Writings/news

• Open letter to reject negative campaign
• Letter affirming my leadership
• Market research summary op-ed
  (Getting solid market research was a high priority in my first campaign. We should continue pushing for comprehensive market research, for example in exit interviews.)

Open letter to reject negative campaign

Dear selected leaders who know me:

I know that you stand for principled campaigns, constructive dialog, and voting on issues, not innuendos. I also believe that you know I always act with integrity, even if you don't agree with me on all issues. I respect that you are busy, but I believe this request is important. I am asking you to join me in rejecting a negative campaign. A group called Progress for Cambridge is engaged in a subtle misinformation campaign and distorting the record of School Committee votes. The group was set up to endorse a slate, Nancy Tauber, Gail Lemily Wiggins and Stefan Malner. I have asked those candidates to reject the campaign run on their behalf.

If you are a supporter of any slate member, please ask them to reject the tactics of misinformation. I have a policy of not responding to personal attacks in kind, but I do correct misinformation. Below is the letter sent with specific examples of how I believe the group's information is flawed enough to be worthy of a Swift Boat Veterans for Truth award. I believe any ethical candidate would disavow much of the website content. If you agree, please let the group and/or the candidates know.

The candidates are not behind this misleading campaign. I am calling on them to disassociate themselves from those engaged in the misinformation.

I understand why I would be a target. I have been effective and have accomplished a lot in my first term, and clearly am able to work collaboratively, since none of us can get anything done on our own. Many times I acted on principle, even at political risk. I have stood up for transparency and full information, the whole story, not just part. Whether it is asking for full examination of our extraordinary budget of $23,000 per student or pointing out that despite a wonderful, even stellar graduation rate of African Americans and other groups from high school, our district continues to have a 30 point Achievement Gap in proficiency for African Americans and lags many districts with fewer advantages, or calling for public input into major decisions, I have stood up often.

But it still hurts, personally and our democratic process. I remain optimistic that most of us don't want negativity and misinformation to win in Cambridge. Please join me in asking for a rejection of the Progress for Cambridge tactics.

Sincerely,

Patty Nolan

************ letter sent by email Oct. 29, 2007 **********

Dear School Committee candidates Nancy Tauber, Gail Lemily Wiggins and Stefan Malner:

I respect each of you. If you are elected, and I am re-elected, I look forward to serving with you.

Each of you have campaigned constructively and with integrity. I personally appreciate that you are willing to serve and that you each have an important perspective to add to the campaign. Thus, I request that you publicly reject the endorsement of the Progress for Cambridge [PFC] group, take all mention of them off your website and materials, and refuse to allow them to use your name, until they stop the misleading, irresponsible campaign being run on your behalf.

The PFC campaign calls for collaboration on the School Committee and more members who advocate for the district, not individual schools or neighborhoods. The implication is that none of the incumbents are being collaborative or advocating for the district, a baseless charge. Moreover, the PFC gathered a selective, biased and misleading list of School Committee votes which were picked with the goal of discrediting many incumbents, but especially me. That the list doesn't include all votes, nor even all split votes, not even all votes related to the same issues, is proof that there is an intent other than to inform the public.

It is clear that the PFC is engaged in a subtle misinformation campaign which involves distorting a few selective votes with the specific intent of raising doubts about my commitment to the district and my values. It is a sad day for Cambridge when such negative campaigning takes place. I hope you will reject that approach. This is not about my not wanting my record and votes known. Quite the contrary. I always publicly explain my votes, especially controversial ones. I am proud of votes I've taken, whether I've been part of a 7-0 vote, a 6-1, or anywhere in between, and whether I voted with a majority or minority. This IS about a misrepresentation of a number of votes.

Here are just 3 examples, and there are others on the list just as misleading:

1. School Choice motion
The PFC biased description:
"April 4, 2006: Grassi/Nolan motion to open up the Amigos School for transfers from outside of Cambridge under the state's School Choice program. Motion stipulates that any non-resident children attending the Amigos under this program cannot transfer to other CPS schools out of Amigos, but it could have prevented transfers into Amigos in future years due to non-residents taking seats."

The full story:
The description states "the motion could have prevented transfers into Amigos in future years due to non-residents". That scenario was virtually impossible. The Amigos School Council had unanimously asked for this policy change to help their school. The motion was extremely limited in scope, would have brought $5,000 per student (minimal additional costs were expected) and could have been eliminated after one year. The proposal allowed a max of 2 non-Cambridge students per grade, grades 3-7, grades with more then 8 empty seats, which historically had stayed empty for years. The Amigos community felt the loss of students was compromising their educational program. Furthermore, by law, this motion would need re-approval every year, when new limits could be specified or the program ended. Those of us who supported this were voting for something we viewed as positive for the district as a whole, as we do with every vote, not for something that might limit choices for residents, as falsely stated.

2. Report card report motion
The PFC biased description:
"April 4 2006: Grassi/Harding motion to require Superintendent to report on progress of baseline report cards/progress reports. [Note: In the prior 2005-06 term, the School Committee passed a motion by Grassi to mandate uniform report cards for all elementary schools, despite the superintendent's statement that there is no research linking standardized report cards to higher achievement.]"

The full story:
The description mentions a prior year's motion "to mandate uniform report cards". What the description of this vote doesn't mention is that this motion was NOT to mandate uniform report cards. Both Mr. Schuster and I voted for this motion only after specific assurance at that meeting (watch the videotape) that the motion did NOT mandate uniform report cards, as falsely implied by the PFC.

3. Controlled choice policy change motion
The PFC biased description:
"Feb. 27 2007 Fantini/Walser motion to bring to 2nd reading and amend the controlled choice plan to change FRL/PL ratio to allow apportion a sufficient number of seats to reflect the change in economic status of in-coming Kindergarten registrants, as well as to add Ks to Haggerty and Tobin and to add English- speaking K students to Amigos."

The full story:
This takes the cake! The vote on this policy is listed with myself and Mr. Schuster being absent, implying dereliction of duty. I was present for almost all this special meeting, but left early due to a babysitter emergency and Mr. Schuster was attending a national conference. By SC rules, all policy changes must be voted at two meetings. Thus, we both knew another vote would take place, which would be the decisive vote on the policy. At that required second reading, the previously voted-upon policy change was rejected publicly by 6 of the 7 members, since it had become clear that the change voted Feb. 27 benefitted the middle class at the expense of low income families. A DIFFERENT policy change was passed, one worked on by me and the result of a true collaborative effort by the whole Committee, which increased options for BOTH the middle class and low income families. That policy change passed unanimously. NO MENTION is made of this REQUIRED second vote, which effectively reversed the vote on the PFC list.

When I asked Gail & Nancy last Thursday to disavow the PFC and ask the group to stop spreading misinformation or reject their endorsement, you both said you didn't know some votes on the list were falsely and misleadingly presented. Now you know. I look forward to your response to my request to reject the endorsement of this group, whose tactics lack integrity. Let's all pledge to campaign positively.

Sincerely,

Patty Nolan
School Committee candidate
184 Huron Ave. Cambridge 02138

Letter distorted image
(Letter from Patty Nolan, Cambridge Chronicle, July 12, 2007
www.townonline.com/cambridge/opinion/x1549862756)

Cambridge -

Solid analysis and intellectual honesty are hallmarks of my participation on School Committee. Thus, it was personally disappointing to read Nancy Walser's article last week, which distorted my positions for political purposes. It is a disservice to the public and needs to be corrected.

I wrote a balanced summary of a market research project, designed to understand why people leave, why people don't enroll and concerns district parents have. I noted two lapses, based on my professional experience and comments by two national public opinion professionals. Paying for qualitative research and focus groups without getting a written report was an oversight. Leaving out the 30 percent of residents who never entered our public school district and were in the contract as an explicit focus was, as well. I encourage people to watch the June 5 meeting with the survey presentation (www.cpsd.us/ceatv/sc_archive.htm).

Why spend money on comprehensive market research and ignore the full range of findings? If we tout only the positives and gloss over problems, how will we solve the problems and be credible policymakers? For example, to assert parents are satisfied, with "only 5 percent expressing dissatisfaction," when almost half stated they might leave misrepresents the findings. The firm we hired labeled that high number "a clarion call" to action." Most of us love our schools and appreciate our strengths and tremendous achievements. But we also have concerns.

I do hold our district to higher standards, since I believe Cantabrigians do not want to be compared only to low-income districts, as the administration does, who spend on average half what we do. We should celebrate our strengths, but surely our high spending levels, phenomenal teachers, and incredible community can get us to the top of the state.

I did help organize forums with award-winning public schools that have excelled with many types of students, especially low-income. A majority of our elected officials co-sponsored these opportunities to learn from others, just as others learn from Cambridge, which also excels in many areas. Does the fact that some such schools are public charter schools mean we shouldn’t learn from them?

Anyone can find votes where I stood on principle and voted my conscience, as you can with all of us. Please judge each of us by our full record, not a subset distorted for political purposes.

PATTY NOLAN
CPS Parent
School Committee Member and Candidate

Nolan: Research shows schools
can't focus only on tests anymore
(Guest editorial by Patty Nolan, Cambridge Chronicle, June 14, 2007
www.townonline.com/cambridge/opinions/x1935633211)

Last year, the School Committee authorized qualitative and quantitative market research to "determine the possible causes behind the decline in enrollment, assess potential new programs, how to attract more residents into CPS and measure overall satisfaction with the school system." We recently received a report on the survey part, and look forward to a thorough report on the other half of the project, a synthesis and summary of the focus groups. The project will inform our work as a district.

The results confirm some of our district's great aspects. Almost all of our parents believe that their children are getting a quality education, and are appropriately challenged and appreciate wonderful teachers. Tremendous affirmation of hard work all around.

Of course, both current and withdrawn parents identify some areas we fall short, which should inform us on continual improvement. Unsurprisingly, withdrawn parents score our performance lower than in-district parents.

One surprising finding: Majorities of current and withdrawn parents believe our district does too much teaching to the test. Based on other answers, this finding doesn’t appear to be an MCAS rejection sentiment, but a more nuanced sense that we have focused too much on testing, not enough on excellent education.

The report debunks at least one myth: overwhelmingly those surveyed who withdrew cited academic quality as the single most important reason; just 8 percent cited housing or transfers. Those who left care deeply about public education — a whopping 86 percent would have preferred staying.

The survey confirmed another issue: behavior is a problem. Of those who left, 57 percent said that "classroom behavior issues played a large part" in the decision. And a significant portion of our parents, 37 percent, agree that "bullying is a real problem for my children." Those who deny this problem should read the report. Acknowledging a problem is the first step to solving it.

For too long, we dismissed people suggesting this issue needed addressing. I hope now we discuss solutions and listen to the voices speaking. In classrooms where teachers reach all students and get them engaged, behavior problems disappear. This finding might mean we need to help some teachers develop better strategies around this topic.

There is one glaring lapse: the survey left out people attending private, parochial and charter schools — ignoring 20 to 30 percent of our school-aged population. How can we increase enrollment and market share without talking to people who never entered? I hope we will include all families. As one independent parent put it, most "do care about the public education system in the city that they live, pay taxes and raise their children in." Many would prefer to be in our public schools, and struggled with the decision.

There are too many results to cover briefly — on controlled choice, middle schools and other issues. Summarizing: it is great to have real market research. The project yielded discomforting results and positive ones. If we openly face the former and celebrate the latter, our district will continue on the march to where we belong: at the top of the state, make that country.

Patty Nolan is a member of the School Committee.
[Originally published under another School Committee member's name.]