Testimony Before the Joint Committee on Education

Friday, March 22, 2019

Chair Lewis, Chair Peisch, and Members of the Committee:

I’m Mary Ann Stewart of Lexington, pleased to offer testimony in support of The PROMISE Act, for strong local accountability, and for improved family engagement strategies.

As a parent of three, I’ve gained deep understanding of our educational enterprise through personal engagement with local PTAs, School Site Council, and as Elected Representative from my neighborhood to Town Meeting; Elected President of the Massachusetts PTA, and elected twice to School Committee, serving as Chair during the worst recession of our lifetime; then, Governor Patrick appointed me to the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.

Knowing that decisions we make today will have a generational impact on students, The PROMISE Act is thorough and needs your support—I urge a favorable vote out of Committee.

MassINC’s report released last month (Local Accountability: An Untapped Strategy for Advancing Student Achievement in Massachusetts Public Schools, https://massinc.org/research/local-accountability-2/) contributes to this conversation. As someone focused on student achievement, and 26 years after MERA, it’s past time for an infusion of state resources. This time, the strategic drive for school improvement will be greatly enhanced when communities develop accountability provisions of their own.

Punitive measures, attempting to *school* educators on student learning, are counter-intuitive and demoralizing. We should move from *all compliance all the time* to supporting educators with relevant tools that sharpen skills in tangible, relatable ways for students’ deeper learning. This requires focus, rapid implementation, and sustained dedication.

PROMISE fully implements the pillars of FBRC, bringing relief to Gateway Cities and small and rural districts. Districts that lose significant amounts of Chapter 70 aid to charter schools require provisions for relief.

Locally and statewide, we should do everything possible to engage as many families as possible so all students achieve their potential. There’s a ton of information backing this up—more than 40 years of research—but, I’ll leave you with this: One study concluded that schools would have to increase their spending by more than $1,000 per pupil to achieve the same results that an engaged family brings. That families are increasingly from diverse backgrounds and countries, substantial efforts must be made to remove barriers to their engagement. Thank you.
⸻
Image credit: A standing room only crowd in Gardner Auditorium today at the Joint Committee on Education public hearing on bills pertaining to School Finance I. ~ mas

Oral Testimony (short)

Public Testimony of Mary Ann Stewart in Opposition to H.3928

to the Joint Committee on Education

Senator Sonia Chang-Diaz and Representative Alice Hanlon Peisch, Co-Chairs

Gardner Auditorium, State House, Boston MA 02133

Monday, March 7, 2016

10:00 AM

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. For the record, I’m Mary Ann Stewart from Lexington, parent representative on the state board of elementary and secondary education, speaking only for myself and in opposition to H.3928 - the act related to lifting the charter school cap.

At the board’s (BESE’s) charter-authorizing meeting last month, Secretary Peyser commented that for the past 20+ years he’s heard the same arguments against charter schools.1 We’ve all heard them, too: The problems with Funding. Governance. Transparency. The impact of increasing the number of seats and the drain on district resources from expanding charter schools.
The concern that continuing charter school expansion creates a two-tiered educational system.

I submit that these criticisms endure because they have yet to be resolved.

We’re all well-acquainted with the story of how charters were first promoted and then enacted as “laboratories of innovation”. Initially, a small amount of money from districts was needed for this experiment (effectively an investment in “R&D”) and especially that it came with the promise of bringing back replicable practices for implementation in the regular public schools.

That last part - the promise to bring back - has never happened. Families and districts, trusting that it would happen, want to know why it hasn’t.

Somewhere along the way, charter schools went from “labs of innovation” (that never shared what they learned) to schools in competition with regular public schools. When that happened, resources became less available for the regular schools.

At a time when regular schools have moved from isolation to collaboration across schools and school systems, charter schools remain marooned, apart from any system, apart from transparent practices and public authority. They’re a collection of “fiefdoms”, each charter school doing something different, out of public view and, by and large, doing it no better than the regular public schools do.

But now it’s time to find out: Has the charter school experiment been working? What are the innovations?

Until we know and understand the answers to our questions, perhaps no charter schools should be renewed or expanded and no new charter schools should be authorized.

We don’t need charter schools to know that the most important resource in a classroom is a highly qualified teacher.

We don’t need charter schools to know that districts must be adequately funded so students get what they need when they need it.

We don’t need charter schools to know that we need to make preschool accessible for more children.

We don’t need charter schools to know that children need a rich and varied curriculum at school and enrichment opportunities and support out of school all year long.

We know enough right now about how to teach ALL children. And we know that HOW children are treated matters; to know that classrooms and schools that are too punitive don’t help children develop tolerance, build resiliency, or foster curiosity.

Students leave charter schools at very high rates. Recent statements from the Office of the State Auditor inform of further problems with charter school waitlist data. So, something is going on with waitlists and something is going on with attrition rates.

There’s something about the enrollment practices of charter schools that create obstacles or barriers for students and their families, too. Why? What are they? Parents and taxpayers demand to know what that’s about. And we absolutely must know what’s going on before we begin to entertain a cap lift.

Public Hearing on the Fair Share Constitutional Amendment

Proud to be one of the ten original signers of this initiative petition

The Joint Committee on Revenue meets at 10:30 AM today for a public hearing on the Fair Share Constitutional Amendment (H3933) - room B-1 at the State House. I'll be providing one minute of testimony as part of an education panel. Here are my thoughts:

Honorable Co-Chairs and Members of the Committee:

Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of the Fair Share Constitutional Amendment. I’m Mary Ann Stewart, from Lexington, parent representative on the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE), speaking for myself, not for the Board.

I’ve been deeply involved in education from a number of local, statewide, and national perspectives. Students need a well-rounded education that’s based on a rich and varied curriculum that includes music, art, and athletics - but, many of these programs were eliminated or severely eroded in many communities during the recession years.

To provide a sound future for our children and our Commonwealth, we must ensure that all children get a great education, including those who face the greatest challenges. We need to invest more in foundation funding for school districts, early childhood education, extended day & wrap-around services, and post-secondary education.

Improving the quality of the education our children receive requires up-front investments for long term pay-offs to individual students, society, and to the workforce. Determining how to raise revenue for these long term investments is a critical challenge. We can make those investments by asking our highest income residents, who, as you know, currently pay less of their income in state and local taxes than the rest of us, to pay a little more on their income over $1 million.

Thank you for your consideration.

Charter School Public Hearings

Five charter school hearings have been scheduled within the first 10 days of December - all from 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM:

• Springfield: Tuesday 12/1
• Springfield Public Library/Brightwood Branch, 359 Plainfield Street, Springfield

• Brockton: Thursday, 12/3
• Massasoit Community College/Conference Center, 770 Crescent Street, Brockton

• Sturbridge: Monday, 12/7
• Tantasqua High School Auditorium, 319 Brookfield Road, Fiskdale

• Lynn: Tuesday, 12/8
• Lynn City Hall/Council Chamber, 3 City Hall Square, 4th Floor, Lynn (rescheduled from 11/23 due to unforeseen circumstances at the Lynn City Hall)

• Fitchburg: Thursday, 12/10
• Fitchburg Public Library/Auditorium, 610 Main Street, Fitchburg

Please refer HERE for some of the information about the proposed Commonwealth Charter Schools.

Approval of new charter schools is scheduled for February (including discussion at the special meeting of the Board on Monday evening):

Monday, 2/22/16 - 5:00 PM (location TBD) - last year at DESE
Tuesday, 2/23/16 - 8:30 AM (location TBD) - last year at DESE

Public hearings provide an opportunity for feedback on the applications. At least one member of the BESE will attend each hearing and report back to the full Board on the testimony provided. Members of the public may also submit written comments about the final applications through January 6, 2016:

MA Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
c/o Charter School Office
75 Pleasant Street
Malden  MA  02148

or by eMail to: charterschools@doe.mass.edu

When writing or eMailing, please remember that the Secretary of State's Office has determined they are a public record.

Public Testimony

My written testimony

On June 11, 2015, Massachusetts Joint Committee on Education held a public hearing on several bills related to testing in K-12 public schools. I was unable to attend the hearing in person, but did submit testimony in support of H.340: An Act relative to a moratorium on high stakes testing and PARCC.

A panel assembled to speak in opposition of the bill included representatives from the Executive Office, the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, and Board of ESE, in the persons of: Secretary of Education Jim Peyser, Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education Mitchell Chester, Board of ESE Chair Paul Sagan, and a former Board of ESE member Jeff Howard. (Where available, I've linked each person's name to their testimony).

Note that at no time before or after the public hearing did BESE discuss any of the bills.

My testimony below.

Members of the Joint Committee on Education

The Honorable Senator Sonia Chang-Diaz, co-chair

The Honorable Representative Alice Hanlon Peisch, co-chair

Sate House Public Hearing on Assessments

Room A-2 [the hearing was subsequently moved to the Gardner Auditorium in order to accommodate the high number of people who turned out for the hearing]

June 11, 2015

Dear Legislators,

My name is Mary Ann Stewart and I'm a parent of a high school student and two college graduates. Though I am a member of the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, I am speaking for myself and not as a Board member; my comments are my own.

I have been following, with interest, mounting concern being expressed about the impact high-stakes standardized testing and test preparation is having on our public school students, their schools and districts, and educators who teach and work in them. Leaders in every level of government, along with folks in neighborhoods across the state and country, are expressing a range of views stemming from a concern about these tests and their impact: On narrowing curriculum (especially in the weeks leading up to testing dates); on educator evaluation; on the increased time and money spent to administer them; on the over-reliance of high stakes accountability measures on schools and districts for state and federal dollars.

In many states, the concern rises because the impact of these tests coincides with the increased use/availability of technology and also the implementation of new frameworks for educator evaluation, a condition for many who hoped for federal RTTT dollars. In Massachusetts, in addition to the educator evaluation implementation, high stakes accountability measures intersect with the development of district determined measures, the RETELL initiative, and soon, perhaps, the PARCC assessment (or MCAS 2.0). These concerns impact schools, families, students, and districts in the toniest communities, but students in low-income communities of color are hit the hardest - and at a time when we are trying to close gaps.

We are working against our future best interests if allowed to continue with the current testing regime. We want our students to be excited about their future. We want our schools to truly impart a love and joy for learning. We want creativity in teaching - and so much more.

Before we launch the next generation of assessments in Massachusetts, let's not just keep doing what we've been doing since we ushered in the MCAS.

It's time to call for a moratorium on the high-stakes standardized testing era so that we can work together with our communities, schools, educators, policymakers and legislators to re-evaluate with an eye to improving our schools from the inside out, not from the top down.

Thank you for your consideration, courage, and commitment to our children,

Mary Ann Stewart

Lexington MA

This testimony has also been posted to the Massachusetts Education Justice Alliance website.