Education News... Local and National

Education News Local and National

Hanson Fires Town's Law Firm

" Mistakes that could end up costing the town a $29 million a Mass School Building Authority (MSBA) grant have cost Kopelman & Paige a client..."

It might be a good idea to review the vote for the feasibility study for the Templeton Elementary School

**************************************************

G-M school budget proposes cutting 13 posts

Gill-Montague Regional School District Superintendent Michael Sullivan in his Crocker Avenue office. Recorder Chris Curtis

By CHRIS CURTIS
Recorder Staff
Wednesday, February 26, 2014 

TURNERS FALLS — A Gill-Montague Regional School District budget tailored to be affordable for the towns could eliminate 13 positions.

That was part of the scenario Superintendent Michael Sullivan presented to the Gill-Montague Regional School Committee Tuesday night, with a 2.35 percent rather than 5.85 percent increase. Sullivan said the $17,333,818 budget scenario represented a cut to meet affordable assessment estimates from the towns with the least harm to students.

But he does not recommend it.

On the block are districtwide math and literacy teacher “coaches,” a special education team leader, a half-time clerical position in the business office, a custodian, the high school Spanish and math teachers, a high school graduation counselor, one of four adjustment counselors and four paraprofessionals.

The cuts total $473,850, offset by $100,000 in anticipated unemployment expenses for a total savings of $373,850.


New positions deemed vital by the superintendent remain in the budget.

These include a full-time health teacher at the Great Falls Middle School. The middle school has not had a health teacher since the position was cut as part of an effort to present a level budget in 2010.

A lack of health education at the middle school level in local schools has been raised recently by some discussing the county heroin and prescription pill problem as a gap to be filled.

“Given the things we see in the news these days about heroin use by teenagers, it seems a really self-evident thing,” Sullivan said.

The other new positions proposed are a literacy coach to be assigned to the Montague Elementary School and a board-certified behavior analyst for the elementary schools. In total, the three positions would cost an estimated $165,000.

Changes also include shifts in the sums taken from various funds, including a $210,000 increase in the sum taken from the School Choice tuition fund and $130,000 less to be taken from the excess and deficiency fund.

Member Sandra Brown worried the cuts would not be a sustainable solution. “If we cut all these positions this year, what are we going to cut next year?” Brown asked.

Member Marjorie Levenson said she would support the cut version of the budget if it were understood the staff health insurance would be re-evaluated, saying this is a hot topic in town and she would support a petition calling for the district to re-open the policy.

There was some argument as to whether this could be done without agreement from all parties, including unions and retirees.

Chairwoman Joyce Phillips said the cut is among the smallest, historically. “We have known what it is like to bleed,” she said.


Montague’s assessment, less debt, would come to $8,145,639 and Gill’s $1,440,676. This would put Gill’s share $21,410 below the figure considered affordable by municipal officials and Montague’s $41,258 above.

Phillips said the committee is scheduled to vote a final version of the budget at its next regular meeting, March 11. 

******************************************************

Mohawk looks at sharing schools

Can town services like senior centers, libraries makes use of extra space?

The Mary Lyon Education Foundation offices, housed within the Buckland Shelburne Elementary School, is an example of excess school space put to use.
Recorder/Diane Broncaccio

By DIANE BRONCACCIO
Recorder Staff

BUCKLAND — Why should Mohawk school buildings be half-empty when its eight regional school district member towns are looking for space for senior centers, libraries, meeting rooms, town offices, police departments and for town records storage?

The Mohawk Trail Regional School District Committee has agreed to explore options for sharing its available space within its under-used school buildings with member towns.

“We understand declining enrollment has emptied school classrooms,” said school Superintendent Michael Buoniconti. “The point is to begin the conversation, to find out what might the towns want to use the space for, so the towns get some added use from them.”

With the School Committee’s support, Buoniconti hopes to meet with the Mohawk Trail Regional School District Long-Range Planning Committee to see if the eight towns are interested in using unused space in the school buildings.

“We just haven’t had that conversation yet,” said Buoniconti. “If the towns are interested, it’s a model we need to look at, in the context of keeping the district operating well.”


An example of an outside group sharing unused school space is the Mary Lyon Foundation, which raises money for educational support for schools, educational programs and school families within western Franklin County.

Buoniconti said Mary Lyon does not pay rent, but provides a valuable educational resource for the district.

“They support education; they’re part of the team,” he said. “The same is true of Mohawk towns. They’re our partners.”

“We haven’t had this conversation yet with our towns,” he continued. “I’m not looking at this as a way to charge (rent), but the School Committee will be the decision-maker on that,” Buoniconti said. “If it helps save the towns money, by having access to space, that would make it easier for them to support us, if we can help them with another part of the budget. A by-product would be connectedness with our towns.”

“If the School Committee supports the idea, the first step would be for me to speak to the Long-Range Planning Committee,” said Buoniconti. “It would be fantastic if we could get some specific uses before annual town meeting time.”

School Committee Chairman Robert Aeschback pointed out that overall enrollment has declined from about 1,500 students to slightly under 1,000 students now. “We have empty space in every building,” he said.

Mile for mile, the Mohawk Trail Regional School District serves a region as large as Boston, Springfield, Worcester and seven more of the state’s largest-enrollment school districts combined, according to information presented by Buoniconti. Yet Mohawk serves only about 1,000 students.

According to a “building capacity versus enrollment” worksheet that was distributed last year, Mohawk school buildings are one-third to one-half full, based on the buildings’ space capacity.

The subject of closing some of the under-used school buildings has been pursued a few times, but problems arose over which school to close in a district of 250 square miles. Also, the Mohawk regional agreement stipulates that, to close any school, there must be unanimous annual town meeting votes of approval from member towns.

The last round of school-closing discussions occurred in 2005, when a consultant’s report noted that Mohawk schools were operating about 70 percent capacity, according to Recorder files. In 2006, Mohawk sought annual town meeting approval for a warrant article that would give School Committee members the authority to close school buildings. That measure was defeated.


“How cost-effective is it for us to maintain four elementary schools when we could fit all our elementary students into Buckland-Shelburne Elementary?” Aeschback asked at an earlier School Committee. According to a building capacity report, prepared by facilities manager Robin Pease, Buckland-Shelburne school could accommodate up to 691 students. The current enrollment is 216.

Mohawk itself can house about 1,500 students, according to that same report. But its enrollment is around 500.

Mohawk Long Range Planning Committee was formed to consider the long-range economic stability of the school district, which has seen an enrollment decline over the past decade and has unoccupied classroom space in buildings that have been repaired with state funds. It consists of town officials from Mohawk member towns.

Another required step, if towns and the school board support dual usage for school property, would be to get state approval for such a use, since the school buildings were built or expanded in the 1990s with reimbursements from the School Building Authority.

 

******************************************************

School Choice: Is it worth it for Frontier?

Several Deerfield selectmen and Finance Committee members raised the question of the value of School Choice for the Frontier Regional School district Tuesday night at a joint budget meeting with the Deerfield Elementary School Committee. (Recorder file/Paul Franz)

By KATHLEEN McKIERNAN
Recorder Staff
Thursday, February 27, 2014
SOUTH DEERFIELD — Since the early 1990s, Frontier Regional School and its feeder schools have allowed out-of-town students to enroll. But now, school leaders are questioning whether participating in the School Choice program is really cost effective.

“We’re in the beginning stages of a discussion on School Choice,” Superintendent Martha Barrett said at a recent meeting. “Is it enhancing our educational experience or detracting from it? I do think it’s worth examining it.”

Several Deerfield selectmen and Finance Committee members raised the question Tuesday night at a joint budget meeting with the Deerfield Elementary School Committee.

No decisions on School Choice have been made, but if the district decided to leave the program, it would continue to educate the out-of-district students already in the system.

If a district takes in too many out-of-district students and requires an additional teacher and other administrative costs as a result, is it cost effective? Barrett asked. At what point do the economies of scale tip the wrong way?


“When we started in the early 1990s, most schools got two to three kids,” Barrett said. “It was a nice pot of money and it didn’t impact the budget negatively. It allowed the schools to buy things they wouldn’t have money for. But then it became a real budget number.”

For each out-of-town student accepted into the district, Frontier receives $5,000 from the state. Likewise, for each student who goes outside the district, that money follows them.

For years, Frontier has come out ahead and used the extra money to offset the budget. This year, Frontier expects a net income of $121,427. The Frontier School Committee has proposed using the money to pay for two instructional assistants for $39,944 and 1.5 teachers for $78,009.

The Deerfield Elementary School Committee proposed using its $132,774 in School Choice funds for the strings program, special education aides, reading tutors, a math specialist and speech aides.

The Conway Grammar School Committee has proposed using $26,474 in Choice money for out-of-district tuitions and aides.

The Whately Elementary School Committee has proposed using its $228,694 for special education aides, an art teacher, strings teacher, summer tuitions, and psychologist services.

The Sunderland Elementary School Committee has proposed using its $29,611 for three teacher salaries, five instructional assistants, Spanish instruction, summer special education programming and part of a strings teacher salary.

The question of whether Frontier can continue to pay to educate new out-of-town students is one it has to answer on its own, school leaders said. School Choice is largely a western Massachusetts phenomenon. Few students in the eastern part of the state participate and the state Legislature is unlikely to take up the issue, Barrett said.

The school district is examining School Choice funding in light of the reduction in residential “native” population within the four towns.

According to a study of enrollment of the next 10 years conducted by the New England School Development Council, Frontier enrollment is projected to decrease by 140 students in the next decade. Enrollment at the Conway Grammar School is projected to decrease by 41 students. Deerfield Elementary School can expect 108 fewer students. Sunderland Elementary School can expect 99 fewer students. Whately, however, would only decline by two students.


“We have a good reputation,” said Barrett. “We have a high graduation rate. We’re able to offer a variety of courses that maybe smaller schools can’t. Those facts are appealing to families.”

There are 1,583 students in the five schools.

This year, 311 students “choiced in” to Frontier and the four Union 38 elementary schools — Deerfield, Whately, Conway and Sunderland.

Gill-Montague Regional School students and Greenfield School Department students make up the bulk of School Choice students.

This year, 104 students came from Greenfield and 91 students came from Gill-Montague. Frontier and Deerfield Elementary take in most of these students.

Of 617 Frontier students, 128 are School Choice imports. At the same time, 74 Frontier students left for other districts.

The breakdown for Choice students are:

Of 444 students at Deerfield Elementary school, 89 students are Choice students. Eleven students left the school district for another district, but three of those students went to Sunderland and six went to Whately.

Of 174 students at the Conway Grammar School, 20 “choiced in.” This year, five town students chose to go elsewhere.

Of 206 students at Sunderland Elementary School, 33 are Choice students. This year, 17 residents chose to leave the district for Deerfield, Hadley, Hatfield and Whately.

Of 142 students at Whately Elementary School, 41 are Choice students. This year, 12 students chose schools outside the district and attended Conway, Deerfield and Hatfield schools.

***************************************************

NEA President: We Need a Course Correction on Common Core

By Dennis Van Roekel

During my 23 years as a high school math teacher, I learned some important lessons.  One of the most important was that effective teaching and learning required me at times to be the teacher and at other times, the student. I listened closely to my students because they were the ones who told me what was working and what wasn’t.  I don’t believe I am any different than any other NEA member—we all want the best for every student in our classrooms and schools.

So when 45 states adopted the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), we as educators saw the wonderful potential of these standards to correct many of the inequities in our education system that currently exist.  Educators embraced the promise of providing equal access to high standards for all students, regardless of their zip code or family background.

We believed the standards would help students develop the critical thinking and problem-solving skills they need to succeed in the fast-changing world.  NEA members overwhelmingly supported the goals of the standards because we knew they could provide a better path forward for each and every student. The promise of these high standards for all students is extraordinary.  And we owe it to our students to fulfill that promise.

As educators, we also had high hopes that our policymakers would make an equal commitment to implement the standards correctly by providing students, educators, and schools with the time, supports, and resources that are absolutely crucial in order to make changes of this magnitude to our education system.

So over the last few months I have done what my students and fellow educators have taught me:  I have been listening closely. I have joined our state leaders in member listening sessions around the country, observed dozens of member focus groups, and invited hundreds of thousands of NEA members to share their views about how CCSS implementation is going.

I am sure it won’t come as a surprise to hear that in far too many states, implementation has been completely botched.  Seven of ten teachers believe that implementation of the standards is going poorly in their schools. Worse yet, teachers report that there has been little to no attempt to allow educators to share what’s needed to get CCSS implementation right.  In fact, two thirds of all teachers report that they have not even been asked how to implement these new standards in their classrooms.
Imagine that:  The very people expected to deliver universal access to high quality standards with high quality instruction have not had the opportunity to share their expertise and advice about how to make CCSS implementation work for all students, educators, and parents.

Consequently, NEA members have a right to feel frustrated, upset, and angry about the poor commitment to implementing the standards correctly.
So, where do we go from here?

NEA has been called upon to oppose the standards.  It would be simpler just to listen to the detractors from the left and the right who oppose the standards.  But scuttling these standards will simply return us to the failed days of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), where rote memorization and bubble tests drove teaching and learning.  NEA members don’t want to go backward; we know that won’t help students.  Instead, we want states to make a strong course correction and move forward.
Not surprisingly, as a math teacher I have some strong views about the proper sequence of things—not only in my classroom, but also when it comes to implementing this kind of systemic change in public education.  Start with high standards, create a curriculum that supports them, then focus on assessments that are aligned to what is taught and that really measure learning, then evaluate progress in teaching and learning, and finally pledge to make continuous adjustments to improve teaching and learning for each and every student.

So the first step is for policymakers to treat teachers as professionals and listen to what we know is needed.  Give us the resources and time—time to learn the standards, collaborate with each other, develop curriculum that is aligned to the standards, and time to field-test the standards in classrooms to determine what works and what needs adjustment.  We also need the financial resources for updated textbooks and fully aligned teaching and learning materials.

Second, work with educators—not around us—to determine how to properly use assessments in classrooms across America.  It’s beyond me how anyone would ask teachers to administer tests that have no relation whatsoever to what they have been asked to teach.  In too many states, that’s exactly what’s happening.

Old tests are being given, but new and different standards are being taught.  How on earth does that give any teacher, student, or parent information that is relevant to what they need to know or how they can improve?  Why would we waste valuable learning time for students?  And, then, to make matters worse, many states are proceeding to use these invalid test results as the basis for accountability decisions.

This is not ‘accountability’—it’s malpractice.

In states that have made a commitment to involving teachers up front and providing teachers with the time, training, and resources they need to make the standards work, educator support for the standards is strong.

So if better teaching and learning is our goal, then policymakers need to implement educators’ common sense recommendations to get implementation on track:

1. Governors and chief state school officers should set up a process to work with NEA and our state education associations to review the appropriateness of the standards and recommend any improvements that might be needed.

2. Common Core implementation plans at the state and local levels must be collaboratively developed, adequately resourced, and overseen by community advisory committees that include the voices of students, parents, and educators.

3. States and local school districts must place teachers at the center of efforts to develop aligned curriculum, assessments, and professional development that are relevant to their students and local communities.

4. States must eliminate outdated NCLB-mandated tests that are not aligned with the new standards and not based on what is being taught to students in the classroom.

5. States must actively engage educators in the field-testing of the new assessments and the process for improving them.

6. In any state that is field-testing and validating new assessments, there must be a moratorium on using the results of the new assessments for accountability purposes until at least the 2015-2016 school year. In the meantime, states still have other ways to measure student learning during this transition period—other assessments, report cards, and student portfolios.

7. Stakeholders must develop complete assessment and accountability systems. It takes more than one piece of evidence to paint a picture of what students are learning. Testing should be one way to inform effective teaching and learning—not a way to drive it.

I know that NEA members are committed to seeing the promise of the standards fulfilled. But we can’t do it alone.  Elected officials, school administrators, and other stakeholders are part of the accountability system, too, and that means stepping up and accepting more responsibility to get CCSS implementation right. There’s too much at stake for our children and our country to risk getting this wrong.