First Days

It is back-to-school time here in the City in which I taught for nearly 30 years. You can sense the anticipation in the  breezes that flow down the Merrimack. There is  an almost unidentifiable change to the air. We are changing seasons; we are changing routines.I loved the first day of school when I was teaching. Make no mistake about it, those first days - and oftentimes weeks - are exhausting as teachers and their new students work to find common ground and to build a community. The first day, the day when everyone wears a little vulnerability in anticipation of new things, the first day is special. And for every teacher who starts rebuilding a new community of learners today, I wish you the best.My mind floods with the memories of some of those wonderfully special students who made the 30 first days that I was privileged to be part of special. So many unique personalities! You kids have enriched my life in ways I could never have imagined.In 1990, I was returning to the classroom after a summer of health crises. I remember the exhaustion that year was not from teaching, but from treatments. Dragging my sorry self into a classroom filled with second graders was not only teacher-exhausting, it was physically and mentally exhausting. Yet every single morning, one of my bubbly, precious second graders, Anita, would throw her arms into the air and tell me "Mrs. Bisson, you look mahvelous today!" Now I know the reality was, I didn't look even close to passable most days. Some mornings, Anita's greeting was the one thing that kept me moving forward. A few years later, this special girl lost her own battle with cancer - and took a piece of my heart with her to heaven.All of "my" kids whether you are grown with your own children or still in the middle of schooling, I am grateful to every single one of you. You challenged me to do better, to figure it out, and yet, every day you taught me something about making the most of our time here in our classroom community and on this earth. All those times when you thought I was teaching you, you were really teaching me.Students are meeting their teachers once again today. May you all have a year filled with precious moments and memory-making. Cherish each moment as you build a lifetime of memories.

School Committee Meeting, 17 August 2016

School Committee Meeting, 17 August 2016All presentThis was a lengthy (2-3/4 hours) meeting due to not only the summer schedule of monthly meetings, but the financial topics that became the focus of discussion. Apologies in advance for the delay in getting notes out; I also presented information about First Book to the Committee (separate post to follow).Permissions to EnterContract ratifications for the Superintendent and Assistant Superintendents were deferred to Executive Session, which followed the public portion this meeting.Subcommittee Reports:Mr. Gendron shared findings from the Facilities Subcommittee meeting of 8/11. The recommendation, followed by full School Committee approval, to name the Butler School Auditorium in honor of former administrator Mary Alice Foley was made. (Approved). Additionally Skanska, the Project Manager for the Lowell High School Building Project, presented a quarterly report of the work thus far and listed deadlines and timeline for the projected planning work needed to be accomplished ahead of a May 31, 2017 Mass. School Building Deadline.While I understood this to be a huge construction project for the City of Lowell, I was unaware that the LHS Building Project is the largest school building project in the Commonwealth. There is a need to get the design “right” (sustainable with adaptability for future needs projected 20-30 years out) and to ensure that the costs are under control throughout all phases of the project.  The Project Manager, Skanska, is charged with this task and will work with the design team.  To view the timeline for the work that is envisioned, Sanska has provided details beginning around page 73 of the School Committee Packet.Reports of the SuperintendentThe Superintendent offered 12 reports to the Committee.  The ones receiving the closest scrutiny were financial in nature, but attention also was given to a facilities report by Mr. Rick Underwood. The Doors Open Lowell Public Schools announcement has been covered in detail by both Amelia Pak-Harvey of the Lowell Sun and through the LPS Website.  I was also wearing my “other hat”, co-coordinator of the Lowell First Book Truck Event in October, and will detail that event this week as we kick-off efforts to bring 40,000 free books to our Lowell Public Schools families.  Sharon LaGasse and Kristina Webber presented an end-of-year report on Food Services and the CEP program in Lowell.The Purchase Order Report (2016/311), received extended discussion as it addressed some of the expenditures and encumbrances made at the end of the fiscal year. Mr. Gignac requested clarification some June 30 Purchase Orders including rental of the Tsongas Center (graduation) as well as hardware (Apple Laptops and carts).Further in the discussion was the proposal for how to make up the last-minute loss of Kindergarten Grant Funding.  The Kindergarten Grant in Lowell is used in part or in whole to support the services of instructional paraprofessionals at the Kindergartens across the City.  On July 17, Governor Baker’s veto during the Commonwealth’s Budget process created a loss of funding for the Kindergarten Grant - and other budget items as well.  The Lowell School Administration  in attempting to find ways to maintain the paraprofessional positions, has resorted to what I liken to rearranging the deck chairs.  LPS had a budget surplus which seems to have some connection to the “fifth” quarterly circuit breaker payment accounted for in the 2015-16 budget of $2.8 million.  The carryover to 2016-17 is restricted by law to $2.3 million which leaves $548,000 to be returned to the City of Lowell.Noting the amount needed to make up for the loss of funds triggered by the Governor’s veto, the LPS would request $527,642 once the books are certified by the Commonwealth (December 2016?). The City Manager had been alerted that there might be need for up to $600,000 in supplemental requests to make up for the loss. The trail of transactions as I understand it, would be this:

• Funds in excess of $2.3 Million returned to City (approximately $547,000)
• School Committee will request $527,642 supplemental from City Council
• $527,642 will be placed by City in a Suspense Account (and eventually transferred to the line item needed to pay the salaries of Kindergarten paraprofessionals).

While there is an aversion to using one-time funding sources/payments for on-going expenditures, the Superintendent posited that these transactions will give the LPS a year to plan for how to fund the monies lost by the Governor’s veto on a more permanent basis.  In the end the Committee approved both the motion to request supplemental funding from the City Council and to place such funds in a Suspense Account (6 yeas, 1 absent - Mayor Kennedy).In a related report, the update to Purchasing Policy (2016/321), an effort to bring the language in the current LPS Purchasing Policy in alignment with both City and DESE/State practice, was referred to the Finance Subcommittee for review.The updated Hiring Policies (2016/331) giving qualified and certified Lowell residents an interview was passed.A report on the status of Facilities (2016/326) was made by Mr. Rick Underwood,.  The enormity of maintaining facilities and the near-term end of lifecycle for building components of those schools built during the 1991-1993 school building boom is something for which the LPSD needs to plan. Many of the HVAC plants are reaching the end of life expectancy and are becoming difficult to keep in service. The custodial staff has an enormous amount of work to complete throughout the summer:  thoroughly cleaning buildings, floors, and performing other maintenance tasks (often with community programs in the building AND when temperatures are extremely hot) that are needed while the students and teachers are out of the building. During crunch times, the outside of the building - the landscaping - may not receive the same level of attention.Mainly what I learned through this discussion is that the custodial staff have performed yeoman’s work to get all the facilities clean and ready for a new academic year. I know that  in the past, when I returned to set up my own classroom, the floors had been stripped, waxed, minor repairs performed - sometimes a new coat of paint, the the overhead lights cleaned. Any surface I didn’t have covered with packed boxes of materials was wiped down. The lockers outside the classroom were cleaned, the halls stripped and waxed and the community spaces maintained as well.Maintaining the grounds at schools is also a huge undertaking, and of course, the grounds are what the neighbors and public see as they drive by a school building.  Adding landscaping to a custodian’s punch list is sometimes impossible, yet the grounds do need to be taken care of. Mr. Underwood seems quite open to seeking outside-the-box solutions for this, perhaps involving local landscapers in regular maintenance for a courtesy sign or involving community service groups as suggested by Mr. Gendron.Before moving to Motions, Mayor Kennedy requested an update on when to expect reports for four motions submitted during the July 2016 School Committee meeting. A Report on Graduation Rates  and one on the STEM Program, specific to the High School is expected at the first meeting in September.  The LHS Curriculum Review in light of the building project is expected before December and the Suspension/Expulsion Policy is pending input and action by DESE.New BusinessThere were four items under New Business:

• 2016/310: Update on Business Office Reorganization & District Hiring.  Mr. Frisch confirms that the number of bodies remains the same; however, report was very difficult to follow. An Organizational Chart with names would go a long way to clarify what positions are filled and which remain unfilled.
• 2016/318 Accept a grant award of $2,000 for Wang School
• 2016/322 Expenditure transfer request (see page 165-172 of Meeting Packet)
• 2016/325 Budget Transfers (see page 172-211  of Meeting packet). These appear to be the detailed transfers of monies to balance accounts from 2015-16.

All passed.Meeting adjourned from Executive Session. Meeting Packet can be found here.

What Defines A "Good" School?

Recently, the Boston Globe published a letter from Joy Robinson-Lynch positing that if Boston needs more available spots in classical education schools (like Boston Latin), the school department might consider creating them.  After all, Boston Public Schools certainly know how to run a successful classical education institution - they've had years to practice and refine that.Framing that thought in terms of Lowell's local school issues, I wonder if in Lowell the same thought should apply. Looking at the Wait Lists for our Lowell Public Schools also indicate that some schools in Lowell are more sought after than others. If there is an abundance of students waiting to attend a middle school like the Daley Middle School, shouldn't there be some thought into why that one school is in high demand? What is it that makes the Daley so desirable? Is the the leadership at the school? The culture? The academics? The staff?  Or is it something else?I taught for 5 years at the Cardinal O'Connell School when it was a Pre-K to Grade 4 elementary school. As an older school, the building itself had some charming quirks, but it also had a great leadership team and a caring faculty who, because of the small size of the school, really knew each and every student. What it didn't have was a cafeteria.  Sometimes when a family left for the (new-at-the-time) Lincoln School, that would be the reason given for transferring. Fortunately, not everyone valued separate lunch space as a deciding factor in a child's educational success.Is it just a perception or is there something tangibly identifiable that sets apart the schools perceived to be desirable? That's something that may be explored further under a new assessment model being considered by a consortium of school districts from across Massachusetts. Measuring positivity in a school's culture may be more difficult to quantify, but it is equally important to the overall picture of whether or not a school is a success. What are those factors that families value that fall outside of numbers and test scores?Are we ready to use more measures to define good schools? I hope so!  

Slammed

The New York Times carried an interesting story about Kansas conservatives and the effort to demonize education even further through linguistics. The article "Public Schools? To Kansas Conservatives They're 'Government' Schools", really confused me for a bit. Don't most schools - unless we're talking about private schools, have some government oversight and funding?As it turns out, Kansas conservatives, and I would suppose others throughout the United States who are like-minded, do have a deeper purpose for referencing schools as "government" schools.In Kansas, the legislature and the court system have been engaged in a battle royale over funding inequities. There is little to no desire to raise taxes to support schools; in fact, the current governor is quite proud of budget cuts which resulted in income tax cuts. Under a court-threat to close the schools due to funding inequities, the Kansas legislature seems to have come up with a way to satisfy the courts for the time-being, but the ill-will generated in this bloodbath isn't over.Referring to public schools as "government schools" in Kansas is not simply a matter of linguistic semantics. No, it is rebranding a public institution to create negative reactions which, in the final accounting, could very well result in less public funding and less support for the public school system.But the question I had when I first heard the term "government" schools is this:  If the goal is to rid a municipality, a state, or a country of publicly supported and funded schools, then which institutions will be immune?Here in Lowell many parochial schools receive some support from Title I. Some parochial school students are transported to their school-of-choice via public school bus.  Government funding? I think so. Charter Schools also receive public funding in the per-pupil assessment coming from the City.  And in parts of the United States, some homeschooled students participate in extracurricular activities or school sports funded through... public funding.  Are all of these school "government" schools too?I believe the purposeful substitution of the term "government" for "public" leaves an intentionally negative connotation, one that is meant to lessen financial support for schools that serve everyone. It is meant to paint hard-working educators as slackers with hands out. It is meant to further the notion that our public school system is irreparably broken and only serves those who are too lazy to go elsewhere.And what exactly would be the alternative to a "government" school?  How about a corporately run school? Do you know of any of those? It's pretty clear that the issue is not just that the government is spending money, it also is who controls where that money is spent. The people making the funding decisions couldn't possibly want control of education funding for their own personal benefit could they?To me, what is happening in Kansas bears a close watch because it could happen anywhere. Even here in Massachusetts. 

What If Miss Parker Hadn't

I was in the seventh grade when Miss Parker told me, "Donovan, we could put all your excess energy to good use." And she introduced me to the sound of my own voice.

In five minutes, Donovan Livingston the Student speaker at Harvard Graduate School of Education 2016 Convocation and Ed.M. candidate uses his voice to remind all of us of why education is powerful. His voice reminds us that equity in access to education and educational possibilities cannot and should not be restricted.The reason to be an educator is embedded in his poetry.  A number on a test does not define a person's worth. Invest in five minutes that can reaffirm your resolve to be an educator.https://youtu.be/9XGUpKITeJMUse this link from Harvard GSE to link to the text.

School Committee Meeting, 04 May 2016

School Committee Meeting, 04 May 2016Finance Subcommittee Meeting, 04 May 2016All members presentThis was a marathon session, especially for School Committee members present for both the regular meeting and finance subcommittee Q&A session, as well as the school department personnel.  An executive session was sandwiched in between the two public meetings - three and a half hours. Meeting opened with recognition for the LHS Air Force Junior ROTC Drill Team (AFJROTC).Public ParticipationStephanie Sodre, Daley School teacher and parent of a preschool student, spoke in advocacy for Motion 2016/172, policy for placement of students within Lowell Schools for school personnel residing out of district.Paul Georges, President of United Teachers of Lowell (UTL), speaks on two motions to be presented: 2016/180 (career pathways for paraprofessionals) and 2016/186 (offering a contract to Dr. Khelfaoui).  In the first instance, Mr. Georges reminds the school committee of the successful paraprofessional program which resulted in training and hiring new Special Education Teachers. This opportunity has been in existence for a number of years. He respectfully suggests that the new motion consider amending the language to include other school personnel who may wish to pursue licensure such as the custodians and/or cafeteria staff.Mr. Georges also spoke in support of offering the Superintendent a contract as opposed to the current Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). He reminds the school committee that the position of Superintendent was originally advertised as having a 3-year contract, but at the time of final interviews, the candidates were publicly asked if they would work “without a contract”. Mr. Georges reminds the committee that to do so was not only unfair, but ethically questionable and may, in the future, result in fewer candidates for advertised administrators such as superintendents.Motions:There were five motions presented; one, the motion to offer the Superintendent a 3-year contract, generated the longest discussion.

• 2016/160 (Ms. Doherty) - request for information/report on the Lowell School’s civics curriculum.
• 2016/180 (Ms. Doherty) - career path for paraprofessions (See notes following)
• 2016/185 (Mr. Hoey) - policy mandating that Lowell residents are guaranteed interviews when applying for positions.
• 2016/186 (Mr. Hoey) - negotiation of a 3-year contract for the Superintendent
• 2016/187 (Ms. Martin) - report to full committee regarding evaluations (in aggregate) of LPS principals and staff using the Massachusetts Evaluation system protocols.

Ms. Doherty’s second motion (2016/180) re-emphasized and expanded on a valuable resource within the Lowell Schools - the paraprofessional staff (see Public Participation comment by Mr. Georges suggesting that this benefit should be extended to include other support staff).  This motion asks the the administration continue to tap into that resource by developing a diverse teaching staff through a partnership with Middlesex Community College, University of Massachusetts Lowell and Lowell Public Schools. It expands on this idea by including potential for development from our high school students considering education as a career and Middlesex Community College students enrolled in one of MCC's education programs (Early Childhood Education, Early Childhood Education Transfer, and Elementary Education Transfer majors).Developing future educators by identifying students in high school who may be interested in a career in education, and encouraging those students in community college programs such as ones offered by Middlesex Community College, seems like a terrific idea for recruiting locally committed people to a career in education. While University of Massachusetts Lowell’s College of Education has offered Masters Degree level programming, Ms. Doherty suggested that a Bachelor’s education degree program is under consideration for the future.  If so, that would complete the Initial Certification pathway for Lowell residents starting with Pre-K through Grade 12, to Associates degree (MCC) to Bachelor’s degree (UML).  An additional enticement for potential education majors is that Middlesex Community will participate in the tuition-rebate program announced last week by Governor Baker. (link here)To clarify, however, our current paraprofessionals are highly qualified and must meet some exacting credentials already (2010 No Child Left Behind Highly Qualified).  These include:

• a high school diploma or equivalent AND
• an Associates Degree OR 48 credit hours at an institute of higher learning OR successful completion of the Para-Pro or WorkKeys test

Ms. Doherty’s motion will need to include the above requirements mandated by NCLB; however, it is both interesting and creative and should help Lowell continue to locate and hire quality candidates for teaching.The motion receiving the longest discussion was Mr. Hoey’s suggestion that the Mayor enter into negotiation with Dr. Khelfaoui. Some clarification was offered that made the language and intent of the motion fit better with negotiation process, namely, to replace the wording so that the full School Committee, and not just the Mayor, would participate in negotiations (as is their obligation and duty) and to replace the specifics of number of years with a more flexible term, “multi-year”.  By way of clarification, Dr. Khelfaoui repeated last night that contract or no contract really made no real impact on his superintendency - he was more interested in doing his job well.It seemed to come as a surprise to some Committee members that the Superintendent of Schools also has a regulated/mandated evaluation cycle (see the whole complicated Massachusetts Educator Evaluation on DESE website) just as teachers and principals do.  The cycle is a two-year cycle. Section II of the Educator Evaluation Framework applies to Superintendents and can be found in this link which includes the rubric to be applied. Throughout year 1 of the cycle, the superintendent collects evidence toward his/her goals; those goals were developed at the start of the cycle in conjunction with the School Committee.  At the end of year 1, a formative assessment of the Superintendent is made listing areas where goals have been met, are on the way to being met, or need additional work. This gives the superintendent (or educator, as teachers are subject to the same process) time to make mid-cycle corrections as needed.During year 2, the Superintendent continues to work toward goals and collect evidence of reaching them. At the end of year 2 a summative evaluation report of performance is made by the School Committee using the Educator Evaluation Framework rubric. Continuation of service or contracts are thought to be a natural fit at this point.  Currently in year 1 of his evaluation cycle, Dr. Khelfaoui suggested that contract negotiations might be better served if tied to the Evaluation process mandated by the Commonwealth.Reports of the SuperintendentThere were five reports from the Superintendent’s office:

• 2016/172 Policy for Admission of Non-Resident School Employees (see packet). Referred to Policy Subcommittee. There was some discussion during the meeting about the legalities of requiring Special Education services to become out-of-pocket expenses paid by the employee should the sending district not pay (whether or not a sending district pays for student is tied to School Choice, currently proposed only for Grades 9-12).
• 2016/178 Response to 7/15/15 motion for Lincoln School Community Garden
• 2016/182 Community Service Day projects. Accepted as Report of Progress.
• 2016/183 STEM Update. Ongoing meetings have taken place in order to extend STEM programs through High School. Community resources are being included (such as Makerspace). Training for LHS personnel will take place over summer in anticipation of roll-out to incoming Freshmen in Fall 2016.
• 2016/174 Personnel Report. To date, 29 retirees, 11 resignations, 1 new hire (Mr. Frisch).

New Business2016/136, District School Choice: Dr. Khelfaoui is proposing School Choice be in effect for high school grades 9-12 only in 2016-17. 30 seats possibly available. Public Hearing on 5/18 at 6:30 pm . The date would indicate this discussion will be included in the May 18 regular School Committee meeting.2016/184, Permission to post Coordinator of Early Childhood EducationAfter approval of Convention/Conference Requests and Professional Personnel requests, the Committee went into Executive Session.Regular School Committee Meeting adjourned from Executive Session. Finance Subcommittee followed.Meeting packet for regular School Committee is here.

---

Finance Subcommittee Meeting (begins at approximately 9 pm)Members: Robert Gignac (chair), Jackie Doherty, Steve GendronThe School Committee had made several requests for additional budget information during the Superintendent’s Budget Presentation of April 25. A copy of the proposed budget is found here.Jeannine Durkin (Asst. Superintendet Student Support Services) and Jennifer McCrystal (Director of Special Education) clarified and explained their thinking in generating the budget amount for both out-of-district student SpED placements and the consolidation plan for bringing more out-of-district placed Special Education students within Lowell Schools.  The concept of the state’s Circuit Breaker  accounting and contribution was explained. Ms. McCrystal also provided a detailed explanation of the need and request to fund additional Behavioral Analysts (1 currently serves 296 students; this is way beyond reasonable and the proposal is for a certified Behavioral Analyst or BCBA to be shared between an elementary-middle school.)Consideration of revising the Organizational Chart to reflect the responsibilities of an Assistant Business Manager as more complex than supervision of payroll personnel was made by Mr. Gignac. There were also questions about including Public Relations duties in the position of Assistant Human Resources Manager.The consolidation of the Bridge Program (alternative education for at-risk Middle School-aged students currently administered by Middlesex Community College) and the Alternative Education program at the Cardinal O’Connell has been modified in the revised budget to include a one-year transition. The slower roll-out is highly recommended so that a transition period for students, staff and families can be made.The impact of losing teachers at Lowell High (due to unreplaced retirements) was discussed relative to changes in class sizes.CBOs (Community Based Organizations such as CTI or YMCA) was explained as minimal costs incurred due to pass-through contributions.Handling the impact of the 2016-17 Grade 5 bubble was discussed. Once the budget is approved, there will be an effort to “recruit” families to fill two Grade 5 classrooms at the STEM school; Wang (2 additional classrooms) will be no problem to fill. John Descoteaux from Central Office offers that there will be minimal impact on bus costs. The rest of the bubble class will be absorbed (class sizes will range between 27 and 32).Meeting adjourned. Next budget hearing and discussion, with opportunity for Public Input, is scheduled for MONDAY, May 9 at 7:15 pm, Rogers School Television Studio. Final Budget Meeting (adoption) is scheduled for WEDNESDAY, May 11 at 7:15 pm, Rogers School Television StudioLink to Amelia Pak-Harvey's coverage is here.

Summer Pay, Explained

How would you like it if your employer said "you absolutely have done the work, but I'm not going to be able to be able to finish paying you?" Basically, that is what is happening to teachers in the Detroit Public Schools this week. And to emphasize and publicize this ridiculous predicament, the teachers in Detroit had a sick-out (teacher strikes are as illegal in Michigan as they are here in Massachusetts).CBS News broadcast a story last evening that did not make clear why not paying teachers over the summer months is an ethical as well as practical problem. This morning's Boston Globe did a slightly better job. The issue here is not about paying teachers all year long - it's about paying for services that were completed as of the end of a school year. In other words: deferred or back pay.When the Detroit Public Schools runs out of money on June 30, it will not only mean cancelling Summer School or other educational programs that take place over the 10-week summer break. It will mean that Detroit will break its promise to finish paying teachers for 2015-16.How is that? It most likely works the way things work here in Lowell.  At the beginning of a school year, a teacher can elect to receive contractual salary in one of three ways:

1. Divide the contracted pay over the 42-week school year,
2. Divide the contracted pay for the 42-week year over 52 weeks (a calendar year) and receive a lump sum for the balance on week 42, or
3. Divide the contracted pay for the 42-week year over 52 weeks (deferring a set aside amount so checks arrive regularly over the summer).

Deferring or setting aside part of contracted pay is a convenience and benefit for teachers. When Detroit's funds run out on June 30, the staff that selected Option 1 will have been paid in full for a full year's work. [Updated to include detail from NYTimes article: Detroit uses 44 week year; same principle for options 1 and 3.]. Those teachers who deferred pay (Option 3) will not receive the 10 weeks of deferred salary. So, one group of educators will have received full pay for 2015-16, but another will not. Group 2, no soup for you.I'd be upset too if money that I'd purposefully set aside to live on during a break just vaporized through no fault of my own. I'd expect most employees in any business sector would be as well.Sometimes the devil is in the details.

Superintendent's Proposed Budget Presentation, 25 April 2016

Superintendent’s Proposed Budget Presentation, April 25, 20165 present, Mr. Gendron absent.There have been many reports that this budget season is going to be a tight one. Although the City has committed to increasing their contribution by $1 million, the school department had recently floated a budget total with an additional $1 million deficit gap.Dr. Khelfaoui was on record as against making up the $1 million deficit through cuts to classroom teaching staff (link to Lowell Sun Article). Most of the reductions proposed are achieved through retirements and some through combining programs. Mr. Frisch who is LPS' Chief Financial Officer, cautions that this budget leaves no room for salary increases in 2017.Budgeting  and Finance BasicsSeveral terms - and the source of funding - were explained by both Dr. Khelfaoui and Mr. Frisch as they introduced the budget document (link at end). For clarity, I’m including parts of that discussion here.Foundation Enrollment: the number of students attending public school in the district on October 1 of the previous year. The enrollment figure for the 2017 budget is based on the October 1, 2015 headcount.Foundation Budget: the amount of money or minimum budget a community is required to spend to ensure a quality education. This is based on the October 1 enrollment from the previous year times the per pupil spending amount, again determined by the Commonwealth.Required Local Contribution: The amount that the community is expected to contribute to the budget. It is determined through CASH + IN KIND services. In Lowell “in kind” services are such things as technology services (ex: payroll, purchasing) and maintenance (ex: plowing)Chapter 70 Aid: This is a dollar amount determined by the Commonwealth and is based on a formula that takes into consideration the financial wealth of a community. The actual amount will be an unknown until the Commonwealth’s 2017 budget is set.The DESE website holds more detail on all school financial terms and calculations.Simply stated, the formula for the School’s Budget is:Chapter 70 Aid + Required Local Contribution = Required Net School SpendingOctober 1 is a significant date in all things education. It is the date on which a school’s headcount is taken (this has been true throughout the 30 years I taught), and it is a significant date for determining not only the minimum budget for a public school district, but also is the basis for charter school assessments (once the headcount is taken in October and the money stays at the school/district no matter where that student may transfer beginning on October 2). NumbersI am certainly a novice at this, but it seems that if you enjoyed algebra and dealing with unknown variables, you will most likely enjoy budgeting for a school system.  The state contribution through Chapter 70 will be an unknown until the Commonwealth’s budget is in place, the “in kind” portion of the City’s contribution can be estimated, can’t be determined until all of those costs have been tallied (example: how much will plowing out schoolyards in 2016-2017 cost?).  Hence, the back-and-forth between City and School Departments.The proposed budget from the Superintendent looks like this:

• Foundation enrollment 15,616 students
• Times per pupil amount from State*
• Equals Foundation Budget for 2017 $183,238,362

• Foundation Budget for 2017 $183,238,362
• Less Chapter 70 aid (preliminary, best estimate to date) $138,588,381
• Required City Contribution $  44,649,981

The City contribution is an approximately $1.5 million increase over the 2016 budget.And now to break out the $44,649,981, because that City Contribution consists of both CASH and IN-KIND contributions. The cost of transportation is broken out separately. For 2017 budgeting, that amount is listed at $7,819,660. City Manager Murphy has committed to a $1 million increase in cash contribution over last year’s cash contribution, making that cash amount $19,856,851.  Breaking away the transportation costs from the cash contribution yields an actual cash contribution of $12,037,191. So,

• City’s Cash Contribution $ 19,856,851
• Less Transportation $   7,891,660
• Net Cash Contribution $ 12,037,191

From here, the City contributes indirectly (in-kind services mentioned above) to a minimum amount of $44,649,981. Those in-kind services could be set higher or end up being more money, but the requirement under state finance is that the City’s contribution is, for now, at least $44,649,981.When the City exceeds school spending, as it did last year, that’s fine; but when the City does not, the underfunded amount rolls over onto the next year’s contribution. Manager Murphy appears committed to meeting the City’s spending requirements. Historically, Lowell has fallen into both categories. A good discussion of the past spending/budgeting cycles are on the first four pages of the Superintendent’s proposed budget <link here>. * The per pupil cost is determined based on many factors, including the economy of the community and the demographics of the students served.  My understanding is that this is not just one number applied across the Commonwealth, but specific to each community. Here’s a link (http://www.doe.mass.edu/finance/chapter70/chapter-cal.pdf) with more detail for this process.What are some of the suggestions for closing the gap between an ideal budget and reality?First and foremost, both Superintendent Khelfaoui and Mr. Frisch stated that this budget is very lean and as efficient as possible. It aligns to the “pillars” of the Superintendent’s Strategic realignment plan (yet to be published, but the references to it throughout the budget are clear). There is no room for raises which should make for interesting bargaining for future negotiations with unions and non-union personnel.Some proposals for solving the cash crunch might include an increase in cash from the City, bringing increased Special Education services within the district so that students with Special Education Plans requiring resources for out-of-district services (placements can range from $55,000 to $83,000 - and up - per student) can receive education services within the Lowell Schools (presumably at a less expensive rate). Lobbying the Lowell state legislative representatives to increase programming dollars from the state to support English Language Learners (ELLs) and Special Education Students and a suggestion from Mayor Kennedy to add school zones to the district so that transportation costs savings would occur (thought to be about $500,000).Some cost savings will be achieved through retirements/attrition and consolidation of programs. The consolidation of the BRIDGE program for at-risk middle school students administered through Middlesex Community College with the Cardinal O’Connell program was discussed. Adding two fifth grade classes to the STEM School and two to the Wang to accommodate the bubble population of the incoming Grade 5 students. Cutting down requested increases in personnel (cutting the request for 21 ELL teachers to 5 for example) and consolidating administrative positions (example: 2 math coordinators will become 1 position) were also mentioned.  Dr. Khelfaoui expressed the hope that the personnel who will be losing current positions will apply for and obtain positions elsewhere within Lowell Public Schools.There will be a need to add some line items in order to achieve the savings expected through consolidations. For example, an Educational Team Chair (ETC) is needed to lessen the case load of Special Education team chairs and 6 certified behavior analysts are needed so that services to students with autism can remain in-district.The school committee had several questions about the impact of these adjustments to programs and staff and other changes in the proposed budget. Those questions and others voiced last night will be further addressed in detail at the Finance Committee Meeting which follows the regularly scheduled School Committee Meeting on Wednesday, May 2.  At that time, more detail about many of the line item changes will be provided.A link to Amelia Pak-Harvey’s Lowell Sun story summarizing the meeting can be found here.The full detail on the proposed budget is on the LPS website.

School Committee Meeting, 06 April 2016

School Committee Meeting: Wednesday, April 06, 2016All members present.The Special Order of Business tonight focused on the Kathryn Stoklosa Knowledge Bowl competition, which has been a yearly academic match-up since 1988.  The 2016 winning Wang Middle School Team was featured along with all participants. Congrats to the Wang Team and their coaches and to all the participating teams from Middle Schools around the City. This is a huge undertaking and Carolyn Rocheleau Feeney who organizes the event received well-deserved praise.The Wang Knowledge Bowl Team now continues on to a Regional Knowledge Bowl Competition scheduled for June 6-7 at the Stoklosa School.MotionsThere were 2 motions on the agenda. The motions included:

1. 2016/149: A request to explore the possibility of LPS acquiring the Franco American School building (Mr. Gendron). This motion was rolled into the report of the Facilities Subcommittee (Item 12).
2. 2016/151: A 3-part request to respond to what appears to be an insufficient number of substitute teachers available.  The 3 parts specified inquiries about teacher absentee rates, professional development activities held during the school day, and the substitute pool available. (Ms. Doherty).

This should be an interesting report. As a classroom teacher, and I know many of my colleagues felt similarly, I disliked planning for a substitute teacher. Teaching has changed and unless the substitute has an education background, time away is not very productive. Our curricula are packed. The pressure to keep lessons moving forward in order to keep on target for testing and curricula goals often cannot stand a disruption in the flow of lessons and learning.  Also, given the high level of teaching skills required and differentiation needed to address student needs, keeping students occupied with paperwork and reading from a textbook no longer is a viable option when teacher is out of the classroom. As Mr. Descoteaux commented, other school districts around Lowell are also experiencing a shortage of substitute teachers. The reasons for this are no doubt fairly complicated and may not necessarily be tied to money. Subcommittees2016/137 Mr. Hoey reported on the Policy Subcommittee meeting of Tuesday, March 15, 2016.  The meeting notes are contained in the packet. This meeting continued discussion and made a recommendation that LPS adhere to state law regarding placement of students in schools.2016/138 Ms. Doherty reported on the Student Support Services Subcommittee meeting of Tuesday, March 29, 2016.  The meeting notes and extensive documentation regarding the LPS Student Restraint policy are contained in the packet. The policy was voted on and accepted by the full committee.  An item regarding planning for Lowell Career Academy as an Innovation School was accepted as a report of progress.2016/147 Mr. Gendron reported on the Facilities Subcommittee meeting of Thursday, March 31, 2016 and presented information about Motion 8, 2016/149, a request to further investigation acquiring the Franco American School to address space issues.Two items from the Subcommittee meeting responded to concerns about open work orders in all schools. Mr. Gendron has a list of prioritized open work orders which should be completed by the end of the school year.  A second item on the subcommittee agenda addressed concerns about transportation safety. John Descoteaux , Family Resource Center Coordinator, requests anyone who observes a bus driver operating unsafely contact him through Central Office so that the issue can be addressed in a timely way.After learning through Mr. Frisch (Chief Financial Officer) that a 2-classroom modular unit planned for installation at the Wang School would cost over $500,000 (not including set up or break down), the Facilities Subcommittee strongly felt it wise to explore other space options to address the burgeoning student population expected at the Middle Schools starting next year and for several years thereafter.  Two parcels, one at the Polish American Veterans Club in Centralville, and the other being the Franco American School, were considered (the Polish American Veterans Club has since been put under agreement and is therefore unavailable). The motion requests continued exploration as to costs.One recent report from the Franco American School Board mentioned that any sale would include keeping the Grotto and Stations of the Cross intact.  That could pose of problem for a public school if negotiations were to be successful.  A second consideration - and an expensive one I think - is that, to my best recollection, the Franco lacks ADA compliance, particularly for classroom spaces.  Retrofitting those items might be prohibitive. As was pointed out at last evening's meeting, there will be little chance of obtaining school building funds from the Commonwealth as the high school project is already in the pipeline.Reports of the SuperintendentSusan Maze-Rohstein, from Northeastern’s Restorative Justice program reported on the activities and recommendations coming from the program’s interactions with LHS groups following last Fall’s racial incident.  The full report is available in the meeting packet.  Referred to the Lowell High Subcommittee for further discussion of recommendations made by participants.Carolyn Rocheleau Feeney reported on an extension of the 21st Century Grant to include 2 additional weeks of activities at the Morey and Shaughnessy School Summer programs for 2016.  The program has brought positive gains as seen through reading scores either increasing or through minimizing summer learning loss.  While this program is grant funded and grants only can be stretched so far, it would be wonderful for all of our students if such opportunities existed at every Lowell school.New Business

• A grant award for the Wang School was accepted.
• Aramark, the current food service vendor, recommended to authorize RFP for a 1-year $14.757 million contract (with a $1.7 million revenue share returned to Lowell). The Aramark contract has 2 1-year extensions built in (revenue share would be the same).

The RFP was reviewed by Mr. Frisch, and representation from Human Services, elementary, middle and high school administration.  While Aramark has agreed to be part of a monthly advisory meeting which will include parents, I wonder why no parent representation was present during the RFP process.  As I understand it, several parents have concerns about the quality, sourcing (local?) and food service in general and, in my opinion, would have brought an important viewpoint to the discussions.Following approval of Convention Requests, the School Committee went into Executive Session to review Collective Bargaining proposals and positions. Meeting adjourned from Executive Session.The meeting packet can be found here.

Onerous Regulations....

Yesterday's presentation of the Senate bill proposing a compromise to the Charter School ballot question got a predictable reaction. No one is totally happy, but the unhappiest reactions came from those who advocate lifting the cap on charter schools in Massachusetts - the ones who continue to quote the 34,000 student waiting list even in the face of the State Auditor's report saying that number is unsubstantiated.This morning's Boston Globe article contains a reaction from pro-Charter spokesperson, Mark Kenen of Massachusetts Public Charter School Association (you'll have to look Dr. Kenen's credentials up on Linkedin yourself). The quote, from the Boston Globe, is:

Marc Kenen, executive director of the Massachusetts Charter Public School Association, added that “it imposes onerous new regulations that will shackle the operation of existing charter schools.”

Wait a minute, those "onerous" new regulations, those regulations that will "shackle" operations? Some of these regulations are things such as using enforced suspensions of students as a means to create "school safety".  The reliance on suspension over other less-draconian discipline actions have recently come to light nationwide (see UCLA report on Charter School suspension rates here making note of the 44.7% suspension rate at Roxbury Prep).And then there are those pesky regulations requiring certification of teachers and representation of parents and teachers on governing boards the same standards required for traditional public schools. (For more on governance, see the Annenberg Report, Whose Schools published yesterday).Wow, if those things are considered onerous, then why not unshackle traditional public schools as well?Reference to the act, S2203, is found here.

School Committee Meeting, 16 March 2016

School Committee Meeting: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 All members present.Item 19, a motion by Ms. Martin meant to highlight innovative curricula in the Lowell Schools, was taken out of order.  The featured school, The Pyne Arts (link here), is a Grades PK-8 magnet school. It is unique because of the grade span that the school includes (most Lowell schools are PK-4 or 5-8) and its focus on integration of the arts into their curriculum.What makes these types of presentations particularly powerful is when the school articulates what makes them unique. During last evening’s presentation viewers were treated to a great performance by a choral group and a video of the students engaged in drama and other arts programs. The Pyne Arts is known for their parent engagement as well. They have an excellent Math Resource page (view link here) with a rich collection of explanations and information helpful to parents supporting their children, as well as up-to-date and well-written parent information (click on Parent and Student link in the banner).  My only suggestion for scheduling featured school presentations in the future is to give a timeframe (15, 20, 30 minutes?). Devoting almost an hour to a spotlight presentation made last night’s meeting quite lengthy. Providing a time limit might be useful in distilling presentations to the uniqueness of each school.MotionsThere were 5 motions on the agenda. The motions included:

1. 2016/118: A request that the Transportation Subcommittee address bus contract and safety concerns (Mr. Gignac).
2. 2016/119: A request for a joint meeting of the Facilities Subcommittee (School Committee)and Municipal Facilities Subcommittee (City Council). Parent Tim Blake spoke about a recent issue at the Sullivan School illuminating concerns about the building. (Mr. Gignac and Mr. Gendron)
3. 2016/120: A request for an update from the superintendent on standard-based report cards (Ms. Doherty) 
4. 2016/127: Request Subcommittee meeting to consider making a museum of educational history at the former Elliott School (Mayor Kennedy)
5. 2016/128: Request for review of the safety policy by Subcommittee on Safety & Discipline, Alternative School Program, and Student Support Services & Special Education.  Parent Laura Ortiz spoke about the need to review and update the current policy (this policy mainly refers to food allergens) to provide safety measures and access to needed medication (inhalers, epi-pens) for all students who may be anaphylaxic regardless of the allergen.

SubcommitteesMr. Hoey reported on the Policy Subcommittee meeting (15 March 2016) during which the policy for placing children of staff who live out of district in Lowell Schools was discussed.  Currently, there are 32 students (I also heard the number 35 mentioned at one point in this discussion) who live out-of-district but are educated in the Lowell Schools because a parent is a Lowell Public School staff member. This policy has been regarded as a means of retaining staff. A problem happens when a out-of-district child of a staff member is placed in a school for which there is high interest and a waiting list. There have been some instances where a resident requesting the same school as a “first pick” is put on a waiting list. Additionally, there are concerns with regard to availability of space as the district experiences growth a particular levels (Middle School in particular) which may impact space available and class size.Mr. Hoey’s subcommittee discussed three options during their meeting Tuesday night and brought forward one in which the committee would adhere to the state law regarding school choice. This option includes giving Lowell residents first choice in school seat openings (children of staff placed as space allows), engaging the funding options of School Choice, and making the Wait Lists transparent.After much discussion, the motion was amended to include a timeline for reviewing the policy with school department, school committee, and law department input by the beginning of the 2016-2017 school year.  Questions were raised about how to phase in any change in policy fairly, and the importance of reaching out to affected staff so they can plan accordingly.Reports of the SuperintendentSchool Year 2016-2017 calendars as well as the budget deliberation calendar/schedule were approved. Lowell Career Academy reported on their efforts to provide education and support for disengaged students.New Business

• Budget transfer
  • $800,000 (from School Committee Suspense Account to Salary Account for recent settlement of grievances), and
  • $82,217 (from School Food Revolving Account to General Fund as a result of a DESE (Department of Elementary and Secondary Schools) audit)
• Acceptance of Grant ($2,5000) from Kronos for IDEA camp
• Permission to post Interim Grant Manager Position

Following approval of Convention Requests and Civil Service Requests, the School Committee went into Executive Session to review Collective Bargaining proposals and positions. Meeting adjourned from Executive Session.The meeting packet can be found here.

Education: What is Equity?

Ludlow Superintendent Todd Gazda posed this question in a recent Commonwealth Magazine article:  What is equity?  Because, as Dr. Gazda points out, current education policy tends toward equalizing education for all students with standardized curriculums proven by standardized assessment and incentivized "business systems" for implementation.

Equity, like fairness, is not treating every student the same, but rather focuses on giving every student what they need. - Todd Gazda, Commonwealth Magazine

Any educator who has worked for a nanosecond in a classroom knows the truth of that quote. Twenty-five inquiring minds can, at any point in a school day, need twenty-five different things. One may need teacher to soothe a physical hurt. Or another may not have eaten since the last school day. And another may have witnessed a domestic assault at home.How do you suppose each of these children might engage in learning? Would they be able to engage in the instruction in the same way? Would they have mastered the content objective for the day?  No, equity is not treating each child the same.Which is why teaching, to me, is not a science that can be boiled down to a set of steps that everyone anyone can do; it is an art. We can expect our students to work and master content. We can hold students to high expectations and have faith and confidence that they will soar. But we should not expect our children to do this in lockstep.Equity in teaching is taking children where they are, determining what is needed to move ahead, and giving each the supports they need to get there, no matter how long it may take to do so.Our state and national leaders need to have the courage to allow educators to educate all students. With equity. 

School Committee Meeting, 03 February 2016

School Committee Meeting: Wednesday, February 3, 2016All members present.SubcommitteesThe Subcommittee on Policy, chaired by Mr. Hoey, met on January 27th. The report from the meeting suggested a change to the LPSD school purchasing policy so that LPSD purchasing aligns with the City of Lowell purchasing policy.  Much discussion about the threshold of a requests (currently $5,000; proposed $35,000) that would trigger a Permission to Enter.  While the full committee supports the editorial changes (see meeting packet), there is a larger discussion about retaining the $5,000 threshold for a variety of reasons, number one being to keep a handle on how the school budget is being spent. This discussion will continue at the next school committee meeting.Reports of the SuperintendentThree agenda items (2016/43, 2016/50 and 2016/44) addressed school year and School Committee calendars.  The Calendar for the upcoming school year was approved after Ms. Martin received clarification that the Massachusetts State Primary date was indeed a Thursday (9/8) and not a Tuesday (9/6).  The reason for the move to a Thursday election day is explained here, but in simple terms, the change is necessary to comply with Federal regulations for the distribution of absentee ballots to overseas voters.The new calendar is posted here.As several Lowell schools are used as polling sites, the reality of post-Newtown building safety is that schools are closed for students during election days. This policy also necessitated a revision to the 2015-2016 calendar to accommodate the Primary Election on Tuesday, March 1, 2016. The revision means that the end of school dates on the posted calendar need to be revised to comply with the mandated 180-day school year for students.  The new end dates (pending any snow days) are: June 16 (180th day with no snow days) or June 23 (185 days with 5-day snow allowance). And of course if there are more than 5 snow days between now and June 23, the school year extends further. [Revision 05 February 2016: New last date is June 17 due to snow cancellation today.]Agenda Item 2016/44, a request to reschedule February and April School Committee dates so that meetings are not taking place during school vacation weeks when interested parents or community members may wish to take part was amended. The meetings are now cancelled with the possibility of a Special Meeting of the School Committee scheduled if the need for such a meeting arises.Agenda Item 2016/58 addressed the need to hire an additional teacher and paraprofessional at the Bartlett School for students enrolled in a Life Skills program. The requested funding was $64,789. Currently, the number of students enrolled in the program exceeds the compliance number by 3 students.  After some discussion about funding (Ms. Martin points out this is the second meeting in a row that a request for a position was made) and what compliance for the program is, the item is approved.While on the surface, three students does not seem like it would be a significant number of children to accommodate, the Special Education Department must ensure compliance with regulations in order to adhere to state and federal laws. All students need to have access to a free and appropriate education in the least restrictive environment (LRE). If you are unfamiliar with what LRE means, this link provides good summary information.In order to be compliant with special education regulations, the ratio of students to teacher & paraprofessional in the Life Skills program should be no more than 12:1 (note that preschool ratios are 9:1).  As Ms. McCrystal (Special Education Director) explained, to achieve the compliant ratio, three students would need to be sent to an outside-of-district placement for their education, a decision that would not be necessitated by need but by number.  Cost estimates for placing for one student out-of-district would be about $50,000 not including transportation. Three additional agenda Items address:

• athletic participation at Lowell High,
• an update on engaging the legislative delegation and Lowell’s concerns regarding Newcomer programs (and the difference between reimbursement and program costs which are significant), and
• an update for Community Service Day in the Lowell Schools.

The biggest discussion of the meeting was in response to the LHS Investigation Report (Agenda Item 2016/65).  The report has been made public and can be found here.Among the many suggestions and discussions regarding information and suggestions in the report is one complicated question: Do Lowell School staff members - in all schools, not just the high school - mirror the diversity in the schools? And if not, how can the schools achieve greater diversity among staff?The redacted report has been the subject of much discussion throughout the community; there are of course, privacy and personnel matters that impact the release of the redacted information. The Superintendent appears to be following the advice of counsel, and I would like to allow him the opportunity to follow-through. The suggestions that were made public seem minimal and should be acted on immediately. When an event this important happens to make our students and families feel unsafe, looking back at what happened and where breaks in protocol occurred are important. Ensuring that staff at all levels understand and comply with procedures no matter who is involved and increasing sensitivity and awareness to cultural differences and issues of race are imperative to school culture and the safety of all families and students.One important suggestion in the report is to engage in more diverse hiring practices. Changing to a more culturally and ethnically inclusive faculty and staff is not necessarily something that happens overnight. Engaging in more inclusive recruiting and hiring from a more diverse field of candidates is just the first step, in my opinion. A more complex question might be how to encourage potential education majors from a wider cultural and ethnically diverse population. Do all students see a college education and a career in education as something within reach, something attainable? Or has the high cost of higher education coupled with the toxic public education environment turned potential educators away to other careers or fields of study? Last night, one of the comments was that diveristy in hiring is not simple; the corporate world is grappling with this issue as well. However, this does not mean we do nothing. I would agree with that. The incident at Lowell High has brought an ugly undercurrent to light. Looking at what has occurred in the past is a necessity, but the actionable items should not stop there. Looking at school department policies, sensitivity toward an incredibly diverse family population, and diversifying the school staff from top to bottom are all part of this larger conversation and effort.The meeting packet can be found here.

PARCC Week, Day 1: Intro to Standardized Testing

As I sat down to write about my personal opinions about PARCC and standardized testing in general, I came to the realization that a single post might not be enough. Over the course of the next week, I'll be posting about PARCC and some of the reasons it merits the attention of anyone connected to students - parents, teachers, and community members. This is the first entry of this series.This week our local School Committee voted to change the Spring 2016 assessment tool from the previously approved (October 2015) Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) to Parternship for Assessment of Readiness for College and Career (PARCC). The deed is done, but that doesn’t mean it has to stand forever.As a third-grade and fourth-grade teacher for the last 9 years before I retired in June, I had quite a bit of experience with MCAS. My students were never part of the PARCC pilot, or try-out tests, but I have taken a good, long look at what PARCC releases on their website (parcc.org). I reviewed test items as part of my personal work as educator as well as when I was a part of the team re-writing math curriculum to align with Common Core Standards.Preparing students who are barely 9 years old for hours-long testing involves teaching test taking strategies. This does not mean teaching to the test. It means basic skills such as teaching students to scan questions prior to reading a passage, reading the italicized introduction to a reading passage, highlighting using allowable tools, staying within boundaries of open response question/answer areas, erasing bubble sheets, and making only one answer choice, ensuring that the whole test has been answered and no items left skipped, reading test items and dealing with tricky and subtle changes in wording, and it means preparing to focus and concentrate for long periods of time. Some may think that those listed strategies should be assumed; I would remind you of that old saying: " when you assume....". None of this is second nature to a 9-year-old.Each year that I administered MCAS, I kept a notecard inside one of my desk drawers. On that card, I noted some factors of a students’ life that might negatively impact test performance. Why? Because invariably when the results of testing were released, teachers are rightly asked to look closely at the results and make instructional decisions to improve.  And now, in a more toxic environment, those test scores can become part of an evaluation of my teaching.I don’t think my instruction was perfect and there are/were plenty of standards on which I could have done a more effective job. My notes, however, contained items such as “no glasses, broken and not replaced”, “arrived 2 hours after test began” and “upset and crying due to fight at home”. This is the reality of teaching in schools where trauma is high. To disregard the impact of such things on a child tasked with performing on a one-shot high-stakes test is foolish.I dislike and distrust most high stakes testing. My English Language Learners (ELLs) - some years that population made up 75% of the classroom - are smart and funny and wonderful learners who easily misunderstood some of the subtleties of test language.  They’ll make sense of these tests and learn to deal with them, of course, but it will take more than a few years. Yet the Commonwealth punishes them by designating their test scores “needs improvement” or “warning”. What must that do to a child’s psyche? My students were always more than a number to me, but the Commonwealth doesn't see it that way.So through the lense of someone who has been in the room during testing, who has witnessed extraordinary effort of students to try to show their best performance on a snap-shot of their learning, over the next several posts, I will try to explain what it is that makes me even more apprehensive about this new assessment, the PARCC tests.Next topic: The Corporate Connection

School Committee Meeting, 20 January 2016

School Committee Meeting: Wednesday, January 20, 2016All members present.Twenty-seven items were posted on this agenda which included an Executive Session to discuss contract negotiations and consideration of contract extensions for two Assistant Superintendents. Although most of the meeting was routine, there were two points that caused longer discussion: STEM at Lowell High and a move to use the PARCC test this Spring.There appeared to be a glitch posting the packet and agenda on the LPS website for this meeting as it did not appear on the School Committee website until a day before the meeting. While this was resolved in time for the meeting, there is interest from the community in the agenda; it would be beneficial to also see the agenda in time for people to consider the issues being discussed.  By also publishing minutes for the Subcommittees, more citizens who are interested in the Lowell School System can better understand the issues facing the schools and understand and even contribute meanfully to the decision-making process.

Unfinished Business

The Establishment of Subcommittees and the members assigned to each committee was approved without discussion at tonight’s meeting.The packet posted on the City of Lowell website and on the LPS School Committee page did not include this information. The Subcommittee webpage has not be updated since last year. So, at this point, the subcommittee member assignments are unknown. 

Motions

Agenda Item 10 (2016/12) made by Connie Martin formally invited the administration and students from Generation Citizen who presented their findings regarding Financial Literacy courses to the Curriculum Subcommittee meeting for further discussion of such a program. This action was a follow-up to last school committee meeting when the LHS group made a presentation of their project to the whole committee.Agenda Item 13 (2016/13) made by Ms. Martin requested the Superintendent develop a comprehensive plan to restructure the district and accommodate the imminent increases in student population. This motion is very loosely tied to the request for modular classrooms for the Wang School (see Reports of the Superintendent).Agenda Item 14 (2016/29) made by Mayor Kennedy requests the administration establish a STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math) curriculum at Lowell High and received more in-depth discussion. Mr. Kennedy reminds the committee that he initiated this requests last year from the City Council; the motion was referred to Subcommittee. The Mayor feels that such a curriculum will make Lowell and LPS more attractive to parents and students and cites US News & World Report ranking of STEM High School programs; Massachusetts has 15 recognized programs, Lexington High School being one of them. A suggestion that Lexington’s program might provide Lowell with at least a starting point. One suggestion was to structure STEM at the High School similar to the Latin Lyceum.Mayor Kennedy feels referring this back to Curriculum Subcommittee will only cause implementation of the program, something he would like to see start in September 2016, to be delayed. There had been some discussion with Headmaster Martin who compared a STEM curriculum to what is already in place. That programs is referred to as Pathways. Quoting from the Lowell High website:

Our Pathway Programs provide opportunities for all students and their different abilities, interests and talents. Whether a student is planning to work immediately after high school, or will continue learning by attending a training program, a technical institute, a college or university, there are courses in our Pathway Programs that are right for every student.

Link here for more information.In further discussion, Mr. Hoey would like to hear from Mr. Martin that implementing a STEM program is feasible. Mr. Gendron would also like to hear from the Headmaster; however he notes that STEM is already part of the district and wonders about the transition from Middle School STEM programs. In the end, the committee votes to support the original motion that directs the LPS to begin development of a STEM program.My understanding of the Lyceum is that students must apply to participate in this four-year program or Pathway (we used to call this a “track”). This would be a question for the Committee - is the envisioned STEM High School program going to be for students who apply, or is it a choice in the track of coursework?  What would be the expectation or end-result of a student successfully completing the four year course of study? Parents will want to keep an eye on this as an opportunity for their students.

Reports of the Superintendent

• Knowledge Bowl update: dates to note are March 7 - March 24, 2016.
• Quarterly Financials: Amounts spent are consistent with previous years. Some amount encumbered to anticipate spending through rest of fiscal year.
  • Transportation is running a deficit ancitipated to be $179,000 (attributed to increase in transportation needs of SpED students);
  • Insurance account anticipated to have $300,000 shortfall (attributed to employee insurance status changes)
  • Grant funds - 8 new grants since last report resulting in an increase of funding close to $400,000
  • Revolving Account (milk/lunch) has about $2.8 million in account. Ms. Martin inquires about refunds due to parents who had prepaid lunch accounts prior to the free lunch program starting. Those amounts are still due parents, but as reported previously, this presents a logistical problem for City accounting. Mr. Antonelli is working with City to get refunds to parents.
• Modular Classrooms: As a response to the population bubble anticipated for the Middle Schools in 2016, the District is requesting 2 modular classrooms to be installed at the Wang Middle School. Each classroom ($36,000) plus anticipated design (approximately $10,000) needed as the Wang has no room for additional students. Other middle schools throughout the city will also be taking in students of course (anticipated additional students anicipated for 2016-17 school year alone are 200 plus), but have some way to accommodate them. Students are assigned to Middle Schools from Grade 4 according to Zones, so that the population increase will be felt by all Middle Schools, not just the Wang. By requesting modulars for this year only, the Superintendent will have some time to look at a more comprehensive way to accommodate increasing Middle School student populations, anticipated to continue for the next 4 years.

I’m making an assumption/interpretation that the other schools have some ability to include more students with some scheduling or repurposed classrooms. For example, at the Lincoln School, there are 5, not 4 Fourth Grade classrooms this year accommodating an increased bubble class that has been making its way through the Lincoln School since Kindergarten. The “extra” classroom was originally a faculty meeting space; and had several other purposes since the building was constructed; once the bubble class “graduates”, a new program will be housed in that classroom space.

• Project LEARN and Grant Updates. District continues to work in partnership with UML and MCC. Project LEARN has been very active thus far in helping schools to raise funds.
• Personnel Report accepted as a report of progress.

New Business

Item 18 (2016/31) requested permission to post the position of Part-Time Office of Accountability Developer. The funding for this position is available through the end of the fiscal year (June 2016) using Title I funds. There is a lot of confusion about what funds are available for (student programs?, teaching staff?, consultants?); Dr. Khelfaoui is looking for someone with experience in Accountability to assist with rolling the currently organized accountability endeavors into the new strategic plan. Passes 6 to 1 (Ms. Martin votes no). Request for an organizational chart to help Committee Members understand realignment of duties and responsibilities.After approving the request to post Accountability Developer and a transfer of funds to Teacher Academy, the big ticket discussion came up: Adoption of PARCC test for this spring (Agenda Item 2016/36). Superintendent Khelfaoui is requesting that the School Committee, which had previously rejected PARCC test in October 2015, now approve administration of PARCC in the Spring. Originally against using the PARCC test in Lowell, but now making the request to move to PARCC, Dr. Kehlfaoui cited the following:

• While the online test administration for the pilot program in Lowell was disasterous (expensive, infrastructure demands), Commissioner Chester now allows that test can be administered in pencil/paper format. The Commissioner had visited Lowell on January 6, 2016.
• Although we have great schools (shout-out to Bartlett for attaining Level 1 status), some schools are at Level 3 and preciptiously close to Level 4 even though the teachers are working hard to prevent this. Just one Level 4 school means the entire district will be designated Level 4; negating the extraordinary good work of schools at Levels 1 and 2 as well as any progress being made by Level 3 schools. It also will mean that, as a Level 4 District, there will be consequences impacting how the schools are managed (see the Commonwealth’s takeover of Lawrence and Springfield as examples).
• Commissioner Chester has offered that any Massachusetts school district using PARCC this year will be held harmless. Meaning that test scores that go up will count toward moving a district UP, test scores that go down will not impact the school by moving it toward a lower level or designation. Note that while the school district is going to enjoy this breather, teachers may or may not - test scores are under discussion for consideration in teacher evaluation.

Mr. Gignac opened discussion by expressing concerns about PARCC and the lack of information available in the packet. He expresses his concern that there has been virtually no discussion or public input, and that there is pressure to make the decision (PARCC or MCAS) now. Mr. Gignac learned that some accommodations for IEPs are still disallowed. He has also discovered each test is to be completed within a specified amount of time where MCAS was not. Mr. Gignac says our students deserve the best education NOW; does holding the results harmless negate thorough analysis of data? He is puzzled that the deadline for making the decision to test using PARCC has passed, yet the School Committee is being asked to approve PARCC use tonight.Discussion continued with school building administrators expressing that PARCC was enthusiastically being embraced by their building teachers. Jennifer McCrystal had spoken with DESE (Department of Elementary and Secondary Education) to clarify the use of accommodations that were previously available in MCAS, and she had answers to many questions. Ms. McCrystal has committed to explaining this fully to interested parents and anyone else at the upcoming SpED Parent Advisory Meeting.Paul Schlictman spoke about test from his vantage point as a district administrator and school committee member (Arlington). As the pool of schools taking MCAS shrinks, if Lowell continued to administer MCAS this school year, the probability of more Level 4 designated schools will likely increase (fewer schools taking MCAS will mean that Lowell Schools will be compared to a small subset of Massachusetts schools which increases the odds that any struggling school may find themselves with a Level 4 status). Ms. Abrams, Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction, states that while MCAS had served us well over nearly 20 years, students are ready for the rigors of PARCC because teachers teach to standards not to test.Paul Georges, UTL president, spoke about the Union’s objection to all high-stakes tests and the punitive nature of tests like PARCC. While understanding that this is a difficult choice, he states that tests like this are punitive.  State Commissioner of Education Mitchell Chester has recently been quietly removed as PARCC Board chair (link) and seems to have a ulterior motive in pushing PARCC. Corporations standing to make money on the change (Pearson Education) are pushing out this test and the high-stakes test agenda with little or no regard to expertise of educators.Mr. Gendron says adopting PARCC, especially since the online requirement is removed, will buy time to find out about resources. (The Commonwealth is only offering E-rate which pays for infrastructure and not for hardware) Mr. Hoey echoes the sentiment that testing is punitive and states that having been on the School Committee when MCAS testing first began, he feels that children are being damaged by testing. Connie Martin also expresses reservations; however, will support adoption of PARCC as it appears as the District’s “only choice”. She is not enthusiastic.In the end, the move toward PARCC was approved 5 yes, 2 no (Mr. Gignac and Mr. Hoey).As this is mainly a report, I have tried to restrict my commentary in this post. However, it is clear to see that this is a decision that will cause our students - all of them, a great deal of stress. It is also clear that the PARCC issue really puts our school system in a difficult position. The Commissioner of Education's recent visit to Lowell seems to indicate that he has put Lowell in his sites. Readers may recall that during his recent visit with the Murkland School, on one hand he was complimentary about their phenomenal success and with his next breath advocated a move toward PARCC and “encouraged the district to re-think its decision to stick with the MCAS state test this spring."  Amelia Pak-Harvey's story covering this visit can be found here.I have many concerns about the PARCC test, or any high stakes tests actually, and our students, primarily English Language Learners (30% first language not English, 25% English language learners in district from Massachusetts DESE website). After having looked at the PARCC consortium and the web-based test samples for the last 3 years. I have concerns about this test when states that used to be part of the PARCC consortium leave it, sometimes after administering the test one time (Washington Post).I have concerns when I hear that there are set limits on the amount of time for each subtest. I have reservation that fitting 7-8 test periods into a short test window (April 25-May 27 per DESE) will lead to test fatigue, students who are exhausted from days of testing.   I am relieved that paper-and-pencil versions will be used as the technology layer is one many of our students are not yet ready to conquer.  I appreciate that the English Language Arts test does not take place in early March as testing children on one years’s growth at the seven month point in a school year, as MCAS did, seems to be set up for failure.I have a concern when a PARCC Executive Board member appears to be applying the hard-sell with school districts across the state (not just Lowell as it turns out) by making deals that ignore passed deadlines. That alone makes me wonder what the ulterior motive might be. We have recently learned Mr. Chester lost his chairmanship of the PARCC board. He is still a member of the PARCC Executive Board, however, and that, in my opinion is a conflict of interest concerning objectivity and this test.Pragmatically, I understand the rock and hard place that caused the PARCC vote to pass. No one wants the specter of a Level 4 designation and the consequences that could accompany it (demoralization of staff, loss of local control, installation of school overseers) and by taking the “deal” (that being the incentive to not hold scores against the District) the LPS can avoid that.  Reading between lines - what was said and left unsaid - there was little choice for the Committee. What is unavoidable is that our students will be put through the wringer with a new assessment that may or may not provide useful curricular data, no performance data, and may still be used as a tool for teacher evaluation.I plan to write about this in depth over the weekend from the perspective of a teacher who was in the midst of high-stakes testing in a lower performing school.  {Edited to include link 23 January 2016}Executive SessionThe committee ended the public portion of the meeting and went into Executive Session for the contract, litigation updates and to consider extensions of contracts to the Assistant Superintendents.The link to the meeting packet can be found here.

No-Nonsense? Nonsense!

Our local CBS affiliate posted a public opinion question this morning. The "No Nonsense Nurturing" is rearing its ugly head once again because teachers and schools using this program (see link ) have gained some news cycle traction: teachers are being told not to use "please" or "thank you" with students.As Amy Berard, former Lawrence Public School teacher, so eloquently wrote, the program requires teachers to speak with students according to a script. Don't say please. Don't say thank-you. Be direct, speak without inflection. Don't give students a choice.Oxymoronically named, the program does anything but nurture. Teachers are commanded not to use polite language as it might cause the teacher to appear to be less powerful, to lose "control". Is this what education has come to? Power and compliance?As a classroom teacher with thirty years experience, this trend in education policy to find the one program that will magically turn all students into acquiescent sheep troubles me. Educators don't need to be trained and practiced professionals who have the skills in child psychology and classroom management to read the room and respond to what the students' needs might be. No, all one needs is the magical script, training and consultant available for an extra fee.I spent the whole of my teaching career empowering students to learn by making choices, modeling acceptable social interactions, and still managed to keep 20-30 young learners from swinging from the light fixtures. Students need to learn from decision-making and practice making good choices. As a colleague in my last school used to say, "you win or lose by how you choose".An educator recently made this thoughtful observation:

One of the Great Truths of Ed. Reform is that we cheer on reformsthat affect Other Peoples' Kids, but that we would never tolerate for our ownkids.

Is this the kind of nurturing we want for our children? Puh-leeze.

Year End Loose Ends

Project Learn

Recently I had the pleasure of talking about education with LZ Nunn and Brittany Burgess from Project Learn, a nonprofit supporting education and educators. LZ recently accepted the challenge of becoming the ED of Project Learn.One of the topics we tossed around was grant writing, and ways Project Learn might offer support to teachers and staff who would like to pursue grant funded projects and activities. As a follow-up, LZ found this grant announcement that some teachers might want to pursue:

Grant Alert DetailFund for Teachers GrantsSponsor: Fund for TeachersSubmitted: 10/27/2015 12:00:00 AMFund for Teachers provides educators, possessing a broad vision of what it means to teach and learn, the resources needed to pursue self-designed professional learning experiences. FFT grants are used for an unlimited variety of projects; all designed to create enhanced learning environments for teachers, their students and their school communities.Award amounts vary. K-12 Teachers are eligible to apply.Deadline: January 28, 2016Please Note: The Center for Health and Health Care in Schools (CHHCS) does not administer this funding opportunity.Please contact Fund for Teachers for more information and to apply for this funding: http://fft.fundforteachers.org/

Clicking on the links will take applicants to the requirements and application process. Here's a great opportunity for teachers to design their own PD and get funding to pursue it.

Common Core, Common Care

Valerie Strauss, the author of a Washington Post OP-Ed, The Answer Sheet, often posts something that sparks my thinking. Her latest column, What Happened When a Troubled Little Boy Appeared at My Classroom Door highlights the story of transient students who challenge us not only as educators, but as humans. Please read this post and think of all the teachers you know, particularly here in Lowell who create safe communities of learners despite challenges of society.

Looking Forward, Looking Back

Larry Ferlazzo, another highly regarded Education Week author as well as teacher, writes a yearly column predicting what will happen in education throughout the coming year.  Last year's column (click here), highlighted issues in education such as E-rate funding and VAM (time to break out the Google). I think #1 is spot-on: the drive to increase technology in schools is not necessarily for enhancing learning. New technology is really needed to support the new tests that will be electronically administered by 2017 (MCAS 2.0 or PARCC - they're going to put the same demands on our kids).And to find out what Mr. Ferlazzo predicts for 2016 check out the latest right here.

School Committee Meeting, 02 December 2015

School Committee Meeting: Wednesday, December 2, 2015Five members present, Mr. Gendron was absent.This meeting again featured a public portion and an Executive Session. Most of the agenda items were dealt with quickly with little discussion.MotionsThere were two new motions, both made by Mayor Elliott.  Agenda Item 5 (2015/453) addressed some concerns that LHS students appeared uninformed about a Voice of Democracy scholarship opportunity. Concerns were expressed to both Mayor Elliott and Councilor Mercier, and a request for a report on what transpired leading to the lack of LHS participation was requested.Agenda Item 7 (2015/454) sparked some discussion/questions. This motion requested a vote to release the Executive Session minutes relative to updates to the UTL collective bargaining negotiations and grievance/litigation updates. While Ms. Martin expressed that releasing the Executive Session minutes (which are not public) was premature, Mr. Elliott contended that the release of this information is needed to keep taxpayers and teachers/paraprofessionals up-to-date.  The motion to release the minutes passed with Mr. Elliott, Ms. Scott, Ms. Ross-Sitcawich and Mr. Conway voting in favor (Ms. Martin and Mr. Leary voted no, Mr. Gendron was absent).I’m going to refrain from commenting here as a former UTL member. However, I would comment that releasing Executive Minutes could possibly be a limiting factor in reaching agreement during contract negotiations. It seems to me that discussion of issues and proposed solutions might be less forthright and/or there might be less willingness to compromise or seek creative resolution when the parties know that whatever is said will go through the filter of public opinion. Subcommittee Meeting NotesThree subcommittee meetings were on the agenda.  Ms. Martin reported on the Curriculum Subcommittee Meeting of Nov. 17 which highlighted current and future collaborative efforts between the University of Lowell Graduate College of Education and several Lowell Schools.  See Meeting Packet for details.  As the Personnel Subcommittee Meeting reflected a discussion regarding the CFO position, that discussion was combined with Item 15, later in the meeting.Ms. Scott reported on the Policy Subcommittee meeting during which refinements to the Weather Cancellation Policy (school cancellations and the 2-hour delay proposal) were discussed.Reports of the Superintendent

• Item 10 (2015/440) - LRTA schedule. Mr. Antonelli (Interim Superintendent for Finance) reported that conversations with LRTA resulted in increased service; however, Ms. Ross-Sitcawich reports parents contacted her regarding overcrowded buses in the afternoon. Mr. Antonelli will investigate further.
• Item 11 (2015/441) - LHS had recently committed to a violence prevention program (Mentor Violence Prevention or MVP). LHS has identified students who, along with faculty advisors, will receive this free training  via Northeastern University. The SWEAR program, referenced in Mr. Conway’s motion on 9/16, will be included in a program assessment at the end of the school year.
• Item 12 (2015/442) Ms. Durkin explained the yearly process LPS engages in regarding review of bullying prevention and intervention. Although this is mandated every 2 years, LPS does this every year and updates manuals as needed.
• Item 13 (2015/445) Mr. Curley (LPS Maintenance) met with city-side counterparts to ensure reponsibilities for efficient removal of snow. A concern is that the snow accumulated at bus stops makes waiting for buses unsafe. Ms. Ross-Sitcawich requests that school committee and LPS administrators monitor the bus stop safety issue throughout the upcoming winter.

New BusinessA new CFO (Chief Finance Officer) contract was developed through the Superintendent’s office.  The most significant changes include the removal of the sick-leave buyback provision and the addition of earned vacation time (25 vacation days, 12 sick days, 2 personal days). The vacation time earning process is similar to that of private sector companies where a portion of the maximum vacation time is earned every pay period. The District went through a series of interviews and have selected the successor to Jay Lang for a the newly-renamed CFO position. Of the 18 applicants, Kevin McHugh, former Lowell School Committee Member and currently Lynn Public School Business Manager was the successful candidiate.The vote for the contract was 5 yeas (Martin, Leary, Conway, Scott, Ross-Sitcawich), 1 nay (Mayor Elliott) and 1 absent (Mr. Gendron) Here the discussion got a little muddy as to whether the Committee was approving just the contract wording or a revision that would include Mr. McHugh’s name as CFO. However, Amelia Pak-Harvey (Lowell Sun) is reporting that Mr. McHugh was the successful candidate and has received a contracted salary of $145,000 beginning on January 1, 2016. Link here to the Lowell Sun article.The revisions to the 2-hour delay policy (Agenda Item 17 2015/450) were presented. Those revisions include

• using ConnectEd to telephone families,
• the addition of local cable access TV show as an official means of communication,
• outlining which employees would report as usual upon a school delay (cafeteria and custodial staff), and
• cancellation of before school programs in the event of a cancellation or delay.

This item passed (6 yeas, 1 absent) and Dr. Khelfaoui will update the current written policy (dated 2004) and disseminate.The discussion regarding establishing an Accountability Office was deferred until next meeting.Prior to Executive Session and Adjournment, Ms. Martin requested that the incoming School Committee members are invited to the next meeting (December 16). Dr. Khelfaoui reported that his office had already reached out to the future school committee members through a introductory coffee meeting.Following the open meeting, the Committee went into Executive Session to discuss updates to the UTL contract negotiations, litigation and grievances.The link to the meeting packet can be found here.

Connecting Dots

Nancy Carlsson-Paige, Lesley University Professor Emerita, recently stated the following during an acceptance speech for the Deborah Meier award. Dr. Carlsson-Paige cites a statistic from the DOE Department of Civil Rights which reports that 8,000 Preschool students (!) were suspended at least once in a school year.

“There is a connection, I know, between these suspensions and ed reform policies: Children in low income communities are enduring play deficient classrooms where they get heavy doses of direct teaching and testing. They have to sit still, be quiet in their seats and comply. Many young children can’t do this and none should have to."

Anecdotally I know she is right, not only for low income early childhood classrooms, but upper grades as well. Kids may not always be direct in identifying what is bothering them; they sometimes show us with their actions. They "act out" with displeasure.Brain-based research from experts such as Ken Wesson tells that children in Kindergarten are capable of 5-10 minutes direct instruction and learning before they become inattentive; fourth graders - my former wheel house - can sustain attention for 10-20 minutes.The connection is that "mini" lessons, those short and focused bursts of direct instruction beginning a learning segment, are often 20 minutes or more. And when that is followed by more pencil/paper task work, there lies a recipe for disengagement. Now extend that: what happens when a 10-year old is asked to sit and engage in a high-stakes task such as our current MCAS test? Last spring most of my students wrote from 9 am to 2:35 with a 25 minute break for lunch during Long Composition, English Language Arts, and Mathematics Tests.Teachers do what they can to make classrooms and lessons more active by allowing kids to get out of seats, work in different parts of the room, and through cooperative/collaborative learning activities. What is lacking, however, is recess and play time - time for socialization, for learning to negotiate with peers, for exercise, fresh air, and fun.Make no mistake: play time is important to every child. And yet it is the first thing to be cut back when schedules are tightened to accommodate more time on tasks.So when Dr. Carlsson-Paige is talking about a connection between allowing kids more recess and the number of discipline issues, we need to listen. Our kids are stressed out and need to get off the conveyor belt.

Truthiness in Local Education

The current Mayor of Lowell, Rodney Elliot, recently posited this gem in our local newspaper. Take a look at the bulleted items, if you have not already read this, and be outraged. Note the date on the letter - the day after the City elections. Could this be a manipulation of facts engineered for personal gain such as a second term as mayor?This bullet from the article caught my attention as it points to a fundamental problem with the article and appears to include unattributed misinformation. Here's a quote:"Instructional time increase to state average of 275 minutes (4 hours, 35 minutes a day). Lowell is at 255. Most states exceed 300 minutes."Let's take a closer look at what Mr. Elliot is saying.  As Blogger Gerry Nutter pointed out in today's post, State Law mandates the amount of instructional time in a school year. The times mandated are 900 HOURS (54,000 minutes) per school year (elementary) and 990 HOURS (59,400 minutes) per school year (Middle & High School). And because in education, there is no such thing as "simple arithmetic" in getting to the minutes that count toward an academic day, some number manipulation is required. Time spent in recess, transition times, lunch or breakfast do not count.In the realm of activities that do and do not count as education, I suppose administering 3 days of MCAS testing (975 minutes) last spring might also be disallowed. But I digress.When Mr. Elliot wants to talk instructional time using minutes per day, his argument needs a bit more scrutiny. Simply throwing a out a claim that Lowell teachers instruct students for just 255 minutes a day is more than a bit misleading. What is his source for the claim that "most states exceed 300 minutes".An elementary school day (I'll use an example of the school from which I recently retired) is 6 hours and 20 minutes (380 minutes) from start to finish. To be precise, an additional 5 minutes is "unassigned" at the end of a school day for teachers only and is not included in the 380 calculation. Let's subtract 15 minutes at the beginning of the day because the "tardy" bell rings 15 minutes after the other students have arrived and universal breakfast is served during that time as breakfast. 6 hours and 5 minutes (365 minutes).Less 30 minutes for lunch and recess leaves 5 hours 35 minutes (335 minutes). Students attend Allied Arts classes for 50 minutes every day (physical education, art, music, content/library). THEY are still receiving instruction, albeit from another professional. Even if a generous 10 minutes is allocated daily for transitioning between rooms (many teachers no longer take whole classes to the bathroom, students sign out when they need to leave), the number of instructional minutes is 325 which is more than the 255 minutes Mr. Elliot reports Lowell teachers spend and even above 275 minutes which he claims as a state "average".So what about the classroom teachers? If the students aren't in the room, what is that prep time used for? Four days of the week, the teacher is given prep time of 50 minutes; one day each week is reserved for Common Planning, or some type of professional meeting involving all the teachers at a grade level. While not directly instructing students at this time, prep time activities support students (and families) in many ways.Prep time really involves: phone calls and follow up with parents, report writing and preparation for SpED team meetings (sometimes even the meetings take place in this timeframe), helping students process behavior issues, correcting assessment (and sometimes administering assessments), preparing materials for lessons, planning co-teaching activities with colleagues, mentoring a new teacher, meeting with an administrator for evaluation/student concerns. It is not a "free" period - time to put up the feet and chat with another teacher. I feel the minutes a teacher spends preparing do impact instruction and should go right back into the teaching day.So at a minimum, disallowing the preparation time, a teacher spends an average 285 minutes teaching; however, counting preparation time - as it should count - the daily minutes rise to 325. Bottom line: This time is essential to a teacher's responsibilities. This IS work time.If you're keeping track, the tally is between 285 and 325 minutes of teaching per day, not 255 and not 275 as reported by the Mayor.So my question remains: where is the truth? Because, I for one am tired of education and hard-working educators being tossed around as collateral by politicians with an ax to grind.