Why I'm Going to Vote "YES" on the Motion to Close Marks Meadow

The vote about whether to close Marks Meadow at the end of the 2009-2010 school year is scheduled for tomorrow night (Tuesday, May 19th), and given that this is my motion (made at the March 17th meeting), I feel I owe it to the community to explain why I plan BARRING ANY UPDATED INFORMATION THAT I RECEIVE IN THE NEXT 24 HOURS to vote to close Marks Meadow. I've already expressed how I came to this conclusion many times in this blog -- so I'm not going to repeat all the reasons why I think it is a tough option for some in our community (and clearly closing a school and redistricting kids throughout Amherst is emotional for virtually all parents/kids/teachers/staff -- change is just hard, and few of us relish the thought). But because there were four columns in last week's Bulletin (most written by parents in the MM district, although not all were identified as such) describing reasons NOT to close MM, I'm going to respond to the points addressed in each of these pieces to share my thinking about how/why the issues raised in these Op Eds just didn't change my mind. But I'm still listening ... and I truly welcome any ideas that people want to send to me today or tomorrow in terms of how else we could save $700,000 a year. So, seriously, if you want to save MM, send me your ideas of how we can achieve this cost savings in a way that preserves the Amherst education to the best of our ability for all kids.

Unsustainable Amherst
By JIM OLDHAM

Sustainability cannot be measured simply in fiscal terms. While budgets must balance, the long-term strength of our institutions depends on our ability to preserve key resources through the toughest times. The proposal to close Mark's Meadow School fails this test and should be voted down or postponed when the School Committee meets on May 19.

Since Mark's Meadow wouldn't close until FY2011, nothing decided on May 19 will affect the budget currently under consideration. There is time, and a need, to carefully consider the long-term implications of the proposal in a way that has not yet happened.

The projected savings are small, about $600,000, less than 3 percent of the budget. Although significant, they won't prevent painful cuts. Much of the anticipated savings can be found without giving up a school: sharing assistant principals, guidance counselors, librarians and various "specials" teachers between schools would allow similar staff reductions yet would be easier to reverse. The greater efficiencies in distributing students among classrooms could also be achieved with four schools if the sixth grade were moved to the middle school as the School Committee is currently considering.

The full cost of closing Mark's Meadow has not been adequately explored. Most striking is the lost opportunity to collaborate with UMass. One frequent comment during the comprehensive planning process was that we need to address town needs by drawing on the university and colleges. Rather than demanding funds from a cash-strapped university, we could be asking how we could recover the mutual benefits once provided by our laboratory school.

No one knows whether the district will be able to keep the building for another use, nor is there any long-term plan for when shifting demographics or aging infrastructure again require an additional school. Meanwhile, as we seek ways to make Amherst walkable, the plan makes families more dependent on cars.

Closing Mark's Meadow has been tied to the need to redistrict for a more equitable mix of income levels in the schools. Unfortunately, the rush to close the school risks poorly planned redistricting. My concern, hinted at in initial redistricting maps, is that families living in apartment complexes will be disproportionally targeted for switching districts because they provide an easily identified and bused population. The children intended to benefit may become those most negatively impacted.

Why are we considering closing Mark's Meadow? Part of the answer lies in the School Committee's belief that it is OK for the Superintendent's salary to jump 17 percent in this year of crisis, and almost 50 percent since 2003, while growth in regular education spending (classroom teachers) rises less than 1 percent annually. The net gain in the superintendent's salary in just seven years would pay for the middle school librarian or a classroom teacher.

This is not about Dr. Rodriguez nor is the issue limited to the schools. The problem is the unsustainable idea that we should pay more than we can afford for outside experts even when that requires running down the very services they are paid to direct. The argument that we have to accept the "realities of the labor market" is based on the failed notion that only an elite management class has the brains and skills to handle our complex institutions. The result is a widening gap in pay levels and a two-tiered system where budget "realities" justify cuts to teachers, aides, librarians and lunch ladies but are ignored when hiring administrators.

What's the sustainable alternative? Michael Greenebaum suggests filling future openings with career-starters to reduce costs while promoting innovation. I'd encourage hiring from within the system and nurturing talent committed to our community. Besides costing more, people attracted by big salaries are easily lured away. We need a less hierarchical management model where no one individual carries such a large burden or high price tag. Such changes would not only save money short term but contribute to a more collaborative, community connected, and truly sustainable approach to education in Amherst.
Jim Oldham is a precinct 5 Town Meeting member and a parent of students at Wildwood and ARHS.

Catherine's comments: First, although the school wouldn't close for a year, a tremendous amount would need to occur to carry this closing out with minimal impact to kids. New district lines would have to be drawn (and this would need of course to be done very carefully -- and for the record, all of the plans move MANY kids -- not just those in apartments by any means). Staff/teachers would have to be moved. Kids/families would have to have time to visit and get to know their new schools. This all takes time, and I think a vote on May 19th would give the administration time to accomplish all of what needs to occur much better than a vote sometime next year (in which surely, according to Mr. Oldham, redistricting plans would be that much more rushed). There is also a proposal right now from the Finance Committee suggesting that the use of reserves will be considered ONLY if there is consensus for a specific plan (not just the discussion and studying of a plan) to achieve greater cost efficiencies (so voting to close a school on May 19th could indeed help this year's budget as well). Second, although Mr. Oldham suggests $600,000 is a "very small amount" (and smaller than the $671,000 that is actually projected), this is a HUGE amount to cut in a budget of about $20 million. And although he is correct that we could cut the same amount in other ways (sharing guidance counselors, specials, librarians, assistant principals), you can't achieve these cost savings without impacting services (so, one librarian would serve twice as many kids, as would one art teacher, one guidance counselor, etc.). And the savings can NOT be achieved (even if you get rid of all assistant principals) unless you also impact class size. That is the reality. Third, I'm in favor of moving 6th grade to the MS ... but if/when we do that, we also have to pay to educate those kids, which would mean covering part of the MS staff salary (e.g., principals, art, music, librarian, guidance, custodians, etc.). That achieves cost savings by reducing the number of classes needed, but also has more administrative costs, so this actually leads to higher costs overall for our elementary school budget. Plus, if we move the 6th grade, thereby reducing the elementary school enrollment to 1100 kids (needing about 54 classrooms), why in the world would we need four schools -- there would be literally over 15 classrooms sitting empty! Fourth, having a year to plan the transition would indeed give us a chance to explore how U Mass wants to be involved -- whether they would let us use the space for our two alternative high schools (the interim superintendent's preference) or whether they would pay us an annual sum to educate the kids in U Mass housing who attend our schools. Either seems like a great win to me compared to keeping open a school we don't need! Fifth, everyone knows I didn't vote for the new superintendent's salary ... but let's say we were paying the new superintendent EXACTLY what we paid Dr. Hochman ... that would have saved us a total of $30,000 ... split between Amherst and Regional (a sum much, much less than what is saved by closing MM), so it seems silly to bring that up as a reason to keep MM open. I'm fine to hire from within, and seek less experienced people -- but those two plans aren't going to save $700,000 a year. On the other hand, a big part of the savings of closing MM is achieved by reducing the administrative staff (e.g., principal, secretaries, librarian, nurse) -- which I think is exactly what Mr. Oldham has repeated pushed for in his prior columns (reducing administrator costs and keeping education focused on classroom teachers -- which the close MM plan does).



Chart a long-term course for schools
By DAVID KASTOR, ALYSSA MELNICK and JENNIE TRASCHEN

On May 19, the School Committee will decide whether to close Mark's Meadow school. As Mark's Meadow parents, we know this school provides an outstanding educational environment. We believe that a decision to close it should only be made based on solid, long-term planning. Although the process around this question may already seem drawn out, there has in fact been little substantive discussion by the School Committee and few answers provided to concerns raised at the various meetings and forums.

One major concern is space. Do the three other schools have enough of it to meet the needs of our school population, including a reasonable contingency for possible future increases? There is cause for great concern. A 2007 report, commissioned by the schools, concluded that all four elementary schools are already overcrowded by modern standards. While the detailed numbers in this report can be argued with, its main observation is sound. The scope of educational services has increased dramatically, outstripping the buildings' capacities. "Programs or services," it states, "have moved into regular classrooms, storage areas, alcoves and wherever else space could be carved out."

The three-school plan calls for 64 classrooms, five more than currently used at these schools. No mention is made of where the educational services now taking place in these five classrooms will happen, even as the programs are expanded to serve 17 percent more students from the closure of Mark's Meadow. Perhaps more closets are available.

A responsible plan should also allow for possible future growth. For example, 27 affordable apartments will soon be built on Longmeadow Drive. Moreover, Amherst's 2008 draft master plan proposes a range of measures to increase affordable and moderately priced housing. More such housing means more kids in school. Planning for the schools should be consistent with our town's deeply held and clearly stated aspirations.

Although owned by UMass, Mark's Meadow represents a major fiscal asset to the town. If it is closed, UMass will reclaim the building. If a new school is subsequently needed, it will cost millions of dollars, assuming a suitable site can be found. The town pays no rent or utilities for Mark's Meadow, a significant in-kind contribution from UMass.

In January, the former superintendents recommended against closing Mark's Meadow, stating that the result would be "large, overcrowded elementary schools." The option is now under serious consideration only because of the anticipated, major budget shortfall. Due to the global recession, both state aid and growth in town tax revenue are down substantially. Closing Mark's Meadow would fill about one quarter of the possible $2.1 million gap in the FY2010 elementary school budget.

We agree with the former superintendents that this budget shortfall should be met through reversible cuts. School administrators have produced a list of careful cuts, now revised many times in response to community input. Many of these cuts are painful. However, they can be undone once the economy recovers.

Hard times call for creative thinking and flexibility. We offer the following additional possibilities: Share some positions between schools. Cutting the number of principals and assistant principals by one each would save about $170,000. Sharing one secretarial and one custodial position would save about $60,000. Having students eat lunch in their classrooms as they do at Mark's Meadow would save about $75,000 on cafeteria aides. Eliminate computer instruction for a few years. It is not a core subject. Reduce energy usage by turning off unnecessary lights. Utilities are one of the fastest growing parts of the budget.

Currently Amherst pays $150,000 for 30 students leaving through school choice, but doesn't allow students to "choice in" to our elementary schools. This policy should be changed to enhance revenue. Such cuts and new revenue can match the projected saving from closing Mark's Meadow.

A sensible, long-term plan is to purchase two more modular classrooms for Mark's Meadow, giving it a total of two classrooms per grade. Its enrollment could then be expanded, reducing enrollment at the other schools.

Eventually the economy will improve. We should get creative about economizing and making reversible cuts, rather than charting a long-term course that leaves our schools overcrowded and poorly equipped for the future.

Alyssa Melnick is a project manager in construction for MMB Associates. David Kastor and Jennie Traschen are married physics professors at UMass. All have children in the fifth grade at Mark's Meadow who would not be affected by a 2010 closing of the school.

Catherine's comments: First, the NESDEC report was done prior to the start of the Chinese Charter School, and hence their enrollment projections were high (thus, we have more space than they anticipated we would). The superintendent and her staff have computed classroom projections, and believe we will have no trouble fitting the kids in three buildings. They also note, wisely, that if projections are higher than anticipated, we could move the 6th grade to the MS (an educationally sound move) -- which would eliminate about 200 kids from the elementary schools (MORE than currently are in Marks Meadow). Second, there are now empty classrooms in ALL of the schools. Crocker Farm is currently using 16 classrooms, but there are 19 classrooms in that schools. Similarly, both WW and FR have empty classrooms right now. That is how we are able to handle all the kids from MM in our existing three schools. Third, if projections are lower than actual enrollment, we can move our roughly 200 6th graders to the MS (again, this is more than the total enrollment in MM). That school was designed for three grades, and could easily handle our 6th graders (a move which also makes sense educationally). We could also move the portables to one of the other schools -- none of the plans now are to even use those two classrooms, which could each house 25 kids (again, adding space for another 50 students if projections turn out to be inaccurate). Fourth, the superintendent has clearly stated her preference is to continue using MM to house the two alternative high schools (and thus get the free utilities). If U Mass prefers to reclaim the building, we could then negotiate a fee from U Mass to cover our expenses in educating the kids living in U Mass housing. Both of these represent real cost savings to our district. Fifth, although the authors describe a few cost saving measures (representing about half of what is saved through closing MM), these measures seem really problematic to me. The authors propose that kids at MM (180 of them) will have ONE principal, as will the kids at the other three schools (with class sizes at WW and FR more than double that in MM) -- surely the principals at the large schools will have great difficulty spending time in classrooms, getting to know kids, mentoring teachers, handling emergencies, etc. without an assistant principal, whereas the kids at MM will experience no difference at all since they don't currently have an assistant principal! Firing all of the lunch ladies -- among the lowest paid workers in our district -- to save MM just seems really wrong to me, as does eliminating computer instruction for ALL kids in ALL schools (which probably is much more of a hit for low income kids than those who are the children of professionals and graduate students at U Mass and presumably are more likely to have computer access at home). And even if you thought these reversible measures DID make sense ... you are only half-way there (so, come up with another $300,000 -- which is going to mean larger class sizes). Sixth, School Choice doesn’t solve it — if we take in 60 kids a year, we make $300,000 (that of course assumes that we could find 60 kids in the exact right grades who want to enter our district). But we have to hire three more teachers, so we make $150,000. This is, once again, a LOT less than $700,000. And finally, we are NOT using the 2 modulars bought (for $380,000) for MM right now, nor do we need them for next year. So I guess I'm really not sure why they suggest the answer to solving our budget problem is to buy two more?!? The issue is NOT classroom space ... we have EMPTY classrooms right now. The issue is that we don't have money to pay teachers to be in those classrooms. Last point -- the authors note that they are the parents of 5th graders, so they won't be impacted if MM closes ... but the more important point to me is that they ALSO won't be impacted by the devastating cuts that all schools will experience IF we keep MM open.





Don't kill Mark's Meadow Elementary School
By ADRIAN A. DURLESTER

Much has been said about the attempt to close Mark's Meadow Elementary School in Amherst as being for the greater benefit of the whole community. I just can't see it that way. Our school system is a family, and killing off a family member should not be the typical human response to hard times that threaten survival. Here's a straightforward analogy.


Imagine a hardscrabble farm family during the dust bowl/depression years deciding to kill one of their four children to enable them to weather the tough times they are facing. This child they decided to kill was healthy and thriving. It might have been their smallest child, but it wasn't sickly. Each of the family's children had special skills and characteristics, and this child was no exception. (Had the child been sickly or frail, it would still have been an unthinkable crime, a murder, for the family to kill this child.) Yes, tough times require tough choices, but our human morals and ethics create some boundaries which, when we cross, we give up some of our humanity.)


What would have really happened is that everyone in the family sacrificed so that all might survive. They would divide the food into smaller portions, give up things they could do without, maybe even send the family dogs and cats off to fend for themselves, but they would stop short of sacrificing a member of the family. They would band together. Why aren't we doing the same?


Here in Amherst, people are trying to drive people apart, with a specious "sacrifice for the greater good" argument. Let's not buy into this Spartan, Lord-of-the-Flies mentality. Let's face this financial crisis with our family, our elementary school system, intact.


Things look pretty bleak, budget-wise. At this point, even the closing of Mark's Meadow would not prevent other drastic cuts from happening. Some argue that even if it doesn't really keep things at status quo, why not save every penny we can by closing the school. This is a callous and cavalier attitude, and one that has no place in a family. It's like the farm family saying, "Well, we can't really be sure that killing one child will truly insure the survival of all the others, but let's just kill them off anyway so we can each have a little bit more to eat than we would have with all of us alive."


I have been a musician all my life. I would hate to see any of the great things that characterize Amherst schools, like music, disappear. Yet I do know that such programs can be put on hiatus and later restored. (They could possibly be sustained with alternate funding sources, as well.) You can't bring the dead back to life. Kill Mark's Meadow, and you lose it forever. Don't side with those who would murder a family member to survive. Join hands with your whole Amherst family and together we will all survive this crisis.


A great sage once said, "In a place where no one (else) is acting like a human being, strive to act like a human being." Let's all strive to act like human beings, not merciless Spartans.
Adrian A. Durlester lives in Amherst.



Catherine's response: I have only two reactions to this. First, I think it is really a shame to talk about this in terms of "killing a member of your family." ALL the schools are excellent -- great teachers, caring staff, involved parents. That is why I do not care where my own children go -- because I know they will be OK in any of the buildings. If we close the school, the families, the kids, the teachers, and the staff would work in other buildings (a better analogy -- during times of really tight budgets, do you consider selling your "vacation house" that you don't really need because the whole family can live in your "regular house" but you do still like to have the vacation house for weekends and summers? Ummm, yes, I think you should consider selling the summer house). I don't believe for a second that what makes your school so good is the physical space -- it is the PEOPLE. And those PEOPLE could and would be equally excellent in another building because they care about building a community and educating kids. We are going to continue to educate the kids who now go to Marks Meadow -- they will just be educated in ANOTHER building. Second, although you say we could find "alternative funding" for music, art, etc., there are three major problems with this: first, you can't just find grants to pay for all in school activities (e.g., music, art, etc.); second, if these programs "go away for awhile," the kids who go through elementary school during this time would not have them -- we can't make it up to them in a few years when they are able to return; and third, even if you get rid of ALL the art and music -- you still don't save $700,000 a year ... meaning other cuts still need to occur (e.g., fewer intervention teachers, larger class sizes). At what price do you think it is worth it to keep MM open? All kids in all schools having larger classes, no art/music/PE, and no intervention teachers? Is that really a trade you think is good for all kids?




What is best for the children? Small schools
By DANIELA CALZETTI


The considerations presented here are based on scholarly research, and attempt to address the basic question: What is best for the children? All other considerations, like what is best for the Amherst taxpayers or what are the desires of some groups of citizens, are less quantifiable in terms of scientific research, and will not be discussed in this commentary.


Research shows that small schools perform better than large schools, as quantified by a number of metrics (see below). How small is small? Although numbers vary from research to research, a reference number is less than 300 to 400 students. Small schools should not be confused with small classes, which are sometimes correlated. Most statistics quoted here refer to small schools, not necessarily small classes.


If Mark's Meadow were to be closed, only Crocker Farm would remain below 400 students, while Wildwood and Fort River would receive more than 400 (and, in one re-districting scenario, more than 500 for Wildwood) students.


Is this matter of concern? There is a well documented gap in performance between students coming from economically disadvantaged backgrounds and students who are not. This has been shown by a variety of research across the U.S., by comparing standardized test results between free and reduced lunch students and other students. Typical differences in (math and reading) test results are around 20 percent, with free and reduced lunch students performing less well than the other students.


However, these differences are smaller in small schools relative to large schools, and by eighth grade economic differences all but disappear as a factor in student performance for students from small schools, studies show.


Other rigorous studies also show that small schools are positively correlated with: greater teacher commitment, better student attendance, greater sense of community and belonging among students. In a study of 264 elementary schools sized 150 to 1950, researchers found that in schools with less than 400 students: 1) teachers take more responsibility for the students' academic and social development, and 2) this translates into higher student achievement. Student tardiness and absenteeism are lower by at least 10 to 30 percent in schools with less than 300 students relative to students in larger schools. The greater sense of belonging that students feel in small schools, in addition, leads to: lower rate of behavioral problems, and higher participation in extracurricular activities.


Extracurricular participation not only translates into a better educational experience, other studies show, but also leads to future greater involvement through high school, and greater volunteerism and participation in society as adults.


Mark's Meadow is a success story of how well small schools work and serve their communities. It is a small school (slightly less than 200 students), although it does not have small classes; most classes are similar in size to or larger than those of the other three elementary schools in Amherst. Mark's Meadow has 38 percent free and reduced lunch students, significantly larger than both Wildwood and Fort River schools.


Yet, the MCAS scores of Mark's Meadow school for at least the past three years (2006-2008) have been typically higher than those of the other elementary schools in the district. The largest difference is at the highest schools grades (fifth and sixth), which support the findings of the scholarly research quoted so far. In 2008, Mark's Meadow was number one in the state in sixth-grade English MCAS, and number two for mathematics; this is a testament to the efficacy of small schools.


Bottom line: cost efficiency does not equal cost effectiveness in education. Closing Mark's Meadow hardly seems the correct direction to take, if we want to be serious about stronger curricula.


Daniela Calzetti is a professor in the Department of Astronomy at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.



Catherine's response: First, the vast majority of research cited in this piece is messy -- small schools are often rural and surburban schools, and large schools are often urban schools -- so it is important not to mistake correlational for causation. Second, the majority of research cited in this article focused on schools below 400 kids. If we move the 6th grade to the MS, all three of our schools would be below 400 (we'd have 1100 kids to educate in three buildings). I'd be glad to push for this as a goal, which I assume Dr. Calzetti would eagerly support -- then we'd have three schools, but all would be within what the research shows is a good size. Third, there is also well-documented research showing that small class sizes matter, especially for lower income kids and especially in the early grades. We've heard from the superintendent that keeping MM open will result in larger class sizes, which seems especially problematic for more disadvantaged kids, so one would have to careful consider whether having ONE small school with regular class sizes for some kids (13%) is more important than smaller classes in all the schools for all kids (100%). Most of the disadvantaged kids in our district are not, in fact, at MM -- in terms of overall number of kids on free/reduced lunch, both FR and CF (and maybe even WW -- I'm not sure about their overall number of low income kids) have many more kids on free/reduced lunch than MM (so again, is it fair that only the low income kids at MM get to experience the small school environment)? Fourth, the parents of MM children are often affiliated with U Mass, so it is not surprising that these children (sons/daughters of U Mass professors, administrators, graduate students) are achieving well on the MCAS - they are very likely to be in families in which education is very prized, and would do very well if in another building in Amherst. Again, let's not mistake correlation for causation. One final thing -- let's say for the sake of debate, that I agreed that smaller schools were better for kids, based on scholarly research. Then it seems like the only fair thing for all kids in Amherst is to have a lottery in which a lucky 13% of the population gets to benefit from this superior learning environment, right? I mean, it really doesn't seem fair that kids of U Mass faculty and graduate students get to have a great school that leads to great MCAS scores when the other kids in Amherst go to schools that produce less good outcomes. So, I would hope that Dr. Calzetti and other current MM parents would come forward and ask the SC to make sure that if we keep MM open, MM turns into a lottery system so that all kids in Amherst can have at least a chance to experience this opportunity. Such a proposal, to redistrict Amherst into three districts, but allow a lucky 13% of each district to attend MM, would get some serious attention by all members of the SC and the administration, and I think would hep convince the community that desires to keep MM open, even given the costs it would entail to all schools, is really for the benefit of ALL kids in our community and NOT just those who happen to currently attend MM. I would welcome such a proposal by a group of MM parents on Tuesday night.

One Approach to Reducing the Achievement Gap

There has been a lot of discussion on my blog over the last week about how to reduce the achievement gap -- and whether setting high expectations is at all effective (or completely inadequate?) and whether providing additional support to disadvantaged students is the best (only?) approach. As anyone reading my blog by now knows, I want data ... I don't want anecdote or intuition, and as a social psychologist, I've read a lot of research showing that sometimes programs that "seem" like they would be effective can backfire (e.g., early work on programs specifically designed to help support students of color succeed in college revealed that these programs were stigmatizing, by giving students the message that they needed remedial help to succeed -- and thus such approaches were found to be not particularly effective, and in some cases, even harmful). So, I'm always eager to learn about programs that have been proven to work (as in, with DATA) -- and here is one (just published in April 2009 in Science) about a program that seems quite effective in raising achievement in African American students -- in a way that some might find surprising.

Writing About Values Boosts Grades, Shrinks Achievement Gap

A short self-affirming writing exercise that took only about an hour of class time boosted struggling black junior high school students' grade point average by nearly half a point over two years, according to a new study. The surprising result, published this week in the journal Science, suggests a new way to combat the persistent achievement gap in grades, test scores and graduation rates between black and white students, according to the researchers. "The intervention is relatively brief, but it's powerful in a lot of ways," says Geoffrey Cohen, a social psychologist at the University of Colorado.

Cohen and his colleagues followed more than 400 seventh-grade students at a suburban public school in Connecticut. The school's population was about half black and half white. In a series of 15-minute writing assignments, the researchers asked half of the students to complete a self-affirming exercise: to choose from a list of values -- such as relationships with friends and family, athletic ability and smarts -- and write about the value most important to them. A control group was asked to write about why the values they ranked as unimportant might matter to someone else.

In early results published in 2006, the researchers found that the exercise reduced the achievement gap between black and white students by 40 percent over one term. Researchers said the exercises benefitted low-achieving black students the most, while they appeared to have little impact on white students or already high-achieving black students.

In the new study, Cohen and his colleagues tracked the students until the end of eighth grade. They found that the benefits for low-achieving black students continued for the entire two years -- students who completed the self-affirmation exercise raised their GPA by four-tenths of a point compared to the control group. They were also less likely to need remedial work or to repeat a grade -- 5 percent as compared to 18 percent of the control group. The intervention continued to have no effect on white students and high-achieving black students.

That such a small intervention could have such big effects "surprises most people to the point that some people I know didn't believe the initial finding," says psychologist Richard Nisbett, an expert on achievement and intelligence at the University of Michigan. "But what makes it believable to me is that, as a social psychologist, I've learned that 'dinky' things sometimes have big effects."

The exercise is based on a tenet of psychological research called stereotype threat. Previous studies have found that when people are reminded of negative stereotypes about their racial, gender or other group, the stress of worrying about confirming those stereotypes can negatively affect their performance. The self-affirmation exercise, by reminding students about what is really important to them, could help reduce that stress, the researchers suggest.

And by timing the intervention to occur at a crucial period such as the beginning of middle school, Cohen says, the benefits could compound. "Performance is recursive," he says. "If you start off at something and you're stressed and do badly, then that makes you do worse the next time. And that seems to happen a lot in middle school, where you see this downward spiral [...] By just tweaking [the students] a bit you could set them on a totally different trajectory."

But Cohen added the intervention is not a panacea to solve all students' educational woes. "We have no illusions that this is a silver bullet," he says, "our philosophy is that the more positive forces in a child's life, the better. That includes good teachers, good homes [...] and then also psychological interventions."

He also says that there is much work to be done before the exercise can be scaled up for use in more schools. For example, the researchers want to study how the intervention would work in more racially homogenous schools, and whether it would matter if teachers knew the purpose of the exercise.

The researchers also want to better understand how, precisely, the intervention works, and what it changes about the students' academic experience. "I think that if we could answer those kinds of questions the findings would be less mysterious, because we would know what the engines are in the school that make this intervention take off," says Valerie Purdie-Vaughns, a psychologist at Columbia University and a co-author of the study.

But Purdie-Vaughns says that as a black parent, as well as a researcher, she sees the research as crucial. "As the parent of an African-American child, I would consider giving my child this worksheet before the first day of class," she says.

---- By Lea Winerman, Online NewsHour With Jim Lehrer

Regional Meeting, May 12, 2009

This was a REALLY long meeting in which a lot happened, so I am going to be as brief as I can be to get the update out.

First, we heard public comment/announcements. Several Middle School students presented science fair projects that were going to a statewide competition, and Tom Flanagan (7th grade computer teacher) talked about a "common assessment" that he has been working on this year (and offered to come present it to the SC, which I think sounds like a good idea).

Second, Maria made a number of announcements. These included that she has recommended the adoption of Impact 1 math series for the 6th grade (which will feed into the Impact 2 and 3 books now used in the MS, which I think is GREAT), that there is more bad budget news (presented by Rob), and we need to add a School Committee member to the search committee for the new assistant superintendent (Kathleen and I will both serve -- originally there was only going to be a single volunteer, but she and I were both interested, so Maria suggested we both serve). Rob also created a line by line budget for the MS/HS, which he distributed (and I think will be very helpful). I asked a question about middle school music, based on what I've heard from parents -- and learned that MS orchestra and band will go from EVERY day to every other day (as part of budget cuts) and that some new type of "music elective" will be added (to be determined). Maria also announced that Dr. Rodriguez will be visiting next week.

Third, we discussed the comprehensive review of the MS that I had proposed last week. The good news is that a survey of the MS will be done, as will surveys of all the schools (which I think is great). I am also very impressed that Maria talked to Dr. Rodriguez about whether having this type of information would be useful on his arrival, and he felt it would be. So, let me be the first to thank Dr. Rodriguez for interest in data! We then heard from a number of MS teachers who felt that their school should not be singled out for attack and criticism, and that when such concerns appear in the press and on blogs (!), it is demoralizing.

So, I have a few thoughts I'd like to share about this (I tried to share these at the meeting, but Marianne did not call on me). First, I assumed that staff time was short/limited, and that a motion asking for ALL schools to be surveyed would have been overwhelming -- and hence I focused only on one. Second, I do think this is a critical time for the MS in a way that it is NOT for the other schools -- because we are having regionalization discussions that could lead to 6th grade moving to the MS (and there are no other such major plans that impact any of the other schools, making this one more urgent). Third, I do hear far, far more complaints from parents about the MS than I do about other schools -- and as an elected official, I don't think it is my job to just say "everything is great in our schools." I think that has occurred for a long time by members of the School Committee, and I actually think that erodes trust in the school leadership. My decision to call for a survey was to figure out whether what I'm hearing is in fact accurate -- maybe it is NOT (perhaps it is just a small number of unhappy parents/kids, but most are really happy!). Again, the best way to learn this is to actually survey the parents and kids about their experience.

It is clear to me that the MS teachers felt threatened by the idea of the survey, and I'm sorry about that. But the reality is, I work for the community, and the only way in which the community has input in the schools is by electing SC members ... so, if I keep hearing things that concern me, it would be irresponsible for me not to try to figure out if there is in fact a concern.

I guess I'm also a bit puzzled about why there is so much concern about an evaluation. Here is a highly personal example -- the president of Amherst College asked last summer for the psychology department (of which I was then chair!) to be evaluated by professors at other schools. So, literally yesterday and today, a visiting committee of four professors (Williams, Pomona, Yale, Brown) spent two days talking to people at Amherst College. We did a survey of all students in psych classes and all psych majors. The committee met individually with students and asked questions. The committee met individually with each member of the department, and the president, and the dean of the faculty. And then they gave some recommendations about what our department could do better. Is this somewhat scary/intimidating? Sure -- maybe the students said I was an awful professor, maybe the committee would insist I teach a new course or teach one of my current courses in a new way, etc. But the reality is, this experience was really valuable to me and my colleagues in learning about the strengths AND weaknesses of our department, and I'm really glad that we had this opportunity. I guess I would hope that the MS teachers would take a similar view about all the good that can come out of these surveys -- let's learn what is working well, and let's learn what could work better. This seems like a win-win for teachers, parents, and kids (and School Committee members and superintendents, for that matter).

We then turned to a motion Irv Rhodes made for making it a policy that we conduct annual surveys (teachers, parents, students) at each school. After some discussion, this was tabled for a future meeting (probably after the arrival of the new superintendent).

Fourth, we had a pretty brief discussion (it was getting late) on superintendent/district goals for 2009-2010. This will be discussed at a meeting in June (we are NOT meeting on May 26th). We also accepted a gift. I think those are the "highlights"!

Education Matters: Could school mission be hurting student achievement?

Education Matters: Could school mission be hurting student achievement?
By STEVE RIVKIN and CATHERINE SANDERSON
Published on May 08, 2009 - Amherst Bulletin

Today marks the introduction of our new monthly column, Education Matters, which will address education issues relevant to Amherst. As elementary school parents, School Committee members and Amherst College faculty conducting research on adolescent behavior (Catherine) and the economics and sociology of education (Steve), we approach these topics from multiple perspectives. We hope to bring alternative viewpoints and encourage discussion on a number of issues in upcoming columns. The opinions expressed in our column reflect our own views and not those of the Amherst or Regional school committees or the Amherst Regional Public Schools district.

Our initial column will focus on the issue of social justice, a core tenet of the Amherst schools. As stated on the district homepage, "Our mission is the academic achievement of every student learning in a system dedicated to social justice and multiculturalism." But a fundamental question is whether our policies and efforts actually succeed in fostering the academic achievement of all students. Specifically, we wonder whether concerns about inequality in family resources and academic preparation might contribute to lowered expectations for students and families in ways that unintentionally widen differences between students in academic achievement and career opportunities.

One example is a belief often held by teachers and principals that homework at the elementary school level should be avoided or minimized to avoid creating distinctions between children who will successfully complete the homework, perhaps with support from adults at home, and those who will not, perhaps because they do not have the same level of support. However, we believe that this approach may actually increase the achievement gap. First, many parents from across the income spectrum, but more easily for those with higher incomes, will replace the absence of homework with supplemental math, reading, writing and even science at home or with paid tutors. Second, regardless of knowledge of a particular subject matter, all parents and guardians have the ability, and indeed responsibility, to compel children to complete homework assignments, particularly since these assignments should serve merely to reinforce skills that are taught by teachers during the school day.

A second example is the low level of math and science courses required to graduate from Amherst Regional High School. Our high school requires only two years of math and two years of science (compared to three years of social studies and four years of English), whereas many Massachusetts high schools require three years of both math and science (including Belchertown, Brookline, Cambridge, Hadley, Newton and Northampton). On the one hand, some students may find these courses difficult, which could lead to lower grades and a higher drop out rate. On the other hand, our low requirements may actually increase the achievement gap. Students with parents who are not well informed about the importance of math and science preparation may be more likely to take the minimum required course load regardless of their potential for success in math and science courses. In contrast, students with parents who are better informed are likely to take courses beyond the minimum, which in turn is likely to improve prospects for college admission and financial aid and expand career opportunities regardless of whether students attend college.

Although we applaud and support our district's commitment to social justice, we worry that current policies and strategies might widen, rather than narrow, achievement differences and lead to lower outcomes for disadvantaged students. Because it is imperative that we determine whether our current efforts actually foster the academic and intellectual development of all children, we support the rigorous evaluation of our programs as well as an examination of alternative programs with demonstrated success in other similar districts.

Such objective measurement is the only way we can know whether some of our district's actions in the name of social justice unintentionally harm the most disadvantaged students, thereby widening rather than closing the achievement gap.

Steven Rivkin and Catherine Sanderson are Amherst College professors and members of the Amherst School Committee.

Amherst official calls for survey of middle school

I'm pasting this article from today's Gazette which I thought might be of interest to readers of my blog. Let me just add a few points here. First, I agree with Irv that a survey of all schools should be done, and I'm hoping we will discuss that issue at next week's meeting. I made my motion because I do hear considerably more concerns from parents about the middle school than about either the elementary or the high schools, and was concerned about the district's ability to conduct multiple surveys in a relatively short amount of remaining time, but certainly agree with Irv that having that type of feedback about all of our schools is important (and if Irv wants to make a friendly amendment to my motion to cover all schools, I would gladly accept it). Second, although some members of the School Committee have suggested waiting on doing surveys until the arrival of our new superintendent and the to-be-hired assistant superintendent, I believe that it would actually be extremely helpful for both of these people to arrive and receive some current data on the strengths and areas of concern within our schools. That seems like it would be a very good basis on which they could choose how to concentrate their initial efforts, and would provide valuable information to the School Committee on what our goals for the superintendent should be for his first year. This issue will be discussed at the Regional School Committee Meeting on May 12th, and I strongly encourage those with interest in this topic to attend that meeting and/or to email the superintendent (gerykm@arps.org) and school committee members (schoolcommittee@arps.org) with their thoughts on whether surveys should be conducted in the next month.


Amherst official calls for survey of middle school
By MARY CAREY

Wednesday, May 6, 2009

AMHERST - School Committee member Catherine Sanderson is calling for an anonymous survey of Amherst Regional Middle School parents, teachers, students and staff to gauge how well the school is meeting the community's educational goals.

Parents have told her they are concerned about the education provided at the school, she said. School Committee member Steve Rivkin has said Amherst Regional Middle School is regarded by some people as a kind of "poor stepchild" of the school district.

Sanderson noted that her request is no reflection of how she thinks Glenda Cresto, the new principal, is doing, and said she appreciates the leadership Cresto has brought to the school.

The survey Sanderson envisions would include questions about each course of study at the middle school and would ask about satisfaction with their rigor. Respondents would be asked to indicate whether students receive an appropriate amount of feedback on written assignments and whether there is a "warm and supportive environment."

As there are only about eight weeks left in the school year, Sanderson asked the School Committee on Tuesday to vote to implement the survey in mid- to late-May and to compile the results in time to give to incoming Superintendent Alberto Rodriguez in July.

Committee members, however, voted to table discussion of the survey for another two weeks, with only Sanderson and Rivkin voting to endorse the idea of conducting one.

School Committee member Irvin Rhodes said surveys at all of the schools should be conducted every year to gather usable data and that the middle school shouldn't be singled out from the rest.

Rhodes explained his thinking further on Sanderson's blog, MySchoolCommitteblog.blogspot.com. Rhodes said he would continue to post on Sanderson's blog any time he thinks another School Committee member's view in addition to hers should be represented.

"Catherine like any other citizen has a right to have a blog. If she has a blog as a School Committee member and she's going to make statements about her positions, how she looks at things, I don't want that to be the only voice out there. Since the School Committee doesn't have a blog, this is it."

Rhodes also said he plans to suggest the School Committee start its own blog, he said.

"This is 2009 here, we've got all these modern tools," he said. "Why not a blog?"

Mary Carey can be reached at mary.carey@att.net.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

I just returned home from the fifth and final presentation regarding the proposal to close Mark's Meadow (and for the record, Steve Rivkin and I were the only two School Committee members to attend each and every presentation -- Marks Meadow, Wildwood, Fort River, Crocker Farm, Middle School Community Forum). I am not going to repeat all the questions/answers, since those will be available on ACTV by demand, but I do encourage you to watch those. I am also posting a very thorough document prepared by the Superintendent's office that includes answers to commonly asked questions from the various forums we've held over the last week (this is also on the ARPS website: http://www.arps.org/node/815#attachments), which I think will be helpful.

PROCESS
When will the school committee vote on the proposal to close Mark's Meadow?
The Amherst School Committee is scheduled to vote on the current motion at their May 19, 2009 meeting.

What influence should the new superintendent, Dr. Rodriguez, have in this decision?
Dr. Rodriguez has been kept apprised of the process thus far, and he is aware of the implications which accompany such a decision. Given the familiarity that school officials and school committee members have with the school district, Dr. Rodriguez is confident that a sound decision will be made, however challenging and difficult.

If Mark’s Meadow closes, how will the district plan for this major change? What types of Committees will be formed to support a one-year transition?
We have not yet finalized the number of committees which will be responsible for facilitating the transition. Closing a school will be complicated and will involve a variety of individuals and groups to support the work. Initially, it has been determined that there will be groups responsible for student support, staff support and assignments, communications, data management, and moving of district property. Key to success of each of these groups will be how they are connected to each other and with the community. The district will need significant assistance from staff, from parents and from the community at large, but committees will be coordinated at the district level.

ENROLLMENT/SPACE
Can our students fit into three schools, or will the schools be overcrowded?
The School Committee has gathered extensive data about projected enrollments in our schools. In 2007, the School Committee hired the New England School Development Council (NESDEC) to compute demographic and enrollment projections for our elementary schools. This report clearly states that our projected enrollment in K to 6 through 2016-2017 varies from 1368 to 1417. However, our actual numbers for the 2008-2009 school year were less than those projected by NESDEC, thus to estimate future enrollments, actual enrollments in combination with projections were used to estimate the enrollments for the coming years. Based on this information, the remaining three schools can hold the projected enrollment.

Why do the NESDEC projections differ from projections done by the district?
The NESDEC report was done in spring of 2007 and was based on enrollments at that time. They were not able to consider the impact of the creation of the Chinese Charter School when their report was done. Plus, the district annually conducts a projection exercise based on actual enrollments each October 1. Our in-district projections have proven reliable over time and are somewhat lower than those prepared by NESDEC.

Will the remaining 3 schools have enough classroom space over time? How much time?
Enrollments are currently projected by the district through the 2013-2014 school year, and are based on birth census data annually gathered and shared by the Town of Amherst. Projected enrollments show a decrease in enrollment of 15 students for next year, with a further decrease over the next two-year period of 21 students. After that point, the 2012-13 school year, we are projecting an enrollment of 1359 students. Currently the 4 elementary schools have a total enrollment of 1324 students.

What about Grade 6 moving to the Middle School? What are the chances of this occurring?
If Grade 6 moves to the Middle School, it will free up an additional 8-10 classrooms at the elementary level. We have discussed the desirability of including Grade 6 students at the Middle School for several years. Such a design – a Grades 6-8 Middle School – is pedagogically appropriate and sound. A report is expected from the Regionalization Committee in the fall, which should give us a good indication whether K-12 regionalization with Pelham, Leverett, Shutesbury, and Amherst is likely to occur.

If Marks Meadow is closed, would the quads at Wildwood and Fort River be turned into 4 classrooms each?
Currently, the building quads are comprised of 3 actual classrooms and 1 smaller space reserved for small group instruction. The number of classrooms reported in the "State of Our Schools Report", does not depend on any change in the configuration of current classrooms.

Will there be changes to the present location of special needs programs?
No decision has been made at this time, but it is possible one or more programs will be moved.

What would be the impact of keeping Marks Meadow open and just increase class sizes throughout the district?
The likely result of this would be class sizes above recommended maximums and the transfer of some or all kindergarten students either to or from Mark’s Meadow to the other three elementary schools to better equalize these class sizes and more efficiently distribute staff. This would increase the cost of transporting students, but the costs would be far less than the cost of an increased number of classrooms.

Why not close part or half of Fort River or Wildwood instead of closing Mark’s Meadow, thereby creating 1 more "small" school?
Both Fort River and Wildwood Schools are small learning communities by many measures. Further, it is not practical to keep part of a building vacant. We will still be responsible for insurance, energy, cleaning, and maintenance costs. We would still have administrative and support costs – a principal, secretaries, custodial, etc. Also, since the cafeteria and gymnasium spaces are on opposite ends of each building, space could not be completely shut down. Leaving Mark’s Meadow open with its 12 classrooms and reducing the number of classrooms at either Fort River or Wildwood will not address the needed efficiency of more equally dividing students across classrooms to maintain small class sizes.

Fort River and Wildwood school buildings have proposals in to the state for construction funds to update the buildings. Where will we put the students if/when these projects get underway?
When Crocker Farm was expanded and renovated some years ago, careful consideration was given to the beginning and end dates of the annual district school calendar to accommodate the work of construction/renovation crews and to minimize disruption to students and staff during the school year. We anticipate similar planning for any upcoming renovations, which at this point will not be underway for several years.

REDISTRICTING
Could we redistrict to solve equity and then have four elementary schools?
Although it is possible to redistrict to better apportion equity in our current four elementary schools and a plan for this was presented in draft form to the community in April, there are two problems with this plan. First, it would not be in the best interest of children to redistrict now for equity and then redistrict again in one or two years for fiscal or enrollment reasons. This could be very difficult for children and their families. Second, redistricting and using four elementary schools would require two or three more teachers than our current system, at an estimated cost of $108,000 to $162,000 more per year. Thus, redistricting to four elementary schools solves our equity problem, but increases our financial problem.

We were able to view preliminary redistricting maps. When might a final redistricting plan be in place?
The preliminary plan must be reviewed by a consultant or consultants familiar with the challenges of redistricting and the implications of transportation routes. If it is voted to close Mark’s Meadow, it is hoped we can secure a consultant right after the School Committee vote and have more definitive information to share by the end of June.

STUDENT ASSIGNMENTS/SUPPORT
Will all current Open Enrollments end no matter how many years they've been in place, and will only those applications associated with an IEP or 504 will be considered in the future?
There is presently a school committee policy which permits students from Amherst to attend their non-neighborhood school. Open enrollment is granted only if space is available in the requested school and if parents are willing to provide daily transportation. The School Committee will want to revisit this policy and see whether it can be sustained under a redistricting scenario, and whether such a policy creates school inequities.

How will the district address the special issues of families and students who, while they may be able to walk to their present school, may not be able to do if they are redistricted?
One of the teams that will be created if it is decided to close Mark’s Meadow School, will address student and family support. Our schools have active parent groups in each. It is our hope we can work together with these groups to assist and/or resolve any impediments to school accessibility.

BUDGET/FINANCIAL
What is the budget problem for the Town of Amherst?
In November the Amherst Finance Committee issued preliminary FY2010 budget guidelines. At that time they suggested a 2.0% increase to town department and school budgets, and a 3.5% increase to the assessment to the town of Amherst for the Regional budget. For the Amherst schools that would have required that $658,000 be cut from a level services budget.

The economic downturn has severely impacted state and local government funding across the country. Anticipating a $3 billion revenue shortfall for FY2010, the Governor’s budget recommended a reduction in lottery aid and in additional assistance to municipalities in January. The reduction for Amherst was projected to be $2.77 million from the original FY2009 level. In April the State House Ways and Means Committee released its budget recommendation which cut state funding even further. Revenue projections for the Town of Amherst are following the same trend: current data paint a picture that is worse than earlier projections. Lower than expected lodging tax revenue and lower than usual growth in the tax base.

With the reduced revenue projections, the Town is now facing a funding gap of $3.8 million in funding the Finance Committee’s original guidance for FY2010 budgets.

What solutions are being considered by the Town?
The Budget Coordinating Group of the Town of Amherst, comprised of representatives from the boards and senior staff of each of the four budget entities (town, libraries, Amherst elementary schools, and the Regional School District), has been meeting on a regular basis to monitor and plan for meeting the fiscal challenge facing the town. Each department has identified the level of cuts beyond which major restructuring would be necessary for next year. These further cuts, along with projected increased local revenue for the town next year, reduced the funding gap to $2.48 million.

Last week the House voted to increase the sales tax from 5.0% to 6.25%, and separately voted to allocate $205 million to replace some of the aid to towns that was cut. It is anticipated that $1.68 million from that source would flow to Amherst. However, this sales tax increase must also be passed by the Senate and signed into law by the Governor in order to be enacted.

The Budget Coordinating Group will recommend that the remaining gap be covered from reserves, with the understanding that any additional funding from the state or local option taxes be used first to make the reserve fund whole. The Finance Committee will discuss this concept at their next meeting

If the legislature decides to increase sales tax, when would the revenue be realized? How much revenue increase can be expected if this occurs?
Revenue from increased sales tax would begin to be available in FY2010. Early projections are noted above.

What about other sources of potential revenue - the meals tax, etc.?
The State Legislature will be considering some other sources of potential revenue, including some form of meals tax, a hotel/motel tax, and a measure to close a telecommunications tax loophole. These measures will likely be debated in May. Current outlook for these initiatives is pessimistic, due in part to the recently voted increase to the sales tax.

Aren’t there other ways to decrease our budget problem? Could we accept School Choice students at the elementary level?
School Choice students bring in $5,000 each per year. Consideration is given each year to targeting specific schools and grades where choice slots might be made available – mostly; at Crocker Farm and at Mark’s Meadow, where class sizes tend to be smaller. However, the Amherst School Committee has been and is concerned about the possibility, over time, of overcrowding at the Regional level since there have been successive years of academic and elective cuts at the Region. School Choice regulations provide that if a student is accepted by a K-6 school district, they are entitled to attend the Regional district to which that town belongs.

If we keep four elementary schools open next year, what types of changes will we see in the schools?
To keep the four elementary schools open next year requires a cooperative process among all Town departments, including the willingness to use some funding from reserves if additional funding does not fill the revenue gap. This plan allows a year to properly plan to close a school and redistrict students into three remaining elementary schools. This plan calls for cutting $1.14 million from the level services budget for the Amherst schools for FY2010. These cuts are listed elsewhere.

What will likely be cut if Mark’s Meadow School remains open past June 2010?
In this uncertain fiscal environment it is difficult to project to FY2011 and beyond. If we assume that the recession will not recover quickly and that state funding will be flat, and that the town will only be able to allow a 2.5% growth to the budget, we can anticipate having to cut another $1.3 million from a level services budget in FY2011.

Cuts of this magnitude - $1.3 million - without closing a building might be as follows:
• Centralized librarian to support 4 buildings
• Centralized computer teacher to support 4 buildings
• Elimination of after school buses and programming
• Reconsideration of current instructional materials
• Significantly increased class sizes at all levels

If Mark’s Meadow is closed a savings of $530,000 is anticipated for the first year. This partial solution would then point to the need for an additional $740,000 in cuts.

I understand that a decision to close Mark's Meadow will not eliminate the total budget gap for FY10 or FY11. How will the district address the gap for those years?
Beyond FY10, we will need to understand the implications of any additional tax revenue, identify the remaining gap, and then project anticipated district needs. As stated in the FCCC Report, an override for FY11will likely be necessary to sustain the FY10 level of services to students.

Could we pass an override?
The FCCC report recognized that an override will probably be necessary at some point in the next 5 years to sustain even the most essential school and municipal services. However, all members of that committee agree that an override will not solve Amherst’s long-term budget gap and substantial cutbacks will be necessary regardless.

GRANT FUNDING – TITLE 1
How will closing a school and redistricting impact the Title 1 funds we receive for low income students?
Redistricting will not decrease the Title I funding since it is based on a Town-wide census of our economically disadvantaged students. The change in school boundaries will, however, allow us to reapportion Title I funding to different schools based on the needs of the students in those schools.

REGIONALIZATION
How does this discussion fit in with the broader discussion about regionalizing our elementary schools with Pelham, Leverett, and Shutesbury, the way our middle school and high school are currently?
We are still unsure of the impact of potential regionalization and what the structure of all the schools might look like. The decision about closing Mark’s Meadow has no apparent, direct impact on regionalization discussions.

RELATIONSHIP WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS
Will UMass take the Mark’s Meadow building back if we close the school? Is there any discussion of ways to retain the building in case we need it later, so we don’t end up building a new school if enrollments increase?
The disposition of Mark’s Meadow School needs to be discussed with UMass officials, and they have been invited to enter into dialogue with district officials. It is our hope that the building can be maintained for alternate district programs – South Amherst Campus and East Street Alternative High School – so that post secondary programs can be developed to support these students.

If the University agrees to let the district use Marks Meadow for secondary in-district programs, will there be costs related to this change?
There may be minor changes to bathroom fixtures to accommodate adolescents, but we do no foresee any major building costs associated with relocation of in-district programs.

You have identified Marks Meadow as the logical school to close in the detailed proposal. Can the district be more specific about why it would consider closing a school which is provided for free by the University of Massachusetts?
It’s true that Mark’s Meadow is "free" in terms of utilities, but it is not free in terms of what it costs the district to operate this building (teachers, staff, materials, buses, etc.). The reality is that all of our elementary students can fit in the other three buildings at a cost that is roughly $700,000 a year less than keeping this building open. We also believe strongly that if we were to move to three elementary schools, we would either be able to use this building for free for another purpose (the alternative high school programs) or receive an annual payment from UMass for educating children of their graduate students. Thus, either of these options would more effectively allocate our limited resources than continuing to use MM as an elementary school. In addition, the timing of possibly closing Mark’s Meadow may work within the timing of regionalization efforts.

If it really saves this much money, and it really is inevitable, then why not just rip off the Band-Aid and close Marks Meadow for 2009-2010, rather than hoping to convince the Finance Committee to support some use of reserves for FY10—not enough reserves to prevent a number of additional cuts that could affect all kids—and then hoping to convince Town Meeting to agree to such a Finance Committee recommendation?
This would be a daunting task to thoughtfully complete by September 09 and there are many components that must be considered. First and foremost are considerations of the health and safety of students. Next we need to carefully plan the manner in which the remaining 3 buildings will be staffed. We need to be sure that students from all schools can see familiar adults and have an opportunity to get used to a new school setting. Issues such as transportation, materials, furniture, equipment, books, etc., need to be carefully planned over time.

How can we keep everyone informed if it is voted to close Mark's Meadow in June 2010?
One of the teams which would be created would involve communication, so that there will be a central clearing house for information to the families, staff, and the community.

Amherst School Board's Minutes Reveal Debate Over Pay

There has been a lot of discussion in this community, and on this blog, about the School Committee's vote regarding the superintendent's salary, and thus I'm posting an article from today's Hampshire Gazette on this issue. I want to go on record as saying that I look forward to working with Dr. Rodriguez when he starts on July 1st, and I very much hope he can provide leadership to our schools that will move our schools in a positive direction. I hope that leadership includes a willingness to engage in a thoughtful and rigorous evaluation of both the strengths and weaknesses of all of our schools (based on objective and empirical data, not personal anecdote and intuition) as well as a commitment to looking outside Amherst to make appropriate comparisons and to learn from the experience of other districts. Regardless of his salary, and people's feelings about appropriateness of this salary given the challenging economic times for our schools, we need to support Dr. Rodriguez in his efforts to provide valuable leadership at this crucial time.


By MARY CAREY

Friday, May 1, 2009

AMHERST - School Committee members offered incoming Superintendent Alberto Rodriguez a lower salary at first, but voted to offer him the $158,000 he will be getting now, after the Florida principal said that he could not afford to take a pay cut to come to Amherst.

Minutes of the closed-door session at which board members reconsidered the vote they had taken earlier were released Thursday at the request of Town Meeting member Larry Kelley. The committee had previously offered Rodriguez a package amounting to some $10,000 less than the one he will receive.

The decision to pay a new superintendent about $24,000 more than the former superintendent has been greeted with dismay in some quarters. Critics say the School Committee should not have agreed to the sum or to pay him $15,000 for moving and housing costs.

Rodriguez is currently principal of Westland Hialeah Senior High School outside Miami. He begins his job in Amherst on July 1.

According to the minutes of the committee's March 4 meeting, Kathryn Mazur, the district's human resource director, told committee members that she had spoken to Rodriguez twice by phone and he had said he could not accept the initial salary offered.

"She then explained the details of the higher salary and the additional benefits that he had requested in order to accept the position," wrote Elaine Brighty, who was a committee member at the time and took the minutes.

Brighty moved to reconsider the salary, a move seconded by Andy Churchill, who moved to offer Rodriguez the higher salary and benefits. "After considerable discussion," the board approved them by a vote of 4-2.

Brighty, Churchill, Tracy Farnham and Michael Katz voted in favor of the higher salary. Catherine Sanderson and Michael Hussin voted against it.

"I felt we had to be careful about overextending ourselves," Sanderson said Thursday. "I was hesitant about offering that high a salary because the budget had fallen apart and the financial situation of the country has changed since we began the search. I was concerned about the appearance of giving a very high salary to someone as we ask teachers to freeze their salaries."

Sanderson said she also felt giving Rodriguez a high salary would put him at a disadvantage coming into the community, particularly when she and some others were not convinced that his experience in Florida was the best fit for Amherst.

She got the impression that Rodriguez was suggesting he would not come to Amherst if he were not offered a higher salary, Sanderson said. "But you never know what someone will do until they do it."

The other thing that influenced her vote, she said, was that the current interim superintendent, Maria Geryk, is doing such a good job.

"If he had walked, I actually felt very comfortable with the leadership that Maria is providing," Sanderson said. "I think she could have served in the interim position for another year and a half."

Michael Hussin, who was chairman of the Regional School Committee at the time but did not run for re-election to the board, said he had reconciled himself to the base salary of $158,000.

"That was the reality. I had accepted that that was what we were going to have to pay."

But he wanted to see if board members could reduce the $15,000 house and travel allowance that Rodriguez will be paid for two years.

School committee members had been back and forth several times with Rodriguez, however, and some of them said there had been enough negotiating, Hussin said.

Mary Carey can be reached at mary.carey@att.net.