Board opts for 'Map 5' to balance Amherst schools

Hampshire Gazette
By NICK GRABBE
Tuesday, October 27, 2009

AMHERST - The Amherst School Committee voted Tuesday to create a new map for determining which elementary school children will attend next fall, closing a rancorous debate about ethnicity, poverty and achievement.

The redistricting, necessitated by the closure of Mark's Meadow School next year, will equalize the percentages of children from low-income families at the three remaining schools. It will also equalize the percentage of children who are "struggling," as determined by test scores and teachers.

Currently, students at Crocker Farm School are twice as likely to receive free or reduced-price lunch as are those at Wildwood School. "Having one poor school was an injustice that has held us back," said committee chairman Andy Churchill in voting for the change.

Four of the five committee members voted for "Map #5," which will send all 185 Mark's Meadow students to Wildwood, and sets Amity Street as the boundary of the Wildwood and Crocker Farm districts. To achieve socioeconomic balance, children living in apartment complexes off East Hadley Road will go to all three schools.

Committee member Kathleen Anderson cast the sole no vote. She favored "Map #6," which would have sent children at Mill Valley Estates and The Boulders to Fort River School.

"We have a responsibility to make sure we're giving all kids a similar opportunity to succeed," Churchill said. Map #5 will enable children to "go to a school a few miles from their homes that reflects the composition of the town they live in," he said. "It's the job of each school to create a supportive culture for all students."

The vote will end the clusters of Latino students at Crocker Farm and Cambodian students at Fort River.

The current practice of busing students to schools outside their districts because a cluster of students with their ethnic backgrounds were there is a violation of state and federal law, said committee member Catherine Sanderson. That policy had to end even without redistricting, she said.

"I'm not attempting to sabotage communities; I'm for obeying the law," she said. "I'm not convinced it's better to cluster low-income kids at one school." Crocker Farm is "not performing as well as it should for all kids," she said.

Committee member Irv Rhodes called the process "gut-wrenching and painful." But he said he is "100 percent certain of its educational soundness."

"I know this decision won't be welcomed by everyone," Rhodes said. "I hope everyone will think about how we can go about implementing it so we do the best for all our kids."

The redistricting will also mean that teachers will change schools. A survey is going out today asking them for their first and second choices of buildings next year, said Kathleen Mazur, director of human resources.

There will be meetings with principals and counselors this week, and by mid-November, meetings in the individual schools, and in December in apartment complexes, she said. Open houses and "celebrations for transitioning students" are planned for January, she said.

Jim Oldham of East Hadley Road said these discussions should have taken place six months ago. He warned the School Committee that it will be their responsibility if the district is sued, if more parents choose to send their children to out-of-town schools, or "if the override fails because people don't trust the way schools are being run."

On Tuesday afternoon, about 40 people gathered on the town common to protest the redistricting plan.

Nelson Acosta of Riverglade Drive said the plan "will segregate people based on low income and establish quotas." Elementary schools "should be about keeping kids close to home and creating special communities."

He questioned how the plan to create classrooms that are more economically heterogeneous will help low-income children. "Just because they're hanging with more affluent kids, they will benefit? How? By osmosis?" he said.

Laura Quinn of Shays Street told the rally that research showing that inner-city, low-income students benefit from being in middle-class suburban schools doesn't apply to Amherst.

Adrian Durlester of Valley Lane said the financial crisis that spurred the School Committee to close Mark's Meadow is "an excuse for empowering a classist and racist agenda." He said he's lived in town for a year and is no longer sure Amherst is where he wants to be.

He urged those at the rally to summon "that patriotic spirit that's willing to stand up to tyranny."

Map #5 Was Selected

I will summarize the meeting more tomorrow -- but Map #5 was selected by a 4 to 1 vote (Churchill, Rhodes, Rivkin, Sanderson voted in favor, Anderson voted no and preferred Map #6). Thanks to all of those who sent email/letters to the School Committee expressing their thoughts. It was a difficult decision, and I'm very glad that the vote is over, and that we can now move on to focus on how to make all three of the schools work well for all children.

Amherst parents to stage protest in opposition to elementary school redistricting plan

Springfield Republican
By Diane Lederman
October 27, 2009

AMHERST – While the School Committee is scheduled to vote Tuesday night on the redistricting of elementary schools for next year, a group of parents upset with the proposal has scheduled a protest for Tuesday afternoon on the Town Common.

A committee has been working on a range of plans to redistrict the elementary schools for next year when Marks Meadow Elementary School – one of four town elementary schools – is scheduled to close. The committee has held two public forums and met and revised various maps to accommodate concerns.

Last week, the committee studied six proposed maps and the School Committee will likely consider two of those plans.

The School Committee in May voted to close Marks Meadow at the end of the 2009-10 school year to save money and then redistrict in a way that there would be an equal number of children receiving free or reduced lunches at the three remaining schools. Currently Crocker Farm has the largest number of students receiving free and reduced lunches.

But parents have organized the march to protest redistricting and the closing of Marks Meadow School, stating in an e-mail to the community that the committee’s decision “does not reflect the needs of our children nor their communities. We believe their plan will be harmful and divisive to the multicultural fabric of our town.

“We believe this plan will create animosity between those that struggle economically and those of a more privileged community. We don’t feel it is fair to bus children to new schools within the Amherst school system just because they qualify for free or reduced lunch. Furthermore, we are not convinced that moving our children to new schools will improve the quality of their education. We feel that forced busing of low-income, multicultural-multilingual children is offensive,” the e-mail states.

But on her School Committee blog, member Catherine A Sanderson refuted the charges. Under any redistricting plan, she wrote, “the majority of kids on free or reduced lunch will, in fact, attend the exact same school they attend right now, as will the majority of kids not on free or reduced lunch.”

Parents protesting the redistricting don’t believe “dispersing children who qualify for free or reduced lunch or are multicultural or multilingual into more affluent schools will improve test schools or their abilities to learn.”

But Sanderson, also a psychology professor at Amherst College, stated that a “body of well-established research indicates that low-income children who attend schools in which more then 40 percent of the children are on free/reduced lunch do not perform as well as those who attend schools with a smaller proportion of students on free/reduced lunch.”

School Committee Chairman Andrew M. Churchill said the committee “can’t afford not to close Marks Meadow.”

“We’ve been thinking about the inequities for a number of years,” he said. “It’s not like we’re a big city (traveling) huge distances.” Some students might be bused four or five miles, he said.

The committee needs to make a decision now because the budget needs to be done for January this year. The administration needs to have the districts set up to seek request for proposals from a transportation company.

The protest is slated for 4 p.m. today with the School Committee meeting slated for 7 p.m. at the Amherst Regional High School.

Amherst redistricting decided tonight; protest planned

Hampshire Gazette
By NICK GRABBE
Tuesday, October 27, 2009

AMHERST - The Amherst School Committee, scheduled to vote tonight on a plan for elementary redistricting, will consider two maps endorsed by a group studying the sensitive issue.

Meanwhile, opponents of redistricting and the closing of Mark's Meadow School have scheduled a protest for today at 4 p.m. on the town common. School Committee member Catherine Sanderson issued a statement in response, criticizing "inaccuracies" in a letter announcing the protest.

The redistricting group, which includes School Committee members Steve Rivkin and Irv Rhodes, met Monday and agreed to endorse two maps that keep all current Mark's Meadow students together at Wildwood School. They are known as Map No. 5 and Map No. 6.

Both maps would place the border between the Wildwood and Crocker Farm districts at Amity Street, and both would keep children who live on South East Street north of the South Amherst Common at Fort River School.

The only difference between the two maps is that in Map No. 5, residents of the Boulders and Mill Valley Estates would be bused out of the Crocker Farm district to different schools, while in Map No. 6 they would all be bused to Fort River.

Map No. 5 would achieve the School Committee's goal of equalizing the percentage of children from low-income families at the three schools. Under Map No. 6, Fort River and Crocker Farm would have 37.4 and 36.3 percent low-income students respectively, while Wildwood would have 31.5 percent.

The letter announcing today's protest was signed by Zulma Rivera, Nelson Acosta, Lissa Pierce Bonifaz and Vladimir Morales. All have come to committee meetings to criticize the plan to end the practice of grouping certain students based on language and culture.

"We believe their plan will be harmful and divisive to the multicultural fabric of our town," their letter reads. "We believe this plan will create animosity between those that struggle economically and those of a more privileged community."

The writers say it isn't fair to mandate "forced busing" of children just because they come from low-income families, calling the plan "offensive." They say that are "not convinced that moving our children to new schools will improve the quality of their education."

They also question the assertion that dispersing low-income or multicultural children will improve their education.

Sanderson said the majority of children, in all income ranges, will attend the same school next year as they do this year. She said that the elimination of language clusters is unrelated to either redistricting or the closing of Mark's Meadow.

"Busing to particular schools based on ethnicity, race or culture is a violation of state and federal law, and would therefore be discontinued regardless," she said. "These programs were going to end, as was announced by the administration last year."

Many studies show that low-income children who attend schools in which more than 40 percent of the children are from low-income families, such as Crocker Farm School, do not perform as well as those who attend schools with smaller proportions, Sanderson said.

Tonight's meeting will be at 7 in the cafeteria of Amherst Regional High School.

Redistricting Protest Planned

I was forwarded a letter earlier today by a friend, which describes an upcoming protest of both the redistricting plan and closing of Marks Meadow and encourages participation. I debated whether I should post this on my blog (to bring additional publicity), but ultimately decided that since many residents would receive this email, I should both post it and respond to it (since it contains many inaccuracies). The exact text of the letter appears below in italics, followed by a list of inaccuracies and clarifications (and certainly readers of my blog should feel free to contact the four signers of this letter to express their feelings -- pro or con -- about this intended protest).

Dear Parent or/ Community Member,

We Need YOUR SUPPORT and VOICE this Coming Tuesday!

PLEASE JOIN US This Coming TUESDAY, OCTOBER 27th, 2009 @ 4pm at The Amherst Commons.

We are organizing a MARCH TO PROTEST the Amherst Schools Committee’s Plan to REDISTRICT our elementary schools and the closing of Marks Meadow. The School Committee’s decision DOES NOT REFLECT THE NEEDS OF OUR CHILDREN nor their communities. We believe their plan will be harmful and divisive to the multicultural fabric of our town. We believe this plan will create animosity between those that struggle economically and those of a more privileged community. We don’t feel it is FAIR to bus children to new schools within the Amherst School system just because they qualify for FREE OR REDUCED LUNCH. Furthermore, we are not convinced that moving our children to new schools will improve the quality of their education. We feel that FORCED BUSSING OF LOW INCOME, MULTICULTURAL/ MULTILINGUAL CHILDREN IS OFFENSIVE.

We feel that those School Committee members that want to speak about EQUITY should bring plans WITH MULTIPLE STUDIES OF TESTED RESULTS to improve the education of our children. They are basing their idea of redistricting on only one study. We do not think that dispersing children who qualify for free or reduced lunch and/or are multicultural/multilingual into more affluent schools will improve MCAS scores or their abilities to learn. On the contrary, the School Committee’s Redistricting Plan will isolate our children and their communities from the support they need.

We support the philosophy that children thrive in elementary schools that provide supportive environments in close proximity to their neighborhoods and families. We object to the comments made by a School Committee member on October 22nd, 2009, stating that Amherst did not need Marks Meadow and that he would have closed it “even if there was one million dollars to keep it open.” We disagree with his comments that “the money could be spent more wisely in other projects.” We feel that each of the elementary schools in the town of Amherst has a special relationship with the various communities they represent. To close Marks Meadow will be a severe blow to the communities and neighborhoods that make up North Amherst.

Please join us in supporting our children’s educational needs and our diverse community fabric this coming Tuesday, October 27th, 2009 @ 4pm at the Amherst Common.

We NEED YOUR SUPPORT and VIOCE in presenting our Grievances with the AMHERST SCHOOL Committee regarding their Committee’s Redistricting subcommittee plan. Please give us your presence VOICE and PRESENCE in ADDRESSING the needs of our CHILDREN. Their plan will sever the fabric of our multicultural community and isolate our children in their new placements. The School Committee’s plan to disperse the children who come from families who qualify for free and reduced lunch IS NOT in the best interest of those who are most vulnerable in our school system. The School Committee Redistricting plan WAS NOT created to address the academic needs of our children.

Sincerely yours in the struggle for our Children’s education..

Contact Persons Email Address

Zulma Rivera zulma88@hotmail.com

Nelson Acosta nelson@stuaf.umass.edu

Lissa Pierce Bonifaz lissapiercebonifaz@gmail.com

Vladimir Morales vladimirmorales@comcast.net




Here are the inaccuracies included in this letter:

1. The letter states "We don’t feel it is FAIR to bus children to new schools within the Amherst School system just because they qualify for FREE OR REDUCED LUNCH." However, as is very clear in this, and any, redistricting plan, many children are being bused to new schools -- not just those on free/reduced lunch. Children are being bused to new schools from downtown Amherst (on Lincoln, Dana, Blue Hills), and some of these, but not most, kids are on free/reduced lunch. Children are being bused to new schools from the houses off of East Hadley Road to new schools, and some of these, but not most, kids are on free/reduced lunch. Children are being bused to new schools from some of the apartment complexes off of East Hadley Road to new schools, and most of these children, but not all, are on free/reduced lunch. Obviously all of the children who attend Marks Meadow are being bused on new schools -- some of these children, but not most, are on free/reduced lunch. The majority of kids on free/reduced lunch will in fact attend the exact same school they attend right now, as will the majority of kids NOT on free/reduced lunch.

2. We have no idea whether the children who are attending new schools are or are not "MULTICULTURAL/MULTILINGUAL." However, I believe this comment addresses the ending of programs in which children were bused to particular schools based on their ethnicity, race, or culture, which is a violation of state and federal law, and would therefore be discontinued regardless of whether we closed Marks Meadow and/or redistricted. These programs were going to end, as was announced by the central administration at a School Committee last year. The only reason they continued this year was to avoid creating an additional transition for these children if they moved to a new school this year once these programs ended, and then moved to yet another new school the following year after redistricting. But the elimination of these programs has NOTHING to do with closing Marks Meadow or redistricting.

3. The letter states "We feel that those School Committee members that want to speak about EQUITY should bring plans WITH MULTIPLE STUDIES OF TESTED RESULTS to improve the education of our children. They are basing their idea of redistricting on only one study. We do not think that dispersing children who qualify for free or reduced lunch and/or are multicultural/multilingual into more affluent schools will improve MCAS scores or their abilities to learn." However, a body of well-established research (some of which I have already posted on my blog) indicates that low income children who attend schools in which more then 40% of the children are on free/reduced lunch do not perform as well as those who attend schools with a smaller proportion of students on free/reduced lunch. This is NOT one study -- it is many studies, which is why redistricting based on socioeconomic status has been affirmed by the US Supreme Court and is being used in many communities to improve student achievement (google Richard Kahlenberg to read this research on your own). Our plans have nothing to do with whether children are multicultural or multilingual: as noted previously, cultural clusters were going to be discontinued regardless of redistricting, and segregating students by ethnicity/race is a violation of state and federal law.

4. This letter states "We support the philosophy that children thrive in elementary schools that provide supportive environments in close proximity to their neighborhoods and families." I agree whole-heartedly with this statement. That is why following redistricting, the vast majority of children will attend the school that is in closest proximity to their homes (unlike our current system in which children from particular racial/ethnic/language backgrounds are often bused to schools far from where they live), and all children will attend the SAME school as children living in their same apartment building (unlike in our current system in which while children in a neighborhood of houses virtually always attend the same school, whereas many children living in a single apartment complex off of East Hadley Road now go to different schools than other children living in their same complex). I believe our new plan to have children in a single apartment complex all attend the same school will foster precisely the type of supportive environments that the signers of this letter believe is so important.

5. The letters criticize comments made by Steve Rivkin regarding closing Marks Meadow, and in particular that he believes the money spent to keep this school open ($700,000 per year) could be spent in better ways. Given that all of the children in our district can fit in the other three schools, at a cost of $700,000 a year LESS, and given the current (very bleak) state of school finances, it seems surprising that they believe it would truly be better to keep Marks Meadow open and make major cuts in other areas (e.g., increase class sizes, eliminate art/music/PE, reduce support for struggling students). The School Committee voted unanimously to close Marks Meadow over 5 months ago, and I don't believe anyone on the committee sees this decision as a mistake.

Obviously all residents of Amherst have a right to protest any decision by any elected board at any time -- and thus it is not surprising to me that residents would protest redistricting (which is controversial in all communities). However, I'm disappointed that a letter would be widely circulated which contains so many inaccuracies and misleading statements, and thus will likely create more hysteria and animosity. If the organizers of this protest truly want to create multicultural schools with supportive environments for all children, I would hope they could turn some of their (considerable) energy to suggesting and developing specific plans to ease the transition for children and their families over the next few months. I will hope that after the vote on Tuesday, we - the School Committee, teachers/staff, families, and the community - can move to planning the transition to new schools in a way that works well for all kids.

'Map' for Amherst schools eyed

Hampshire Gazette
By NICK GRABBE
Friday, October 23, 2009

AMHERST - A new plan for shrinking from four elementary districts to three got a favorable reception from two members of the Amherst School Committee Thursday.

But most of the public comments favored none of the six maps under review. Most speakers criticized the proposed breakup of language clusters at particular schools.

The five-member group that's been drafting the proposed maps plans to meet Monday and recommend one or two of them to the School Committee, which is scheduled to vote on Tuesday.

The new plan, known as "map #5," would achieve the committee's goal of equalizing the percentage of students from low-income families, and those deemed to be "struggling," at the three schools. It would put all students currently at Mark's Meadow School, which is closing next year, together at Wildwood School.

It would allow students living on South East Street north of the South Amherst Common to remain at Fort River School. But in the East Hadley Road area, it would create two "islands" in the Crocker Farm district, with residents of The Boulders going to Wildwood and those at Mill Valley Estates to Fort River.

Committee member Catherine Sanderson said this "looks like what we're looking for," and member Steve Rivkin said he likes the plan.

Under the current map, 46.2 percent of the Crocker Farm students come from low-income families, compared to 23.7 percent at Wildwood. "This is something we could no longer sustain with good conscience," said committee member Irv Rhodes. Andy Churchill, who chairs the committee, called it "offensive." Superintendent Alberto Rodriguez said research shows that a high percentage of low-income students at a particular school impedes education.

Churchill said he looks at "equity" less in terms of particular groups but rather in the context of the needs of individual children. The redistricting process has "forced us to wrestle with different concepts of social justice."

Nelson Acosta, a Crocker Farm parent, said the maps make low-income children a "political football" and said that Latinos feel "marginalized." Angela Robles said the proposals would "tear apart communities" and asked, "Why are we looking at numbers instead of human beings?"

Laura Valdiviezo spoke of the benefits of language clustering. Meg Gebhard said that "equity as it's being talked about seems awfully thin." Jim Oldham said the School Committee should wait a little longer before making a decision. "Once the lines are drawn and the votes are taken, it is our responsibility to not second-guess it but welcome it and celebrate going to a new school with our children," said Rodriguez. "If we don't do that, we're setting up our own children to fail."

New Maps Are Posted

The Power Point presentation for tonight's School Committee meeting is now posted on the ARPS.org website (http://www.arps.org/node/1039#attachments). You can see the current map, as well as 6 additional renditions of that map (and all present the total number of students in each school, the % of students on free/reduced lunch, and the % of students who are struggling). These maps are as follows:

CURRENT: The current map (4 schools, range in free/reduced lunch from 23.7 at WW to 46.2 at CF, range in struggling students from 18.5 at FR to 27.5 at CF).

Map #1: The map presented at the Marks Meadow forum (446 kids in WW/450 at FR/350 at CF, MM partially in FR, 2 islands - one going to FR and one to WW, range in free/reduced lunch from 33.4 at CF to 36% at FR, range in struggling students from 21.4 at CF to 22.6 at WW).

Map #2: The revised map presented at the Crocker Farm forum (444 kids in WW/452 in FR/350 at CF, MM all at WW, 1 island - all going to FR, range in FRL from 30.9 at WW to 39.8 at FR, range in struggling kids from 21.4 at CF to 22.6 at FR).

Map #3: The map presented early in the Crocker Farm forum (449 in WW/459 at FR/338 at CF, MM divided between FR and WW, one island - all going to WW, Amherst Woods split between FR and CF, range in FRL from 31.8 at FR to 39.2 at WW, range in struggling kids from 19.8 at CF to 24.9 at WW).

Map #4: A new map which shows dividing simply based on geography with NO ISLANDS (453 in WW/437 in FR/352 at CF, MM divided between FR and WW, no islands, range in FRL from 28.1 at FR to 47.4 at CF, range in struggling kids from 18.1 at FR to 26.4 at CF).

Map #5: A new map which is basically a slight modification of Map #1 -- with all MM going to WW instead of FR, and a small area of Southeast Street staying at FR instead of going to CF (476 kids at WW/437 at FR/330 at CF, 2 islands - one going to FR and one going to WW, range in FRL from 34.7 at WW to 35.5 at CF, range in struggling kids from 21.7 at FR to 22.3 at WW).

Map #6: A new map which is basically a slight modification of Map #2 -- with a small area of Southeast Street staying at FR instead of going to CF (447 kids at WW/460 at FR/336 at CF, one island - all going to FR, range in FRL from 31.5 at WW to 37.4 at FR, range of struggling kids from 21.3 at FR to 22.9 at CF).

So, the key thing for me (NOT speaking for the whole committee here) is that I think Map #4 is impossible in terms of equity (a gap of nearly 20%), and I think both Map #2 and #3 are undesirable in terms of equity (with FR in Map 2 and WW in Map 3 having over 39% kids on FRL -- too close to the 40% I believe we should be trying to avoid, which could change quickly). Although Map #1 created very good equity (range of less than 3%, no school above 36%), this map divided MM kids, and I believe that dividing off just 12% of kids from a very small school that is closing is not ideal.

That leaves me deciding between Maps #5 and #6. These maps are identical except in one respect -- two islands versus one island. And I'm torn, because I feel like one island is "better" but the one island map has worse equity between the schools (it is less than a 1% divide in Map #5, and a 5.9% gap in Map #6). So, if you are voting based on equity, Map #5 is the clear winner. But I would think that having more kids living off of East Hadley Road traveling together would be BETTER (e.g., 70 kids going to one school instead of 30 going to WW and 40 going to FR seems like it should be better for more neighborhood cohesion in these apartments, more opportunities for playdates/shared transportation, etc.). Yet the comments I'm hearing from the vast majority of people are about not having any islands ... very few people seem to think that one island is better than two islands, and if there is really no difference between these two options (because the island in and of itself is the problem), then I guess Map #5 is the best alternative. For me, that is where my hard thinking is going to be over the next few days, and I do look forward to hearing many thoughts (on my blog, via email to the whole SC, in person, etc.

Amherst looks anew at school boundaries

Hampshire Gazette
By NICK GRABBE
Tuesday, October 20, 2009

AMHERST - After getting an earful about a map that outlines which elementary school children will attend next year, the Amherst School Committee is planning a special meeting this Thursday to roll out some new options.

The schools must redraw the district lines because Mark's Meadow School will close next year. The School Committee also wants to equalize the percentages of children from low-income families in the three remaining elementary schools.

Many speakers at two public forums this month criticized the redistricting plan because it would break up clusters of Cambodian and Latino students, groupings that they believe is beneficial.

Last week, the group working on the map responded to some repeated complaints raised by parents by coming up with six options for redistricting. At Thursday's meeting, the School Committee will discuss the pros and cons of these maps and will take public comments.

The most recently proposed plan would move children living on Leverett and East Leverett roads from Fort River School to Wildwood School, thus keeping all current Mark's Meadow students together. It also proposes that children living at The Boulders move to Fort River, joining children from nearby Mill Valley Estates.

Some parents believe this would not satisfy the goal of equalization. Under this plan, Fort River would have 40 percent children from low-income families, compared to 30 percent at Wildwood. The contentious map had approximately equal percentages.

Legal issue raised

Meanwhile, the school district has received a lawyer's opinion that calls into question the legality of grouping students by ethnicity, in response to some parents' expressed preference. In an Oct. 7 opinion requested by the Amherst school district, Carolyn Lyons - citing state law - stated that it is not permissible to treat any student differently based on national origin or ethnicity.

"Clustering students based on their ethnic group, allowing open enrollment for only those students who have a certain ethnicity or national origin, or providing free busing based on their ethnicity or national origin would directly violate these laws," she wrote.

She cited the Massachusetts General Laws, which says that students "shall be taught English as rapidly and effectively as possible." It also says, "Local schools shall be encouraged to mix together in the same classroom English learners from different native-language groups but with the same degree of English fluency."

The redistricting group will recommend two maps to the committee, said Irv Rhodes, a member of both bodies; the committee is scheduled to vote on a final map Oct. 27. The committee will be free to choose one of the two maps or approve a different one, he said.

"All have pros and cons," he said. "None are perfect, and none will please everyone."

The breakup of cultural and language clusters would be necessary even if redistricting weren't happening, said committee member Catherine Sanderson. The schools have been in violation of state and federal laws in such policies as busing Cambodian children to Fort River but not others taking advantage of "open enrollment," she said.

WHAT RESEARCH TELLS US ABOUT ADJUSTING TO REDISTRICTING

Ithaca Journal
Ithaca, NY
August 8, 2005

by Wendy M. Williams

Many Ithaca-area parents were extremely concerned about redistricting during the 2004-5 school year. For those parents whose children will be attending a different school in 2005-6, redistricting is now a reality. For the administrators who run the schools and the teachers who educate the children—as well as all of the support staff who make the system run efficiently--redistricting has brought numerous challenges to already-stretched schedules. The new school year begins on September 7, meaning that there is time for parents to rethink their approach to redistricting to help their children and their children’s teachers create a successful educational experience.

What are some of the lessons from educational research that can help parents deal effectively with redistricting?

Parental attitudes are critical to children’s school success. Many parents expressed considerable anger and frustration, as well as a sense of helplessness, during the redistricting debate. To the extent that their children hear such sentiments, parents are setting their children up for negative experiences. The communication from the parents to the children is clear—redistricting is bad, the new school will be inferior to the old one, and the students who are sent there will suffer. Regardless of the potential merit of any of these points, parents whose children are attending a new school should communicate a positive attitude to their children, and stress the new learning experiences, friends, and relationships that this new environment will provide. If parents are negative, children will definitely suffer in their adjustment and learning outcomes, and the parents will have themselves created the outcome that they most feared.

Challenges create opportunities for positive growth and development. Parents involved in the redistricting debate often stated that changing to a new school would be bad for their children’s development. While it is natural for people to be apprehensive about change, ample research demonstrates that learning to deal constructively with change and meeting challenges is a positive force in children’s development. While acknowledging the potential difficulties, parents can stress that flexibility and adaptability are critical life skills. Helping children to deal effectively with their fear of a new experience and overcome it can create a valuable set of competencies. A childhood devoid of challenges (such as changing schools) may leave a young person without the skills to deal with inevitable changes and challenges later in life.

Parents should expect setbacks during the transition. Changing to a new school involves learning new routines and getting to know new teachers and fellow students. Approaches to education vary from school to school. Research shows that children sometimes need time to adjust. When children express that things are different and that they are having difficulties, parents should state that this is normal and expected, and that over time, it will undoubtedly work out. If children expect that transitions will take some extra time and effort, they will not become overly frustrated or disillusioned when this does, in fact, happen. Parents should be prepared to spend extra time assisting their children with the transition—accompanying them to school, showing them the school grounds and familiarizing them with the school layout, and even introducing their children to students who have previously attended the new school and who consequently know the ropes. The majority of children will grow to like their new school and will adjust to the change. In those situations in which things do not eventually work out, alternative options can be explored, either within the school system or outside of it.

Teachers are not to blame. Research shows that angry, frustrated parents concerned about school-district-wide changes most often begin by expressing their anger to their child’s teacher. In essence, they shoot the messenger. The trouble is that teachers have a job to do, and they cannot focus on their job while dealing with parents’ issues about district-level management. Teachers report substantial time spent in conversations with parents that have nothing to do with classroom instruction and their specific students’ progress—which teachers are happy to discuss. Rather, these discussions focus on aspects of school administration and district-level decisions that parents find frustrating or upsetting. Teachers are already pressed for time, and they wish to focus on their students and on doing their job. Wise parents allow their children’s teachers to do just that.

-----------------------------------------

Wendy M. Williams is a Professor in the Department of Human Development at Cornell University. She is an educational psychologist who studies the development, assessment, training, and societal implications of intelligence and related abilities, such as real-world reasoning and creativity. She co-founded and co-directs the Cornell Institute for Research on Children. Williams has written several books on education, including "The Reluctant Reader", "How to Develop Student Creativity", "Educational Psychology" , and "Practical Intelligence for School". This article appeared in the Ithaca Journal on August 8, 2005.

Nominations open for Amherst's annual town election

Springfield Republican
By Diane Lederman
October 15, 2009, 2:45PM

AMHERST – The 2010 Annual Town Election is more than five months away, but at least two incumbents will not be running again, one on the Select Board and one on the School Committee.

Papers are now available in the Town Clerk’s office for anyone who would like to seek a position.

The election is slated for March 23.

Select Board member Gerald S. Weiss, who has served two terms on the board, will not be running for re-election. He expressed his intentions earlier this year. Two-term School Committee incumbent Andrew M. Churchill will not be running again. Churchill is chairman of the Amherst School Committee and a member of the regional committee.

“I’ve thoroughly enjoyed my time,” Weiss said Wednesday. “I wouldn’t trade it in for any other experience, (but) the demands of the position are too great for somebody with a full-time job and family.”

Besides meeting almost weekly, board members also serve as liaisons to town boards and committees. He said when he cares about an issue he wants to research it to know about it, yet that takes a lot of time.

Board member Alisa V. Brewer, who has served one term on the board, said she will be seeking re-election. Brewer is a former School Committee member who in her first race for Select Board defeated incumbent Robie Hubley.

In an e-mail, Brewer wrote that she is running for another term “because I want to continue making progress on the issues I identified when I ran against the incumbents in 2007, including controlling spending, seeking new revenues, and preserving vital services.

“Select Board membership and activity have undergone a major overhaul starting with my election in 2007. We’re making great strides in communicating our community’s priorities to the Town Manager in a systematic way, rather than providing random individual inputs on our personal passions. And we’ve increased the transparency of town governance activities in multiple ways while realizing we can continue to do more.”

Churchill said he is ready for a break. “It’s been a good six years; I’ve learned a lot and hopefully helped some, but it takes a lot out of you, so I’m ready for a little break. And I’d like to see my kids a bit more before they head off to college (they’re in 10th and 8th grades now),” he wrote in an e-mail. He said it’s not easy to leave “but it was made a lot easier when I heard Rick Hood is planning to run.” Richard B. Hood has already taken out papers for the seat. “


The seat of Kathleen D. Anderson, who has served one term on the School Committee, is also up. She could not be reached for comment.

John W. Coull has taken out papers for re-election as elector, Oliver Smith Will.

The terms of Jones Library Board of Trustee members Louis S. Greenbaum and Kathleen Wang are also up for re-election.

Papers must be signed by at least 50 registered voters in the case of townwide office and by one for Town Meeting from the precinct in which the candidate lives. Papers must be filed with the Town Clerk’s office by Feb. 2 at 5 p.m.

Officials meanwhile, over the next few months, will be discussing whether to put a question on the ballot asking voters to support a Proposition 2½: property tax override.

NEW Amherst School Committee Meeting: October 22, 7 pm

The Amherst School Committee will have a special meeting on Thursday, October 22, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. in the Amherst Regional High School library. The purpose of the meeting is for the Redistricting Subcommittee to review the redistricting process and maps with the Amherst School Committee. After the full School Committee has time for deliberation and discussion of the recommendation, there will be an opportunity for public comments. The School Committee will not take any action on the subcommittee's recommendation at this meeting. The vote is scheduled for the regular Amherst School Committee meeting on Tuesday, October 27th.

Editorial: New boundaries for the best

Amherst Bulletin
Published on October 16, 2009

The School Committee faced strong but expected criticism at a forum on redistricting last week, and it's likely it received more knocks at a second forum held on Wednesday.

The issue: a third of Amherst children now in kindergarten through fifth grade will attend a different school next year.

The closing of Mark's Meadow next year is prompting the redrawing of district boundaries. The School Committee voted 5-0 last spring to close Mark's Meadow after extensive public discussion. Elementary enrollment in Amherst has dropped 17 percent in the last 10 years. The committee needed to find a way to save money, and Mark's Meadow is the smallest school.

The other reason for the redistricting is to balance out the percentages of children who come from low-income families (as defined by qualifying for free or reduced-price lunches) in the three remaining schools. The committee has decided that the current situation, in which half the students at Crocker Farm come from low-income homes, is no longer defensible.

Dozens of parents did, however, defend the status quo on Oct. 8, or offered other redistricting permutations of their own design. Parents noted some very valid concerns, from keeping ethnic groups together to minimizing disruptions to students who must switch schools once, or even twice, over the next two years.

We applaud the committee for making this tough decision, especially so in the face of such emotional arguments.

Children benefit from associating with peers who come from a variety of backgrounds. It isn't morally right to have a "poor school" and a "wealthy school." The committee's position that there should be one standard for all elementary schools deserves the community's support. Evening out the percentages will advance both equity and education.

But accomplishing these goals has, not surprisingly, led to trade-offs. And, also not surprisingly, these trade-offs have led to complaints.

The committee plans to end "open enrollment," under which parents can choose which elementary school their children attend, if they provide transportation. The clustering of students interested in particular languages would also end. These decisions are tied to the one to achieve economic balance.

Some parents just don't want their children to change schools. Some who live between Amity Street and Northampton Road don't want their children to have to move from Wildwood School to Crocker Farm, while those north of Amity stay at Wildwood. Some parents living on Leverett and East Leverett roads would prefer to move their children to Wildwood, along with the other students now at Mark's Meadow.

The proposed new map does not resemble a gerrymandered Congressional district, with one exception. In the East Hadley Road area, in the middle of the new Crocker Farm district, there is an island where children living in apartment complexes would be bused to Fort River and Wildwood schools.

This separation of apartment-dwellers from children living in nearby single-family houses, and their resulting longer bus rides, are not ideal.

But because there's a much higher rate of low incomes in the apartment complexes, sending these children to Crocker Farm would upset the economic balances. And children from this neighborhood already go to several different elementary schools.

Parents can get emotional when told their children have to change schools. It isn't easy to explain to a first-grader why her friend will be at a different place next year. Some parents and advocates of Spanish-speaking children don't want their bloc of students at Crocker Farm to be dispersed.

We hope that School Committee members and administrators have listened carefully to parents' concerns about redistricting, and taken any logical suggestions to heart. And we hope that parents will respect the reasons why these changes are happening and the hard work that's gone into redrawing the map.

My Thoughts on Redistricting

First, here is the most recent map for those who didn't come last night. It is about the same as the one presented last week, except the MM kids are now all together (the E. Leverett Road kids moved to WW) and the island is all going to FR (is not split between FR and WW anymore).




For those who have been attending the forums (or watching them on TV), or reading the paper, you know that the School Committee is facing serious criticism. So, I just want to respond specifically to the different types of criticism that we've heard as a way of showing that we really, really are listening! Here is what I've heard, and my response (again, this is my response, not the official district or School Committee response):

1. You didn't ask the community for input on the equity goal (e.g., why are we redistricting based on income?).

I have three thoughts on this front. First, I feel that there were indeed options last spring for people to discuss whether equity was a reasonable goal -- that was SPECIFICALLY part of the motion I made to close Marks Meadow. Many people came to the forums and asked questions, and literally not a single question was about "why is this equity thing a goal?" We showed two maps last spring, and both of these maps had islands (different types of islands, but islands nonetheless) in the area off of East Hadley Road as potential redistricting plans. We also included the % of kids on free/reduced lunch in each of these plans, because again, we cared about this as an issue. This was presented in March, April, and May ... and no one said "I really think it is better to have a school in which we cluster the poor kids." So, maybe people were just distracted by the Marks Meadow issue, but it does strike me as potentially a way now for people to complain BECAUSE it impacts where their kid is going ... because we sure didn't hear concerns about that at all over the last few months. However, and in fairness, some people who are sad about their child moving have specifically even stated (in emails to us, at public forums) that they still do believe equity is a good goal (so this is NOT everyone).

Second, we have strong and clear evidence (e.g., MCAS scores) that Crocker Farm is not experiencing the success it should. This is occurring although CF has smaller class sizes than other schools, and more intervention support than other schools. Although throwing more money at CF is the "easy way out" (let's just give this school more resources and still keep the poor kids all together), we've tried that and it is NOT working (hence CF is now considered a Commonwealth Priority School). To me, I think it is (past) time for us to try another approach.

Third, let's say that we as a community all came together and said we'd really rather cluster the poor kids at one school. I can certainly imagine many families in Amherst saying that in an ideal world, their kids' school would have fewer poor kids ... and that they'd be more comfortable in a school that was predominantly (entirely?) composed of middle/high income kids. We could totally do this -- in a sense, we already have (e.g., lots of the poor kids in town are clustered at one school already). So, we could take the low income kids and largely have them at Crocker Farm (that should would be 50-55% low income, and FR and WW would be 25% or so low income). Does that feel right and good to do in this town, even if MOST people privately supported that as a decision? If it does feel like the right way to go, email the SC (schoolcommittee@arps.org) right now and let us know that you are in favor of that sort of division, and I guarantee you that we will discuss this. This just doesn't feel right to me at all -- maybe this is just me, but I certainly believe there is a feeling on the SC right now (and has been a feeling on prior SCs, and is a feeling in the district leadership staff, and is a feeling at least among SOME parents and community members) that we just can't say we are a district focused on social justice while we continue to maintain a "low income school".

I think the key thing is people do not like redistricting, because it involves moving kids to different schools, and change is hard. That is why we as a community haven't redistricted in 30 or 40 years -- it is a no win proposition for the School Committee, because you are DEFINITELY going to make some people unhappy. But we are closing a school (more on that later) and thus we have two choices: redistrict based on equity (create three schools with roughly even % of kids on FRL) or redistrict based on pure geography (and create 2 wealthy schools and one poor school). That's it -- and I think the first choice is BETTER for ALL kids than the second.


2. You closed Marks Meadow and that was a stupid decision.

I certainly know there are people who feel this way--and I imagine will always feel this way. I continue to believe it was the right decision for many reasons. We have under 1300 kids in our district K to 6, and those kids can absolutely fit in three schools (with very reasonable class sizes and plenty of classrooms). This is a more cost-effective way to run our schools, which then lets us spend our limited education dollars in the best way possible (e.g., on intervention support, on music/arts, etc.). As I wrote probably 100 times last year, if we kept MM open, we would have lost a lot of other things ... and I think all the children would have experienced a reduced quality of education. This decision is done, and it really isn't going to be undone, or delayed by a year (so we can spend the next 18 months debating drawing lines and equity while cutting other programs/taking money out of reserves to pay for it and while NOT having the superintendent and SC and central office focus on things that really matter in terms of education -- like teaching, curriculum, instruction, etc.). This isn't going to get easier or simpler over time -- it is just going to impact different kids in different ways.


3. You are stopping the language/cultural clusters (e.g., Cambodian program at Fort River, Spanish program at Crocker Farm).

The decision to end these programs is highly controversial because some teachers/staff families felt these are very important programs. However, this is (a) NOT a School Committee decision, and (b) a decision that would be made REGARDLESS of whether redistricting occurred. The administration, in consultation with our lawyer and after a careful reading of state and federal regulations, has determined that it is not possible to continue these programs (nor are these programs occurring in other districts in Massachusetts). I know this is hard for some teachers/staff/families, but this actually has nothing to do with redistricting nor is the SC able to create a policy that violates state/federal law. Given this decision, I would hope teachers/staff/parents can now turn to discussing what we COULD do legally to support these kids/families in various ways.


4. You should adopt a Spanish immersion program at Crocker Farm.

This is a very creative idea ... but one that is messy for MANY reasons. First, you can't legally require someone to go to a Spanish-English immersion program -- you can legally create it as a CHOICE, but you can't require it. So, in order to do this, we'd have to divide the district into entirely into two districts (e.g., North/South) -- meaning we would be putting 640 kids in each of the other two schools as their "base school". Second, you'd have to make sure you attract at least 300 kids who would WANT to go an immersion school ... and those kids would have to be equally distributed (at least roughly) across grades. It isn't clear at all whether the demand in Amherst would be high enough to say that close to 1/3 of our population would CHOOSE this as an option, and if only 100 or 200 chose that option, the other schools would be DRAMATICALLY over-crowded. Third, you'd increase costs dramatically -- for example, you'd have to provide busing for all kids, so since kids across town could choose the immersion option, you'd be running two buses into ALL parts of town. You'd also have to hire teachers at all grade levels who are bilingual ... and yet teachers who have professional status in our district are still assured jobs in our district, so it would increase our budget potentially dramatically. Fourth, and finally, you really are providing a very different experience for kids in different schools, and I think that works against what should be the goal of the district to provide an enriching, challenging, and equitable education for all kids. I'd much prefer to see a plan that has kids in neighborhood schools yet with all schools having some world language exposure K to 6.


5. You are stranding groups of kids (East Leverett kids who now go to MM and should go to WW, Southeast Street kids who now go to FR and should stay there instead of going to CF, Blue Hills/Dana/Lincoln kids who now go to WW and should stay there instead of going to CF).

This is the major challenge of redistricting ... how to move kids to different schools in as fair a way as possible. So, we "solved" the E. Leverett Road issue by moving those kids all to WW (taking care of one of the three groups) and by moving kids in the Boulders to FR (making the island all going to one school instead of two, so at least kids in apartments are traveling togther). Now, that decision has created other issues -- specifically, Fort River is now at 40% low income kids, which is a higher percent than the old map (when it was 36%), and Wildwood is only 30% low income kids, so we now have a 9% divide in terms of equity (in the only map, the range was 3%, with FR at 36%, WW at 35%, and CF at 33%). In addition, it means we are really treating the MM kids differently (e.g., they are now ALL going to the same school) than we are treating other "stranded" clusters (e.g., those leaving FR and WW). That is a tough call, and I'm still not sure which way is "right." The other two clusters, however, are MUCH harder to solve because each of those clusters wants to get out of CF, and there are two issues: first, FR and WW are both at capacity right now (meaning to get those kids who are stranded into those schools means you have to get other kids out of those schools -- and it isn't obvious how you do that in a good way), and second, both of those areas in town consist largely of non-FRL kids, so moving those kids out of CF to the other schools means that CF increases in the % of kids on FRL and the other two schools decrease.

Here's an example: the island that is now going to Fort River (Mill Valley, Hollister, Bounders) could ALL go to CF (it is about 70 kids). Then you get rid of the island, which is good. Then you have to move 70 kids out of CF to the other schools. So, you move the Amity/Route 9 corridor (about 30 kids) to WW, but then need to move 30 kids out of WW (so you move the MM kids who now live off of East Leverett Road BACK to Fort River). You also then move the Southeast Street kids back to FR from CF. That then solves 3 problems -- you get rid of the islands (they ALL go to CF), you make the Amity/Route 9 people happy (they go back to WW), and you make the Southeast Street people happy (they go back to FR). HOWEVER, in this plan you (a) continue to divide MM into two schools (the East Leverett Road kids stay at FR) and (b) have a poor school and two wealthy schools (CF is probably over 50% and the other two schools are at 25% or so). Does that feel better? I'm not sure -- probably is better individually for many kids (except the MM kids), but probably is worse (in my opinion) for the overall greater good, which I continue to believe is to have three equitable schools. But that is precisely the type of struggle that we are in. Thoughts are welcome on solutions -- but they can't be just "move my kids back" -- they have to be accompanied by "who do we move out to do that!"


6. Your plan is especially mean to the 5th graders, who will have to go to four schools in five years.

I have two thoughts on this tough issue. First, this is true for ALL of the MM 5th graders, and there is nothing we can do about it. So, this is what happens when you close a school, and is it fair to allow non-MM 5th graders to return to "their" schools when MM kids can't? Second, if we allow all (except MM) 5th graders to return to "their" school, we really have to provide transportation (or else it is just an option for wealthier kids or those with parents who have flexible schedules). That is a real cost to the district to run extra buses/vans just to pick up those kids, and it also introduces for families the issue of having kids at different schools (e.g., we are NOT going to grandfather 5th graders and their 2nd grade siblings). So, is this do-able? Perhaps, but at what cost? I think that is the key question (to me, messing with the equity for one year just isn't a big deal, since this is a small number of kids overall and wouldn't have a major impact).


7. Your plan is mean/discriminatory to kids who live in the apartments off of East Hadley Road.

Three more thoughts here! First, there are kids from ALL over town moving to new schools. Some of the kids are low income, and some are not. We are 100% not just moving low income kids to new schools: all of the MM are moving to new schools, a group of FR kids are moving to new schools (mostly those on Southeast Street, but also in some other areas around Cushman Village and the end of East Pleasant), and a group of WW kids are moving to new schools (those between Amity/Route 9 on Lincoln/Blue Hills, those in the houses off of East Hadley Road). Second, kids in the apartments off of East Hadley Road are ALREADY going to different schools: some go to CF, some go to WW, some go to FR. There have been NO complaints about this from anyone since I've been on SC. Third, I think it is mean/discriminatory to low income kids for us to say, as a community, that we are comfortable having a "low income" school. I think the research is quite clear that this is not helpful to achievement in kids, and I think as a community, we shouldn't be comfortable clustering kids that way.

**********************************************************************************
Those again are all my thoughts on the redistricting process. It isn't easy for anyone, including the five of us on SC who are going to have to vote for/against something, knowing we are going to make some people unhappy. I've talked to SC members in other districts that have done a redistricting, and it is NEVER easy (that is why in many communities in which a school closes, they just distribute those kids to the other schools in town, instead of redistricting the whole town ... which sure sounds easier to me than what we are doing). I am continuing to read and respond to all emails I get on this topic, and we continue to get a lot of email from parents -- again, you can reach the entire SC by sending an email to: schoolcommittee@arps.org. Let me just say one thing -- if you LIKE the plan, you could also let us know that! Most people who come to public forums or write letters to the SC (or the paper) are unhappy with some aspect, and thus are complaining in hopes we will change it. But I believe there are actually many people in town who think this plan is a good one, and like it, but just aren't bothering to let us know. We would be glad to have those emails as well (and we are getting some, but I don't think we are getting anywhere near a sense of the feeling from most).

Parents urge delay on district changes

Hampshire Gazette

Thursday, October 15, 2009

AMHERST - A crowd of more than 130 offered criticisms of the School Committee's plan for redistricting elementary schools at a public forum on Wednesday.

Many people stood in the auditorium at Crocker Farm School, as seats were hard to find in the packed room. Parents and teachers lined up for their chance to comment on the plan to redraw the school boundaries to improve economic equality at the three remaining Amherst elementary schools.

The forum was the second of two, the first being held at Mark's Meadow School on Oct. 8. The School Committee will vote on the plan Oct. 27.

Renata Shepard, a parent of two at Crocker Farm, disagreed that sending students from an area on East Hadley Road, where she lives, to a new school, would bring about equality. "I've always heard that fairness is not everyone being equal, but everyone having what they need," Shepard said. "If you're moving these kids from a little area because them getting reduced lunch means they have a less rich environment, why not create that rich environment here with neighborhood schools?"

Jose Gerena of Mill Valley Estates on East Hadley Road said his children should not have to attend Fort River, instead of Crocker Farm, which they have been attending, simply because they live in a certain area of town. "My kids are getting pulled out of where their friends are and where they've been going to school for six years," Gerena said. "My kids are not on the free or reduced lunch program. I want to know why they have to be sacrificed for the school."

Luis Valdiviezo of North Pleasant Street said a student's economic means is not the only indicator of his or her performance in school. "Research shows that kids coming from low-income families is the factor that decides academic success, but we have to consider the quality of teaching and of the families," Valdiviezo said.

Jim Oldham, the parent of a Wildwood student, requested that the committee hold off on making a decision until all alternatives have been investigated. "The process failed to allow parents or others to influence the plan. There has been no attempt to weigh it in public against other equally valid goals for our schools or discuss what we are willing to sacrifice in pursuit of that goal," Oldham said.

Lucia Spiro, an English language education teacher at Crocker Farm, said the program the school has developed to educate bilingual students is too valuable to be broken up by the redistricting. "Crocker Farm has worked hard to develop bilingual education," Spiro said. "The support we offer could not be duplicated in each of the district buildings."

Mitch Pine of Valley View Circle is a parent of a Fort River student who would have to attend Crocker Farm according to the School Committee's map. "I know the town only has to provide education and not friendships, but I think we all instinctively know that friends and relationships affect the quality of education," Pine said.

Maya Rege-Colt of Valley View Road said the committee should be sensitive to the amount of damage the transition could cause students, especially fifth-graders like her daughter, who will have to relocate twice in two years.

"Children are resilient, but this is a big change," Rege-Colt said. "It will be stressful and unsettling for the most adjusted fifth-grader. Students who have learning disabilities, chaotic home lives or histories of trauma or loss will suffer emotionally, socially and academically."

Rege-Colt begged the School Committee to postpone the redistricting. "Please, please, please consider slowing this process down so that this one year of students doesn't have to bear all the brunt," Rege-Colt said.

Why Equity Matters

This blog post is a direct response to all of the questions I've now heard about "why should we have a goal of equalizing the % of low income students?" on my blog and privately. I've got to say, having to justify this as a goal is a bit shocking to me ... since I'd assume that if we were starting our schools from scratch and someone proposed, "let's put most of the low income students in one school all together," it would seem pretty unreasonable. But somehow, if that is the case that a district has (and it is the case in our district), this type of status quo seems ... ideal? So, I'm gathering data that has convinced me this goal of creating schools with an equal % of kids on free/reduced lunch is in the way to go.

Do low income kids do better in schools that are predominantly middle income?

A lot of research on the benefits of not clustering low income kids at one school has been conducted by Richard Kahlenberg (you can google and find him and read this research yourself). Briefly, this research points to a number of academic benefits to low income kids of not being in schools with high percentages of low income kids, including:

-Among 4th grade students, for every 1% point increase in middle-class classmates, low income students improve .64 points in reading and .72 points in math (David Rusk study, 2002), and

-Low income students at schools that are 85% middle class students show a 20 to 32% improvement in scores compared to those in a school that is 45% middle class (David Rusk study, 2002).

Here I'm quoting from the Century Foundation's report, “Rescuing Brown v. Board of Education”: some forty school districts nationally have turned to income as a basis for student assignment. Using factors such as eligibility for free and reduced price lunch, these districts have had considerable success in raising student achievement and indirectly promoting racial integration as well. In Wake County (Raleigh), North Carolina for example, the school board adopted a policy goal in 2000 that no school should have more than 40% of students eligible for free or reduced price lunch or more than 25% of students performing below grade level. Low-income and minority students in Wake substantially outperform comparable students in other large North Carolina districts that have failed to reduce concentrations of poverty. And Wake County’s middle-class students continue to thrive academically.

Wake County’s plan has the additional benefit of providing racial integration indirectly, which is desirable because we want schools not only to raise test scores but also to produce tolerant citizens. The socioeconomic integration plan produces almost as much racial integration as the district’s prior race-conscious integration program and it does so in a manner that even conservatives concede is perfectly legal.

For years, American education has tried to make separate schools for rich and poor work well, to little avail. The program in Wake County and other districts pursuing integration by income suggests that Brown doesn’t need to be buried. It needs to be reinvented.

This seems to me to be a pretty clear statement -- reminding us that maybe separate just isn't ever equal?

Why do low income kids do better in schools that have a higher % of middle income kids?

Kahlenberg proposes three reasons:

1. Peers are different: turn-over in high poverty schools is great, discipline issues are more common on high poverty schools, peers in middle income schools are more likely to do homework/less likely to skip class, middle income kids tend to have bigger vocabularies and are more academically engaged which is beneficial in terms of exposure/modeling.

2. Parents are different: middle class parents are more likely to be involved in school activities, can volunteer more, can help fundraise more effectively.

3. Teachers are different: curriculum is more challenging in middle class schools than in predominantly low income schools, and expectations are higher for all kids.

Here is what the Century Foundation Report notes:

While it is true that blacks don’t need to sit next to whites to learn, segregated schools in America almost always have high concentrations of poverty. These high poverty schools—even when equally funded—lack other critical “resources” that matter even more than money: supportive peers, active parents, and great teachers with high expectations.

Any parent knows that children learn a great deal from their peers, and research confirms that it is an advantage to have classmates who are academically engaged and aspire to go on to college. Peers in high poverty schools are less likely to do homework, more likely to cut class, and about twice as likely to act out. It is also an advantage to go to a school where parents actively volunteer in the school and hold school officials accountable. For a variety of reasons, middle-class parents are far more active in school affairs; they are, for example, four times as likely to be members of the PTA. If life were fair, low income students would get the best teachers because they need them most, but in fact the opposite occurs. Teachers in high poverty schools are less likely to experienced and licensed, to teach in their field of expertise, and to have high teacher test scores. Expectations are also dumbed down, so that the grade of “C” in a middle class school is the equivalent of the grade of “A” in a high poverty school, as measured by standardized test results.

So profound is the effect of concentrated poverty that middle class kids in high poverty schools perform worse on average than low income students in middle class schools. The paucity of middle-class children explains why cities like Washington D.C. and Hartford Connecticut outspend their suburban counterparts but still fail to provide the kind of quality education provided by middle-class schools.

Significantly, all of these resources—positive peer influences, active parents, and good teachers—track more closely with the economic makeup than the racial makeup of the student body. Forty years ago, the well-known Coleman Report found that “the beneficial effect of a student body with a high proportion of white students comes not from the racial composition per se but from the better educational background and higher educational aspirations that are, on average, found among whites.”

I'm not going to retype all of the material Kahlenberg describes ... but you can go to the Century Foundation website and check out the very thoughtful and detailed report entitled "Rescuing Brown v. Board of Education: Profiles of Twelve School Districts Pursuing Socioeconomic School Integration" for a look at how other districts have tackled drawing lines in pursuit of socioeconomic integration.

One more thing: we have closed a school and are going to draw new lines. The only question is whether we should draw these lines to maintain a single school that is composed of a large % of kids on free/reduced lunch (approximately 50%) and two schools that have substantially fewer kids on free reduced lunch (24 to 33%). If this community feels that the right thing to do -- educationally, morally -- is to maintain such massive differences in school population, then you need to make your opinions known loudly and clearly to the School Committee. But my own view is that once again, we need to look to the outside world and what the research tells us: separate schools for low income versus moderate/high income kids reduces achievement in low income students for a variety of reasons, which is why many other districts are now pursuing strategies to integrate schools around socioeconomic status.

Amherst school redistricting forum draws questions, criticism

Hampshire Gazette
By NICK GRABBE
Friday, October 9, 2009

AMHERST - The School Committee faced strong criticism Thursday of its plan to redraw the elementary school boundaries.

The first of two public forums was at Mark's Meadow School, whose closure next year necessitates the redistricting. The second forum will be at Crocker Farm School next Wednesday. The committee is due to vote on the plan Oct. 27.

Adrian Durlester, a Mark's Meadow parent, questioned the committee's major goal of equalizing the percentages of children from low-income families between the three remaining schools.

"A common fallacy equates the term ¿equal' with the word ¿fair,'" he said. "Getting the same percentages is a worthy goal, but it might not be best to have it as a top priority."

Derek Dassatti, who lives on East Leverett Road, has children who are among the few Mark's Meadow students who would not go to the same school as their classmates next year.

"Why should my kids lose their school and then also be totally split up from their community?" he asked. Economic equalization is a "noble goal," but the committee should not focus on it too narrowly, he said.

Nicholas Rege-Colt of Valley View Road said he has a fifth-grader who would have to go to new schools twice in the next two years. "Is this tragic? No. Is it ideal? Definitely not," he said, suggesting that open enrollment continue for one more year.

Alan Kellman, the parent of a Wildwood second-grader who would go to Crocker Farm under the plan, said the committee "has a lot of goals to balance, but minimizing the trauma of transferring kids has to be weighed heavily."

Michelle Dunch criticized the plan to bus children living at The Boulders and Mill Valley Estates out of the Crocker Farm district to achieve better balance.

"You should find some other way to draw the lines that doesn't unfairly burden low-income kids," she said. "Moving them in that way labels them."

Several speakers criticized the plan to break up children clustered at certain schools by language, especially at Fort River, where 33 students of Cambodian ancestry attend. Of those, 22 would be moved to new schools under the plan.

"Preserving the Cambodian cluster would be an affirmation of the district's commitments to academic success, culturally responsive education and loving connections with our families," said teacher Thomas Chang.

Vince O'Connor of Summer Street said that the schools have to convince voters of the need for a tax override next spring, and "a plan that's disruptive of kids' lives" doesn't help.

"This proposal is seen as the highway to heaven, but it's the road to perdition," he said. Of the plan to break up the language clusters, he said, "Kids who don't have identities don't have a future."

Education Matters: MCAS misses some key data

By STEVE RIVKIN and CATHERINE SANDERSON
Amherst Bulletin
Published on October 09, 2009

The now annual autumn ritual of the release of MCAS results and classification of schools as either meeting or failing to meet the standards set by No Child Left Behind leads parents, teachers, and administrators to reflect on the value of standardized testing.

These tests provide an objective way to measure student knowledge of various disciplines as well as a way to evaluate the effectiveness of our schools in comparison to other districts. In addition, more detailed results on specific test items can reveal curricular areas in need of attention. The MCAS tests also provide important information about differences by income, race, ethnicity, English language proficiency and special needs. The substantial share of low-income students at all of our schools who failed to pass the MCAS math and English language arts tests sends an unambiguous message that we have much work to do to meet our goals of educational success for all students and the elimination of the achievement gap by family income.

Although we believe that the evidence provided by standardized testing has great value in these respects, we also recognize the limitations, and even liabilities, of such data. One problem with the current federal use of MCAS scores is that schools are labeled as failures or successes solely on the basis of whether the pass rate exceeds a standard established by the state. This year more than 85 percent of students in all four Amherst elementary schools passed the English language arts and mathematics tests, but in some cases the pass rates fell short of the standard. Thus, three of the four schools failed to make adequate yearly progress in mathematics (only Mark's Meadow showed sufficient progress) and two of the four schools failed to make adequate yearly progress in English language arts (only Fort River and Wildwood showed sufficient progress). NCLB's focus on the pass rate alone ignores the reality that some students could have passed a test administered on the first day of the school year, whereas others began the year so far behind that they were likely to fail the test even if they made excellent progress.

Another problem with the use of MCAS scores is that the desire to meet the standard can tempt schools to focus narrowly on tested material in ways that compromise the richness, depth and breadth of the curriculum. For example, schools may cut back on the arts, physical education, social studies, world language or science, since these areas are either not tested at all (in the case of the arts, physical education and world language) or are tested only in later grades (in the case of social studies and science).

In some cases, even the mathematics and English language arts curricula may be compromised, and schools may be tempted to teach to the test or even design student-specific programs based on the precise test questions answered incorrectly. We believe that comprehensive curricular reviews and coherent, educationally appropriate changes constitute a much more productive response to low test scores than piecemeal adjustments designed to push individual students over the passing threshold.

The failure of all of our schools to meet passing thresholds in all subjects and the high rates of failure among our low income students sends a strong signal that our schools have much work to do. We are pleased that Superintendent Rodriguez has committed to work this year on goals that should make a real difference in our elementary schools: creating an aligned, engaging and challenging elementary school curriculum, conducting a rigorous evaluation of the elementary school mathematics curriculum, and developing and implementing a plan to provide academic support for struggling students. We believe these goals illustrate a comprehensive approach for improving the quality of education in our schools and expect that next year's MCAS tests will provide good measures of the success of these and other such efforts.

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

In Our Opinion: School lines in Amherst

Hampshire Gazette
Editorial
October 8, 2009

A third of Amherst children now in kindergarten through fifth grade will attend a different school next year. Parents and guardians have a lot of questions about this redistricting - and tonight they'll get a chance to speak at a forum at Mark's Meadow School at 7 p.m.

The closing of Mark's Meadow next year is prompting the redrawing of district boundaries. The School Committee voted 5-0 last spring to close Mark's Meadow after extensive public discussion. Elementary enrollment in Amherst has dropped 17 percent in the last 10 years. The committee needed to find a way to save money, and Mark's Meadow is the smallest school.

We hope speakers tonight don't waste time going over this decision.

The other, more interesting reason for the redistricting is to balance out the percentages of children who come from low-income families (as defined by qualifying for free or reduced-price lunches) in the three remaining schools. The committee has decided that the current situation, in which half the students at Crocker Farm come from low-income homes, is no longer defensible.

We applaud the committee for making this tough decision. Children benefit from associating with peers who come from a variety of backgrounds. It isn't morally right to have a "poor school" and a "wealthy school." The committee's position that there should be one standard for all elementary schools deserves the community's support. Evening out the percentages will advance both equity and education.

But accomplishing these goals has, not surprisingly, led to trade-offs. And, also not surprisingly, these trade-offs have led to complaints.

The committee plans to end "open enrollment," under which parents can choose which elementary school their children attend, if they provide transportation. The clustering of students interested in particular languages would also end. These decisions are tied to the one to achieve economic balance.

Some parents just don't want their children to change schools. Some who live between Amity Street and Northampton Road don't want their children to have to move from Wildwood School to Crocker Farm, while those north of Amity stay at Wildwood. Some parents living on Leverett and East Leverett roads would prefer to move their children to Wildwood, along with the other students now at Mark's Meadow.

The proposed new map does not resemble a gerrymandered Congressional district, with one exception. In the East Hadley Road area, in the middle of the new Crocker Farm district, there is an island where children living in apartment complexes would be bused to Fort River and Wildwood schools.

This separation of apartment-dwellers from children living in nearby single-family houses, and their resulting longer bus rides, are not ideal.

But because there's a much higher rate of low incomes in the apartment complexes, sending these children to Crocker Farm would upset the economic balances. And children from this neighborhood already go to several different elementary schools.

Parents can get emotional when told their children have to change schools. It isn't easy to explain to a first-grader why her friend will be at a different place next year. Some parents and advocates of Spanish-speaking children don't want their bloc of students at Crocker Farm to be dispersed.

We hope that School Committee members and administrators will listen carefully to parents' concerns about redistricting tonight. And we hope that parents will respect the reasons why these changes are happening and the hard work that's gone into redrawing the map.

Elementary Redistricting Public Forums: Dates and Locations

Parents and community members are encouraged to attend one, or both, of two public forums regarding redistricting plans for the Amherst elementary schools. The dates, times and locations are as follows:

Thursday, October 8 at 7:00 p.m.--Marks Meadow Auditorium

Wednesday, October 14 at 7:00 p.m.--Crocker Farm Cafeteria

The current proposed (somewhat revised) map is as follows:

Forum Thursday on Amherst redistricting

Hampshire Gazette
By NICK GRABBE
Tuesday, October 6, 2009

AMHERST - It isn't easy to move a third of Amherst's elementary students to different schools without upsetting some parents.

But the redistricting process, to take place next year, got support Friday from two key people: Superintendent Alberto Rodriguez and Select Board member Alisa Brewer, who was on the School Committee for five years.

Meanwhile, the public will have a chance to speak out about the proposal this week. The first public forum on the plan will take place at Mark's Meadow School Thursday at 7 p.m., and another will be at Crocker Farm on Oct. 14 at 7 p.m. The School Committee is scheduled to vote on the plan Oct. 27.

Speaking at a meeting of the committee charged with redrawing the district borders, Rodriguez said the process has been "purely data-driven and empirical" in its effort to equalize the percentages of children from low-income families in each school. The committee also has taken bus safety into account, and the changes "will disrupt communities as little as possible," he said.

"The more variables you throw into the equation, the harder it is to draw maps that are equitable and fair," he said.

Brewer said that equity should be the top priority-not the amount of time on buses, how many children have to change schools, or how easy it is for families to get there.

"This is going to happen, and we're going to make it work as best we can," she said.

The prompt for the redistricting is the closure of Mark's Meadow School next year. The proposed new map has mostly clear boundaries, with the exception of the East Hadley Road area. Right in the middle of the new Crocker Farm School district, 28 children living at The Boulders would attend Wildwood School, while about 47 at Mill Valley Estates and Hollister Apartments would attend Fort River.

Because many of these children are from low-income families and would be bused out of their neighborhoods, the plan "has the greatest impact with precisely the children we're trying to help," said James Oldham of East Hadley Road. He believes there should be a public forum.

These low-income families "are being set up as one population being treated differently from everyone else, and without that public meeting, this should not go forward," Oldham said.

Margaret Burland, of Mill Valley Estates, said children living there tend to form friendships only within their schools. "To change their school is huge," she said. "It's a bigger deal than with wealthier kids."

School Committee member Irv Rhodes said these parents "feel they're picked on, so we owe it to them to be as clear as possible about why this is occurring."

Lately, the map has been changed only to extend the Wildwood district to include all of Strong Street and some houses on High Street, because of transportation concerns.

Enrollment figures show that there are 41 fewer students in the elementary schools this year than had been projected.

UPDATE: Nick Grabbe has just alerted me to a change that occurred during the editing. Jim Oldham's quote was actually "There should be a public forum there, he said." He was meaning that public forums should take place in the apartment complexes off of East Hadley Road.