StoneCutter,

In my opinion you are tarnishing your reputation by associating with Bill Kelly.

He has proven to be nothing more than an prevaricator (" ... 2. a person who speaks so as to avoid the precise truth; quibbler; equivocator." source Random House Unabridged Dictionary) with an self-righteous agenda.

I base this on his public promise not to accept payment for services on the school committee during the School Committee campaign in 2005 and also on his switching his registration to Republican to appear conservative and claim to be fiscally responsible. Of course, his subsequent actions proved otherwise.

We could ask him why Thomson was ignored during his tenure but (see above) nevermind.

Regards,

Potentially Honest Answer

A quick addendum:

PHA, you are wrong about Bill K. He was the ONLY SC member to actively attend/visit the Thomson. He came to PTO meetings and he kept in contact with me. I think he was swayed by Babs at the very end but for a long time he was a lone advocate. I am appreciative of his efforts. I too would take the stipend as a good SC member puts in many hours to perform duties. Your quibble is straight from the NATA playbook. Politics really has no place in this. (as an FYI, I am undeclared but usually vote R), but it doesn't matter your political affiliation. What matters is that kids are being left behind. I defended your positions as correct about many issues but in this, you were not present and I was.

Dear Readers,

Sometimes when we have passionate feelings about our municipal services, there’s a tendency to use issues, like Thomson’s AYP status, as a lightening rod to express our frustrations with prior or non-related issues.

Let’s bring this topic right back to where it should be: what’s in the best interests of the students, both Thomson and the four other elementary schools’ students in town? How can we best serve the interests of ALL of our students?

No Child Left Behind, using federal funding as a threat, forces public schools to try to jam square pegs into round holes. If you were a teacher of a struggling 3rd grade Thomson child and his/her family are struggling at home, English may not even be their primary language, and they have no extra money to hire tutors, teaching the standard curriculum is not going to overcome either the language barrier or the cultural barrier that MCAS test results regularly highlight. It doesn’t matter which school that child attends, standard teaching practices and standard curriculum are not the solution. Now give that same teacher 24 additional children in the classroom, many of whom qualify for special education services or have ed plans to address learning difficulties, and make sure there’s at least one behavioral complication on a regular basis that state and federal law prohibit you from handling in an effective and expedient manner. The teacher knows she/he needs to spend more one-on-one time working with these children, but there aren’t enough hours in the day. The teacher is doing the best they can with the resources at their disposal. That’s the reality every day in Thomson classrooms. That’s the reality in classrooms all over town, but it’s been more difficult at Thomson for years because of the weak leadership structure. Teachers need strong leadership to advocate for books, training, staff, and district recognition that additional resources and/or alternative methods of teaching need implementation.

NCLB doesn’t look at children as individuals; it looks at statistics, numbers on a page. It even requires testing of children whose needs are so complicated that they will never pass the tests, regardless of which school they attend or which town they live in. And if a school fails to make the AYP – possibly Thomson, for instance – it mandates school choice, regardless if a town can afford it [we have to pay for bussing and possibly portables] or if the other schools can even accommodate increased enrollment [all of our schools are already bursting at the seams].

I spoke with Dr. Marini today. He’s forwarding documentation explaining school choice that I will be happy to post when I receive it. He confirmed that yes, school choice must be offered to all Thomson students, if we fail to make AYP with our 2008 scores. He also said that I was incorrect, his office would not receive notice from the Dept. of Education until August.

I urged Dr. Marini to schedule an informational evening to answer questions for parents, both on the school choice issue if it indeed must be offered, and on the improvements Mr. Gilligan and Dr. Hutchinson will be implementing [and have already been implementing with John McAleer] to improve the Thomson educational services. He fully understands the concerns expressed in the postings to the NAU website. He said he’d see what he could do to try to schedule a meeting as soon as possible.

We all need to be reasonable about this – scheduling a meeting in the midst of summer vacation, one that’s meaningful and well attended, is a challenge in and of itself. If he can organize one, we parents need to attend if we can, or watch it if we can’t [if it’s televised, NAU can post it on this website].

I’d like to suggest that Thomson parents take an active, constructive approach in compiling a list of concise questions that would help parents make the school choice decision, if it becomes a reality.

I’ll start: a Thomson parent asked me yesterday, “If I move my son to a different school, will the pull-out special needs services he receives change?”

If readers are uncomfortable posting questions on this website, I’m more than happy to add your questions to the list if you want to send them to my email address at This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it . Confidentiality is always an option – just tell me if you want your name included or deleted from your question(s).

Parents & citizens are partners with our school system – we all have a vested interest in its success, and we also own a share in its disappointments. No system is perfect, there’s always room for improvement…if we desire high standards, let’s do what we can to help achieve those goals. Respectfully.

Sincerely,
Sandy Gleed

PHA, I have read enough to form my own opinion. I'm sorry you feel so frustrated and helpless.

To The Readers,
I would like to return this thread back to a more postive and constructive focus.

Let's try to get some information from the S.C. and others about what to expect for Thomson families, and other affected families.
And let's try to better understand what the real options are, and how best to communicate our own needs, with regard to the situation at hand. Get that information, and post it here or elsewhere and link to it!!

No matter what the AYP outcome is, Thomson has some significant challenges that require attention and resources. I can tell you, that they also have a committed PTO, and a larger community of involved parents that are making a big difference TODAY. Gregg G. has some good ideas, passion, and skills and experience to help in addressing the specific needs of this elementary school.

I have made my committment, and bring some fresh ideas as well. Personally, my son has done very well at Thomson. I am pleased with his performance and how his teachers have enriched his learning experience. At the end of the day, it's about children learning inside and outside the classroom.

Thanks for your time,
StoneCutter

The truth is out there. I'm glad you're OK. I feared you might have been sent to a re-education camp.

Still have not heard anything about a mitigation plan from the school administration. The Mass DOE site contains several sample documents (e.g. notification letter) regarding the explaining the process to citizens. It could be as simple revising those, cleaning them up a little and then a basic plan would exist.

The timeline for the state getting the information to the town and then the town being responsible to convey the same to parents before school starts seems almost impossible.

Well, they(NAPS and the SC) would like to send me to a camp but it wouldn't be a fun filled summer camp!

The planning info is in the NCLB guidelines. It has been available to the SC for many weeks as I sent it to them in MAY! They likely will not reply to anyone about AYP issues til they meet in mid July. They MUST notify parents before the start of school. Why do you think I made them put it on the June agenda? The DOE told me they will notify the school dept no later than Aug 15th. The DOE also stated that failure should not be a surprise and pre-planning should have already been in place. If they don't notify me, I'll be having serious fits and become very upset...my Sicilian blood will be boiling!

I did ask the SC to take a survey of Thomson parents in June to see how many would potentially move their kids. As usual, they ignored my request. Parents at the receiving schools should be outraged that pre-planning was not implemented!

BTW, what about the free transportation. Did anyone know about that budget buster? Yep, free rides for 20% of students who wish to move(but that can be subject to financial need, I was advised with much glee, that I would not qualify). If they keep the distance under 2 miles for the working shmucks like my family, they can forgo the free busride. However, if a child has a financial need, they must bus the child for free.

To all,

below are the links the AYP coordinator for the Massachusetts DOE sent me in early June. The NCLB guidelines is very helpful. Hope this helps!

Also to answer a question Sandy posted earlier about IEP's. Yes, the IEP must follow a child if the child moves to another school under school choice. SPED concerns are a sub category in the NCLB guidelines.




Ms Crescitelli,

In reference to our telephone conversation and your request for information on the subject of NCLB School Choice, I am attaching the following links:


http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/schoolchoiceguid.doc
http://www.doe.mass.edu/nclb/choice.html

Dawn,

Is the two miles calculated from your home to the new school or from the existing school to the transfer school?

StoneCutter,

Thank-you for your concern. I can only hope to one day achieve your sense of equanimity. You are truly blessed.

Potentially Honest Answer

I am a Thomson parent. During the past 6 years, I have served on the School Council, volunteered in the (now closed) library, and in classrooms for academic assistance and enrichment. I am a NH certified k-12 teacher.

I am not a fan of NCLB and the current weight given to standardized testing in public education. However, that is the law of the land at this time, providing certain rights and responsibilities.

In past years, when Thomson met its AYP goals, the full results of MCAS and the NCBL school report card were reported on paper copy in the backpacks. This year, when Thomson did not meet its AYP goals, a paper letter was sent home in the backpacks that referred parents to a website. This was an unnecessary and inconvenient step, and one that some families could not take from their homes. Further, for those who do receive electronic communications from school, I do not believe that the MCAS web link was provided on the electronic copy of the “Tickler”. I spoke to several parents, who are generally informed and concerned, who failed to take that extra step and were not aware of our failing status well into the spring.

This is one time when “saving paper” was not the best use of our resources. Earlier, broader knowledge of the concerns, and specific forums to address them, help the community to plan together and foster trust in elected and employed leadership. If the district were aware of this failing status in Aug. 2007 (as we anticipate in 2008), we missed an important opportunity for preliminary reporting and planning. Further, the SC and administration missed an opportunity to set the public tone for this topic.

These failures, of the AYP, reporting, and planning, I believe have a lot to do with the on-going flux in our district.

For 2 years, Thomson has hired additional teaching staff and re-assigned students mid-year, because of unreasonably large class sizes. This cannot have a positive affect on standardized testing or any other measure of educational excellence. For 2 years our school library has been closed. Statistics show schools with professionally staffed libraries have higher test scores.

If preliminary MCAS results were available in Aug 2007, Dr. Marini was just coming into the district. Our administration continues in flux with both interim supt, and interim principal at Thomson. I do not question the qualifications of those currently in the positions, but don’t believe Thomson and North Andover can move forward without stable leadership and broad community support. It is short sited to believe this is a single school issue, for reasons already noted by other contributors.

QUOTE:
No Child Left Behind, using federal funding as a threat, forces public schools to try to jam square pegs into round holes. If you were a teacher of a struggling 3rd grade Thomson child and his/her family are struggling at home, English may not even be their primary language, and they have no extra money to hire tutors, teaching the standard curriculum is not going to overcome either the language barrier or the cultural barrier that MCAS test results regularly highlight. It doesn’t matter which school that child attends, standard teaching practices and standard curriculum are not the solution. Now give that same teacher 24 additional children in the classroom, many of whom qualify for special education services or have ed plans to address learning difficulties, and make sure there’s at least one behavioral complication on a regular basis that state and federal law prohibit you from handling in an effective and expedient manner. The teacher knows she/he needs to spend more one-on-one time working with these children, but there aren’t enough hours in the day. The teacher is doing the best they can with the resources at their disposal. That’s the reality every day in Thomson classrooms. That’s the reality in classrooms all over town, but it’s been more difficult at Thomson for years because of the weak leadership structure. Teachers need strong leadership to advocate for books, training, staff, and district recognition that additional resources and/or alternative methods of teaching need implementation. -- Sandy Gleed 7/3/08

Sandy,

I can't believe things are this bad at Thomson. Won't just a couple of minor changes be needed to get Thomson back on track. We should think positively.

The following questions are answered in the attached schoolchoiceguid.doc from MCAS site:


SUMMARY OF MAJOR CHANGES v

INTRODUCTION 1

A. GENERAL INFORMATION 2

A-1. What is the purpose of the public school choice requirement in No Child Left Behind? 2
A-2. Which schools and local educational agencies (LEAs) are required to offer public school choice? 2
A-3. What are the key principles that should form the foundation for a quality public school choice plan? 2
A-4. May an existing choice program, such as an open enrollment program, be modified to accommodate the
Title I public school choice requirement? 3
A-5. What educational choice options are available to students and parents under the Act? 3
A-6. Are State educational agencies (SEAs) subject to any reporting requirements regarding Title I public
school choice? 3

B. TIMING AND DURATION OF CHOICES 4

B-1. For which students is an LEA required to offer public school choice? 4
B-2. When must an LEA make public school choice available to eligible students? 4
B-3. How should year-round schools meet the requirement to offer school choice by the beginning of the
school year? 4
B-4. What is the responsibility of an SEA to ensure that public school choice is available at the start of a
new school year? 5
B-5. If any LEA does not receive from its SEA, prior to the start of the school year, student achievement
results or the list of schools identified for improvement, corrective action, and restructuring,
when must it offer public school choice? 5
B6. How long must an LEA continue to offer students in eligible Title I schools the option to attend
another public school? 5
B-7. How long must students who change schools be allowed to attend the school of their choice? 6
B-8. What opportunities for public school choice must an LEA provide to a student who has changed schools
under the Title I choice provisions and whose new school is subsequently identified as in need of
improvement? 6
B-9. If an eligible student changes schools but, in a subsequent year, moves out of the school attendance
area for his or her original school and no longer lives in the attendance area of a school identified
for improvement (but continues to live in the same school district), must the LEA continue to allow
that student to attend the new school and continue to provide transportation? 6
B-10. What can an LEA do to plan for public school choice even before assessment results and identifications
of schools in need of improvement are available? 7
B-11. May an LEA that is required to offer school choice (but not supplemental educational services) to
students enrolled in a particular school offer those students the opportunity to receive supplemental
educational services? 7

C. ELIGIBLE STUDENTS 8

C-1. Which students are eligible to change schools under the Title I public school choice provisions? 8
C-2. Are students who plan to attend, but are not yet “enrolled” in, a school eligible to take advantage of
the Title I choice provisions? 8
C-3. What does the law mean when it says that the LEA shall “give priority to the lowest achieving children
from low-income families”? 8
C-4. In applying this priority, how does an LEA determine which students are from low-income families? 9
C-5. May LEAs use information from the National School Lunch Program in determining which students are from
low-income families and thus may be eligible for the priority for public school choice? 9
C-6. How may LEAs that operate school lunch programs under Provisions 2 and 3 of the National School Lunch
Act determine which students are from low-income families and thus may be eligible for the priority? 9
C-7. How does an LEA determine which students are “lowest achieving”? 9
C-8. What if a particular student attends a school that has been identified for improvement, but has been
assigned to that school by a court order or for disciplinary reasons? 10

D. NOTIFICATION OF PARENTS 10

D-1. When should parents be notified that their children are eligible for public school choice? 10
D-2. How must an LEA notify parents that their children are eligible for public school choice? 11
D-3. What should parents look for when they are given the option of school choice? 11
D-4. How much time should parents have to consider their options? 12
D-5. What procedures should LEAs establish for enabling parents to communicate their choice of school? 12
D-6. If there are no schools to which students can transfer, must parents still be notified? 12

E. SCHOOLS OF CHOICE 13

E-1. Which schools may be offered to students as transfer options? 13
E-2. May a “virtual school” (a school that offers instruction through distance learning technology) be among
the schools to which eligible students are offered the opportunity to transfer? 13
E-3. How many choices of schools is an LEA required to offer to students? 13
E-4. May specialty schools, such as schools for the performing arts, be offered to students as transfer
options? 13
E-5. May a charter school that admits students using a lottery give priority to eligible students who wish
to transfer to the school under the Title I choice provisions? 14
E-6. When an LEA offers parents multiple choices of schools, who makes the final decision on which school a
child attends, and how is it made? 14
E-7. Must an LEA that believes it does not have the physical capacity within its schools to accept
transferring students implement the Title I public school choice provisions? 14
E-8. If an LEA does not have the physical capacity to offer transfers to all eligible students, how can
it create additional capacity? 15
E-9. What if State laws have the effect of limiting choice? 16
E-10. What if existing local transfer policies prohibit school choice? 16
E-11. What if choice might create health or safety problems? 16
E-13. What if providing the option to transfer to another school within the district is not possible? 17

F. SPECIAL EDUCATION AND CHOICE 17

F-1. What are the responsibilities of the school that receives transfer students with disabilities? 17
F-2. What should parents be aware of in transferring their student? 18
F-3. Must students with disabilities be offered their choice of the same schools as nondisabled students? 18
F-4. Does the movement of a student with disabilities to a school of choice constitute a “change of
placement” under the IDEA? 19

G. DESEGREGATION AND CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUES 19

G-1. Must an LEA provide the option to transfer if the LEA is complying with a desegregation plan? 19
G-2. What if a desegregation plan limits the opportunity for students to transfer? 19
G-3. What if the desegregation plan is a court-ordered plan or a plan entered into with the Department’s
Office for Civil Rights? 19
G-4. How do Federal civil rights laws apply to LEAs implementing public school choice? 20

H. RESPONSIBILITIES OF SCHOOLS RECEIVING TRANSFER STUDENTS 20

H-1. What are the responsibilities of a school that receives transfer students under this program? 20
H-2. May districts prohibit students transferring from a school identified for improvement the opportunity
to participate in interscholastic sports in their new school? 20

I. GENERAL FUNDING ISSUES 20

I-1. Are there any requirements as to how general educational services for transfer students are to be
funded by the LEA? 20
I-2. If a child transfers out of her or his original school, should an LEA include that child (1) in the
count of children used to determine the Title I allocation to the school of residence, or (2) in the
count used to determine the Title I allocation to the school of enrollment? 21
I-3. May Title I funds be used to benefit non-Title I schools that receive students transferring from Title
I schools identified for improvement? 21
I-4. Does special education funding follow a child with disabilities to the school of his or her choice? 21

J. TRANSPORTATION FUNDING AND OTHER TRANSPORTATION ISSUES 21

J-1. Is an LEA required to provide transportation to schools of choice? 21
J-2. What funds may be used by an LEA to pay for choice-related transportation? 22
J-3. How much must an LEA pay to provide choice-related transportation? 22
J-4. If an LEA is not required or is unable to provide supplemental educational services to eligible
students, how much money is it required to spend on choice-related transportation? 23
J-5. If the cost of continuing to provide choice-related transportation to students who exercised the option
to change schools in previous years exceeds 15 percent of an LEA’s Title I, Part A allocation, must
the LEA use an amount equal to at least 5 percent of its allocation to provide supplemental
educational services? 23
J-6. What must an LEA do if funds are not sufficient to provide transportation to all students wishing to
transfer? 23
J-7. Must an LEA reserve a portion of its Title I allocation to pay for choice- related transportation? 24
J-8. What other Federal program dollars may be used to pay for choice-related transportation? 24
J-9. Is an LEA required to pay for transportation for students who have left a school in improvement prior
to the enactment of No Child Left Behind? 24
J-10. If an LEA does not already directly provide for transportation to and from schools, must the district
provide transportation for students choosing to transfer under these provisions? 25
J-11. If an LEA does provide transportation but has a general policy of not providing it to students who live
within a certain distance of their schools, would it have to provide transportation to students who
elect, under the Title I school choice provisions, to transfer to schools that are within that
distance of their homes? 25
J-12. May an LEA establish transportation zones within an LEA based on the geographic location of schools? 25
J-13. Does the Title I “supplement, not supplant” requirement apply to transportation funds? 26

PHA,

I find what Sandy describes to be accurate. Further, bright students who need a push to perform do not get it. Consequently they too under perform of the MCAS.

Helen

RE: PHA quote of: I can't believe things are this bad at Thomson. Won't just a couple of minor changes be needed to get Thomson back on track. We should think positively.

Dear PHA,

You have overlooked an important detail I mentioned, namely that the classroom issues I described are found all over town [in fact, all over the Merrimack Valley, all over the state]. This is National public school educational reality in the year 2008. Like Helen confirmed, parents who have children enrolled in public schools recognize this.

Funny that you now say we should think positively. Do I detect a note of sarcasm? You have approached this topic, since your initial posting, mostly from a negative viewpoint, rather than a constructive approach. I will interpret this latest posting as you choosing to come around to my way of thinking. I am not entirely sold on that conclusion though – when you post under anonymous names, your motive is in question.

Back to the topic at hand: which minor changes would you suggest? Please enlighten me. I confess I am curious. I trust that if an easy answer existed, the educational professionals would have already tried it. I’m not a fan of minor changes; they’ve been implemented every year, for the nine years my family was at Thomson and this past year. Minor changes will not fix our problems. Major leadership changes and consistency of high quality curriculum implementation will help.

People with an agenda of trying to put down the North Andover school system regularly fail to acknowledge that the lack of professional training support for our former math curriculum [TERC], the time it took to obtain and implement our new math curriculum, the lack of a science curriculum until last year, the lack of an ELA curriculum [the Lesley project was/is a technique, not a curriculum, and one that does a lousy job from what I’ve witnessed over the years], and the lack of stability in our system district-wide, all had a hand in Thomson’s troubles. The lack of leadership at Thomson just served to magnify a problem that also exists at Sargent, Franklin, Kittredge and at Atkinson. Let’s not even get into the Middle School or High School woes…

The problems noted in the prior paragraph were due in large part to short-sighted political maneuverings by a combination of elected officials, town employees on both sides of the equation, and political activists, and annual budget limitations, NOT anything teachers in the trenches or the actual students were or were not doing.

It is time to put the best interests of the children first. This time, the Federal government will require us to do so.

Sincerely,
Sandy Gleed

Sandy,

Politics defines and governs t