Superintendent's Statement Re: OCR Investigation

At last night’s School Committee meeting, Superintendent Taymore read a statement related to the current U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR) investigation in the district. The statement reads as follows:

As you are aware, the Melrose Public Schools received verbal notification that the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) has determined that the Melrose Public Schools was found to be in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  As a result of that finding, the District is now in the process of negotiating a voluntary agreement with OCR to resolve the underlying complaint.

The matter investigated by OCR involved an interaction, which took place nearly a year and a half ago, between a Middle School student and a teacher who is no longer employed by the Melrose Public Schools.  At the time that the incident was originally reported, Melrose Public Schools’ administrators immediately initiated an internal investigation and took corrective and remedial actions to address the teacher’s inappropriate and unacceptable conduct.  The District also offered remedial measures to the victimized student. 

Let me be clear, discrimination in our schools, in any form, will never be accepted or tolerated in the Melrose Public Schools. In the sixteen (16) months since this incident was first reported and prior to notification of the OCR investigation, the Melrose Public Schools, at my direction, commenced a series of professional development trainings for staff to address these concerns.  These trainings focused on the root causes of discrimination and the maintenance and further development of a positive atmosphere in which all students feel accepted and are empowered to thrive in the Melrose school system.  Specifically, since the receipt of the original allegation in April, 2014, the teachers, coaches, administrators, staff and students of the Melrose Public Schools have engaged in nearly 100 hours of training and professional development to improve our cultural proficiency and the working and learning environments in our schools.  This training and professional development has focused not only on racial discrimination, but also issues of sexual violence, sexual orientation, gender identity, language minority students and disability related needs.  Additionally, we also engaged in targeted efforts to improve our response to allegations of bullying and harassment.

In addition to these trainings and professional development, we have provided specific training to the school psychologists and guidance counselors who are often in the position to receive such concerns or complaints.  Our Principals and Assistant Principals have engaged in professional development and received assistance from private consultants and attorneys to ensure a coordinated and comprehensive approach to the manner in which we respond to discrimination, bullying and harassment.   We look forward to the assistance that the Office of Civil Rights can provide as we work to improve and strengthen our knowledge and skills regarding not only Title VI requirements, but also regarding how best to respond to any reported incidents of harassment.

We, as educators and leaders, have a moral and ethical obligation to ensure the safety and well-being of the staff and students within our school community.  It is our obligation, not only to teach the academic curriculum, but also to impart to our students an enduring and sincere commitment to mutual respect, understanding and care for others.  We recognize that this responsibility, and these efforts, are critical to the success of our students and we will continue to engage in aggressive and comprehensive efforts to improve our practices as we aspire to eliminate all forms of discrimination and harassment from our schools and from our community. 

School Committee Late Spring/Summer Meeting Highlights

In the months of June, July, and August, the Committee convened four times: 6/9, 6/23, 7/28, and 8/18. A broad variety of topics were reviewed and discussed, and here are the highlights (from my perspective, as always!):

June 9

·      Lincoln School was nominated as a National Blue Ribbon School as a result of 2 years as a commended school for closing the achievement gap.

·      Class of 2015 senior awards/scholarships, and college applications/ acceptances/attendance choices were provided.

·      A Fine and Performing Arts presentation was provided by Director Deb DiFruschia and included highlights of 2015 and plans for 2016.

·      Action items for Committee goals were discussed and approved.

June 23^rd

·      The Start Time Task Force presented their findings and next steps.

·      The Director of Foreign Languages, Dr. Kim Talbot, and her team are at the half-way mark in their review of the department (called a “Mid-Cycle Review”), and they spoke to their findings to date.

·      Asst. Supt. Dr. Margaret Adams and the Social Studies team, led by Director Bryan Corrigan, presented their Final Program Review.

·      The Strategy Overview – one of the district’s most important guiding documents - was updated and presented.

July 28^th

·      The pre-meeting included a review of each school’s 2016 School Improvement Plan, crafted by respective School Councils, and can be found on each school’s web site.

·      The Foundation Budget Review Commission, enacted by the state to review the formula used to determine how much each school district receives yearly, produced their initial report dated June 30^th.

·      A high school Wellness teaching position was changed from part-time (.8) to full-time and another .4 Wellness teacher was added. A Science teacher was changed from part-time (.8) to full-time. Funds from school choice tuitions were used to pay for the changes.

August 18^th

·      Supt. Taymore announced that the technology bond for the schools will come before the Aldermen in Sept.

·      Dr. Adams and members of the staff presented a review of assessments including how they are used, etc.

·      The 2016 Elementary Handbook was reviewed and approved.

·      Melrose City Planner Denise Gaffey provided a progress update on the MHS Learning Commons Project, indicating that abatement continues and will be completed prior to the opening of school.

·      The Committee performed its annual evaluation of the Superintendent. Chairman Thorp will draft a summary of the evaluation for consideration by the Committee at the next meeting.

Don’t forget that you can access all agendas and minutes at http://melrosecityma.iqm2.com/Citizens/calendar.aspx and you can watch at http://www.mmtv3.org/index.php?categoryid=28.

The next meeting will be held on September 8^th. The first part of the meeting will begin at 6:00 and include a panel discussion and questions about “School Committee Roles and Relationship with District Administration.” The regular business meeting will begin at 7:00.

Hope everyone is having an excellent start to the 2016 school year!!

School Construction Preparations, Food at Elementary Events, and PTO Engagement...

Citywide PTO was held this morning (6/9) with good comments and questions around a variety of topics. Supt. Taymore led with some current events: 5^th graders from the elementary schools do their annual Middle School tours today, 8^th graders will head to NYC on Friday for the first big trip in many years by middle schoolers, and high school exams begin a week from today.

Supt. Taymore reports that she is spending a lot of time working on upcoming school construction projects. At Winthrop, classrooms will be added which will necessitate adjustment of administrative space, and the front entrance will be returned to its former location. At Roosevelt, the computer lab will be renovated to accommodate a Kindergarten classroom. At Lincoln, a plan is in place should the School Committee approve a 15^th Kindergarten class, but she is looking for enrollment of 15 students and currently has seven. (This is usually a quiet time for enrollments; things start to change in the summer when she will make a final decision about recommending.) Administrative office restructuring and transition from the MHS Resource Center to the Learning Commons will begin next week when packing of the RC starts. Construction drawings and bid requests go out in September. Abatement is planned for winter break.  From Jan.-Aug., 2016 the Learning Commons and classrooms will be built while the administrator section on the first floor will be built from June-Aug., 2016. As a first bid alternate on the project (i.e. if there is unused money remaining from the original project), Supt. Taymore is looking to build a “maker” space (more on that here: http://oedb.org/ilibrarian/a-librarians-guide-to-makerspaces/) and then the high school could build programs around it. Music programs will be temporarily moved, and this effort demanded a comprehensive analysis of music programs and scheduling across the district that will ultimately result in department improvements. Scheduling will now operate more cohesively (i.e. all schools will centrally schedule vs. doing it independently so more elementary students will have access to lessons since teachers will travel less); contracts are being re-reviewed to ensure that both staff and administration are fully and uniformly honoring their obligations; and a very large middle school closet was identified (formerly used by the DPW) that is temperature-appropriate, and will be used to house musical instruments. Beginning instrument lessons will now be offered at the 6^th grade. The high school will be able to offer half-year band and orchestra options. There will be a more opportunities for symphony practice. Mr. Repucci and Mr. Miller are very supportive of the transition plans.

Compliance in the area of food at elementary events was raised as an issue. For foods served during the school day and within 30 minutes before and after school, items must comply with federal regulations. (A vending checklist is here: http://www.johnstalkerinstitute.org/alist/alist.pdf.) Students can bring in foods that are individually wrapped. Since PTO’s are entities separate from the schools, if they are serving food outside the +/- 30 minute and school day window they needn’t comply with these regulations. All organizations are asked to be sensitive to students and families with allergies and those who might prefer lower-calorie options. A good option is to work through our Chartwells Food Service Director Ken Dolce at kdolce@melroseschools.com or 781-462-3219.

Discussion was held around the significant fundraising work that PTO’s do, and how best the schools can focus their efforts on supporting individual school needs without overtaxing our generous donors and sponsors. Parents are encouraged to understand that one school isn’t “better” than another since there is significant equity with respect to curriculum and instruction; schools are different based on their culture. Supt. Taymore recommended organizing a PTO training that would include how to align spending with School Improvement Plans, district goals, and the individual school’s culture. As a district, we need to differentiate between what the schools fund and what PTO’s raise and fund (e.g. elementary school clubs vary by school because they are not district-sponsored). It might be useful for all PTO’s to review their By-Laws soon and together so they have a common understanding and potentially common approaches to their governance and their work. It might also be useful for PTO's to have guidance around legal issues (teacher gifts, etc.) provided by an expert like the Melrose City Solicitor. Bridge Director Jennifer McAllister will explore organizing a training event for the fall.

Last meeting of the school year, and best wishes to City Wide members who move on to middle school from their elementary schools!

School Committee Meeting of 5/26 and Highlights for 6/9

Bridge Director Jennifer McAllister was on hand to present the on-going work being done in the organization. (The Bridge: A School-Community Partnership is the non-profit, volunteer coordination group for the Melrose Public Schools. Leadership is shared, as are costs, between Supt. Taymore and an independent Board of Directors.) Activities include volunteer registration and CORI’s; vision and hearing screenings; Community Reading Day; Trivia Bee; facilitating City Wide PTO, the elementary library coordinators, and the elementary enrichment coordinators; presenting and recruiting at school open houses and the Victorian Fair; and a variety of communication activities. (Note: if you’d like to learn more about volunteering in the schools, contact Jennifer at 781-979-2299 or jmcallister@melroseschools.com).

MHS science teacher Brittany Martin was recognized by the North Shore Science Supervisor’s Association for her commitment to making science accessible to a wide range of students; and elementary teachers Alexandra Cook and Carolyn McElligott presented at the annual Mass. Association of Teachers of Speakers of Other Languages on the use of web tools.

Based on a recognized need to improve student outcomes at the Horace Mann School, the state has provided support in a number of areas at the school and across the district, including access to special trainings and collaboration activities, funding for additional instructional coaching, the development of some curriculum materials for the MHS advisory block, and substitute coverage for some learning walk-throughs.

Written comments were submitted regarding this year’s budget process, and they will be compiled in the fall when a recommendation for next year’s process will be discussed. New MHS School Committee representatives have been elected and will join us in the fall. The School Committee calendar was set for 2016. Committee SMART goals were discussed/approved for the 2015-2016 school year.

As always, you can find full agendas and packet documents at http://melrosecityma.iqm2.com/Citizens/calendar.aspx and meeting replays on MMTV.

Next meeting is June 9^th. On the agenda: Class of 2015 update; a fine and performing arts program review; discussion and vote on non-union raises; Committee action items for the SMART goals; a plan for the Supt’s evaluation; intentions around summer policy work for the Committee; and liaison reports.

MHS Senior Internships: Learning Beyond the Walls of Classrooms

Today the Melrose High School Internship Program held its first ever Internship Fair. Over half of the Class of 2015 participated in a 4^th quarter internship (which is graded based on successful completion of its respective responsibilities), and the fair was organized to allow students to showcase their experiences to other students, teachers, and visitors.

Students staged themselves at desks in the open area of the MHS Resource Center with printed nametags noting their internship placement or position. Some students had more formal presentations with posters, Powerpoints, work samples, and talking points while others were stream-of-consciousness. The students were enthusiastic, knowledgeable, articulate, and courteous; and it was clear that their employment helped them form some opinions about the working world (including what they might or might not pursue in the future) and offered a few surprises (e.g. police officers spend a lot more time than expected writing reports!). Their experiences were diverse and broad ranging. A few samples:

- A dual-language school in Boston / helping young students draw a self-portrait and write about it in Spanish, along with doing school event publicity;

- A Boston middle school / assisting a new-to-America, limited-English 8^th grader in the navigation of American culture and language;

- A nursing home / supporting older adults with engaging activities, and observing distribution of medications, therapies, etc.;

- Local and regional Police Departments / reviewing and editing reports, and experiencing community policing. (Here’s one window into that experience: http://tinyurl.com/n7y9bj8);

- Tattoo studios / learning about the business and cleaning/sanitizing;

- A fish market / learning how the business operates including customer service;

- A real estate office / learning the financial operations end of the business;

- A plastics distributor / experiencing the shipping and handling segment of the work;

- A leadership consulting and training organization / exploring how the business works;

- A physical therapists office / understanding the operation and protocols of the work;

- Melrose elementary schools / exploring the teaching and learning process. Here are panels from a poster made by a Lincoln School intern:

 The internship opportunity provides a thoughtful way to transition students (who can fit it into their schedules) from a more structured learning environment into the broader, post-secondary world. Want to know more? Info for next year’s seniors is on p. 13 in the MHS Program of Studies http://tinyurl.com/mjkb6kc.

Great job Class of 2015!

Foundation Budget Update, and Why We Should All Care

Rep. Alice Peisch, Co-Chair of the state Joint Committee on Education, is also co-chairing the Foundation Budget Review Commission (FBRC). She spoke to the Mass. Association of School Business Officials (MASBO) last Thursday about the Commission’s work and anticipated outcomes and timelines.  (Note: Municipalities and school districts are watching closely as the Foundation Budget builds a key funding source for schools – Chapter 70 money. It’s helpful for parents to know some basics in order to help advocate for fair and equitable funding. School Committee Chair Kristin Thorp wrote a good analysis on how the Foundation Budget and Chapter 70 work (here: http://1i8brn1xoauz1pwsvo1ktb7vb1q.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Chapter-70-Explanation-4.7.15.pdf and you can read the Committee’s March feedback to the FBRC here: http://1i8brn1xoauz1pwsvo1ktb7vb1q.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/030915-FBRC-letter.pdf.)

Rep. Peisch opened her remarks by noting that the limited number of people in school districts who understand the Foundation Budget has been eye-opening. She said that the Commission’s focus has been on two areas: the cost of benefits (especially healthcare), and special education (SPED). The Commission voted to recommend (and their advisory board needs to confirm) that the healthcare percentage be raised to the average GIC amount for municipal members. It will likely also be recommended that it should have its own inflation number (which varies region to region) on an annual basis. That was a relatively easy recommendation based on reports over the years.

There are a couple recommendations regarding in-district SPED: 1. raise the in-district tuition percentage from 3.75 to 4 for most districts (and from 4.75% to 5% for vocational schools); 2. raise assumed out of district (OOD) tuition by about $8000. Rep. Peisch noted that very few OOD placements are within the designated level – most are much more. The intent is that raising the dollar amount and adding the in-district amount will get districts to where circuit breaker kicks in.

The legislation that created the FBRC required that the report be filed by June. There are many other components that could be considered, so the Commission concluded that they should look for a modest extension of time. Many Commission members were concerned that if it goes on too long they will lose focus and implementation could be delayed. (In the past, reports come out and get attention but nothing happens – she wants to focus on what’s doable.) (Note: this is her opinion; others on the Commission want to keep the process going a little longer.)

At the last FBRC meeting Karla Brooks Baehr (former Deputy Commissioner of Education) presented an analysis of the range of spending in districts (high spending / high performance, high spending / low performance and the rest of that quadrant). What are low spending/high performance districts doing and how can that be replicated? At the next meeting on 6/5 they will discuss the use and reallocation of funds to improve outcomes. They will also consider what additional areas other Commission members would like to look at. Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz is planning to file an amendment to the budget to extend the life of the Commission, and the items they might consider if that amendment is approved is to be seen, although they are likely to think about (and possibly make a recommendation about) decentralized funding and decision-making (i.e. requiring that all schools are provided a budget equal to what the foundation budget would be for each school). How money is spent is currently left up to the districts; this approach would target money to schools. There could also be potential adjustments to low income and/or ELL components (although it will be hard to reach consensus).

Questions:

Was there discussion around the % of OOD SPED students? The decision was not to change the % because a recent study shows that the current % is pretty close to reality (slightly +/- 1%).

What about Section 260 – retiree health insurance? The cost of retiree health insurance is significant and is part of the recommendation on healthcare.

Is the Commission considering looking at potentially changing the 10/1 enrollment reporting date? She can’t speak for the Commission since there’s been no group discussion about it. There are plusses and minuses to moving it out – some people want to know early on what the budget can be to plan their Ch. 70 money; moving it further out would make that more difficult. They are considering making it clear that funds appropriated to the pothole account should be available for increases in population from 10/1 through the beginning of the next school year.

How did estimates of circuit breaker impact discussions of FBRC? The Commission is charged with making a recommendation. The issue is probably identified but how the legislation language is crafted could be in the FBRC report or circuit breaker legislation. (MASBO Exec. Director Dave Verdolino who is also a member of the Commission would like the circuit breaker formula held harmless.) Other suggestions regarding circuit breaker that the Education Committee is looking at now include providing incentives for use of collaboratives, in-district programs, etc. which saves money (assuming they are of good quality).

Some of the SPED pieces seem low; what was the thinking around that? The OOD 1% turns out not to be low – it’s fairly accurate. If you take into account what is calculated for that student anyway, this increase would cover the difference between that and when circuit breaker kicks in. On in-district SPED, Superintendents recommended 4%. In the order of magnitude, if the state is limited to just these two items, using FY14 numbers, the increase would be a budget increase of $9.7B to $10.5B and the state’s portion would go up $500M ($800 total). A lot of communities are getting funded at about their target now, so they won’t get anything.  The Commission has not been specific about how legislation will be written. From a political standpoint, there may be pressure to hold all districts harmless (i.e. all districts benefit).

Dave Verdolino commented that there’s a lot of money up for consideration ($500M). The recommendations will go to a joint group and then to the full legislature. Rep. Peisch indicated that when it goes to the legislature, it’s extremely important to reach out to legislators since they are responsible to constituents. (If this report gets filed because there is no advocacy, nothing will happen in this area for a long time.) Looking at the timeframe, once recommendations are made, they would go to a joint committee to “sort out obstacles” and a bill would be filed at the beginning of the next session; that’s when advocacy should start. She cautioned: don’t get caught up in looking for the perfect solution. Support something that is a significant improvement for most districts. Her best guess is that implementation would be phased in over a number of years.

(Note: the Melrose School Committee has tentatively placed the FBRC report as an item on our July 28^th agenda.)

Secretary Peyser's Education Plans

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. 4^th 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.