NTA Survey Observations
I have learned so much from studying the survey data we collected, and it is so important that I do not want to "be done" with that data, and move on to the next thing. Of course, the data will inform our advocacy, but it is also important that I share with you what I have observed, and what I take the implications of that learning to be. So, going forward, I would like to share an observation from each week.
I would also like you to know that many of you shared ideas about how the survey could be improved. I will continue to use this survey, but I will incorporate your suggestions where it makes sense. There are also areas that I have observed myself that need to be modified. (See graph above; that's a good question!)
You can find the full survey results here.
In response to questions 18 and 19, regarding who members trust and whom they feel respects them, members trust most and feel most respected by their co-workers, followed closely by the NTA and then members' building based supervisors. Mayor Fuller is by far the least trusted, followed by the school committee and then central office administrators (Superintendent and Assistant Superintendents).
If there was one key shortcoming of David Fleishman's leadership, it was his seeming unwillingness to be "in charge": He did not advocate publicly for fulling funding the NPS; he did not participate in negotiations; he seemed not to supervise his central staff. In fact, it seemed he delegated most everything. BUT, one virtue of this approach was that leadership emerged from "the bottom up." Building leaders -- principals, department heads, assistant and vice principals -- took the lead in their buildings, and to the extent they could, central administrators supported them. And since building leaders work most closely with unit A, C, D and E members, they were much more well-positioned to understand and respond to NTA member's voices. Not always enough, but better than their counterparts in central administration, on the school committee, and the mayor.
There were serious problems in this leadership approach: There were inequities and inconsistencies throughout the system. Still, well before David Fleishman became superintendent, the Newton Public Schools had always been notable for a culture that offered a good deal of autonomy to both building leaders and building staff. Did that culture erode during David's superintendency? Yes. But to a great extent, building leaders and staff were given space to be -- leaders.
Which brings me back to my survey observation: One of the great strengths of the NPS has been that under this culture of distributed leadership, members trust and feel respected by their building leaders. So in the rush to "fix" Newton by Anna Nolin's administrative team, there is a real risk that this trust and feeling of respect could be lost.
You cannot fix Newton without recognizing, and honoring, what has worked here and made Newton an exceptionally strong district. The question Anna's team should be asking is not how be how to impose equity and consistency on the schools, but rather, how does it support school leaders by listening carefully in order to understand why and to what extent the culture here works, and providing buildings with adequate resources and support services they say they need.
One of the complaints I heard form members most often during David's superintendency was that their voices were not sought out nor taken into account when building principals were evaluated, and consequently, weak principals never got better. Central Administration needs to find ways to hear from members and learn where building leadership is not working, and then step in forcefully in buildings where it is not working. Because, more often or not, inequities and inconsistency are the consequence of poor building leadership.
What I would ask--and I know I am not alone in this, is that central administrative leadership meet us where we are, let us explain what works and what doesn't, and acknowledge, in practice, not just in words, that you hear us.
I could say a lot more, but I hope these observations become part of your own, and enter into your conversations. Feel free to share your own thought with me by replying to this email.
Newton Public Schools Budget Season Episode 2: The Empire Strikes Back
I ended my last EBulletin update on the budget with the following words:
"A budget battle with Mayor Fuller is looming. This time around, let's hope we are fighting in tandem with the Newton School Committee and not against it! Can you imagine that: A school committee and a superintendent fighting for the schools are students deserve, and not complicit in undermining them!?"
Well, the budget battle is no longer looming. Mayor Fuller has begun her counter offensive, with emphasis on the word 'offensive.' In her latest email update to the Newton community, Fuller begins her remarks with:
"I believe that perhaps for the first time in Newton’s history, the Superintendent of the Newton Public Schools is not proposing a balanced budget for the coming year. Rather, the Superintendent is recommending that the School Committee send to the Mayor a budget with aspirational spending levels that would force us to cut other critical services or jeopardize the financial security and resiliency of the City of Newton and the Newton Public Schools.
The aspirations are honorable; but they do not fit within the City’s financial realities.
....Every department in the City has aspirations greater than our financial capacity. Yet, they all know how important it is to work together to align our budget with the collective values of our entire community...."
This is gaslighting, and that is a polite word for what it is. In a time when we are bombarded with lies and misinformation from Washington, we absolutely need better from our local political leaders.
First of all, tomorrow night at 6:30 Anna Nolin will tell the SC what NPS could fund under five budget scenarios, only two of which could be readily be considered truly "aspirational."
Here are all five scenarios:
Second, Anna's presentation will focus on the yellow budget scenario, "Level + Services," as will her formal draft budget book. Realistically, that budget scenario itself is more "level services" than "plus"; will entail some program restructuring in order to be balanced; kicks the additional supports that our students and staff need now down the road; and makes no provision for addressing contract negotiations that will begin in the fall of 2026. In short, Anna will be presenting a life jacket budget for next year, one which allows the schools to survive, but not certainly not thrive.
Third, the red, or "level services" budget does not, in fact, provide level services. It does fit within the Fuller's allocation. It does NOT fund full day kindergarten; it does not fund expanded Bridge and Stride programs at the elementary level; requires an increase in out of district tuition costs. and requires up to $4.2 million in additional cuts, which are not itemized. Fuller wants us to go through, once again, the demoralizing process of figuring how to mitigate the effects of underfunding rather than addressing real needs.
Fourth, Fuller scolds, shames and blames the Newton Public Schools for her failures of leadership when she writes that "every department in the City has aspirations greater than our financial capacity. Yet, they all know how important it is to work together to align our budget with the collective values of our entire community."
Fifth, during COVID, when the city received much additional federal funding, very little of those resources went to the Newton Public Schools, and much of it was used as seed money to initiate projects that will further burden the city budget in years to come. And the city continues to run budget surpluses in the $15 to $30 million range.
There are, and have been all along, sufficient resources to better fund the NPS.
P.S. I've been around the Newton Public Schools for a long time now. Mayor Fuller, your belief that this is the first time a superintendent has presented a budget that does not capitulate to a mayor's budgetary miserliness is incorrect. Superintendent Jeff Young, who proceeded David Fleishman, was very clear about what was needed to level fund the schools, what improvements were needed and what these would cost, and what the mayor's allocation entailed in terms of cuts. And he presented these realities to the staff first and then the school committee.
P.S.S. What is unprecedented? No mayor prior to you has treated the Newton Public Schools with such callous imperiousness, nor exercised the power of the mayor's office so unilaterally. I doubt that anyone else in an elected office will say that to you publicly, or even privately for that matter. I acknowledge that I am in a privileged position to say this to you. After all, in a recent survey, 76% of NTA members said they feel strongly that they do not trust you, and 15% more said feel they do not trust you. Further attempts at gaslighting the public about the needs of the Newton Public Schools and the resources available to the City of Newton is only going to make this worse.
High School Joint Oversight Committee Joint Statement
This is a joint statement that the High School Joint Oversight Committee shared with Anna Nolin:
To: Dr. Nolin, NPS School Committee, Newton North/South Staff:
From: HS Joint Oversight Committee
The HS Joint Oversight Committee (JOC) has been charged with making a recommendation about whether or not to continue the practice of having morning faculty and staff meetings instead of meetings in the afternoon. The JOC reviewed meeting attendance data and surveyed NTA members about their experiences during morning and afternoon meetings and their preferences for the meeting schedule moving forward.
After review of the attendance and survey data, the JOC conducted a vote and those present voted unanimously to recommend that we continue the practice of having morning faculty and staff meetings. We base this decision on the reasoning below:
Unit A, B and C were surveyed about their experience in morning meetings and felt that they are more productive and more engaged in morning meetings than afternoon meetings.
Overwhelmingly Unit A, B, and C preferred morning meetings to afternoon meetings.
Attendance in morning meetings has not been an impediment to engaged and productive meetings for most staff, although there are areas in which attendance needs to improve.
86% of Unit B members voted that we have consistently met objectives and desired outcomes for morning meetings. 79% of Unit B members felt that morning meetings had the same or better impact on instructional and operational practices.
Thank you to everyone who completed surveys or supported the work of the Joint Oversight Committee in other ways and we look forward to next steps.
MTA Licensure Workshops
The Center for Education Policy & Practice and Training & Professional Learning invite PreK-12 Educators to join Education Policy Specialist Beth Tripathi and Professional Development Strategist Dan Callahan for workshops on the licensure process for different career stages. Registration is open now for the Winter Virtual Licensure Workshops:
Mar. 26 – Professional License Renewal
All workshops will be at 7 PM. Members can register at https://massteacher.org/events-and-conferences/licensure-workshops
MTA/NEA Events This Year:
MTA Annual Meeting and NEA Representative Assembly
The MTA Annual Meeting is May 2-3 in Springfield, MA. This is where representatives from every local union in the state come together to set the budget and policy guidance for the upcoming year. We can send about 17 people to the meeting, and can offset costs for members who attend and vote.
The NEA Representative Assembly is meeting in Portland, Oregon from July 2-6 to set the agenda at the national level for the 25-26 school year. We can send 7 individuals from AEA. We can help to offset the costs (but not fully reimburse) anyone who wants to attend.
In solidarity,
Mike Zilles, President
Newton Teachers Association
コメント