As the Worcester community opens its school year, I hope that each one of us will pause to consider our students, our schools, and our community.  I hope that we will pause to ask ourselves what are the best expectations that we have of our students and to consider what we individually and as members of the community as a whole can do to help them achieve those expectations.

I firmly believe that our schools reflect the values of our community and our expectations for its future.  Supporting our schools and our children means being aware of and engaged in the issues that affect their well-being.  It means fulfilling our responsibility to ensure that excellence in education is available to all students enrolled in public schools and that they are prepared for success in college, career, and life.  The schools where our children go to learn together can be a powerful force in shaping our community.  They are an initial spot where our children learn the skills that will carry them through both their private and public lives. It is vital that we together take the steps to assure that what they are learning is relevant to address the significant challenges of this century.

Within the walls of our schools our children will also learn the habits of mind and conscience that will affect their way of being in the world for many years.  As a community it is incumbent upon us to hold ourselves accountable to assure that those lessons are ones provided in an atmosphere of caring and support, where each child is valued for his or her unique constellation of gifts and the best future that lies before them.  This is not just for their individual well-being, but for ours as a community.  That best future is not only theirs, but ours.

As WEC moves into high gear with its 2010-2011 work, look to us to:

• strive to inform and engage our community about the critical issues and important opportunities facing our public schools and the community learners of which they are composed through a series of Community Briefings and informational documents on important topics
• to work with partner organizations in education, advocacy and youth development to align our work in service of our children and our schools
• to collaborate with colleagues in developing parent and other community leaders to support our students and schools through the Parent Leadership Network

We are in the midst of WEC’s first full year of operation.  Like our students, teachers, parents, and administrators we are filled with anticipation about what this year will bring.

Jennifer Davis-Carey Ed.D

In the spring of 2010, the Worcester Public Schools were notified that two elementary schools were placed on Level 4 status for failing to meet expectations as determined several indicators including the previous 4-years of results from state testing (MCAS) and the State’s new growth model.  As a result, the District was required by the State to take specified corrective actions and to develop a plan for improvement.   The following post, written by Dr. Jeff Mulqueen, the Chief Academic Officer for our district, describes work that has been completed and that is currently in progress at Union Hill and Chandler Elementary Schools.

Union Hill Elementary School and Chandler Elementary School were designated as underperforming schools (Level-4) by the Massachusetts State Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.  As such, a prescribed process was implemented to meet obligations described in An Act Relative to the Achievement Gap for the purpose of improving school performance and student outcomes.  Within thirty days of a school’s designation, the Superintendent is required to convene Local Stakeholder Groups to solicit recommendations that would be considered for inclusion into the improvement plan of each school.  Each Local Stakeholder Group was composed of not more than 13 individuals and included designated memberships.  Among those areas designated are representatives from:  the State Department of Education, School Committee, Union, School Administration, School Teaching Staff, Parents, Social Services, Workforce Development Agencies, Department of Higher Education or Early Childhood Education, and Community.  The first of six weekly meetings was held on May 12, 2010.

The Eleven Essential Conditions for School Effectiveness (Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, June 17, 2009) framed the work of the Local Stakeholder Groups.  These eleven essential conditions address leadership, district supports, instructional systems, resources, and students’ social, emotional, and health needs.  Members of the Local Stakeholder Groups brought a broad background of knowledge, relevant experiences, and diverse ideas to the table.  Chandler’s Local Stakeholder Group formulated over 80 recommendations and Union Hill’s Local Stakeholder Group formulated over 100 recommendations.

Recommendations of the Local Stakeholder Groups were provided to the Union Hill Elementary School learning community for review and comment on June 21^st ,  to the Chandler Elementary School learning community for review and comment on June 22^nd, and to the Worcester Public Schools School Committee on June 24^th.  The next phase of this work provided a 30 day window for the Superintendent to consider recommendations of the Local Stakeholder Group for incorporation into each school’s Turnaround Plan.  Superintendent Boone discussed the schools’ Turnaround Plans at the July 22^nd School Committee Meeting.  A Turnaround Plan provides a framework for school improvement and is required to be submitted to the Massachusetts State Department of Elementary and Secondary Education for each Level-4 school.

The school district is obligated to engage in negotiations with the Teachers’ Union to resolve issues related to contract agreements.  This process is underway and suspends the 30 day timeline (stops the clock) given to the Superintendent to complete her Turnaround Plan.  Once contractual issues are resolved, the 30 day timeline resumes and the Superintendent will finalize the Turnaround Plan.

The format of the Turnaround Plan is prescribed by the Massachusetts State Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.  The Eleven Essential Conditions for School Effectiveness, which guided the work of the Local Stakeholder Groups, are aligned to 4 categories:  1)  School leadership, 2)  Tiered instruction, adequate learning time and additional support, 3) Students’ social, emotional, and health needs, and 4)  Strategic use of resources.  Dr. Boone incorporated the various recommendations of the Local Stakeholder Group and they are distributed among the 4 categories.

Dr. Boone, Principal Morse, Principal Eressy, and other members of Dr. Boone’s senior leadership team worked closely together to construct School Turnaround Plans for Union Hill Elementary School and Chandler Elementary School.  Collaboration strengthened each school’s plan and resulted in substantial fortification of the structures supporting student achievement.  Despite the similarities in the structure, each school’s plan includes some unique attributes, particularly with regard to partnerships.  Additional distinguishing features will be included as the Turnaround Plan is reshaped into the Redesign Plan.  Each phase of this process brings greater detail and distinction to the school’s plan.

The Redesign Plan is constructed under the leadership of the principal.  This work will involve at least half of the school’s teachers.  Additionally, Principal Morse will reach out to members of the Local Stakeholders Group and other partners to support this important endeavor.

Feedback continues to be solicited from the learning community of each school and is important to Dr. Boone as she continues her work on the Turnaround Plan.

The continued support and interest of the members of the Local Stakeholder Group and broader school and district communities are appreciated and important supports for the ongoing work leading to improved performance of Union Hill Elementary School, Chandler Elementary School, and our students.

Jeffrey J. Mulqueen, Ed.D.
Chief Academic Officer, Worcester Public Schools
mulqueenj@worc.k12.ma.us

Dr. Lorretta Holloway, Associate Professor of English at Framingham State College and a member of the Massachusetts team that reviewed and made recommendations on the Core offers her thoughts on the standard in this post.

What is the Real Core of the Common Core?

The public debate about whether the board of Elementary and Secondary Education made the right decision about replacing the Math and ELA Massachusetts Frameworks with the Common Core, a national curriculum standard initiated by the National Governors Association, has raised the concern that our state standards will somehow be cheapened by being aligned with national standards.  A further concern has been raised that their adoption was an attempt to appease teachers’ unions by getting rid of the MCAS test.  However, in a conversation with my neighbor he noted that something was missing in the news reports: a comparison between the two standards or any examples of differences between the two.

My neighbor reads all the papers, but paid particular attention to an article on the common core in the Telegram and Gazette because I was quoted in it.   “Still,” he said to my husband, “I know there is controversy, but I do not know what the controversy is about because no one has really set up what the changes mean.”  He is absolutely correct.  In this post, I will share some of my perspectives about the common core.  For full disclosure, I need to be clear that I was on the ELA team that reviewed both documents and voted in favor of the Common Core; this means that I obviously favored the Core over the existing frameworks.  However, the goal in this blog is not to convert anyone to the “Common Core team,” but to provide information about what is going to happen and to change the emphasis of the public discussion.  Some background information is in order.

The Common Core State Standards Initiative was begun by the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) to develop a set of national standards.  The reason for this effort was the same that of our state in the development of the curriculum frameworks.  There was a consensus that grade level work should mean something consistent nationwide (just as Massachusetts decided that there should grade-level standards should have some consistency statewide) and that there needed to be more work to make our students competitive, not just against each other but in the global market place. For more basic information about the Common Core, go to the Common Core website at http://www.corestandards.org/.

But let’s get to some clarity about what this change means to us and address some of the topics that people are talking about.

“It’s All about the Money, Isn’t It?”—Many people believe that DESE would have voted for the Common Core no matter what any of the panel members or study groups said because the federal government has waved the possibility of money before us like a boat before a drowning man.  I am not going to comment on that except to say that there is money involved.  Race to the Top money is connected to the adaptation of the Common Core.  It may have even made a difference to the state’s ability to make it to the next round of deliberations.  However, I can say that this was not the deciding factor for the group with whom I worked.

The Core will be an “average” of all the state standards—For some reason, people believe that because we are looking to develop national standards, these standards will somehow mix all the standards together, developing something better for states that do not have very high standards and lowering the standards of the state that do.  This is not the case.  Much of the original version of the core looked to the top state standards as models.  Then, through the past academic year, the Core was revised to include many of the key topics that our local frameworks teams have been working on and thought were essential.  As a result, 90% of the Common Core standards are aligned to revised Massachusetts drafts of the ELA and Math frameworks.

Why change?—Many question the need to change if there is so much overlap; however, many agree with what Mitchell Chester, the Commissioner of Education wrote in his July 16 report to the Board of DESE, “the Common Core Standards are more rigorous, coherent, and focused than the California and the Massachusetts standards.”  A report by WestEd prepared for the Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education (MBAE) states that the Common Core Standards tend “to include a slightly higher percentage of standards that reflect higher levels of cognitive demand.”  Educators and people in the business community have been trying to figure out ways to insure development of critical and creative thinking by our students in our schools.  Many people see the Common Core Standards as step towards this goal.

There are many other issues that this whole discussion raises including what will happen to MCAS (nothing right now), what are the specific next steps for the state, and how well do these standards coincide with college and career readiness plans across the state.  These will be addressed in future posts on the topic.

Dr. Lorretta Holloway

Participants and guests reflected upon the academic generation of reform and the new phase of work ahead of us.

Dr. Robert Antonucci, current president of Fitchburg State College and past Commissioner of Education spoke of the issues facing the Commonwealth that led to the passage of the 1993 Education Reform legislation including the need to equalize funding across districts by the creation of the foundation budget, to provide assessments of student learning, and to begin to lay the groundwork for the cultivation of a skilled workforce of the 21^st century.

Kevin O’Sullivan, president of MassBiomed Initiatives and past member of the Massachusetts House of Representatives recalled the politics surrounding the bill’s passage.  He also considered from his current vantage point the fruits that Education Reform yielded in the form of graduates prepared to make meaningful contributions in a knowledge and innovation based economy.

Deputy Commissioner for Elementary and Secondary Education, Karla Brooks Baehr spoke of the recently enacted Act to Address the Achievement Gap, commonly known as Education Reform II.  She noted aspects of the new law that support innovation in schools, support as well as accountability for underperforming schools, and the push to address those needs of students burdened by poverty through complementary services.

Secretary of Education Paul Reville spoke more broadly of the need to attend to the ongoing development of literacy, of the critical importance of pre-kindergarten experiences as a foundation for later learning, and for the view of education as a continuum from pre-school to college and career.  He also addressed the clear links among sound public education, long term economic development, and community stability.

Thomas DelPrete, Professor of Education at Clark and Director of the Hiatt Center for Urban Education identified the opportunities presented in Education Reform II to advance implementation of best practices to foster educational attainment among students.  He also considered the tools and resources required to enhance and support teachers as professional and to continue to support the entry and retention of talented, enthusiastic, people into the profession.

Superintendent of the Worcester Public Schools, Melinda Boone wove the panelists’ remarks together and shed light on the challenges faced by our district and on the opportunities to address them presented by federal and state reform initiatives.  She also noted that the ability to thoughtfully mine the wealth of data generated by the requirements of reform offered a distinct opportunity for the district, the schools and community, as well as families to respond nimbly to existing and emerging strengths and needs at the district, school, and individual level.

Read our mission…