UPDATE (Friday afternoon):
Meanwhile former Amherst School Committee Chair Irv Rhodes posted a response on my very public Facebook page to this article: "When all is said and done, either the school committees/ and or towns will correct this situation on their own -- or be forced to by legal actions of concerned citizens."
#####
Before the venerable Amherst Regional Public School system decides to expand regionalization to the elementary level (currently the Region is middle and high schools) they should get their own administrative house in order by bringing the current nine member Regional School Committee into compliance with state law. According to Mass General Laws Chapter 71 section 14E: "Electing committee members by voters in member communities with each community’s representation apportioned according to population."
In Amherst all five elected School Committee members automatically become members of the nine member Region.
Thus Amherst, population 37,819, has a 55% say in governing the expensive Regional school system ... although we make up 88.4% of the 42,762 total population.
The other three school committees do indeed appoint members to serve on the Region. Pelham, oddly, the smallest of the three, with a total population of only 1,321 has two members serving on the Region.
Leverett, population 1,851, and Shutesbury, population 1771, have only one each chosen from their 5 member school committees.
Hmm...
But yes, according to that same state statute, another way to populate the Regional Committee is "appointing committee members by locally elected officials such as school board members."
So then who decided itsy bitsy Pelham should have two members?
Either way, Amherst is getting shortchanged. And let's not even talk about the Union 26 "partnership" we currently have with Pelham to govern the elementary schools; where Amherst provides 90% of the students -- and pays 94% of the overhead -- and has only a 50% say in governance.
Where's "no taxation without representation" Daniel Shays when you need him?
While I agree to an extent, keep in mind this is the same mentality on which the US Senate was founded. Pelham's size doesn't matter, Amherst's population is small compared to the higher education population during the school year, but that doesn't mean these schools are even granted their own voting district!
ReplyDeleteEnrollment should be set at one representative for each 1,000 students, rounded up, or as percentage of money paid in. That way if Pelham wants more say they can pay a larger share.
So if we follow the 1000 students solution we would have 2 or 3 members. How is that supposed to work?
ReplyDeleteThe senate has a balance in the house. We don't have that. I think after 60 years of unequal representation it is time to move to a better solution. The town without the students is about 18,000. The other town are about 1/10 that size. Maybe a committee of 10-1-1-1 would work. Certainly would be good entertainment, 13 people trying to come to consensus in the valley.
ReplyDeleteI can say "hmm..." longer than you:
ReplyDeletehmmmm...
actually it doesn't matter what you or I think, it's what the law says here that counts and the region is violating it. the heads of the regional and amherst school committees know this and have done nothing about it.
ReplyDeleteSeems like it is the law to correct this situation like Frontier just did. But we are Amherst and we are special and unique. We know how to do things better than anyone else. Others outside the school system just don't understand the importance and value of what we do here and we should not change it. Oh, you the tax payer have issue with this and you keep complaining. It's ok, we can set up a series of meetings and form a committee with multiple subcommittees to address this. It should take 1 to 5 years and that should be just long enough for compete inaction and drive you pesky change agents away.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone know of any advantages to Amherst to join a regional elementary system? I can't think of any...
ReplyDeleteOne reason for Amherst to regionalize their elementary schools with Pelham, Leverett Shutesbury - all students who arrive at the middle school will be on the same page.
ReplyDeleteIf Amherst ES were standalone and other three towns were on their own, when they all arrive at the middle school together we'll end up with kids at different places in terms of their elementary experiences. This would be felt the most in math classes, I believe. Everyone loses the first few months of middle school while the teachers get everyone on the same page before they can move forward.
If Amherst was to rationalize K-12 with the other 3 towns we would have a much better governance structure. The system today is very inefficient. We have Region 7-12, Amherst K-6, and Union 26 that only votes on a superintendent. Many of the administrators receive 3 checks from each of those entities. The Amherst School committee has to have their meetings plus the Regional meeting. Likewise for Shutesbury, Pelham and Leveret. We would only need one meeting to cover K-12 issues.
ReplyDeleteCouple easier governance with the better curricular alignment mentioned by 10:28 and regardless of the issues a person has or does not have with our schools it is just a cleaner easier system for everyone.
Saying it is easy. working out all of the details would be very hard. Representation and governance are going to be very hard to find middle ground on.
It will be hard to get agreement to go to a K-12 region. A K-6 region will also be hard to agree upon but might be easier to get agreement on than a K-12 region. That might have to be the way to go - and then perhaps down the line a K-12 region might be possible.
ReplyDeleteAny regionalization agreement will be hard because the hilltowns do not trust Amherst. Another downside we can lay directly at the feet of Drs. Sanderson and Rivkin. They were poison to our town. It will take years to get over the damage they did to our schools and reputation.
anon@1028
ReplyDeleteI understand the concept but Amherst can't even get classes in the same grades to cover the same material although that has been a goal for YEARS! And there has been zero progress made. Maybe there will be more success in the future but the past doesn't bode well. Trying to get the outlying towns to also cover the same material seems even more challenging (not to mention contentious). I just don't see it happening. That argument to regionalize sounds good in theory but in practice I don't think it would happen.
Anon 12:31,
ReplyDeleteYou have not been paying attention to all the new intiatives put in place by Superintendent Geryk. Amherst is working very hard right now on making everyone's experience at a particular grade be uniform - in that everyone is learning the same things. The teachers are now meeting together, collaboraing on best practices and instruction. The whole culture of learning and instruction in the Amherst schols is changing under Ms. Geryk's leadership.
Oh, dearest hilltowns,
ReplyDeleteIs there anything that we can do to make you feel more comfortable in our schools? We know it has been so very, very unpleasant to deal with those of us in Amherst.
Care for a backrub? How about a big hug?
We know that this grudge is the gift that keeps on giving for you, but there must be something we can do to make it up to you. We purged those hateful SC members you referred to from our ranks, but still we do not please you. Be a sport.
You would think an issue as big as this would get more people talking. Frontier changes representation, Amherst is out of compliance, Shutesbury & Leverett are trying to get out of Union 28, the 4 towns have set up a board to work toward change. The form of our representation is one of the first steps in making any changes to our system. It is the first thing that must change if any other changes will ever occur at something other than a glacial pace.
ReplyDeleteI still hear people having issues on a regular basis. Some of the problems are getting fixed others are not. Investigations is finally dead. It only took hundreds of parents complaining over 10 years, 2 SC members pushing for evaluation, one MIT trained evaluator who was ostracized by the Amherst administration and many of the teachers, and still has not been paid in full (rumor), one failed curriculum director, for the administration to finally concede that it needed to change. I am guessing that the real catalyst for change was really the continued poor performance and not the above mentioned push.
We still have trimesters, we are still waiting for the study that shows its value (people claim it exists but can’t find it), Our system does not follow the Mass curriculum frameworks. Students can not leave or enter Amherst in the high school without being out of sync with everyone else. We still don’t have good curricular alignment, The MS has massive grade inflation, Parents still complain about chronic poor teaching. Our administration is still dragging its heals after 3 years without explaining why our over all costs are so high and why so many of our at risk children keep failing.
The issues have not changed but you would think everything is ok. The Administrative PR machine chugs on. Those vocal irritating SC members have been cast out. The parents who once stood behind our change agents on the SC have fallen silent. They never wanted to get out in front like the change agents did. Those parents rarely or never got out in front when change was getting pushed by others. No one has come forward to lead any type of charge on any issue. I still don’t get what people are fearful of. Treatment of their own kids in the system, can’t deal with confrontation, don’t want the venomous response from others, towns folk, the time and commitment it takes to make change?
I guess it is probably the cost of change. The cost mentioned in getting Elementary school math to change was huge. That was just a text book. Imagine the fight the school would put up if we all really understood why it cost so much in Amherst and so much less in other similar towns like Northampton. How many administrators do we have over 100K Larry.
And yes if you are wondering the irony that I am posting as an ANON is not lost on me.
Anon 1:30 - Give me a break. You really have no idea how damaging Sanderson and Rivkin were. And your sarcasm is lost upon everyone who is working hard to make all our schools the best they can be. And regionalization would go a long way to benefitting not only students in Leverett, Shutesbury and Pelham but Amherst as well. If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem. And people like you are definitely part of the problem here in Amherst.
ReplyDeleteanon 1:30
ReplyDeleteIt would be great if they could welcome us with open arms but one of them still has the notebooks full of bad information about a past super ((think Florida for those who did not follow that comment)). Imagine what he has on those cast out SC members.
Those cast out SC members brought painful clarity to the conversation. They worked for Amherst and the kids most at risk. That situation could not be tolerated and now it has been corrected.
Anon 1:44
ReplyDeleteI believe you are working hard to make our schools better. The problem is that for many of us we just don't see it.
I see the changes with Rhonda Cohen. Those are real and good. I hear there is work being done to align curriculum, but I don't see it. We are supposed to have meaningful evaluation of our teachers but parents still chat about which ones to avoid.
I never hear the schools admit the issues and show us the vision and road map.
Love or Hate CS or SR, but they did open up dialog. It did not change a lot but at least you knew someone heard you and was working for you.
So please keep making those changes but maybe get someone to show us real concrete direction and vision. No more fluff about collaboration with everyone outside the school, no more ed-speak, no more life long learners mantra, no more accolades of some random athlete, or awards won by a member of the school, and certainly no more useless meetings. What are we doing for the majority of our students to help them be successful.
That is one of the biggest myths out there that they were interested in the kids at risk. They had their own agenda which only had to do with their kids and their screwy ideas. Now that they are gone we can actually put into place programs that will help all kids achieve at their highest potential.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure why Leverett and Shutesbury would want to regionalize with Amherst except for the fact that they can't stand the superintendent they seem to be stuck with year after year. Union 28 (Leverett, Shutesbury, Erving & New Salem and Wendell) has been struggling with their super since she first came on the scene six or seven years ago. Nobody happy.
ReplyDeleteMike Morris was hired specifically to work on teacher evaluations. There is alot going on in the schools - it's not obvious to the casual observer but if you are in the schools or if you went to School Committee meetings or watched them on tv you would learn a ton of stuff about what is happening in the schools. It takes a bit of effort but ANYONE can learn about what is going on.
ReplyDeleteAnd I will say it again, Sanderson and Rivkin did NOTHING for our schools - they fought EVERY initiative that Maria Geryk wanted to put in. Now that they are gone she (Maria) can work full steam ahead to make significant changes in the schools that are going to show enormous benefit to all students.
It is always interesting to me that someone imagines it is possible for a SC member to work to create good schools only for their own children ... as if only my children would benefit from a stronger math curriculum than Investigations, or only my children would benefit from an enhanced music program (which closing Marks Meadow enabled), or only my children would benefit from Spanish language instruction. But certainly many people on the SC have not had to worry about improving the public schools for their own children since I served with members who themselves chose homeschooling and private schools for their own children. And the people who are hurt the most by weak public schools certainly aren't professors and other professionals with adequate income to opt out of the public schools, as many people living in Amherst have done for years and continue to do (including SC members, AEF board members, leaders of the override, school council members, PGO heads of the elementary and middle and high school, college presidents, etc.). I wish I could have kept all of my children in our public schools, because I believe strongly in the power of public education. But I'm indeed very fortunate to be able to opt out of public schools when they aren't working for my kids. Not everyone in Amherst has that luxury.
ReplyDeleteAnd you, Catherine Sanderson, fought tooth and nail EVERY thing that Maria Geryk wanted to do to improve our schools. Now that you are gone she can move forward without the constant wars and actually get something accomplished.
ReplyDeleteYes, the Amherst schools are in dire need of help and a huge turnaround - and Maria Geryk is overseeing just such a turn-around.
Catherine has been gone for almost a year-and-a-half.
ReplyDeleteTurn-around seems to taking a while.
It does take time to get programs in place and to see their results. If you don't know that than you don't know much about education. Maria has been building these programs since she arrived...and they should start bearing fruit by this year.
ReplyDeleteWhere are Sanderson's results in improving the achievement gap. Where are all her initiatives? She can say all she wants that she was interested in the less well off - the proof is in the pudding so to speak.
Do these folks really believe that Catherine and Steve are influencing ANYTHING at this point?
ReplyDeleteIf they do, I've got a cable news network for them to watch that traffics in the same kind of crap nationally.
It really is time to grow up.
The message is clear from the continued bashing of Catherine Sanderson that goes on here and went on in the last School Committee campaign, so long after she left the scene:
ReplyDeleteDissent from the company line and we will cut you off at the kneecaps.
And so, as someone observed earlier in the comments, the dialogue has narrowed considerably.
Therefore, what you have now is a community in which, although many people in town care about public education passionately, only a select few now feel free to speak. That can't be good. We'll see how long we go before Amherst's "Arab Spring" on education takes place.
You are making a huge mistake if you think that the silence from one side indicates contentment.
It is hard to understand how these questions came to be out-of-bounds and lacking in civility in a democracy: just what are we getting with such a large additional increment of taxpayer cost compared to Northampton, and just how is that presumed benefit being distributed across the full diversity of Amherst schoolchildren?
The potential impolite dialogue would be far more interesting and fruitful than the droning monologue we are currently getting from the Central Office and its repressive political friends.
anon 2:25
ReplyDeleteIf no one is happy of those 5 towns with their superintendent then why don't they let that super go. 6 years and no chance not to terminate the contract seems rather strange. Also why did the paper say it was Leverett and Shutesbury looking to get out if all of them are unhappy.
"If they do, I've got a cable news network for them to watch that traffics in the same kind of crap nationally."
ReplyDeleteLOL.
(???)
to several of the recent post I offer this.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Catherine and Steve are influencing much at this point. I do think Catherine's existence helps keep people more honest than they might otherwise be.
I don't think CS and SR got as much accomplished as they would have liked to. Lets face it, they did not have ultimate control unlike a superintendent. They certainly had lots of push back and delay. Delay works well against elected officials.
I also agree that change is slow. So whether we are talking about CS or SR or Maria it takes time for anything they want to change. However I would offer up these small bits to the contrary. While Beth Graham was here she had a math consultant, a K-16 math council and at least 2 very opinionated SC members all struggling over math change. The report Beth came back with gave every opinion for every change ever mentioned. It had 3 or more ways to implement to solve every problem. It was a joke. It was going to take years to move forward and it was going to cost more than 1/2 million to implement. It was welcomes with open arms by Maria.
Fast forward. Beth Graham is gone. Still don't know why. Nothing has been done with the old math report. I did hear we hired more math coaches. A waste in my opinion if it happened. Rhonda Cohen has been working quietly behind the scenes and announces after 9 or so months on the job that Investigations is done and will be implemented in 3 to 4 months. Something we were told the previous year was impossible, detrimental to students and staff, yet now it is ok.
So change does not have to be slow unless you don't have the experience or desire to make change. In this specific case Beth nor Maria has that experience or desire.
Now Maria had been in charge of SPED for many years. She has since been super when not responsible for SPED. As I am guessing her policies are still in place. SPED would be a good example of her qualities. Since the SPED review was less than stellar and many parents are still unhappy what should we think. Don't forget we spend more money than most and SPED eats up huge resources in our district. Past performance is the best indicator of future results.
Finally the MAP testing is one of Maria's new initiatives. This spring I asked my children's teachers how much they use it to tailor their teaching to improve my child's learning. The teachers told me they were not using the data at all except to put it on file. No administrator had told them to do anything with it. So how does that help??
It was nice that at least one writer admits that there are problems to be corrected. We agree on that. So, what are the new programs and how will they or are they helping?
Prin. Jackson said some very big things at a recent SC mtg. He is reviewing the HS math program at the end of that review he will pick ONE approach to teaching HS math, no longer will there be an option btwn IMP and the traditional series. So unlike the most successful and progressive HS in the country we will be moving backwards...Who wants to lay bets on which will be chosen? I guess the community gets no say, at least, he gave every indication that it won't...this is HUGE and not a peep out of anyone...
ReplyDeleteAnon 9:31
ReplyDeleteNothing personal, but I really really hope you are wrong.
Since when are curricula decisions put to a community vote?
ReplyDeleteSeems like a lot of back seat drivers here?
ReplyDeleteWhen the driver has a heart attack while behind the wheel, they come in handy.
ReplyDeleteWhat an odd comment, Larry.
ReplyDeleteas a parent of two high schoolers it would be nice to know that changes to the math program are being made. send me an email, hold a meeting, or a robo call. ask me and my children their opinions. tell us your thinking, ask elementary and middle school teachers what they think. we are a community raising children. everyone is a part of it. bring us on board. really listen.
ReplyDeleteanon 6:54
ReplyDeleteLeverett and Shutesbury have tried mightily to get rid of the superintendent at union 28 but they can't get the majority vote because the super does have some supporters. Believe me, we've tried. She's like a bad penny that keeps popping up. Hopefully, despite Amherst's problems, we can leave her behind and chalk it up to a few miserable years.
Anon 6:54 As a Shutesbury "insider" I can tell you that the Swift River school which is a regional school comprising two towns and therefore has double the votes, and the Erving School, have stymied all the many attempts to release the Superintendent. I can't tell you why they support her, or at least some of the committee members support her. Beats me. She's a nightmare. Regionalizing with Amherst certainly can't be any worse. Personally I'm happy to leave the other two schools to deal with her since they seem to be instrumental in keeping her around.
ReplyDeleteAnyone from Shutesbury or Leverett want to elaborate on "nightmare" superintendent. What policies or directions are you going in that are so bad. I hear your ES are pretty good?
ReplyDeleteanon 12:42
ReplyDeleteThe schools are good. They always have been. Hopefully that won't change. You'd have to have a sworn-to-secrecy heart-to-heart with the principals to get the scoop on why morale is so low. No superintendent is perfect but there's a huge gap between merely imperfect and toxic. We should have been aware of her reputation before we hired her. We didn't do our homework.
any action or reaction by regional or amherst school committee members to the serious proportional representation on the regional committee?
ReplyDeleteLet's review:
ReplyDeleteWho that we elected had reservations about Maria Geryk?
Now you're telling me that morale is low.
We're shocked.
The low morale that anon 11:24 is speaking of is in reference to Regina Nash - Union 28 Super. Let's try to pay attention.
ReplyDeleteanon 10:22
ReplyDeleteNo. Not Regina Nash. The U28 superintendent is Joan Wickman. Low morale is her middle name.
Regina Nash is the superintendent for Frontier and Union 38
ReplyDeleteJoan Wickman is the superintendent of U28? No wonder you guys want to get out. Her reputation precedes her. I'm surprised you didn't do your research before you hired her.
ReplyDelete