Progressive Democrats of Cambridge - DFA - Issues - Education

Peace Rocks

Wed, 16 May 2007 10:42:36 -0700

When I was in college, I volunteered for an innovative educational program called PeaceGames. PeaceGames teaches grade and middle school children about the principles of nonviolence, and practical lessons in getting along peacefully. In addition to the lessons on nonviolence, PeaceGames includes a mentorship/tutoring component. When I was a volunteer, I wore two hats: one as an assistant volunteer teacher on nonviolence, and another as a tutor to third graders who needed help reading. It was a great, rewarding way to help out the Boston public schools.

In about a week, the group will host an exciting event called PeaceRocks Boston: May 22, 2007 at the Roxy in Boston. The event will have some great music - James Montgomery, Bill Paxton, Rashida Jones, and Donal Logue, among others - and a silent auction.

It should be a great event - check it out!

I'm now serving on an advisory board for an upcoming PeaceGames technology initiative, although only in a volunteer capacity for the time being.

Greta, Deval, and educating the whole child

Thu, 21 Sep 2006 06:43:58 -0700

(Disclaimer: my wife is a public school teacher)

Go read this account of the unity rally last night in Roslindale Square, and tell me Deval Patrick won't make a terriffic governor.

This is a candidate who is willing to listen to everyone - including a 5 year old! - and argue for his point of view, while respecting the other person. This is a candidate who trully values the people of this state. This candidate will look a 5-year-old in the eye and tell her why her school day should be longer. This candidate understands that education is not just about smaller class sizes, better teacher pay, more funding for art and music; it's about nurturing children and showing them all the potential that the world holds for them. You can see it in his platform, and you can hear it in his personal behavior.

And what do we have on the other side? The Healey/Cheney ticket, saying the same old junk we've been hearing from these conservative clowns for twenty years now.

Let's go win some votes for Patrick/Murray.

Update: Adam tells me Greta is 8, not 5. Shame on the Patrick campaign for ignoring the 7-and-under demographic!!

One more year for Fowler-Finn?

Mon, 17 Jul 2006 06:08:30 -0700

The Harvard Crimson reported on Friday that Thomas Fowler-Finn, the embattled superintendent of Cambridge public schools, may be given only a one-year, rather than the customary two-year, contract extension:

As Superintendent of Schools Thomas Fowler-Finn’s future hangs in the balance, two veteran School Committee members—Joseph G. Grassi and Alfred Fantini—are pushing to extend Fowler-Finn’s contract for an additional year.

As I suspected, the balance of power rests with Patty Nolan, Luc Schuster, and Richard Harding. Depending on how this group acts, we may be witnessing the formation of a four-person progrssive majority on the school board, possibly adding Ken Reeves into the mix. Of the three, Patty Nolan appears to be the most amenable to the one-year compromise.

The next school board meeting is July 18. Apparently, there are rumors that the board will have a closed executive session on July 25 - a good thing, too, since we wouldn't want the public involved on this issue! I'll add the meetings to the calendar as time permits, so keep your eyes peeled!

More on Fowler-Finn

Mon, 10 Jul 2006 08:11:26 -0700

I've given some more thought to the whole debate over Thomas Fowler-Finn's contract lately. For those of us still catching up, Fowler-Finn is superintendent of Cambridge schools, and his contract is up for renewal this year.

The school board has until Aug. 20 to decide to fire him or renew his contract. If the board doesn't make a decision, his contract will automatically be renewed until Aug. 2008. Right now, there appear to be three board members - Reeves, Nolan and Harding - leaning against renewing his contract. I'd have to guess that Schuster shares a similar disposition, and I don't know much about Fantini or Grassi. (Note: these assessments are just my opinion, and I welcome corrections!) Suffice it to say, Fowler-Finn is in real danger of being let go.

The debate appears to break down along two lines. One the one hand are people who think that Fowler-Finn's administrative style is too dictatorial, not responsive enough, and doesn't gel well with other administrators and teachers. On the other hand are people who say Fowler-Finn has delivered results, both in Cambridge and in previous stints as superintendent of other districts; and where he's failed to deliver, we have to be more patient.

An interesting complication is that the president of the Cambridge Teacher's Association supports renewing Fowler-Finn's contract, so it appears that teachers are, at least partially, in the super's corner.

It's interesting to note that the previous super had the opposite problem: he got along fabulously with teachers, administrators and the board, but couldn't deliver results.

So what do we pick? A responsive and accountable super, or an effective one? It's a false dichotomy, of course: the super's effectiveness (and any administrator's for that matter) is limited by the degree to which he or she can work with others. Maybe the best solution is to increase the school board's power to check the super, and to leave the super in place.

Those are just some cursory thoughts, and I'll try to put in some more thinking power later on. Anyone else have something to contribute?

Fowler-Finn gets a high F

Thu, 06 Jul 2006 09:23:59 -0700

The Cambridge Chronicle reports today on the annual evaluation of Cambridge schools superintendent Thomas Fowler-Finn. The result: a shockingly low 4.7 / 9, a stark contrast to last year's 7.2 out of 10. Contra Patty Nolan's remarks, I figure Finn went from a C- last year to an F this year.

Now, this is a very subjective evaluation. The super conducts interviews with each school board member, and then gives himself grades based on those interviews, in 27 different areas. The score for each area can be found at http://www2.townonline.com/cambridge/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=531144. Does this process sound ridiculous, maybe a bit self-serving?

Do kids still say the dog ate their homework?

For myself, I'm pretty surprised that even with such a self-serving process, the super still gave himself a failing grade! I don't have a whole lot of time to go into the details, and hopefully I'll have more later.

In the meanwhile, here's how the voting looks on renewing Fowler-Finn's contract, based on my subjective evaluation on what the members have said in the press:

School Committe Member	Position
Reeves	Leaning against
Fantini	Unknown
Grassi	Unknown
Harding	Leaning against
Nolan	Leaning against
Schuster	Unknown
Walser	For renewal

If you have additions for this table, let me know in the comments.

Robert Winters has more, though he is more supportive of Fowler-Finn.

Should Fowler-Finn Stay?

Tue, 27 Jun 2006 15:42:47 -0700

The question du jour* in this week's Cambridge Chronicle: Should Thomas Fowler-Finn, superintendent of Cambridge schools, stay or go?

Back in December, when the city councillors were lining up to run for Mayor, I wrote that educational policy should be a highlight of the Mayor's race, and that each candidate should go on record on some of the more important questions facing the city's schools: diversity, educational "bang for the buck", and naturally, whether the superintendent should stay or not. After all, the Mayor is chair of the school committee, and so has a unique position to affect educational policy, right?

Yes, we had a raucous debate about the schools leading up to the election of the Mayor, didn't we?

Anyway, now the question is before us, and the parents are chiming in one way or another. I'll admit being less than well-schooled (as it were) in the merits of the current superintendent, but it seems to me the evaluation process has room for improvement, doesn't it?

After hearing many others who spoke their minds about the superintendent, the school committee then went into executive session, to deliberate their evaluations of Fowler-Finn.

Their evaluations will be made public at a future date that was not announced.

The evaluation process must be completed by the school committee members by June 30thand announce their decision by June 30th.

If the committee decides to renew Fowler-Finn’s contract, it will be extended until 2008. If no conclusion is reached by the committee, the contract would automatically be renewed.

So the school committee, by twiddling their collective thumbs, can just punt on one of the most important questions facing Cambridge schools - perhaps the single most crucial piece of Cambridge government? Who set that up?

Also, I want to point out just how inertial our system is: there is considerable structural bias in favor of renewing the superintendent's contract, as well as the city manager. Part of the problem is the boneheaded, largely closed-door process involved in evaluating the contracts. But another serious problem is that these officials can easily amass a lot of institutional memory very quickly - and so long as it's hard to transfer that memory to someone else, no one wants to fire them, for fear that the city (or the schools) would run amok.

Not exactly a brilliant way to run a city! We can do better than this - primarily, by gradually decreasing the power of the city manager and superintendent's office, and increasing the power of the council and the school board.

* Yes, I know: that should probably be de la semaine.

Mass Family Institute: Pro-Deception, Anti-Education

Wed, 19 Apr 2006 11:59:24 -0700

Our friends at the Massachusetts Family Institute sent out a charming e-Alert newsletter today. What's on the docket for this pro-~~family~~deception special interest group these days?

Twenty-three of the most liberal and anti-abstinence legislators have filed an amendment to the House Budget (#219) that would prevent any state or federal funding from being used for classroom-based abstinence education.

This amendment targets the Department of Public Health in-class abstinence programs that were recently approved even before they can start. Previously, Massachusetts had directed federal abstinence-only funds towards expensive and ineffective media campaigns, but Governor Romney recently inserted language in this year's budget that would direct that money to in-class instruction, which has proven to be far more effective. This amendment would not only undercut that reform, but would effectively prevent the abstinence message from reaching many children.

Watch for the Action Alert tomorrow asking you to call your state representative and tell them to vote against House Budget Amendment #219.

So here's the rap, apparently: the federal government, bless its conservative states-rights-affirming heart, has required the states to spend money on abstinence-only programs. Our state legislators, knowing that Bay Staters aren't the types who like to have their children lied to in school by Pollyannish abstinence propagandists, said "no thanks" and instead decided to sink the money in a black hole of TV advertising, where it can't do a whole lot more damage than your average SUV commercial.

Mitt Romney has been on a bit of a right-wing bender for the last couple of years - every single decision he's made, it seems, has been to appease either the religious right or the corporate right lobby. Every scrap of Massachusetts public policy has been sacrificed to these out of state wingnuts in the process, and our state legislators have been busily hamstringing him as much as possible.

So the in-school abstinence propaganda program is just a part of that larger Mitt-promoting agenda: ignore the fact that your average Massachusetts voter values solid, honest education over pretty much anything; pander to the religious right; and channel federal dollars into a destructive, deceptive and STI-inducing in-school abstinence propaganda program.

The Democratic state legislature is undercutting that program, and good for them. Budget Amendment 219 should be called the Honesty in Schools and Putting Massachusetts Before Mitt Act. All of which the Massachusetts Family Institute apparently opposes.

Issues, Issues, Issues

Sun, 26 Feb 2006 22:33:57 -0800

I've been too busy to give lots of important issues very much attention lately. Here's a little round-up of what's happening on Beacon Hill and at 795 Mass. Ave (and elsewhere):

Health care reform appears to be dead, at least for this year. I haven't followed the story as closely as I should have, but it looks like the fault lies somewhere between Romney and Trav. Shame on both of them.

A Vermont law limiting campaign spending will be argued before the Supreme Court on Tuesday. When last I heard, this was John Bonifaz's case; I'm not sure if he's still on it or if he's given it up to focus on his Sec. of the Commonwealth campaign.

Alaska Rep. Don Young is trying to kill the Cape wind farm project. Seems that clean energy in Massachusetts is bad business for oil interests in Alaska. Oh sure, Young claims it's about navigational safety, but if that's the reason, why all the secrecy? If that's the game, let's talk about navigational safety out in the open.

T fares will be increasing soon. That's bad news for low-income, working-class commuters. And it doesn't do much good for the T either. If there aren't visible improvements in service, but there are visible improvements in the fare, what does that do to our perception of this vital public service? In order to be an effective system, the T fare must be much lower.

U Mass. is increasing in-state tuition for the fifth year in a row. Same story, different details.

Boston is trying to go wireless, following Cambridge's lead. And really, is there any other way?

All-age shows in Cambridge are coming under attack thanks to the scrutiny of the Cambridge Licensing Commission, in the wake of last summer's fracas at the Elks club. After all, we wouldn't want kids to have a good time, would we?

Municipal Power. The city council (seems to) want it, city manager Bob Healey is dead set against it. And we're talking about a truckload of money: 115 million big ones. (If I'm reading Healey's report right.) Maybe I'm not enough of an expert on this issue, but I happen to think muni power would be a very good idea. When all the dust of the capital expenses settles, we'd be left with a much bigger budget, meaning that moving money around to accomplish certain goals (especially affordable housing, or electric subsidies) would be pretty easy. Maybe I'm being naive? Galluccio last Thursday suggested that Cambridge should join up with 5 or 6 other communities to share the up-front capital cost, which I would also be able to get behind.

One other issue to throw in the mix: popular election of a mayor. It hasn't really been a hot topic since the summer, but with Galluccio in the news a lot, I figure I'd toss it out there. I don't know if I like it or not. Here's one compromise I'd propose: Cantabridgians get to elect a mayor by popular vote, provided 1) candidates may not run for both mayor and council simultaneously; 2) the mayor gets a bit more power, say, the power to ask the city manager to resign (maybe subject to a 2/3s override from the council, or something like that) and 3) the mayoral election happen by IRV. I know that last point seems silly, but it actually might be useful in case a mayor leaves office - the person who came in #2 could then be named mayor without the need to hold another election. Also, Cantabridgians are accustomed to and like IRV, so why not?

Yawn.. not much going on these days, is there?