Left In Lowell

One of the Sun’s Real Reporters™, Jen Myers, has an interesting piece in the Sun today (the real reason I wanted to peruse the Sun’s horrid front page today, when I wound up distracted by the silly I just posted about below). It begins to paint a very different picture of the very public “battle” between the School Committee and Dr. Chris Scott. In a rather even handed way, it outlines concerns that we all should have when it comes to how our superintendent has been operating.

Given how well I know several of the people involved, I always knew there was more to this story than Campanini wanted to sell us. (I trust that guy about as far as I can throw my Toyota. Or the 15-foot snowbank out in front of my house.)

The two key issues raised by committee members since Scott’s announcement are the use of two literacy consultants at the Murkland School, and the movement of several students out of the Molloy Alternative School program.

At the committee’s Jan. 5 meeting, member Jackie Doherty said she was “blindsided” when she found out that the $1,400-a-day consultants from Teachers for Teachers were being used as part of the underperforming Murkland School’s turnaround plan.

The article mentions that the acceptance of these consultant’s contracts happened in October, and of course this issue has been aired out before, a bit. However:

Doherty and committee member Connie Martin both expressed concern that the consultants were working in the district last fall prior to the School Committee’s vote appropriating funding.

“Working without a contract is illegal,” Martin said. “It is a huge issue.”

Scott’s answer is that they were working at risk, but if Martin is correct, it little matters, and should not have been done. What appears to me is, Scott asked for forgiveness instead of permission, misled (either by accident or deliberately, I couldn’t say) about the rules behind the grants, and what was the School Committee going to do, vote to not give the consultants a contract after they’d been on the job already?

At that meeting, committee member Connie Martin said she felt the $75,000 in grant money could be better spent to hire a full-time staff member, rather than on 48 days of work from the consultants.

48 days compared to a year?? Ug. The fact remains, had there been a proposal ahead of time as to what to do with the grant, the School Committee might have found a way to more efficiently spend that money, including a non-consultant position that could have been for the entire year, instead of using up the grant money on expensive outside consultants. Or they might have gone with Scott’s plan, if it was a good one. But they didn’t get that chance. Since the role of the School Committee is oversight, you have to give them the chance to fill that role. Or else why elect them?

Something new to me, however, is the Molloy School issue (the alternative high school), where there seems to be a dispute about policy changes there that the SC were not made aware of, and that “between June and November, the Molloy’s population fell from 90 students to 55.”

It’s a complicated issue, so (since it’s a Jen Myers article) I recommend you go read more, but it stems from, basically, this:

Former Molloy School guidance counselor Judith Flood said she spoke to several of the Molloy School upperclassmen who were transferred back to LHS and they said they did not want to go.

“They were told there were not going to be any more 11th or 12th graders there anymore,” she said. “Some dropped out because they could not go to a school the size of Lowell High for their own reasons. We have lost a lot of students, we have lost them to the streets.”

There appears to be some students being lost along the way, dropping out because they were shuffled around. That’s concerning, but what’s more concerning is that big policy changes appear to have been made, which at least should have been reported to the SC. Scott claims that there were no big policy changes, but if there weren’t, why did we suddenly see the population of that school reduced so sharply? Again, there was a forgiveness-rather-than-permission atmosphere here, and since the SC has to take the ultimate blame for the dropout rates and for what happens to our students, giving them no chance on oversight when that is their traditional role seems, at best, poor policy.

Then finally, for me, there’s the fact that Scott decided to take her contract dispute to the newspaper where her BFF was sure to give her lots of cover, and to the unions (smacking of the Cox resignation and the city unions). That leaves a very bad taste in my mouth, and it looks like bullying to me. I think this superintendent may just have a bad track record of working within the confines of her job, and if it were one instance, or two, maybe that’s forgivable…but once it becomes a pattern, I have to wonder if she’s the right fit for Lowell after all.

Ha ha ha. Does this “Note to bloggers” extend to making fun of the local rag (well, its leadership, anyway) for making a crappy newspaper?

Cuz “making fun” and “crappy” and all are opinions. Ok, sure, opinions that are shared by a lot of people in the city, and no one really trusts the editorials there especially, and allegedly, a lot of the reporting appears to be suppressed on certain subjects, but still.

Yeah, thanks for the warning, guys. Maybe you ought to take an, er, leaf out of your own paper once in a while.

At least that piece of slug is good for amusement occasionally, between that and the pets photo page. (No wonder I don’t read that rag.)

Move Lowell Forward PAC, the local municipal PAC of which I am co chair, is putting together an open and free event featuring a guest speaker, Adam Baacke, who is Assistant City Manager of Planning & Development, on February 17th, 7pm. Adam will be talking about Lowell’s development projects, such as the Hamilton Canal District, Tanner Street and downtown, but also the Master Plan (sounds like a villain plot!) and the green and sustainability initiatives. Light refreshments will be served and Adam will of course also take questions.

RSVPs requested, but not required, you can email info@movelowellforward.com.

We’re hosting the event at Market Mill, technically 256 Market St (near where the National Parks Visitor Center is, across from The Brush Art Gallery). Parking is available in the National Historic Visitors lot off Dutton Street, or street parking on Market. When you arrive, you should check out the nearly-finished Appleton Mill complex, which after this spring will be full of artists! It’s really incredible to see those plans come alive, and we’re excited to host this event!