After An Educator's Journey

No-Nonsense? Nonsense!

January 18, 2016

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 reforms
that affect Other Peoples’ Kids, but that we would never tolerate for our own
kids.

Is this the kind of nurturing we want for our children? Puh-leeze.
School Committee Meeting, 06 January 2016

January 7, 2016

6 members present, Jackie Doherty absent

As the first meeting of the year, this was a very quick one (about 25 minutes). Most of tonight’s agenda was routinely dealt with so I’ve only noted points in the meeting where there was some discussion.
After the roll call, Mr. Gendron received committee persmission to have LHS students from Generation Citizen address the Committee. If you, like I, were a bit confused about the program, here is a link to a December 30 article in the Lowell Sun by Amelia Pak-Harvey. This project is a pilot meant to introduce students to civic engagement.

The students present at tonight’s school committee meeting explained their process in determining a need for a financial literacy course and asked for the Committee’s support in implementing a financial literacy program at the High School. After the presentation, Mayor Kennedy suggested that the students’ request be put more fomally on a future meeting’s agenda.

And, as a side-note, Ms. Martin noted a 4-day summer program for high school seniors which is sponsored by CTI. The program, Student Finance 101, is offered for free and is designed to assist seniors navigate financial aide and other financial issues as they move on to college and greater financial independence.

Motions

Mr. Gendron presented the two motions on the agenda tonight. The first motion (2015/506) requested planning and a follow-up report for what has annually been a Community Service Day throughout the school system each Spring. Last year, my fourth grade students participated in this effort by cleaning and beautifying Lincoln Square Park; throughout the City, students do similar service projects embracing the importance of becoming active in their community.

The second motion, 2015/507, requested a plan for the handling middle school population explosion anticipated to begin next school year. In addition to modulars (portable, leased classroom spaces), the district needs to consider teaching and support staff expenditures needed. Ms. Martin suggested that along with consideration for modular spaces, the district should also look at the anticipated re-zoning of schools (see Item 7 from the prior meeting on November 18, 2015) – which of course will make this a lot more complicated, but should result in an effective solution to significant increases in the middle school population.

I would agree with Ms. Martin’s suggestion here. Looking at the increased needs at the Middle School level along with the complex issue of creating a neighborhood school approach to student assignments will definitely be a daunting challenge. Rather than patch the immediate need for space with a band-aid, a more thorough analysis of student assignment and school zones will provide a longer-term solution and should result in a more permanent policy.

New Business

Under new business, a budget transfer request (2016/9) to increase the NEASC (New England Association of Schools & Colleges) accreditation budget from $15,000 to $24,000 was questioned by Mr. Gignac. Mr. Antonelli was not able to identify the origin of the budgeted amount ($15,000) as the budget was developed prior to his tenure (possibly based on an historic figure from prior budgeting the last time LHS was accredited?). The increased amount ($24,000) covers the travel expenses for a Visiting Team of educators participating in the accreditation of Lowell High as well as the report presented to the District (due in Feb. 2016).

During the course of the accredition process, the high school hosts a visit, or peer review, by a visiting team of colleagues who observe nearly every aspect of a high school operation. As a result of this on-site visit, a report is made noting strengths and areas where improvement might be needed according to the NEASC guidelines. Here’s a link in case you’d like to read more about this. The travel expenses for this 4-day visit are included in the requested increase of $9,000.

A side-note to routinely approved Convention and Conference requests was made by Ms. Martin. The Martha McQuade Adventure Fund (story written by Jen Meyers here) offers scholarships to assist students who would like to participate in international travel opportunities, but find the costs limiting.

Meeting adjourned at 6:56 pm. Record time.
The change is the thing

December 31, 2015

2015 has been a transition year for me – personally and professionally. What had always been has flipped end over end, and now there is a new lens through which the world is viewed. There is no holding on to the old as this world and the environment around me is always changing. Kind of like this image – sometimes a new point of view changes everything. And, while sometimes met with less than enthusiastic appreciation, the change is the thing.

So here’s to 2016 and to meeting the changes a new year will undoubtedly bring. To looking at things from a new perspective. And to health and happiness to you and your families.
Year End Loose Ends

December 29, 2015

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 Detail

Fund for Teachers Grants
Sponsor: Fund for Teachers
Submitted: 10/27/2015 12:00:00 AM

Fund 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, 2016

Please 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 Notes, 16 December 2015

December 17, 2015
School Committee Meeting: Wednesday, December 16, 2015

All members present.

This is the last meeting for 2015 and therefore, the last time this particular group of members will meet as a School Committee.

The published agenda for this meeting was 33 items long, and given some of the topics, I thought we all might need to pack sleeping bags and snacks. However, the Reports of the Superintendent – all 17 of them – were taken as a whole leaving more time to allow departing members to make farewell commentary.

Special Orders of Business

This meeting highlighted the achievements of four teams from Lowell High: Cheerleading, Crew, Boys’ Cross Country, Girls’ Cross Country and Boys’ Soccer. Along with the team members, special recognition was given to coaches and senior members of each team.

The new interim principal for the Stoklosa School (replacing Nancy O’Loughlin, retiring this month) was introduced. Roland Boucher, retired administrator has been named interim principal through the end of this school year.

Permission To Enter

Usually I do not comment on these transactions because they are often routine approvals for items such as expenses incurred for Special Education plans. However, a newly added request from Safe Havens International, Inc. <link to site their site here and click on Services> ($67,458) was added to this agenda item (2015/487) in response to a 2012 motion requesting a comprehensive school safety evaluation.

Safe Havens is slated to begin study of individual schools as well as Central Office in March 2016; the study will continue for about 4 months after which a report will address physical safety, safety policy, bullying, suicide prevention, and all manner of crisis management in each individual school building as well as the District as a whole. Mr. Antonelli recognized the significant role the legislative contingent, particularly Dave Nangle, played in obtaining funds to perform this study – something that most likely would not have been possible given the leaness of the budget and budget forecasts for 2016.

Motions

Agenda Item 9 (2015/500) made by Steve Gendron requested a study of participation in sports programs. Citing Commonwealth Magazine’s statistics on sports participation and school drop-out rates, Mr. Gendron would like an analysis of which programs at Lowell High have the greatest participation in hopes of duplicating their success in other sports programs. Dave Conway wisely commented that not just sports, but other extra-curricular activities might have similar positive impacts. I agree! Music, drama, and other outlets and extra-curricular opportunities need to be preserved and valued for their positive effect on students.

Agenda Item 10 (2015/501) made by Kim Scott requested the Superintendent develop a “plan to immediately notify the parents of guardians of any Lowell Public School student that has been bullied, physically assaulted or verbally insulted during the school day.” Ms. Scott noted that along with the recent incident at LHS, she has been contacted by several parents of students who were mistreated and whose parents were not immediately notified.

As Dr. Khelfaoui stated, a protocol for notifications and processes in school safety already exists, and staff members review this every year. As much as everyone would like this to be failure-proof, it obviously is not and Ms. Scott’s motion points out a need to examine when and why failures in the procedures have occurred. Jeannine Durkin, Assistant Superintendent for Student Services, will undoubtedly remind all staff of the importance in following reporting protocols – but again, when breakdowns occur, it is important to look at why and fix them.

On a similar note, Dr. Khelfaoui indicated that the much anticipated report regarding the incident at Lowell High this past fall should be on his desk “Thursday or Friday” (12/17 or 12/18).

Subcommittee Meeting Notes
- Policy Subcommittee Meeting Notes only (discussion at 12/2 meeting). (2-hour school delay policy previously approved)
- Personnel Subcommittee Meeting Notes only (discussion at 12/2 meeting). I was surprised that no mention of Mr. McHugh was made (rumored to have been named to the CFO position; has decided to remain in Lynn according to news reports).
- Personnel Subcommittee Meeting of 12/16/2015 did not occur.
Reports of the Superintendent

Items 14-29 were taken as a whole. Kim Scott pointed out a flaw in information gathering (survey) relative to School Lunch services (Item 26, 2015/495). Several parents were cut off in mid-survey which skewed the results. Mr. Antonelli said that the additional responses were unable to be added to the results. In response to a question about how the survey was developed, Mr. Antonelli worked with Food Services, Legal Department, and Administration. He recommends a Fall and Spring survey that will ensure quality food service from vendor.

The report included in the packet seems mostly positive. I realize Aramark has made some financial commitments that sweetened a deal with the school district; however, my personal observation (made when I was a faculty member) of the food quality was a bit different. Large food service corporations can notoriously put on a dog-and-pony show when contracts are being made or renewed (recent NY Times article about college-level conflicts). Frequent check-ins with students and parents with feedback and monitoring to the contractor should keep the food quality consistently high.

New Business
- Two reappointments to the LTC Board (Anne Sheehy and Jack Pinard).
- Acceptance and thanks to Andre Descoteaux for a donation of $450. Mr. Descoteaux promised a percentage of his campaign funds if his bid for a School Committee seat was successful.
Final Special Order of Business

This was the final School Committee Meeting for 5 of the 7 current members. As such, the departing members were recognized for their commitment and efforts.

Connie Martin and Steven Gendron, the two current members who will return in 2016, expressed thanks and gratiude to all, as well as appreciation to Mayor Elliott for his visibility and outreach to Lowell Community.
- Kim Scott (2012-2016) thanks family, recognizes the efforts of Superintendent in reaching out to families. States that the attack on public schools needs to end and wishes new committee best of luck.
- Kristin Ross-Sitcawich (2012-2016) thanks family and colleagues. Admonishes new members not to break the successes that have been built.
- Dave Conway (2008-2016) thanks Lowell for the opportunity; has been involved in schools since he attended LHS (age 13). Recognition of his colleagues – current and past school committee members – for time, effort, energy and applauds their sacrifice. Recognizes staff of Lowell Schools for their tremendous efforts; thanks community partners for their participation; thanks Rodney Elliott for his energetic role in the City.
- Jim Leary (2006-2016). Thanks family. Recognizes challenging times and learning from colleagues; specially recognizes Connie Martin for her guidance. Recognition of teachers and principals – day in and day out do their best. Thanks public for the opportunity.
- Rodney Elliott, Mayor. Notes accomplishments of LPS (scores rising, student accomplishments), proud of teachers and commitment to their work as well as students. Thanks Connie Martin and Steven Gendron for their commitment and passion; leaving schools in good hands. Also recognizes Mary Sheehan, Executive Secretary, for her assistance as well as Dr. Khelfaoui.
I, too would like to thank all the members, and especially those who are moving on, for their commitment. We – school staff, administration, community members, families and school committee members have a common goal, and that goal is to offer the best opportunities for success to all students in the Lowell Schools. While we may not always agree on how to do that, we can and should have conversations with each other, respectful of views that might not be our own.

So I, as a former member of a school faculty and a current community member, thank you for your service to our students. I look forward to seeing a revived City-Wide Parent Council add their voices to discussions, to continued community partnerships, and to a strong bridge from the School Committee to City Council.

In two weeks, there will be five new members to this Committee who will make personal time commitments to help bring the Lowell Schools to the forefront of urban education. We are looking forward to their work as a committee. On January 6, 2016, the new committee meets for the first time.

The link to the meeting packet can be found here.
School Committee Meeting, 02 December 2015

December 3, 2015
School Committee Meeting: Wednesday, December 2, 2015

Five 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.

Motions

There 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 Notes

Three 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 Business

A 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

November 25, 2015

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.
School Committee Meeting, 18 November 2015

November 19, 2015

School Committee Meeting: Wednesday, November 18, 2015

All members present. Ms. Martin was presented with an award from Massachusetts Association of School Committees (MASC) recognizing her work during 8 terms on the School Committee.

Tonight was a packed agenda which included 15 Motion Responses addressing the lengthy and sometimes obsolete list of motions from prior meetings.

Motions

Two new motions, Agenda Item 6 (2015/415) and Agenda Item 8 (2015/425) sparked significant discussion/questions. Agenda Item 6 requests a report on the number of children of LPS teachers who are not residents of Lowell and who attend the City schools. Agenda Item 8 requests this same information with the additional data on whether or not this is compliant with School compliance policy.

Although not part of the new motions, these two agenda items and Agenda Item 7 (2015/424) are integrally connected to a prior notion by Mr. Elliot regarding the feasibility of a return to neighborhood schools. The two newer motions were put forward in response to constituents contacting school committee members. The constituents expressed concerns around a perception that the children of residents were wait-listed from their (first) choice schools within neighborhood zones because an out-of-district student had been given a seat.

Three School Committee members who spoke about the motions (Connie Martin, Kristin Ross-Sitcawich and Kim Scott) supported the continuation of the practice allowing out-of-district children of LPSD teachers a seat in the school system. Many questions about the number of students (from Dr. Khelfaoui that number is reported to be 37 children throughout the LPSD), how many children were placed into each school level (elementary, middle, high?), cost to the City (LPS do not participate in the Commonwealth “School Choice” program thereby limiting recouping any per pupil cost to the district), and whether or not the current policy which is based upon a memorandum that had received School Committee approval, needs to be reviewed and fine-tuned.

One of the main elements in reviewing policy is to determine whether there needs to be a change in wording to reflect whether or not there are available seats. Twice it was mentioned anecdotally that Lowell residents were seeking placements in an outside district when they could not have their child placed in one of the neighborhood school choices they desired. The actual number of students impacted and whether or not seat availability is a cause was not clear. An anecdote regarding a child of a teacher living in, for example, Pelham, NH, but being educated in Lowell, MA was given to illustrate a “cost” problem.

Item 7 (2015/424) requested that the Superintendent provide a review of school assignment process to ensure that the District is in compliance with policy (links below) and to propose a plan that would resolve any situations with students who were improperly placed in a school outside of their neighborhood school zone.

Jim Leary spoke to the complexity of placements and some misunderstandings of school assignments using the geography outlined in the LPS zone system. He advocated that the three motions are directly connected to the issue of school assignment zones and neighborhood schools proposed (a motion Mr. Elliot made at a prior meeting). This is a huge and complicated issue for the School Department/School Committee and, while Dr. Khelfaoui has assigned a Task Force Committee from the Strategic Plan to study the issue, changes to the school assignment policy would most likely not be ready for implementation in 2016-17.

A little review about the geographic school zones might be helpful. Resulting from the 1987 (revised in 1996) LPS Desegregation Order/Plan , the city schools are divided into one of two zones. In reality, Lowell, has three, not two zones. The PDF of the LPS zone map is found here. A third “zone” in the City includes those schools drawing students from all neighborhoods. They are designated “City Wide” schools and include Lowell High School, Bartlett, Lincoln, Moody, JG Pyne Arts, and Robinson.

The remaining 15 middle and elementary schools are assigned a geographical zone. According to Mr. Leary, the geography of these zones can be confusing to parents. He cited the example of a 4th grader who attends the Washington School (Zone 2) is assigned to the Butler Middle School for Grade 5 (also Zone 2). Parents question this assignment as the Daley School (Zone 1) is much closer – on just the other side of Stevens Street.

The actual assignment of students is made not only based on zone preferences, but on minority/non-minority student population and student service needs. For example, a particular special education program such as Life Skills may be offered only at a particular school. Other factors impact assignments as well.

I would agree with Mr. Leary that reviewing a move to neighborhood schools is going to be a giant undertaking. Paramount is the need for fidelity toward the court-ordered Desegregation Plan as well as consideration of parents who wish to send their children to nearby schools in their geographic neighborhood. It is not an easy revision to assigning students, and time will be needed to consider all aspects of school assignment as they are intertwined.

The motions have been referred to the Policy Subcommittee (Kim Scott, chair; Kristin Ross-Sitcawich, Dave Conway, plus one Central Office representative).

Reports of the Superintendent

In an effort to clear up open and possibly obsolete motions, the Superintendent provided 16 responses to motions. Most of these were accepted without comment from the Committee; however, there was prolonged discussion surrounding three topics: Delayed Openings, Maintenance of buildings and grounds, and Newcomer Program resources.

Item 13 (2015/499) was the response to Ms. Scott’s motion regarding a delayed opening of school in lieu of cancellation and received the greatest attention from Committee members. The school administration is prepared to move to 2-hour delays when there is agreement from the City DPW that roads/streets and schools can be cleaned up to ensure student and staff safety. However, this motion response will not be voted on until the next meeting (December 2, 2015) as several questions and issues need further attention.

Committee concerns and questions include coordination with partnerships providing before and after school services for parents who need child care in order to get to jobs regardless of weather situations, coordination with the City DPW, and LRT bus schedules. Mr. Gendron requested assurance that communications for delays would be clearly understood by all parents regardless of language barriers. Dr. Khelfaoui will bring definitive answers to concerns to the committee at the next meeting (December 2).

The advantage of a school delay over canceling school, from a teaching standpoint, means that instruction is not disrupted quite as much. The daily continuity of lessons is more or less intact. Last winter, the District cancelled school 8 times resulting in extending the school year further in to June when the weather and temperatures are not as conducive to learning. Tacking on time at the end of a school year may satisfy the Commonwealth’s requirement for number of days in session, but it is not what any teacher would call quality learning time – the weather is too nice be be indoors, the temperatures in classrooms can get extremely hot (that’s another issue), and students’ attention is waning as summer vacation is in sight. For families, travel plans that seemed reasonable when made in January or February, now become rescheduling headaches with extra expenses attached.

MCAS dates and windows are impacted significantly when winter instructional time is lost due to cancellations. For the most part, the Commonwealth (DESE) does not move dates for testing. In fact I can recall only one time in almost 20 years that the Long Composition test date was moved due to weather. Losing instructional time ahead of testing can mean a topic that needs to be explored prior to MCAS may not be taught as deeply as students need. While a delay may not be ideal, my opinion is that instruction is less disrupted by a delay when that option is safely available.

School building and ground maintenance (Agenda Item 19, 2015/421, and Agenda Item 14 (2015/410) were discussed. Some frustration expressed by School Committee members about the speed with which building/facility repairs are made by City. Committee wishes to regularly review open ticket items, thus this motion will not be “closed” and removed from the list of Motion Responses.

Lastly, the response to Mr. Leary’s motion (Agenda Item 21, 2015/427) regarding state and federal resources available to defray the cost of Newcomer Programs was discussed The actual cost of the program is reported at $20,000-$22,000 per student while reimbursement is currently $12,000 per student. Letters to the legislative delegations have not resulted in any satisfactory response. There was a discussion about the transparency of how the Commonwealth chooses school districts for the Newcomer programs – what is the criteria for receiving districts? The financial impact of this program on LPS is continuing to be felt in budget and resources for all students. Referred to both Student Support (Kristin Ross-Sitcawich (Chair), Dave Conway, Kim Scott and Jeannine Durkin, Adm. Representative) and Curriculum Subcommittees (Chairperson, Connie Martin (Chair), Jim Leary, Kim Scott, Claire Abrams, Adm. Representative).

A brief conversation took place about the recent decision by DESE to implement MCAS 2.0 as a fully technology-dependent assessment by 2019. Many questions are still to be answered about how the state plans to support (i.e., financially) urban districts needing technology infrastructure build-outs to support the tech demands of the test administration.

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.
Truthiness in Local Education

November 15, 2015

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.
This Weekend, We Got Out

November 10, 2015

Fear is for people who don’t get out very much.
~Rick Steves

Basilica Notre Dame

Vieux Montreal

Place d’Armes

Metro Place d’Armes

Bikes outside Metro Mont Royale

Bagels at Saint-Viateur