Pledge a thorny issue in Amherst

Hampshire Gazette
NICK GRABBE
Saturday, November 21, 2009

AMHERST - Superintendent Alberto Rodriguez and the School Committee would much rather deal with educational issues than get tangled up in the question of whether teachers have to recite the Pledge of Allegiance every day.

At Tuesday's committee meeting, Rodriguez said he would send an email message to teachers notifying them that a state law requires them to lead daily recitations of the pledge. But on Friday, after learning that this law is in legal limbo, Rodriguez said he would like to consult the schools' attorney before acting on "this very thorny issue."

"Are we going to get into enforcing a law when we know that the moment it's challenged, we're going to be on the losing side?" Rodriguez said. With budgets tight, it makes more sense to spend the schools' limited resources on children, rather than on attorneys' fees, he said.

"The School Committee needs to make judicious choices about how to spend our dollars," he said.

The issue arose at Tuesday's School Committee meeting when member Catherine Sanderson said some parents have asked her why the district is changing its policies to obey state laws about clustering students by ethnicity while ignoring another state law about reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.

The Massachusetts General Laws read in part: "Each teacher at the commencement of the first class of each day in all grades in all public schools shall lead the class in a group recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance."

But the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued an opinion in 1977 that this law is unconstitutional, and a school system cannot require teachers to recite the pledge, said William Newman, a Northampton attorney who heads the western Massachusetts chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Rodriguez said Tuesday that compliance with the law in Amherst is "inconsistent."

The superintendent, who arrived in Amherst from Florida in July, said Tuesday that the Pledge of Allegiance should be important to educators because they are giving young children a sense of what is important.

"I'm from the South, where we salute the flag and say, 'Thank you, ma'am' and 'No, sir,'" he said. Rodriguez said he is not accustomed to "some of the stuff that seems to be cultural" in Amherst, citing the tolerance of the annual marijuana festival on the town common.

"I'm all for law and order and making sure we salute the flag," Rodriguez said.

News of the School Committee discussion set off a flurry of comments on Sanderson's blog. While many criticized the pledge as indoctrination, especially its phrase "under God," others said citizens can't choose which laws to obey.

"The pledge is not about what America is, it's about what America should be," wrote Rick Hood, a candidate for School Committee.

The best option is to "let sleeping dogs lie," because the schools have many more pressing issues to deal with, said Andrew Churchill, chairman of the Amherst School Committee. He said he recited the Pledge of Allegiance in school every day when he was young.

"I don't feel I was improved or harmed by it," he said Friday. "But what does it really mean to pledge allegiance to a flag? Personally, I'd rather have us sing 'America the Beautiful' every morning. The bottom line is I don't think this is a big issue, and we have bigger fish to fry."

Sanderson said Thursday that she doesn't have strong feelings about whether or not teachers recite the pledge, and agreed that the School Committee has more important issues to grapple with.

"But to me, not saying the pledge, when it is the law, strikes me as emblematic of a broader concern I have about the schools - that somehow we in Amherst believe that we are so unique that rules and laws and curriculum and policies used in other districts don't apply to us and how we do education," she said.

According to attorney Newman of the ACLU, although the law is on the books, it is unenforceable.

Teachers may lead their classes in recitations of the pledge, but students may remain quiet and can't be ordered out of the room, Newman said.

"No school system can require a teacher to lead the class in the pledge, and no student can be compelled to participate if a teacher should choose to say the pledge," he said.

This issue became a sideshow in the 1988 presidential campaign. Former Gov. Michael Dukakis had vetoed a Massachusetts law that would have required teachers to lead students in the pledge, citing the 1977 Supreme Judicial Court opinion. The Legislature then passed the law over his veto, Newman said.

"The law sits on the books but was declared unconstitutional before it was enacted," he said.

As a presidential candidate, George H.W. Bush used the incident to impugn Dukakis' patriotism, and many voters missed the fact that the law he vetoed had been ruled unconstitutional, Newman said.

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to a Florida law that requires all students to stand and recite the pledge unless excused in writing by a parent.

In 1977, the Massachusetts court wrote: "A majority of the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court made answer that as applied to teachers, bill which would require each teacher at the commencement of the first class of each day in all grades in all public schools to lead the class in a group recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag would violate the First Amendment of the Federal Constitution, even if under the proposed bill there would be no criminal penalties against non-complying teachers, since there would still be an element of compulsion on a teacher inherent in the existence of the statutory mandate."

Nick Grabbe can be reached at ngrabbe@gazettenet.com.

Patriotism, race taken up by board

Amherst Bulletin
By NICK GRABBE
November 19, 2009

The Regional School Committee dealt this week with the hot-button issues of patriotism and race.

Responding to a question from member Catherine Sanderson, Superintendent Alberto Rodriguez said he will send an email message to faculty and staff advising them to adhere to state law regarding the "Pledge of Allegiance."

After Rodriguez said that compliance is "inconsistent," Sanderson asked if committee members should be concerned. He responded, "It should be important to educators" because of their influence on children.

Teachers must lead a "group recitation" of the "Pledge of Allegiance" at the beginning of each school day, according to the Massachusetts General Laws. "Failure for a period of two consecutive weeks by a teacher to salute the flag and recite the pledge, or to cause the pupils under his charge so to do, shall be punished for every such period by a fine of not more than $5," the law reads.

Sanderson said it sends a "weird message" for schools to ignore the law. If Amherst were "making principled objections and proudly violating the law," she might feel differently, she said.

Rodriguez said he is from the South, "where we salute the flag and say, 'Thank you, ma'am,' and, 'No, sir.' It caught my attention that (reciting the 'Pledge') is not as widespread as I felt it should be."

He said that he is not blaming anyone, adding that he is "not particularly used to some of the stuff that seems to be cultural" in Amherst.

"I'm all for law and order and making sure we salute the flag," he said.

At Tuesday's meeting, the School Committee also addressed the sensitive issue of race, with respect to suspensions and a program mostly for students of color that encourages academic progress.

According to figures presented by Principal Mark Jackson, students from African-American and Latino backgrounds have been suspended more frequently than their percentages of the high school population would seem to indicate. From August 2008 through June 2009, African-American students, who make up 8.75 percent of the school, accounted for 18 percent of the external and 14 percent of the internal suspensions.

Latino students, who comprise 10 percent of the school, received 23 percent of the external and 22 percent of the internal suspensions.

White students, who are 68 percent of the school, received 52 percent of the external and 55 percent of the internal suspensions, according to Jackson's figures.

"This is a white, middle-class environment that is fairly easily alienating for kids of color," Jackson said. But he also said, "This is a very safe and orderly place and the level of compliance with rules is very high."

School Committee member Kathleen Anderson said, "White people aren't intentionally being hostile; they don't know any better."

Welcoming climate

Rodriguez said the school must create a climate where "all students feel welcomed and this is part of their home. This is nobody's fault, and it's all our fault."

Project Challenge, which has existed for more than 10 years, provides support for students to take honors courses and achieve at a higher level. These students are selected on the basis of race, income and family background, and of the 28 current students who have participated, six are white, Jackson said.

The results have been mixed, he said. Some years there is evidence that Project Challenge has helped and others there isn't, but the cost is only about $6,000 to $7,000 a year, he said.

Committee member Steve Rivkin said that with the budget under pressure, "We need to have a lens on everything."

Member Irv Rhodes agreed, saying, "We need to know the reason for existing so our decision on cuts is informed."

Rivkin also suggested that the school district make sure that the racial criteria for the program are in accordance with the law.

Sanderson brought up the issue at a parent's request. Anderson termed the inquiry "a hostile reaction for the privileged class."

"People in the dominant culture expect to have the best for their kids, but when it's extended to those without privileges, they get upset," she said.

Officials see alienation in ARHS suspensions

Hampshire Gazette
By NICK GRABBE
Wednesday, November 18, 2009

AMHERST - Students from African-American and Latino backgrounds have been suspended at higher percentages at Amherst Regional High School than their percentages in the school population, Principal Mark Jackson announced Tuesday.

From August 2008 through June 2009, African-American students accounted for 18 percent of the external suspensions and 14 percent of the internal suspensions, while they comprise 8.75 percent of the school population, according to the figures Jackson presented.

Latino students, who comprise 10 percent of the population, accounted for 23 percent of the external and 22 percent of the internal suspensions, according to the figures.

"This is a white, middle-class environment that is fairly easily alienating for kids of color," Jackson told the Regional School Committee Tuesday.

But he also said, "This is a very safe and orderly place and the level of compliance with rules is very high."

White students, who comprise 68 percent of the school population, accounted for 52 percent of the external and 55 percent of the internal suspensions, according to the figures.

School Committee member Steve Rivkin asked how many students who were suspended were new arrivals, and perhaps find a new environment alienating. He asked what the ultimate consequence of suspensions is, such as how many drop out.

"White people aren't intentionally being hostile; they don't know any better," said School Committee member Kathleen Anderson. She asked Jackson how the culture of the high school can be transformed to increase awareness.

Jackson said he's found it difficult to engage in the topic of race, but agreed that some students of color can find the high school "inhospitable."

Superintendent Alberto Rodriguez said the school needs to create a climate where "all students feel welcomed and this is part of their home. This is nobody's fault and it's all of our fault."

He said that children often lash out with violence or other unacceptable behavior because their learning environment is deficient.

During the debate over elementary redistricting, Rodriguez said he saw a lot of anxiety among parents and advocates of students of color who felt that keeping ethnic clusters together would make them feel more comfortable.

"We need to look at structural inequities that lead a certain child one way and another child another way," he said.

Nick Grabbe can be reached at ngrabbe@gazettenet.com.

Amherst eyes fewer bus stops

Hampshire Gazette
By Nick Grabbe

Created 11/14/2009

AMHERST - The School Committee may save money on its new bus contract by reducing the number of stops and requiring students to walk up to a quarter mile to reach them.

On Oct. 27, the Amherst School Committee decided to include this new policy in a request for proposals for a new bus contract starting next year. It did not approve an end to busing students living within 1.5 miles of a school, as the state allows, or eliminating after-school late buses.

The new contract will also save money by eliminating the practice of busing Cambodian students to Fort River school and Latino students to Crocker Farm School.

The committee decided against the 1.5-mile no-busing option because of concerns over children's safety and the New England climate, said member Catherine Sanderson.

The Regional School Committee is expected to decide on new busing rules Tuesday.

At a previous meeting, Sanderson endorsed the quarter-mile rule, with savings estimated at $18,000 to $24,000 a year. Chairman Farshid Hajir, of Leverett, recommended eliminating transportation to a program at Greenfield Community College, which would save about $9,000, because it serves so few students. Both opposed cutting after-school buses.

The Regional School Committee will face a more urgent bus financing issue Tuesday. Gov. Deval Patrick reduced transportation reimbursements for regional schools for the current year two weeks ago, and Amherst's cut is $167,000, Hajir said.

Superintendent Alberto Rodriguez is expected to issue recommendations for closing the gap Tuesday.

The cut is unfair because it affects rural schools more than urban ones, Hajir said. State Rep. Steven Kulik, D-Worthington, signed an Oct. 30 letter to Patrick saying the cuts will affect personnel and services and asking him to reconsider.

"Combining transportation routes, especially in regional districts in the western part of the commonwealth, would place an extreme burden on students who would then be required to ride a school bus route for inordinate amounts of time," the letter said.

Many L.A. students not moving out of English language classes

Note from Catherine: Given the interest in the topic of ELL in Amherst on my blog, I'm posting this story. Thanks to Abbie for alerting my blog readers to this story, which also was heard on NPR.


Los Angeles Times
By Anna Gorman
October 29, 2009

Almost 30% of those placed early on in such programs in L.A. Unified were still in them when they started high school, study says. The sooner students moved on, the more they excelled.

Nearly 30% of Los Angeles Unified School District students placed in English language learning classes in early primary grades were still in the program when they started high school, increasing their chances of dropping out, according to a new study released Wednesday.

More than half of those students were born in the United States and three-quarters had been in the school district since first grade, according to the report by the Tomás Rivera Policy Institute at USC.

The findings raise questions about the teaching in the district's English language classes, whether students are staying in the program too long and what more educators should do for students who start school unable to speak English fluently.

"If you start LAUSD at kindergarten and are still in ELL classes at ninth grade, that's too long," said Wendy Chavira, assistant director of the policy institute. "There is something wrong with the curriculum if there are still a very large number of students being stuck in the system."

Researchers tracked the data on 28,700 students from the time they started sixth grade in 1999 until graduation in 2005. They found that students who were moved to mainstream classes by the time they were in eighth grade were more likely than students who remained in English language classes to stay in school, take advanced placement courses in high school and pass the high school exit exam.

Mary Campbell, who is in charge of English language learning programs at L.A. Unified, said students must learn English as well as the grade-level material to move into mainstream classes. That often takes longer than learning the language, she said.

"We are aggressively looking at supporting these longtime English learners to ensure that they get the support needed to reclassify in a timely manner," she said.

The vast majority of the students in the segregated language classes are not recent immigrants but rather U.S.-born youths, according to the study. Nearly 70% of all students ever placed in the English language learning program were born in the United States.

Previous studies have shown that English language learners generally score lower on standardized tests than their English-only classmates. Other studies have shown that students in English language classes are usually placed with less experienced teachers, focus on language skills rather than content and are segregated from students who speak English.

"The United States has never learned what is the best way to teach English to English learners," said Harry Pachon, president of the Tomás Rivera Policy Institute. "That's really a shortcoming."

The sooner students switch to regular classes the better, the new study showed. Students who moved out of English classes by third grade scored up to 40 points higher on standardized tests than those who stayed in the classes. If the students moved by fifth grade, they scored about 10 points higher than their peers.

And in some cases, students who were in English learning programs and then moved out performed better than students in English-only classes.

All students who speak a second language at home must take a test to see whether they should be placed into classes for English learners. Once they are enrolled, they must take another test to get out. But Pachon said the process to get in is easier than it is to get out.

Though the study didn't determine why students were staying in English language programs for so long, researchers say schools may avoid moving English learners into mainstream classes to keep test scores high.

Amherst schools brace for budget crunch

Hampshire Gazette
By NICK GRABBE
Friday, November 13, 2009

AMHERST - Students in grades 7 through 12 could see much higher athletics fees and the elimination of classes with enrollments under 15 next year, because of the need for massive budget cuts.

World languages, arts and music, libraries, counseling, elective courses and administrative positions could all be on the chopping block, according to School Committee members. An increase in average class size is an option.

On Tuesday, the Regional School Committee will start the process of setting its spending priorities in anticipation of another painful budget season. The Amherst School Committee will start its discussion of next year's elementary budget at its Nov. 24 meeting.

If regional school staffing and programs are kept the same as this year, there will be a shortfall of between $2.2 million and $3.3 million, said Rob Detweiler, the schools' finance director. These figures assume a 10 percent decline in state aid, a 20 percent cut in regional transportation reimbursement, and no override of Proposition 2½, he said.

"You better believe everyone in management is thinking (about) what we can do without," Detweiler said. "Everything will be looked at because we have to."

The current year's budget for the Amherst and regional schools has the equivalent of 55 fewer full-time positions than last year. In considering next year's spending plan, the schools must consider cuts that "go beyond trimming here and there," said committee member Debbie Gould, of Pelham.

The committee is accepting comments from residents about what the funding priorities should be. It is also seeking about seven citizen volunteers for a budget advisory committee, which will meet until mid-January.

"We don't want to be caught thinking about this too late," said Andy Churchill, Amherst School Committee chairman.

The options for trimming expenses are limited because 80 percent of the budgets go to personnel, and these costs are subject to union contracts.

School Committee member Catherine Sanderson said she does not favor asking the teachers union to consider renegotiating its contract, though she described it as "not sustainable." The union is in the second year of a three-year contract that will provide 3 percent cost-of-living raises next year, and about half the teachers will also receive 4 percent "step" increases.

Sanderson favored scrutiny of the $5 million regional special education budget, reconsideration of the trimester system, and a hard look at "expensive electives," intervention support and reading instruction.

"We're in a kind of crisis," she said. "Nothing should be off the table."

The athletics option that's being discussed would make the program self-supporting by increasing fees and creating booster clubs. Fees have already gone up, and if they are raised again, some families won't be able to afford them, Gould said. "We don't want it to be just for the rich," she said.

Gould also expressed concern that more staffing and program cuts could spur more parents to send their children to charter schools, private schools or schools in other towns, thus causing a decline in state aid.

Health insurance for employees, which has been a budget-buster in the past, is increasing at only 6 percent, but the recession is causing more people to sign up for benefits, perhaps because their spouses have lost jobs, Detweiler said.

In addition to operating expenses, the regional schools have a long list of building and grounds maintenance projects, estimated to cost $3.8 million over the next five years. An expense of $92,000 for repointing leaking capstones and caulking windows and doors at the middle school is listed as a "very high" priority for next year.

The Select Board expects to schedule a vote to override Proposition 2½, the state law limiting property tax hikes, on March 23, the same day as the town election. Approval of a $4 million override, the current estimate of the townwide shortfall, would increase the average Amherst tax bill by 11 percent, from $5,611 to $6,228, according to the Finance Committee.

The committee has asked school officials to prepare three budgets by Jan. 18. The first is a "level services" budget, which Detweiler said would increase by about 7 percent. The second is a "level funding" plan with the budget frozen at the current year's level, and the third would cut funding by 3 percent.

The regional school budget must be approved by three out of the four towns - Amherst, Pelham, Leverett and Shutesbury - so their different needs must be considered. On Dec. 12, representatives of the four towns will confer at 9 a.m. in the middle school library.

"We have to confront this head-on," said School Committee member Irv Rhodes. "We can't hide from it for long."

Nick Grabbe can be reached at ngrabbe@gazettenet.com.

Clusters are not illegal; respectfully revisit redistricting

Amherst Bulletin
By KEN PRANSKY
Published on November 13, 2009

Amherst was once a school system many communities with diverse populations envied. In the last couple of years, though, much has been abandoned. Especially with the changes being made in the name of redistricting, the heart and soul of our schools is shifting with regard to how we will go about educating some of our most vulnerable learners. And while reasonable people can differ on ideas, I fear these decisions have not been as transparent or informed as they should be and that the students and families most affected by these changes deserve.

One example concerns the end of our longstanding language and culture cluster programs. The School Committee and central administration have stated flatly on multiple occasions that they are illegal. Many of us tried to tell them that they are not illegal if done as English language learner programs.

We were not listened to. I thought, I'm not a lawyer, maybe I'm wrong. But I recently got a hold of a copy of the legal opinion from the firm of Murphy, Hesse, Toomey and Lehane that was sent to administration in response to their queries about the legality of our cluster programs. I quote directly from the opinion: "If the district believes that grouping its students based on their language of origin is the fastest, most effective way of teaching English, such a policy would be permissible but not preferable under (state law)."

An email from School Committee member Catherine Sanderson to me confirms that this is well understood by the committee (and thus by implication, the administration as well). Well, all our cluster programs - the Cambodian cluster, Latino cluster and Chinese cluster - are English language education programs. Thus, they are quite legal after all. One is left to draw one's own conclusion about the School Committee's and administration's unequivocal pronouncements about illegality.

Later in the opinion, the lawyer responded to a specific question about "the grouping of students by ethnic group who are fluent in English, and therefore not ELL students." We have no programs like that, so why that question? How could all this misinformation have gone unnoticed for so long, and repeated so often in public, accompanied by such a negative, accusatory tone? What is going on?

This whole process has been shocking, and tainted. I feel particularly bad for the parents who came out to plead for those programs at the public forums, only to be falsely told they were illegal. Given the clear legality of our language/culture cluster ELL programs, and now that the School Committee and administration know, I respectfully ask that they revisit their decision to end them.

But maybe the School Committee and administration do not believe that clustering is, in the words of the legal opinion, the "fastest, most effective way of teaching English."

There certainly can be ideological disagreements and that's fair - just be honest and say so. At least then, supporters have a chance to show MCAS, graduate rate and other data from our ELL programs' excellent 20-plus year track record that makes their case in support of the families that may not be able to advocate for themselves. The schools belong to our whole town, and we all deserve transparency and honesty about whatever agenda is driving decisions about them - certainly not least, the communities most affected.

As someone who served for 20 years in this district, often with populations of very struggling learners who were able to surmount many obstacles because of the support provided to them, I am sad about a lot of what is going on now.

I also wonder why teacher voices are increasingly unheeded in this district, especially in these times when their perspective is so badly needed.

That is one of the saddest things of all.

Ken Pransky has been teaching in the ESL field for more than 30 years, 20 of those as a teacher at Fort River school. For the last couple of years he has been on leave, doing teacher consulting and training in districts across the state, specializing in ESL and student underachievement issues.

A note from Catherine: Since Ken specifically refers to me as stating that the clusters are legal, I want to clarify exactly what I said, and where I disagree with his statements in this piece. First, all of our cluster programs are not in fact ELL programs. We have students who speak English fluently who are being clustered based on their culture in a given school (and receiving free transportation to those schools -- this is what is in fact illegal). Second, if we were to keep the clusters, children who became proficient at English at some point during the 7 years of elementary school would then need to return to their local school -- they could not remain at the school where they were clustered (meaning these children would then have a major change to a school in which they didn't necessarily have friends/know teachers; it could also easily mean that families could have children in different elementary schools). That doesn't sound ideal to me. Third, the School Committee doesn't in fact control how we provide education to particular groups of kids (e.g., how we provide service to ELL students, how we provide service to kids with autism, etc.) -- that is the role of the school administration, so it is up to them to decide how best to educate ELL kids. However, the state does NOT recommend that kids are clustered by language (precisely because such an approach has not been shown to be the most effective way of teaching kids English), and thus I believe the administration is wise in following state recommendations and ending the clustering program. Nonetheless, this is not a School Committee decision -- as evidenced by the fact that the SC never voted to continue or discontinue the language clusters.