Creative thinking in the classroom

It’s music to my ears. House Bill 393, an act to establish a commission to create the Creative Challenge Index, was favorably released by the Massachusetts Legislature’s Joint Education Committee in January. Rep. Dan Bosley, Chairman of the House Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies, and lead sponsor of the bill, said “The Creative Challenge Index will establish incentives for schools to foster creative skills through arts education and other creative educational opportunities.”

According to a coalition of researchers, 81 percent of corporate leaders in America say that “creativity is an essential skill for the 21st-century workforce.” In addition to creativity, these business leaders look for such skills as collaboration, problem solving, critical thinking, and oral communication. As the authors of the bill described:

We have proposed a bill that creates a new measure of accountability for schools in Massachusetts. With the Creative Challenge Index, a commission – comprising legislators, and business and community leaders working with the Department of Education and education leaders – would establish an index to measure how many opportunities schools provide for students to engage in the practice of creative work – taking a project from inspiration to revision to fruition. Through the index, schools can be rewarded for creative opportunities.

Schools that provide opportunities for creative work in the arts, music, drama, and dance would rise in the Index. So would schools that engage students in a broad range of creative activities, such as science fair projects, debate club, fashion design, filmmaking, or architecture.

Anita Walker, executive director of the Massachusetts Cultural Council, said, “We are excited to see this innovative piece of legislation move forward. Once in place, the Creative Challenge Index will help put Massachusetts in a leadership position in developing creative minds for the creative economy.”

Dan Hunter, executive director of that Massachusetts Advocates for the Arts, Sciences and Humanities, added, “Creativity and innovation must be a Massachusetts priority-in our schools, in our businesses and in our communities.”

The Boston Globe published a piece on the bill which can be viewed by clicking here.

This notion of pushing the arts in public schools derives from the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. In Chapter V, Section II, entitled, the Encouragement of Literature, etc., it reads:

Wisdom, and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused generally among the body of the people, being necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties; and as these depend on spreading the opportunities and advantages of education in the various parts of the country, and among the different orders of the people, it shall be the duty of legislatures and magistrates, in all future periods of this commonwealth, to cherish the interests of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries of them; especially the university at Cambridge, public schools and grammar schools in the towns; to encourage private societies and public institutions, rewards and immunities, for the promotion of agriculture, arts, sciences, commerce, trades, manufactures, and a natural history of the country; to countenance and inculcate the principles of humanity and general benevolence, public and private charity, industry and frugality, honesty and punctuality in their dealings; sincerity, good humor, and all social affections, and generous sentiments among the people.

This piece is a refreshing change from the litany of legislation which encourages “teaching to tests” at the expense of the arts.

Tough times ahead …. again

It’s like a broken record. Year after year, town officials clamor about rising fixed costs – salary increases, health insurance, pension expenses, and utilities. And people are told repeatedly that there are funding gaps to close. This year is no different and, in fact, it is shaping up to be the worse budget season yet. As usual, the scenarios are not pretty. Based on preliminary estimates, it will cost the Franklin School Department more than $4.1 million to maintain the current level of school services in the fiscal year that begins July 1.

However, town officials are projecting that only $600,000 to $800,000 in new revenue will be available to the schools. That leaves a $3.3 million funding gap that will not be easy to close without what Superintendent Wayne Ogden calls “seriously painful cuts,” particularly to teaching staff who comprise 90% of our annual budget.

How did we get to $800,000 you ask? If you look at the budget documents prepared by the Town Administrator, the picture becomes a little clearer. You can view the TA’s documents by clicking here. The projections show that Franklin will receive $2,248,286 in additional Chapter 70 aid, thanks to the tireless efforts of our State Representative James Vallee. There is $1,727,323 in new revenue from the tax levy, which brings the total to approximately $4 million in new revenue to the town. That’s the plus side. On the minus side, the projections reveal that local receipts (excise taxes, et al) are down by $718,387, and last year the town took $1,000,000 from stabilization and $260,000 from overlay (which, we are told, will not be available in FY09). In addition to these figures, the last page of the documents include a list of other rising expenses such as debt, pension increases, Tri-County increases, etc. which total an additional $949,297 in reductions. So if you take those figures out of the mix, it’s down to about $1,000,000 in gross revenues available to the town.

The Milford Daily News published an editorial in its February 17, 2008 issue entitled Cities, towns need help. In it, the paper recognized the budget issues and factors underlying these woes:

The financial outlook for cities and towns is worse than it’s been in a long time, and there’s no relief in sight….

Costs for health care, energy and other municipal expenses are rising and difficult to control. A weak economy has slowed the new development that feeds local coffers. More and more communities are bumping against the limits on property tax hikes built into Proposition 2 1/2.

Last year, Franklin was fortunate to avoid many cuts by passing its first override. In addition, in the past few years, the School Committee has avoided further cuts by generating additional revenues through the adoption of school choice, and the imposition of bus, athletic, building use, and activity fees. We have also relied on generous increases in State aid and support from Parent Communication Councils (PCCs) and booster organizations. Currently, we are introducing programs for advertising on athletic fields and an Ednets website that will provide additional funding sources. Among some of the other solutions is a proposal from State Senator Scott Brown to distribute approximately $450 million in lottery revenues to Massachusetts communities. For Franklin, this would be an additional $1,480,044 in revenues for FY09. Senator Brown’s proposal is outlined here.

As an interesting side note, if you would like to see how Franklin compares with other communities in Massachusetts, Gordon Jamieson and Christopher R. Wren, two Arlington residents, have compared 2002 and proposed 2009 local aid for the 351 municipalities in the Commonwealth.  They have overlaid their results on a Google map. You can view their work by clicking here.

Last month, the Masschusetts Taxpayers Foundation issued a report on the state of finances in the Commonwealth which can be viewed by clicking here.  MTF’s 37th annual analysis indicates that there are a variety of factors placing ever greater pressure on the finances of most cities and towns with little relief in sight.

Finally, there is a discussion of this topic on Towncommon.net which you can view by clicking here.

No matter how you look at it, we are in for yet another bumpy ride. The School Committee will be discussing the budget scenarios beginning on February 26. We urge you to tune in and follow the progress of the budget discussions that will impact your school system.

Thoughts on education in America

Here is some good food for thought as we enter into budget discussions on February 26 and begin to set priorities for the Franklin Public Schools.

This week’s issue of TIME magazine features a cover story on “How to Make Better Teachers.”  It begins with the premise that American public schools are struggling to attract and retain high-quality teachers.  It then reviews options for paying teachers for performance.

 Also, included in the issue is a Voter’s Guide to Education.  Most education policy, as well as roughly 91% of the funding, comes from the state and local level. But as No Child Left Behind showed, a change in federal policy can still have a big impact. The article highlights four K-12 issues in which the next President could make a difference:

No Child Left Behind
The sweeping legislation championed by President Bush, which makes federal funding dependent on mandatory annual tests, is up for reauthorization. Who would raise their hand in support?

Vouchers
All the candidates favor some form of school choice — Democrats prefer “public-school choice” — but not all advocate vouchers, which help parents pay for private schools

Merit Pay
Performance-based pay aims to reward outstanding teachers and give incentives for improvement. How it should be determined and distributed is a big sticking point

Longer School Day or Year
Children may enjoy a long summer holiday — a relic of America’s agrarian past — but many experts say that more time in class would bring American students closer to their peers abroad

Among the text, the TIME article suggests viewing the documentary Two Million Minutes which compares how American students measure up to those in India and China.  The movie recognizes that regardless of nationality, as soon as a student completes the 8th grade, the clock starts ticking.  From that very moment the child has approximately?

• Two Million Minutes until high school graduation…
• Two Million Minutes to build their intellectual foundation…
• Two Million Minutes to prepare for college and ultimately career…
• Two Million Minutes to go from a teenager to an adult?

How a student spends their Two Million Minutes — in class, at home studying, playing sports, working, sleeping, socializing or just goofing off — will affect their economic prospects for the rest of their lives.

This film takes a deeper look at how the three superpowers of the 21st Century — China, India and the United States — are preparing their students for the future.  Jay Matthews, an education writer for the Washington Post, shared his views on the film here.

You can view the trailer to the film by clicking on the image below:

Defining supplement not supplant

Franklin’s proposed policy on donations of non-budgeted funds (policy KCD) is the subject of two prior posts (#1 and #2).  In this post, we address the supplement not supplant langauage.

The proposed policy would encourage and welcome future giving, but only to the extent that the donations supplement rather than supplant – take the place of — the operational budget. The “supplement not supplant” language mirrors federal education laws which dictate that school districts may use federal funds only to supplement and, to the extent practical, increase the level of funds that would, in the absence of the federal funds, be made available from non-Federal sources for the education of participating students.

On the local level, under the proposed policy, once the School Committee has set its budget for operations based on available public funding sources, it would not accept donations targeted to preserve particular academic programs or operations. For instance, if the budget allocations provided by the town, state, and federal governments forced the School Committee to eliminate a foreign language offering at any level, among other programmatic cuts, donations from private sources to reinstate that program would not be accepted. That is, the School Committee would not permit a practice where advocates for particular disciplines can go out and raise money, while other disciplines which are no less worthy don’t get supported because they don’t have wealthy benefactors.

The School Committee has, and will continue to, accept donations for supplemental services such as field trips, cameras, Smart Boards, and other services, items or supplies that are not tied to the core academic responsibilities of the district. These are things that supplement, rather than supplant, the budget.

For further reading on this topic, I urge you to consider the following:

The National Association for the Education of Young Children defines the phrase “supplement not supplant” as follows:

A requirement in law that a grant recipient may not use those grant funds to replace other sources of funding. For example, the statute may state that federal funds may not supplant any local, state or private education funding sources. The NAEYC glossary of financial terms can be viewed by clicking here.

Tennessee published a “supplement/supplant” definition which can be viewed by clicking here. The definition from that document states:

Under the Federal “supplement not supplant” requirement, the Tennessee Department of Education and Tennessee LEAs may use Federal funds only to supplement and, to the extent practical, increase the level of funds that would, in the absence of the Federal funds, be made available from non-Federal sources for the education of participating students. In no case may a school district use Federal program funds to supplant—take the place of—funds from non-Federal sources.

Supplement not supplant provisions generally operate the same way for all programs. Supplanting is presumed to occur in the following instances:

• The local educational agency or school district uses Federal funds to provide services that it is required to make available under other Federal, State or local law.
• The agency or school district uses Federal funds to provide services that it provided with non-Federal funds in the immediate prior years.
• The agency or school district uses Title I funds to provide services for eligible childrenthat it provides with non-Federal funds for other children. The law does permit agencies or districts to exclude State and local funds expended for any school that operates as a schoolwide program school under section 1114, and for any school or school attendance area as part of a State or local program that is very similar to Title I (comparable program provision).

The Federal government requirements for “supplement not supplant” are set out here.

Continuing the dialog on policy KCD

In the continuing debate over the proposed policy on the donation of non-budgeted funds, I thought it would be helpful to provide you with additional resources on the topic. We have assembled a list of articles which discuss the topic, which, at best, can be described as a delicate balancing act. You can get an index of these articles and other documents of interest by clicking here. This is a continuing discussion from the original blog post on the proposed policy which can be viewed by clicking here.

In the article entitled The New Fundraising from the American School Board Journal, the author discusses school foundations, private fundraising, and whether they are compromising equity or saving public schools.

In the article entitled Gathering Storm from the American School Board Journal, the author highlights the soaring costs in school budgets nationwide, driven by increases in fixed costs such as health insurance, pensions, and new regulations. Not to be missed in this discussion is the Massachusetts Department of Education’s (DOE) recent report on fiscal conditions for schools which can be viewed by clicking here. In that report, the DOE noted that:

Over the past decade and a half, the Commonwealth has moved steadily to increase expectations on school districts, schools, teachers, and students to meet the demands of a global economy. It has also added fiscal resources to support reaching these expectations, increasing state aid for education by almost 11 percent per year throughout the 1990s. Recent fiscal challenges at the state level, however, coupled by rising fixed costs and shifting enrollment patterns for districts, have combined to create substantial challenges for districts in sustaining the momentum of education reform.

In the article entitled A Balancing Act from the American School Board Journal, the author discusses how school districts can find the right balance between corporate support and commercial infringement when dealing with the issue of advertising in schools.

Finally, we have included some articles from the Lakeshore Weekly News and Boston Globe which address the issues at stake. In the article entitled Public Schools, Private Donations, the author warns that:

The success of public schools should not rely on private donations. Class divisions already exist in public schools. Communities that cannot rely on parents’ personal income to subsidize their students should not be punished for it. To further stratify success is to go down a road that will rot the public school system.

In an article entitled What Taxes Don’t Cover, the author discusses private fundraising in Massachusetts’ schools, and offers the following:

But some education specialists say public schools’ increasing reliance on private donations dilutes efforts to increase school funding and widens the gap between schools in wealthy and poor communities. Arnold Fege , director of public engagement and advocacy for the Washington, D.C.-based Public Education Network, which tracks private fund-raising efforts for public schools, said budget pressures brought on by the advent of high-stakes testing under the federal No Child Left Behind law has pushed parent groups and education foundations to intensify their fund-raising.

“It’s a surrogate form of tax revenue that creates huge equity problems,” he said. “Schools become a charity rather than a public service,” he said.

You can read another Boston Globe report by clicking here. Also, the New York Times did a report on deep pocketed partners for public schools which can be viewed by clicking here. PTO Today magazine published an article on the topic, raising questions about the equity of private donations. It can be viewed by clicking here.

All of this brings me back to the bottom line purpose of the proposed policy, which is to encourage supplementation of school budgets, but discourage funds to supplant the operations decisions. This type of policy is particularly important in tough fiscal times. In cash-strapped school systems around the state, it is common for parents to raise money for extracurricular activities, equipment, and extra supplies. But when the fundraising turns to an academic, rather than extracurricular, program, many public school educators feel the line has been crossed as to what is acceptable. Without a policy such as this, advocates for particular disciplines can go out and raise money, while other disciplines which are no less worthy don’t get supported because they don’t have wealthy benefactors.

Property tax study

An interesting report from the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy was published recently. Entitled The Property Tax-School Funding Dilemma, the study includes a comprehensive review of recent research on both the property tax and school funding, and summarizes case studies of seven states—California, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, and Texas, the majority of them heavily reliant on property tax revenues to fund schools. Among these states Massachusetts ranks the highest and California the lowest, according to the respective property tax relief and school funding principles presented in the report.

The bottom line from the study warns that lawmakers shouldn’t wildly cut taxes across the board, if you want to have good schools. Here are some more tidbits about the study from the abtract:

Property taxation and school funding are closely linked in the United States, with nearly half of all property tax revenue used for public elementary and secondary education. There is an active policy debate across the country regarding the degree to which public schools should be funded with property tax dollars. Some policy makers and analysts call for reduced reliance on property taxation and increased reliance on state funding; others claim that the property tax is a critical ingredient in effective local government. School funding is no less controversial, and nearly every state has dealt with school funding litigation and court mandates at least once over the last several decades.

States experiencing taxpayer revolts among homeowners are tempted to reduce reliance on the property tax to fund schools. But a more targeted approach can provide property tax relief and also improve state funding for public education, according to this new report by Daphne A. Kenyon, a visiting fellow at the Lincoln Institute. “Those who have tried to reduce property taxes and improve school performance at the same time have not met with much success,” according to Kenyon.

One objective of the report is to provide information helpful to state policy makers and others who are grappling with the twin challenges of court mandates regarding school funding and constituent pressure to lower property taxes. Another objective is to correct some common misconceptions through a critical analysis of nine myths regarding school funding litigation, property tax characteristics, and the state role in funding education.

While there is no one-size-fits-all solution, the report recommends addressing property taxes and school funding separately.

The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy conducts research and policy evaluations, holds conferences, provides education and training, supports demonstration projects, and publishes books and reports on policy issues relating to land. The Institute seeks to improve the quality of public debate and decisions in the use, regulation, and taxation of land by integrating theory and practice, and providing a nonpartisan forum for the discussion of related issues.

Education secretariat approved by House and Senate

The Senate voted to approve Gov. Deval Patrick’s plan to create an Executive Office of Education, one day after the House did the same. Supporters of the education plan say it will give the governor more control over education agencies, better coordinate education efforts, and put a single education secretary in charge of the education spectrum, from early education through higher education.

The bill would end the practice of having commissioners of the three education agencies – Early Education and Care, Higher Education and K-12 Education – serve on boards of their counterparts, instead allowing the secretary to serve as an overarching liaison between them. It would also increase the membership of the Board of Education from nine to 11 members. To view the full text of the legislation, click here. To view video of the Governor’s announcement regarding the legislation, click here.

Keeping to his vision to offer a world-class education for all children in Massachusetts, Governor Patrick filed the legislation on January 10, 2008 to reorganize the state’s education system by creating a cabinet-level secretary of education. “There is no greater gateway to opportunity and success than a first-rate education. This reorganization, along with the work of the Readiness Project will guide us through the next phase of education reform to ensure all of our children are ready to compete in the global economy,” said Governor Patrick. “A cabinet-level secretary of education will help us move forward.”

“This is a bold move by a bold leader who recognizes that continuous improvement in education is critical if we are going to compete in the global economy,” said Dana Mohler-Faria, the Governor’s Special Advisor on Education and President of Bridgewater State College.

“This proposal is the result of months of cooperative work between Governor Patrick and legislative leaders and I am pleased with the results. I am hopeful that the creation of an education Secretary will help better coordinate our efforts to promote greater educational achievement in the Commonwealth and encourage more cohesion and increased accountability in the system,” said Speaker of the House Salvatore DiMasi. “This proposal strikes an appropriate balance between maintaining stability in our schools and positioning ourselves to meet the immediate challenges before us. I look forward to working with the Governor to pass this reorganization.”

Critics say it’s a power grab that will unnecessarily add administrative costs.

Senate Minority Leader Richard Tisei said the bill would “turn back the clock” and begin “stacking the board of education with special interests.”

Republican senators repeatedly cited the governor’s appointment of prominent MCAS critic Ruth Kaplan to the board – Tisei called it a “slap in the face” – as evidence the governor is seeking to undermine current education standards.

The plan will cost about $1.5 million to implement, largely accounting for new personnel costs. Although the reorganization is officially scheduled to take effect on March 10, it was unclear when the office would be up and running.

Citizen rights to speak at government meetings

In the past few weeks, there has been talk about restrictions placed on citizen participation on local meetings of government bodies (Town Council, School Committee, etc.). This provides a good opportunity to review the rights and rules surrounding participation in public meetings.

The School Committee values public participation and input from the community on issues related to the education of our children.  Our policy on public participation in meetings can be viewed by clicking here.  In addition, we have a policy directed to community involvement in decisionmaking which can be viewed by clicking here.  Finally, we have a policy on public complaints which can be viewed by clicking here.

Aside from School Committee policy, the Massachusetts Open Meeting Law states that all meetings of a governmental body shall be open to the public and any person shall be permitted to attend any meeting except as otherwise provided by this section. However, the law further states that “[n]o person shall address a public meeting of a governmental body without permission of the presiding officer at such meeting, and all persons shall, at the request of such presiding officer, be silent.” G.L. c. 39, § 23C. In other words, the Open Meeting Law provides no general right for a member of the public to address a governmental body.

A recent case from the United States Appeals Court for the First Circuit in Boston — known as Curnin v. Town of Egremont — considered the issue of a citizen’s right to speak at a meeting of a government body. In that case, the plaintiffs sued defendants, the town, its town meeting moderator, and the town’s selectmen, contending that their First Amendment rights had been violated because they were not allowed to speak at the town meetings called per G.L. c. 39, § 9. The Curnins first argued that Egremont’s town meeting qualifies as a designated public forum for two reasons. First, they argue that Egremont’s town meetings must be public forums because they are open to the public, take place on government property, and involve important matters of public interest. Second, they argue by analogy that other courts have held that municipal-level public meetings are designated public forums and therefore town meetings are as well. They further argue that even if the town meeting is not considered a designated public forum but only a limited public forum, Egremont’s policy cannot satisfy the corresponding level of scrutiny.

The Curnins made a second and separate series of First Amendment arguments under the rubric of viewpoint-related discrimination. They asserted that the categorical preclusion of those who are not town meeting members from the right to speak is a form of viewpoint discrimination. They also argued that Egremont’s policy of letting non-voters speak only at the discretion of the moderator is unconstitutional. They further argued that this discretion raises the prospect of possible viewpoint discrimination by the moderator in his decision to recognize certain people and not others.

In ruling against the plaintiffs, the court ruled that the First Amendment did not give non-legislators the right to speak at meetings of deliberating legislative bodies, regardless of whether they owned property or paid taxes. Moreover, the court of appeals rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the town engaged in viewpoint discrimination and that the First Amendment was violated by the discretion vested in the town meeting moderator to recognize speakers, including individuals who were not members of the town meeting.

In so ruling, the court cited language from the United States Supreme Court that noted:

The Constitution does not grant to members of the public generally a right to be heard by public bodies making decisions of policy. . . . Policymaking organs in our system of government have never operated under a constitutional constraint requiring them to afford every interested member of the public an opportunity to present testimony before any policy is adopted. . . . Public officials at all levels of government daily make policy decisions based only on the advice they decide they need and choose to hear. To recognize a constitutional right to participate directly in government policymaking would work a revolution in existing government practices.

Minnesota State Bd. for Community Colleges v. Knight, 465 U.S. 271, 283-84, 104 S. Ct. 1058, 79 L. Ed. 2d 299 (1984). In Knight, the Court rejected First Amendment claims by plaintiffs that they had a right to force officers of the state, acting in an official capacity, to listen to them in a particular formal setting. Id. at 283.

The Franklin School Committee often invites public comment on issues on agenda items, and if not on the agenda, during citizen’s comments. The basic structure of our meetings is described here. However, those comments are subject to some legal constraints which are addressed in the discretion of the Chairman in the role of the moderator. The moderator is charged with facilitating an efficient and orderly meeting. As the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court put it: “A moderator must make judgments on the spot. He must deal with disputants without the protective formality of a judicial proceeding, and he must contend with voters who are not necessarily experienced in the law or conversant with town meeting procedures.” MacKeen v. Town of Canton, 379 Mass. 514, 399 N.E.2d 22, 24 (Mass. 1980).

Most importantly, comments at meetings must not address matters that interfere with employee rights, or which are matters for executive session. Personnel matters related to reputation, discipline, character, or complaints against an employee are normally closed, although the employee may insist they be open. G.L. c. 39, § 23B(2). Dismissal proceedings are also normally closed, although the employee may insist they be open. G.L. c. 3 9, § 23B(2). Bartell v. Wellesley Housing Authority, 28 Mass. App. Ct. 306, 550 N.E.2d 883 (1990).

If citizens wish to comment on matters related to reputation, discipline, character, or complaints against an employee(s), those are normally closed to the public, and the speaker would be found out of order and asked to remain silent.

That, in a nutshell, covers the rights and responsibilities surrounding citizen participation in government meetings. Please share any comments you may have by posting below. I have included some links to other cases from around the country on this topic that may be of interest to you:

• Piscottano v. Town of Somers, 396 F. Supp. 2d 187, 193-94 (D. Conn. 2005) (resident concerned about town official’s behavior prevented from speaking during public comment portion of Board of Selectmen meeting);
• Mesa v. White, 197 F.3d 1041, 1043 (10th Cir. 1999) (former county commissioner prevented from speaking during public comment period of county commission meeting);
• Scroggins v. City of Topeka, 2 F. Supp. 2d 1362, 1365-66 (D. Kan. 1998) (resident cut off while attempting to criticize mayoral appointment during public comment portion of city council meeting).