State Education Secretary James Peyser provided
remarks on goals for, and approaches to, education by the new administration
and took some questions at the Mass. Association of School Business Officials
Conference this past Thursday. Here’s my take on what was said:
Public education is where the rubber hits the road
(starting with central administration). Local level decisions make meaningful
and lasting improvements in education quality. Governor Baker’s administration is proposing a
framework for the months ahead. 2015 is a good time to begin this conversation
(and evaluate the status quo), with a new Senate President, Higher Education Commissioner,
Governor, and UMass President.
Goals of administration (a framework around
education finance):
·
Making the
whole greater than the sum of its parts. Results are now underwhelming in
efficiency and outcomes. We have to break down silos in all sectors and look
for opportunities to align education and workforce skills.
·
Valuing results
over compliance; the latter are obstacles to common sense and sound judgment.
They are freezing all regulations that were in process when the Governor took
office. There is a new initiative to review all regulations. Needed are clear
outcome goals and metrics for each department to streamline and hold all
accountable. In terms of the budget, we need not just take action on line
items, but pay for performance.
·
Encouraging
innovation and customer service. It’s easy to do what we’ve always done’ but
that doesn’t recognize new ways of doing things. In public education, we need
to recognize the unique needs of students and then identify things they are
accomplishing. Both students and families are customers of schools; taxpayers
are customers too. The state must share information and help solve problems. We
have to respond quickly to questions and collaborate.
·
Transparency,
predictability, sustainability. The volatility of funding from one year to the
next is frustrating. We have to commit to core funding streams.
How to approach:
·
Greater alignment
between early education and college. We must incorporate the Foundation budget
(per pupil formulas). K-12 doesn’t have all the answers. There need to be incentives
instead of consequences for higher standards and better outcomes – expand what
works.
·
Affordability
of the whole, not just the parts. Skeptical that we can afford it all, but use
resources smarter, even though there will still be trade-offs. Need new funding
plans., otherwise, it will remain first-come first-serve since it rewards who
can get legislation in the fastest.
·
Rethinking
teaching and learning. Can’t layer costs on existing base and can’t use the same
educational model. Technology is not the solution to all problems. We’re still
barely touching how to be additive vs. transformative. Need to use that
information to inform reducing costs.
·
Allocate state
grant funding; it’s not supposed to support ongoing initiatives. Districts have
been using money to advocate for the status quo instead of using it to make
change that the grants were intended for. “Doing good is just not good enough.”
The proposed Competitive Grant Fund in the Governor’s budget combines grants.
They encourage school/community clusters in districts (e.g. 4th
grade pairing with early education or expansion of technical high schools and
and pairing them with local employers. The fund supports those initiatives. We
need ideas to make this reform happen.
He ended by noting that reforms
require our participation and he looks forward to working with us.
Questions (underlined with responses following):
Speak about mandates: The state is going through every regulation on the
books, which will be complete by the end of the calendar year.
View on expansion of
charter schools. Need more charter
schools - they are producing great results for students they serve –
particularly in low income/urban districts. Must make progress for students in
those communities. Can’t leave children behind. Next question will be how to effectively manage.
What about the needs of
other public schools? Right now, the
money should follow the child. Districts should allocate more to the school
level (not district-wide overhead) and restructure resources to address
shrinking enrollment. That requires more communication between the state and
charter schools.
Mandates? Some truth to the fact that mandates (designed by
legislators alone) can be bad. Concerned that there are successes at the school
level but if we don’t have practitioners involved, then we can’t offer
perspective – that makes it policymakers “reviewing their own stuff.”
Collective wisdom and experience in this room that can inform that
process. Would like advice on how to
receive that information in order to engage effectively.
Not a proponent of
charter schools – Holyoke experienced middle class “white flight” and poor
students were left in district in Holyoke public schools. Why doesn’t charter funding work like school
choice? Don’t agree on “white flight” comment but will give thought to
school choice model.
Reference to pay for
performance. Have teachers union been involved? Conceptually, we should think about (through
formula or grant funding) providing some preference or incentive to
districts/schools, with incremental dollars based on an index of growth. There
are a lot of details that would make it easier or harder to do. Scale up what’s
working. He recognizes that student assessment is not for teacher evaluation (but
he’d like to see that implemented).
Districts are ravaged
by charters. Extended Learning Time offered, not union, work rules different. Questioner
believes in fair play but public schools don’t have a chance to compete. What thoughts
are there around a level playing field? Don’t disagree – need to address concerns to have flexibility in
public schools. Receivership allows relaxation of constraints. Let’s let
parents decide.
Cape has a charter high
school. K-8 students are in traditional public school, then kids go to charter
high school and that charter gets the kudos, but the reason they do well at the
charter is because their parents are involved and they have a good foundation
from the public schools. Also, the traditional publics got slapped for a bad
school lunch review – that is symptomatic of unfair playing field. Finally,
grants are a huge administrative nightmare for districts. Baker wants to reduce burdens, but we want to be
aggressive about things we do control.
Charter school funding
– Holyoke loses $11m to charter schools. Just because it costs $10k to educate
at charters, the district doesn’t save that $10K by having those students
leave. (Publics can’t change staffing based on that.) Reimbursement doesn’t
cover costs because overall staffing is not affected. That’s a legitimate argument in that if you lose
handful of students, you can’t resize. When charter has been around awhile,
they can restructure. In Holyoke, the reimbursement is very generous. But it
does create pain and people lose their jobs.
One of the excellent
things DESE has done is Edwin (the now
defunct data collection and analysis system) since that kind of work can be
a game-changer. We should continue to support that work. That’s an underappreciated asset right now – it
was a tremendous platform with incredible potential. The extent to which it’s
being used is tremendous.
The local high school
that’s a charter (Sturgis) has history of serving free and reduced lunch
students but the ELL population is never served. Is that a problem? There is no evidence of
discrimination/screening/counseling out. If there are structural barriers (ELL,
sped) from gaining access to a school, we need to be proactive about
addressing. Overall, charters serve a higher proportion of low income students
than a district itself (Boston). The charter population is representative of
those whom they serve.
