As a result of a piece in the Boston Globe on the testimony I published in my last post about mandatory PE, it might help to offer some clarifications.
First, and foremost, my testimony was offered as that of a single member of the School Committee, in point of fact the Vice Chair, and I took great pains to make sure that was clear- that it did not reflect the School Committee as a whole, and did not reflect the opinions of any one else on the SC. The Globe did not make that clear, much as I appreciate their coverage. If you'd like to know if our School Committee, or any for that matter, feel the idea I proposed has merit, ask them. Ask Superintendents, as well.
I have.
However, there are other important things to clarify.
I am not opposed to PE, and certainly not opposed to wellness classes. In fact, I've long been an advocate for an expanded wellness curriculum, and have long publicly lamented the gradual erosion of curriculum/options in the PE classes themselves- so much of what we offered when I went to school is no longer a part of the PE curriculum- wrestling and gymnastics, for example. When given the one opportunity to support the addition of a new sport to be offered at the High School, Lacrosse, I voted to support it. Enthusiastically.
In encouraging the legislature to block mandatory PE in grades K-12, I offered an alternative that is a win-win for everyone- students, parents faculty. It is simply this. Allowing school systems to develop sharply proscribed high school level waivers that allow students participating in school sports at the high school to waive out of the PE requirement (not the wellness requirement), we would potentially open up a "hole" in the schedule of eligible students. Again, my proposal was that the waiver be limited to students who participate in school sports- which currently at Newburyport High School adds up to about 60% of the student body. Although a number of students participate vigorously and successfully in organized physical activity outside of school that exceeds the proposed statutory requirement within the school day - martial arts, swimming, and dance come to mind- I would need to see some way to measure the rigor and supervision of those activities before I would agree to make them criteria for waivers.
I see two critical values in doing this. First and foremost, it would allow schools to offer more sections of classes, and in fact, more electives for students at no additional cost. Increasingly, I am hearing from parents whose children are unable to take an academic elective like AP Physics or Honors Chemistry because neither the staff, the schedule, or the current PE requirements allow that to happen; in effect, we substitute 30 minutes of volleyball for those classes.
The second value intentionally reflected in my testimony was that the waiver, and potential reduction in traditional PE classes would free up the PE teachers to offer more health and wellness courses as electives. They could explore ideas like conditioning, or Yoga, meditation or Tai Chi. Better yet, it might be a way to offer as electives those sports that have all but disappeared from schools- fencing, dance, wrestling, gymnastics. A waiver system, limited but allowing those kids who are already getting their 30 minutes of physical activity a day through school sports, would potentially offer a broader array of academic, health and wellness, and physical education courses to choose from during the school day.
That seems to me to closer to a 21st century approach to education, than an arbitrary locking in of mandatory PE, without refining the options available for teachers and students.
This isn't about cutting teacher jobs, it's about expanding options in curriculum, health, wellness and physical education; it is about doing it in a way that doesn't cost school systems any more money.
Monday, September 26, 2011
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Physical Education- Thinking Outside the Box
After being alerted to a couple of bills being considered by the MA Legislature this week about making Physical Education mandatory from K-12, I was able to put together some testimony for submission, and delivered it both in person and in writing.
Before I cut and paste it, a few caveats.
First and foremost, I strongly support PE, and it's larger context, health and wellness, as critical items in our curricula and in the lives of our students. I have voted numerous times over the past ten years to ensure that our PE, Health and Wellness offerings are expanded at every level, and become an integral part of our student life and academic trajectory.
Secondly, the proposed bills did not allow for a waiver process through which students participating in school organized sports could "waive out" of the PE requirements, by dint of their efforts in the sport. In reality, the amount of physical activity involved in training for any of the sports offered at the High School far exceeds the minimum mandated by these bills. If we are to face the 21st Century with anything approaching a competitive attitude, we need to find ways to celebrate what our kids are doing at times and in places that go beyond the walls of the school. We have kids who are putting in 12 hours a week training for cross country, we have kids competing at the state level in activities like martial arts, fencing, dance- all without
getting any real credit from the schools.
Thirdly, the offering of a waiver for participating in school-sponsored sports, which could potentially affect the 60% of Nbpt High School kids doing sports, would free up time in the schedule to allow them to take more classes, especially at the AP and Honors level; it would free up PE teacher time to offer a broader range of electives in areas not currently being offered. In short, it makes great sense.
My testimony:
Testimony on H 1053, S 216
September 20, 2011
Bruce Menin, Vice Chair Newburyport School Committee
I want to thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony on the Bills before you, H 1053 and S 216. I appreciate the effort that has gone into addressing many of the issues contained in those bills.
My name is Bruce Menin, and I’ve served as an elected member of the Newburyport School Committee for ten years, the last two as Vice Chair. Please note that this testimony is not offered as the “official position” of the School Committee as a whole; neither does it reflect the opinion of any other School Committee member. I do believe, however, that my tenure on the Committee, my experience as a teacher, and my role as the parent of two students in the public school system give me a level of practical experience, some clarity and hopefully wisdom on the substance of the bill.
I urge you to oppose the statutory mandate of Physical Education courses as part of the curriculum for students; better yet, I encourage you to amend the bill to allow school systems to grant PE waivers in the high school if a student is participating in organized scholastic sports.
In my ten years as a School Committee member, I have always strongly supported wellness curricula at every grade level, and fully endorse the value of vigorous physical activity at every grade level. My concern with this bill stems from what I see as a growing problem- and has become an “on-the-ground” reality for parents and students. The current requirements for PE at the High School prevent a growing number of students from taking additional courses that would better prepare them for college, and for competing in the global economy. Locking in the mandate suggested by this bill will only compound that problem for us, and society. We teach to each student according to their gifts and challenges, and yet we have had to tell more students every year that because of the stagnant Chapter 70 reimbursement formula, and the burden that places on cities like Newburyport to either find new money every year, or make cuts in our school budgets, we cannot staff and cannot fit into their schedule courses like AP Chemistry or AP Physics. Already, existing requirements for PE make scheduling very difficult; the mandate imposed by this bill compounds that problem. In Newburyport, 60% of students at our High School participate in inter-scholastic sports, so we are talking about a significant number of students impacted by this bill.
There is a very bittersweet irony here. Parents in Newburyport, and other communities now pay to have their kids participate in sports. If we were willing to value those sports as a substitute for a token Physical Education requirement of 30 minutes of physical activity a day, we would enable students to put together an academic schedule that offers greater challenge and rigor.
We have also found that the scheduling intricacies of accommodating these PE courses in High School often results in the insertion of a study hall in a preceding or succeeding semester so that the gym requirement is met. In effect, we limit the academic choices some of our students can make so that they can play volleyball during the school day, and then further compound that problem by giving them a study hall so that their schedule aligns with a gym class the following semester. And, we essentially ignore the clear value of those sports that they are doing, whether they are sanctioned or not.
A way to address this would be to allow School systems to offer Physical Education waivers in those circumstances where students participate in a school sanctioned or organized sport. While that wouldn’t begin to address an ancillary problem- we have students who are competing at the highest levels in non-school sanctioned sports or physical activities- swimming, martial arts, dancing- who receive no credit for that, yet are still required to fit Physical Education into a High School schedule.
My best guess, after ten years on the School Committee, is that a waiver would not only free up critical schedule time for academic courses, but it would also enable current PE teachers to offer a wider range of wellness electives as part of the overall curriculum at the high school. I believe those courses will be as critical as anything else we do during the school day. In fact, it might free up PE instructors to offer more diverse PE courses during the day as electives- fencing, or wrestling, yoga or dance. Allowing waivers for student athletes actually encourages the kind of physical activity this bill purports to value. It builds on what is already a strength in many school systems.
Telling a student athlete, who works out 2 hours a day to compete at a school sponsored sport, or a non-sponsored sport, that we can’t work AP physics into their schedule because they are required to take PE so that we can ensure they get 30 minutes of physical activity per day is simply not the way to prepare MA students for the future. Offering them half a credit for that participation, with a mandated requirement that they also take a full HS PE load along with it is not a courageous step into the 21 Century.
In the ten years I have been on the school committee, we’ve gone from offering a free public education, to one that is forced to charge fees for participation in virtually every extra-curricular activity, including organized school sports. That is also not a constructive direction to be going in. To essentially ignore the value of that sport as part of the academic record of a student makes little sense; it misses an opportunity to build a well-rounded student taking a more rigorous and flexible schedule.
The idea of a waiver around Physical Education for High School students, contingent on meeting a clearly proscribed set of alternative options, has been a part of the California State Board of Education Statutes for several years.
We can do much better than this, by allowing school systems to grant waivers from the traditional PE courses to those students who often exceed the minimal standards of 30 minutes of activity by participating in inter-scholastic sports. A PE waiver for student athletes is sensible, it celebrates their accomplishments on the field and in the gyms while enhancing their ability to take the kinds of courses that will change their lives, and probably our own, in the future. Please consider amending this bill to allow for waivers, or not sending this bill as constituted to the full legislature for consideration. I ask this as the parent of a student athlete- celebrate her achievements on cross country fields, and allow her to take the classes she feels will give her the future she wants. Allow our school system to offer those classes. A simple waiver crediting her for the work she has done after-school- work which requires her to exceed the minimal expectation of 30 minutes of activity a day by 400%, six days a week throughout the school year, would accomplish both.
Thank you.
Before I cut and paste it, a few caveats.
First and foremost, I strongly support PE, and it's larger context, health and wellness, as critical items in our curricula and in the lives of our students. I have voted numerous times over the past ten years to ensure that our PE, Health and Wellness offerings are expanded at every level, and become an integral part of our student life and academic trajectory.
Secondly, the proposed bills did not allow for a waiver process through which students participating in school organized sports could "waive out" of the PE requirements, by dint of their efforts in the sport. In reality, the amount of physical activity involved in training for any of the sports offered at the High School far exceeds the minimum mandated by these bills. If we are to face the 21st Century with anything approaching a competitive attitude, we need to find ways to celebrate what our kids are doing at times and in places that go beyond the walls of the school. We have kids who are putting in 12 hours a week training for cross country, we have kids competing at the state level in activities like martial arts, fencing, dance- all without
getting any real credit from the schools.
Thirdly, the offering of a waiver for participating in school-sponsored sports, which could potentially affect the 60% of Nbpt High School kids doing sports, would free up time in the schedule to allow them to take more classes, especially at the AP and Honors level; it would free up PE teacher time to offer a broader range of electives in areas not currently being offered. In short, it makes great sense.
My testimony:
Testimony on H 1053, S 216
September 20, 2011
Bruce Menin, Vice Chair Newburyport School Committee
I want to thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony on the Bills before you, H 1053 and S 216. I appreciate the effort that has gone into addressing many of the issues contained in those bills.
My name is Bruce Menin, and I’ve served as an elected member of the Newburyport School Committee for ten years, the last two as Vice Chair. Please note that this testimony is not offered as the “official position” of the School Committee as a whole; neither does it reflect the opinion of any other School Committee member. I do believe, however, that my tenure on the Committee, my experience as a teacher, and my role as the parent of two students in the public school system give me a level of practical experience, some clarity and hopefully wisdom on the substance of the bill.
I urge you to oppose the statutory mandate of Physical Education courses as part of the curriculum for students; better yet, I encourage you to amend the bill to allow school systems to grant PE waivers in the high school if a student is participating in organized scholastic sports.
In my ten years as a School Committee member, I have always strongly supported wellness curricula at every grade level, and fully endorse the value of vigorous physical activity at every grade level. My concern with this bill stems from what I see as a growing problem- and has become an “on-the-ground” reality for parents and students. The current requirements for PE at the High School prevent a growing number of students from taking additional courses that would better prepare them for college, and for competing in the global economy. Locking in the mandate suggested by this bill will only compound that problem for us, and society. We teach to each student according to their gifts and challenges, and yet we have had to tell more students every year that because of the stagnant Chapter 70 reimbursement formula, and the burden that places on cities like Newburyport to either find new money every year, or make cuts in our school budgets, we cannot staff and cannot fit into their schedule courses like AP Chemistry or AP Physics. Already, existing requirements for PE make scheduling very difficult; the mandate imposed by this bill compounds that problem. In Newburyport, 60% of students at our High School participate in inter-scholastic sports, so we are talking about a significant number of students impacted by this bill.
There is a very bittersweet irony here. Parents in Newburyport, and other communities now pay to have their kids participate in sports. If we were willing to value those sports as a substitute for a token Physical Education requirement of 30 minutes of physical activity a day, we would enable students to put together an academic schedule that offers greater challenge and rigor.
We have also found that the scheduling intricacies of accommodating these PE courses in High School often results in the insertion of a study hall in a preceding or succeeding semester so that the gym requirement is met. In effect, we limit the academic choices some of our students can make so that they can play volleyball during the school day, and then further compound that problem by giving them a study hall so that their schedule aligns with a gym class the following semester. And, we essentially ignore the clear value of those sports that they are doing, whether they are sanctioned or not.
A way to address this would be to allow School systems to offer Physical Education waivers in those circumstances where students participate in a school sanctioned or organized sport. While that wouldn’t begin to address an ancillary problem- we have students who are competing at the highest levels in non-school sanctioned sports or physical activities- swimming, martial arts, dancing- who receive no credit for that, yet are still required to fit Physical Education into a High School schedule.
My best guess, after ten years on the School Committee, is that a waiver would not only free up critical schedule time for academic courses, but it would also enable current PE teachers to offer a wider range of wellness electives as part of the overall curriculum at the high school. I believe those courses will be as critical as anything else we do during the school day. In fact, it might free up PE instructors to offer more diverse PE courses during the day as electives- fencing, or wrestling, yoga or dance. Allowing waivers for student athletes actually encourages the kind of physical activity this bill purports to value. It builds on what is already a strength in many school systems.
Telling a student athlete, who works out 2 hours a day to compete at a school sponsored sport, or a non-sponsored sport, that we can’t work AP physics into their schedule because they are required to take PE so that we can ensure they get 30 minutes of physical activity per day is simply not the way to prepare MA students for the future. Offering them half a credit for that participation, with a mandated requirement that they also take a full HS PE load along with it is not a courageous step into the 21 Century.
In the ten years I have been on the school committee, we’ve gone from offering a free public education, to one that is forced to charge fees for participation in virtually every extra-curricular activity, including organized school sports. That is also not a constructive direction to be going in. To essentially ignore the value of that sport as part of the academic record of a student makes little sense; it misses an opportunity to build a well-rounded student taking a more rigorous and flexible schedule.
The idea of a waiver around Physical Education for High School students, contingent on meeting a clearly proscribed set of alternative options, has been a part of the California State Board of Education Statutes for several years.
We can do much better than this, by allowing school systems to grant waivers from the traditional PE courses to those students who often exceed the minimal standards of 30 minutes of activity by participating in inter-scholastic sports. A PE waiver for student athletes is sensible, it celebrates their accomplishments on the field and in the gyms while enhancing their ability to take the kinds of courses that will change their lives, and probably our own, in the future. Please consider amending this bill to allow for waivers, or not sending this bill as constituted to the full legislature for consideration. I ask this as the parent of a student athlete- celebrate her achievements on cross country fields, and allow her to take the classes she feels will give her the future she wants. Allow our school system to offer those classes. A simple waiver crediting her for the work she has done after-school- work which requires her to exceed the minimal expectation of 30 minutes of activity a day by 400%, six days a week throughout the school year, would accomplish both.
Thank you.
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Let's Play Two- Running for Re-Election
That was what Ernie Banks, the Chicago Cubs legend used to say at the beginning of each baseball game. It reflected his love for the game, his appreciation for being able play baseball for a living.
I'd like to play two- or actually, four. I am running for re-election. If the voters approve, I would be starting my fourth term. When I first joined the School Committee ten years ago, I didn't expect that I would be sticking around. The majority of School Committee members have been "four and out" over the last decade- up until this year, Steve Cole and I have been the only two SC members to seek re-election. That small club has one more member this year, Mr. de Kanter.
In 2000, I ran as a "reformer"- as an advocate for the students, for the staff- for the schools. I believed then that we had a lot of work to do- some of it structural, some of it cultural. Change takes time. Changing institutional culture takes a lot of time. I know that now. When people have asked me how I might characterize my experience on the School Committee, over the years, I've often jokingly said it's been like riding shotgun on a glacier.
However, I remain optimistic about our future. About the quickening pace of change. About the renewed energy I see, the thoughtfulness and intention and commitment I see from the staff at the schools, the growing engagement of parents. I want to continue to be part of what I have called "this conversation about who we are as a city, as a society" that is reflected in the schools we offer to our children.
I think consistency is important, and that continuity has a value. But even though I believe they are good words to describe my experience on the School Committee, those aren't the reasons I am asking people to vote for me. I would like to return to the SC because I still believe there is much to do, and much to accomplish. I believe I have the energy and aptitude to remain part of that process.
In the ten years I've been privileged to serve on the School Committee, I've worked with five principals at the High School. Five Superintendents. Four Mayors. That is no way to cultivate leadership, to encourage innovation, to reward creativity. To my way of thinking, it is a rationale for complacency. Don't like what this principal wants me to do, or what this Superintendent thinks we should prioritize? Let's just wait. There'll be another one here soon enough- this one will be gone, and we'll still be here. You've heard it before, and not just about the schools- you've heard city employees saying it about the two-year Mayors.
But things are changing. The influence of our new Superintendent, Dr. Marc Kerble, is being felt at every level of our schools, and across the community. I was part of negotiating three consecutive one-year contracts with the teachers- within 5 weeks of Dr. Kerble's arrival, the SC and the Teacher's Union had agreed to a reasonable three-year deal. That isn't a coincidence.
Dr. Kerble has helped us to focus on student achievement, and challenged us to find the resources to improve in that area. But he didn't go hat-in hand to the Mayor and City Council during the last budget process. He encouraged our staff to rethink how we do our business, Dr. Kerble was able to find additional savings in the budget as it existed.
A person who encouraged me to run for another term reminded me that if I am re-elected, I will have served long enough to have been part of the renovation at the High School, the Nock-Molin, and the rebuilding of the Bres. They suggested that would be a marvelous legacy.
I don't see that as my "legacy."
My "legacy" includes voting to remove our world language program from the elementary school, and then the middle school- and coincidentally, both votes literally took the program away from own daughter. My legacy is cutting teachers at the High School, it is serving on the Committee that was forced to reorganize and close a building to ensure that the system survived.
Right now, that's the work to be done. I don't want to minimize the importance of the two building projects coming up, but the prize that my eyes are on has to do with moving our schools, teachers, administrators, students, parents and community into the 21st century. That work has just begun.
I ask you to allow me to continue to rebuild what the economy, my own votes, have forced our schools to become- places that offer the best education possible, but have significant challenges ahead keeping up with the demands of the 21st Century.
I'm still motivated. I am still jazzed by the work. I don't see the School Committee as a step towards any other elective office. It is the work I want to do, that I feel best suited for.
Over the coming weeks, I will be writing more on this blog- looking at the issues we face, and sharing my own thinking on how to approach them. Those of you who know, understand I will not shy away from taking positions I believe to in the best interest of our students and the schools.
I ask for your vote on election day.
Thanks. It has been an honor, and a privilege to serve.
I'd like to play two- or actually, four. I am running for re-election. If the voters approve, I would be starting my fourth term. When I first joined the School Committee ten years ago, I didn't expect that I would be sticking around. The majority of School Committee members have been "four and out" over the last decade- up until this year, Steve Cole and I have been the only two SC members to seek re-election. That small club has one more member this year, Mr. de Kanter.
In 2000, I ran as a "reformer"- as an advocate for the students, for the staff- for the schools. I believed then that we had a lot of work to do- some of it structural, some of it cultural. Change takes time. Changing institutional culture takes a lot of time. I know that now. When people have asked me how I might characterize my experience on the School Committee, over the years, I've often jokingly said it's been like riding shotgun on a glacier.
However, I remain optimistic about our future. About the quickening pace of change. About the renewed energy I see, the thoughtfulness and intention and commitment I see from the staff at the schools, the growing engagement of parents. I want to continue to be part of what I have called "this conversation about who we are as a city, as a society" that is reflected in the schools we offer to our children.
I think consistency is important, and that continuity has a value. But even though I believe they are good words to describe my experience on the School Committee, those aren't the reasons I am asking people to vote for me. I would like to return to the SC because I still believe there is much to do, and much to accomplish. I believe I have the energy and aptitude to remain part of that process.
In the ten years I've been privileged to serve on the School Committee, I've worked with five principals at the High School. Five Superintendents. Four Mayors. That is no way to cultivate leadership, to encourage innovation, to reward creativity. To my way of thinking, it is a rationale for complacency. Don't like what this principal wants me to do, or what this Superintendent thinks we should prioritize? Let's just wait. There'll be another one here soon enough- this one will be gone, and we'll still be here. You've heard it before, and not just about the schools- you've heard city employees saying it about the two-year Mayors.
But things are changing. The influence of our new Superintendent, Dr. Marc Kerble, is being felt at every level of our schools, and across the community. I was part of negotiating three consecutive one-year contracts with the teachers- within 5 weeks of Dr. Kerble's arrival, the SC and the Teacher's Union had agreed to a reasonable three-year deal. That isn't a coincidence.
Dr. Kerble has helped us to focus on student achievement, and challenged us to find the resources to improve in that area. But he didn't go hat-in hand to the Mayor and City Council during the last budget process. He encouraged our staff to rethink how we do our business, Dr. Kerble was able to find additional savings in the budget as it existed.
A person who encouraged me to run for another term reminded me that if I am re-elected, I will have served long enough to have been part of the renovation at the High School, the Nock-Molin, and the rebuilding of the Bres. They suggested that would be a marvelous legacy.
I don't see that as my "legacy."
My "legacy" includes voting to remove our world language program from the elementary school, and then the middle school- and coincidentally, both votes literally took the program away from own daughter. My legacy is cutting teachers at the High School, it is serving on the Committee that was forced to reorganize and close a building to ensure that the system survived.
Right now, that's the work to be done. I don't want to minimize the importance of the two building projects coming up, but the prize that my eyes are on has to do with moving our schools, teachers, administrators, students, parents and community into the 21st century. That work has just begun.
I ask you to allow me to continue to rebuild what the economy, my own votes, have forced our schools to become- places that offer the best education possible, but have significant challenges ahead keeping up with the demands of the 21st Century.
I'm still motivated. I am still jazzed by the work. I don't see the School Committee as a step towards any other elective office. It is the work I want to do, that I feel best suited for.
Over the coming weeks, I will be writing more on this blog- looking at the issues we face, and sharing my own thinking on how to approach them. Those of you who know, understand I will not shy away from taking positions I believe to in the best interest of our students and the schools.
I ask for your vote on election day.
Thanks. It has been an honor, and a privilege to serve.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Superintendent Search: Community Forum Tonight
As part of the Superintendent Search process, the firm who is working with the city is sponsoring over 30 individual and group meetings in the community over the next two days. Tonight's meeting at the Nock is open to all interested parties. I hope you can make it.
There really are two purposes for the meetings. Each hour-long meeting will focus on creating a Leadership profile, to establish a clear idea of what the city is looking for in a new Superintendent, besides longevity. The second purpose of the meetings is to help the search firm, HYA, get a diverse and comprehensive understanding of what Newburyport is about- what makes it a unique community, and how things get done or don't get done.
These meetings have been set up with a wide variety of groups and individuals, from media and bloggers to the Charter School, from the City Council to the Arts community, from school staff to students and the spiritual community.
Tonight, November 9th, at 7 PM there will be a forum at the Nock for the entire community; those who were unable to attend the specifically-pitched daytime meetings, and those who want a second bite of the apple. Come on down, it's an opportunity to express your hopes and concerns about the future of the school system, and the type of leadership that will get us where we want to go.
As I've said in an earlier posting, you can't yell at the umpire if you don't get a ticket to the game.
See you tonight at the Nock.
There really are two purposes for the meetings. Each hour-long meeting will focus on creating a Leadership profile, to establish a clear idea of what the city is looking for in a new Superintendent, besides longevity. The second purpose of the meetings is to help the search firm, HYA, get a diverse and comprehensive understanding of what Newburyport is about- what makes it a unique community, and how things get done or don't get done.
These meetings have been set up with a wide variety of groups and individuals, from media and bloggers to the Charter School, from the City Council to the Arts community, from school staff to students and the spiritual community.
Tonight, November 9th, at 7 PM there will be a forum at the Nock for the entire community; those who were unable to attend the specifically-pitched daytime meetings, and those who want a second bite of the apple. Come on down, it's an opportunity to express your hopes and concerns about the future of the school system, and the type of leadership that will get us where we want to go.
As I've said in an earlier posting, you can't yell at the umpire if you don't get a ticket to the game.
See you tonight at the Nock.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
A PENNY FOR YOUR THOUGHTS- Last Rant Before the Holidays
Sometimes, it just takes your breath away. Like today.
In today's Daily News, there is a fairly accurate article about a presentation made by Superintendent Farrell at the last School C0mmittee meeting this past Monday. We'd asked the Superintendent to give us her take on the most recent cuts made by Governor Patrick, and their impact on this current school year. And we asked her to help us understand what would like happen next year, given the cuts we'll see this year.
Daily News 1.2 million
Pretty grim stuff, but I tend to like to deal with reality-based budget planning. Public comment, as we have come to rely, was offered by Dr. Ralph Orlando, whose passion for the schools, and whose relentless advocacy on their behalf, is often accompanied by very astute analysis of current budget trends. He worked hard on the Mayor's Revenue Task Force, and thankfully, he pulls no punches. As an aside, he got my write-in vote for School Committee this year, even though his wife threatened bodily harm to my person for my efforts.
The article was accurate. Things look grim. Grimmer than usual.
And the answers are the same. Cuts or find new revenues. Nothing new about that.
Sometimes, though not often, I read the comments that accompany the Daily News. They are usually passionate, expressive, and riddled with innuendos or talking points straight from talk radio. They rarely cite any sources of information to validate what are offered as "facts", or as things "everybody knows".
I read the comments because they help me to understand better what people are feeling and thinking. Not that I don't get plenty of it here at the blog, on the streets, or at School Committee meetings. And as a keen believer in the value of dialogue, I will pretty much listen to anything anyone offers as their perspective, even if they refuse to offer that perspective with a basic respect for people they disagree with, or to inform the conversation with facts that can be verified.
In eight full years on the School Committee, I have been flamed, shouted at, and called just about everything imaginable. I have had messages left on my answering machine that scared my children. I have had a group of people who disagreed with me curse me out and flip me the bird in front of my own kids. You get the picture. I earn every cent of my annual stipend of $2,400. Sorta like hazard pay for civil participation.
I don't usually respond to comments offered by the Daily News readership. There isn't much percentage in trying to use facts as a basis for conversation when people refer to those they disagree with in derogatory and demeaning terms. I value their feelings, and defend their right to air them, but can rarely extract much beyond their understandable feelings of being exploited and ripped off. I learn some things, but don't usually find workable answers to these civic problems we face.
Today, there was a comment I felt worth sharing. It is a particularly valid point of view, despite the tone and lack of factual content. Here it is...
In today's Daily News, there is a fairly accurate article about a presentation made by Superintendent Farrell at the last School C0mmittee meeting this past Monday. We'd asked the Superintendent to give us her take on the most recent cuts made by Governor Patrick, and their impact on this current school year. And we asked her to help us understand what would like happen next year, given the cuts we'll see this year.
Daily News 1.2 million
Pretty grim stuff, but I tend to like to deal with reality-based budget planning. Public comment, as we have come to rely, was offered by Dr. Ralph Orlando, whose passion for the schools, and whose relentless advocacy on their behalf, is often accompanied by very astute analysis of current budget trends. He worked hard on the Mayor's Revenue Task Force, and thankfully, he pulls no punches. As an aside, he got my write-in vote for School Committee this year, even though his wife threatened bodily harm to my person for my efforts.
The article was accurate. Things look grim. Grimmer than usual.
And the answers are the same. Cuts or find new revenues. Nothing new about that.
Reading the Comments
Sometimes, though not often, I read the comments that accompany the Daily News. They are usually passionate, expressive, and riddled with innuendos or talking points straight from talk radio. They rarely cite any sources of information to validate what are offered as "facts", or as things "everybody knows".
I read the comments because they help me to understand better what people are feeling and thinking. Not that I don't get plenty of it here at the blog, on the streets, or at School Committee meetings. And as a keen believer in the value of dialogue, I will pretty much listen to anything anyone offers as their perspective, even if they refuse to offer that perspective with a basic respect for people they disagree with, or to inform the conversation with facts that can be verified.
In eight full years on the School Committee, I have been flamed, shouted at, and called just about everything imaginable. I have had messages left on my answering machine that scared my children. I have had a group of people who disagreed with me curse me out and flip me the bird in front of my own kids. You get the picture. I earn every cent of my annual stipend of $2,400. Sorta like hazard pay for civil participation.
I don't usually respond to comments offered by the Daily News readership. There isn't much percentage in trying to use facts as a basis for conversation when people refer to those they disagree with in derogatory and demeaning terms. I value their feelings, and defend their right to air them, but can rarely extract much beyond their understandable feelings of being exploited and ripped off. I learn some things, but don't usually find workable answers to these civic problems we face.
Today, there was a comment I felt worth sharing. It is a particularly valid point of view, despite the tone and lack of factual content. Here it is...
A Penny For Your Thoughts
Is anybody paying attention to this? Fees? Are we feed enough? And scrapping art and music? Why not just end public education and make it all fees for everything? Orlando is a BOOB! Does this city want to have a teachers strike cause that is what will happen next! Why don't some of these administrators, overpaid I might add, take a paycut? Some people in this city just don't get it. Some of these members on the school commity are only in it for power and they do NOT give a rats behind about education, the kids or the schools.
Even as rants go, this one is pretty impressive. It demeans a member of the community for the temerity to urge the city to fund schools better. In a curious linkage of cause and effect, the writer suggests that adding fees for services, (which for the past five years has been in effect increasingly shifting the burden of funding a public education from the community to the end users), will result in a teacher's strike. It suggests that the way to resolve a budget deficit of 1.2 mil, much of which is a result of money that the state has given us for years simply being subtracted from our next year allocation, is to ask our administrators to take a pay cut.
Cool. Let's work that one out. Five principals, let's average their salary at $80,000- let's figure each of them will step forward, and not only give up a raise, but they'll give back 10% of their salary. Grand total, $40,000.
Now let's add a 10% give back from the Superintendent. Hmm. $12,500. Grand total, $52,500.
That'll almost prevent the layoff of a single teacher.
But if we can't add fees, and we won't get money promised by statute from the state, and we aren't allowed to generate any new revenues from the city in the form of ballot initiatives, even if we recapture 10% of the administrative salaries, how will we make up the balance of the anticipated shortfall, which would be approximately $1,148,000?
Well, the scenario suggested by the poster of this comment, umm, really limits our options.
Please
Times are bad. They are scary. People are worried about their finances. We get that. But we have to talk about how we will meet the basic needs of providing the kind of education that will prepare our students for college, for the world of work. For the next 50 years. Given the lack of funding, we especially have to talk about it now.
We have to have a dialogue; not a rant, not a monologue, not a demonizing, factually bereft confusion of opinion with what is really happening. You can have an opinion. You can hold onto it despite an onslaught of facts. But at some point, standing there flipping the bird and sticking your fingers in your ears, shouting louder than me so that you can't hear me say things you don't want to hear will not help us to meet the challenge of educating kids for tomorrow with less money than we had this year.
That is what we are trying to do. Public education is not the civil equivalent of picking the public's pocket. You don't get what you don't pay for.
And one more thing. Not liking what we are spending our money on as we desperately try to maintain a quality education with fewer resources, is not the same thing as wasting our money. It does not reflect squandering resources. The budget is available on line. Look for yourselves. If something isn't clear, contact the administration, or the School Committee, and ask for an explanation. You have the right to that. We may disagree on the spending choices the School Committee, upon the recommendation of trained educators, are making. That is why we offer the community the opportunity to publicly challenge every penny and every allocation in our school budget during the budget hearings we conduct every year before we vote on a budget.
Not for nothing, but would you like to guess how many citizens attended the budget hearings that were sponsored by the School Committee prior to submitting the 2009/2010 School budget to the Mayor?
None. Not one person. And I believe the record will show that there was not a single comment offered by the public on the budget.
I'm all for transparency. I'm all for informed discussion of differences, of participatory budget-building.
But if you are going to claim that money is being wasted by the schools, you have the responsibility to be clear and specific about how that is happening. Clear, and specific.
The kind of comments that seem to proliferate on the Daily News and other blogs- demeaning, filled with unsupported assumptions, aren't helpful. Asking some of the most skilled, best educated and hardest working individuals in the community to help resolve community-wide, state-wide budget crises by giving back 10% of their salary is certainly a strategy. Heck, I bet if your boss asked you to do that, you'd be one of the first to offer it up.
But when you sit down and figure out what it will actually do to help address the deficit, and you discover that it would resolve less than .04% of the needed revenue to avoid class size increases and staff reductions of a magnitude that will shock even the most virulent anti-tax crusader, you gotta put something else on the table. Your job isn't done. You wanna yell at the umpire, you gotta buy a ticket to the game. Sitting at home and yelling at the TV won't get the message across.
That is not the way a respectful, responsible community goes about resolving real differences.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Education Priorities for the Mayoral Candidates-- Reading Between the Lines, Part 3
In today’s Daily News, the Mayoral Candidates discuss their priorities for the schools, and education in general. It might be helpful to consider what each candidate is offering as priorities. It might also be helpful to read between the lines to see what they aren’t saying. I’ll try to do both. You can read their responses here.
When you have finished this series of posts, I'd encourage you to head over to the website for each candidate, and explore their thoughts on schools and education. The format for the Daily News article was very confining; each candidate may have more information available at their sites. You can reach Donna Holaday here, and James Shanley is here.
The Budget
A critical annual priority for the School Committee is creating and submitting a budget that addresses the educational needs of all students. That does so in an efficient and comprehensive way. That allows for both the implementation of the Strategic Plan and the level of continuous improvement required under No Child Left Behind and the 1993 Education Reform Act, among other funding needs.
That process traditionally engages the community well before the actual numbers are offered. Each School Council, a body comprised of teachers, parents and community members, works with each principal to develop a School Improvement Plan. These plans are submitted to the School Committee for review. They become part of the blueprint for the formulation of a budget. Other factors are costs generated by regulation compliance, ongoing changes and improvements to curriculum and teaching, the changing costs of energy, and compliance with employee contracts.
The Administration submits a budget to the School Committee, which holds public hearings that have often resulted in changes to the budget to reflect community concerns. Once we have the final budget, we vote it, and the Mayor presents it to the City Council.
Several times over the past few years, the School Committee has voted a budget out that does not balance. This has been a reflection of downward changes in state support over those years. Most times, if the Mayor is convinced that the “overage” represents a critical element in the education of students, he or she has advocated for additional money. On one occasion, that did not happen; the budget was returned to the School Committee to make cuts, and we did.
A budget is important, and I was glad to see it on the list. Actually funding that budget is also critical, and what the priorities of these candidates would be if our reach exceeds our grasp was not part of either candidate’s offering. There’s that gnarly word again, funding.
With regard to role of the Mayor and contract negotiations, in my nine years on the SC, I have been at the table four times with the teacher’s union. None of the four mayors I worked with made more than a token appearance to explain a city budget issue. The general thinking has been that having the Mayor tied up doing the negotiations isn’t a great use of their time, especially since the negotiating team created by the School Committee negotiates terms based on what the Committee has agreed upon in Executive Session; the Mayor, as Chair of the Committee is intimately involved in setting those parameters. The negotiating team brings anything outside those parameters back to the entire School Committee for approval before agreeing to it.
I will also say, as a veteran of these negotiations, that the tone and nature of the negotiations, the willingness to discuss difficult issues and reach satisfactory conclusions has dramatically improved over the years; both sides have become more thoughtful, pragmatic, cooperative and creative. Contracts negotiated have been consistent with those negotiated by other city unions; and reflect the budget crisis of the city.
Implementing and Funding the Strategic Plan
The City engaged in an extraordinarily open and pragmatic strategic planning process, requiring substantive community input. The plan is a strong vision; the last several school budgets were aligned with meeting the targets set by the plan. The plan has also been modified to reflect new and emerging priorities, such as the enhanced math curriculum.
It is amazing that Kevin and Deidre have been able to make progress each year on the plan, despite the ravages of funding loss.
Future progress on the plan will depend significantly on funding, but not completely. Knowledge of and commitment to the plan is terrific. Greater specificity about how we will fund the needed improvements when we have resolved those that don’t take new money is needed.
Improving School Facilities
This is another important priority, given the current state of our schools below the high school level. There have been a number of facility reviews over the past several years as we have been submitting proposals to the state for funding; another review as suggested by one of the candidates might shed new light on how much our schools have deteriorated; it might be more useful to express ideas about how the schools and the rest of city infrastructure that is need of repair will get funded. Deidre Farrell and Steve Bergholm, Budget and Facilities expertise respectively, have done an extraordinary job trying to keep up with maintenance; each year for the past several, the City Council has allocated short money to fund these efforts. We have managed to stem the worst of it, but we have some very significant issues at all three of our schools below the high school.
Also, the School Committee and had a standing Sub-Committee on Facilities for many years.
As for good relationships with the state funding agency, I would encourage that strongly and am happy to see it listed. If those new and productive relationships can alter the way state compares our “compelling needs” with those of the schools it is choosing to fund, we should do better than we have. I’m not sure the problem with getting school building work funded hinges on relationships; it depends more on presenting a compelling need and the state having the money to fund the construction.
Cooperation Between City Agencies
This is a good priority. In particular, I am encouraged that the principal of collaborative and complementary services between city agencies would be a priority.
It is worth noting that past practice, going back a number of years, was for the two elected bodies, the City Council and the School Committee, to convene a meeting at the beginning of the budget process. The meeting had several purposes- it was designed to be a general discussion between the two bodies about the underlying “principles” that the budget was responding to. Why were certain programs funded, others not? Which funding was being recommended to help address regulatory issues? The meeting was not intended to take the place of public budget hearings, or the workshops sponsored by the City Council as part of their budget review process.
In addition to getting everyone on approximately the same page with regards to the “why” of the budget, the community had the opportunity to see both elected bodies engaged in the only discussion (outside of appointing a new school committee member to a vacancy) that they were likely to have. There was, in the eyes of a number of people, a symbolic value to that.
In recent years, this practice was abandoned. Would restoring such a meeting come under the rubric of cooperation between agencies?
Between the Lines
Given the constraints of the Daily News article, both candidates have provided us with a basic set of premises about what their priorities would be. Space limitations make it very hard to be specific about potential solutions; that and a tendency for candidates to squirm when they are asked to be more specific about the “how,” once they’ve suggested the what.
I’d encourage both candidates to make use of their blogs and the upcoming debates to be more specific.
Clearly, the elephant in the room is funding. Here are some questions that occur to me.
In the likelihood that we will see mid-year budget cuts from the state, a very likely scenario based on the email traffic I have seen, what would the priorities of the candidate be for making those cuts? Class size changes? Loss of electives? Further cuts in music, art, theater? New user fees for school service to students? Reduction in access to school buses for non-mandated students?
What would constitute a set of criteria for each candidate that would compel them to introduce and support a tax question, override or debt exclusion, to stabilize, restore, an/or continue to improve the schools? What would they need to see? Or, do they feel that there are no criteria that would allow them to support going back to the community for additional funding?
Where do the schools fit, as a priority, compared to the other needs to be funded- sidewalks, senior and youth services, water and sewer infrastructure, etc.?
What other strategies, beyond ballot questions, would they consider to generate additional revenues for the city?
What will they do as Mayor to promote the idea that schools are a resource and an obligation for the entire community, not just parents of student and students?
What community-based partnerships need to be improved?
Can you share with the community what your involvement with the schools has been over your time in public service, or before that?
Over the next month, I’ll continue to offer other questions that may help to distinguish the two candidates, and their visions for the school.
Oh, yeah. I’d encourage you to head over to the website for each candidate, and check out for yourself their ideas about the schools, and the role schools play in the community.
Donna Holaday is here, James Shanley is here.
I’m not a one-issue voter, by inclination. But when that one issue obligates 45% of the city budget, I am less inclined to accept vague sound bites as a substitute for thoughtful consideration of the issues facing the community. The city deserves more than that, as it chooses between two competent candidates for Mayor.
Education Priorities for the Mayoral Candidates-- A Primer for Reading Between the Lines, Part 2
In today’s Daily News, the Mayoral Candidates discuss their priorities for the schools, and education in general. It might be helpful to consider what each candidate is offering as priorities. It might also be helpful to read between the lines to see what they aren’t saying. I’ll try to do both. You can read their responses here.
When you have finished this series of posts, I'd encourage you to head over to the website for each candidate, and explore their thoughts on schools and education. The format for the Daily News article was very confining; each candidate may have more information available at their sites. You can reach Donna Holaday here, and James Shanley is here.
Time on Learning
Time-on-learning is an important issue on a number of levels. Our ability to stay in compliance with the state regulations for teaching time is important. Linked to that will be our ability to retain our accreditation with the agency that accredits schools in the country; that accreditation will be critical to the state’s willingness to fund the school. No certificate, no funding. The candidate correctly identifies the problem, identifies one complication that is currently being considered- the present use of the block schedule. What is lacking is a basic acknowledgement that some this will take funding beyond that currently provided to reintroduce some electives and sections of curriculum.
That theme, funding, will haunt the rest of this assessment. That’s where, for the most part, dear reader, you have to go between the lines.
Superintendent
The Superintendent search is important. Hiring the strongest possible Superintendent should not be controversial; there is a very capable national search firm generating candidates, and a local search committee that will send three of the six applicants forward to the School Committee for their decision. The reputation of this search firm, and our own unfortunate experience with their recruiting Kevin Lyons away from Newburyport is a strong indication that if there is a great candidate out there, we’ll see them.
Perhaps a more telling response might be what one considers a “strong” superintendent; and what kind of a relationship each mayoral candidate feels they should have as mayor with the Superintendent.
Restoring Foreign (World) Language to the Middle School
An important issue. Eight years ago, Newburyport had a World Languages program that was considered a state model. It began in kindergarten, and flowed through high school. We did that because it is research-based conclusion that the younger a child is, the easier it is for a child to become proficient in another language.
Because of budget cuts, we are in the process of eliminating French as an option. We have also cut back our offering of World Languages significantly. For those students currently in the system, they will need to wait until 9th grade to start a language, and they will have very few choices of which language that will be. Of course, in a global economy, and with census projections that the United States will shift to a Hispanic majority well within the lifetime of our currently enrolled students, we are sending Newburyport students out to seek their fame and fortune in the world with a distinct communication disadvantage.
Some of this can be funded grants, and from the support of educational philanthropies. Twice in the last several years the community has turned down a debt exclusion and an override that would have generated funds that were specifically targeted towards restoring World Languages in the schools.
Based on my own experience over the last eight years, restoration of World Languages at a level that provides the minimal opportunity for the greatest number of students will require significant commitment of funds; greater than will be available through grants and philanthropies. But it is a high priority.
The next post will finish with candidate priorities, and offer some questions for readers to consider as they make their choices about which candidate will best address school issues.
Education Priorities for the Mayoral Candidates-- A Primer for Reading Between the Lines
This is a long, long post. I have divided it up into several separate postings; conventional wisdom (something I’ve never ascribed to) says that no one will read a dense, focused article that requires a bathroom break to finish. So, this is the first part.
In today’s Daily News, the Mayoral Candidates discuss their priorities for the schools, and education in general. It might be helpful to consider what each candidate is offering as priorities. It might also be helpful to read between the lines to see what they aren’t saying. I’ll try to do both. You can read their responses here.
I’m not going to pretend that there aren’t other issues affecting the community that deserve attention. There are. I’ve got an enlightened self-interest in this particular topic, though. It is not my intention to publicly support one of the two candidates; I am not going to do that here, or anywhere. There is a Holaday sign at 83 Lime Street, and it reflects the support of my wife for her candidacy. Frankly, it means she has one supporter in the house, and another voter who isn’t saying which candidate gets his vote. If you wander a little farther up Lime Street, there is a house that has both a Shanley and a Holaday sign, so having one voter declare their support and another choose not to isn't so odd. I don’t think that a public declaration of which candidate I intend to vote for adds anything to this discussion, and might actually subtract from a fair consideration of the issues.
I’m offering you a framework for evaluating candidate positions on education issues. You may, and should draw your own conclusions. As far as this mayoral race goes, as a voter, taxpayer, and School Committee member I am interested in some very simple outcomes. Like the election of a mayor who recognizes that the schools represent 45% of the total budget of the city, who understands that a measure of the vitality of the community (and to be mercenary, the ability of a community to hold real estate values high) is the quality of it’s schools. One who understands in a very fundamental way that the quality of a school is comprised of many things- administrative leadership, active parents, thoughtful teachers who feel supported and are able to engage students and teach a challenging and coherent curriculum. I want a mayor who believes that schools are a community asset, and works to engage the entire community in supporting local education. Finally, I’d like to see the election of a mayor who understands this will require that the school and city ensure that the resources and funding it provides are spent efficiently, and ultimately, are ample enough to do the job.
Yeah. Maybe I’m setting the bar pretty high. Using the questions I am suggesting in the above paragraph, and the answers of the two candidates published in today’s Daily News, you can see which candidate will score above the mean. Then go to their websites for those answers that didn’t fit into the Daily News format. Hopefully you’ll find them there; I think they should be there.
Each candidate was asked to set three priorities, so we can look at what those priorities are, or appear to be, and discuss them a little bit.
By my reading, the range of priorities includes time-on-learning at the high school, hiring the strongest superintendent, restoring foreign language at the middle school, working on a budget to present to the City Council (and being the first mayor to actually sit at the negotiating table with school employees in at least the last nine years); implementing and funding the Strategic Plan, doing a school building analysis to make sure the school facilities are up to the task of education, (and establishing good relationships on the state level to get any school capital needs funded). Also included in the list, as a sort of bonus, was a priority encouraging cooperation between the schools and youth services to ensure services are complementary.
I think this is a fair range of issues, and in some cases actual priorities, as far as it goes. Might not have been the three I would have chosen, but I’m not running for mayor. Let’s look at the overarching issues these priorities reflect; after we do that, you can decide whether either candidate, in their artificially shortened response, actually tells you what they will do. After that, I’ll share those priorities that will determine my own vote on Election Day.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Back to the drawing board
We got the news today, oh boy. Newburyport has been turned down in it's application for state assistance in making structural renovations to the Nock School. That application was submitted two years ago, and had been held in a sort of limbo by the state. A sort of waiting list. After two years, the Massachusetts School Building Administration has decided we aren't in their ballpark for funding. It took them two years to make that conclusion.
Newburyport's schools are getting a little long in the tooth, as educational facilities go. We recently renovated the high school, tearing down what was known as the "New Wing," which had been built in 1961. But once you get past the high school, things are looking a little frowzy.
The newest school built in Newburyport is the Nock Middle School, constructed when Richard Nixon was still president. That would be 1972. The Bresnahan School was built the same year that I was born, 1955, the Brown School was built in the 1920's. The original high school was built during the depression.
Two years ago, we retired a school building that was built in the 1870's.
Newburyport prides itself, justifiably, on it's native architecture and historical preservation. But years of infrastructure neglect, and trying to subsist on what amounts to a starvation diet for capital repair funding, have had a pretty damaging effect on the schools. With the hiring of Deidre Farrell over five years ago, the school system instituted a schedule for regular maintenance and repair to our schools; with a relentless commitment to squeezing every possible dollar we could out of systems upgrade- HVAC systems, windows, bulbs. Deidre's efforts at getting things done a shoestring and a rebate began to stem the tide of deterioration in the buildings.
But there are no coupons for reconverting the temporary classrooms that have been attached to the Bresnahan for more than 40 years into permanent classrooms. In fact, these temporaries are now in their second generation.
The reality is that our schools need both major repairs and significant makeovers to become efficient and functional educational settings.
The Nock has structural issues, and could benefit for ongoing electrical and other systems upgrade. Recently, thanks to the foresight and largesse of the NEF, the science labs were upgraded. As of last year, prior to work, they contained the same equipment and facilities from their initial construction, 1972. A lot of science has happened since then, and science curricula have undergone tremendous changes in that time.
During the 90's, the state was engaged in the business of supporting communities that needed to renovate or build schools. Through the Massachusetts School Building Administration, projects like Newburyport High School received a significant percentage of it's renovation funds through the state, lowering the local tax burden for local communities. But those days are long gone. The ability of the state to support communities in their capital needs around schools has taken a severe hit during this budget crisis. Frankly, the capacity for the state to help communities meet basic educational needs and requirements is also pretty porous these days.
Recently, Newburyport was informed that an application to renovate the Nock that was submitted two years ago and assigned a vague status by the MSBA somewhat akin to "waiting for more information" has finally been rejected. It took them two years, and two, possibly three site visits, to reject us.
The plan had been to get the Nock done, and then apply for the Bresnahan, which in the interim has become the only school serving 1-3 graders in the city. We'll still submit the required Statement(s) of Interest to the MSBA to get in line for consideration, but unless we can prove that the schools have overcrowding or "significant structural issues," we aren't likely to see any state funding to offset construction costs.
We have yet to see whether educating two generations of Newburyport students in temporary classrooms constitutes a significant structural issue in the eyes of the state.
Alongside the water treatment facilities and the sewage treatment plant, add the all three schools to list of critical infrastructure investments the city will need to make in the future. Probably the near future.
Hopefully, we will hear from this year's Mayoral candidates about how they intend to address these issues. We can run from them, but we can't hide forever.
Newburyport's schools are getting a little long in the tooth, as educational facilities go. We recently renovated the high school, tearing down what was known as the "New Wing," which had been built in 1961. But once you get past the high school, things are looking a little frowzy.
The newest school built in Newburyport is the Nock Middle School, constructed when Richard Nixon was still president. That would be 1972. The Bresnahan School was built the same year that I was born, 1955, the Brown School was built in the 1920's. The original high school was built during the depression.
Two years ago, we retired a school building that was built in the 1870's.
Newburyport prides itself, justifiably, on it's native architecture and historical preservation. But years of infrastructure neglect, and trying to subsist on what amounts to a starvation diet for capital repair funding, have had a pretty damaging effect on the schools. With the hiring of Deidre Farrell over five years ago, the school system instituted a schedule for regular maintenance and repair to our schools; with a relentless commitment to squeezing every possible dollar we could out of systems upgrade- HVAC systems, windows, bulbs. Deidre's efforts at getting things done a shoestring and a rebate began to stem the tide of deterioration in the buildings.
But there are no coupons for reconverting the temporary classrooms that have been attached to the Bresnahan for more than 40 years into permanent classrooms. In fact, these temporaries are now in their second generation.
The reality is that our schools need both major repairs and significant makeovers to become efficient and functional educational settings.
The Nock has structural issues, and could benefit for ongoing electrical and other systems upgrade. Recently, thanks to the foresight and largesse of the NEF, the science labs were upgraded. As of last year, prior to work, they contained the same equipment and facilities from their initial construction, 1972. A lot of science has happened since then, and science curricula have undergone tremendous changes in that time.
During the 90's, the state was engaged in the business of supporting communities that needed to renovate or build schools. Through the Massachusetts School Building Administration, projects like Newburyport High School received a significant percentage of it's renovation funds through the state, lowering the local tax burden for local communities. But those days are long gone. The ability of the state to support communities in their capital needs around schools has taken a severe hit during this budget crisis. Frankly, the capacity for the state to help communities meet basic educational needs and requirements is also pretty porous these days.
Recently, Newburyport was informed that an application to renovate the Nock that was submitted two years ago and assigned a vague status by the MSBA somewhat akin to "waiting for more information" has finally been rejected. It took them two years, and two, possibly three site visits, to reject us.
The plan had been to get the Nock done, and then apply for the Bresnahan, which in the interim has become the only school serving 1-3 graders in the city. We'll still submit the required Statement(s) of Interest to the MSBA to get in line for consideration, but unless we can prove that the schools have overcrowding or "significant structural issues," we aren't likely to see any state funding to offset construction costs.
We have yet to see whether educating two generations of Newburyport students in temporary classrooms constitutes a significant structural issue in the eyes of the state.
Alongside the water treatment facilities and the sewage treatment plant, add the all three schools to list of critical infrastructure investments the city will need to make in the future. Probably the near future.
Hopefully, we will hear from this year's Mayoral candidates about how they intend to address these issues. We can run from them, but we can't hide forever.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Swimming with the Big Fish- Searching for a New Superintendent
Tonight, the School Committee met in public session with the consultants hired to conduct the search for a new Superintendent. John Connolly and Al Argenziano will be the two consultants from HYA working with the Screening Committee and the School Committee, HYA is a national organization, and the search will be national in nature.
Nobody knows better than Newburyport that HYA always gets their man or woman- recently they were hired by Hudson to help with their Superintendent search. They were successful- Hudson, you may remember, hired Kevin Lyons.
You can catch tonight’s meeting on cable later this week. To summarize some of the most important points raised tonight:
* HYA will conduct the search, and do all the initial screenings. They will forward the names of six candidates to the Screening Committee appointed by Mayor Moak.
* The Screening Committee will interview all six semi-finalists, and forward the names of three finalist candidates to the School Committee for their consideration. The School Committee makes the final determination.
* It is the School Committee that will set the parameters and role of the Screening Committee. The School Committee will use information generated by community responses to a Leadership profile to create a “script” of questions to be asked of each candidate by the Screening Committee. The School Committee will use the same script as the basis for their interviews of the finalist. The questions will be developed through focus group meetings and interviews in the community.
* Those community focus groups and interviews will happen in early November.
* The School Committee hopes to be introducing the new Superintendent to the community by March 31, 2010.
A few more points worth noting- HYA has told the School Committee that they search “very aggressively,” and that the likely candidate for the Newburyport job is not currently looking for a new superintendent position.
Also, they were clear that “the compensation package will determine the ultimate quality of the candidates you will get.” They will be doing some research on current salaries in MA and elsewhere in the country, and make a recommendation to the School Committee. Given the number of current openings and the generally thin pool of potential candidates, we should be prepared for serious case of sticker shock. A serious case of sticker shock, indeed.
Friday, September 25, 2009
The Shape of Things To Come
There are a lot of things happening over the next several months that will have an impact on the schools this coming year. These include:
Elections
Since my name isn’t on the ballot for School Committee this go round, we have another uncontested election. You History shows that the three SC elections I have run in have been contested, the intervening elections- not. Three up, three down. This election is no exception. There is something about my presence on the ballot that stimulates the impulse for democratic, multi-candidate elections. Despite the absence of a field of candidates, these are important elections.
With an open Mayor’s race, the School Committee has four of seven seats up for grabs; since Steve Cole is the only SC member running for re-election, we will be seeing three brand-spanking new faces on the Committee come January. Dan Koen and Cheryl Sweeney, who ran unopposed, will join Nick DeKanter, Stephanie Weaver, Steve Cole and me. The Mayor-elect will assume the position of Chair of the School Committee, as authorized by the City Charter. The School Committee rules provide for a Vice Chair to preside over the meetings.
New faces, new challenges. As the election season proceeds, we will be gearing up our search for a new Superintendent. The School Committee has hired a search firm, and the Mayor will be convening a Search Committee shortly. Hopefully, the School Committee will be choosing from several candidates some time this spring.
The Charter
Also on the ballot is the Charter Review Question. A positive vote on the question will also establish a Charter Review Commission. The Commission will review the governing structures of the City, and recommend any changes that will promote better efficiency and accountability in governance. The potential exists for the Commission to consider School Committee terms.
If you search diligently among the 20 names on the ballot, you will find mine. I like to think of the Charter Review process as a Civics class. I’d appreciate your vote. I’ll study hard.
Other Stuff
Also on the docket for the fall will be the school administration response to MCAS results at the Middle School level. At the next School Committee meeting, October 5th, there will be a full presentation to the community of the MCAS results, with some of the initial analysis of data that is being done; with next steps. While on the whole the MCAS scores were very encouraging, there are some steps we need to take to address challenges that have been identified. I will devote a posting on those results shortly.
The ongoing economic challenges remain; these will become most apparent as we start the process of creating our budget for the next year later this fall.
I will post on each of these issues over the course of the next several months.
Buckle your seatbelts, folks. Should be a ride.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Back on the Radar Screen
I have been uncharacteristically quiet for the past year or so. It feels like time to get back into the blogging business. People have expressed concerns about the issues and challenges facing the schools in Newburyport. Local media is not always able to, or inclined to present nuanced issues in all their complicated and messy glory. Other commendable local blogs are helpful, but don’t focus on the particular issues affecting schools regularly. A real public conversation about the schools is usually limited to a brief period before School Committee meetings; and thus far, even that is available only to those attending the meeting. The rest of the debate is held in blog posts and through letters to the editors. Those places provide great vehicles for expressing an idea, but leave a lot to be desired as a way to bring new and fresh ideas to the table for vetting.
The community should have a place to go for a dialogue about the long-term implications of the challenges we face. We need information, context, explanation, and a place to challenge assumptions and raise concerns about our schools.
Schools are no less important to me, and the larger community, than they were when I last posted in 2008. Some of the issues are old, some of the challenges we face as a community are new, and unprecedented. I’ve always believed that if you give the community all the information they need to make a decision, you significantly increase the likelihood they will make a good, compassionate decision. Solid, factual information is truly the down payment on the democratic process, and impending elections are always a good time to ante up.
Over the coming months, I will attempt to clarify some of the complex issues facing our schools and the community. Too often, local news reporting fails appreciate the larger context in which issues arise. Sometimes they do not, or cannot examine issues that cannot be easily rendered in black and white. I hope this blog will help. I will continue to strive for balance in the presentation of those issues; but again, I strongly believe that transparency rules, and that an informed community will get it right most of the time.
I write as a member of the community, as a parent, and as one of seven elected School Committee members. I do not write on behalf of the full Committee; nothing I say should be construed as representing the deliberations of the full Committee. I’m on my own here, folks. Again. Thanks for taking the time to read. And to think for yourselves. Those two practices make Newburyport a far better place to raise our kids.
Check back in the coming weeks, y'all. Let the conversation begin.
Friday, January 4, 2008
My New Year's Revolutions
Sorry to have been off the radar screen for such an extended period of time, but in many ways, I have been prepping for the year to come. Around this time, every year, I draw up my list of New Year's Revolutions, like a lot of you. I wanted to share some of mine, at least the ones that affect the Schools. Please remember that the following represent my own singular views, and should not in any way be taken as the inclination of the School Committee as a whole. Try to imagine six other people with their fingers in the ears going "I can't hear you!!!" Some others on the Committee may feel the same as I do; let them share those views on their own blogs.- I resolve to do everything in my power to move the dialogue about the schools from abstraction to reality. The reality is that the Newburyport School system, like much of Newburyport, like much of Massachusetts, depends primarily on property taxes for funding. The abstraction is that since the Schools get about 45% of the City budget, they should get 45% of the revenue. When you sit back, and really think about it, that kind of reasoning is way south of silly. The level at which a City department is funded needs to be based on it's intrinsic value to the community, and not some arbitrary formula that makes things come out all even and pretty. There will times when we need to put extra money into waterworks. There will times when we need to spend money to make our buildings more efficient consumers of energy. You plan, and then you allocate them money to get the job done correctly, meaningfully. Yeah, it involves hard choices sometimes, when the elected officials can't generate new ideas for generating revenue; but when it comes to educating kids, I would suggest those debates are worth having.
- In the ongoing dialogue that has been part of the Task Force on Revenue, I have learned a great deal. It is clear to me that Newburyport has, for some time, consistently failed to create a multi-pronged, consistent and coherent strategy to root out every penny possible from the feds, the state and the private sector. For example, unlike many cities, Newburyport has no centralized database of what grants it has applied for. There is no file, and no review process to ensure that money is spent as it was allocated. Forget the fact that with few exceptions (the Beacon Coalition) we have failed to find ways to creatively bind several grants to meet community needs; we don't even know what Department has applied for what grant. It's even worse than that- we have no centralized triaging of potential grants; there is no-one in the City who reviews the various potential grants available, and channels them to the Departments who can apply for them. We have left money on the table; and even worse, we don't even know who has what grants and whether they have been spent in accordance with their allocations. I resolve to work closely with anyone (do I sense a possible Ordinance?) who will at least ensure that all grants; state, federal, private, that are used to address needs in this City, are kept in a central file, available to any citizen; I would also include in those files any reports required on the expenditures made by the grantee. Y'know, that whole accountability thing.
- I would feel less passionate about funding for the Schools if I wasn't convinced that we are closer than it seems to bringing our system into that top 15% or 20% statewide. We have the plan; we have the staff; we have mechanisms in place to ensure that every expense is transparent and justified. We just need to breach the funding hurdle. I am resolved to do everything in my power to ensure better communication about the successes we are experiencing, to ensure that every additional penny we ask for is justified to the community, and to work as creatively as possible to explore ways to reshape the whole idea of how we educate students and continue to support the professional growth of teachers.
- I am resolved to do everything that I can to find opportunities for members of the community, stakeholders and those who have yet to acknowledge they are stakeholders to participate in the ongoing dialogue about the Schools, what they are doing, and to best do it efficiently. There are a number of subjects we will be considering over the next several budget cycles that can help re-shape education, from extended day to extended school years, from shifting hours to identifying and incorporating ways for students and staff to work more directly with the local community as partners.
I am resolved not to wear a baseball hat during meetings.
I am resolved to listen at least as much as I talk.
I am resolved to make sure that for each constructive criticism I offer, there will be a possible solution suggested.
And brothers and sisters, let us all bow our heads and buckle our seatbelts. The ride is about to begin.
I am resolved to listen at least as much as I talk.
I am resolved to make sure that for each constructive criticism I offer, there will be a possible solution suggested.
And brothers and sisters, let us all bow our heads and buckle our seatbelts. The ride is about to begin.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Budget 2008/2009- Ground Zero
Tonight, at the School Committee meeting (6:30 PM, Room 118, High School), the Superintendent will be presenting two different budgets.After scouring the current budget for any additional efficiencies, the Superintendent will present a level services budget. Although some have expressed a preference that the budget be constructed in a zero-based format, I've gone over in previous postings several reasons why we are dealing with purely semantical distinctions when we talk about zero-based budgeting in schools.
We start with zero; then add in those statutory and regulatory requirements, and zoom, quicker than mercury, you are suddenly looking at expenses that amount to about 80% of the budget. The rest is "discretionary spending"- like raises, heating, books, computers, classroom supplies.
You know, after thinking a lot about it; I might actually be willing to bring in a consultant and put together a zero-based budget with two stipulations. First that it is consistent with our vision and goals of promoting student achievement; and second if the City would agree to fund the differential between what we are operating the schools on now, and what it will really cost to comply with statutory regulations and meet our goals of promoting student achievement using best practices; which of course, would be the desired outcome of a zero-based budget practice. Spend more efficiently, get better results. Cut an explore teacher at the middle school, and you can then efficiently serve 102 kids in a gym class three or four times a week.
Because "zero-based" budgeting for this school system at this time is a red herring that prevents the community from looking honestly at the issues it faces, and the choices it has to make.
The Superintendent will then present a "value-added budget", which will consist of baseline recommendations that need to be met this budget year, in some cases restructuring last year's cuts, in other cases making critical building modifications to make the buildings more secure.
We will be presented both budgets tonite; we will then begin the process of reconciling them, which will involve numerous community hearings. The two documents, in the opinion of this particular School Committee member, and completely interlocking; they cannot be considered independently of each other.
Although we will not specifically be dealing with the revenue side of the budget tonite, we are expecting Mayor Moak to briefly discuss the city-side contributions to the next school budget.
The Mayor has asked the Revenue Task Force to hold off on giving an update to the community at this meeting.
This is the beginning of the discussion.
Then starts the wild rumpus.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Steroids Make You Stupid & Shrink Your Testicles
We bad.Very bad.
Disappointed a lot of kids, even if they were Yankee fans.
But hey, we made a lot of money. And the most amazing thing of all? Dan Duquette was probably right. Maybe the Rocket was spent when he went to Toronto. I guess nobody figured a couple of bucks premium was all he'd need to augment his career.This is a terrible time for baseball. Over fifty players were outed in the Mitchell report for steroid and HGH use; many because they wrote personal checks as payment for the goods. I told you that steroids make you stupid. At least none of the checks I've seen reproduced have the work "steroids" in the left hand memo line.
This is my solution to the whole era's problems.
Find some mechanism that would allow you to ask, under oath, the following question:
"Have you ever used, or are you currently using steroid XYZ, or HGH." Then round up everyone who has ever played baseball at the major league level since 1990, and ask them.
For everyone who says yes (not knowing whether you have evidence on them or not), I would simply put an asterisk next to their record. Simple. We don't know which of these achievements occurred through natural talent, or were enhanced, so we'll put an asterisk next to your name and records, your career stats.
That way, future voters for the Hall of Fame can make an informed choice.
Sure, some of the cheaters will get away. Blame their teammates for adopting the code of silence; by refusing to turn in the people whose enhanced gifts helped win games for you, or in many cases resulted in your replacement. Blame the owners for looking the other way, because the cash incentives for the team made doing the wrong thing a salve for the conscience. Blame the Union for somehow believing that protecting the rights of players translated into allowing them to ingest substances that enhanced their performance, but also killed some of them (probably Darryl Kile, Steve Bechsler, etc.)
Blame Bud Selig, who replaced Fay Vincent as baseball Commissioner. An owner appointed by other owners to ensure that their interests were protected. Selig is a guy who apparently believed that it was better to let juiced players swat at baseballs, than risk a strike by a union defending on privacy grounds the right of it's members to cheat. Yeah, that would've been a winning argument, don't you think? That would have been quite a risk, Bud. Heck, they could have stayed out on strike for a full three days trying to sell that crap to America, before they realized it lacked, hmm. Resonance. Yeah, resonance. But I'll tell you, it would have been the best thing you could have done for the kids in the Pioneer League.
Then, a representative from each of the above-named constituencies can explain to my son and daughter why the homer hit by Brian Roberts on July 31st, (Roberts made the Mitchell list for keeping a tab as a patron of the Juice Bar) beating Josh Beckett, should count. It was the first professional baseball game for one of the kids.
Perhaps one or two adults who could tell the difference between right and wrong, who could see through the collective fog of denial that this particular gathering of clans kept wrapped around themselves like a funeral shroud could have made a difference. I've misjudged the current Commissioner of baseball; I thought his legacy was going to be pandering and general incompetence. But for sheer cowardice and rooted self-interest, no one will be able to hold a candle to Bud. My hat's off to you. And I think when the Veteran's Committee places you into the Hall of Fame, you'll fit right up there with greedy, racist, cheap miserable SOB's already enshrined.
If you keep Shoeless Joe out of the Hall of Fame because he took money, returned it, and played his butt off; if you ban Buck Weaver because he attended two meetings of the Black Sox to argue how wrong it was, never took a dime, and played his heart out; then mocking this game by cheating deserves some sort of consequence.
An asterisk should suffice. It captures the exact measure of surprise and suspicion that should forever be attached to the records of these players. They cheated; maybe their entire career, maybe for two years, you just don't know since not a single one of the named players who wasn't indicted accepted the offer of the Mitchell Commission to come in and talk about the evidence and the allegations.
They cheated; they lied, and they lacked the testicles to own up to what they had done, and have been doing.
See? Steroids make you stupid and makes your testicles shrink.
Whether this particular generation of greedy bastards sees themselves as role models or not, they are.
Student athletes, gaze upon the faces of greed and arrogance in the picture accompanying this posting.
That isn't the thrill of competing at your highest level you see in their eyes. The dulled vacancy you see means that they have shed just enough of their moral core to take money for cheating, to take jobs from others who wouldn't otherwise have lost them; and to kick a game I grew up loving, warts and all, a few feet farther into the gutter.
Asterisk. Simple. Elegant. And just to be kind, we can let each of the players choose the color of the asterisk. Then, they can delude themselves into thinking it isn't an asterisk, it's a gold star.
That's the ticket.
Setting the Agenda for the Next Year
Summary: In which Menin briefly covers what the next several months will look like, from the perspective of the School Committee.A lot of work. Like trying to juggle flaming torches while balanced ten feet above the ground on a pole with your stomach on a bed of nails.
But first some updates.
The Revenue Task Force
The presentation of the Task Force on Revenue, scheduled for the upcoming School Committee meeting on December 17th, has been canceled, at the request of the Mayor. Mayor Moak will be joining the Task Force at it's next scheduled meeting, Wednesday, January 9th at 7 PM (Superintendent's Conference Room, at the Nock) to respond to any questions we might have.
I anticipate that we will still try to hold to our time-frame for issuing a final report, which will identify the issues we face financially as a community, and explore the wide range of options that could potentially address institutional issues on a long term and short term basis.
I take the Mayor at his word, that his offer to attend the meeting is lend us his municipal experience, and not to change the substance of the report and options we identify, regardless of his previously expressed opinion.
The community is very welcome to join us; we should have a pretty good idea of what our options will be, and have some preliminary estimates of potential revenue.
Two Meetings, One Day
Nick and Stephanie have had a 'new members' orientation through the auspices of the Massachusetts Association of School Committees; I think the plan is that we will all have another session with MASC in January, sort of a refresher course. My recollection from previous trainings is that there a lot more "don'ts" than "do's".
The Inauguaration is scheduled for 10 AM Monday, January 7th at City Hall, y'all come on down. TheSC holds an organizational meeting immediately following swearing to identify a Vice Chair, vote on the rules for the coming year, and make Committee Assignments. Coincidentally, our first formal meeting is that night at the High School.
Nick and Stephanie have had a 'new members' orientation through the auspices of the Massachusetts Association of School Committees; I think the plan is that we will all have another session with MASC in January, sort of a refresher course. My recollection from previous trainings is that there a lot more "don'ts" than "do's".
The Inauguaration is scheduled for 10 AM Monday, January 7th at City Hall, y'all come on down. TheSC holds an organizational meeting immediately following swearing to identify a Vice Chair, vote on the rules for the coming year, and make Committee Assignments. Coincidentally, our first formal meeting is that night at the High School.
The Challenges, The Challenges
A tour meeting on December 17th, (next Monday), will set a tall agenda for the next year. The Superintendent will propose a budget designed to provide services at a level that will maintain the status quo; which effectively means that we will be losing ground (to cost increases in every area- from contracted services to utilities). Remember that the level services budget is a tool; in creating it, the Superintendent, staff and parents have had to accommodate any new statutory requirements, and have scoured each budget category and item for efficiencies. Utilizing the EQA report, and Dr. Lyons entry report, the Superintendent will then present a second budget, one we have called "the value added budget". The purpose of the second budget is to identify and prioritize critical needs in the current school system to improve student achievement; a long and short term goal of the system.
Thus begins the wild rumpus. We then begin the process of looking at each item in public session , encouraging feedback from the community in a further search for efficiencies that will not continue to compromise student achievement.
This is the earliest, by a good 2.5 months, that the Committee and the community have been presented with the prospective expenses. With regard to revenues, the state has projected no increase in local funding; the City did generate $300,000 more revenue through growth than projected.
Thus begins the wild rumpus. We then begin the process of looking at each item in public session , encouraging feedback from the community in a further search for efficiencies that will not continue to compromise student achievement.
This is the earliest, by a good 2.5 months, that the Committee and the community have been presented with the prospective expenses. With regard to revenues, the state has projected no increase in local funding; the City did generate $300,000 more revenue through growth than projected.
Oh, Yeah
We have received notice from the Newburyport Teachers Association that are ready to begin the Collective Bargaining process; the SC will identify it's negotiating team and prepare for negotiations as early into the New Year as possible.
I believe that while the year has been painfully difficult for the entire community, the teachers have been extraordinarily adaptive, have created classrooms that are comfortable, and have fully embraced, and are deeply engaged in the focus on student achievement. We will all need to be flexible, but there is a tremendous opportunity to collaborate with teachers to reinvent our schools in a win-win framework.
I believe that while the year has been painfully difficult for the entire community, the teachers have been extraordinarily adaptive, have created classrooms that are comfortable, and have fully embraced, and are deeply engaged in the focus on student achievement. We will all need to be flexible, but there is a tremendous opportunity to collaborate with teachers to reinvent our schools in a win-win framework.
Final Words
As we gear up, expect postings to be faster and more furious. Please keep in mind that anything that appears on these pages directly reflects the views of a single School Committee
Member; me. It is not intended to reflect the views of the Committee as a whole; often, it may not even represent my position on an issue, but rather a "devil's advocacy" posting.
As we gear up, expect postings to be faster and more furious. Please keep in mind that anything that appears on these pages directly reflects the views of a single School Committee
Member; me. It is not intended to reflect the views of the Committee as a whole; often, it may not even represent my position on an issue, but rather a "devil's advocacy" posting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
