The Boy Crisis: In the Classroom and on the Streets (#MASCconf2015)

William Pollack, Director of the Center for Young Men and Boys at McLean Hospital and Assoc. Professor of Psychology at Harvard Medical School spoke to “Addressing and Shifting our Academic Climates: Creating Boy-Friendly / Girl-Affirmative Schools.”

 One of the best child practitioners of child philosophy was Mr. (Fred) Rogers. He spoke in the cadence and speed of his audience – children trying to learn. He showed love and understanding simultaneously and both boys and girls related simultaneously.

Data shows this: boys struggle with not being able to emote. Boys trail in academics. (At ages 9, 13, 17 they trail girls in reading scores and this has been true since 1971). Girls have caught up in STEM areas. Girls perform 20 points better on writing tests. Boys are two times more likely to be diagnosed as learning disabled. Boys are much more likely disciplined and are diagnosed up to five times as often for ADHD and ADD than girls. Boys need 5-6 recesses per day and Dr. Pollack believes that schools over-diagnose ADHD up to 50% of the time. Boys are less likely to graduate from high school and college. 150,000 more masters’ degrees were conferred on females vs. males in 2013 (https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_301.10.asp). Young men are falling behind. Freshman college stats would reveal a 60/40 demographic split favoring girls if just academic acceptance standards were used. Boys are expected to fail at school/life and have lower self-esteem as learners. Boys expect adults to distrust and fear them. 80%+ of homicides involve males (engaging in and victims). Society believes that young males have to be “controlled” because otherwise they’ll hurt people. Boys/young males are much more likely to complete a suicide and are more likely to die because they really want to be dead compared with girls. The US DOE has said we have too many suspensions/expulsions and too many are young males – especially males of color.

Boys of color are even less likely to do well in school or succeed in life and are more likely to commit a crime. Young black males are incarcerated at an alarming rate. On average, a 12^th grade black male with one parent who was a college graduate still fell below basic achievement while 12^th grade black women were more successful.

How we socialize boys is the problem. In the US, we push boys away from their caring parents and mentors by telling them early myths like “be a big boy, be a little man.” “Cut mom’s apron strings.” “You’re a momma’s boy.” Boys loved by mothers and fathers live seven years longer than others and are more successful. No biological study indicates boys are more aggressive even though we apply other myths like “boys will be boys.” Boys are only aggressive when they are hurt in their home or are trained to be hurtful to others. “That not what boys should do” and “boys are toxic” are other myths. Media provides messages that boys are aggressive and the girls’ job is to socialize them. When we treat boys this way, they get depressed and suffer.

Boys are disconnected from their feelings and curricula is not set up for boys. Boys read/write 12-15 months later than girls. Don’t keep them back – they just need more recess. Follow what boys need in reading - otherwise they become disconnected and don’t learn as well.

Robert Pianta, Dean of the School of Education at UVA, conducted a study asking, “What do teachers think of kids?” Kindergarten teachers said it’s hard to work with boys. It’s been shown that the relationship between teacher and student in kindergarten is the best predictor of academic outcomes. Boys in general have a negative memory (their teachers hated them). Social-emotional construct being the heart of academic learning is no longer true – they are equally connected. What makes adolescents survive?  Families and schools exhibiting warmth, love, and understanding. Boys need a mentor in school who had that, and when they did, they succeeded more often in school and life and were respectful to women.

Boys look like they want independence, but they really want people around. (“Don’t just do something, stand there.”) Just be there. Emphasize the importance of listening, especially when boys are the angriest. Anger = hurt with boys. Provide opportunities for families to do social emotional learning. Create trust so they come to an adult before an issue occurs. Educators and their supporters need to fight for dollars. Each student must have a special caring relationship with at least one adult. School leaders must identify who’s having problems, who’s doing well, and students for whom they have no idea whether he/she is having a problem or is doing well – it’s those students who most need connection. For more information: www.williampollack.com.

Ron Walker, Executive Director of the Coalition of Schools Educating Boys of Color (COSEBOC) spoke to the unique challenges of boys of color.

All the people with whom boys can have a relationship in schools are important (cafeteria workers, crossing guards, etc.). According to a Boston Globe article, 23-year-old Akim Callendar (http://tinyurl.com/qck58b7) stated that police officers see young black men as as “a menace to society.” This philosophy is not an unusual presumption. COSBOC is holding a regional event to share promising practices around this issue. Practitioners want to SEE practice. As a teacher, Walker lost two black boys, the first, a 7^th grade student killed by gang violence. The second was a young man accused of murder and incarcerated for life who ultimately found prison GED programs “liberating.” Walker’s mission: change the narrative and surround boys of color with a positive narrative. Let them be seen as an asset. This work needs concentrated effort and focus. When we address that, there will be change throughout districts. Cultural competence is merely the base. Boys of color have been marginalized. This program helps schools and educators help students negotiate what it means to be a man. For more information: http://www.coseboc.org/.

NEASC Reforms and Implementation Timeline (#MASCconf2015)

Presented by NEASC Director George Edwards, with panelists Jake McCandless (Pittsfield Supt.), Jon Sills (Bedford Supt.), and Joel Stembridge (Newton South Principal), the session offered “progress being made developing [NEASC] reforms and the timeline for their implementation.”

Resulting from significant outreach by districts around the state, it was clear NEASC had become too accountability based. Districts were focused on compliance vs. being self-reflective so real change wasn’t necessarily taking place based on the process. It also became clear that school leaders could have power even in the top-down, mandate-driven “milieu”. Real change happened because Supts. and school leaders were invited to cooperate to build new processes that would be helpful to schools. In one example, Bedford, NEASC was asked to:

o   Focus on and support school improvement goals as identified by school/district and aligned with the standards.

o   Be less prescriptive and more flexible.

o   Focus on a schools’ capacity for continuous self-reflect and growth (school councils, SIP’s, what do schools want to work on?). Where in the standards does that fit? Broad vs. prescriptive way to get there. Develop a standard on engagement.

o   Emphasize formative feedback and continual planning and improvement – visit will be more about how to move forward on goals.

o   Develop manageable recommendations based on the standards.

o   Provide clear guidelines for achieving those recommendations.

Joel Stembridge noted that Newton South has suspended participation until the new work is out but sees “good things” happening at NEASC like:

o   It’s now more of a counterpart to simplistic test-driven oversight (include nurses, SEL, etc.) – using a whole school approach.

o   NESC provides PD for teachers with tie-ins for curriculum + assessment.

o   Every good institution is self-reflective (looking at external standards).

Concerns remain:

o   Accreditation isn’t a “one size fits all” process; there is now movement but there hasn’t been movement on rubrics. They’ve asked NEASC about the purpose of rubrics (they are one way but not the only way – research shows this) / instead maybe show how faculty works together to improve curriculum and not be overly prescriptive).

o   The process took up so much time. Hard to engage in other critically important initiatives.

o   At the end of self-study, they had a big report but lots of recommendations (he rec’d 87 recommendations). WAY too hard. Can NEASC identify big picture recommendations and de-emphasize others (?).

NEASC came to the conclusion that their process was too prescriptive, took too much time, required schools to stop other work, caused high schools to be out of sync with other district schools, was redundant with other mandated processes, was too expensive, and was a “one size fits all” proposition.

Efforts to date by NEASC to address concerns included meetings with school leadership in all NE states (2013); summer chairs workshop (2014/2015), committee to revise standards (2014), committee to revise rating guides (2014), review and revise pre-self-study and self-study process (ongoing), review and revise accreditation visit protocol (ongoing), review/revise standards (late fall/early winter.

The standards review will focus on being less prescriptive/more flexible, including focus on school improvement, greater emphasis on goals vs. specific strategies, using indicators as guidance, and encompassing a “growth mindset.” Initial revisions to standards include making targeted revisions (summer, 2014). Comprehensive revision will begin this late fall/early winter. (Standards went beyond identifying goals, but also said how to meet the goals, so looked especially at standard 5 revisions (indicators 2 + 3). How would schools address equity and achievement gap? Looked at indicator 3 – student relationship with a faculty member (advisory indicator). They are working to give flexibility to develop local initiative and provide changes in language for all rating guides to adopt more formative language (e.g. “not yet meeting the standard vs. “fails” and also change what qualifies as “not meeting the standard”). Completion of revisions expected by the end of summer 2016 (and will be a natural extension of the self-study redesign). There will be time for schools to respond to changes.

Common core and state crosswalks have been developed. An on-line accreditation portal is being implemented (for uploading self-study and evidence like links to curriculum docs, the visiting committee report, and the follow-up process) and will be phased in from fall, 2015-2017.

Accreditation redesign protocols look like:

o   Shortened self-study (1 year).

o   Differentiated use of staff. In the past every staff member needed to work on self-study. Now: schools decide how to use staff (i.e. ok to use just some staff and will vary among schools).

o   Use of existing artifacts as evidence: measures to determine student achievement (like DDMS’s) that state is already requiring + comprehensive program reviews for SPED.

o   Focus on school/district priorities: some schools for whom some standards that are non-issue – some schools are brand new – so why do a facilities study? Maybe do more on areas that need focus that they’ve already identified.

o   Smaller visiting committees. Before = 16 committee members and larger. In a small school w/20 teachers, sent team of 9 as pilot. Looking for the right number since it has big impact on cost to schools.

o   Fewer recommendations focused on standards using indicators as guidance.

Other notes:

o   Pilot schools include Reading and Burlington.

o   NEASC is currently working with a number of districts that are interested in a district-wide approach to accreditation (accrediting each of its schools K-12). It could look different in districts depending on the size of the district/# of schools.

o   Cost: annual membership dues are $2600-5K with average cost for 10 year visits about $15-25K. Having the portal and smaller visiting committees will reduce these costs.

o   Exploring how to helpful districts escrow money for visit so yearly expenses are similar and planned in advance for budgeting.

o   Training is enormous part of what needs to be done (especially on-going training for chairs). Challenge = all are volunteers so they have to leave families/work; looking at making training more convenient by using on-line platforms. Focus is consistency, outreach to Supts.

o   Some districts have piloted DESE “Planning for Success” program, a focused /strategic long-range process with 1 year action planning. Benefit to process is it’s not exhaustive – gets past planning to actual work quickly. Efficient. Creates momentum from data. How is that alignment act as an integrated part of the NEASC site visit?

Great Conference (#MASCconf2015)! Starting with Budget and Finance....

Thank you to Melrose taxpayers who afforded me the opportunity to participate in the Mass. Association of School Committees (MASC)/Mass. Association of School Superintendents (MASS) annual conference this past week. This year, there was more collaboration than ever with the Mass. Association of School Business Officials (MASBO) in order to provide specific advice from school finance professionals. Below are my notes from attendance at three budget and finance sessions (and all credit to presenters as major elements below are from your slides):

Cost Savings and Efficiencies: Best Practices

MASBO Executive Director Dave Verdolino moderated while Plymouth SBO Gary Costin and Newton Asst. Supt. Sandra Guryan spoke to award-winning initiatives in their districts:

Gary Costin: Plymouth is investing heavily in solar (and currently uses a local 23-acre solar field to provide significant power resources). Expected life is 20 years, by which time they anticipate other technologies to take over.

Sandra Guryan: Newton is managing increasing enrollments that are geographically inconsistent across the district, aging facilities, and inadequate space for programming, by continuing quality planning designed to address these challenges. Elements of consideration include funding, (local and state), school sizes, swing space, and potential residential development. Desired outcomes include up-to-date teaching and learning facilities, right-sizing capacity, maximizing state funding, phasing/continuing use of swing space, maintenance and optimization of neighborhood schools, balancing intra-district feeder patterns, elimination/reduction of modular classrooms, and improvement of energy systems. The timeline reaches to FY34. Planning involves a continuous, dynamic, and evolving cycle performed in conjunction with city departments and the district’s strategic plan. A detailed annual update is reviewed by the district.

What School Committees Should Ask from their School Business Officials (SBO's)

Moderated by Worcester’s SBO Brian Allen and with panelists Tracy O’Connell Novick (Worcester SC) and Alan Himmelburger (Blackstone-Milville Regional Supt.). They spoke to “the need for timely and comprehensive communication about the district’s financial condition and budget awareness.” 

Purpose of the budget: describe how money is being allocated in order to accomplish district priorities and manage spending throughout the year.

Notes:

·      Budgets are easily misinterpreted, hard to understand, and easily ridiculed.

·      The Committee must understand where the $ comes from, adopt a process for moving it, and determine the public process necessary to explain and build consensus.

·      Zero-based budgets are about 90% pre-determined since such a significant portion high is salaries.

  

The ideal budget document:

·      Includes more narrative than numbers (and narratives can be written in the fall)

·      Explains $, enrollment, trends, goals, and objectives

·      Describes how resources are tied to decisions

·      Contains charts revealing history and projections

·      Informs the Committee of decisions that need to be made

·      Includes other items the Committee defines

·      Details budget assumptions

·      May provide a PowerPoint summary, but that is not the budget – must be detail

·      Should include things like Foundation Budget Review Commission information, state budget impacts, grants, etc.

Another support your SBO can provide: help quantifying the impact on the district of legislation.

Roles and Responsibilities of School Committees in their Communities: Budget Development, Implementation, and Monitoring

Co-moderated and presented by MASC Field Rep Jim Hardy and MASBO Executive Director Dave Verdolino. While they led the discussion, the majority of dialogue was among and between attendees, offering the advantage of learning the questions/concerns of other districts. 

·      It’s the Committee’s fiduciary responsibility to watch out for taxpayers’ money

·      The passing of budgets requires trust - how is that built? Over time and with credibility and accountability.

·     

     The budget is a policy instrument that:

o   Is approved and changed by local officials, who also approve expenditures (warrants)

o   Sets district priorities by funding them (or not)

o   Supports personnel policy including collective bargaining, equal opportunity/discrimination, and the employment process

o   Supports student related policies/services like fees

o   Affirms policies in grants (like federal programs)

·      

      Administration will generally present the full detail to the Committee for budget deliberations / the Committee generally avoids going into discrete detail in order to maintain its role appropriately and avoid unnecessary involvement in intra-school and intra-program matters. MASC recommends:

o   That line items clearly define major categories and be sufficiently detailed to monitor policy and give building administrators flexibility to adjust spending needs within their buildings as long as they don’t change district policy

o   Working with budget data at three degrees of detail: fine detail (to develop the overall district budget); official internal budget and policy document used to periodically monitor; and the generally used budget (in reasonable detail) for official municipal review.

School Committee Meeting of 10/27/15

Notes from last night’s meeting are below, and as always, my opinion only!

Supt. Taymore led off the meeting with her Superintendent’s Update. She noted that 2^nd Grade teacher Michael Oginski will travel to Washington, D.C. next month to accept the Blue Ribbon Schools recognition on behalf of Lincoln School staff and students. She also announced that November will be “Education Month” in the schools, and will feature Kindergarten, Middle School, and High School activities, as well as Parent University (11/14, 8 a.m. to 12 p.m.), a partnership between the district and Melrose Education Foundation. Finally, she reviewed our response protocols for various drills as part of the district’s Emergency Evacuation Plan, and will be returning to the Committee in the future to present on this topic.

MVMMS Principal Conway spoke to the Late Start Time Task Force, indicating that they were looking to the Committee for guidance on next steps in their process. They’ve completed their research and have developed many options, from starting school 15 minutes later to up to an hour later. Many teachers have reservations about moving the time, and this is one subject of collective bargaining (which will begin in the spring). It was noted that making a decision soon would be useful so that parents can begin planning should changes be made. It was agreed that we would hear from legislators at our next meeting regarding the state’s direction on this topic, and also bring questions and/or priorities that will be compiled and sent to the Task Force for their consideration.

Supt. Taymore presented an early draft of the 2016-2017 school calendar in order to talk about topics that she intends to bring to the Committee, including the recommendation to collaborate with SEEM on a common professional development day (next year’s Election Day, which is a busy time since it is a presidential election), discussion around a second professional development day (after MLK Day again? Another day?), and a question regarding Good Friday (since many districts are moving away from this vacation day, like Stoneham and Reading, with North Reading maintaining a half day).

The Budget Process and Timeline for FY17 was approved. One significant change will be the implementation of a Saturday session in March that will allow for all presentations by staff members to occur in an 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. timeframe. This change should shorten the overall process (easier for the community to follow, and for administrators to accommodate in their schedules) while allowing Committee meetings to focus on questioning and deliberation of budget decisions.

Polices approved on a first vote included JKAA: Physical Restraint of Students, EBC: Emergency Plans, ECAF: Security Cameras in Schools, IJND: Access to Digital Resources, IJNDC: Web Page Publication, and IJNDD: Electronic Communication/Social Media. There was discussion around policy JICH: Drug and Alcohol Use by Students based on the consideration to recommend that school nurses receive training in the administration of NARCAN in case of an opioid situation. The Committee approved this recommendation and Ms. Thorp will bring it to the next Melrose Health Department meeting this week (since the nurses report through MHD).

Announcements of the Chair included a Committee vote to open 25 School Choice spots at MHS: ten freshman, ten sophomores, and five juniors (which was approved). The artifacts attached to Superintendent Taymore’s goals for this year were also approved (i.e. the evidence she must present to show she has accomplished her goals at the time of her review). The Competency-Based Learning public forum will be held on December 3^rd at 6:00 p.m. in the MVMMS Auditorium.

Remember, all meeting agendas and documents are available on the melroseschools web site. Next Committee meeting is November 10^th and will begin at 6:00 with a roundtable meeting with legislators. The regular meeting will begin at 7:00. 

Happy Halloween, and see you after we “fall back!”