests the Superintendent establish a task force in collaboration with City Administration to review, revise and recommend a new Maintenance of Efforts Agreement (Indirect Costs).7.II (Jacqueline Doherty): Request the Superintendent provide the committee with a report that compares the district's performance on state-required standardized tests over the last 3 years with similar urban communities. The report should highlight Lowell's areas of particular growth and weakness, as well as specify efforts and goals for improvement.For the packet which includes the budget, click here and navigate to the School Committee subsection.

Return to Sender

Educators, if you received a free and unsolicited book in the mail, would you read it? That's what a conservative "climate realist" group by the name of Heartland Institute wants you to do. In fact, it would be really swell if teachers would do a little more than just read their free book(s). If you would also start teaching some of their conceptions and beliefs, that would be great.Here's an introduction to this Heartland Institute courtesy of Dean Reynolds' report on April 22 CBS News.  There among the reported 97% of scientists who believe global warming is real, is non-scientist Joseph Bast claiming that global warming is not only part of the cycle of life on Planet Earth, but actually desirable for us humans (see video link above).Bast, CEO and President of Heartland Institute, is admittedly not a scientist; what he claims to be is a "climate realist". Here are some of the ideas Heartland Institute champions:

• Second hand smoke, smoking, and lung cancer have no connections
• Global warming is not a "thing" - it is more like a cycle of nature and "cold weather kills more people than warm weather does." (refer to clip at 1:15 mark)
• In Education, the group supports the increasing charter schools, providing education tax credits for private school students, vouchers and the group supported the parent "trigger" reform started in California.
• Health care saving accounts and a "free market" health care system, and (finally)
• Hydraulic fracking

Curiously, or maybe not so curiously, Heartland Institute is engaged in a concerted effort to influence science educators in Grades K-12. As such, this group has committed to mailing 25,000 copies of a free book (Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming authored by Craig Idso, PhD; Robert M. Carter, PhD; and S. Fred Singer, PhD) and DVD every two weeks until every single K-12 Science teacher in the United States has a copy (reported total 200,000 copies). Lennie Jarrett, who manages Heartland Institute's Center for Transforming Education, includes a cover letter (please read it here).Now everyone is entitled to an opinion, but if one is going to flood schools with science materials, shouldn't those materials be.... scientific? As in something that is based upon proven and replicable fact and not on opinion? Bast and Heartland Institute hope that science educators will have some doubts about that. After all, 3% of the scientific community don't agree on the cause(s) for climate change.From time to time, entities offer curriculum and materials to schools and educators for free or reduced costs. The utilities companies used to send Lenny Lightbulb coloring books to elementary school teachers who requested them. Apple Computers became prevalent technology in schools because Apple targeted the education market and offered deep discounts. As a teacher, presenting opposing opinions on issues should be part of the educational process. When proven and science-based facts are replaced by flimsy opinions of "think tanks" with a political agenda, that is not science. Here's a second viewpoint detailing why the Heartland Institutes' effort is alarming written by NY Times Op-Ed writer, Curt Stager.That's a gift that should be returned to sender.

On Homework

This morning, the New York Times carried the story of the decision by several Public Schools in New York City to suspend traditional homework. The disagreements that have ensued have largely been by parents of students with very different viewpoints on this topic.  This is definitely worth a read if only to broaden the lens with which one views this topic because, as I read, two things came to mind:

• in some families, providing meaningful after school activities is frequently limited by economics, time and money/resources, and
• parent input into broad ideas is a key to change.

As a parent, I would have loved the idea of no homework for my own child, who by the end of a school day had had just about enough with sitting still and completing paperwork. One assignment, burned in my memory, is of him sitting at our dining room table attempting to fill in the remaining (empty) pages of a spelling workbook, assigned for the night's homework ostensibly because it was the end of a school year and all pages must be completed. Did anyone "learn" anything from that exercise?In the Times article, the attempts to move away from mindless drill-and-kill worksheets is something I would applaud. Suggested replacements for traditional homework include reading and finding other exploratory pursuits.  These are all great ideas. Most students have library books from school or the public library that can be accessed if a personal library is not within reach.However, I would suggest that the ability to find and fund those "other" resources for explorations - mentioned were additional software products or for-fee activities and programs - is problematic for parents who don't have the same monetary resources found in privileged, middle-class homes.  Yes, Khan Academy is a free resource, but if your family doesn't have internet access or a workable computer device, that free resource is not available. I worry that under the current federal administration how long programs like 21st Century School grants will continue. How this impacts a community with a large number of students from lower socio-economic means remains to be seen.The "quality" of homework is cited in the article. This, too, needs investigation. What are the elements that constitute "quality" homework?  I know how I would answer that, but maybe I don't know how a parent who is working 2 consecutive shifts and still living below poverty would answer.Which brings me to Point 2. Parents need to be a big part of this conversation. Schools and Districts considering the change from a traditional homework model to something else, whatever that might be, have to engage all - and I mean all - the parents, not just those who find it convenient to come to meetings and presentations between 8:30 am and 3 pm. The educators have the expertise to make these changes, but the parents bring viewpoints to the discussion that not only need to be considered, those views must be considered.Read the article. Learn from it. And let's move forward in making homework something more than a mindless and epic after school battle.

You have to show up

Yoga serves.But you have to show up.

-Adriene Mishler Yoga with Adriene

There is something both beautifully simple and truthful in that statement. What are you invested in? Physically, mentally, intellectually. Show up for that. It really is that simple.After a year of some minor, mainly annoying, challenges that come with the advancement of growing older, I decided that I now had the time to invest in my own well-being. And so I embarked on some physical training (who starts a running program after age 60?) and an exploration of centering myself through yoga. I've been well-served by both running and yoga. But in order to reap the benefits of not running out of breath by simply walking uphill or a more steady, balanced foundation, the commitment to doing one or both of these on a daily basis has been a challenge. It is easy to become distracted or to allow appointments and meetings to become an excuse to skip.As a former educator, I think the act of showing up has to apply as well, particularly in times when public education is under daily attack. Purposeful underfunding of the Commonwealth's obligation to fund schools, over-reliance on high-stakes testing, an education that is at once developmentally appropriate and flexible, valuing humanities as well as science and technology.These are just a few of the issues that I feel strongly about. This is why I worry that educational opportunity, that great equalizer, may not be much of an opportunity for our young citizens.And this is why I will continue to show up - because just like yoga, education serves. But you have to show up. 

05 April 2017: School Committee Meeting

School Committee Meeting 05 April 20177 Members Present, Student representative: Cole Conlin  Spotlight on Excellence & Permissions to Enter.

• Science and Engineering Fair.
• Bartlett Community Partnership School
• LHS Ice Hockey Team

Public Hearing for Interdistrict Choice: No comments from the public.  2016-17 had 30 open slots, 15 were filled.  Decision to continue the School Choice decision is made annually. Motion to recommend continued participation for grades 9-12 (30 students within grades 9-12). 7 yeas approved.MotionsThere were 8 new motions presented tonight:

• 7.I. [By Robert Gigac]: Request the Superintendent work with the City Administration to develop a plan and/or update on the capital improvement funds that were allocated for the schools. City RFP process, repairs that were determined will proceed in May.  Mr. Gignac requests looking into roof repairs and AC/Boiler repairs. Motion passes.

• 7.II. [By Connie Martin]: Requesting an update on the plan for recruiting and hiring a new Head of School for Lowell High School, including a proposed timeline for assembling the interviewing committee and any public sessions that will be part of the process. 

Registered Jonathan Richmond. Begins by speaking about LRTA passes and then proceeds to enumerate his thoughts concerning the hiring requirements and qualifications for new Head of School. Registered speaker Daniel Ouk speaks about suggestions for chosing LHS Head of School.In my opinion, the acrimonious and abrasive nature of this segment of the meeting was unnecessary and distracting from the importance of the process of selecting a new LHS Head of School. It is worth viewing this for yourself on LTC’s posting of the meeting video when that occurs. Move about 40 minutes in to the video to view this for yourself.Ms. Martin questions the process and the timeline. Superintendent Khelfaoui clarifies that there is a plan and a timeline and that the taskforce is in process. Should a person be interested in becoming part of this taskforce (approximately 15 members), that person should apply via email or snail mail to either Superintendent Khelfaoui or Anne Sheehy, Director of Human Resources, Personnel & Recruitment. Ms. Doherty is absolutely on point in suggesting the importance of including stakeholders representative of the population of Lowell High School in the taskforce. 

• 7.III. [By Steve Gendron] Request the Superintendent form a task force to interview Lowell High School Head of School applicants.

• 7.IV. [By Connie Martin] Requesting an update on the staff plans for Principals and Assistant Principals for the fy17 and fy18.

• 7.V [By Jacqueline Doherty] Request the Superintendent provide the committee with the DESE School Climate Survey along with recommendations as to whether we should implement the survey or some other instrument. The recommendations should also include timelines for beginning to collect baseline data about school climate, family involvement, or other aspects that address the education of the whole child.

Mitchell Chester (DESE Commissioner) has announced (link here) that, following MCAS 2.0 testing this year, students in Grades 5, 8, and 10 will be asked to complete a survey about school climate. DESE claims that the results will not be disaggregated nor used in any significant manner, so my question is WHY subject students to this “optional” survey right after the completion of a high-stakes and draining academic test? According the Dr. Chester’s update, parents and students can refuse to complete the survey; in fact, some entire districts have already decided not to administer this DESE survey. It doesn’t sound like LPS is going to do that. Also, according to DESE’s update reference above, parents can request that principals and/or superintendent show the survey questions to them.What was confusing throughout the discussion is that Lowell Public Schools is part of a consortium of school districts developing a more thorough and valid survey of community education stakeholders that will hopefully become part of a more thorough and thoughtful analysis of the public school system.  This consortium survey is in draft form and not yet ready for administration to student from what I understand.

• 7.VI [By Steve Gendron] Request the Superintendent work with the City and the LRTA to develop a program to provide free bus passes to Lowell High School students based on financial need.

• 7.VII [By Connie Martin] Requesting that the administration provide the committee with an update on plans to accommodate the middle school bubble for the FY17-18 school year.

• 7.VIII [By Robert J. Hoey] Request Superintendent conduct a review of safety and security in our schools.

Joint Finance and Student Support Services Subcommittee report on meeting 3/29/17. John Descoteaux presented a draft plan for a 5-zone system (eliminating city-wide). The current desegregation order would stay in place. The issue is complicated by costs for busing (the Cawley option for LHS would need 26 additional buses or a projected $3.2 million plus additional amounts for future years). Start/dismissal times would need adjustment as well. The endeavor needs further study, which was the recommendation from the subcommittees. Mayor Kennedy notes the cost of busing is going to increase substantially over time and that some of the proposed zones will be unfair to 2 neighborhoods. The K-8 model being proposed to accommodate a 5-zone system will necessitate additional teachers. Mayor Kennedy supports a more thorough look at how the schools provide transportation in order to potentially increase efficiency. Motion to accept.There were 3 Reports from the Superintendent and 2 items under New Business:

• Report: Tutoring Services offered by Dharma Center
• Report: Community Service Update
• Report: Quarterly Report on Motions
• New Business: Interdistrict Choice (Voted on previously)
• New Business: Farm to School Research Project

For anyone looking for the full meeting packet and agenda, please navigate to the City of Lowell's Agenda/Minutes website.

Lost Things

Don't it always seem to goThat you don't know what you've got til its gone

I was thinking about Joni Mitchell's lyrics to Big Yellow Taxi this morning because, I think a lot of what has disappeared in classrooms has happened so gradually that even educators don't realize the value of what has gone missing.During last Friday's middle segment on Beat The Press, Adam Riley asked if the panel believed viewers could tell the difference between fact and opinion. Here's the link to the segment which is definitely worth the five minutes viewing time.If as an adult, knowing the difference between fact and opinion is an important skill, do educators have opportunities to explicitly teach students to distinguish between opinion and news/facts? I would suggest that in this era of time-on-task we do not. I think teaching and practicing critical thinking has been replaced by test preparation and test strategy sessions.As a high school student, one of the courses I took to fulfill the English requirements was a course called Propaganda and Prejudice.  We started out examining marketing materials and ended up dissecting political discourse to better understand opinions and how facts can be manipulated to prove a point. Those lessons of examination and questioning have stayed with me my entire adult life.As a teacher of elementary students in 1987, one of the PBS programs that we employed to encourage students to think deeply about issues was called (I think) Think About It. Think About It was a 15-minute, current events based program for middle-elementary and junior high students and broadcast each week on the local PBS airwaves. We watched it together every Friday afternoon. Students were enjoined to dive deeply into a current issue and engage in opinion writing or discourse based on facts they could uncover throughout the upcoming week. I underscore based on facts, because, as the panel from Beat The Press points out, our current conversations seem mainly based on beliefs and perception and not necessarily on researched or proven fact.Why these anecdotes are important is the action of thinking about whether or not a statement is true or verifiable or even plausible seems to be a missing skill. In our divisive political conversation, proveable facts are in very short supply and thinking about whether a statement is reasonable or truthful is often even more scarce. Case in point would be the Comet Pizza shootings in DC.When the focus is on test preparation and standardized testing, something has to go. Honestly, until I started to think about the question posed by the Beat The Press panel and wonder more about why our grown up and adult students don't necessarily discern between fact and opinion, I didn't realize the full extent to which teaching critical thought has been omitted. Is one of those "things" educators let go in favor of prepping students for test success explicit teaching and practice with critical thinking?I wonder, if result of 20 years of education "reform" and focus on standardized high stakes testing, is a cohort of adults who cannot critically question and discern opinion from fact?

Another Reason for Increased Recess

I wonder how many other adults have experienced this? After about 30 minutes of intense focus, there is a need to get up and move. For me, moving around when I am actively engaging my brain applies in nearly every circumstance, and I notice it most especially during some training or class when my brain is powered up and I'm trying hard to retain new information.An article republished in the New York Times' Well column made me think of how sitting and movement impact learning for all students regardless of age level. Written for runners and titled Can Running Make You Smarter, the article was originally published in July 2016. Here are some major take-aways from the article:

• exercise fosters neurogenesis, or creation of neurons which cluster in the brain and increase ability for thinking and recall
• physical stimulation is necessary for healthy brains
• Cathepsin B protein, which helps muscles recover from exercise such as running, appears to be a factor in neurogenesis
• in the study, more active subjects like runners had better and more improved tests scores for memory and thinking

So what's the connection to students and learning? Here's my take:One of the first things schools jettison when time-on-task and test preparation becomes the focus, is recess. Recess is short-changed in many schools across the US even though research study after research study shows that children need recess and breaks from more academic pursuits in order to learn and think. Google the phrase "importance of recess" and page upon page of research pops up. And then, of course, you could just ask a teacher.Recess is important. If this study is taken seriously, active play during recess appears to be even more important. Recently, in response to School Committee member Jackie Doherty's motion of January 18, 2017, the Lowell Schools reported (click here for the report from the February 15 meeting packet) on the number of minutes allocated for recess at each Lowell Public Schools. The times ranged from zero minutes at Lowell High School and alternative school settings to 20 minutes at several elementary schools (25 for some Kindergarten classrooms).The studies cited in Can Running Make You Smarter point once again to the importance of allowing students enough time to be active throughout the school day. Isn't that a good reason to pay greater attention on finding some additional recess and play time in the school day? 

School Committee Meeting, 15 March 2017

Imagine for a moment that you are 10 years old, speak another language at home, and as kids sometimes do, have heard the adults in your family expressing concern about Immigration returning you and your family to another country where your life had been one filled with violence and poverty.  Worries about being removed from this new place where you had felt safe might naturally fill your waking thoughts. And those worries would, of course, extend to the place where you, a ten-year-old, spends the greater part of each day: your school. Last night, the Lowell School Committee ensured that, at least within the walls of school, a child whose family's immigration status might be called in to question could know that they would not be forcibly removed from their school and classmates. While the School Committee's motion and School Department's response is reassuring for that child during time spent within the school setting, there is no guarantee of protection outside of it. Whether a 10-year-old refugee can differentiate that remains to be seen.School Committee Meeting 15 March 20175 members present (Ms. Martin absent), Student representative: Onoste OmoyeniSpotlight on Excellence & Permissions to Enter.Please refer to packet and agenda. LTC neglected to start the broadcast at the beginning of this meeting.MotionsSix motions :

• 6.I. [By Jacqueline Doherty]: Request the Superintendent provide the committee with recommendations for increasing the compensation of our Substitute Teachers to be competitive in today’s education market along with the data to support such increases. Request the Superintendent provide the committee with recommendations for increasing the compensation of our Substitute Teachers to be competitive in today’s education market along with the data to support such increases.

• 6.II. [By Jacqueline Doherty]: Request the Superintendent ensure the LPS website is updated, links to packet reports are working, and each school page provides information on its School Site Council members, meeting times, agendas, and minutes along with other relevant school-specific dates, events and information. THIS IS WHERE THE MEETING COVERAGE BEGINS. 

• 6.III. [By Steve Gendron] Request the Superintendent develop a class size policy for Lowell Public Schools that includes current status and goals for all grades K- 12.

• 6.IV. [By Connie Martin And Robert Gignac] Request that the Administration prepare a resolution for consideration by the Lowell School Committee that clearly defines the district's commitment to protecting our students, regardless of their immigration status and offers all LPS staff a clear procedure for ensuring that no Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials will be granted access to the Lowell Public Schools without the expressed permission of the Superintendent of Schools.

Taking Item 8.7 (resolution) which is the response at the same time. There was mention of a registered speaker, but that person did not materialize. The motion and response found in 8.VII are a response to discussion with Superintendent re families who had received letters from Immigration about their immigration status. Mr. Gignac feels it is imperative that the SC takes a formal position so that students do not feel unsafe or fearful while they are in school.Mr. Hoey asks Superintendent if this resolution could negatively impact government grants. When the City Council took up the Sanctuary City issue earlier this year, one of the reasons for not supporting such a motion was that the City, highly dependent upon federal funding, could possibly find those funds removed or suspended should Lowell adopt a sanctuary city policy.  Superintendent  states he does not know the definitive answer to this query; however, Dr. Khelfaoui notes that tonight’s policy is reflective of the state policy. Students need to feel safe in schools or they are not learning. Ms. Omoyeni expresses support for this motion on behalf of the students at LHS.  Mr. Gendron also expresses support; Lowell is and continues to be a city of immigrants and we should support them by removing any concerns that these students could potentially be removed forcibly from school during the school day.Ms. Doherty echoes this sentiment as does Mr. Descoteaux. Superintendent Khelfaoui reiterates that the policy as presented tonight has been in place in the LPSD. It has been vetted by the Police Department and is legally correct.  Dr. Khelfaoui states that this policy is intended to reassure children, some of whom have already received notices from Immigration, that whatever their status, the children can regard their school as a place of safety.Mr. Gendron reiterates that it is exactly because of the situation at the federal level that Lowell needs to put this policy in writing for peace of mind and safety of students and their families. Ms. Omoyeni also notes anectdotally that there have been some increased absences and it is the moral obligation of our community to ensure that students know they are safe.  Mr. Kennedy notes the difference in the role of the school committee as different from the City Council in creating a sancutary city.  In response to Mr. Hoey’s question about how ICE would know a students’ status, Dr. Khelfaoui responds that there is legal processes in place which prohibit just anyone from accessing students’ school records.This issue is divisive and complicated and, as I am not a legal expert. I do note that bowing to pressure and threats about loss of funding from the federal government concerns me. Other cities such as Boston - also heavily reliant on federal funds - have taken steps to become sanctuary cities.  Role Call:  5 yeas, 1 abstain, 1 absent - approved

• 6.V. [Robert J. Hoey]: Request a report from the Superintendent regarding the total cost of security and safety in our schools, including the amount we spend on resource officers, security and security equipment.

• 6.VI. [By Steve Gendron] Request the Superintendent provide a response to the contract offer from the Lowell School Committee. Referred to Executive Session which follows this meeting.

Policy SubcommitteeReview of Homework Policy and Staff Sick Time.Ms. Desmond reviews the current policy which is based on number of minutes. She is approaching building leaders to reinforce that homework might be differentiated and evaluated in a more meaningful way.  Mr. Gendron notes that a student has contacted all the Committee members and his wish is that homework is less about quantity and more about making homework a more effective activity. Ms. Omoyeni also speaks to the importance of ensuring that homework is designed to be more than busywork.The second part of the report was about sick time. This report was intended to provide information to the City. Ms. Doherty noted a motion was made to request Human Resources formalize the policy on staff attendance on purpose. Accepted as a report of progress. Reports of the SuperintendentThere were 9 items under Reports of the Superintendent.8.I. Food Service Presentation At Satellite Sites & Food Truck Approval DocumentsThe food truck purchase would be (partially) reimbursed through the distribution of summer meals. The vehicle would also be used during the school year to transport meals to satellite schools (those without food prep kitchens).Mr. Gignac clarifies that $14K is returned to Aramark for meals served; $45K costs include personnel in the Food Service Department working through the summer. Questions re re-serving food that has been stored in the (refriegerated) truck. Leaving food in a truck, even if refrigerated is a concern (break-ins). Expresses the opinion that we should fix what we currently have and does not feel that the $14K in administrative fees turned back to Aramark is problematic.Mr. Hoey asks who is paying for the truck; Dr. Khelfaoui confirms the truck is paid from the “revolving account”, which is also used for other direct costs for the food program. The money originates from the federal government. Mr. Hoey also notes that cafeteria staff is hired to work 3.5 hours daily. Advocates for a 5 hour day.Ms. Doherty notes the reality of poverty in Massachusetts and in Lowell. Being able to feed students throughout the summer and taking the food to where the children play/are, will lead to a positive outcome.Regarding food quality, Mr. Gignac notes positive improvements in food quality in a short amount of time.Providing meals to children throughout the summer is something Lowell should support. When the Commonwealth calculates the "Economically Disadvantaged" student percentage in Lowell at 55%, it is an understatement of reality borne by fuzzy mathematical computation. I taught in several schools where the actual number of students in poverty was over 90%. Those kids are hungry and school meals, as well as food provided by organizations like Merrimack Valley Food Bank, might be the only nutrition they receive.  In my opinion, expanding food distribution throughout the summer is a moral obligation to help children in need. What I am having difficulty understanding is the fact that the School Department is being asked to purchase a new truck for Aramark. This new truck would be used for summer food distribution as well as delivery of meals to satellite schools during the school year (satellite schools are schools without food preparation facilities). The "administrative" costs for the summer food program is $14,000, which is the cost Aramark assesses for what I understand is overhead at the corporate level. The new truck will ostensibly be purchased to distribute meals to students "where they are" during the summer months. Those places include program sites, playgrounds, etc.  The new truck will be used to replace 3 smaller vehicles currently in use for school-year meal delivery to satellite schools. Because the truck is bigger and has a refrigeration feature (no warming option), only 2 food service employees will be needed to staff it, eliminating need for one food service employee for 2017-18.  Roll call to send truck request to bid (4 yeas, 2 nay, 1 absent). Approved. Report accepted as a report of progress.8.II. Dropout Prevention And Recovery Documents LHS dropout rate reflects the hard work and coordination of efforts PreK-Grade 12.  LHS Dropout rate is 1.8% (below the Massachusetts state average) for 2 years in a row.8.III. Extracurricular Activities Update Documents8.IV. K-12 Student Population By Zip Code Documents Ms. Doherty requests the report be referred to Finance/Student Services Subcommittee.8.V. Management Letter Documents: Mr. Gignac asks about some funds that had been returned to DESE, but then returned to LPS and used for a summer SpEd program.8.VI. Response To Mayor Kennedy's Motion Of 02/01/17 Regarding STEM Academy At LHS Documents 8.VII. Rights Of Undocumented Students And Protocols For ICE Access In SchoolsDocuments Taken previously8.VIII. Monthly Financial Report Documents Referred to next Finance Subcommittee Meeting.8.IX. Response To Robert Hoey’s Motion Of 01/04/17 Regarding Diversity Hiring EffortsDocuments Mr. Hoey requests Anne Sheehy’s explanation of Paraprofessional cohort and the opportunity to obtain teaching licensure. Lowell has applied to offer licensure through a program in the district which would in turn create a pool of diverse candidates for teaching positions. Ms. Doherty spoke to encouragement of students in High School who would be candidates for paraprofessional positions and who might go on to a career as an educator. Mr. Gignac reminds that there is state aid/assistance for tuition through EEC (Early Education & Care).All approved 6 yeas, 1 absentAll conference requests were also approved.Following adjournment, the Committee went into Executive Session.Meeting detail and support documentation  can be found here.

The Test Participation Penalty

I wonder how many parents have submitted a letter to opt a child out of state mandated testing (MCAS2.0)? And in the process of opting-out, were any of those parents called to discuss their choice with the school administrator? According to the current Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, parents need to have a choice in a child's education. It appears, however, that "choice" has limits.According to state and federal government, there should be a "choice" of educational setting.  School setting is a choice, whether it is public, charter, private, or religious. That's a good choice according to the government. Using federal funds to pay for vouchers? That's the current federal proposal. And our government claims that that kind of choice is also a "good" choice.However, if you exercise your parental judgement by choosing to opt your child out of long, arduous, standardized tests like MCAS 2.0 or PARCC, then your choice as a parent is questionable. The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education really does not want parents to make that choice. Why? Because in assessments, unless a significant number of students participate in those tests, the reported results may become skewed or inaccurate.The issue of test participation rates is part of the newest federal education act, ESSA (Every Student Succeeds Act). The current DESE draft of Massachusetts' ESSA application states that:

E. Participation Rate. Describe how the State is factoring the requirement for 95 percent student participation in assessments into its system of annual meaningful differentiation of schools consistent with the requirements of 34 C.F.R. § 200.15.A school’s summative performance level will be lowered if that school assesses less than 95% of students in the aggregate or for any subgroup that meets a minimum N size of 20.

Broken down to simpler terms, this statement means that if a group of parents decides that MCAS 2.0, the standardized test in Massachusetts, is harmful to their child, the entire school and school district could be penalized. The penalty is to lower a school's rating (Level 1, high to Level 5, low) by one level if less than 95% of students eligible for testing participate.Here's a mathematical example: A Pre-K through Grade 4 school may have 500 students. The two grades that participate in state testing within that school are Grades 3 and 4. Perhaps there are 100 students in each of these grades (200 total). If the parents of 11 student request that their children be excused from MCAS 2.0, as is their parental right, then according to the regulation, the state will lower the school's level rating by one.I believe a new feature of the ESSA draft is that participation rates apply to subgroups of students. An example of a subgroup would  be a group of students from a given school who are also identified as English Language Learners, Students with Disabilities, or Economically Disadvantaged students.  Applying the 5% non-participation rate penalty, if there are 25 children identified as Students with Disabilities in Grades 3 and 4, and parents of as few as 2 students choose to opt them out, then the school's level rating could be lowered.The stakes for building and district administrators to maintain excellent school ratings are quite high, and therein lies the conflict between parental choice and the unfair penalties for participation rates. The feds bully the states, the states in turn bully the districts, and the principals and parents are caught up in a conflict of choosing what is best for students.Parents should not have their decision as to whether or not to subject their child to standardized MCAS 2.0 testing questioned if opting-out is truly a choice. If too many opt-outs skew the test results, maybe it's time to look at the value of the assessment.

Not-the-Notes Blog 1 March 2017

Something happened this evening preventing the live broadcast of Lowell's School Committee Meeting for March 1. Until the taped meeting materializes, there won't be any notes about what transpired; however, this doesn't mean there isn't anything to think about.Found in the Permissions to Enter, are 4 requests totaling $882,470. All of these requests are expenditures from the Special Education Tuition account and are for Out of District (OOD) costs to agencies servicing student Individual Education Plans (IEPs).When the services necessary to provide a free and adequate education for a student cannot be met within the local school district, they must be contracted out. It is the legal responsibility of the school district to ensure that all students have access to the educational services that they need, and if the services cannot be provided from within, the district must provide those services through an agency that can. No one gets turned away because educational needs are challenging.All of the recent talk about vouchers and funding and such got me thinking about this. With the implementation of a voucher, or "school choice" program, would there be a requirement for all school settings (public, charter, private/religious) to equitably accept students regardless of special education need?Here's how that is playing out right now in Lowell. Students receiving services are counted as Students with Disabilities on DESE's student profile for Lowell Public School District. This number is reported at 16% (data from 2016-17). There are several educational environments for special education service delivery as shown in the following graphic. This data, the most recent on DESE's Lowell Public Schools profile site, is from 2015 and is the most recent reported on DESE's site. The data includes children aged 6-21 with IEPs. In thinking about what might happen should a voucher program become reality, I took a look at what currently occurs with traditional public schools and charter schools. Charter Schools should reflect a similar demographic to the local public school district. In principle, sometimes charter schools do, but sometimes they do not.In Lowell, the Community Charter School reports 15.5% of enrolled students have disabilities, yet the Collegiate Charter School reports 11.6% (both 2016-17 data, same timeframe as reported for LPSD above).Using the most recent data available for educational environments (2015), however, reveals that sometimes digging deeper into data can be interesting. Take a look at the data specifying educational environment, especially those environments that require specialized intervention and services, such as Out of District placements.Neither of the two charter schools have special education students needing either substantially separate services or separate schools/facilities/homebound-hospital placements?So as the proponents of a voucher, or "choice" system continue to push their agenda forward, I'll be watching to see if those hollering about choice for all families and students really mean all. Or do they mean just those students with less challenging needs. 

It Doesn't End with Vouchers

If you don't know about H.R. 610, here is a link to the text and the bill's progress. I urge you to follow it and, if you feel strongly about it, respond to it. While my Congressional Representative is not a member of the House Committee currently reviewing this legislation, I want her to know exactly how this bill will impact our Local Education Agency (LEA).A tacked on provision in this legislation can be found at the very end: dismantling (my word) of the No Hungry Kids Act. Under the No Hungry Kids Act, fruit and vegetable offerings increased and low- and non-fat milk was offered. Those requirements would be removed. Additionally, the proposal in HR610 would eliminate monitoring school lunch/breakfast choices for sodium, trans fats and saturated fats.Why does this matter? Childhood and adult obesity continues to be a factor in health and well-being. In school food programs students are exposed to healthier eating options. If you are unfamiliar with the effects of less healthy food choices, read Michael Pollan or Mark Bittman or Jamie Oliver. If you want to see the results of eating high-sodium, high-fat and out of balance carbs, see the film Supersize Me.Students who receive school lunches in high poverty (economically disadvantaged - to use MA DESE's new terminology) currently have more healthy choices. Unbelievably, HR610 proposes to change that by eliminating the requirements for low sodium, low fat and fresh fruit/vegetable choices.To what purpose?  The cynic in me wonders what giant food supplier or lobby is balking at the "expense" of providing students with healthy breakfasts and lunches.Keeping school food service as a healthy eating opportunity gives me yet another reason to stay on top of HR610.

What's the Plan Phil?

Remember the episode of Modern Family when Phil attempted to save the old family station wagon from rolling down a hill by jumping on the hood? (video clip here)

What's the plan, Phil?

Pretty sure I used that same phrase while reading through HR610 this week. HR610, a bill introduced by Representative King (R, IA),  which offers among other things, vouchers to all families of school-aged children in the name of school choice. In fact the "short title" of this legislation is "Choices in Education Act of 2017". I have a lot of questions about this without even debating that "choices" in schooling already exist (a post for another day).So here we go:

Just scroll through the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965 (and subsequent amendments and reauthorizations). This is the education bill HR610 proposes to replace. School libraries, migratory students, students in poverty, neglected and impoverished students, homeless students, English Language Learners. HR610 will do away with all of the legislation that began in 1965 during Lyndon Johnson's administration. All of it. What will support those students? A voucher program funded through block grants, apparently.So here are some of my questions:The funding: Although HR610 does not come right out and say it directly, can we all suppose that by eliminating the Elementary & Secondary Act of 1965 and all of the amendments, any further funding of current federal grant programs will disappear?  And through elimination of this funding source, what services currently available to students and families will disappear?This financial report, from the Feb. 15 2017 Lowell School Committee Meeting shows the sources of Grant Funding and expenditures to date. <report>. Picking out the obvious federal funding (Title I, II, III) would include $7,386,139 and eliminate services for student support (for example, social workers in the case of Title I).  Additional federal grants fund the 21st Century Schools programs. If those grants were eliminated, there would no longer be extended day or enrichment programs for students. Need homework help? Tough darts.Another report from the 15 February school committee notes ALL grant funding - private and government. Now look at this line from HR610 just in case there was any doubt that the federal government wishes to have a hand on non-federal monies (This quote is from Section 105).

Will this language from section 105 necessitate re-allocation of STATE funding toward a voucher program as well?Who is counting the students and when: The program proposed in HR610 necessitates an accurate count of ALL students in a local education agency (LEA). By ALL, HR610 means all students attending public, charter, private (religious schools included here) and those who are home-schooled.In Massachusetts, the counts of students has historically taken place on October 1, meaning that a student who is not registered for school in a district on September 29 and arrives, say on October 2nd, is not included in the Foundation Enrollment (click here for MA guidelines on who is included in the count) and therefore not part of the calculation for the Foundation Budget or per pupil allocation from the state. Wherever that student was on October 1st receives the funding for the student for that academic year.The inverse of that is also true for a student who transfers out of a district on October 2, so while this makes my accounting-brain crazy, statistically, it probably is pretty close unless an entire school closed in mid-year and resulted in a large population of new students flooding a local district.Since private school students and home-schooled students are not included in the current method of calculation it follows that adding in those students to any enrollment numbers would make a difference in the resulting amounts of money allocated per pupil. The bottom line would mean that traditional public schools would receive less funding per student. Slice the pie a bit thinner because more need a share.For a community such as Lowell with a large contingent of students with challenging needs, even less resources will no doubt have devastating results on the students who most need the supports and services currently in place. What will be eliminated?A few more questions, so bear with me:Under Section 105.2, HR610 requires that the amount of the voucher may not exceed the cost of tuition (fees, and transportation) for a private school or the cost of homeschooling?

For me, this provision opens up a number of issues. Are private (and religious) schools and home-schoolers willing to open their financial records to auditing so that a federal overseer can confirm that the voucher does not exceed the costs as defined by HR610? What costs will be allowed for home-schooling families. Program costs? Costs for the space within a dwelling (like a home office)?  And for both private and home-schools, will the same requirements for time on task and academic year now apply? Will private schools  be required to accept every student regardless of academic need or disability, or will those students either sign away their rights to a free and equitable education or just not receive the services that they require for academic success?Public schools have open doors; they accept every student and provide not only academic support but often social supports. I'm not certain that this proposed legislation does anything more than pander to a select group, and it concerns me. The students who require the supports provided by federal title grants will be hurt by HR610, and I cannot in good conscience support it."What's the plan, Phil?" Other than dismantling public education, I'm not sure.