My School Committee Blog

My Final Post

2011-03-30T12:00:00.000-04:00

So, this will be my final post on my blog. The goal of my blog was to help me communicate my thoughts/reasoning to my constituents and to hear thoughts/questions/suggestions from my constituents, and therefore it doesn't make any sense for me to continue with my blog since I am no longer a member of the School Committee. I am going to keep my blog up - as requested by several readers who appreciated the research/facts now available on this blog - but I won't have any new posts, nor will I allow any comments to be posted (as of midnight tonight).

I want to thank all of the people who have expressed support for my efforts on the SC over the last three years. I have been truly touched by the emails and calls and letters I've received over the last few weeks, since announcing my decision not to run, and I thank all of those who have expressed such support. I was extremely touched by the lovely words from Marylou Theilman, former SC member, at last night's Regional SC meeting - and by the letters she had sought from Senators Kerry and Brown congratulating me on my service!

I congratulate Katherine Appy on her election to the SC, and hope that members of both the Amherst and Regional SCs will work on making the types of changes in our schools that many people in this town still want (even though they may be even more silent now). In particular, we need to improve elementary math, understand why our per pupil costs are so much higher than those in other districts, objectively evaluate the effectiveness of our programs/policies/curricula, and use effective (proven) strategies for raising achievement in struggling students (from all backgrounds).

Our schools have great potential - which is why I, and many others, moved to Amherst and have chosen to put our kids in the public schools. And although many students do in fact have good experiences in some (or even all) aspects of our schools, others have less consistently positive experiences - and we need to recognize this dissatisfaction and try whenever possible to solve the problems that still do exist in our schools (instead of pretending they don't exist and derogating those who raise them -- which doesn't make our schools better -- it just silences those voices). I hope that all SC members and the superintendent will acknowledge that some parents have real and legitimate concerns about particular aspects of our schools, and will focus on developing and implementing specific strategies for actually solving these problems. All kids in Amherst deserve excellent public schools ... and I hope all members of the SC and the superintendent will focus on helping our schools reach their full potential, not just in words, but in reality.

Two Bulletin Pieces: My SC Service, Elementary Math

2011-03-24T08:38:00.000-04:00

The Bulletin approached me shortly after I decided not to run to ask if I'd be willing to do an interview about my experience on the SC, and that piece is published in today's paper (http://amherstbulletin.com/story/id/202275/).

There is also a story on Tuesday's public hearing regarding math in the Amherst elementary schools (http://amherstbulletin.com/story/id/202246/).

My Final Meeting

2011-03-23T14:27:00.000-04:00

So, in what seems very fitting, my last School Committee meeting occurred last night - with a public forum on elementary math. I thank Irv Rhodes for his kind remarks about my service at the end of the meeting, and the many parents and staff members who expressed their support for my work after the meeting. Here is a link to the Gazette article about the meeting: http://gazettenet.com/2011/03/23/amherst-parents-question-math-plan.

Two Hot Topics: Achievement Gap, Math

2011-03-21T19:22:00.000-04:00

Last week's Bulletin and Gazette featured two stories on the Amherst schools that I thought would be of interest to my blog readers.

First, there was a long article in the Bulletin on the achievement gap (http://amherstbulletin.com/story/id/201524/), which is a very important topic and one that I hope the district will focus on resolving. I am glad that Superintendent Geryk in continuing some of the important programs established by Dr. Rodriguez to increase achievement in struggling students (including adding a preschool for low income children and creating the Achievement Academy). I hope that the district will be willing to look to schools that have had greater success in raising achievement in low income students and students of color, and re-create programs that have worked well in other places. I believe we also need to carefully examine the effectiveness of the programs we have put into place. Given the considerable research on the importance of raising achievement early on, I believe it would be far more effective to devote more money to raising achievement in preschool/elementary school than to have expensive (and under-used) programs for high school students.

Second, there was a short article on elementary math in the Gazette (http://gazettenet.com/2011/03/19/hearing-set-tuesday-changes-amherst039s-math-curriculum), and in particular about the upcoming public forum on math set for tomorrow night (7 pm, town hall). I know many parents have serious concerns about math in our district, and am very glad the Amherst School Committee voted unanimously to hold a public forum on math. The current math action plan is available on the ARPS website (http://www.arps.org/node/2819).

As noted in the article, I'm disappointed that the plan ignores the recommendations from Dr. Chen. Dr. Chen had 4 recommendations (and I've noted the status of each of these in bold below):

1. Let better mathematics teachers in elementary schools teach more mathematics classes.

This idea will be studied in "Phase 2" (not sure when that starts or ends), but definitely not implemented this fall - although the administration received this report in October (and thus there was plenty of time to have examined this idea already, in time for implementation this fall).

2. Replace Investigations II with Primary Mathematics.

A textbook committee has been formed to examine different elementary curriculum, including Primary Mathematics as well as our current curriculum, Investigations. However, Beth Graham has already eliminated even from consideration by this committee the two elementary math curricula that have demonstrated their effectiveness in a high quality, randomized study across multiple districts. In addition, this committee has only met once (today), and although they will in theory submit a recommendation in June, no change in curriculum will be made for next year, regardless of their recommendation (again, even though the administration received this report in October, and thus could have easily had this group meeting for the last 5 months).

Note from Catherine: Recommendations 3 and 4 are the same -- they are two alternative ways of providing content training in math for elementary and middle school teachers.

3. Support teachers of mathematics in elementary schools and the Middle school with intensive content training. ... A productive low-cost alternative to serve teachers’ content need is described next in Recommendation 4. It is a highly desirable and much cheaper option for carrying out Recommendation #3. The in-house talents in the High School should be tapped into to address the mathematics content knowledge needs of lower grade teachers. In effect, the district is investing in developing in-house capacity in providing content-based training. In case Recommendation 4 cannot be implemented, Recommendation #3 should be followed.

Recommendation #4, to have high school teachers teach math to elementary and middle school teachers, isn't even mentioned in the math action plan, so clearly this recommendation (which Dr. Chen noted was both "highly desirable" and "much cheaper") isn't going to even be considered. There is some mention of providing opportunities for teachers to take graduate courses in math and investigating options for taking math courses in the future, which in theory could provide some additional math training for teachers who are interested in doing so.

One more note: the vast majority of proposals in the math action plan were not in fact recommended by Dr. Chen (e.g., hiring additional math coaches in each building, hiring a K to 8 math coordinator, adding instructional rounds, etc.), and clearly the costs of implementing the action plan are therefore tremendous. I am unsure where the money to fund this program will come from, but clearly it will either require cuts to other programs (e.g., music, arts, Spanish) and/or an override. Although the superintendent suggested grant funds could potentially be used for some funds, it is very unlikely that grants would in fact be a long-term solution for on-going expenses (e.g., a K to 8 math coordinator in Amherst isn't going to be a desirable object of funding agencies, who typically either fund short-term expenses such as pilot programs and/or fund districts with a higher percentage of low income and/or struggling students).

Two News Pieces on My Decision

2011-03-14T13:43:00.000-04:00

I just wanted to draw my blog readers' attention to two new pieces that have covered my decision to not seek re-election.

First, you can now watch my interview on Amherst Media, with Issac Ben Ezra, via streaming: http://204.213.244.104/Cablecast/Public/Show.aspx?ChannelID=1&ShowID=6941.

Second, an ARHS student, Aidan Chesworth, has written a piece for the Graphic on my decision, and I'm pasting (with his permission) his story below. I'd just like to add one thing to his story for clarity - my three kids are still in the public schools, and I have no specific plans right now to have my own kids leave the public schools for the upcoming year. However, I didn't, and I don't, feel like I can make a commitment to keeping all of my kids in the public schools for the next three years, which is why I didn't feel it was appropriate for me to seek re-election.

**********************************************************************
Graphic//Catherine Sanderson
February 26th 2011
322 Words

Catherine Sanderson, a professor at Amherst Collage and three-year member of the Amherst school committee, announced recently that she would not run for school committee reelection. She is known throughout the community by supporters and critics alike for her progressive and reformist attitudes, as well as her popular school committee blog. The main reason for her decision was what she deemed her “loss of faith” in public schools.

Sanderson has received flak from anonymous commenters on her blog for her decision to pull her own children out of public schools. “I didn’t feel comfortable making decisions about the school and not having them affect my kids,” Sanderson said.

Her moral issues with staying on the school committee with children in alternate schooling did not run concurrent with the thoughts of other school administrators. While she wouldn’t mention specific names, Sanderson said that several school committee members had sent their children to private schools. Even ARHS principal Mark Jackson doesn’t send his child to public school. “It’s like if I walked into Chili’s for dinner, and saw the manager in the back eating Applebee’s food. I would think ‘why isn’t he eating here? Maybe I shouldn’t either,’” Sanderson said.

Sanderson said that her time as school committee member has caused her to become “more depressed” about public schooling. She fears the development of a two-tiered education system in America, where every family that can afford it sends their children to private school and public schools are exclusively for children from low-income households. This fear’s growth was facilitated by Amherst’s strong resistance to change, which Sanderson said she “didn’t understand the depth of” when she first ran for school committee.

Despite all of this, Sanderson said she was glad she served on the school committee. “Good things happened,” she said, and she was satisfied with many of the changes she helped realize. “If I ever felt the same passion and energy I felt in 2008 [in a different community], I would consider running again,” she said.

Perhaps My Final Math Post?

2011-03-11T09:12:00.000-05:00

There are a few important math updates to report.

First, the long awaited math plan is now available and posted on the ARPS website (http://www.arps.org/node/2819). This plan was discussed at both the Regional and Amherst meetings last week (which you can watch on ACTV) and there is a brief article in this week's Bulletin about the Regional SC's discussion of the plan (http://amherstbulletin.com/story/id/200871/).

Second, there will be a public forum on elementary math on Tuesday, March 22nd, at 7 pm in Town Hall. This is your chance to share your thoughts about the math action plan with the SC and superintendent, so I hope all those who care about math in Amherst will read the report and come with their thoughts and questions.

A Few Updates

2011-03-08T08:33:00.000-05:00

First, the Regional School Committee will meet tonight at 7 pm. The items on the agenda are budget for next year (with a possible vote to approve) and the math report. The report is not yet on the ARPS website, but I expect it will be posted soon.

Second, the Amherst School Committee will meet tomorrow night at 7 pm (ARHS library). The big item on the agenda is budget, but I believe the math report will also be discussed (since many of the recommendations for future study relate to elementary).

Finally, Ray Sharick, Fort River principal, has resigned, and a search is starting for a new principal (http://www.gazettenet.com/2011/03/08/principal-amherst039s-fort-river-school-resigns).

Making Evidence-Based Decisions

2011-02-22T08:02:00.000-05:00

Throughout my time on the SC, I've pushed for more use of evidence-based decision-making, meaning choosing programs/policies/curricula with proven results in other districts and evaluating the effectiveness of our own programs/policies/curricula. And I think it is fair to say that I failed to make any real progress in moving our district towards such changes. I'm sure we can all point to reasons for this failure - some resting on me, others resting on the district - and I don't think it is particularly worthwhile to focus on attributing blame at this point.

But I still believe strongly in the benefits of making evidence-based decisions (in education, in medicine, etc.), so I just want to share a cool link with my blog readers that summarizes (in really easy to understand ways) high quality research studies on education: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/quickreviews/. This is a government-based website that provides objective information about findings from scientific research on education topics, and I encourage interested blog readers to check it out.

Here are some cool examples of real findings from this site that I believe have direct implications for our district (I've put the key findings in bold).

1. How to close the race-based achievement gap: "Recursive Processes in Self-Affirmation: Intervening to Close the Minority Achievement Gap"

This study examined whether having African-American middle school students write essays affirming their personal values improved their academic performance. Seventh graders were placed at random into intervention and comparison groups near the start of the school year. Both groups were given structured writing assignments three to five times during their seventh- and eighth-grade years. The intervention group wrote about their personal values (e.g., relationships with friends and family, religious values) and why these were important to them.The comparison group wrote about neutral subjects, such as their daily routine, or why values they considered unimportant might be important to others.

The study analyzed data on about 175 African-American and 190 European-American students (the study’s term for white students who are non-Latino and non-Asian) at a suburban middle school who were randomly assigned to intervention and comparison groups at the beginning of seventh grade. The study measured effects by comparing the seventh- and eighth-grade GPAs of students in the intervention and comparison groups. These GPAs included grades from the four core academic subjects: science, social studies, math, and English. The study examined effects separately for European-American and African-American students and for low- and high-achieving students.

Among African-American students, completing writing exercises about their values increased their average seventh- and eighth-grade GPA by a quarter of a letter grade (0.24 points), a change that was statistically significant. The intervention did not have a statistically significant effect on the academic outcomes of European-American students. Among low-achieving African-American students, the effect was somewhat larger, an increase in average seventh- and eighth-grade GPA of 0.41 points. In addition, the intervention reduced the likelihood that low-achieving African-American students were assigned to a remedial program or were retained in grade.

2. The effectiveness of different elementary math curriculum: "Achievement Effects of Four Elementary School Math Curricula: Findings from First Graders in 39 Schools"

This study examined the relative effectiveness of four widely-used early elementary school math curricula: (1) Investigations in Number, Data and Space (Investigations), (2) Math Expressions (ME), (3) Saxon Math (Saxon), and (4) Scott Foresman-Addison Wesley Mathematics (SFAW). The study included about 1,300 first graders from 39 schools in four school districts in Connecticut, Minnesota, New York, and Nevada. Participating schools were randomly assigned to use one of the four curricula. At least one school in each district was assigned to each of the four math programs. A random sample of approximately 10 students per classroom was included in the analysis. The study measured the relative effectiveness of the four curricula by comparing end-of-year test scores on a nationally normed math assessment developed for the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study–Kindergarten Class (ECLS–K).

First graders attending schools assigned to the ME and Saxon curricula scored significantly higher on math assessments than students attending schools assigned to the Investigations or SFAW curricula. Math achievement did not differ significantly between schools using ME and Saxon; nor were there significant differences in student math achievement between schools using Investigations and SFAW. The authors report that math achievement of ME and Saxon students was 0.30 standard deviations higher than Investigations students, equivalent to moving a student from the 50th to 62nd percentile. Math achievement of ME and Saxon students was 0.24 standard deviations higher than SFAW students, equivalent to moving a student from the 50th to the 59th percentile.

3. How to close the income-based achievement gap: "Addressing Summer Reading Setback Among Economically Disadvantaged Elementary Students"

The study examined whether providing summer reading books to economically disadvantaged first- and second-grade students for three consecutive summers improved reading achievement. In the spring of the first year, 1st- and 2nd-graders in each school were randomly assigned to receive 12 self-selected summer reading books every year for three consecutive summers. Each spring, students in the summer reading group attended a book fair and were asked to select 15 books from the 400 to 600 offered. From these 15 books, 12 were distributed to students in the summer reading group for free on the final day of school.

The authors examined effects for students overall as well as for the subgroup consisting of the most economically disadvantaged students—those who were eligible to receive free lunch.

The study found that students who received three consecutive years of free, self-selected summer reading books had statistically significantly higher reading test scores than students who did not receive summer reading books. The reported effect size of 0.14 is interpreted by the WWC as roughly equivalent to moving a student from the 50th percentile to the 56th percentile of reading achievement. In addition, the study found a statistically significant effect of summer reading among students who were the most economically disadvantaged, with an effect size of 0.21.

4. The potential limits of professional development: "Middle School Mathematics Professional Development Impact Study: Findings After the First Year of Implementation"

The study examined whether 7th-graders’ knowledge of rational numbers improved when the students’ math teachers participated in related professional development activities. A total of eight 6-hour sessions of instruction on pedagogy, content knowledge, and resource materials were provided, three during a summer institute and five during school-year seminars. In the weeks following each of the five seminars, a total of 20 hours of classroom coaching were provided by a facilitator to assist teachers in applying new strategies.

Professional development was administered by either America’s Choice or Pearson Achievement Solutions.

The study analyzed data on about 4,500 students and 200 teachers from approximately 80 schools in 12 districts during the 2007–08 academic year. Half the schools within each district were randomly assigned to offer 7th-grade math teachers professional development on the teaching of rational numbers. Teachers in all schools were allowed to continue participating in existing professional development programs. Student-level math achievement was measured by a computer-adaptive rational number test developed by the Northwest Evaluation Association. Teacher-level topical knowledge was measured by a rational number test created by the study’s authors. Teachers’ instructional practices were measured by classroom observations. The study measured the effects of professional development by comparing outcomes at the end of the academic year in schools that were offered professional development provided by the study with outcomes in schools that did not.

The study found that students in schools where teachers were offered extensive professional development by the study performed no better on a test of math achievement in rational numbers than students in comparison schools at the end of the 2007–08 academic year. Further, the study found the professional development had no impact on teacher knowledge of rational number topics and on how to teach them. However, the study found a significant positive impact of the professional development on one of the three measures of teacher instructional practices examined. Teachers who were offered the study’s extensive professional development engaged in 1.03 more activities per hour that elicited student thinking than teachers not offered the study’s professional development.

5. More on the potential limits of professional development: "The Impact of Two Professional Development Interventions on Early Reading Instruction and Achievement"

This study examined the effect of a professional development program based on Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling (LETRS) on the knowledge and practice of second-grade teachers and the reading achievement of their students.In two of the research groups, teachers received eight days of reading instruction training based on selected modules from the LETRS curriculum, modified for purposes of the study. Training was offered in the summer and continued through the school year. One of the two groups that received the training also received weekly one-on-one support from a specially trained instructional coach. In the third research group, teachers received the district’s standard professional development program.

The authors examined data on 270 teachers and more than 5,000 second graders from 90 elementary schools in four states during the 2005–06 school year. Study schools were randomly assigned to one of three groups: one in which second-grade teachers received training based on the LETRS curriculum, another where they received the training as well as ongoing instructional coaching, and a third where the teachers received the standard professional development available in their district. Thirty schools were assigned to each research group. The study measured effects by comparing the outcomes of teachers and students from each of the three groups of schools.

Providing second-grade teachers training based on the LETRS curriculum (with or without the instructional coaches) increased their knowledge of reading instruction techniques and their use of explicit instruction. However, it did not increase the reading test scores of their students. The authors estimated effect sizes on reading scores that ranged from 0.03 to 0.08. These estimates were not statistically significant.

6. Improving elementary science knowledge: “Teaching Science as a Language: A ‘Content-First’ Approach to Science Teaching”

This study examined whether teaching scientific concepts using everyday language before introducing scientific terminology improves the understanding of these concepts. Both groups were taught through web-based lessons with no science instructor. The content-first lesson began by explaining scientific concepts in everyday language, and then linked these concepts to scientific language using interactive quizzes and activities. The control lesson began by defining scientific terms, and then provided activities similar to the content-first lesson but based only on scientific language.

The study included 49 students—30 who spoke Spanish at home and 19 who spoke English at home—from one fifth-grade classroom in Oakland, California. All students took a four-hour web-based lesson on photosynthesis developed by the study authors. Twenty-five students were randomly selected to take a version that explained scientific concepts using everyday language before introducing scientific terminology. The other 24 took a version that used scientific terminology from the outset. At the end of the lesson, the study authors used a test they developed to assess students’ conceptual understanding of photosynthesis.

When tested immediately after the lesson on their understanding of photosynthesis using scientific language, students who received the content-first lesson had higher scores than students who received the lesson that introduced scientific terminology from the outset. The difference in test scores was about three-fifths of a standard deviation, equivalent to moving a student from the 50th percentile to the 74th percentile.

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

These six studies all provide data (based on high quality research studies) that I believe have potentially great importance for the Amherst district. Two point to the limitations of professional development in terms of improving student achievement (one in elementary reading, one in middle school math). Two point to the effectiveness of particular interventions for decreasing the achievement gap (one in African American middle school students, one in low income elementary students). One points to the hazards of using particular elementary math curriculum (including Investigations, our current curriculum). And one points to the benefits of explaining scientific terms in an everyday way at improving science knowledge in elementary school students.

So, here are six studies identified by the government as meeting appropriate standards for conducting research, and each provides evidence about what works (or doesn't) in terms of student achievement. And for me, that is a better way of making decisions about education than relying on gut instinct about what works, or our feeling of what should work, or what we hope, based on ideology, would work. I have no stake in any of this research - I don't know the authors, this isn't my work, and I get no pay out if Amherst adopts (or avoids) any of these approaches. But I believe we all - parents, teachers, students, community members - have a stake in making sure our public schools are doing the best they can for all children, and to me that means making evidence-based decisions about how to best allocate our limited school dollars.

Closing the Achievement Gap: Strategies That Work

2011-02-19T14:52:00.001-05:00

It will be a slow news week in Amherst (with schools on vacation), so I thought I'd post two interesting articles on strategies for closing the achievement gap.

The first, from Newsweek, focuses on the effectiveness of reducing the achievement gap as a function of income of having low income students attend schools with higher income students, instead of clustering low income students at a single school (http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/31/maryland-s-test-case-to-close-the-achievement-gap.html). This is precisely the research that led to the decision 2 years ago to redistrict our elementary schools, and I hope we see similar gains in terms of achievement in low income kids.

The second, from The New York Times, describes the work of Harvard professor Dr. Ronald Ferguson, who has been a leading expert in examining ways of decreasing the achievement gap as a function of race (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/14/education/14winerip.html). I had the opportunity to have dinner (at an event sponsored by Amherst College) a couple years ago with Dr. Ferguson, and I was extremely impressed by his rational, research-based perspective on how to address this very challenging (and seemingly pervasive) problem.

*******************************************
UPDATE: Here is an example of a recent paper presented at a conference on reducing the achievement gap which examines data on the effectiveness of particular strategies for reducing the gap (I've pasted the abstract below - and have bolded the points I found most profound). The gist is that this research showed smaller class sizes K to 3 (below 18) were very effective in leading to long-term improvements in achievement, and these effects were particularly beneficially for African-American students (I've pasted the paper's abstract below). So, we could use the results of this research to make decisions about how to allocate resources in our district, and presumably that would help reduce our own achievement gap. Last year, kindergarten classes at FR and CF were 20 and 21, and 2nd grade classes were 23 at WW. In contrast, 6th grade classes in all three schools were 16 to 18. The research reported here suggests that for the same money, we could have increased class sizes in 6th grade at all three schools and reduced class sizes in kindergarten (FR and CF) and 2nd grade (WW) and led to higher level of achievement for all students, and especially for African-American students. This is research that Steve Rivkin (and others) has conducted, and in fact, Steve was asked by the Brookline SC to present his research on the benefits of small class sizes in particular grades earlier this spring. Brookline seems to be a district that is interested in making research-based decisions; Amherst is a district that has not shown this same interest (Steve's points during SC meetings on the benefits of particular educational approaches are typically ignored, although he is considered an expert on economics and education).

"Would Smaller Classes Help Close the Black-White Achievement Gap?"Alan Krueger and Diane Whitmore, Princeton University

This paper examines the effect of reducing class-size on student achievement, with particular attention to differential effects by race. A review of the literature suggests that low-income and black students tend to benefit more from attending a smaller class than white students. We extend the literature by providing new results from a long-term follow-up of students who participated in Tennessee's Project STAR. Project STAR was an experiment that randomly assigned 11,600 elementary school students and their teachers to a small class (target of 13-17 students), regular-size class (22-25 students) or regular-size class with a teacher-aide. The experiment began with the wave of students who entered kindergarten in 1985, and lasted for four years. After third grade, all students returned to regular-size classes. We analyze the effect of past attendance in a small class on standardized test scores through the eighth grade, on whether students took the ACT or SAT college entrance exam, on performance on the ACT or SAT exam, on criminal conviction rates, and on teen birth rates. The results indicate that, while students are in small classes, average test scores increase by 7-10 percentile points for black students and by 3-4 percentile points for white students. After all students are returned to regular-size classes in 4^th grade, the gains from having attended a small class fall to about 5 points for black students and 1.5 points for white students, and persist at around that level. If all students were in a small class in grades K-3, we estimate that the black-white test-score gap would fall by 38 percent in grades K-3, and by 15 percent thereafter. Combining estimates of the effect of small classes on 3^rd grade test scores from the STAR experiment with national trends in the pupil-teacher ratio for black and white students since 1971, we find that historical movements in the pupil-teacher ratio can account for almost all of the narrowing of the black-white test score gap as measured by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) exam. We also find that having attended a small class compared to regular-size class raises the likelihood that black students take the ACT or SAT college entrance exam from 31.8 to 41.3 percent, and raises the likelihood that white students take one of the exams from 44.7 to 46.4 percent. As a consequence, if all students were assigned to a small class, the black-white gap in taking a college entrance exam would fall by an estimated 60 percent. In addition, we find that past attendance in a small class raises the average score on the ACT or SAT exam by 0.15-0.20 standard deviation for black students, and by 0.04 standard deviation for white students.

Lastly, we find evidence that criminal conviction rates are 20 percent lower for black males who were assigned to a small class than for black males assigned to a regular-size class, and maximum sentence rates were 25 percent lower, although both of these effects are not statistically significant. The teen birth rate was one third less for white females who were assigned to a small class compared to those assigned to a regular-size class, and the fatherhood rate was 40 percent lower for black teenage males assigned to a small class than for those assigned to a regular-size class. The effect of class size on teenage births for other groups was not statistically significant.

Amherst Bulletin: February 18, 2010

2011-02-18T00:04:00.000-05:00

There are four pieces related to the SC/superintendent in this week's Bulletin which I thought would be of interest to my blog readers.

First, there is a piece describing Maria Geryk's new superintendent contract (http://www.amherstbulletin.com/story/id/198893/). This is similar but not identical to the Gazette piece I posted earlier.

Second, there is a brief story about the Amherst elementary budget cuts proposed at this week's meeting (http://www.amherstbulletin.com/story/id/198851/). I haven't done a blog posting summarizing that meeting, so I want to make three quick points:

there is still no written agreement governing how costs are divided between Amherst and Pelham: so, Pelham with 10% of the enrollment and 25% of the elementary schools is still paying only 6% of central office costs and Amherst is paying 94% - which I still don't understand. Apparently the new goal of the budget subcommittee (Irv, Rick, Debbie Gould) is to have an agreement in place a year from now.
the Spanish program will be expanded to go from 1st and 2nd to 3rd grade next year, but with no increase in staffing, meaning that world language will only be offered 40 minutes a week (contrary to the recommendations of Sean Smith, head of world languages, to provide 1 1/2 hours a week). Some members of the SC expressed concern about this lack of exposure to world language, given the goal of the policy to increase fluency by 7th grade so that students could move into 8th grade Spanish if desired.]
the enrollment numbers continue to decline, with 99 students fewer this year than last year and another drop of 75 students expected next year (and this could even be lower, since we were 44 students lower than projected last year). We also discussed the marked climb in the percentage of kids on free/reduced lunch: 29% of this year's 6th graders are considered low income, compared to 52% of this year's kindergartners. Rick noted that the number of kids on free/reduced lunch actually hasn't really changed; what has happened is that the number of kids not on free/reduced lunch is decreasing.

Third, the editor's column is entitled "Catherine Sanderson's Quest for Change" (http://www.amherstbulletin.com/story/id/198860/). I appreciate the editor's kind remarks about my service, and just want to make a few corrections for the record.

Anonymous comments on my blog had nothing to do with my decision to not run; the week prior to my decision not to run, I learned that my older son's guidance counselor and teacher had send a nasty and name-calling email (identifying me by name) to many in our community, and had to spend a fair amount of time redoing his schedule. This incident led me to really consider the toll of my service on my family.
I do believe the SC members should send their own kids to the public schools (although there are currently SC members who don't choose to do this, and that has been the case throughout the time I've served on the SC), and although it is of course silly to imagine that anyone would opt for private schools out of lack of support for a given superintendent (and I didn't consider pulling my kids after I lost the vote for the last superintendent), I believe families certainly see the superintendent as having a major impact on the nature and direction of our schools. Thus, to run for re-election, I needed to feel confident I could tell the voters that I would have my three kids in our schools in three years ... and I didn't feel I could make that promise, and thus I didn't think it was appropriate for me to run.
I certainly agree that building consensus is essential in making progress on any committee, and that is why I'm so pleased that I was able to work with my colleagues to create such consensus on many important decisions: closing Marks Meadow, redistricting, implementing Spanish language in the elementary schools, creating an evaluation policy, and requesting outside evaluations of math/special education/the middle school. I'm surprised the editors didn't note that all of these accomplishments, which I consider some of the most important ones of my term, were unanimous votes, thus clearly indicating great consensus on the committee.

Fourth, I also have a final oped explaining my decision to resign (http://www.amherstbulletin.com/story/id/198859/). I believe this column speaks for itself, so I won't elaborate.

Two Updates

2011-02-16T10:10:00.000-05:00

First, the contract with Maria Geryk has now been signed and is official. You can read the Gazette story at: http://www.gazettenet.com/2011/02/16/geryk-signs-amherst-schools-superintendent.

Second, I was interviewed by as part of the "Conversations" series on ACTV, and my interview will be shown tonight at 7 pm (you can read the Gazette story on this interview at: http://www.gazettenet.com/2011/02/17/outgoing-amherst-school-board-member-be-interviewed-tonight-actv). I don't know if the interview will be re-broadcast or available on demand.

Maria Geryk Appointed to Permanent Superintendent

2011-02-15T15:41:00.002-05:00

You can read the press release at: http://www.arps.org/node/2772.

Next Week's Meetings

2011-02-09T19:31:00.000-05:00

There will be (at least) three SC meetings next week - and all will be important.

First, on Monday (2-14), we will meet to discuss the contract for the superintendent (this meeting might be mostly in executive session to hammer out details). You can read a brief story on this meeting from Masslive at: http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/02/amherst_school_committees_to_discuss_maria_geryk.html.

Then, on Tuesday (2-15) the Amherst SC will see the first FY12 list of budget cuts/adds, and on Wednesday (12-16), the Regional SC will see the first FY12 list of budget cuts/adds. I believe the Amherst SC meeting will be carried live on ACTV (and thus held at Town Hall); the other two meetings will be in the HS library and will be filmed by ACTV by not shown live.

My Decision: Part 2

2011-02-08T20:50:00.000-05:00

Two quick things to post.

First, I want to thank all of those who have sent kind words via email/text/phone throughout the day. I appreciate hearing from many friends ... and also from those who I didn't even know were supporting me who understood my decision and expressed appreciation for my efforts. I really, really appreciate it. And don't worry: I'm doing OK!

Second, there is a bit of an expanded article from the Gazette on my decision: http://gazettenet.com/2011/02/09/maria-geryk-considers-superintendent-contract-offer-amherst-scho.

My Decision: I'm Not Running

2011-02-08T10:49:00.005-05:00

The papers to file to run again for my seat on the Amherst and Regional School Committees are completed and stacked neatly on the corner of my desk. The deadline to turn them in is 5 PM today.

I have been outspoken and activist on what I feel needs to be improved in the Amherst schools: educational accountability, transparency and community involvement and fiscal responsibility.

During the last three years we have been successful at bringing real change to a stagnated system. Some of these changes, such as eliminating mandatory study halls and closing Marks Meadow to maintain small class sizes, intervention support, and music and art in elementary school, had the potential to improve my children’s education. Most would make no difference for them. My children went to preschool, they were not in the school that required redistricting for economic equity, they have not struggled on MCAS tests, and I am quite capable of ensuring that they take 8th grade algebra and exceed the minimum high school graduation requirements for math and science.

There is a tremendous amount of hostility toward me in the community, which makes it unlikely that I could have any real impact as a member of the School Committee in the future. If I said I thought we should have healthier food in the cafeteria, then there would be public accusations that my brother is an organic farmer, that this change in food was just for my kids, and that this change was all about me. It has never been about me. My career is as a college professor, not a school committee member (and certainly not a politician). For me it has always been about what is best for all the children: Not what feels good, but what yields good educational results.

Some events of the last week have made it clear to me, and to my husband, that whether I would win or lose, running for School Committee would make it untenable for my children to stay in the Amherst public schools. It is not about the superintendent selection; it is about mean personal public attacks, including attacks from school personnel. Since my motivation for serving was to better education for my children, along with all the children of Amherst, this sets up a difficult conundrum.

So in the end, the papers will remain on the corner of my desk, not to be filed at Town Hall. I wish the best for the Amherst and Regional Public Schools; it has been an honor, if not a pleasure, to serve.

***************************************
Here's the Gazette story on my announcement: http://www.gazettenet.com/2011/02/09/catherine-sanderson-reverses-announcement-wont-seek-reelection-0

And here is the Masslive story on my announcement (which includes a link to my press release announcing this decision): http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/02/maria_geryk_still_undecided_co.html.

Geryk Mulls Offer

2011-02-07T18:53:00.001-05:00

Here is the latest Gazette story on the superintendent decision: http://www.gazettenet.com/2011/02/08/geryk-mulls-amherst-schools-offer-panel-member-cites-039emotiona. And here is the latest Masslive story: http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/02/amherst_school_committee_superintendent_maria_geryk_1-year_contract.html.

I'd like to remind all blog readers that personal attacks on SC members (me or others) aren't helpful in moving us forward, and that I won't post negative comments about district staff.

One Year Appointment for Maria Geryk

2011-02-06T17:58:00.003-05:00

Here's the gazette link of the article: http://gazettenet.com/2011/02/07/interim-amherst-schools-superintendent-maria-geryk-offered-perma. And here is the Masslive article: http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/02/interim_superintendent_maria_g_1.html. And here is a more updated Gazette article: http://gazettenet.com/2011/02/07/divided-amherst-school-panels-give-geryk-year.

It was nearly a 5 hour meeting, so I am not going to appoint to summarize it. The gist is that all non-Amherst members and Rick Hood supported Maria Geryk and the other 4 non-Amherst supported someone else (initially two for Kohn - Steve, Rob, and two for Bayless - me, Irv, although Steve and Rob both changed their votes to Bayless after the first ballot). The final vote occurred because Irv (who is on region and Union 26) agreed to a one-year term with Maria. That vote passed 6 to 3 on Region (me, Rob, Steve opposed) and 4 to 2 on Union 26 (me and Steve opposed). Maria will be evaluated by January 1, 2010 and at that time either will be released from her contract or her contract will be extended for a longer term.

Here is my statement that I read, just FYI:

I’ve given this vote a tremendous amount of thought over the last few weeks, as I know all of my colleagues on this board have done. There is no greater responsibility for the SC than choosing a superintendent, and I know we all take this role very seriously.

For me, there are two real challenges in making this decision: first, anyone we choose is a bit of a “leap of faith” in that you never know exactly how someone will be in the job until someone is doing that job (and we have one candidate who in fact has been doing this job and two who have not been doing this job – at least in Amherst), and the second is trying to focus on the totality of the information about the candidates (public opinion, references, prior work and educational history). As we saw with the closing of Marks Meadow, there are often a small number of very loud voices with one view, and it is easy to assume that view represents the entire community. So, I’ve tried very hard to consider the totality of information I’ve received from many sources (both in the Amherst area and from outside our immediate area).

In thinking about my decision, the most important thing for me is where I see the schools right now and who do I see as the person/people who can help us build on our strengths and address the challenges we face. I see real problems in the Amherst schools – and I know the problems in the Amherst elementary schools are frankly not the same ones seen in the elementary schools in Pelham, Shutesbury, and Leverett but many of the broader problems (achievement gap, finances) are seen in our elementary and regional schools.

In the Amherst elementary schools, we’ve seen a drop of 99 students this year compared to last, and this is 44 students fewer than we projected, with 30 students fewer than expected in kindergarten. In addition, we are seeing a massive change in the demographics in our elementary schools: over 50% of kindergartners currently in our schools are on free and reduced lunch (compared to 37% of overall elementary students, marking a dramatic shift). I find this really concerning, as it indicates to me that a growing number of families are opting out of our public schools.

I see a big achievement gap in our elementary schools. In our elementary schools, only 30% of African American students, 38% of Latino students, and 30% of low income students reach proficiency on MCAS math tests.

One of our three elementary schools (Fort River) showed declines in both ELA and Math MCAS scores for all students – the aggregate and most subgroups – from last year to this year.

I see problems in special education, with about 40% of parents not satisfied with their participation in their child's IEP, communication with staff, and the staff's responsiveness to their needs and concerns.

I see huge budget problems now and in the foreseeable future, as indicated by Representative Ellen Story at the Four Towns Meeting last Saturday.

So, when I think about choosing the next superintendent, my primary concern is who the best person is in terms of moving our district forward as we face these pretty immense challenges in terms of achievement, demographics, and finances.

I know that many community members and teachers have very positive feelings about Maria Geryk, and I hear this passion. And I really wish I could feel good about supporting her candidacy, because in many ways, that would be the easiest choice since she is already here and known by our community. But voting for superintendent isn’t supposed to be the easiest choice – it is supposed to be the choice that is best for our community moving forward, and as much as I appreciate the work she has done on creating instructional rounds and being visible in the community, I also have real concerns about her ability to handle the very real problems we face.

We have a big achievement gap, and students who were failing MCAS were identified in September, yet the Achievement Academy didn’t start until January (half-way through the school year), which seems less than ideal.

We have one school (Fort River) that is showing declines in both math and ELA MCAS and she hasn’t developed a plan to address this.

We have real concerns from some parents in special education, and she hasn’t attended SEPAC

We have major budget challenges, and it is February and we’ve not seen a budget at Amherst or Regional (and she has already cancelled the budget presentation set for Tuesday). This is two months later than what we had with Alberto.

We have had a report on math in our district from an outside expert in October, and it is February and we have had no action plan on dealing with this recommendation, despite the fact that we have a major achievement gap and lower MCAS math scores in 3^rd grade than the state average. I haven’t seen any sense of urgency from her in addressing these long-standing concerns.

We had, at the time of her appointment, a very divided SC, and I have seen no interest or willingness on her part of trying to bring the SC together, which is really sad to me. I didn’t vote for Alberto Rodriguez, yet when he arrived, he reached out to me and met with each SC member individually each month, and really worked to understand all of our concerns. I haven’t seen this type of interest in getting to understand those who disagree with her from Maria. Relatedly, I know that Maria has reached out to some community members, but I feel that reaching out has been to those who support her – and there hasn’t been a willingness to do the same for those who have real concerns – about math, about special education, etc. - and I find that really unfortunate.

So, when I look at Ms. Geryk’s performance over the last year, a year in which she was clearly trying to put her “best foot forward” in terms of getting the superintendent’s job, I have serious concerns. And those concerns unfortunately make it impossible for me to take a leap of faith and vote to make her the permanent superintendent. I feel really bad about this, as I know this vote in many ways would be the easiest one for our community, since she is of course by far the most familiar choice, and change is scary.

I had hoped I could vote for Dr. Kohn and feel comfortable taking a leap of faith about his candidacy. I liked his commitment to social justice and achievement for low income kids and kids of color, and I liked his ability to make major changes in struggling districts, and I liked his experience as a regional superintendent in MA. But I understand that for many people in the community, and some of my colleagues on the SC, voting for Dr. Kohn would require too much of a leap of faith, and I can understand and respect these feelings, and therefore don’t feel comfortable supporting his candidacy either.

However, after reading all of the comments from parents and teachers and community members and outside references (who have known Dr. Bayless for years), I feel quite comfortable taking the “leap of faith” necessary to offer him the permanent position.

He has considerable experience as a superintendent (11 years), meaning he’s dealt with precisely the types of things we are going to deal with (budgets, instruction, evaluation, etc.).

He has huge amounts of experience in business – he has a certificate in business and has served as an associate superintendent for business in three different districts, and has worked in California (a state with huge budget problems). The Amherst and Regional schools have a budget of 50 million – and we really need someone with experience making difficult budget choices and gaining community support for such choices.

He is new to Amherst, and MA, but the challenges we face are precisely the types of things ALL districts face, and he has support from people (e.g., Rob Detweiler) in understanding MA laws and finances. I believe the long-term knowledge and experience he brings is really valuable, and more than makes up for what he doesn’t current know in terms of specific MA laws/regulations.

He has a strong focus on evaluation, and the importance of evaluating what we are doing to make sure that it is working. This is NOT a strength of our current district, and I really think his focus on doing this would be invaluable.

He is clearly dedicated to low income students and ELL (many Latino students in CA) students, and discussed a number of specific ways he had worked to improve achievement in these groups.

He has intensive experience in developing strategic district plans, which is also not a current strength of our district and I believe could be really advantageous.

He has a very nice manner in terms of bringing people together – his idea of bringing together small groups of SC members (with different views) to discuss things is excellent, and is precisely the type of thing that I believe would have been really, really helpful over the last year.

Will there be a learning curve if we offer the job to Dr. Bayless? Yes. But I believe that giving a couple of months to Dr. Bayless to learn our schools and towns and administrators and MA laws is a very small price to pay for gaining his extensive knowledge and background with finances and evaluation and bringing people together. I feel 100% comfortable that Dr. Bayless has the ability to help all of our schools build on their strengths and work on their challenges and bring our communities together.

**********************************************************************
UPDATE: It has been a very long day, and I don't think anonymous potshots at me or Steve or anyone on the SC is helpful or constructive or brings the community or the SC together in any way. If anyone wants to share private thoughts with me, please send them to my private email: casanderson@amherst.edu. But I'm not going to continue to provide this forum for mean-spirited attacks.

Still More Superintendent Search Updates

2011-02-04T07:44:00.000-05:00

I'm posting two pieces on the superintendent search - one a review of Maria Geryk's interview with the community yesterday from the Gazette (http://gazettenet.com/2011/02/04/3rd-finalist-geryk-has-her-day) and a more general review of the superintendent search process and various community views from the Bulletin (http://www.amherstbulletin.com/story/id/197159/). As noted in the second piece, the community has varied feelings about the three finalists - SC members are certainly getting feedback pushing each of the three finalists! I think it is also important to remember that the SC also has much more information than the community will ever see - lengthy work histories, references (both in writing and via phone) from numerous sources, and all of the feedback sheets completed by various people (teachers, administrators, parents, community members) at each of the forums. I believe we will all take all of this information very seriously in making our decision about which of the three finalists is the best fit for our community at this time when we meet on Sunday ... and my hope is that the community will rally around and support the superintendent, whoever he or she might be. When we last searched, my first choice candidate wasn't chosen, and that was certainly disappointing ... but I supported Dr. Rodriguez from the time he was chosen, and I was sorry to see him go as he did in March. I hope that all members of the community will welcome and support the chosen superintendent, and that we as a SC are able to select someone that we can all feel good about working with and supporting in the years ahead. This is a crucial time in the Amherst and Regional schools and choosing a superintendent is the most important work the SC does.

Superintendent Search Update

2011-02-03T10:58:00.000-05:00

I'm just attaching a brief article on the search update - with a decision still expected this (Super Bowl) Sunday (http://www.gazettenet.com/2011/02/04/amherst-school-committee-select-new-superintendent-sunday). I agree completely with Kristen's quote in this article that we need to select a finalist who has the support of the entire SC, and I am very hopeful that we will be able to reach such an agreement this Sunday, and then all move together to support this person in the important work ahead for our districts. This is a very exciting time for the Amherst and Regional schools, and I hope we see our districts moving to reach their full potential in the year ahead.

Final Interview: Thursday, February 3, 2011

2011-02-02T17:50:00.001-05:00

So, let's hope the third time's the charm: the third finalist, Maria Geryk, will interview tomorrow (8 to 9 am MS cafeteria and 2:30 to 3:30 WW library are open meetings with the public; 6 to 8 pm ARHS library is an open interview with the SC). Here's the Gazette story on the delay: http://www.gazettenet.com/2011/02/01/geryks-appearances-and-interview-postponed-amherst.

Few Students Show Proficiency in Science, Tests Show

2011-02-02T11:47:00.003-05:00

This article (from The New York Times) is very interesting, though depressing - showing that American students are much less proficient in science than in other disciplines (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/education/26test.html). As many of my blog readers likely know, K to 12 science education is one of our district goals for this year, and I am hopeful that we will see some improvements to science education (especially in our elementary schools) in the upcoming year.

UPDATE: Here's another article summarizing the same study (http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-national/20110125/US.Report.Card.Science/).

Superintendent Search Stuff

2011-01-28T12:46:00.000-05:00

I'm out of town now at a conference, but wanted to post the latest Amherst Bulletin article on the search for the new superintendent (http://amherstbulletin.com/story/id/196532/). As I note in this article, the comments I've received (some to my personal email, others to the entire SC) have really been all over the map, with strong advocates for each of the three finalists. To me, that is actually very encouraging, because it means that each of the three finalists is seen as having real strengths by at least some members of our community. I am hopeful that the SC can have a thoughtful discussion about the strengths and fit of each of the three finalists when we meet on Sunday, February 6th, and that we will emerge with a finalist that all members of the SC feel comfortable supporting. This is the most important decision the SC makes, and I believe all 10 of us are really focused on gathering information (from many sources) and making the best decision we can for the districts.

Education Week Study on School Districts' "Educational Productivity"

2011-01-25T14:48:00.000-05:00

One of my blog readers sent me this fascinating study from Education Week, which I've posted below. I've also found the summary of the research this article was based on, and have pasted all the highlights of those recommendations at the end of this piece. I found this study very thought-provoking and believe some of my blog readers will as well. I look forward to hearing thoughts!

Sweeping Study Weighs School Districts' 'Educational Productivity' (Education Week, January 20, 2011)

By Christina A. Samuels

A report from a progressive think tank measuring the “educational productivity” of more than 9,000 school districts around the country shows that districts getting the most for their money tend to spend more on teachers and less on administration, partner with their communities to save money, and have school boards willing to make potentially unpopular decisions, like closing underenrolled schools.

The study, from the Washington-based Center for American Progress, attempts to measure district productivity nationwide, according to its authors. Almost every K-12 school district in the country with more than 250 students was included, and the information has been included in a website that allows users to compare districts within states.

The attempt to drill down on productivity—what districts are getting in terms of student achievement in math and reading for their education dollar—is particularly appropriate now, as relief to districts from federal economic-stimulus dollars is petering out, and an economic upswing is not on the horizon, said John Podesta, the center’s president and chief executive officer.

“The results we found were striking. There was an enormous productivity gap among districts,” said Mr. Podesta, a former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton. “Even controlling for demographic factors, there was no clear relationship between spending and results.”

This report is part of a series of reports from the center examining government accountability and efficiency. The analysis is intended to encourage a more sophisticated discussion rather than just suggesting district funding should be cut in the name of encouraging efficiency, said Ulrich Boser, a senior fellow at the center and the report’s author.

“Do we pretend that this problem [of inefficiency] doesn’t exist, so we don’t enter into this conversation? I think the answer is no,” Mr. Boser said. “In education, we think about achievement on one side, and spending on the other, and we need to marry that.”

Three Perspectives

The center’s analysis offers three ways of looking at district productivity, each of which offers slightly different results.

The report uses 2007-08 spending data, and state reading and math test results for the 2007-08 school year. Because state assessments vary across state lines, district efficiency can only be compared within any one state. Also, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Alaska, Montana and Vermont were not included in the analysis. The District of Columbia and Hawaii are single-district jurisdictions; Montana and Vermont did not have enough comparable districts, and Alaska was excluded because the authors could not sufficiently adjust for cost-of-living differences within the state.

The basic return on investment measure rates school districts on how much academic achievement they get for each dollar spent, relative to other districts in the state. Adjustments are made for students who are deemed more expensive to educate than their peers in general education: special education students, students who are eligible for free or reduced-price lunches, and English-language learners.

The “adjusted return on investment” is similar to the basic measure, but it uses a different form of analysis to be more sensitive to spending differences within states.

Finally, a “predicted” efficiency rating attempts to gauge how much more or less achievement a district produced, compared to what would be expected of a district with the same amount of spending and student demographics. By this measure, a district that is doing better-than-expected could get a high ranking.

The interactive website that accompanies the report allows some interesting comparisons. For example, the Eau Claire and Oshkosh districts in Wisconsin are about the same size—Eau Claire has around 10,800 students, and Oshkosh around 10,200 students. They serve similar student populations, and get largely similar results on state exams. However, Eau Claire’s total expenditures are about $8 million more per year than Oshkosh, which spends about $110 million a year to run its district.

The measures also show that high-spending districts are often inefficient. The report notes that only 17 percent of the Florida districts in the top third in spending were also in the top third in achievement.

Also, students from disadvantaged backgrounds nationally were more likely to be enrolled in highly inefficient districts, even taking into account that such students tend to cost more to educate.

Donna Cooper, a senior fellow at the center, who assisted with the report, said she hopes that state and district officials move past defensiveness to seek out real change. “If you address these challenges, you can boost achievement,” she said.

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

Note from Catherine: You can read the full report by going to: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/01/educational_productivity/.) And here are the summary points:

Many school districts could boost student achievement without increasing spending if they used their money more productively. An Arizona school district, for example, could see as much as a 36 percent boost in achievement if it increased its efficiency from the lowest level to the highest, all else being equal.
Low productivity costs the nation’s school system as much as $175 billion a year. This figure is an estimate; our study does not capture everything that goes into creating an efficient district. But the approximate loss in capacity equals about 1 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product.
Without controls on how additional school dollars are spent, more education spending will not automatically improve student outcomes.
Efficiency varies widely within states. Some districts spent thousands more per student to obtain the same broad level of academic achievement. After adjusting for factors outside of a district’s control, the range of spending among the districts scoring in the top third of achievement in California was nearly $8,000 per student.
More than a million students are enrolled in highly inefficient districts. Over 400 school districts around the country were rated highly inefficient on all three of our productivity metrics. These districts serve about 3 percent of the almost 43 million students covered by our study.
High-spending school systems are often inefficient. Our analysis showed that after accounting for factors outside of a district’s control, many high spending districts posted middling productivity results. For example, only 17 percent of Florida’s districts in the top third in spending were also in the top third in achievement.
Students from disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely to be enrolled in highly inefficient districts. Students who participated in subsidized lunch programs were 12 percentage points more likely to be enrolled in the nation’s least-productive districts, even after making allowances for the higher cost of educating lower-income students.
Highly productive districts are focused on improving student outcomes. We surveyed a sample of highly productive districts to learn more about their principles and practices. The districts that performed well on our metrics shared a number of values and practices, including strong community support and a willingness to make tough choices.
States and districts fail to evaluate the productivity of schools and districts. While the nation spends billions of dollars on education, only two states, Florida and Texas, currently provide annual school-level productivity evaluations, which report to the public how well funds are being spent at the local level.
The quality of state and local education data is often poor. In many instances, key information on school spending and outcomes is not available or insufficiently rigorous, and this severely impedes the study of educational productivity. For instance, we did not have good enough data to control for certain cost factors, such as transportation. So a rural district with high busing costs might suffer in some of our metrics compared with a more densely populated district.
The nation’s least-productive districts spend more on administration. The most inefficient districts in the country devote an extra 3 percentage points of their budgets on average to administration, operations, and other noninstructional expenditures.
Some urban districts are far more productive than others. While our main results are limited to within-state comparisons, we were able to conduct a special cross-state analysis of urban districts that recently participated in a national achievement test. After adjusting for certain factors outside a district’s control, we found that some big-city school systems spend millions of dollars more than others—but get far lower results on math and reading tests.

I'm Running

2011-01-24T09:35:00.003-05:00

I had originally intended to complete the superintendent search, and then make a decision about whether I felt I had the energy/drive/motivation to continue serving on the School Committee for the next three years. The weather-related delay in the search has given me time over the last few days to really think through what I'd like to accomplish if re-elected, and to talk with family and friends about this important decision.

And I've decided to run for re-election.

I'm very proud of the many things the School Committees have accomplished during my first term (e.g., saving a million dollars a year by closing Marks Meadow so we could save art/music/intervention/small class sizes, eliminating the massive inequity in low income schools between our elementary schools, adding elementary Spanish, and conducting reviews of math, special education, and the middle school). I still feel there is important work that needs to be done to make our good schools the best they can be. I believe I have the experience, energy, and drive to help create change, and I look forward to working with my Amherst and Regional School Committee colleagues (and whoever the superintendent will be!) to accomplish more great things for kids over the next three years.

During the campaign, this blog will continue to serve the same purpose it has served over the last few years -- to provide parents, teachers, and community members with a safe place in which to share ideas, concerns, and suggestions with me and others in our community about education in Amherst. It will not focus on the campaign or particular candidates (although I will of course post information about School Committee candidate forums and newspaper articles). For those who want to learn more about my campaign, including my goals for a next term and ways to help with my re-election, please refer to my campaign website: SandersonForSchoolCommittee.com.

And one more thing: it is very difficult in terms of time/energy/emotion to run for elected office in Amherst, and I believe all candidates for SC deserve respect from all members of our community. I will therefore not engage in negative campaigning against my opponent(s), and ask that others not to do so on my behalf. I know first-hand how difficult these types of attacks are, not only on those who choose to run, but also on their families (especially their kids).

So, blog readers, please learn more about my background/experience/goals, do the same for my opponent(s), and then vote for the person who best shares your own goals and who you believe will best help our schools become the schools you'd like to see. That process should not involve negative attacks (on blogs, in the paper, or via email) on any of the candidates for SC (and I won't post negative comments on my blog about any other candidates).

Thank you for helping to create a positive election season in which we avoid engaging in personal attacks on adults, and instead focus on creating the best schools we can for all kids.

**************************************************************
An update: Here is the gazette story on my announcement: http://www.gazettenet.com/2011/01/25/sanderson-run-re-election-amherst.

Still Disappointed: Our Children Deserve Better

2011-01-22T17:32:00.000-05:00

I'm attaching the most recent article describing the attempt to sabotage the process of selecting a superintendent, with real hopes that those who are driving this push will have the respect for all members of the community (especially the students) to allow this process to continue (http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/01/community_group_urges_amherst.html). Again, I know this campaign is being carried out by a small number of people, and it does not reflect the broader views of the Amherst (and small town) communities -- but I am hoping we can all as a community encourage these efforts to stop immediately.

I'd like to outline a few key points that many who are pushing this rush to judgment seem to be missing.

First, Ms. Geryk was appointed in March of 2010 at a meeting in which selecting a new superintendent (interim or otherwise) did not appear on the agenda. The public (parents, teachers, community members) had no notice that this appointment could potentially occur; School Committee members were not given any notice that this appointment would occur. The appointment proceeded only by a very divided vote: although all members from Pelham, Leverett and Shutesbury voted for this 16-month appointment, only 1 Amherst member did so (Andy Churchill, who had already decided to not seek re-election). The other 4 Amherst members (including the only two members of color on the SC) opposed this appointment.

Second, Ms. Geryk has never been through any formal or informal review process in her role as an interim superintendent. So, reports that she is doing a great job, or a not so great job, are just individual people's opinions based largely on their own personal experiences. The SC has never examined how well Ms. Geryk has led the district towards accomplishing the district goals that have been set out, and/or how effectively she has performed as superintendent.

Third, community feelings about Ms. Geryk's performance are certainly mixed (and I'm not speaking to the percentage of views that are pro versus con, or whether these views are accurate or biased on either side). Those who have concerns about Ms. Geryk's performance need to recognize that some members in our community feel very positively about her efforts (including some special education parents). Those who feel very positively about Ms. Geryk's performance need to recognize that some members in our community feel quite concerned about her efforts (including some special education parents). As a member of the SC, I need to pay attention to both of these views, and to try to understand both of these views (and I would hope that members of our community on both sides would try to do the same).

But I'm concerned that some of those who feel Ms. Geryk is doing a great job therefore seem to feel that the process should end immediately, without giving any consideration to the two external finalists (although the SC voted to conduct a full and open search last September). I believe these efforts are entirely inappropriate, just as I would believe that efforts to end the process prior to her interview and immediately appoint either Dr. Kohn or Dr. Bayless would be entirely inappropriate.

Finally, and as I've noted before, we have three finalists who have varied strengths in terms of years of experience as a superintendent, education, familiarity with our community, etc. To me, that means the superintendent search committee (of which I was a member) has done a good job in presenting the community, and the SC, with three distinct choices. And it is clear that there is not a single "right choice" since each member of our community, and indeed each member on our School Committee, may evaluate the finalists' pros/cons in different ways, based on what he/she sees are the most important characteristics our community needs moving forward.

But here's the key thing: all members of our community owe it to themselves, and the students in our schools now and in the future, to learn as much as possible about each of the three finalists (and this should include the external finalists - who are obviously much less familiar to our community - and the internal finalist - who different people in our community see in quite different ways). This is a very important choice for the future of our schools, and I continue to hope that all members of our community will allow this very important process to continue in a way that is fair, open-minded, and welcoming to all three finalists. Our children certainly deserve no less.

Two School Updates: Dr. Kohn's Interview and an Update on Elementary Language

2011-01-21T01:50:00.001-05:00

The second of the three finalists visited Amherst this week, and I'm attaching the story from the Gazette on Dr. Kohn's interview (http://gazettenet.com/2011/01/21/seasoned-finalist-fields-questions). As noted in the article, the third and final candidate (Ms. Geryk) will interview on Tuesday, February 1st, and the vote will take place on Sunday, February 6th.

I'm also attaching an oped from Steve Rivkin from this week's Bulletin on the elementary Spanish language program (http://amherstbulletin.com/story/id/195896/). I know some parents and community members have had questions about this program, and hopefully this piece will be helpful in clarifying how and why this program was established.

Disappointed By Some in Our Community: PLEASE Give the Process a Chance

2011-01-20T13:05:00.016-05:00

I believe some of the best things about living in Amherst should be having a community in which there is an openness to all views, an acceptance of and respect for people from diverse backgrounds, and a real willingness to listen to all sides.

Thus, I've been dismayed to see a campaign to disparage our two external candidates with long and distinguished careers in multiple districts and to promote our internal candidate. Surely we can only make the determination of who is best for our district if we approach all our finalists with an open mind, ready to learn more about their backgrounds and experiences and ask any questions we might have. I hope that citizens who have received email blasts and read statements in the newspaper and/or on blogs on behalf of a specific candidate will reserve judgment until they have heard and thoroughly researched each candidate’s record. Surely our kids deserve better than this type of rush judgment.

Throughout my time as a member of the School Committee, and before that as co-head (with Steve Rivkin) of ACE, I have pushed for more community voices to be heard. But I have never told people what those voices should say. ACE has never supported a single School Committee candidate or superintendent finalist; emails sent out to that listserv have always said simply "here are opportunities to learn more about these people and to share your view; please let your view be known". Similarly, I have never pushed a single School Committee candidate, or superintendent finalist; I have simply informed people about opportunities to learn more about candidates/finalists and encouraged people to share their views (whatever those views might be).

Choosing a superintendent is an extremely important decision -- this choice will impact our schools and our community and our kids for a VERY long time. I therefore continue to hope that all parents, teachers, and community members will take the time and energy needed to get to know more about the background, experience, and vision of all three finalists (through newspaper articles available on my blog, resumes and essay responses available on line at ARPS.org, and the interviews available on ACTV) ... and then, after reviewing this essential information, I hope to hear from as many people as possible about the pros/cons of each of the three finalists (emails can be sent to schoolcommittee@aprs.org). Each School Committee member can then individually balance the relative pros/cons of each finalist noted by the community, our own individual impressions, and the considerable additional information we have (e.g., more extensive information about prior experiences, reports from numerous references) to make the best vote possible when we select a superintendent on Sunday, February 6th.

*******************************************************************************************
Note: I posted a quick version of this post yesterday and then felt I needed to give the post more thought and reflection -- then I posted a revised version of this post that was quite brief (as I was rushing out to the superintendent interview and then driving last night to New Jersey for a conference AFTER the interview). I've now posted basically the original version -- but with slight revisions. Will post all comments -- but please be respectful and do NOT comment on any of the finalists!

Superintendent Search Updates

2011-01-20T10:01:00.000-05:00

I'm posting two pieces from the Gazette related to the superintendent search.

First, there is an article on the first finalist's visit to Amherst yesterday (http://www.gazettenet.com/2011/01/20/calif-finalist-engages-amherst-parents-staff). I know not all people had an opportunity to meet or see Dr. Bayless, so hopefully this will be helpful in conveying some of his experiences and ideas. His interview will also be shown on ACTV (and I assume available on "by demand" as well).

Second, there is a letter from the three School Committee members on the superintendent search committee (me, Rick, Nora) on the search process which responds to the critiques raised by the Leverett Select Board (http://www.gazettenet.com/2011/01/20/open-process-guides-hunt-amherst-schools-chief). I hope this will clarify the process for the community.

Gazette Profile of Ms. Maria Geryk

2011-01-19T23:53:00.008-05:00

I'm posting the third (and final) profile of the superintendent finalists from the Gazette (http://www.gazettenet.com/2011/01/20/amherst039s-interim-superintendent-evokes-strong-sentiments-pro-). And Maria Geryk's interview will take place on Tuesday, February 1st (same exact schedule as for the earlier candidates, with options to meet the public from 8 to 9 am at ARMS cafeteria and a 2:30 to 3:30 in the WW library, plus a two hour public interview). I've also found out the interviews will be shown on ACTV (and I assume available on line). The School Committees will then meet on Sunday, February 6th at 1 pm (place to be announced) to make their final selection.

It is really important that we hear from all community members about their thoughts about these finalists. Feedback forms are available at all of the events, and you can also email the School Committee with your thoughts directly at: schoolcommittee@arps.org.

Gazette Profile of Dr. Gerald Kohn

2011-01-18T18:42:00.000-05:00

Here's the next profile of the superintendent finalists from the Gazette (http://gazettenet.com/2011/01/19/amherst-superintendent-candidate-called-advocate-youth). Again, let me encourage all parents and community members to come out and meet these finalists, particularly those who are less familiar to our community, and share your thoughts about their background, experience, and fit with the School Committee. Feedback forms will be available at each public session (8 to 9 am, ARMS cafeteria, 2:30 to 3:30 WW library, 6 to 8 pm ARHS library), and emails can be sent to the entire School Committee at: schoolcommittee@arps.org.

Delay in Superintendent Search

2011-01-18T14:14:00.002-05:00

As I'm sure everyone now knows, the superintendent search process is delayed due to weather. I'm attaching the most recent Gazette article on the search, which provides more information on the revised schedule (http://gazettenet.com/2011/01/18/wrinkles-emerge-amherst-schools-chief-search). I'm also attaching the letter from the Leverett Select Board which appeared in today's paper (http://gazettenet.com/2011/01/18/leverett-board-assails-superintendent-search).

I will briefly note a few things:

First, I am puzzled that the Leverett Select Board's concern about a lack of community involvement in the process leads them to favor absolutely no community involvement and the permanent appointment of the current interim superintendent (who received no community input at the time of her appointment).

Second, I am puzzled that the Leverett Select Board letter only notes the travel schedule of an Amherst member led to a rushed search, when in reality a Shutesbury member had already planned to be away, and therefore the Amherst member made plans (assuming that the search wouldn't be conducted that week). I wish they had taken the time to ask Rick about the reasoning for the timing of the selection prior to making such an assumption.

Third, I'm puzzled that the Leverett Select Board expresses concern that the School Committee did not eliminate an Amherst's representative's blog, when the search consultants did not in fact request the elimination of any blog (mine, Larry's, Rick's, or the community supported blog). In addition, obviously the School Committee has no power over the first amendment right to free expression by members on the committee or in the community.

Fourth, I'm puzzled that the Leverett Select Board seems to feel the search committee representative from Leverett wasn't qualified to share her views on the superintendent search unless she was selected by the Leverett School Committee. There were three applicants from Leverett who applied to serve on the committee, and we chose the one who had by far the most experience with our regional schools (which I would think would make her the most qualified to participate). There was absolutely no request at any time that the Leverett and Shutesbury School Committees would choose their own representatives; the only request was that residents of both towns were chosen to participate, and this request was agreed to unanimously by the Regional School Committee.

Finally, although I understand that the Leverett Select Board has expressed their strong preference for the current interim (a request made as early as last June at the 4 Towns Meeting), the Regional School Committee chose to undertake a full and open search to find the best leader for our district. A search committee has identified three candidates, and I believe we as a community owe it to all three of these finalists to keep an open mind about who is the best fit, especially as we learn more about the backgrounds and experiences of the two outside candidates who are less familiar to our community. I again urge parents and community members to come meet Dr. Bayless and Dr. Kohn this week, and to share their views with the school committee by filling out feedback forms at each event and/or by emailing the entire School Committee (schoolcommittee@arps.org). This is a very important decision, and I hope we can all focus on making a decision that is focused on what is best for kids and the future of our schools.

Gazette Profile of Dr. John Bayless

2011-01-18T00:27:00.000-05:00

I'm pasting the Gazette profile of our first superintendent finalist, Dr. John Bayless to help the community learn more about his background and experiences (http://gazettenet.com/2011/01/18/amherst-superintendent-finalist-california-not-fazed-conflict-bo). I hope all interested parents and community members will come meet Dr. Bayless on Wednesday (8 to 9 am, ARMS cafeteria, or 2 to 3, WW library, or 6 to 8 pm, ARHS library). Feedback forms can be completed at any of these public forums. All School Committees can be reached with comments at: schoolcommittee@arps.org.

Questions Arise Over Amherst Superintendent Search

2011-01-17T12:16:00.001-05:00

I'm posting a story that will appear in tomorrow's Gazette on some questions regarding the superintendent search (http://www.gazettenet.com/2011/01/18/questions-arise-over-amherst-superintendent-search-leverett-offi). I will say I share Irv's concerns about the letter from the Leverett Select Board and find it very unfortunate that they have chosen to engage in such a hostile act.

I'm surprised that the Leverett Select Board apparently believes the fairest process is to appoint an interim superintendent effective immediately when that person was chosen without a single bit of public comment, at a meeting in which the selection of a superintendent wasn't even on the agenda, and on a vote that was opposed by 80% of the Amherst School Committee members (which represent 75% of the students in the elementary and regional schools). That hardly seems to me to be the process that is most inclusive of the community.

The summary of the timeline is as follows:

1. In March, a superintendent was chosen to serve for 16-months without any opportunity for public comment. At that time the discussion focused entirely on whether we should immediately search for a permanent superintendent or wait a few months; no one on the SC suggested this might be a permanent appointment.

2. In July, the SC discussed plans for starting on the search, as planned. Only one person (Kip Fonsch, from Leverett) suggested cancelling the search; no one agreed with this idea.

3. In August, the SC discussed moving ahead with the search (no one disagreed, although Kip wasn't there).

4. In September, the SC discussed (on a surprise motion by Kristen Luschen from Shutesbury) calling off the search and appointing the interim permanently. The motion to call off the search failed 4 to 5.

5. In October and November, the SC met with HYA, held numerous focus groups, received over 400 responses to an on-line survey, and developed a time line. That time line involved holding interviews on the 18th/19th/20th and choosing a finalist on the 20th. We also developed (and agreed by consensus) membership on the search committee: 3 SC members (representing each committee), two teachers, two parents, and a government official.

6. In November, Kip requested that we make several changes to the search committee; adding members from Leverett and Shutesbury, adding an administrator, allowing teachers to choose their own representatives. We made ALL of those changes in order to increase the community's voice in the selection. At no time did the SC even discuss allowing the school committees of Leverett and Shutesbury to select their own town's representative.

7. In January, the search committee met three times to review and interview the candidates. This was an active and thoughtful group of people who took this job VERY seriously. I appreciated the insights of each person and believe that we all approached this task with an open mind and focused entirely on kids. We chose 3 finalists.

8. Concerns were raised about not having adequate time to gather feedback on the two outside finalists, so Rick switched the schedules around so that we would have 24 hours after seeing Dr. Kohn (and 48 hours after seeing Dr. Bayless) to get feedback from the community. Again, this change was done to allow for more gathering of feedback and reflection on the two outside candidates, which seems entirely appropriate (since the community and the committee obviously has much more extensive knowledge about the internal candidate).

Now, after all of this time, we are hearing that the process is unfair because the Leverett SB (who has no say whatsoever in the selection of a superintendent) wanted a different person from Leverett on the search committee. In addition, they would like me, Nora, and Rick to resign because we developed this process, and they would like the interim to be appointed permanent superintendent (which they somehow feel allows for much more community voice in this selection, although I find it hard to believe that many Amherst residents have contacted the Leverett Select Board with their thoughts about the qualifications they'd like to see in a superintendent and/or their thoughts about Ms. Geryk). I find this all very discouraging.

I believe we all have to focus not on politics, but on education for kids in our schools. A thoughtful search committee (including parents, teachers, a SB member from Shutesbury) has selected three finalists to bring to our community. I believe we as a community owe it to these three finalists to treat them with respect and to get to know them. There are two public forums each day in which these candidates will respond to questions, there is extensive information from the candidates themselves (essay responses, background summary) on the web, and there will be two lengthy interviews (which can be seen live on the web and/or in person). The community will have multiple times to give input, and that input will be seriously considered (along with the extensive other input the SC will have, including more extensive biographical data and many references).

I believe we all need to focus on selecting the very best superintendent to lead our community, and this can only occur if all members of the community approach this process with a fair and open mind, and do not prejudge any of the finalists without even meeting them or attempt to sabotage the long-established process. I hope members of all four towns will join me in engaging in a fair and objective process this week and vow to fully support whoever is chosen as our next superintendent. I didn't vote for Dr. Rodriguez in the last search, and I was disappointed when my preferred candidate, Dr. Sklarz, wasn't chosen. But from the moment the SC made its decision, I vowed to work collaboratively with Dr. Rodriguez, and I believe we had a very good relationship throughout his time in Amherst. I believe all members of the SC, and all community members, need to have the same commitment to supporting our next superintendent, whoever that person is. We owe our kids this much, and I have to believe that all of us must share the same goal of choosing the best person to provide our kids with the excellent education they deserve.

Change in Superintendent Finalist ORDER

2011-01-14T18:27:00.000-05:00

Just FYI: Dr. Kohn will now interview on Wednesday, January 19th, and Ms. Geryk will interview on Thursday, January 20th. This change was made to allow more community feedback on the less familiar candidate prior to the vote selecting a superintendent on the 20th. Again, I encourage all community members and parents to attend the public sessions (8 to 9 am in ARMS, 2:30 to 3:30 in Wildwood) and/or the interview (6 to 8 pm, ARHS) and share their thoughts with the School Committee. Feedback forms will be available at each session; comments can also be emailed to the School Committee directly at: schoolcommittee@arps.org. This is a very important decision for the future of our district, and I hope all members of our community will take the opportunity to get to know each of the three finalists and share their thoughts.

No Change in Northampton Start Time

2011-01-14T18:23:00.000-05:00

In case anyone is able to concentrate on anything OTHER than the superintendent search ... I'm posting an article from the Gazette on the decision by the Northampton SC to not change the start times for next year (http://gazettenet.com/2011/01/14/panel-doesn039t-act-nhs-start-time-stays-same). There is a subcommittee on the Amherst and Regional School Committees meeting now to examine the issue of start times; a report is expected later this spring.

Education Matters: Change Doesn't Come Easily

2011-01-13T23:08:00.000-05:00

I'm posting the link to my final Education Matters column in the Amherst Bulletin (http://amherstbulletin.com/story/id/195145/). I have enjoyed sharing my thoughts about education in Amherst (and elsewhere) with Bulletin readers, and appreciate the dialogue my columns have fostered. I'd be interested in hearing what my blog readers think about the issues raised in this final column -- as they strike me as the key ones we are now facing as a community (as we hire a superintendent and embark on what already appears to be a very heated School Committee race this spring).

Gazette Profile of Dr. Gerald Kohn

2011-01-13T21:18:00.000-05:00

I'm posting a link to a story in the Gazette about Dr. Gerald Kohn, the superintendent finalist we will see on Thursday, January 20th (http://www.gazettenet.com/2011/01/14/one-amherst-school-chief-finalist-fired-previous-job). I will just remind blog readers that I believe all three finalists deserve a fair treatment by our community (and whichever person is selected should be warmly welcomed by our entire community). I really hope all parents/teachers/community members will take the time to attend the various sessions and talk directly with Dr. Kohn to learn more about his background, experience, and vision for our schools.

Superintendent Finalists Announced

2011-01-12T19:48:00.003-05:00

So, I am delighted to announce that the search committee has chosen three finalists to move forward in our search for the next superintendent of the Amherst and Regional schools. Let me start by saying that I am honored to have been chosen by the Amherst SC to serve on the search committee, and particularly honored to have worked with the 9 members of this search committee: Rick and Nora (from the Regional and Pelham SCs), two teachers (Stephanie Joyce from CF and Mark Moriarty from ARHS), a principal (Mike Morris from CF), one community member (Elaine Puleo, Shutesbury SB chair), and 3 parents (Eva Rosenn - HS parent from Leverett, Navneet Marwaha - FR parent, Pat Ononibaku - HS parent from Amherst). This was a great group of people who I truly believe were focused on bringing forward the best finalists to our community. Thanks also to John and Al from HYA, who brought forward a great group of candidates for us to consider; the money we spent hiring this firm was money very well spent.

The three candidates are:

Tuesday, January 18th - Dr. John Bayless (BA in Science and Social Science, Minor in Biology, and MA from Cal State U - Pomona, EdD from USC), who has served as a superintendent in many different California districts for many years. He has also worked as a teacher and principal, and has achieved certificates in business and personnel. (see full bio at http://www.arps.org/node/2646)

Wednesday, January 19th - Ms. Maria Geryk (BA from Westfield State College, MA in School Psychology and Certificate of Advanced Graduate Studies from U Mass), who has served as an interim superintendent in Amherst over the last year. She has also worked as a director of special education, school psychologist, school adjustment counselor, and special education teacher. (see full bio at http://www.arps.org/node/2647)

Thursday, January 20th - Dr. Gerald Kohn (BA in Biology from Princeton, MA in Teaching from Montclair State College, EdD in Education Administration from Harvard), who has served as a superintendent in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Massachusetts for over 20 years. He has also worked as an assistant superintendent, director of desegregation, math department coordinator, and teacher. (see full bio at http://www.arps.org/node/2648)

I hope we can remember that we are trying to make a good impression on all three candidates, as they are choosing us just as we are choosing them! So, let's focus on the many positive experiences and attributes of these three finalists, as we try to choose the one who is the very best fit for the Amherst and Regional schools at this time.

I encourage all parents, teachers, and community members to meet the candidates when they are in town next week. There will be feedback forms available at all events for those who attend to complete; this information will be given to the School Committee for consideration.

The schedule of events on each of three days is as follows:

8:00 am to 9:00 am - Coffee with parents/community in the ARMS cafeteria
9:00 am to 9:30 am - Central office welcome and quick tour
9:30 am to 10:30 am - Administrators/Superintendent's Council
10:30 am to noon - Tour of ARMS/ARHS (by principals)
Noon to 1:00 pm - Lunch with chairs of Pelham and Amherst School Committees
1:00 pm to 2:30 pm - Tour of elementary schools
2:30 pm to 3:30 pm - Reception with parents/community members at Wildwood
3:45 pm to 4:45 pm - Meeting with teachers at ARMS Library
4:45 pm to 5:45 pm - Dinner
6:00 pm to 8:00 pm - School Committee interview (ARHS Library)

Now, let's please all keep fingers crossed for NO snow days next week!

Finally, the selection meeting in which the Regional and Union 26 School Committees (both must agree) will take place starting at 8:30 pm on Thursday, January 20th, in the ARHS library.

***********************************************************************
Just adding a brief update, which is to attach the Gazette article on the finalists: http://www.gazettenet.com/2011/01/13/field-narrows-3-amherst-superintendent.

I also want to note that I will not post any remarks that comment (positively or negatively) on any of the three finalists: people who have questions and/or comments should review the candidates full credentials (to be posted soon on the ARPS website), and attend events with the candidates next week.

Even More News About Math in Amherst

2011-01-06T22:57:00.000-05:00

I'm posting three quick pieces - one article (Gazette) and two opeds (Bulletin) - involving math in our district.

The Gazette piece (http://www.gazettenet.com/2011/01/07/more-parents-sought-math-review-panel-amherst) describes the search for more parents to be added to the Math Review Panel. I appreciate the administration's decision to expand this group (as I requested at the December meeting). Given the interest many of my blog readers (and indeed many parents in Amherst) have on this topic, I very much hope that many applications will be received. Interested parents can apply directly to Superintendent Geryk at gerykm@arps.org.

I'm also posting two opinion pieces on math. The first of these is by Curriculum Director Beth Graham (http://www.amherstbulletin.com/story/id/193380/), who proposes that any changes to the math program (including following the recommendations of Dr. Chen) be made following a process of review and evaluation. The second of these is by parent Debbie Gabor (http://www.amherstbulletin.com/story/id/194386/), who encourages more urgent action on behalf of the administration.

Education Updates from Amherst: Superintendent Search, Math, Study Halls, and More

2010-12-24T13:33:00.007-05:00

This week's Amherst Bulletin was full of education news, so I wanted to get those stories posted quickly.

First, there is a longer version of the story I posted earlier this week from the Gazette on the superintendent search committee (http://www.amherstbulletin.com/story/id/193375/). I am honored to have been chosen by the Amherst School Committee to participate on this committee, and think this is a great group of people to conduct the screening interviews. I look forward to our interviews on January 11th and 12th--and to announcing the three finalists to the School Committee on Wednesday, January 12th.

Second, there is a story on the discussion about elementary math from the last School Committee meeting (http://www.amherstbulletin.com/story/id/193365/). We had a long discussion about this issue -- one I know is of concern to many parents -- at our meeting on Tuesday, December 21st so I encourage those interested to watch the meeting on ACTV. I really hope that the administration chooses to appoint a broader council to review the elementary recommendations in particular (the current math curriculum council has no representation from Wildwood parents at all), and that an action plan is developed to implement changes in our math program in time for the start of the 2011-2012 academic year. As I noted at the meeting, the dissatisfaction with elementary math has been widely-known at least since 2007 (when Jere Hochman first appointed a math curriculum council, of which I was a member), and these kids don't get to make up these lost years that we spend discussing what to do.

Third, there is an article describing the issue of study halls in the high school, as discussed at the last Regional School Committee meeting (http://amherstbulletin.com/story/id/193355/). I remain concerned that students at ARHS have had mandatory study halls (sometimes as many as 2 per year) whereas students in other high schools in our area haven't had such a requirement. It certainly seems like students should be able to fill their school day with classes (which could also allow kids to broaden their exposure to things like art and PE), and I hope the budget proposal we receive in January includes no required study halls.

Finally, there are a few brief assorted updates on school issues that may be of interest to parents and community parents (http://www.amherstbulletin.com/story/id/193364/). This story includes the names of those on the 6th Grade Task Force, an announcement that Steve Rivkin will be out of the country for about a month and a half on a Fulbright scholarship, and Kip Fonsch's recommendation that the schools steer some students to trade schools instead of the high school.

Note: I'll be away for much of the next week, without consistent access to email, so apologies if responses aren't posted quickly. Best wishes to all for a relaxing holiday season!

Superintendent Search Committee

2010-12-21T14:05:00.005-05:00

So, the search committee for the superintendent is set -- and you can read about the members (and time line) on line at: http://www.gazettenet.com/2010/12/22/amherst-regional-school-committee-names-members-superintendent-s.

Let me just add a few points here.

First, we had a number of people apply to participate, and I was really sorry we were limited to so few spots (the search firm recommended a group of 7 or 8 and we went with 10). I am really thankful to all of those who submitted their names and were willing to spend 2 days helping with this very important task.

Second, we were very limited in terms of who could be selected -- we only had 4 spots available (since 3 were taken by SC members, 2 by teachers, 1 by an administrator), and of those 4 spots, we needed to have one spot for a Shutesbury resident and one spot for a Leverett resident. We also needed to make sure that these 4 spots included a town official, an elementary parent, and a regional parent.

Third, this search committee has an important job, which is to narrow the list of 5 candidates selected by the search firm to 3 finalists. However, ultimately the 10 members of the SC will choose from these 3. The superintendent choice must be agreed to by both the regional SC (5 members from Amherst, 2 from Pelham, 1 from Leverett, 1 from Shutesbury) and Union 26 (all 3 members from Pelham and 3 members from Amherst - me, Irv, Steve). The plan is to make this selection at a meeting on Thursday, January 20th at 8:30 pm.

Amherst News: Still More on Math, Salaries, Study Halls

2010-12-18T20:47:00.007-05:00

Now that my semester is over (well, at least the teaching part of it -- not yet the grading part of it), I'm catching up on assorted articles that I believe will be of interest to my readers. Enjoy!

Here's a late one from the Amherst Bulletin (November 19th) on the Amherst School Committee's discussion about the math report (http://amherstbulletin.com/story/id/189682/). Data presented by Steve Rivkin at this meeting noted in particular the problems low income children in our schools are having with math compared to low income children in other districts. For those interested in elementary math, please come (or watch) the Amherst School Committee meeting this Tuesday (12-21, 7 pm, Amherst Town Hall), in which math is once again on the agenda!

I'm also attaching a more recent piece from the Amherst Bulletin (also featuring a discussion at an Amherst School Committee meeting) in which Steve presented data on the relative salaries paid to administrators in Amherst versus Northampton (http://www.amherstbulletin.com/story/id/190998/). As noted in this piece, Amherst has more administrators (e.g., we have assistant principals at the elementary level whereas Northampton does not), and we pay our administrators substantially more. Although interim superintendent Geryk notes that these differences are hard to compare because we are a regional district, I'm not clear why this is relevant (e.g., do our principals in MS and HS have different responsibilities because these schools include kids from 4 towns?).

The most recent Amherst Bulletin also included an examination of the issue of whether study halls in our high school should count as instruction time (http://www.amherstbulletin.com/story/id/192070/). I've certainly heard concerns from parents about having their children spend time in study halls, and I'm very glad that a majority of the Regional School Committee voted to recommend the elimination of mandatory study halls last spring. I continue to be concerned that other high schools haven't had such a requirement, whereas our students have had to take one or two study halls each year (a point Rob Spence made at the last meeting).

Finally, there was a brief story about the leave of absence taken by Fort River principal Ray Sharick (http://www.gazettenet.com/2010/12/15/fort-river-principal-indefinite-leave). As I stated in the article, I hope all is well with Ray and his family and believe that privacy is deserved. Fortunately, there are now definite plans for his return in January (http://www.gazettenet.com/2010/12/17/return-date-set-amherst-principal).

One more note: I plan to post my December Education Matters column and two different views (one by middle school teacher Jamison Isler, one by Jim Oldham) in the next day or two. Since these three are all opinion pieces, I wanted to discuss these in a different post than the news stories.

Assorted News: International Achievement, Students' Ratings of Teachers, and Amherst (and Northampton) Education Updates

2010-12-07T15:33:00.009-05:00

So much news to report ... in Amherst and beyond. Here are links to a number of interesting articles (and thanks again to blog readers who continue to send me great things to post).

First, there is an article from last week's New York Times on the differences in student achievement across cultures (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/07/education/07education.html?emc=eta1). I certainly agree with Arne Duncan that these scores should be a wake up call.

Second, there is a fascinating article in today's New York Times on the high correlation between students' perceptions of teachers and student achievement (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/11/education/11education.html?_r=2&hp). I believe the research described in this article provides more evidence that we really should listen to what students say about the education they experience.

Third, I'm giving links to three pieces from the Hampshire Gazette.

The first describes continuing discussions by the Northampton School Committee in terms of start times (http://www.gazettenet.com/2010/12/10/discussion-continue-later-start-time-nhs), an issue that is also under discussion in Amherst (I'm not sure of the status of this discussion in Amherst, but will ask for an update at the next regional meeting).
The second describes goals discussed by the Amherst School Committee at our last meeting (http://www.gazettenet.com/2010/12/10/class-size-offerings-issue-amherst-budget-talks). As noted in this article, we will have a preliminary budget presented at our December 21st meeting--I strongly encourage parents interested in issues with budget implications (e.g., Spanish language program, instrumental music, math curriculum) to watch and/or attend this meeting and share their thoughts with the School Committee.
The third and final article describes the state of the elementary Spanish program in our schools (http://gazettenet.com/2010/12/11/amherst-spanish-program-receives-mixed-reviews). As noted in this article, I am really pleased that we have finally implemented a world language program in our elementary schools (something the community has requested for a decade), but am concerned -- based on comments made by Sean Smith, the head of world language in our schools -- that the current 40 minutes a week provided may not be adequate to achieve the level of fluency he believed was important. I look forward to getting more clarity on this issue, and the future plans for implementing this program, soon.

More News: Evaluating Teachers, Early Starts (?), Regionalization, Partnerships, Elections

2010-12-07T10:55:00.013-05:00

This post veers off in many different directions ... with the only common theme that the topics all relate to education (in Amherst or elsewhere). I look forward to hearing thoughts on any/all of these!

The first link is to a fascinating article from the New York Times on the use of new methods of conducting teacher evaluation, in part through using video-based observations of classroom instruction (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/04/education/04teacher.html). This article also discusses the importance of figuring out what classroom practices are linked to higher achievement and helping teachers learn effective strategies from watching other teachers.

Next, there is a link is to an article from the Amherst Bulletin a few weeks ago on the thoughts about regionalization (http://amherstbulletin.com/story/id/189655/). This article raises many interesting points, and describes plans currently under discussion in Shutesbury to form either a K to 6 or K to 8 regional/union agreement with Leverett and Pelham.

Third is a link to a recent article from the Hampshire Gazette about the potential of changing start times in the Northampton schools (http://www.gazettenet.com/2010/12/03/panel-seeks-talk-nhs-starting-time-planned). I have been following the discussions in Northampton with interest, and look forward to learning whether they do or don't make a change. A similar task force has been appointed in Amherst (Rob Spence is the SC representative), and I am interested to see whether this group makes a similar recommendation about changing start times in our schools.

Fourth, I'm attaching a link to the story in last week's Amherst Bulletin about the partnership Maria Geryk has arranged in which our district pays faculty and graduate students from the U Mass school of education for various services (http://amherstbulletin.com/story/id/190980/).

Finally, here is a link to a recent story on Masslive.com about the upcoming Amherst School Committee election in March of 2011 (http://www.masslive.com/springfield/republican/index.ssf?/base/news-32/1291623461167280.xml&coll=1). As I noted to this reporter, I have not yet made a decision about whether I will run for re-election, but plan to do so in late January.

Articles on Education in Amherst: Math (again), Budgets, Superintendent Search

2010-12-01T11:54:00.010-05:00

My apologies for the less frequent updates here ... this is a hectic time of my semester, so I'm not as up to date on my postings as I normally am. But I hope my blog readers will enjoy these three pieces related to education in Amherst.

First, here is a link to a thoughtful piece by Lisa Kosanovic published in the Amherst Bulletin about the current math debate (http://amherstbulletin.com/story/id/189691/). I found her observations very insightful (particularly since she is both a math teacher in Holyoke and a parent with kids in the Amherst schools).

Second, here is a link to my November Education Matters piece, which focuses on the School Committee's role in managing budgets in a way that is responsible to tax payers (http://amherstbulletin.com/story/id/188918/).

Finally, here is a link to a Gazette story on the characteristics identified by the search firm as needed for the new superintendent (http://www.gazettenet.com/2010/11/24/amherst-panels-eye-skills-schools-chief). I believe it is always helpful to have an outside perspective, and certainly agree that an effective superintendent needs to be able to work to bring boards together around a common vision -- something the Amherst School Committee actually has done quite well (and has been doing for sometime) but something that Regional School Committee has struggled with at times (and certainly it is more challenging to bring people together on a larger board with more diversity of opinions and views).

But I'd also encourage community members - and indeed prospective superintendent candidates - to actually check out the meetings on ACTV ... because the vast majority of meetings (even at the regional level) are in fact constructive and respectful (even when we disagree). At last week's meeting, we had a pretty long debate about expanding the membership of the search committee, and ultimately the motion to move to 10 members (and include residents of Leverett and Shutesbury) passed unanimously. Last night we had a long discussion about a motion by Steve Rivkin about gathering information on the effectiveness of the two different math programs in the high school -- and this motion ultimately passed by a large (though not unanimous) majority. So, is there active and vigorous discussion? Absolutely. But ultimately I believe this type of debate leads to better decision-making, and thus better outcomes for kids, which I think is something parents, teachers, School Committee members, and superintendents should want.

Superintendent Search Committee

2010-12-01T10:28:00.002-05:00

Note: This announcement is now posted on the ARPS website (http://www.arps.org/node/2526), and I would strongly encourage applications for anyone interested in serving in this important way (and free on the 11th and 12th of January!). We have 5 open spaces (3 School Committee members and 2 teachers are already on the committee), and those will include at least one government official and two parents (one elementary, one regional) as well as representation from Leverett and Shutesbury. Please let me know if you have questions.

Apply to be a member of the Superintendent Search Committee

If you would like to submit your name to be considered as a member of the Superintendent Search Committee, please click here to send an email to: Rick Hood, Catherine Sanderson and Nora Maroulis before 11 pm, December 15, 2010.

Note that members of the search committee MUST be available for the following dates and times:

January 5 (time TBA, but will be at night, likely 6pm) - a 2 hour meeting with HYA to prep the search committee for the interviews

January 11
10:00am - 12:00pm - Interview #1
12:15pm - 2:15pm - Interview #2
2:30pm - 4:30pm - Interview #3

January 12
12:00pm - 2:00pm - Interview #4
2:15pm - 4:15pm - Interview #5
4:30pm - discussion and choice of 3 finalists
Night (time unspecified, probably 6pm) - presentation of the 3 finalists to the full school committee

NOTE: the times shown above could change so please plan on being available from 9am to 6pm on January 11 and 12.

In your email please include the following:

• Name
• Phone number
• Are you a parent, citizen, government official, school administrator or student?
• What school(s) do you have children in: none, ARHS, ARMS, Amherst Elementary, Pelham Elementary, Leverett Elementary or Shutesbury Elementary?
• What town do you reside in: Amherst, Pelham, Leverett or Shutesbury?
• Please state in a paragraph or two why you would make a good member of the search committee.

We will be choosing members of the committee by the end of December, most likely by the end of week ending December 18.

Thank you for your interest. If you have any questions please contact Rick Hood (hoodr@arps.org, 413-320-3611).

Rick Hood, Catherine Sanderson, Nora Maroulis
School Committee members of the Superintendent Search Committee

Education News Beyond Amherst

2010-11-22T10:33:00.007-05:00

It is very easy to focus entirely on education as it impacts us most directly -- what is going on in the Amherst and Regional Public Schools. But many of the discussions that we are having at a local level are also occurring on a national level. Here are a two pieces that I think really speak to the challenges public education now faces.

This first piece is from the New York Times, and examines Secretary of Education Arne Duncan's push to recruit new teaching talent (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/opinion/21friedman.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss). Here's my favorite line: "Duncan’s view is that challenging teachers to rise to new levels — by using student achievement data in calculating salaries, by increasing competition through innovation and charters — is not anti-teacher. It’s taking the profession much more seriously and elevating it to where it should be." I could not agree more.

This next piece is from the Washington Examiner, and discusses the issue of whether teachers should receive higher pay (as they do in the Amherst and Regional schools) for having masters degrees in light of evidence showing no association between education and effectiveness in the classroom (http://washingtonexaminer.com/news/business/2010/11/economists-want-stop-teachers-degree-bonuses). This article notes that "The biggest losers will be university education schools, because they make a lot of money on master's degrees, Hanushek said. 'There's a relationship between education schools and teachers that is not particularly healthy,' he said." Given the increasing pressure on school budgets, I certainly agree that it makes sense to avoid spending money on things that don't improve education for kids.

This issue of whether higher pay should be given for teachers with masters degrees has also been raised by Bill Gates, as reported in Education Week (http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/state_edwatch/2010/11/bill_gates_on_school_budgets_cut_wiselyand_change_pay_schemes.html). Gates also makes the point that schools could save money by increasing class sizes, as long as those classes are taught by highly effective teachers. Again, these strike me as very interesting ideas to ponder for our schools.

And STILL More on Math

2010-11-18T14:37:00.006-05:00

Given the massive interest about math my blog continues to generate, I am now receiving various articles from others about math (thank you!).

First, here is one from the University of Chicago on the important role that parents have in talking about math to their young children (http://news.uchicago.edu/news.php?asset_id=2156). I found this research fascinating -- in part because we hear tons about the importance of reading to kids early on in terms of promoting literacy, but much less about the importance of talking about math/numbers.

Second, here's a story from the Boston Globe on how even Massachusetts is losing ground in advanced math (http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2010/11/10/mass_losing_ground_in_advanced_math/?p1=Local_Links). I found this one pretty depressing -- both as a parent of three kids in Massachusetts schools and as a professor.

School panel seeks advice on class sizes

2010-11-11T15:45:00.006-05:00

This is an interesting article on class sizes in Brookline, and in particular addresses the Brookline School Committee's interest in making research-based decisions on how to best allocate district resources (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/11/11/brookline_school_panel_seeks_advice_on_growing_class_sizes/?page=2). Steve Rivkin, who was asked to present information to the Brookline School Committee, describes his own research on the benefits of small class sizes for particular students.

Regional School Committee, November 9, 2010

2010-11-10T10:01:00.007-05:00

I'll do a longer blog post soon on last night's meeting, but here is a brief summary of probably the part people are most interested in anyway from the Gazette -- the math report (http://www.gazettenet.com/2010/11/10/consultant-amherst-replace-elementary-math-program). You can also read Dr. Chen's full report (http://www.arps.org/node/2479), as well as curriculum director Beth Graham's response (http://www.arps.org/node/2483), on the ARPS website.

Math Review Presentation

2010-11-08T10:38:00.005-05:00

Dr. Andrew Chen will attend the Regional School Committee meeting tomorrow, Tuesday November 9th, at 7 pm in Town Hall to present his findings about math in the Amherst and Regional schools. This item is scheduled quite early on the agenda, and I'm certain he will be willing to respond to questions. The full report has been received by the administration and the School Committee, and will be posted later today on the ARPS website. Please read the report and attend the meeting (or watch it live on ACTV) to hear Dr. Chen's recommendations involving math in our schools. There is also a brief piece in last week's Bulletin about the math review (http://amherstbulletin.com/story/id/188122/).

Update: The Math Report is now available on the ARPS website (4 pm Monday).

Much Education Action in Amherst

2010-11-02T10:33:00.009-04:00

I'm just posting a few quick articles from the Gazette that address issues of education in Amherst, and thus I thought would be of interest to my blog readers. Enjoy!

Here is an article just posted on line announcing Maria Geryk's intention to apply for the permanent superintendent job (http://www.gazettenet.com/2010/11/03/amherst-interim-school-chief-geryk-apply-permanent-post-some-par).

This article, from yesterday's Gazette, describes the formation of a committee in Leverett to study various alternatives to their school structure (http://www.gazettenet.com/2010/11/01/leverett-forms-panel-study-regionalization). People interested in learning the other towns' explorations about education options should also check out the Shutesbury group's website, which describes a number of options they are considering, including pulling their 7th and 8th graders from the Amherst Regional Middle School and forming a K to 8 district with Leverett and Pelham (http://www.shutesburyeducation.info/?page_id=7).

Note: I have now fixed one of these links that wasn't working - sorry about that!

Waiting for Superman

2010-11-01T14:37:00.004-04:00

I'm posting a review from the New York Times of a new documentary on failing public schools in America (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/24/movies/24waiting.html?src=me). The film is playing at Amherst Cinema and I encourage everyone interested in educational issues to see the movie. The documentary highlights the efforts of Geoffrey Canada, the founder of the Harlem Children's Zone, and Michelle Rhee, Chancellor of the Washington, DC schools, to reform public education in America.

The documentary brings up many controversial issues around and approaches to education reform, and is creating significant discussion across America. Amherst schools of course do not face the considerable problems seen in the NYC and DC public schools. However, the topics the film addresses, the achievement gap, charter schools, and the role of teacher evaluation and teachers unions in education, are all being played out in Amherst as well as the big cities.

I haven't yet seen the film, and I am not endorsing or criticizing any of the positions or politics explored in the film. Like anything that points out faults in our education system the film has been heavily criticized for being anti-teacher, anti-union, pro-charter school and all together too negative. On the other hand it has been celebrated for finally talking openly about the crisis in American education that should have been addressed years ago. I hope that the film might provide some insight and inspiration as we examine the issues around public education in our town.

Meeting Update AND Superintendent's Forum

2010-10-27T14:05:00.010-04:00

I'll do a longer blog post soon about last night's (very good) Amherst School Committee Meeting, but two quick things for now:

1. We voted last night to form a task force to study the governance of the Amherst elementary schools, as you can read about in the Gazette article (http://www.gazettenet.com/2010/10/28/amherst-school-committee-eyes-future-school-oversight-which-may-). We've spent a lot of time discussing various options on this, and I've heard a lot of different views, and ultimately I believe we need to have a better understanding of the financial implications of the current arrangement -- as well as any alternative arrangement -- so I am really glad the Amherst SC all voted to support the formation of this task force. Steve has agreed to participate, and may be joined by another member of the Amherst SC, and will certainly be joined by 1 or more members of the Amherst Finance Committee.

2. There is a public forum regarding the superintendent selection (and the characteristics/qualities community members/parents/teachers want in this person) so please come share your thoughts: 7 pm tonight (Wednesday), ARHS auditorium. You can also fill out a survey on line sharing your thoughts (http://www.arps.org/superintendent-search).

Math: A Few Updates to The Bulletin

2010-10-22T16:36:00.009-04:00

I know there is considerable interest in math in this district, so I was pleased to see the brief piece by Nick Grabbe on the upcoming math review in this week's Bulletin (http://amherstbulletin.com/story/id/186227/), and in particular the publicity for the presentation of the math review by Dr. Chen on Monday, November 1st, at 6:30 pm in the middle school. But I'd like to point out a few things that I wished had been noted in this important story.

First, the piece points out the rise in 6th grade math scores, and that is indicated as evidence that the Investigations curriculum is effective. However, Investigations is a K to 5 curriculum only; our 6th graders use a new curriculum called Impact, which a number of parents (including myself) pushed for for two years. Thus, any improvement in 6th grade scores is due to the new curriculum, which was adopted last year for the first time, and not to Investigations, since 6th graders don't use Investigations.

Second, I'm surprised the story didn't mention that the 3rd grade math scores (the first math scores collected by MCAS, which follow 4 years of Investigations) in Amherst are below the state average. To be precise, only 18% of the 3rd graders in Amherst scored at the Advanced level in math, compared to a state average of 25%. That really suggests that our district is not helping kids to achieve at the highest level. However, even more concerning was the finding that 14% of the kids in Amherst scored at the warning level in math, compared to the state average of 11%. So, our district has more kids at the very bottom level than the state average AND fewer kids at the top.

Third, it is not that "some parents and School Committee members" express concern about Investigations; there has been long-standing concern about Investigations among parents AND teachers in Amherst since at least 2007 (see http://fr.arps.org/node/41 for the math program report which I assisted with under the direction of Jere Hochman and includes negative comments by parents and teachers about Investigations) and there is a large national debate about this curriculum. You can read about the concerns (including petitions to eliminate Investigations) across the country simply by googling "Investigations" and "math". You will find many links showing concerns. In other words, the Amherst debate isn't really an Amherst debate; it is a national debate (and frankly, a very important national debate).

Finally, and most importantly, I think the key piece of information that should have appeared in the story is not opinion - mine, parents, teachers, School Committee members - but data. Because frankly, I'm not interested in having a curriculum simply based on what some people like (whether those people are parents, teachers, SC members, etc.). I want a curriculum that works to teach math. And I've attached a link to an article reporting a random assignment study published last summer (funded by the US Department of Education) showing that Investigations was the weakest of the 4 elementary math curriculum studied (http://ies.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=NCEE20094052). Here's a brief summary:

Achievement Effects of Four Early Elementary School Math Curricula: Findings from First Graders in 39 Schools reports on the relative impacts of four math curricula on first-grade mathematics achievement. The curricula were selected to represent diverse approaches to teaching elementary school math in the United States. The four curricula are Investigations in Number, Data, and Space; Math Expressions; Saxon Math; and Scott Foresman-Addison Wesley Mathematics. First-grade math achievement was significantly higher in schools randomly assigned to Math Expressions or Saxon Math than in those schools assigned to Investigations in Number, Data, and Space or to Scott Foresman-Addison Wesley Mathematics. This study is being conducted as part of the National Assessment of Title I. The report cleared IES peer review on February 2, 2009.

I believe that elementary kids in Amherst deserve an excellent math curriculum that will provide them with a thorough basis in mathematics so that they can build on this knowledge in MS and HS math and science courses. If the best curriculum for our kids is Investigations, that's great -- we already own it! And I believe we all need to focus on the facts, and not ideology, and I have serious concerns about both our 3rd grade math scores (again, following 4 years of Investigations) and the results of this randomized study showing Investigations is the worst of the 4 curriculum. I really hope Dr. Chen's report can provide useful information to the district moving forward, and I hope all those interested in this topic will try to attend his presentation on November 1st.

There Is No 'War on Teachers'

2010-10-21T15:04:00.006-04:00

Note: This is an interesting oped on education which appeared in the Wall Street Journal earlier this week. The author (Eric A. Hanushek) is a professor at Stanford University (and a frequent co-author with Steve Rivkin), and is a well-regarded expert on issues in education.

No longer is education reform an issue of liberals vs. conservatives. In Washington, the Obama administration's Race to the Top program rewarded states for making significant policy changes such as supporting charter schools. In Los Angeles, the Times published the effectiveness rankings-and names-of 6,000 teachers. And nationwide, the documentary "Waiting for 'Superman,'" which strongly criticizes the public education system, continues to succeed at the box office.

All sides of the educational policy debate now accept that the key determinant of school effectiveness is teachers-that effective teachers get good achievement results for all children, while ineffective teachers hurt all students, regardless of background. Also increasingly accepted is that the interests of teachers unions aren't the same as the interests of children, or even of most teachers.

Until recently, the unions asserted that they spoke for teachers and that they should judge which reforms are good. Any proposal they didn't like, they labeled part of a "war on teachers." Their first response to the Los Angeles Times and to "Waiting for 'Superman'" has been to drag out that familiar line. According to the American Federation of Teachers, "The film's central themes-that all public school teachers are bad, that all charter schools are good and that teachers' unions are to blame for failing schools-are incomplete and inaccurate, and they do a disservice to the millions of good teachers in our schools who work their hearts out every day."

What's really going on is different. President Obama states that we can't tolerate bad teachers in classrooms, and he has promoted rewarding the most effective teachers so they stay in the classroom. The Los Angeles Times published data identifying both effective and ineffective teachers. And "Waiting for 'Superman'" (in which I provide commentary) highlighted exceptional teachers and pointed out that teachers unions don't focus enough on teacher quality.

This is not a war on teachers en masse. It is recognition of what every parent knows: Some teachers are exceptional, but a small number are dreadful. And if that is the case, we should think of ways to change the balance.

My research-which has focused on teacher quality as measured by what students learn with different teachers-indicates that a small proportion of teachers at the bottom is dragging down our schools. The typical teacher is both hard-working and effective. But if we could replace the bottom 5%-10% of teachers with an average teacher-not a superstar-we could dramatically improve student achievement. The U.S. could move from below average in international comparisons to near the top.

Teachers unions say they don't want bad teachers in the classrooms, but then they assert that we can't adequately judge teachers and they act to defend them all. Thus unions defend teachers in "rubber rooms"- where they are sent after being accused of improper behavior or found to be extraordinarily ineffective-on the grounds that due process rights require such treatment. (In a perverse way, rubber rooms are good as long as it is not feasible to remove teachers that are harming kids; it is better to pay these teachers not to teach than to have more children suffer.)

So we are seeing not a war on teachers, but a war on the blunt and detrimental policies of teachers unions. If unions continue not to represent the vast numbers of highly effective teachers, but instead to lump them in with the ineffective teachers, they will continue doing a disservice to students, to most of their own members, and to the nation.

There is a place for an enlightened union that accepts the simple premise that teacher performance is an integral part of effecting reform. As the late Albert Shanker said in 1985, when he was president of the American Federation of Teachers: "Teachers must be viewed . . . as a group that acts on behalf of its clients and takes responsibility for the quality and performance of its own ranks."

The bottom line is that focusing on effective teachers cannot be taken as a liberal or conservative position. It's time for the unions to drop their polemics and stop propping up the bottom.

Mr. Hanushek is a senior fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.

Inadequate evaluations hamper progress in our school system

2010-10-18T15:13:00.004-04:00

This is a link to an oped by Steve Rivkin in last week's Amherst Bulletin which I think raises a number of very important points (http://amherstbulletin.com/story/id/185446/). Steve's professional work examines the economics of education, and therefore he brings a depth of understanding of the research on education to his School Committee work (in fact, he was recently asked to present research on the effects of class size on achievement to the Brookline School Committee). I found this oped fascinating, and hope my blog readers will enjoy it as well.

Superintendent Search 2010

2010-10-17T17:22:00.002-04:00

Note: This announcement is now on the ARPS.org website, which I think is a great example of the extent to which this search firm is gathering information from all stakeholders. Please take a few minutes to click on the link to the survey to share your thoughts about the qualities we need in a superintendent, and encourage your friends/neighbors/colleagues to do the same (http://www.arps.org/superintendent-search).

Our school district is now in the process of searching for a new Superintendent of Schools to begin work in July 2011. Hazard, Young, Attea and Associates has been hired to assist the School Committees in this search process. Consultants Al Argenziano and John Connolly of HYA will begin their work by helping the community define the qualities, skills and experience that the public is looking for in a Superintendent. The work to develop this leadership profile will occur on October 27 and October 28, during which time a variety of meetings will occur with school, parent, and community groups. In addition, a public forum will be held on Wednesday, October 27 at 7:00 pm in the ARHS Auditorium. The list of groups scheduled to meet with the consultants will be announced in the next few days.

In addition to holding public forums, we are now posting an online survey to seek your input in the process of hiring a new superintendent. This survey is designed to gather your perception on the importance of various characteristics commonly found in effective superintendents. The information will be used by the School Committees to determine the "Desired Characteristics" of our next superintendent. Select the survey link below that best represents your relationship to the School District.

Please continue to check this site for updates as the search process occurs. We deeply appreciate your participation in this important endeavor.

Rick Hood, Chair
Regional School Committee

Irv Rhodes, Chair
Amherst School Committee

Debbie Gould, Chair
Pelham School Committee

Updated Summary: Regional Meeting 10-12-10

2010-10-13T13:23:00.008-04:00

Here is my longer summary of the 4 hour meeting from Tuesday night (as I described briefly in the prior post).

The meeting started with a two-hour meeting with Hazard, Young, Attea & Associates (the search firm hired to assist with the superintendent search). Two men from HYA presented considerable information about the search process, including time line, potential questions for candidates, and strategies for gathering feedback. This is clearly a very experienced firm (they handled the Newton superintendent search last year), and I was extremely impressed with the amount of information they provided. I encourage people to watch the meeting when they can (it is already being shown on ACTV), but here is a brief summary of the steps:

First, HYA will be in Amherst on October 27th and 28th to meet with various stakeholder groups (e.g., principals, teachers, PGO and School Council members, town government officials, etc.) and individually with each SC member, and to hold a public forum. The goal of this visit is to get information from our community about what we are looking for in terms of characteristics important in a new leader. They will also create a survey that people can complete on line describing such characteristics. This strikes me as really helpful in terms of gathering information from many community members to guide what they are looking for in terms of recruiting a superintendent.

Second, they have recommended that a search committee be created, and the Regional SC approved this idea at the meeting. This committee will consist (per their recommendation) of 8 members: 3 SC members (one chosen by the Pelham SC, one by the Amherst SC, one by the Regional SC), 2 teachers/staff/administrators (1 elementary, one MS/HS), 2 parents (1 elementary, 1 MS/HS), and a town government official. The MS/HS parents and town government officials could be from any of the towns, whereas the elementary parents need to be in either Amherst or Pelham (since the superintendent doesn't supervise the Leverett and Shutesbury elementary schools). This search committee will have a pretty limited role - narrowing the 5 semi-finalists selected by the search firm (based on their belief about who would best fit our needs) to 3 finalists (e.g., eliminating, following interviews, the two candidates that are a less good fit). The SC would then meet with all 3 finalists in public, and ultimately choose the person who was the best fit from these. Information on submitting your name for consideration for inclusion will be posted on the ARPS website soon -- and I encourage all interested parents/teachers/government officials to apply (the SC members chosen to serve on this search committee with chose the specific people for this committee from those who submit their names).

Third, the Search Committee will meet in early January for 2 days to conduct the interviews with the five semi-finalists, and to narrow that down to 3 finalists. The SC will then meet with the three finalists in public (and give them tours, set up meetings with teachers/parents/staff/community members) in mid-January, with the goal of finalizing the selection by January 20th or so.

I am now the only person on the Regional SC or Amherst SC who participated in the last search to hire Dr. Rodriguez (and for the record, I voted for Dr. David Sklarz in that vote), and it is very interesting to me that this search differs so much from the search we did two years ago. One key difference is that last time the SC met in executive session with all 8 semi-finalists (it appears this is certainly illegal to do now, and may well have been illegal to do at the time). Another key difference is that the SC last time reviewed all the applications, and then chose the 8 semi-finalists, whereas now, the search firm is doing the work of narrowing the pool. This strikes me as frankly a very good idea, since this search firm actually had considerable expertise in finding good superintendents and presumably they know what they are looking for.

Next, we turned to the regular Regional School Committee meeting. This meeting started with public comment from several parents and community members: Michael DeChiara (head of Shutesbury SC) opposed the idea of the search firm narrowing the list of semi-finalists to 5, Julia Rueschemeyer presented a petition signed by 97 parents/community members supporting a fair and open superintendent search process for internal and external candidates, Michael Aronson presented a list of qualifications required by the Granby SC in their superintendent search, and Marylou Theilman (former Regional SC chair) supported the use of a fair and open superintendent search in terms of the affirmative action policy and the six-figure salary.

Superintendent Maria Geryk then provided her update on various upcoming events in the district. I'd particularly like to point out the math survey, which families of current students are invited to fill out a brief survey as part of the comprehensive K-12 Math Review (go to ARPS.org, and you will see the link under latest news). Parents are asked to complete the survey by Wednesday, October 27, so please try to make time to do so. They are still working on a date for Andrew Chen to visit Amherst and present his findings, so stay tuned for that -- probably November.

We then turned to new business. This included a brief re-vote of last year's budget (based on the change in how some things are calculated, NOT a change in the overall number), a discussion of school committee norms (including trying not to introduce surprise motions and trying to treat all members with respect), and an update on the transition to the new law firm selected for special education (Amherst and Regional SCs have voted to select a new law firm but Pelham has not done so yet). There was also a discussion regarding budget priorities (largely to avoid having the administrators created budgets that the SC then rejected, as happened last year with the proposal from Mark Jackson to require 3 study halls in the HS), and a discussion of district goals (which should be presented and voted on in the near future). The Regional SC prioritized implementing the recommendations from the special education report, improving teaching effectiveness/instruction/evaluation, and reducing the achievement gap (though Steve noted that really should be raising achievement for all kids, not just reducing the gap). More discussion of these district goals will follow at the next Regional SC meeting, which is next THURSDAY, October 21st.

We then had a few brief updates from various subcommittees, including the policy subcommittee (policies will be presented soon for voting) and the budget subcommittee (a line item budget is being created).

Finally, we had a brief discussion about items for upcoming meetings, which requests to send our ranked list of items to Rick for potential inclusion at a subsequent meeting.

Regional School Committee Meeting, October 12, 2010

2010-10-12T23:52:00.002-04:00

This will be a brief update to say we had a very productive meeting tonight. The meeting started with a 2 hour open meeting with the search firm assisting us with the superintendent search and they were just excellent. You can read about this aspect of the meeting in the linked Gazette article(http://www.gazettenet.com/2010/10/13/amherst-superintendent-search-begin-public). I will provide a fuller view of the superintendent search process -- which we need lots of community input about -- and will also provide a fuller update of the regional meeting tomorrow.

Assorted Updates and Volunteer Options

2010-10-12T14:12:00.003-04:00

Just wanted to let my blog readers know a few things - so this will be fast.

First, tonight's Regional SC meeting starts at 6 pm (Town Hall, live on ACTV) and will start with a two hour meeting with the newly hired superintendent search firm. I'm interested to learn more about the firm's thoughts re. time line and qualifications, and believe this will be a very informative meeting. Then the actual meeting will start at 8 pm -- the big thing on the agenda is a discussion of budgets priorities.

Second, the SC is seeking community volunteers for various task forces. There are two announcements already posted on the ARPS website (arps.org). One of these groups will focus on budget stuff - picking up on the remaining work from last year's Citizen's Budget Advisory Committee, and the other examine the pros/cons of a possible change in school start times - studying whether the elementary and regional schools could change their start times. You can volunteer for either by contacting Kimberly Stender (StenderK@arps.org). There will also be volunteers needed soon for the Amherst SC's Task Force on considering moving the 6th grade to the MS -- stay tuned if you are interested in volunteering for that one.

Education Matters: Schools taking measures to close achievement gap

2010-10-07T22:42:00.003-04:00

This is just a quick post to attach the link to my most recent Education Matters column from the Amherst Bulletin (http://www.amherstbulletin.com/story/id/184650/).

I'll be doing a post this weekend summarizing the last Amherst SC Meeting (Tuesday, September 28th), so look out for that if you are interested (we discussed the MCAS results for all three schools and voted to form a task force to examine moving the 6th grade to the middle school).

Also, the next Regional SC meeting will be this Tuesday, October 12th, and will start at 6 pm. The first 2 hours will be with the superintendent search firm we've hired -- this is open to the public so feel free to come (or watch on TV).

More Feedback Wanted on Localocracy

2010-10-06T17:45:00.005-04:00

I've just posted a new question on localocracy, because I realized from reading the responses (and in particular the reasons given) that my first question wasn't really clear. Once again, if you are an Amherst registered voter, you can go on this site and vote (and you can vote anonymously if you want) or you can ask a question to get more information (http://amherst.localocracy.org/activity). I've pasted my entire localocracy post below, just FYI -- and I'd be glad to hear thoughts/questions here as well (though will look to localocracy to see how the tally of actual registered voters goes). As always, thanks for sharing your thoughts.

So, I have read through all of the very helpful reasons/questions given on my last issue, and realize that a number of people were confused about what precisely that question asked … hence this question will be similar, but a bit more direct to help voters learn about the key issue, and to hopefully provide more useful feedback. Much of the information I posted on the last issue is still relevant (e.g., Amherst is in a union with Pelham, votes are shared equally on hiring/evaluating the superintendent, there is currently no written formula in terms of how those costs are shared, etc.), but I’m also presenting some new information about an option that I’d love to get feedback on.

Basically there are three options – Amherst can stay in the current Union 26 situation (this has pretty mixed support — some feel it is fine, some feel it needs to be fixed), Amherst can form its own K to 6 district (although this might be possible, the state would certainly come in because Pelham would need to find some new situation, and that probably isn’t fast/easy), or Amherst and Pelham can form a joint elementary regional district (like the current 7 to 12 arrangement, but with 2 towns instead of 4). I’d like to get feedback on the desirability of exploring this third possibility, forming a regional elementary district, for three reasons.

First, many of the people who supported staying in Union 26 expressed support for maintaining a strong relationship with Pelham. Having a regional agreement would actually strengthen the current arrangement, as there would be a single SC making all policy decisions for the Amherst and Pelham schools (e.g., like we have 3 schools now in Amherst, this would just be 4). This would make curriculum alignment and sharing of resources easier (e.g., right now the Amherst schools have Spanish and Pelham does not, both SCs could adopt different math curriculum, etc.). It would also simplify the superintendent’s job somewhat (e.g., managing two budgets, not 3; reporting to 2 SCs, not 3).

Second, many of the people who supported getting out of Union 26 expressed concern about the inequity in voting (e.g., a town with 10% of the population having 50% of the vote in hiring/evaluating a superintendent). A regional agreement would mean the two towns could get a different number of school committee seats, and thus would not require equal representation.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, it seems that it is impossible to know whether either Amherst or Pelham would like a regional elementary agreement unless these two towns starting talking to each other in terms of what the terms would be (so that we could see if mutually-agreeable terms could be reached). For example, the towns would have to agree on how costs would be divided, if students living in one town could attend school in the other town, the number of School Committee seats each town would have, and the rules (if any) governing major changes (e.g., closing a school could require the support of Town Meeting of that town). I’m sure there are other details, but these are the types of things that would have to be discussed before either town could know if a regional agreement was in fact a good idea. It might therefore make sense for such discussions to start sooner rather than later so that both towns would know whether a regional elementary agreement might be a viable option moving forward.

And one important point for all to keep in mind: because of the various details and logistics that would have to be worked out if and when a decision was made to change the current configuration in any way, such a change could not go into effect until next summer at the earliest (e.g., none of this could impact the upcoming superintendent hire either way).

So, my question is whether the Amherst School Committee should ask the Pelham School Committee to explore the the benefits of a regional agreement for both towns. A “Yes” vote means you believe this exploration should occur, and a “No” vote means you believe this exploration should NOT occur (meaning you could believe that the current situation is preferable to a regional elementary agreement and no discussion should happen regarding changing it, OR you believe Amherst should form its own district that doesn’t include Pelham). I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Evaluating Localocracy's Approach

2010-10-05T13:57:00.002-04:00

So, I've been an eager supporter of localocracy (localocracy.org), because I believe it is an essential way in which we can get more information about what the public thinks. But that is only true if people are reading the information provided and then forming an opinion. I am disappointed with how many people are voting (on either side) with misinformation and that doesn't help the discussion.

Here are a few examples:

1. Some people are voting to end Union 26 because of the inequity in budget spending between Amherst and Pelham. But that issue can be totally solved without dissolving the union. That isn't a reason in and of itself to end the union.

2. Some people are voting to stay in Union 26 because they feel that Amherst and Pelham should work towards great alignment in the curriculum and share the costs of a superintendent. Both of those goals can be entirely accomplished BETTER if Amherst and Pelham form a regional agreement, meaning they form ONE School Committee and the superintendent manages ONE elementary budget, than if they stay in the current union.

3. Some people are voting to stay in Union 26 because they dislike current Amherst SC members (including me!). But the issue of staying in Union 26 is much bigger than the current Amherst SC ... because in a few years, we might very well have quite different people on the SC, who are elected by Amherst voters with their own goals/ideas. Would people still want the Amherst SC to not have the power to select a superintendent if they liked those members (because if we don't get out, that will still be the case, no matter WHO is on the Amherst SC).

4. Most importantly, people don't understand that Union 26 has nothing to do with hiring Maria Geryk. In fact, if Amherst SC members want to veto Maria's permanent appointment as superintendent, that can happen right now in the current situation! The three Amherst members of Union 26 are Irv, me, and Steve (we all voted against Maria's appointment as interim in March). Changing Union 26 has nothing to do with hiring a superintendent in the next 4 months (it couldn't possibly happen that fast -- probably June 30, 2011 at the earliest). The question is not whether you are pro-Maria or pro-ending Union 26. The question is what is best for the town of Amherst, and in particular the children of Amherst. Is it better for the Amherst voters to be able to elect SC members who they want, and then to have those SC members be able to exert more than 50% of the way in their superintendent (given that Amherst pays 95% of the elementary bill)?

Again, I'd love to hear what voters think -- but I really hope all voters will actually read the information presented, and the questions posed and answered by various people BEFORE choosing a side. The point is not to amass points for one's view -- the point is to help inform people about the salient issues, and then have those people vote ONCE they've become educated. It is quite clear from reading the reasons given for various votes that this just isn't happening.

Math: In Amherst and Elsewhere

2010-10-02T18:23:00.009-04:00

So, today brought forth two different points for me about math in Amherst quite directly.

First, I read the front-page story in the New York Times on the growing number of districts moving to Singapore Math (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/01/education/01math.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=math&st=cse). Districts using this math program include public schools in elite districts (e.g., Scarsdale), elite private schools (e.g., Sidwell Friends, where the Obama girls attend school), and inner-city schools in New York City. Interestingly, this is the math program used by the Chinese Charter School in Hadley and by the AIMS program for African American children in Amherst (a Saturday math program). It is interesting to read about the experiences (good and bad) districts have had with this program ... and this article certainly reminds me of how much I'm looking forward to hearing a review of our math curriculum/program by Dr. Andrew Chen (the math consultant located by former superintendent Dr. Alberto Rodriguez).

Second, I received my second child's very first MCAS scores in the mail (he is now a 4th grader at Fort River). I am not going to talk specifically about my own child's performance, but the information provided to all parents included not only how your child does (in both math and English language arts) by also how your child's scores compare to the district and state averages. In a district in which many families have connections to higher education institutions and/or advanced degrees, both Amherst as a district and Fort River Elementary School were below the state average in math. Only 13% of kids in 3rd grade at Fort River, and 18% of the kids in Amherst, scored at the Advanced level, compared to a state average of 25%. That really suggests that our district is not helping kids to achieve at the highest level. However, even more concerning was the finding that 24% of the 3rd graders at Fort River and 14% of the kids in Amherst scored at the warning level, compared to the state average of 11%. So, our district also has more kids at the very bottom level than the state average. In sum, after 4 years in the Amherst schools (K to 3rd), more kids are at the warning level than the state average in math AND fewer kids are at the advanced level than the state average in math. As a School Committee member, a strong proponent of public education, and a mom, I find these numbers highly, highly concerning.

Update on Localocracy Voting

2010-10-01T19:14:00.005-04:00

So, the localocracy voting has been fascinating -- and apparently there has been more action on this topic of Union 26 than on other topics they've posed! The voting is pretty much tied as of now (though with relatively few voters on either side -- 10 to 15 people on each). I am finding two things very informative:

First, the reasons people give for getting out of Union 26 are pretty much what one might expect -- concerns about Amherst subsidizing another town and concerns about Amherst tax payers being denied equal representation. However, the reasons people give for staying in Union 26 largely focus on two issues: it has worked well for years (this strikes me as somewhat debatable, given that Amherst does subsidize Pelham!) and that we don't like/trust the current SC. It is obviously fine to dislike me (or Steve, or all of us), but I hope all voters remember that this isn't about the current SC and whether you like them. It is about whether you believe Amherst voters should have the right to vote in SC members they do like, and then whether you believe those SC members should have the right to choose a superintendent (since Amherst pays 95% of the superintendent's salary and has 90% of the kids). I hope that everyone who votes to stay in Union 26 is sure they would still support that vote if in a few years they really liked the new Amherst SC.

Second, the majority of people who have voted to stay in Union 26 have clear ties to the current school administration, whereas none of those who believe Amherst should exit Union 26 have such ties. Several current or former teachers/principals - or their spouses - have voted to stay in Union 26 (Aaron Kropf, David Mullins, Russ Vernon-Jones, Carol Sharick), as have several former SC members (Elaine Brighty, Alice Swift). It is clear that the Union 26 arrangement has felt quite comfortable to those who have long ties to the Amherst educational system.

It is clear from the voting patterns, and reasons provided, that some people in Amherst are really split on this issue (and probably on many), although it is entirely unclear where the silent majority really falls. I continue to believe that public officials need to hear from as many people as possible - hence my desire to do this blog - so I really hope that all of my blog readers who live in Amherst will sign up for localocracy (go to http://localocracy.org/#), which just takes a minute (they ask for your name and birthdate and address to verify that you are a registered voter in Amherst). You can then read the full issue I've proposed, and you can vote YES or NO (and give a reason if you want). Before you submit your vote, you can choose whether to use your name or to be anonymous (so, I was wrong about this before -- you CAN vote anonymously) . Again, there are many people in Amherst whose voice is not being heard, so I encourage all my blog readers to vote (either way -- I want honest and objective information on what the public thinks) and to send the localocracy link to their friends/neighbors/colleagues and encourage them to sign up and express their thoughts as well! This is a very easy way to participate in politics in Amherst (even anonymously!) and we all benefit from hearing more voices.

Tell Me What YOU Think on Localocracy.org

2010-09-30T16:34:00.006-04:00

To try to gage the broad sentiment of the community, I've posted a link about the Union 26 issue on the Localocarcy.org website. This is a new website that is genuinely trying to tap into community feelings about political issues in towns in an objective way (e.g., it is "agenda-free"). I've provided objective information about Union 26 on this website, and I want to now hear what YOU think. Please go to: http://amherst.localocracy.org/issues/70-should-amherst-elementary-schools to register your vote (you will have to sign in and use your name), and please send this information to your friends/neighbors/colleagues. It best serves the School Committee IF we hear from many voices -- not just a few -- so I really hope the community will weigh in on localocracy on this very important issue. Thanks!

One correction: apparently you can vote anonymously on this site -- that is an option. But you have to be an Amherst resident to log in to register a vote.

Amhest and Pelham Joint Meeting, September 28, 2010

2010-09-29T11:24:00.007-04:00

We had two separate SC meetings tonight -- at 7 pm, a joint meeting with the Pelham SC, and at 8 pm, an Amherst only meeting (so I will do two separate blog post summaries).

The joint meeting started with statements by Debbie and Irv, chairs of the two SCs. These statements generally expressed willingness to work together and find common ground in a positive way.

The floor was then open for general comments on two distinct topics - cost sharing of central office and governance.

In terms of cost sharing, the key information is as follows:

1. There is currently no written or standard formula determining how costs are divided between Amherst, Pelham and the Region. In contrast, all other superintendent unions seem to have written formula for how to distribute central office costs among member towns. For example, Union 28, in which Leverett and Shutesbury participate, computes enrollment figures each October 1st and then divides all central office costs based completed on enrollment for the next year (starting July 1st). I

2. There is substantial variation both over time and among items in the central office budget with respect to the assignment of costs. For example, last year the superintendent’s salary was paid 50% from the Region, 48% from Amherst, and 2% from Pelham, whereas this year the Region will still pay 50% but Amherst will pay 47% and Pelham will pay 3%. It isn't clear how decisions are made about how to allocate costs in any given year, or who makes that decision.

3. The rule of thumb according to our administrators (according to business manager Rob Detweiler) is that Amherst pays 94% and Pelham pays 6% of the elementary school share of central office costs. In actuality, however, Amherst is paying 96.5% and Pelham is paying 3.5%. Thus, even based on the rule of thumb calculation, Amherst is over-paying right now and Pelham is under-paying.

4. Pelham is paying far below its share of elementary school enrollment which is roughly 10% (not 6%). It is also not clear whether enrollment is the right way to calculate costs. For example, some districts allocate costs based on number of buildings or principals, which was suggested as the best solution in a memo sent to all Amherst and Pelham SC members yesterday by a member of CBAC (this would mean Amherst pays 75% and Pelham pays 25%).

The good news is that all members of both SCs agreed that we need to settle on a clear, consistent, and fair way of allocating costs between Amherst, Pelham, and the Region. I look forward to hearing suggestions from the Budget Subcommittee about such allocations in the near future, and to voting on a policy so that at least this aspect of Union 26 can be settled.

We also talked about issues of governance, and in particular the fact that Amherst and Pelham are in the most inequitable union in the state of Massachusetts -- and how according to state law, there is nothing we can do about changing the nature of the equal voting given to each town.

Steve, Rob, and I all expressed concerns about the nature of this governance, and the impossibility of doing anything about it while staying in the union. Steve indicated he would be bringing forward a motion on this issue in the future, and would like to get the state involved in examining alternative arrangements. I noted that an easy fix to this governance issue would be forming an elementary regional agreement with Pelham, in which case we could have a single SC that would jointly influence decision-making for all 4 elementary schools (a regional agreement would allow the division of representatives in some way other than 3 to 3).

Members from Pelham noted that they were currently studying (as part of a larger "visioning" process) options for the Pelham school moving forward, which they expected to bring to Town Meeting in May for a vote. They asked for the Amherst SC to give them time to complete this process.

Some members from Amherst expressed concern about waiting until May to move on a decision involving Union 26, and noted that it might be in Pelham's best interest to know if a given option (e.g., remaining in Union 26) was off the table before they had moved too far along in their consideration of various options. I noted that it seemed odd for Amherst to simply wait and do nothing, given the possibility that in May we could then learn Pelham wanted to exit the union.

There was also a fair amount of dialogue about whether bringing the state in to help advise on this issue was a good or bad idea. Some members of both SCs (Debbie, Irv) expressed concerns that the state would come in and take control and thus we would lose local control. Other members from Amherst (Steve, Rob) noted that the state would get involved if we chose to exit Union 26, and it would be better to have the state involved earlier so that we wouldn't pursue a path that ultimately would be rejected. They also noted that state law clearly gives SCs the right to make these decisions, and that asking the state for advice clearly doesn't change the state law about local control.

I think this is an important topic for both Amherst and Pelham to consider, and I believe there are solutions that may well benefit both towns. I look forward to a discussion at the next Amherst SC meeting (October) about potential steps for us moving forward on this topic.

One final note: I'd be interested in hearing what my blog readers think about this topic -- but will remind people to be respectful in their comments, which will help us have a more productive discussion about the content of this issue (not motives/personality/tone of those on either side).

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

One quick update: Here is a link to the Gazette story on this meeting: http://www.gazettenet.com/2010/09/30/amherst-pelham-schools039-connection-still-vexing-town-boards.

City Schools Revel in AP Success Stories

2010-09-28T15:19:00.000-04:00

I'm posting a link to a Gazette story on the recent AP test successes experienced at both Northampton High and Easthampton High (http://www.gazettenet.com/2010/09/22/city-schools-revel-ap-success-stories). I congratulate the leaders of both of these schools in the tremendous success they've experienced in terms of increasing the number of kids taking AP tests AND at increasing the passing rate! In these communities increasing AP participation and success is seen as a positive, an indication that students are reaching for and achieving significant academic goals. Some in Amherst have expressed that AP classes have negative connotations of elitism and grinding down of creativity. However, many high school students across the river, and across the country, experience AP classes as intellectually challenging and engaging. They feel very proud of their accomplishments, and save money and time in college by gaining college credit and/or placing out of intro level classes. That is not to suggest that AP classes are the ONLY, or even the MOST, rewarding classes. It is just to acknowledge that very strong, good high schools offer such classes, and in many other communities, having these classes, and having students succeed in these classes, is a point of pride. Perhaps we can find a way to offer more AP classes for those in Amherst that want to take them, in particular the most commonly offered classes such as AP Statistics and AP Chemistry. I am confident our talented teachers could find a way to teach the curriculum of these classes without making them boring or teaching to the test. It would give our academically oriented students a more even playing field with their peers when they get to college.

My Thoughts on Hiring a Superintendent

2010-09-23T10:52:00.025-04:00

There is a big story in tomorrow's Gazette on the most recent Regional School Committee drama: here's the link to that piece (http://www.gazettenet.com/2010/09/24/amherst-some-want-interim-superintendent-have-school-post-perman).

I just want to add a few additional thoughts about this very important issue.

I was really disappointed in last night’s meeting, and in particular the extent to which all of the hill town School Committee representatives voted to halt the hiring of the superintendent search firm (the bid would have expired in 5 days, so any delay would have meant we lost this contract -- the only offer we received). This topic was not on the night’s agenda and other School Committee members were not given the courtesy of learning of this monumental motion prior to the meeting (which initiated as a motion by Ms. Luschen from Shutesbury -- which was seconded by I believe Kip Fonsch from Leverett -- to simply hire Ms. Geryk permanently and conduct no search). Also, since there was a unanimous vote at the last meeting to hire a search committee to assist with hiring a superintendent, there was no reason for School Committee members or the general public to expect that any discussion involving making an appointment without a search would be proposed. It felt a bit like an ambush political tactic rather than a sincere desire for an open discussion.

Some people have noted that the Amherst SB just appointed John Musante without a search, and suggested that we should follow that lead. However, there are three key differences between these two situations. John has a long tenure as the key assistant to the Town Manager, he was a finalist in the previous search four years ago, and finally, the Select Board made this appointment only after a significant public process to solicit input from the community. So, these are really not comparable situations.

I have no idea whether Maria Geryk would or would not emerge at the best candidate in an open evaluation process. But I would expect any qualified candidate for superintendent would welcome, and in fact insist on, such a process where he or she could demonstrate to the community their qualifications. This is how a candidate gains broad support from not only the School Committee but the broader community (not just teachers and principals, but parents and community members as well).

Members from the hill towns spoke passionately about Maria’s excellent performance over the last 7 months. Certainly she appears to have support from the staff of the school system who appear to see her as bringing stability to the schools. Personally, I am impressed with Maria’s communication skills and her ability to build bridges to the community (such as the coffee with the superintendent and the hiring of the ombudsman). However, virtually all of the improvements and evaluations around instruction and curriculum accomplished recently were started well before Maria’s tenure. Programs such as the improvements in the middle school, creation of the First Day event, expansion of the preschool program, hiring a staff person to assist with Five College collaboration, the hiring of Dr. Chen for the math review, and implementation of the afterschool and summer school intervention support were started before she was appointed interim superintendent (and initiated with former superintendent Dr. Alberto Rodriguez). She has yet to go through a planning cycle for developing district goals, or develop any specific plans in response to external evaluations such as the special education review or math curriculum review. I believe it is fair to judge people on their body of work, and unlike John Musante, Maria’s work as superintendent has occurred over a very short period of time. She has not had the chance to demonstrate her effectiveness.

On the other hand, Maria has been in charge of the special education program for many years. The recent external review of this program raised a number of serious issues (as have been noted by many parents of children in special education for years). Whether these concerns reflect on Maria’s ability to serve as superintendent would be clarified by a real search process. Many parents, including parents of children in special education, have expressed concerns about Maria as superintendent. She does not at this time appear to have the unanimous public endorsement that John Musante received during the public comment on his proposed appointment.

Moreover, I have never seen Maria Geryk’s resume, and to the best of my knowledge neither has any member of the School Committee. She has never been through an interview process, there are no answers on record as to her views on critical issues to the school such as academic rigor, social justice, and budget priorities. This is due diligence we are obligated to do as a town and as a School Committee. It is also the best possible way for any candidate to win the support of the community.

I believe hiring a superintendent is the single most important thing a School Committee does, and believe the community should have an opportunity to share their thoughts about the qualifications for such a hire. Do we want someone with experience as a classroom teacher or principal? Do we want someone with a doctorate? Do we want someone with experience on budgets and finances, or curriculum and instruction, or hiring and mentoring teachers/principals? Do we not care about experience and just want someone who is a strong communicator or is supported by current teachers? I believe the way to make the best hire is by going through a fair and open process in which both internal and external candidates are given full consideration and evaluated on their merits, experiences, backgrounds, and ideas. I believe that is how we will end up with a superintendent that reflects the values of the community and has the broad support of the community. I hope that members of the Regional School Committee who represent the hill towns will allow such a process to occur so that the entire community can have confidence in the person we hire in January, and that we can provide that person with the support and respect he or she deserves.

September 22, 2010, Regional Meeting

2010-09-22T23:31:00.009-04:00

So, it is late, and I teach in 9 hours, and hence this will be relatively brief. But tonight was truly one of the oddest meetings we've had, and thus I wanted to get a quick update out to my blog readers.

There were two key votes taken: one selecting a superintendent search firm and one selecting a lawyer for the district. The first was supposed to be a quick vote to approve a superintendent search firm (we only received one bid from the four firms that we requested bids from). However, Kristen Luschen, from Shutesbury, made a motion (with absolutely no warning to other members of the SC) to appoint Maria Geryk superintendent, effective immediately, without conducting any search whatsoever. This motion was discussed at length -- and I encourage you to watch the meeting on ACTV - but briefly, all members from the hilltowns strongly supported simply making Maria permanent superintendent and not conducting any type of search (and they reported that this was the message they were receiving from members of their community). I was frankly shocked at this motion, in part because no members of the SC were given any notice about this motion, but also because this type of decision seems like one that clearly should have been announced on the agenda so that members of the public could have shared their views (this topic was NOT on the agenda). I was also quite surprised that members of the SC would feel comfortable appointing a permanent superintendent without any opportunity for public comment on such an appointment (which is precisely what my concern was in March when Maria was appointed for 16 months without any public comment). Moreover, no members of the SC have even seen her resume, and she has never undergone any sort of review of her performance; hence I am uncertain about our ability to evaluate her qualifications for this job and make such a major decision.

This motion was discussed at length, and ultimately was voted down, with all 5 members of the Amherst SC voting to conduct a search (and acknowledging that if Maria was the best candidate, surely she would be selected), and all 4 non-Amherst members voting to make Maria the permanent superintendent without any public comment or notice that this was even a possibility (NOTE: I have a correction to this statement below).

We then turned to discuss the legal representation of the district. Again, I encourage you to watch the whole meeting, but briefly, all members from the hilltowns spoke in favor of retaining our current counsel for all legal matters (special education and general counsel). Several members from Amherst (Steve, Irv, me) spoke about concerns with the current counsel (including concerns expressed by parents of students in special education, concerns about legal contracts such as the contract giving away control of the HS schedule and requiring spring parent-teacher conference in the elementary schools and including an invalid clause in the most recent superintendent contract). However, ultimately the vote was 5 to 4 in favor of hiring the Dupere law firm to represent us in special education (another vote with all Amherst members in favor, all non-Amherst members against), and then 5 to 4 in favor of retaining the current counsel for general counsel (all hilltown members were joined by Rick in the majority; the other 4 Amherst members voted for Deutsch & Williams).

Those were the "highlights" ... will do a more thorough update tomorrow sometime. But in conclusion, it was very clear at this meeting that SC members from the hilltowns are quite comfortable supporting the status quo -- maintaining our current interim superintendent permanently and maintaining our current law firm. And you see that members from Amherst are pushing for more change and a more open process -- requesting an open process by which we choose a superintendent (all Amherst members) and requesting a change in our legal counsel (all Amherst members with respect to special education counsel, 80% of Amherst members with respect to general counsel). The differences in view and perspective between Amherst SC members and non-Amherst SC members seems quite stark, and something I think we all need to take note of.

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

I am just adding a few other items of business that occurred last night.

First, we appointed a subcommittee of the three chairs to create the superintendent's goals and evaluation (Irv, Rick, Debbie). That system worked effectively last time and I believe will be useful again.

Second, we learned from Rob Detweiler that the regional schools had paid an additional $150,000 to charter schools for reimbursement ABOVE our projections, again showing that some families continue to opt out of our public schools (and more than we expected).

Third, we learned from Rick Hood that members of the CBAC group aren't so interested in continuing their work on budget stuff, which is disappointing. I've heard from members of this group that they were frustrated with the lack of support they received from the administration, which made it difficult for them to compile the data they needed.

Fourth, we agreed to appoint a task force to study whether school times should be changed (either delaying elementary and regional start times OR delaying the start times of all schools). There will be an announcement on the website for those who are interested in serving on this task force.

Fifth, we conducted a first read of several policies (attendance, anti-bullying) -- these policies will be posted on the ARPS website soon for public comment. Policy meetings are also open to the whole community for those who want to attend in person.

One final note: I will be posting a summary of the last Amherst meeting in which the Union 26 arrangement was discussed soon -- look back here if you are interested in learning more about this unique agreement!

************************************************************************************************* One more note: I wrote the initial blog posting last night after midnight and was exhausted, and thus didn't fully describe the relatively lengthy proceedings, and so I want to correct something for the record: the unanimous support from the hill town representatives was NOT to hire Maria permanently without public comment -- it was to suspend the hiring of the search firm so that we could hear from the community regarding whether a search should be conducted. However, the effect of such a vote to suspend the search would, I believe, largely be the same as simply appointing Maria for several reasons.

First, the motion initially made by Ms. Luschen (and seconded I believe by Kip Fonsch from Leverett) was to hire Maria as the permanent superintendent. Clearly at least these two people supported the immediate hiring of Maria without any public comment (although neither member from Pelham supported this motion). Second, the bid we received from the search firm expired in 5 days, and it was the ONLY bid we received to do this work. Thus, had we lost thet bid (and certainly there is no SC meeting planned in the next 5 days at which we could have voted to accept the bid), we likely would have lost this search firm -- and at the prior meeting, both Ms. Luschen and Ms. Gould (from Pelham) spoke passionately about the importance of hiring a major firm to assist us with recruiting candidates. In turn, voting to suspend hiring this firm would have led, even if the search continued, to losing this firm and thereby having to do the search on our own, which all parties had agreed was a bad idea in terms of recruiting qualified candidates at the last meeting (and is a particular bad idea when there is an internal candidate). I believed last night, and continued to believe, that even if Maria is the best candidate, she will be far better served (and in turn, our schools will be far better served) by going through a fair and open process in which her abilities/experiences/ideas are demonstrated than by being appointed in a highly controversial and clearly split vote (as it was very clear the majority of Amherst members weren't comfortable appointing her without a search).

Assorted Interesting Education Articles

2010-09-17T09:03:00.013-04:00

I've read (and received from blog readers - thanks!) a number of articles on education that are very interesting -- and, in some cases, have clear implications for Amherst. I've posted links to all of these, so you can click on any of these to read the whole piece.

First, here's another piece (from the New York Times) on the efforts to evaluate teachers (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/01/education/01teacher.html). This is clearly a key topic that many districts are facing, and I look forward to hearing more about the pros/cons ... and seeing the results in districts that have attempted to use this model (which is certainly being pushed by Arne Duncan/Obama).

Second, here's an article from the Boston Globe on "what makes a great school" (http://www.boston.com/yourtown/newton/articles/2010/09/12/what_makes_a_great_school/). I found this piece really interesting because it focused on the relative lack of importance of money -- and instead on the benefits of good teaching and a rigorous curriculum!

Third, there was an interesting article on race differences in suspension rates, a topic which the RADAR group at ARHS has discussed for many years (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/education/14suspend.html?scp=20&sq=discipline%20race&st=cse). This article reported that in middle schools, black boys and girls are suspended at a much higher rate than white students, which is similar to the data that RADAR has shown from ARHS. I would be interested in seeing similar data as a function of student income (e.g., are these races differences really a reflection of class differences?), and I'd also be interested in learning about strategies used by districts in which such disparities don't exist.

Finally, the New York Times published a fascinating blog piece on the link between exercise and cognitive performance (http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/15/phys-ed-can-exercise-make-kids-smarter/?emc=eta1). This article describes a number of very interesting studies showing not only that physical fitness is associated with cognitive abilities, but also why this association might exist.

One final note: tonight's SC meeting will take place in the high school library at 7 pm and will NOT be shown live on ACTV. I'll do a brief blog post after the meeting to catch people up on the major decisions -- which should include hiring a lawyer (or two) to represent the district and choosing a search firm to help with the superintendent search.

Math Consultant To Visit

2010-09-17T08:49:00.003-04:00

There has been a lot of discussion on my blog (and in the community, and by the SC) about math, and we are looking forward to hearing the report by the outside consultant Dr. Andrew Chen in October. As announced on the ARPS website, "Family and community members who have not yet had the opportunity to meet with Dr. Andrew Chen (MIT), the consultant conducting the K-12 math program review, are invited to do so on Monday, September 20, from 6:30 - 8:00 p.m., in the Professional Development Center at the Amherst Middle School." I would strongly encourage parents to attend this meeting to share their views on this important topic.

Education Matters: ARMS principal taking steps for improvement

2010-09-10T08:53:00.010-04:00

This is the first week of my semester, so I've been swamped - but will finish the summary of the last Amherst SC meeting this weekend. In the meantime, here's a link to my September Education Matters column in the Amherst Bulletin (http://amherstbulletin.com/story/id/181393/).

One more note: the Regional SC meeting for next week (September 14th) has been cancelled -- we will meet next on WEDNESDAY (so this is the HS library, not town hall), September 22nd, at 7 pm. That meeting will include the district improvement plan as well as the law firm vote (and will not be shown live, since it is not at town hall).

Regional SC Meeting, August 25, 2010

2010-09-01T11:19:00.019-04:00

First, sorry for the long delay in this post ... my semester starts in less than a week, so I've been swamped with course preparation and the newly arrived first year students (and of course with getting my own three kids ready to go back to school). I'll have the posting of the Amherst Meeting from last night up soon.

So, this was a VERY long (4 hour!) but I think extremely productive meeting -- and I'd encourage blog readers to try to watch it on ACTV (or at least portions of it) to really watch parts that interest them, as I'm going to hit the major business that we did. The bulk of the meeting was spent hearing the school improvement plans from the MS and the HS (these are typically presented in June, but were delayed this year), as well as a discussion on the superintendent search process (the law firm discussion was on the agenda but was delayed due to time pressures).

The school improvement plan for the MS was presented by Principal Mike Hayes (and you can see the whole report at: http://arms.arps.org/node/1636). As I said at the meeting, this was the single best school improvement plan I've seen presented at any SC meeting over the last 4 years. It was extremely detailed (lots of data provided -- both about the current state of the MS and goals for the future), covered each academic discipline, and included information on both strengths and areas for improvement. Specifically, it included goals around instruction (lesson planning, alignment, assessment), homework and grading policies, family-school communication, and academics (math, social studies, English, science).

I would really encourage readers to check out the whole plan on line, but I'll just give a few key things I noted in terms of areas for improvement we can look forward to in the upcoming year -- a greater focus on higher expectations for reading in English (as noted as an area of concern on the parent survey), a greater focus on consistent assessments across teams in social studies (as of now, only 2 of 11 assessments are common across teams), a stronger focus on experiments in science (with 48% of 8th graders not reaching proficient on science MCAS), and requiring all kids to do honors-level work in math for the first trimester (which is a shift from the past, in response to requests from parents). These all sound like great areas to work on, and I look forward to seeing how well these goals are accomplished later this year.

Mike also presented very interesting data on algebra in 8th grade. Briefly, 39% of all 8th graders take honors algebra, but that percentage really masks major sub-group differences: only 37% of girls (but 52% of boys) are in this class, only 15% of Hispanic and 12% of African American kids (but 46% of White kids and 50% of Asian kids), and only 9% of low income kids. This is extremely important data to examine, because it really shows that our current approach to allowing students to choose whether to complete extensions isn't really eliminating the achievement gap (and of course, kids who take 8th grade algebra are basically the only ones on track to take calculus in high school). As I've noted before, I would really prefer for us to require all kids to complete honors level work in 7th grade math (which has been shown in other districts to lead to a major reduction in the achievement gap), and I'm encouraged that all kids will complete this level of work at least for the first trimester this year. I will be interested to hear how this plan works out, and whether it increases the % of kids (from all backgrounds, but particularly girls/low income kids/kids of color) in 8th grade algebra.

Mike also noted that he would prefer to see 6th grade in the middle school (you can read the Gazette article on this topic at: http://gazettenet.com/2010/08/26/6th-grader-middle-schooler). I believe this is an idea that we definitely need to examine, particularly since moving to a three-year school was recommended by not only former superintendents Hochman and Rodriguez (and in the Hamer report last summer), but also was suggested by each of the superintendent candidates we interviewed in January of 2009. I hope we can form some type of a task force/subcommittee to examine the pros/cons of such a move this year.

The SC then voted unanimously (and I would say very enthusiastically) to approve this school improvement plan.

Next, we heard the school improvement plan for the high school from Mark Jackson. This plan included 4 goals: preparing for the NEASC accreditation (which will occur this year, and involves a fair amount of work/self-study), social/emotional needs and school climate (which was prompted by an increase in the number of students harming themselves), school/family partnership (largely focused on having parents have greater awareness of students' grades via an on-line system), and inclusion (better implement ion of special ed plans). You can read more about the frequency of self-harming in the Gazette (http://gazettenet.com/2010/08/27/amherst-high-principal-number-students-harming-themselves-goes-w).

Compared to the middle school improvement plan, the high school plan was significantly less detailed (with almost no data provided on the current state of the school or numerical goals for the upcoming year), and also included no specific goals related to any of the academic disciplines. The SC therefore requested some revisions to this plan before approving it (and will hear this plan again, and hopefully approve it, probably at the September 14th meeting).

We then turned to a discussion of the superintendent search process, and in particular how to go about hiring a search firm to assist with finding good candidates. There was a pretty lengthy discussion (mostly involving the issue of time-line and legal requirements in soliciting bids/requests from various firms), but ultimately the SC agreed unanimously to appoint a subcommittee to write a proposal to submit to four search firms. The members of this subcommittee are Steve Rivkin, Debbie Gould, and Irv Rhodes. They will submit a proposal to the entire SC for review at the next meeting. We also approved a timeline for a search, which starts with an application deadline of November 1st, semi-finalists interviews in December, and finalist interviews (in public) in January (with an offer out by late January). This timeline is a bit earlier than the one we used the last time, both because it was our experience last time that some candidates took offers prior to our interviewing finalists and that was the recommendation of the Union 28 superintendent.

We then conducted a few brief items of business -- agreeing to reconstitute the CBAC group (probably to examine per pupil expenses), accepting gifts, discussing goals for the upcoming year (which will be discussed/presented in September), and planning items for upcoming meetings.

Great Teaching Really Matters

2010-08-22T20:20:00.012-04:00

There has been a lot of discussion on my blog about teachers, and as a parent with three kids in our public schools, I know how much a teacher can make (or break) a kid's year. And I'd like to state up-front that my kids have had great teachers at Fort River (and this includes some very experienced teachers in their last year or two before retirement as well as some in their first year or two of teaching), and that I believe most teachers in the Amherst schools are strong (in part because we are fortunate to attract great teachers who want to live in or near our community). So, I wanted to do this post to talk about great teaching -- how we get it, where it comes from, etc.

First, I strongly encourage my blog readers to check out this fascinating article from The New Yorker on predicting teachers' success (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/12/15/081215fa_fact_gladwell?currentPage=all). Here's really the essential quote: "Eric Hanushek, an economist at Stanford, estimates that the students of a very bad teacher will learn, on average, half a year’s worth of material in one school year. The students in the class of a very good teacher will learn a year and a half’s worth of material. That difference amounts to a year’s worth of learning in a single year. Teacher effects dwarf school effects: your child is actually better off in a “bad” school with an excellent teacher than in an excellent school with a bad teacher. Teacher effects are also much stronger than class-size effects. You’d have to cut the average class almost in half to get the same boost that you’d get if you switched from an average teacher to a teacher in the eighty-fifth percentile. And remember that a good teacher costs as much as an average one, whereas halving class size would require that you build twice as many classrooms and hire twice as many teachers." This research on effective teaching is new (and actually, Steve Rivkin has done some of this research, in collaboration with Eric Hanushek), and very interesting (you can google their names and read some of the original research).

A recent--and controversial--article in the LA Times actually presented an analysis in which both more effective and less effective 3rd to 5th grade teachers were named (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-teachers-value-20100815,0,2695044.story?page=1). Again, I encourage you to read the whole article, but here's a key quote: "Highly effective teachers routinely propel students from below grade level to advanced in a single year. There is a substantial gap at year's end between students whose teachers were in the top 10% in effectiveness and the bottom 10%. The fortunate students ranked 17 percentile points higher in English and 25 points higher in math."

So, we can probably all agree that good teaching really matters. However, the next issue then becomes how can you recruit/hire/train people to be good teachers. And the point made in the New Yorker article (and in lots of research) is that the things we might expect to be associated with good teaching (e.g., masters degree, quality of college attended, test scores) aren't ... which makes hiring good teachers harder. Their suggestion is two-fold: first, recruit a lot of people to teach, by increasing pay substantially, and second, make the tenure system very rigorous, so only those people who have demonstrated their success in the classroom are granted tenure.

I believe that increasing teacher pay is a good idea -- as Michelle Rhee (head of the DC public schools) is doing as part of an attempt to reform these historically troubled schools (see an article in Newsweek for a review of some of her efforts at http://www.newsweek.com/2008/08/22/an-unlikely-gambler.html). I look forward to seeing the results of her efforts -- and admire her courage and commitment to public education.

In addition, I believe that one of the most important thing principals should do is regularly (and rigorously) evaluate teachers, so that we help good teachers become great teachers, and so that, when necessary, we help less effective teachers find other careers (ideally prior to granting them tenure). This is why I really hope that all principals are conducting these evaluations ... and why I was surprised to learn (as reported by Dr. Barry Beers in his needs assessment of Amherst Regional Middle School) that "Non-tenured teachers (1-3 years of experience) receive one observation per semester. Tenured teachers receive one observation every two years. According to teachers and administrators, all teachers are meeting expectations although everyone can improve." It seems surprising to me both that non-tenured teachers are observed only twice a year, and that in a school with as many teachers as the middle school, all teachers are meeting expectations. In fact, I'd be surprised if at any school in Amherst, and indeed any school in the country, every single teacher is meeting expectations ... just as I'd be surprised if every professor at Amherst College (or indeed any college/university in the country) was meeting expectations. This suggests to me that we need to make sure that principals are setting high expectations for all teachers, just as teachers should set high expectations for all kids.

Still More on Math

2010-08-20T22:49:00.019-04:00

This post was prompted by an article in the Bulletin on July 30th (http://www.amherstbulletin.com/story/id/177638/) -- I was out of town and hence didn't get a chance to read it and respond to it appropriately at the time. Given my own interest in math, as well as the intense interest in this education issue at both the local and national level, I have a number of reactions to this piece, and I look forward to what I'm sure will be an active and interesting discussion!

First, I am very glad that we are having a review of the K to 12 math program, which I've asked for since 2006 (prior to my time on the SC). I was delighted when then superintendent Alberto Rodriguez agreed to carry this out as a goal in his first year (with unanimous support from both the Amherst and Regional SCs), and I'm delighted that current interim superintendent Maria Geryk is continuing this effort. I look forward to seeing Dr. Chen's report in a few months.

Second, I really don't think it is appropriate to celebrate Amherst students' "above average" performance on the MCAS as a sign of great success of our math program. I would really hope that our students, who are more affluent than the state average and who live in a town with three colleges/universities, are above average, and frankly, I would hope our scores are above those in Northampton! However, I think it would have been appropriate for this article to have included the very important fact that 3 of the 4 Amherst elementary schools failed to make AYP (adequate yearly progress) in math last year (Marks Meadow was the ONLY school to make AYP), as did all 4 of the Northampton elementary schools. Both Amherst and Northampton use the Investigations curriculum K to 5.

Third, I'm disappointed by the remarks from both Farshid Hajir and George Avrunin. I can't imagine why there there is an accusation that I'm cherry-picking data to show Investigations is bad -- when there isn't any published research showing it is good (if anyone reading this blog has such evidence, please post away). It isn't cherry-picking to state that there is no research showing a curriculum is good if there isn't evidence showing it is good. I do have an ideological bent -- I want our kids to learn math. If there is evidence showing they can do that as effectively through Investigations as with another curriculum, I'd love to see it. Similarly, IMP might be the best high school math curriculum in the world/country. But there are reports from math professors at Berkeley and Stanford suggesting that math curriculum doesn't serve to prepare kids effectively for college math/science. If that is true (and we certainly don't have any evidence that it isn't true), in fairness we should tell kids that BEFORE they choose this track. A 1999 study cited by Mark Jackson simply isn't enough (and see http://www.csun.edu/~vcmth00m/nsf.html for a critique of this study).

So, here are my assorted thoughts on math in Amherst:

I don’t know anything about K to 12 mathematics; I’m a professor of psychology. But I have three kids in the public schools, and I believe all kids in Amherst deserve the very best math instruction they can have. I also believe that math is a central part of our district’s worthy commitment to social justice, because math is the key to opening doors in college not only in math but also in science (and women and minorities are under-represented in both).

I don’t care if we use Singapore math or Thinkmath or Everyday Math or Investigations or reform math or traditional math; I don’t care whether we have AP Statistics or IMP or traditional math in high school; I don’t care if we track or don’t track or when we track. All I care about is that we are using a math curriculum, and program/policies, that pushes all kids to achieve at the highest levels, and keeps doors open for all our kids to go to college and major in whatever they want and gain access to whatever career they want.

That being said, I have serious doubts about whether our current K to 12 math program is doing that. I am concerned that 3 of the 4 elementary schools in Amherst failed to make AYP last year in math. I am concerned that we have an elementary math curriculum that seems to require extensive math coaching of teachers (which is very expensive in money and time). I am concerned that (very good) elementary teachers tell me that Investigations is hard to teach, so they end up supplementing with their own material, which means that kids have very different experiences in different classrooms. I am concerned that there are no well done studies showing that Investigations actually is effective, and that there is now a published study showing it is actually the least effective of the four curricula studied (ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20094052/pdf/20094052.pdf). I am concerned that the last math survey of teachers in our district (2007) revealed that several teachers expressed dissatisfaction with the Investigations curriculum, particularly for teaching ESL students (who represent an increasingly large share of the elementary population in our schools; http://www.arps.org/Curriculum/MathProgramReviewReport08.pdf). I am concerned that the last math survey of parents in our district (2007) revealed that of the parents who chose to write comments, many noted a lack of challenge for their kids (in elementary and middle school; http://www.arps.org/Curriculum/MathProgramReviewReport08.pdf). I am concerned that so many parents of 7th graders teach kids math themselves or hire tutors to teach their kids extensions (which appear to not be consistently taught in the classroom). I am concerned that we have fewer 8th graders taking algebra than many of our comparison districts, perhaps in part because we don't offer "regular" algebra in 8th grade (only honors), which isn't the case in any other district I've found in the country. I am concerned that we allow high school kids to choose whether to take IMP or traditional math yet we really have no idea if these are equally good paths at creating math fluency, especially in light of concerns raised about IMP in preparing kids for college math/science (math.berkeley.edu/~wu/IMP2.pdf). I am concerned that kids who want to take AP Statistics in our district aren’t given that opportunity, which kids in virtually all of our comparison districts have.

Given these concerns, which are not mine alone but are shared by many other parents as well as teachers, I am very glad that our district is finally having an independent and objective evaluation of the effectiveness of our math programs/policies/curricula. Is the single best curriculum to teach elementary kids math Investigations? Is the right way to teach middle school math maintaining heterogeneous classes through 7th grade (with kids choosing whether to do “extensions”), and then in 8th grade having honors algebra and regular math but no regular algebra? Are IMP and traditional math equally effective ways of preparing kids for college-level math? Those are the questions I have, and many parents have, and I think we all simply want honest answers — whether those answers point to maintaining our current approach, or making some changes.

I don't believe that having these questions, or asking these questions, is teacher-bashing, or tearing down our schools, or destroying morale. I actually think that asking these questions, and making sure we get answers as well as some action on the answers, is precisely what I was elected by this community to do as a member of the School Committee. I believe my primary responsibility as an elected official is to the students in our schools -- not the parents, not the teachers, not the administrators. And I believe that our students K to 12 deserve a truly excellent math program which provides challenge, engagement, and support so that all students can achieve at the highest levels and keep doors open for the future.

Exciting Changes At ARMS

2010-08-20T21:19:00.004-04:00

I've been meaning to do this blog post all summer, and now that the summer is almost over, I figured I better finally get it up. And I know I've been accused of focusing on the negative on this blog, but I'd also like to be clear that if/when I see good things happening, I'm certainly going to be equally loud about those.

So, what I'd like to share with my blog readers is the VERY impressive letter sent to 6th grade parents in late June from ARMS Principal Mike Hayes. This letter (which I understand from Mike is a new initiative) described the importance of helping rising 7th graders continue to practice their reading and math skills over the summer, and gives very specific suggestions for families about how students can maintain these skills.

The English department (chaired by Heather Sullivan-Flynn) requests that rising 7th and 8th graders read one of four books (one list for 7th graders, one list for 8th graders), and has copies of these books available to loan to families if needed. (My rising 7th grader read one of the books, and liked it so much that we got the sequel the next day, and he is now reading a second book on this list.)

The math department (chaired by Steve Zakon-Anderson, who has also contributed to this blog!) provides a very helpful description of math options for 7th graders, and also provided a HUGE amount of material for summer study (e.g., sample 7th grade pre-test, sample 7th grade extensions problems, sample 7th grade final exam) on the website (http://www.arps.org/ms/). This type of clarity and transparency is extremely helpful, and really marks a dramatic change from prior practice (in which the content of pre-test material, and sometimes even the existence of such a test, wasn't known to parents or students).

I remarked on the very helpful nature of this material, and publicly thanked Mike Hayes, at a Regional SC meeting in June, but then realized that those who didn't watch this meeting (or have rising 7th graders themselves) wouldn't be aware of its existence -- hence I wanted to make sure that at least my blog readers know about these impressive steps being taken by the middle school administration. This strikes me as a very good sign for the upcoming year in the middle school!

Amherst Bulletin - August 13, 2010

2010-08-16T11:22:00.011-04:00

There are four articles/opeds related to education in this week's Bulletin, so I'm going to post links to each and my own brief commentary here.

First, there is a large (front-page) article on the number of families who are choosing to leave the Amherst public schools (http://www.amherstbulletin.com/story/id/178984/). I thought this article was really well done (very thorough, very balanced), though I do wish it had noted the number of parents in sort of high profile positions who are also leaving our public schools (former Regional SC members, principals in our public schools, override leaders, college presidents, etc.). I believe we need to acknowledge that our schools are NOT serving all children well, and we need to develop a specific plan to help our schools live up to their true potential of serving 'every child, every day' so that families will choose to stay in our schools. I was also really disappointed by Andy's comments at the end of this article -- those are precisely the types of comments that leave more people to leave, because they put the blame on the parents/kids who are leaving, and not on our schools, and thus don't give other parents hope that things will in fact change.

Second, there is a well done oped by the Bulletin editors on this issue (http://www.amherstbulletin.com/story/id/178950/). I really agree with the statement that the investigation " ... must inform the changes the system undertakes in the years ahead." I had asked for exit surveys to be given to families who leave two years ago (2008), but Jere Hochman didn't support gathering this data. That is why I'm very glad the SC voted this year to require such surveys, so that we could indeed understand why some families are opting out.

Third, my monthly Education Matters column appears (http://www.amherstbulletin.com/story/id/179004), which I believe speaks for itself.

Finally, the former Regional SC chair has a piece which largely criticizes me and Steve (http://www.amherstbulletin.com/story/id/178948/), which I found somewhat ironic since Farshid supposedly resigned in order to allow the Regional SC to function in a more constructive way (which surely is harder to do when the former chair consistently engages in personal attacks on some current SC members in the press). I will add two brief additional points.

In terms of Farshid's statement re. words said by me and Steve one night late in a parking lot -- I worked very closely with Farshid throughout much of last year (in my role as vice chair), and I considered him a close friend. We talked 4 or 5 times a day by phone (sometimes as late as midnight), we met frequently for coffee, and he attended social gatherings at my home. I therefore said things to him in confidence, assuming that those things would remain between friends and not be published in the Bulletin. Following a weekend in which the SC met for many hours in executive session (and in which things were said which Farshid knows well I can not repeat), both Steve and I spoke with anger one night, late at night, in a parking lot. We didn't act on those words in any way -- in or outside of meetings -- and thus I believe his comments are simply designed to create bad feelings towards us, and thereby erode community support for the much-needed changes we are trying to bring to our schools.

Despite my disagreement with Farshid's choice to bring up these comments made late one night, I do really agree with his statement that "It is not fiscally or educationally prudent to impose curriculum changes that are not based on a professional analysis of all the available data." I very much share his hope that the new evaluation policy we've passed this year helps school administrators make decisions using all available data, including objective data and comparisons with other districts, instead of simply assuming that whatever our schools are now using (curricula, programs, etc.) is simply the best because we are in Amherst.

More Amherst Schools News

2010-07-27T18:22:00.004-04:00

There are two stories from this week's Gazette that I think will be of interest to my readers.

First, there is a story about a meeting with Dr. Andrew Chen (the math consultant hired by the superintendent to review K to 12 math). There are opportunities for parents to meet with Dr. Chen tomorrow (Wednesday). Here's the story link: http://gazettenet.com/2010/07/24/math-consultant-available-amherst.

Second, there is a story about the drop in enrollment at Amherst Regional Middle School (http://gazettenet.com/2010/07/24/amherst-middle-school-population-dropping). I want to make two points about this drop in enrollment:

parents with means (economic - to pay for private school - and/or job-wise - to be able to provide transportation to and from private/charter/choice schools) have many more options than parents without such means ... and it isn't good for our district or our schools if parents of means start to opt out. I hope the Regional SC and the superintendent and the principal take this drop in enrollment very seriously, and I really hope we can take steps (quickly) to make this school a more appealing choice for all families; and
although some will claim that parents are opting out of this school because of the negativity by certain SC members (like this one), I find it extremely hard to believe that parents are choosing to opt of our schools (and pay large sums of money to a private school and/or spend considerable time transporting their child to/from a private/choice/charter school) simply based on concerns expressed by 1 or 2 SC members -- the costs are simply too great to make such a decision with so little information.

The concerns about the middle school that I've expressed (on this blog, in meetings, in the paper) are concerns that I've heard expressed by many parents (and kids) for YEARS, and I am highly concerned that I'm continuing to hear the same types of concerns from parents of middle school students now as I hear from parents of 12th graders when they reflect on their child's experience in that school: it is one thing to have a problem (which occurs in all districts/schools over time), but it is another thing (and I think an unacceptable thing) to have a problem and refuse to acknowledge it and fix it over such a long period of time. I believe that parents who are considering whether to send their children to this school (in the face of concerns they've personally experienced with older siblings and/or heard from others) MIGHT be convinced to give this school a chance by statements (from the SC, superintendent, and principal) that reflect an awareness and understanding of the concerns parents and students have about this school as well as a commitment to address these concerns with a specific plan (and timeline). However, statements from district leaders that this school is actually excellent, there are no problems, and any concerns simply reflect the difficult age of middle school are hardly reassuring when people's own experience is so dramatically different from such statements. When I talk to kids and parents about the middle school (and I've talked to MANY), there are amazingly nuanced responses about strengths AND weaknesses of the school (suggesting that it is not just "a difficult age" or "a difficult transition"). I'm hopeful that the middle school will seek to build on its strengths, and work diligently (and quickly) on its weaknesses, in the upcoming year ... and I hope that as both a School Committee member who is highly committed to excellent public education for all kids AND as the mother of a rising 7th grader!

Chairman resigns from Amherst school panel, citing divisions, lack of teamwork

2010-07-22T23:43:00.006-04:00

This is a longer version of an article that I posted earlier on my blog -- hence I think the link to the old article isn't working (since it has been updated): http://gazettenet.com/2010/07/23/chairman-resigns-amherst-school-panel-citing-divisions-lack-team. It has been a long day - including spending basically from 2 to 10 pm with my SC colleagues - so this will be brief. I would like to congratulate Rick Hood on his selection as Chair of the Regional SC, and I look forward to working with Rick in the months ahead (I was also re-elected as Vice Chair of the Regional SC). I believe we had a productive retreat today, followed by a productive Regional SC meeting, and I hope we can re-new our focus at the regional level on education and district goals.

I'm disappointed, and frankly puzzled, by Farshid's decision to specifically criticize me and Steve in this article -- it is hard for me to reconcile his decision to resign in order to bring about new collegiality while criticizing two Amherst members in the process. I worked with Farshid very well for the vast majority of his time as Chair (throughout which I was vice chair), and considered him a friend -- thus I am also disappointed that he would choose to make these remarks in the press in light of the considerable positive work that he and I did together throughout much of the last year (basically throughout Alberto's superintendency).

In terms of Farshid's accusations, I'll make two brief points. First, I continue to be saddened by the interpretation that saying "we could be better" and "let's live up to our potential" (which both Steve and I do say relentlessly) as denouncing and hammering and fomenting dissent, which I think is a deliberate misinterpretation about our comments (but an effective way of trying to silence our concerns). Second, I certainly agree that I've been impatient with the process of change in our district as well as the tendency to simply stick with the status quo (I seem to not be the only one concerned about staying with the status quo, based on the enrollment drops we are seeing at both Amherst and Regional levels), and if "power politics" is setting policy that is supported at a public meeting by a majority of the SC (such as our new evaluation policy, our Spanish language program, the addition of preschool for low income kids, or the recommendation that the HS have fewer study halls), then I'm guilty as charged.

Finally, I appreciate Irv Rhodes' thoughtful comments in this article, and believe the considerable positive efforts we've made at the Amherst elementary level (which of course includes both me and Steve) are due in part to Irv's leadership on this committee (which is why I supported him as Regional Chair). Encouragingly, every expectation I have of Rick Hood's approach to leadership is one of collaboration, inclusion, and a focus on goals -- NOT personalities/rumors/motives. I am newly optimistic that we can make great progress in helping our regional schools reach their true potential -- of being excellent for every child, every day (not just in words and slogans, but in the reality all kids experience in these schools). It is an exciting time for the Amherst and Regional schools and I feel fortuate to have both Irv Rhodes and Rick Hood leading these two committees.

Amherst's Rhodes mulls Regional School Committee chairmanship

2010-07-22T13:46:00.005-04:00

This article just got posted, and I think speaks for itself (http://www.gazettenet.com/2010/07/23/amherst039s-rhodes-mulls-regional-school-committee-chairmanship). Note: I am walking into SC meetings from 2 pm until .... 9 pm (?), so I won't be posting comments on any articles for the next few hours.

Leverett's Hajir to resign from Regional School Committee

2010-07-22T10:12:00.004-04:00

Here's an article regarding Farshid Hajir's decision to resign from the Regional School Committee (http://www.gazettenet.com/2010/07/23/leverett039s-hajir-resign-regional-school-committee). I share his hope that under new leadership, this committee can return to focusing on how to provide the best education possible for students in our regional schools. It has been striking to me over the last few months the differences between Amherst SC meetings and Regional SC meetings. The Amherst SC meetings, under Irv Rhodes' leadership, are productive, efficient, collaborative, and entirely focused on education (watch the one from July 20th, which was possibly our best meeting). The Regional SC meetings get bogged down in personality, and rumors, and accusations -- and spend almost no time focusing on education. The chair of the SC clearly makes a huge difference in the quality of the meeting, and, most importantly, the progress that can get made in our schools. I look forward to our reorganization at tonight's meeting, and hope that we can all join together to focus on creating truly excellent schools for all kids.

Amherst board looking into declining elementary enrollment

2010-07-21T19:28:00.003-04:00

I'm posting another story about the declining enrollment that the Amherst elementary schools are experiencing, which was discussed at length at the Amherst SC meeting last night (http://www.gazettenet.com/2010/07/22/amherst-board-looking-declining-elementary-enrollment). As reported at last night's meeting, the initial projections last fall were that there would be 1243 students K to 6. The students enrolled thus far (basically a month before school starts) are 1177, meaning 66 fewer than anticipated (about 40 students fewer than projected in kindergarten, and about 20 fewer 1st to 6th). I find this really concerning, as I believe it suggests that families are opting out of our elementary schools for other options (choice, charter, private). I look forward to a report this fall on the reasons given by families making other choices, given our new exit survey policy.

In addition, the class size averages are VERY low in some schools/some grades, which indicates to me that we are perhaps not using our resources in the best way. For example, in the 6th grade at Crocker Farm, there will be three classes with 15 students in each class (45 6th graders total), yet our target class size for this grade is 24 and our maximum is 27. We could easily divide 45 kids into 2 classes (22 in one, 23 in one) and still be BELOW our target and our maximum! Here's another example: at Fort River, there are 70 kids in 6th grade which has been divided into 4 classrooms of 17 or 18 in each. I have no idea why we would make a choice to divide the teachers that way when we could easily divide the 70 kids in 6th grade into 3 classrooms of 23-24 each (again, still below our target and our maximum). If we had made different choices, that would save 2 teachers that we could use to, for example, increase our instrumental music program, provide more afterschool care, or increase the grades covered in our Spanish program (which will start this fall for 1st and 2nd graders). These are precisely the types of choices that I believe the community should weigh in on, and the School Committee should share their own beliefs with the superintendent as we plan for the future.

Amhest Begins Math Review

2010-07-21T16:15:00.006-04:00

This article focuses on the upcoming math review (K to 12), which I know is of interest to many parents (http://gazettenet.com/2010/07/22/amherst-begins-math-review-plan). I would also encourage interested readers to check out the Amherst SC meeting last night (on ACTV), in which we discussed this review for some time, as well as the summary of the scope of the review that is posted on the ARPS website (http://www.arps.org/node/1660). As we discussed at last night's meeting, the present review (as commissioned by our current interim superintendent) will include surveys of teachers (but not parents), and no comparison whatsoever to the experience in other districts, which I find concerning. In addition, the focus of this review is to see how well our curriculum align with the NCTM (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics) standards, which are somewhat controversial (they are very much in the "reform math" camp, not the "traditional math" camp -- which you can read more about at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Math_wars). That also seems to me to be less than ideal -- I would prefer, and indeed expect, that all evaluation of our curricula and programs be done using an objective lens, as opposed to the lens of a particular ideology (Steve spoke to this point at length at last night's meeting).

However, I'm very glad to hear that the Chair of the Regional SC supports a rigorous evaluation, so that we don't have to just rely on anecdotes to evaluate our programs and curricula (which has been the approach for far too long in this district). That is precisely my view, which is why I asked at last night's meeting for the review to expand to include three additional components (as specified in the evaluation policy unanimously supported by the SC earlier this year): comparison to benchmark districts, surveys of parents, and review of empirical data on the effectiveness of different curriculum. I hope that these three components will indeed be added, which would indeed help us gain a fuller understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of our current K to 12 math program.

Assorted School Committee Stuff

2010-07-20T08:13:00.016-04:00

Sorry for the long delay in postings -- it's been a busy few weeks with work and family stuff! But I want to draw my readers' attention to a few things that I think will be of general interest, and also to return to a few lingering issues.

First, the Regional School Committee is having a retreat this Thursday (3 to 6 pm) in which we will discuss our goals, processes, etc. We had a similar retreat last year and it was really beneficial -- lots of focus on common goals for the upcoming year -- and I'm hoping this one will be as useful. There has been a bit of discussion (at three separate meetings) about individual SC members completing a survey of "best practices" of School Committees and then compiling these results to discuss at the retreat. I don't think this is a particularly good idea (can expand on why if readers are interested) but my colleagues seem to feel this will be useful, so I did ultimately vote in favor of completing this instrument. You can read the Gazette's coverage of this topic at our last meeting at: http://www.gazettenet.com/2010/07/20/amherst-regional-school-committee-embark-retreat.

Second, we had a long regionalization meeting on Tuesday, June 28th, which included a recommendation from the Shutesbury SC that each town forms an individual "study group" to examine options for their own town/school moving forward (e.g., full regionalization, a different union configuration, etc.). Shutesbury has already formed such a group as has Pelham (you can read a story about Pelham's group at: http://www.gazettenet.com/2010/07/14/pelham-form-panel-look-school039s-future). Irv Rhodes, on behalf of the Amherst SC, had asked the Pelham SC to form a joint Amherst-Pelham group to study our options moving forward (e.g., forming an Amherst-Pelham regional agreement, combining the Amherst-Pelham districts, etc.), but the Pelham SC was not interested in forming such a group at this time. The Amherst SC will meet tonight to discuss how we might want to move forward on the Union 26/regionalization discussion. I still intend to do a longer blog post re. the whole regionalization discussion, but continue to be puzzled that the regionalization committee met for over a year and only considered three options: making no changes, full K to 12 regionalization (which they even admitted is VERY unlikely to occur), and expanding Union 26 to include Leverett and Shutesbury (so that Amherst could pay 80% of the bill and have 25% of the vote for superintendent, and we could require superintendents to manage 5 different budgets and attend 5 different SC meetings!).

Third, there was a piece in the Gazette on Saturday about an open meeting law violation on the regional SC (http://www.gazettenet.com/2010/07/17/da-chides-committee-open-meeting-violation). This issue goes back to that now infamous meeting on May 11th, in which the regional chair inserted a Union 26 meeting in the middle of the regional meeting against the wishes of all Amherst SC members. I do not believe Rick meant any harm in his actions -- he was simply trying to de-escalate the situation, which had become quite volatile, with the best of intentions. But this is a good reminder that all SC members need to be careful about what they put in email to other members!

Fourth, there are two SC meetings this week: tonight the Amherst SC meets (7 pm, town hall, probably live on ACTV as well) to discuss a number of topics (the math review, the implementation of the Spanish program, afterschool programs) and on Thursday, the Regional SC meets (I'm not sure of what is on the agenda for this meeting yet) at 6:30 pm in the HS library.

Finally, the Regional SC met last week to interview two more law firms (we had voted to interview 5 firms: 4 new firms, plus our current firm). After seeing presentations from all five firms, the Regional Chair, Farshid Hajir, noted that he doesn't see any problem with our current firm and therefore recommends we simply stay with this firm. Other members of the SC disagreed (particularly since neither Rob nor Irv were in town for this meeting), and ultimately we decided to return to this issue at a later meeting. If any of my blog readers have had the opportunity to see the interviews (3 were on Tuesday, June 22nd and 2 were on Tuesday, July 13th -- all available on demand at ACTV), I'd love any thoughts you have (either via my blog or via my private email: casanderson@amherst.edu).

Study at R.I. boarding school finds more sleep for teens equals better performance

2010-07-12T09:51:00.002-04:00

Note: This is a longer story about the study that appeared in the Gazette last week on the benefits of delaying the start of school. I am definitely in favor of looking into this idea for the upcoming year.

The Providence Journal
July 7, 2010
By Felice J. Freyer, Journal Medical Writer

When the head of St. George’s School proposed starting the school day a half-hour later, many were skeptical.

Eric F. Peterson, the head of the private boarding school in Middletown, just wanted St. George’s students to get more sleep. But his plan faced resistance.

“The initial reaction was, ‘What difference can 30 minutes make? The kids will just stay up later,’ ” Peterson said. “I felt, what harm could 30 minutes more do?”

The school, which includes grades 9 through 12, decided to try the later time just as an experiment. According to the plan, from Jan. 6 to March 6, 2009, school would start at 8:30 a.m. instead of 8.

But the effects of that extra half-hour were so swift and dramatic that the 8:30 a.m. start time has stayed in effect. And a local sleep researcher’s documentation of those effects are being published in the July issue of the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine — adding to growing evidence that later school start times have measurable benefits for teens.

Adolescents stay up later at night because of biological changes that make it harder to fall asleep until late, abetted by a wealth of modern-day distractions. But they need as much sleep as younger children, resulting in chronic sleep deprivation.

Once St. George’s changed the start time, Peterson noticed right away that more kids were at breakfast and they seemed more alert. The teachers felt “less frantic” starting the day.

Far from staying up later, students went to bed earlier, so they added an average of 45 minutes to their sleep time on school nights. Buoyed by the extra sleep, they felt more motivated and less depressed. Fewer were late for class. Students fell asleep in class less often, and fewer went to the health center with fatigue-related complaints.

Barely halfway into the experiment, Peterson says, “I started hearing, ‘We’re not going to go back to the original start time, are we?’ ”

The St. George’s experiment was tracked by Dr. Judith A. Owens, a pediatric sleep researcher at Hasbro Children’s Hospital, whose daughter was a senior at St. George’s. Though the study involved a small group and a short time period, she said, it provides “one more piece of evidence that this is worth doing.”

The students took an online survey before and after the two-month experiment, gauging sleep habits, behavior and feelings. (Of the school’s 357 enrollees, 201 completed both surveys.) Owens did not measure academic performance because the study’s time frame was too short to gauge effects. But other studies have shown a link between shorter sleep and lower academic achievement.

“What surprised me most,” Head of School Peterson said last week, “was the breadth of the benefit. I kind of figured things would be a little better in some ways. They seemed to be so much better in many ways.”

For example, he said, “We more than doubled the amount of quality breakfast food that we were consuming as a community in the mornings. That stunned me. … Who knows how that played into people’s later alertness?”

Maddie Carrellas, of Middletown, was a senior at St. George’s when the experiment took place. As a day student who had to drive to school, she was especially appreciative of the extra half-hour. “I just had a lot more time in the morning. I felt a lot more relaxed,” she said.

Sometimes she even went to bed earlier because she knew she had a little extra time to get ready in the morning. (Some students told the researchers that they were inspired to go to bed earlier when they saw the benefits of sleeping an extra half-hour in the morning.)

St. George’s original start time of 8 a.m. is gentle compared to most public high schools, which typically start at 7 or 7:15 a.m. To catch the bus, many public school kids are awake by 6, but few can fall asleep before 11.

To make up for the half-hour of school time lost in the morning, St. George’s cut 10 minutes of class time per week for each course and sports practice was shortened by 10 or 15 minutes.

Owens acknowledges that changing school start times is logistically easier for a boarding school that doesn’t have to contend with bus schedules and afterschool jobs. But she notes that in Minnesota, Kentucky and elsewhere, public school systems have successfully delayed start times — and have documented such positive effects as higher SAT scores and fewer car crashes.

It’s striking, however, that despite the improvements, St. George’s students were still sleep-deprived after the time change. The average school-night sleep time increased from 7 hours, 7 minutes to 7 hours, 52 minutes. But the typical adolescent needs 9 hours to 9¼ hours of sleep every night. Only 11 percent at St. George’s slept 9 or more hours after the time change.

Before the start-time change, 85.1 percent of the students reported struggling to stay awake or falling asleep during class. Afterward, that dropped to 60.5 percent — a significant change, but one that still leaves more than half the students feeling sleepy in class.

“It underscores this really terrible epidemic that we have in this country of inadequate sleep across the board and particularly affecting our teenagers,” Owens said.

Sleep deprivation is especially harmful to the very parts of the brain that need to develop in adolescence — those involving motivation, judgment and emotional regulation. “We have no idea what the long-term consequence is,” Owens said.

Owens calls for a cultural shift that recognizes sleep as necessary and valuable, rather than a sign of laziness or a waste of time.

“Parents will do everything they can to improve success in their kids,” Owens said.

“They’ll do Stanley Kaplan, go to all sort of lengths to pad their resumes … But the most important thing they can do is get them more sleep.”

KEY POINTS: Teens and sleep

Teenagers need an average of 9 to 9 1/4 hours of sleep each night, but find it hard to fall asleep before 11 p.m.

Shorter sleep times have been linked to poorer academic performance, depressed mood, memory and behavior problems and weight gain.

Starting school a half-hour later at St. George’s School increased the percentage of students getting at least 8 hours of sleep from 16 percent to 55 percent; reduced the percentage who said they rarely or never got enough sleep from 69 percent to 34 percent; and reduced the percentage of students who rated themselves as “at least somewhat unhappy” or depressed from 66 percent to 45 percent.

Parents can help by minimizing the time needed to prepare for school in the morning; keeping televisions, computers and other electronics out of the bedroom; limiting naps to a half-hour; and considering reducing your teen’s afterschool activities.

Education Matters: What Do We Want Now?

2010-07-11T18:24:00.003-04:00

This link is to my latest Education Matters column (July 9, 2010, Amherst Bulletin), which examines our current school budgets and the spending choices we are currently making (http://www.amherstbulletin.com/story/id/176325/). I'd be interested in hearing thoughts about both our current choices and alternative choices from parents, teachers, students, and community members.

Two Interesting Articles Related to Education Issues

2010-07-06T12:46:00.009-04:00

I am posting links to two recent articles on issues related to education that I think will be of interest to my blog readers.

First, I'm posting a link to an article in last weekend's New York Times on the growing trend of public high schools adopting International Baccalaureate programs (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/03/education/03baccalaureate.html). This sounds like potentially a great fit for the overall mission of the Amherst Regional schools, given the focus on both integrated learning and global awareness.

Second, I'm posting a link to an article in today's Gazette on the advantages of delaying the start of the school day to give kids an extra 30 minutes to sleep (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g_9syxAbjOHUcaehGEA7WVQAVqjgD9GP4MT00). I think this is an idea that the Amherst schools should definitely consider -- I know the Northampton schools have considered it for a couple years, though I don't believe they've made such a change.

Mixed reviews for special ed in Amherst

2010-07-02T08:44:00.003-04:00

I'm posting two links to an article in today's Gazette about the evaluation of special education in Amherst. The special education evaluation was briefly presented at the most recent Regional SC meeting, but there will be a longer discussion of this evaluation at a future meeting. I was struck (and commented at the time) that this evaluation, while relatively thorough, didn't include virtually any examination of our special education costs (which I believe was asked to be completed by the SC last spring), and in particular whether our staffing levels were appropriate in terms of our population. I am struck that the Amherst Regional schools employ four special education administrators (all making over $95,000), which seems odd to me since we employ (as of last year) not a single person whose job is to focus on curriculum/evaluation/instruction (and even now, we have only one person -- the Curriculum Director). I have met and talked with many parents who are involved in special education in Amherst, and, as noted in this article, satisfaction is not particularly high, which concerns me. I believe we need to set developing recommendations for improving special education in Amherst a high priority for the upcoming year. Here are the two links: http://gazettenet.com/2010/07/02/mixed-reviews-special-ed-amherst, and http://gazettenet.com/2010/07/02/key-findings.

One more note: there is also a front page article stating that the DA has NOT issued the expected ruling on blogs, but has sent the concerns raised by School Committee chairs to the Attorney General. Here is that link: http://www.gazettenet.com/2010/07/02/da-shifts-blogging-query-attorney-general.

More Thoughts on IMP

2010-07-01T10:39:00.006-04:00

My June Oped in the Bulletin regarding math in ARMS and ARHS has led to a number of responses, including two letters in today's Bulletin (not yet online, but will be soon) and an official response on the ARHS website (http://www.arps.org/hs/Parents/IMPMathIntro.php). The high school response makes a number of claims about the benefits of IMP, including that this program is associated with students taking more math classes and achieving higher standardized test scores. I would encourage parents and community members to read the research posted in this link carefully: what is very clear is that IMP was developed in the early 1990s, and that ALL of the research cited in this link is from the early to mid-1990s, when students taking IMP math were still in high school. Some evidence now suggests that this approach didn't really stand the test of time -- meaning that when students trained in IMP entered college-level math classes, they struggled considerably. This might be why of the 23 districts that, like Amherst, are part of the Minority Student Achievement Network (MSAN), 16 do NOT offer an IMP math track. It might also be why there is considerable controversy in the mathematics community about IMP (and other forms of reform math), as described in an editorial by David Klein, a math professor at California State Northridge, in the American Journal of Physics entitled "School math books, nonsense, and the National Science Foundation (http://www.csun.edu/~vcmth00m/).

Most importantly, what the response from the high school does NOT say is that "we have tested the effectiveness of the IMP program in ARHS and have found the following results" -- because absolutely no analysis of the effectiveness of this program has been conducted in our high school. And that is the entire point of my oped, which in fact ended with the following sentence: As part of the upcoming review of the mathematics curriculum in Amherst, we need to objectively evaluate the effectiveness of both the IMP and extensions programs so that we can adequately advise students about both the benefits and costs of their choices, and ideally help all students make choices that expand rather than limit their possibilities. My piece did NOT say "let's immediately end the IMP math program" -- it said we need to evaluate the effectiveness of this program in our school, since some national data is suggesting it has some real problems for college-bound students (particularly those who want to study math or science).

As a member of the Regional School Committee, I pushed hard last fall for an evaluation of K to 12 math, including an examination of the effectiveness of the IMP program. This would be quite an easy evaluation to conduct: since we currently have kids in both the IMP and traditional tracks, one could track their MCAS scores over time and directly compare rate of change (improvement) as a function of which math track was chosen. One could also compare whether one approach was better as a function of gender, or level of math proficiency, etc. Again, this would be a very easy analysis to do, and yet it hasn't ever been done so we really don't know how effective this alternative math program is in general or how effective it is for particular students.

I have been a member of the School Committee for over two years, and a member of the Math Curriculum Council for a year prior to that, and at no time has any high school math teacher (or the HS principal) come to a SC or math curriculum council meeting and requested this type of rigorous evaluation so that we would definitively understand the benefits and/or costs for all or some students of choosing the IMP math track. Yet this seems like an evaluation that all SC members, math teachers, parents, and principals, should agree is long overdue, and highly important for our students.

The Importance of Art

2010-06-29T13:53:00.003-04:00

Note: I'm posting this letter, with permission from Ben Sears (Chair of the Art Department at ARHS), which was sent to the Regional School Committee in January. I had been meaning to post this for some time, and it just got lost in the midst of other issues -- my apologies to the ARHS art teachers for this delay. My interest in posting it was to commend these teachers for this very thorough presentation of the importance of art, as measured by national and state standards (including MASS Core). In addition, these teachers gathered information on each of the 11 districts selected as our comparison districts, which I found really helpful. As you can read below, ARHS is the only high school without an arts graduation requirement and ARMS is the one of only two middle schools that doesn't offer arts in both 7th and 8th grade. I believe both of these issues should be considered in the upcoming year, and I want to commend Mr. Sears, Ms. Hartl, and Mr. Stauder for doing such an impressive job of conveying the position of art both locally and nationally.

To Whom It May Concern,

The information in this packet demonstrates why the Arts are a fundamental part of public education nationally, locally and in this district. The data that we are presenting addresses the following:

National
• The Arts are defined as a core academic subject by Arne Duncan, Secretary of Education.
• Massachusetts is identified as one of only four states that do not have an Arts Education state mandate.
• Massachusetts is one of only ten states that do not have an Arts requirement for high school graduation.

State
• MassCore recommends that students in Massachusetts take one year of an arts program before graduating high school.

Amherst-Regional Schools
• Last year alone, the high School Art Department was reduced from 4.2 to 3.0 FTE.
• In 2006 the Middle School Art program was cut in half. As a result, students receive no Art instruction in the 7th grade.

Comparison Districts
• All of our comparison districts have Art for Middle School students in both 7th and 8th grade.
• Ten out of eleven of our comparison districts have an Arts graduation requirement.

These facts are important to take into consideration in planning for the future of the Visual Arts in the Amherst Regional Schools.

Thank You,

Ben Sears
Hannah Hartl
Jeff Stauder

Four-town panel sees little merit in wider Amherst-area school regionalization

2010-06-28T22:50:00.006-04:00

This article describes the regionalization report (now posted on arps.org), which will be discussed at Tuesday night's Four Town Meeting (7 pm, middle school; also shown live on ACTv): http://gazettenet.com/2010/06/29/panel-sees-little-merit-wider-school-regionalization. As the report clearly says, moving to full K to 12 regionalization (which I continue to believe would be in Amherst's best interest) isn't likely any time soon ... and as of now, Shutesbury and Pelham are forming committees (including SC and SB and FC and community representatives) to study what is in their own town's best interest. I imagine Amherst will also choose to form such a committee, which the regionalization report recommends ... and I would be very interested in hearing from blog readers about this issue. Should we just drop the Union 26 discussion and continue being the only town with more than 1300 students in a union (which is certainly not a situation we would join in today)? Should we take steps to change the union in some way (e.g., ask Pelham to regionalize with Amherst)? Should we form a committee and have someone else study the issue and report back to the SC at some point later this year?

I am torn about the right path -- because I see the current situation as unfair to Amherst voters and thus feel it is my responsibility to do something to try to make it right (instead of passing the buck to a later SC), yet I also want to make sure we can continue making major progress on the many initiatives the Amherst SC has undertaken over the last year (e.g., the K to 5 math review, adding K to 6 Spanish, adding preschool classes). I'd like constructive, honest, and ideally personally owned feedback from blog readers at this very crucial time on what (if anything) we should do -- either through blog posts or to my private email (casanderson@amherst.edu).

Assorted Amherst School News

2010-06-28T10:58:00.010-04:00

With the start of summer vacation and my kids out of school, I've had less time to update my blog recently -- though I hope to do better now that camps have started! So, I will respond to various questions/comments on my prior post soon (and do some meeting summaries) ... but for now, I wanted to alert blog readers to a number of timely issues/topics.

First, I wanted to commend ARHS student Darius Peyton for his OpEd in the Gazette describing some of his observations about issues of race in the Amherst schools. I believe many of his points merit future study and hope that the Regional and Amherst School Committees will consider his thoughts as we form goals for the 2010-2011 year. You can read his piece at:
http://www.gazettenet.com/2010/06/17/amherst-regional-student-says-equality-quest-not-done.

Second, and relatedly, there is a piece in today's Gazette about some changes to the math program in the middle school (http://www.gazettenet.com/2010/06/28/middle-school-principal-adjusts-math-expectations). I signed this letter, and attended several meetings with Principal Mike Hayes over the last month, in part because I believe that requiring extensions of all students will help address one of the issues Darius addresses in his piece: the relative absence of students of color in higher level honors math classes. I am encouraged that Mike Hayes was willing to make a change in the 7th grade math program for this fall, and look forward (as both a SC member and the mother of a rising 7th grader) to seeing its effects.

Third, at the most recent Regional School Committee meeting (June 16th) a report was presented involving per pupil costs (including comparisons to other districts). You can read this entire report (it is available on the homepage of ARPS.org), as well as the story in the Bulletin (http://www.amherstbulletin.com/story/id/175422/). I am very glad to see this type of comparison, though I continue to be surprised and puzzled at the finding that the Amherst schools spend the same per pupil as towns in Eastern Mass (e.g., Brookline, Newton, Framingham), yet we pay teachers much less. I believe we need to understand why our costs are so much higher than those of other surrounding districts (e.g., Northampton, Hadley, Longmeadow), and I hope this will be a major focus in the upcoming year.

Fourth, there is also an article in today's Gazette on the goals that have been accomplished this year, and some tentative goals for the upcoming year (as presented by the superintendent at the last Regional SC meeting). You can read this story (http://www.gazettenet.com/2010/06/28/sights-blueprint-continuous-growth039), and also see information on the ARPS website (http://www.arps.org/goals).

Fifth, there is a Regional SC Meeting tomorrow night, starting at 6:30 pm in the middle school auditorium. This meeting will be followed (starting at 7 pm) by a Four Towns Meeting (including Finance Committee, Select Board, and SC members of Amherst/Pelham/Shutesbury/Leverett): the focus of this meeting will be the presentation of the Regionalization Report (which you can read on the ARPS.org website). It is clear that regionalization is a major topic at the state level, and I believe that Amherst's discussions regarding Union 26 fit right into this broader discussion.

Finally, I'd like to draw my readers to a somewhat unrelated but important topic -- and that is the Fresh Air Program, which brings kids from New York City to towns all over the Northeast to stay with local families for 2 weeks. You can read a letter about this program in last week's Bulletin (http://amherstbulletin.com/story/id/175423/), and I'd strongly encourage interested blog readers to contact the Fresh Air Fund to learn more about how to participate. My family has welcomed a Fresh Air child for the last 4 summers (our child started when he was just 6-years-old, and will return next week for his 5th visit with us), and it has been a great experience for all of us. I'd be glad to answer any questions about this program on my blog or through my private email (casanderson@amherst.edu).

Three (Somewhat Random) Updates

2010-06-22T00:04:00.010-04:00

I am doing a quick post tonight to just update my blog readers on three things.

First, there is a Regional School Committee meeting tonight (Tuesday, June 22nd) from 6 to 10 pm in Town Hall. However, this meeting will consist entirely of interviews with law firms -- the first time we've conducted a review of legal services and interviewed different firms (including our current firm) in 15 or 20 years. Members of the public are welcome to come and see the interviews and provide feedback to the School Committee. I believe the next Regional SC meeting will be held on Tuesday, June 29th, and that the regionalization report will be presented this evening.

Second, I'm attaching a link to a Gazette story on an increase in athletic fees at ARHS http://gazettenet.com/2010/06/19/amherst-oks-10-percent-hike-sports-fees. I abstained from this vote because I am concerned that we continue to raise athletic fees (this is the third increase in three years), and that we seem to treat athletics differently from other extracurricular activities (e.g., music, drama, afterschool clubs, etc.).

Third, my interview with the Student News is now available to see anytime on ACTV (http://204.213.244.104/Cablecast/Public/Show.aspx?ChannelID=1&ShowID=5726). I want to express my real appreciation to the producers of Student News for inviting me to interview, and for airing a very long interview with me (entirely unedited). I am always glad to talk about our schools, and the interviewer was professional, courteous, and extremely well-prepared. At the end of the interview, there is an additional piece in which two members of the Student News staff criticize a few of my statements and imply that I'm being a bit dishonest in some ways. I do wish that the producers had either asked me those questions initially, and/or invited me back to the studio to respond directly, so that I would have had an opportunity to clarify any issues with my interview. If any of my blog readers have questions about these issues that were raised, I would be glad to answer them here - so ask away!

Editorial: Extracting lessons from Rodriguez's parting shot

2010-06-21T16:58:00.001-04:00

This is the Bulletin editors' editorial -- which I found one of the most thoughtful editorials I've ever read in the Bulletin. I believe my blog readers will find it interesting and thought-provoking.

http://www.amherstbulletin.com/story/id/174906/

The Union 26 Agreement: FAQ

2010-06-19T12:46:00.009-04:00

I've heard a lot of questions about the Union 26 agreement (and the Amherst School Committee's actions regarding this agreement) over the last month, so I'm doing something a bit different in this blog post: I'm going to list the Frequently Asked Questions I've heard (in bold), and my responses. I hope this post clarifies at least my view (again, I'm not speaking for the whole SC here) about this hot topic.

Why is the Amherst School Committee pulling out of Union 26?

The Amherst School Committee hasn't actually voted to pull out of Union 26. There hasn't been a motion to this effect, and not only has such a vote not occurred, but it isn't even scheduled (to the best of my knowledge) at any future School Committee meeting. What the Amherst School Committee has done is voted (unanimously) to seek information from a lawyer about our options regarding the Union 26 agreement.

Why is the Amherst School Committee working on the Union 26 agreement, instead of more important issues facing our schools?

The Amherst School Committee is devoting considerable time/energy to education issues, including implementing a new K to 6 Spanish language program, conducting a review of the K to 5 math curriculum, and providing additional support for struggling students (e.g., afterschool programs, summer school, intervention support). The Union 26 agreement is occupying a large amount of the media coverage, but a very small amount of our time/energy!

How can the Amherst School Committee waste override money hiring a lawyer to investigate the Union 26 agreement?

The total cost of the bill for the lawyer was $2,145, and we believed it was important for us to have legal advice with respect to this very new law allowing one town to pull out of a union. This School Committee also voted to close Marks Meadow (saving $800,000 annually), and thus has demonstrated its commitment to fiscal responsibility. It is also possible that pulling out of the Union 26 agreement would ultimately lead to far greater savings in the future (as could occur if our superintendent only had responsibility for two School Committees and budgets instead of 3).

Doesn't the Union 26 agreement benefit Amherst? Why would we even want to end this agreement?

The only tangible benefit of this agreement for Amherst is that Pelham pays 6% of the cost of the superintendent and central office. However, it isn't clear whether this is a net gain, since (as I noted before), it is costly to have central office run three different budgets and three sets of payrolls (some staff members in central office receive three different paychecks for their work in Amherst, Pelham, and the Region). Pelham also pays less than their proportionate share of the elementary expenses: Pelham has 10% of the elementary students yet pays 6% of the bill, whereas Amherst has 90% of the elementary school students yet pays 94% of the bill. This might be why the majority of towns with school enrollments between 1000 and 1500 (like Amherst) choose to operate their own K to 12 district, and not be in a union (17 of 20 have their own superintendent), and why of the 71 towns in MA that are in a union, only 3 of these towns have more than 1000 students (and Amherst is the ONLY town with more than 1300 students that is in a union).

Isn't this just because some members of the Amherst School Committee don't like Maria Geryk and didn't want her to be the superintendent?

In 2009, after Helen Vivian and Al Sprague resigned as co-superintendents, I vocally supported Maria's appointment as interim superintendent. I even suggested that we continue her superintendency for 16 months IF the search for our permanent superintendent failed (in March of 2009). I voted to conduct a search for an interim superintendent, which Maria certainly could have applied for, because I felt that the School Committees and residents of all towns should have been able to weigh in on the strengths/weaknesses of multiple candidates, given that we were hiring someone for 16 months to lead the district. But my vote at that time, and my interest in learning more about options regarding the Union 26 agreement, has nothing to do with Maria Geryk -- it has to do with making sure that Amherst residents are able to have more influence over the superintendent selection and evaluation in the future, which I believe is appropriate since Amherst pays 94% of the bill at the elementary level, and yet has only 50% of the vote.

Why is the Amherst School Committee being so mean to Pelham? If the Amherst School Committee pulls out of Union 26, what will happen to Pelham?

I have two thoughts here. First, I was elected by the Amherst voters to look out for the best interests of education in Amherst, and I don't believe that Amherst voters are well served by an agreement in which they pay 94% of the bill and have 90% of the population and have 50% of the say in choosing and evaluating a superintendent at the elementary level. Second, I believe that the Pelham School Committee needs to consider what is best for Pelham -- perhaps it is staying in the current arrangement, but perhaps it is forming a regional agreement with Amherst or perhaps it is forming a union arrangement with a town that is more similar in size to Pelham (e.g., Union 28) and thus would be more likely to have similar interests in a superintendent.

If this is such a pressing issue, why didn't School Committee members talk about this in the most recent election?

The possibility of exiting school unions is very, very new - following a change in state law in January of 2010. This change didn't become widely known until it was reported in the Gazette in March of 2010, and that was towards the end of the School Committee race. I believe the ramifications of this agreement really came to the forefront after the departure of Alberto Rodriguez, and the appointment of Maria Geryk as interim superintendent on March 9, 2010 (in a vote that was very divided, with 80% of the Amherst SC members opposing this appointment and 100% of the non-Amherst members in favor).

Isn't the action of the Amherst School Committee just a case of "sour grapes," after some members of the Amherst School Committee didn't get their way on the recent interim superintendent hire?

I believe that we would not be discussing this issue now if Superintendent Rodriguez was still our superintendent -- and that certainly the appointment of Maria Geryk for 16 months against the wishes of 80% of the Amherst School Committee led both members of this committee and members of this community to question whether this agreement was in Amherst's best interest. The vote at the Union 26 level was 2 against (me, Irv Rhodes) and 4 in favor (all three Pelham members were joined by Andy Churchill). I believe voters in Amherst questioned whether this appointment was the right way to go, given that only a single member of the Amherst School Committee favored this appointment -- and this member was not running for re-election (unlike potentially all other members of the SC). But this isn't about these particular Amherst SC members or this particular interim superintendent - this is about whether Amherst voters are comfortable knowing that they pay 94% of the bill but have 50% of the vote for hiring and evaluating a superintendent. And the vote on March 9th revealed that there are times in which this vote matters.

This is really just Steve Rivkin and Catherine Sanderson hijacking the other members of the Amherst School Committee in a power grab.

I've heard this statement a number of times, and I find it really concerning for multiple reasons. First, on March 9th, Steve and I voted against hiring Maria for 16-months, but so did both Kathleen Anderson and Irv Rhodes (the only two SC members of color on the Amherst SC). I'm not sure why their votes are ignored. Second, the Amherst SC voted unanimously to hire a lawyer to look into options regarding the Union 26 agreement - meaning all three other members of the Amherst SC joined me and Steve in requesting this information. Rob, Rick, and Irv are smart men who have been actively involved in their fields of work (medicine/business/education) for years: they are not push-overs who automatically agree with whatever I say or Steve says. Yet the assumption is that they are being led against their will or through some tight of trickery to vote with me and Steve, which I really find insulting.

Third, I believe there was a power grab on March 9th: the 5 members of the Regional SC and Union 26 voted to hire an interim superintendent for 16 months against the will of 80% of the Amherst SC. That was absolutely a power grab, and it was a legal power grab -- in which the SC members representing three small towns grabbed the choice of superintendent away from the 80% of Amherst SC members who preferred conducting a search for an interim instead of simply appointing an internal candidate without any community input. The Amherst SC is now examining whether it is possible/appropriate/desirable for Amherst voters (who have 90% of the enrollment at the elementary level and pay 94% of the bills) to have more power to choose a superintendent than Pelham. This also strikes me as legal, and appropriate.

Why should we assume that Pelham SC members and Amherst SC members would seek different things in a superintendent? How has this agreement ever led to a problem in terms of hiring a superintendent?

I think we can look at the vote on March 9th to see how Amherst and Pelham SC members might have different preferences in a superintendent. I think the needs of the towns are very different for many reasons - Pelham is 95% white, whereas Amherst is much more diverse (thus they might differ in how important experience with diverse populations is); Pelham is one small school with a class per grade, whereas Amherst will have 3 elementary schools each with multiple classes per grade (thus they might differ in how important experiencing in bringing alignment across different schools/principals is); Amherst has many more kids struggling and all schools failing to make AYP, whereas Pelham has very few kids struggling on MCAS (thus they might differ in how important standardized testing is, or intervention support). It is pretty clear that the different towns/SCs face different challenges in their schools, and in turn might prefer different experiences and backgrounds in a superintendent. I'm also not sure what to make of the idea "there hasn't been a problem yet" -- is the suggestion that we wait until we are hiring a superintendent this winter/spring, and then see if there is a problem (at which point it would be too late to solve this problem!).

How has the Union 26 agreement harmed education for Amherst kids?

The single most important thing the SC does is hire (and evaluate) a superintendent, and if Amherst voters aren't able to elect SC members who can effectively choose a superintendent, that strikes me as harming education for Amherst kids. Perhaps the relative weakness of Amherst SC members in terms of selecting a superintendent has in fact led to some of the problems in our schools, as noted in the report by Dr. Hamer last July. Certainly the Union 26 agreement harms education for Amherst kids if we get fewer superintendent candidates than we should (since it is clear that superintendent candidates see working with three SCs and managing 3 budgets/payrolls/town meetings as undesirable), and if we have to pay superintendents more than other districts of a similar size to compensate for this additional work. This might be why the Northampton superintendent makes considerably less than the Amherst superintendent -- although they manage the same number of schools and approximately the same size population.

Aren't the efforts of the Amherst School Committee going to harm regionalization efforts? Why would the small towns ever regionalize with Amherst, after these aggressive actions on the part of the Amherst SC members?

The regionalization effort is being actively opposed by members of the small towns (at least in Leverett and Shutesbury), precisely because these towns want control over their schools (which one could describe as a power grab!). The regionalization committee was formed ONLY because it seemed as if the state were going to force towns to regionalize UNLESS a report was done showing this idea had at least been investigated, and I'm quite confident the report (due in about 10 days) isn't going to suggest a K to 12 regional system. Creating a K to 12 regional school system (which would be my first choice) requires votes at each town meeting, and this just isn't going to happen anytime soon. The towns themselves are looking at what options best meet their own needs (Shutesbury has already formed a committee to do precisely this), and I believe it is fair and appropriate for Amherst to also look out for its own needs (and failing to do this because it might offend the small towns seems very silly and short-sighted).

Why isn't the Amherst School Committee waiting for the regionalization report, before moving forward on discussions with Pelham?

As I noted above, the regionalization report isn't going to make any recommendations regarding moving towards a K to 12 regional system, and will likely encourage more talking/studying/evaluating of other options. Regionalization isn't in Amherst's control; however, changing the Union 26 agreement is in Amherst's control, and in fact, could simplify the regionalization process (e.g., if Amherst and Pelham formed a K to 6 regional system, which either or both of the other towns could then join at any point). Learning about Amherst's K to 6 options therefore seems like an important first step.

Why is the Amherst School Committee acting unilaterally, instead of talking with School Committee members from the other towns?

Changes to the Union 26 agreement don't influence the regional schools at all, and therefore there is no need to talk to Shutesbury or Leverett. The regional schools pay 50% of the superintendent/central office costs, and the elementary schools (Amherst and Pelham) may the other 50%. The elementary schools will continue to pay the other 50% of the costs regardless of what happens with Union 26 - maybe Amherst pays it alone (and Pelham forms a union with a different superintendent for their elementary school), maybe Amherst and Pelham combine into a region and pay it together (with some new proportion than occurs now), or maybe there are no changes. None of those options influence Leverett or Shutesbury at all. In addition, now that the Amherst SC has the information from the lawyer about options, we have asked to meet with Pelham to discuss next steps in considering our options. That is hardly a unilateral approach.

This isn't a decision that should be made by just the five members of the Amherst School Committee.

Well, technically it is (according to the law) a decision that is made entirely by just the five members (and actually, just three of them could make the decision, since that would be a majority). This is one of the decisions that is entirely in the purview of the SC, just like closing Marks Meadow and redistricting and implementing a K to 6 Spanish language program. However, I'm perfectly comfortable asking residents of Amherst to share their thoughts on this agreement, which would serve to guide the SC in our own vote; Rich Morse has suggested (on my blog and others) that we have a fall town referendum on whether Amherst should exit the Union 26 agreement, and would likely support this idea. If Amherst residents believe that it is in Amherst's best interests moving forward to have 50% of the vote for hiring and evaluating a superintendent while paying 94% of the bill, I would take this recommendation very seriously.

OK, the Union 26 agreement isn't fair or equitable to Amherst, but isn't focusing on changing this agreement now going to cost the Amherst SC members too much in terms of political capital? Shouldn't we just acknowledge its inequitable, but then not do anything about it, at least not anytime soon?

I have heard this point from several people I really respect, and I'm frankly kind of torn about this idea. On the one hand, I believe that elected officials should do what is RIGHT, even if it is politically costly. If I didn't have that belief, I certainly wouldn't have made a motion in March of 2009 to close Marks Meadow (obviously a costly political move) nor would I have voted in favor of redistricting by equity (another costly political move). One of the superintendent candidates told me last year that the hardest things School Committees do are close schools, redistricts, and hire superintendents - so, I've done all three. I'm obviously a lousy politician! On the other hand, it isn't clear to me at all what the average Amherst voter thinks about this -- I've heard a lot of criticism (as noted in the questions above) for even investigating the Union 26 agreement, but I've also heard a lot of praise (e.g., at soccer games, and birthday parties, and in coffee shops downtown, people say to me "that agreement with Pelham is crazy/how did we ever agree to this/you should definitely change this agreement). But I think it is hard for people with this view to speak out, as it seems less politically correct to not openly support our tiny little neighboring town, and maintaining an agreement that is so very, very advantageous to them.

Ultimately, I think changing the Union 26 agreement is the right thing to do ... and that NOT doing it now just means leaving it for some other SC to handle in the future (just like other SCs didn't redistrict, because it was hard, and meanwhile we created a school that was more than 50% kids on free/reduced lunch). But I'm not sure if this is indeed an issue that I want to take on right now -- which is why I'm looking forward to sitting down with the Pelham SC and hearing their thoughts about how best to proceed. It is, after all, possible that there is some type of mutually beneficial agreement that could be struck -- in which Amherst and Pelham form a regional agreement that saves both districts money and ensures the continuation of the now struggling for enrollment Pelham school. I would hope that residents of both towns could keep an open mind about the possibilities, and not automatically assume that gathering information about options for Amherst is inherently harmful to Pelham; it might, in fact, be precisely the opposite.

Amherst-Pelham officials pursue school union split

2010-06-14T23:19:00.002-04:00

This article examines the Union 26 discussion held at tonight's Amherst School Committee meeting; I will do a blog post sometime tomorrow on the whole meeting, and will post Steve Rivkin's presentation. Overall, I think it was a good and productive meeting.

http://gazettenet.com/2010/06/15/amherst-pelham-officials-pursue-school-union-split

I'm not sure if this link is going to work (which I've heard from the Gazette), so they've now given me permission to post the whole story.

June 15, 2010
By Nick Grabbe
AMHERST - The prospect of severing the tie that binds Amherst and Pelham into one elementary school union got more definition Monday, but the ensuing discussion continued to be contentious.

Amherst School Committee member Steve Rivkin said Amherst is the only town in the state with more than 1,300 students that is part of a union. Most towns in school unions have student population ratios to their smaller towns of 3-2 or 5-3, whereas Amherst has 11 times the number of students that Pelham has, he said.

Yet Pelham can veto the hiring of a superintendent because of the union with Amherst, and it has equal say in the superintendent's evaluation, Rivkin said. The two towns have divergent interests, such as the 14 Amherst children who attend the Pelham Elementary School under the "school choice" program, he said.

Amherst schools have underperformed on standardized tests, and a growing number of the town's children are attending charter or private schools or schools in other districts, Rivkin said.

If Amherst withdrew from its union with Pelham, it could share its superintendent with the regional district, the two towns could form a regional elementary district, the four towns that comprise the regional district could extend that district to include the elementary schools, or Amherst could form its own district from kindergarten through 12th grade, Rivkin said.

Committee Chairman Irv Rhodes plans to schedule a joint meeting of the Amherst and Pelham School Committees to go over the options. This discussion takes place as a report on four-town school regionalization is due to be presented late this month.

"We're nowhere near doing any of this," said Rivkin.

Public comment at Monday's meeting brought some support for a change in governance but also some cautionary statements.

Ed Cutting of Amherst said the fact that the two towns have equal representation on the committee that oversees the union violates the "one man, one vote" principle. A voter's challenge to its legality could be a "potential land mine," he said.

Mike Jacques of Amherst said that under the current arrangement, the superintendent has three different supervisors, making it difficult for one person to satisfy all three if they have different agendas.

Andy Steinberg, chairman of the Amherst Finance Committee, questioned whether the four towns - Amherst, Pelham, Leverett and Shutesbury - can continue to support six elementary schools, considering declining enrollment and state aid.

Mary Keily of Amherst said Rivkin's report was too speculative, and she called his reference to the quality of the schools "misleading and irresponsible."

Andy Churchill, until recently the chairman of the Amherst School Committee, said the reason for the current discussion is the March vote to have Maria Geryk serve as interim superintendent for 16 months.

"A couple of members were outvoted on the superintendent and are trying to change the process so that doesn't happen again," Churchill said.

Pelham School Committee members Kathy Weilerstein and Debbie Gould attended the meeting but did not speak.

Rhodes said he hoped that there is "some modicum of trust that we're not out to destroy Pelham, that we're not Darth Vader, and we have the interests of children at heart."

My School Committee Blog

My Final Post

Two Bulletin Pieces: My SC Service, Elementary Math

My Final Meeting

More Hot Topics: Raising Achievement by Redistricting, Requiring More Math

Two Hot Topics: Achievement Gap, Math

Two News Pieces on My Decision

Perhaps My Final Math Post?

A Few Updates

Making Evidence-Based Decisions

Closing the Achievement Gap: Strategies That Work

Amherst Bulletin: February 18, 2010

Two Updates

Maria Geryk Appointed to Permanent Superintendent

Next Week's Meetings

My Decision: Part 2

My Decision: I'm Not Running

Geryk Mulls Offer

One Year Appointment for Maria Geryk

Still More Superintendent Search Updates

Superintendent Search Update

Final Interview: Thursday, February 3, 2011

Few Students Show Proficiency in Science, Tests Show

Superintendent Search Stuff

Education Week Study on School Districts' "Educational Productivity"

I'm Running

Still Disappointed: Our Children Deserve Better

Two School Updates: Dr. Kohn's Interview and an Update on Elementary Language

Disappointed By Some in Our Community: PLEASE Give the Process a Chance

Superintendent Search Updates

Gazette Profile of Ms. Maria Geryk

Gazette Profile of Dr. Gerald Kohn

Delay in Superintendent Search

Gazette Profile of Dr. John Bayless

Questions Arise Over Amherst Superintendent Search

Change in Superintendent Finalist ORDER

No Change in Northampton Start Time

Education Matters: Change Doesn't Come Easily

Gazette Profile of Dr. Gerald Kohn

Superintendent Finalists Announced

Even More News About Math in Amherst

Education Updates from Amherst: Superintendent Search, Math, Study Halls, and More

Superintendent Search Committee

Amherst News: Still More on Math, Salaries, Study Halls

Assorted News: International Achievement, Students' Ratings of Teachers, and Amherst (and Northampton) Education Updates

More News: Evaluating Teachers, Early Starts (?), Regionalization, Partnerships, Elections

Articles on Education in Amherst: Math (again), Budgets, Superintendent Search

Superintendent Search Committee

Education News Beyond Amherst

And STILL More on Math

School panel seeks advice on class sizes

Regional School Committee, November 9, 2010

Math Review Presentation

Much Education Action in Amherst

Waiting for Superman

Meeting Update AND Superintendent's Forum

Math: A Few Updates to The Bulletin

There Is No 'War on Teachers'

Inadequate evaluations hamper progress in our school system

Superintendent Search 2010

Updated Summary: Regional Meeting 10-12-10

Regional School Committee Meeting, October 12, 2010

Assorted Updates and Volunteer Options

Education Matters: Schools taking measures to close achievement gap

More Feedback Wanted on Localocracy

Evaluating Localocracy's Approach

Math: In Amherst and Elsewhere

Update on Localocracy Voting

Tell Me What YOU Think on Localocracy.org

Amhest and Pelham Joint Meeting, September 28, 2010

City Schools Revel in AP Success Stories

My Thoughts on Hiring a Superintendent

September 22, 2010, Regional Meeting

Assorted Interesting Education Articles

Math Consultant To Visit

Education Matters: ARMS principal taking steps for improvement

Regional SC Meeting, August 25, 2010

Great Teaching Really Matters

Still More on Math

Exciting Changes At ARMS