No Title 1 Funds? Now We Know Why!

We could never understand why MVRCS refused Title 1 funding even though they are eligible for it. We recently came across some information that shed light on why Kinnon wouldn't want to accept Title 1 funding - it's called MONITORING! We all know how much his royal arse hates anyone telling him how to do things or what he has to do. Yea, compliance monitoring are two words that probably make Sir Kinnon quiver in his boots! Of course, Kinnon and friends are VERY quick to point out that they are not eligible for funding assistance for facilities but never mentions that they ARE eligible for funding that they refuse to accept in order to avoid oversight and monitoring.

Off subject a bit but does anyone have the final count on how many teachers are leaving MVRCS this year? We hear it may be a record breaking year....thanks Kinnon. the board and administration for treating the teachers in such a demeaning, deplorable, unprofessional manner that none of them wanted to be there. We hear that a few chose unemployment rather than subject themselves to another year there. We must mention however that none of "THOSE" employees (who should be leaving as they are only employed due to their Kinnection) are leaving. And really, why should they, the gravy train is still running!

Title I Program Evaluation Procedure (http://www.doemass.org/titlei/monitoring/10Aeval_procedure.pdf)

The effectiveness of (name of district) Title I program is evaluated annually. The evaluation considers all aspects of the Title I program, including effectiveness of policies, involvement of parent/guardians and impact of equitable services for private school children, if applicable. The following primary questions guide program evaluation: (1) Has the Title I program been effective? (2) What has worked well in the Title I program? (3) What has not worked well in the Title I program? (4) How should the Title I program be refined? The data are analyzed and the results of these analyses are used as the source of evidence to determine the answers to the four questions.
1. Information is collected in the form of formative and summative student performance data; surveys; attendance data; and other data from students, teachers, and administrators. Additionally, a program evaluation survey is distributed to all Title I families in Title I schools. To the extent practicable, the survey is made available in multiple languages.
2. The data are analyzed by the Title I Coordinator with the assistance of other staff, as needed.
3. As necessary and appropriate, the results of the analysis are shared with Title I staff, Title I building classroom teachers, principals, district administrators, parents, and other stakeholders to determine necessary and important changes that should be made to the Title I program to better survey its students.
4. The results of the evaluation, including information about any changes to the Title I program, are shared with district and school officials and distributed to all Title I families in Title I schools. To the extent practicable, the evaluation results are made available in multiple languages. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Page

Title 1 Evaluation Proceduresm - (http://www.doemass.org/titlei/monitoring/procedures.pdf)
Parent / Guardian Communications
     District and School Parent/Guardian Involvement Policies: Districts and Title I schools must develop jointly with, annually evaluate with, and distribute to parents/guardians of Title I students (or, in the case of Schoolwide programs, all students) written parent/guardian involvement policies. The policies establish the district’s and each Title I school’s expectations for parent/guardian involvement, and describe how the district and served schools will involve parents/guardians in developing the district and school improvement plans and in reviewing school performance; provide 2010‐11 Title I Program Review Procedures Page 6
support to assist Title I schools in planning and implementing effective parent/guardian involvement activities to improve student achievement; build the schools' and parents' /guardians’ capacity for strong parental involvement; and coordinate and integrate parent/guardian involvement strategies with other programs (e.g., Head Start program, Reading First, etc.).

       Parent/Guardian Notification – NCLB Report Cards (updated annually): Districts receiving Title I funds must prepare and disseminate annual report cards for the district and each of its schools containing certain information related to assessment, accountability, and teacher quality. "teacher quality" - does that mean that pesty little number that indicates how few of their teachers are certified and/or have previous experience? Does it also include the ever present issue of the outrageously high teacher turnover at MVRCS (and this year will be no exception!).


         Right‐To‐Know (updated annually): Districts must annually notify the parents/guardians of each student attending any Title I school that they may request information regarding certain professional qualifications of the student's classroom teachers. In addition, schools that receive Title I funding must provide each individual parent/guardian timely notice that the parent's child has been assigned or has been taught for four or more consecutive weeks by a teacher who is not highly qualified (regardless of whether or not the teacher is being paid with Title I funds).

        Parent/Guardian Notification – NCLB Accountability Status and School Choice – if applicable: Districts receiving Title I funds must notify parents/guardians of each student attending a school identified for improvement, corrective action or restructuring of that school’s status and of options available to them. While a school receiving Title I funds is identified for improvement, corrective action or restructuring, the district is required to offer the parents/guardians of all students enrolled in the school the option to transfer to another public school served by the district that has not been identified for school improvement, if available. 

       Parent/Guardian Notification – Supplemental Educational Services (SES) – if applicable: If a school receiving Title I funds is identified for improvement (year 2), corrective action or restructuring, the district is required to offer students from low‐income families free tutoring, or supplemental educational services (SES). Rather than allow students to seek outside supplemental educational services (or SES funds), services are provided at the school. This not only keeps money in their pocket but also limits qualified individuals from informing parents of issues their children may have.


Needs Assessment Procedure: Districts are required to conduct annual needs assessments for each Title I school (both Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance programs) that include 2010‐11 Title I Program Review Procedures Page 8 data on student achievement relative to State standards, and input from parents and educators. The Needs Assessment Procedure briefly describes how the district and schools conduct their needs assessments in order to establish priorities for action and make appropriate decisions about the allocation of resources (e.g., people, materials, time, and fiscal, including all funds under NCLB). This includes a description of the quantitative and qualitative data collected and analyzed, who is involved in the analysis, how priority needs are determined, and how school improvement planning and documentation relate to this process.
What, and NOT allow them to do as they please and put funds towards an athletic facility before ensuring the educational needs of all children are met???? How dare they!

Targeted Assistance Program Plans (updated annually): A "Targeted Assistance Program Plan" is documented by completing the template provided (see http://www.doe.mass.edu/titlei/monitoring). The form provides a summary of what is being taught to whom, by whom (e.g., number and type of teachers / paraprofessionals); in which grades; and using which model (e.g., inclusion or pull‐out). Districts are required to develop Targeted Assistance program plans that are coordinated with and support regular education program(s) in relevant schools. Title I staff must be integrated with regular instructional staff in all activities, and Targeted Assistance programs must: (1) Use effective instructional methods and strategies that strengthen the core academic program of the school; (2) Use multiple, educationally related, objective criteria to identify children failing, or most at risk of failing, to meet the State's academic achievement standards (children in grades PK‐2 selected solely on the basis of such criteria as teacher judgment, interviews with parents, and developmentally appropriate measures); (3) Give primary consideration to providing extended learning time for served students; (4) Provide an accelerated, high‐quality curriculum; (5) Minimize the removal of children from the regular classroom during regular school hours.

Revised School Improvement Plans for Title I Schools with Accountability Status: Once identified for improvement, a school must revise its school improvement plan to address the subjects, grade levels and student groups in which the school did not make AYP. In developing or revising this plan, the school must consult with parents, school staff, and others. The plan must be revised no later than three months after the school has been identified for improvement. When schools are identified for corrective action status, the district plans for and implements corrective action steps stipulated in NCLB, as appropriate. When schools are identified for restructuring status, the district plans for and implements restructuring steps stipulated in NCLB, as appropriate. Yes, MVRCS has an 'Accountability Status' - would be interesting to the see how the Sir 'No Education in Education but Knower of It ALL' Kinnon would develop a plan that addressed the issues (if he could even stand to identify the issues!). Consult with who??? Parents and Staff - Not in this lifetime!

 Principals’ Written Attestation ‐ HQ (updated annually): Principals of Title I schools (Schoolwide or Targeted Assistance) must provide annual written attestation that all teachers of core academic subjects have met, or are working toward meeting, the NCLB Title II‐A Highly Qualified Teacher and Paraprofessional requirements. Copies of such attestations must be maintained at each Title I school and at the main office of the district. That would be fine except they can't keep teachers around long enough to write such an attestation! And again, we hear this year is no different as last years teachers are running for the doors!


Supplemental Educational Services (Selected Districts Only)
Supplemental Educational Services (SES) are additional, free, academic instruction designed to increase the academic achievement of students in schools identified for improvement, corrective action or restructuring under NCLB. Students from low‐income families attending Title I schools in their second year of school improvement (i.e., have not made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for three or more years), in corrective action, or in restructuring status are eligible to receive SES.

How Much Do You REALLY Know?

You Don't Know What You Don't Know.....

Many of our opponents have accused us and others of not being involved with the education of our children. We have been challenged regarding how many board meetings we attend, are we room parents, part of the PTO, and the list goes on. More recently we've received comments regarding how uninformed so many parents are as to what actually goes on at MVRCS. This started us thinking about how little access to information we as parents have regarding the school day of our children. As a result, it has made us realize how little access we have to not only information regarding our children but also access to 'our' school. It has caused us to come to the conclusion that the Board and Administration of MVRCS do not want informed parents but rather prefer them to be kept clueless and uninvolved. You Don't Know What You Don't Know.

Our first case in point relates to how much we, as parents, know about our child's day while they are at school. While many schools not only encourage classroom teachers to publish weekly newsletters, they require it. Newsletters are a way for teachers to maintain open communications with parents, keep parents abreast as to what is going on in the classroom, and provide parents with a starting point or prompts as to helping children talk about what they are doing in school. Wouldn't it be so nice to be able to have a specific question to ask about a lesson or activity rather than just the standard 'how was school today'?  How often do parents get the opportunity to visit the classroom, stop in and catch up with teachers (other than the 5 minutes during pickup), or see other students work? The school has eliminated any opportunity for parents to access the buildings as they are not permitted in the classrooms before or after school. It is even more upsetting that the children are not even permitted back in the building after school regardless of the reasoning (i.e. forgot something, bathroom visit, want to show their parent something). With all of the cameras in place (with a lip reading program attached no less!) and the staff that are required to be there until 4pm, it is incomprehensible that the school has adopted such policies. As parents we should have full access to the facilities that house our children for 37.5 hours a week, 200 days a year. This is just another way for the Administration to limit access of information to parents because they rely and depend upon parents being ignorant and uninformed. As for the arguments about being room parents or 'involved' - only 2-4 parents are room parents and therefore permitted to attend the occasional party or event and how do you stay involved when you have such limited access to the building and teachers? Again, You Don't Know What You Don't Know.

We have heard from many teachers that the powers that be at MVRCS have strict limitations and restrictions on what teachers can and can not speak to parents about. In all honesty, they are permitted to speak to parents about very little and any teacher-parent correspondences (notes home) must be pre-approved. MVRCS is the only school that insists upon such control placed upon their teachers. The Administration has been quoted as saying that they do not want to provide too much information to parents as then they would be required to continue in that manner. Try asking teachers some tough questions like 'what level group is my child in (i.e. should I be concerned that my child is in the lowest reading or math group and still struggling)'? Or, 'how was my child's placement determined?', and heavens forbid you request a level change for your child - DENIED but unfortunately, the teachers have such limited say all of this. In hindsight we wished we had provided parents with a list of questions to ask during their 15 minute conferences last week. On that note, did you meet with the teacher who actually teaches your child reading and/or math daily or their homeroom teacher (if they are not the same). Do most parents even know that the homeroom teacher is not necessarily the teacher that their child spends the majority of their day with? Again, You Don't Know What You Don't Know.

We would agree that parents are permitted to attend the Open Meeting portion of the Board of Trustees monthly meeting but must also acknowledge how uninspiring the experience is for the majority of most parents. As we've discussed in the past, Neil Kinnon treats the parents with blatant disregard that borders on contempt. At the same time, the Board too often (and many times illegally) resort to Executive Sessions which exclude parents. The Board has shown just how little importance they place upon these meetings as not only are they not welcoming to parents but they make obtaining the minutes for these meetings near impossible to obtain. At the very least, the Board COULD post the minutes for both sessions on their web site as a means of ensuring all parents are informed and kept abreast as to issues. While many parents have determined that attending the Board Meetings serves no purpose considering the dismissive and demeaning tone of Neil Kinnon, many would appreciate having access to an agenda and/or meeting minutes to allow them to be better informed. We bring up TitleI funding as an example, why would a school who makes it clear that they do not have access to the funding that our public schools have, refuse funds and assistance in reading? In an Annual Report the board said it was so that they could control the curriculum and methodology but Title I is meant assist and ensure the reading success of all students. We think it is again, because it would allow too much information to be revealed AND because they could not control (to the degree it is now) what told to parents.Again, we see this approach and attitude as just another example of the Administration wanting to keep parents uninformed and ignorant. Let's not forget, it is difficult to challenge or question what you don't know about, or you don't know what you don't know.

We could really go on and on with this as it has become overly apparent that the Board of Trustees and Administration do not want involved, informed, questioning parents but would much prefer to just maintain unilateral control similar to a dictatorship. Oh yes, and is that Dictator Neil Kinnon with the control?

Refusing Title I Funds....Because?

We've been looking into Title I funding as we found it curious that MVRCS has declined this funding in the past (even though they qualified for it), causing us toquestion why they did this, if they are still refusing Title I funds. It seems in these times of tight financial concern and equally unstable education funding (charter schools included), that schools would take whatever funding they could obtain (especially as they have been forced to charge for transportation this year). While we have been unable to identify justification for their decision, we did find more information on Title I funding and what is required to receive such funds.After reading through this, we question if the decision was based on the fact that by accepting these funds, the school would be under scrutiny of the Title I folks who would be looking for the following signs of a quality, successful education for all children.

The purpose of this title is to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging State academic achievement standards and state academic assessments. This purpose can be accomplished by —