December Board of Ed: accountability survey results

Curtin: we did commit to surveying the field at the new accountability system
"last look back at this year...then transition into looking forward"
Commissioner interested in where improvements can be made
survey sent to superintendents, stakeholders in field
439 responses
different types of questions
Sagan: how many sent to?
there's some math going on here...
Sagan: we didn't hear from the majority: "are these the happy ones, the unhappy ones?...did we learn anything more from this?"
Curtin: in any survey you get some who feel strongly one way or the other, and some in the middle
West: it was not anonymous
small majority either satisfied or very satisfied
majority in every category either understood well or most
higher on district level, lower on school level
numbers on satisfied were lower for charter school respondents and higher for regional vo-techs
how did understanding impact satisfaction? Not much
"kind of gives me a bit of feeling that people have a defined feeling about accountability systems, potentially regardless of understanding"
two-thirds of respondents said the normative (comparing districts/schools) is valuable or very valuable
(the regional vo-techs like it the most)
smaller number saying satisfield or very satisfied for criteron-referenced (compare against yourself), but still a majority
lowest performing students, lowest performing subgroups found valuable
chronic absentee rate majority did not find valuable
about the weighing: around half on each says to keep it the same
note coming in that the high schools are all doing pretty well on MCAS, so keeping the same or increasing
"the problem here is we only have a hundred percent"
Peyser: did you look at where the answers were coming from?
Curtin: yes, around achievement and growth; generally those wanting more on growth, were not doing as well around achievement
Peyser: did you ask about better/worse than prior system?
Curtin: in hindsight, I wish I had; we didn't
non-high school suggested additions (only had 130 responses): most were "no" some on climate, access to art, educator attendance, suspension, school spending, K-2 schools
high school suggested additions: broader definition of advanced coursework, postsecondary enrollment, extracurricular participation, 9th grade success
and anything else?
small size issues and participation; chronic absenteeism; use of standardized testing; high-performing districts "are penalized" because they still have to move forward; call for consistency; need for state funding

Moriarty: can't be thinking of chronic absenteeism and excused and unexcused
"that really does say there's a disconnect in the field around knowledge level"
Curtin agrees, when a student can be counted in attendance isn't necessarily understood
"we need to make sure on the reporting side that the definitions are understood"
I don't think that's a misunderstanding, to be honest.

The Board of Education has their June meeting on Tuesday: UPDATED

The Board of Elementary and Secondary Education meets for June on Tuesday at their offices in Malden. You can find the agenda here. 
A couple of things that are not on the agenda, but are coming in as reports:

• The annual survey of superintendents and principals is back. You can find a lot more breakdown of the results here. 
• An update on the revision of the social studies and history standards is included. The short version is we're done with the initial stakeholder engagement and moving on to the drafting of draft standards.
• The annual non-operating school districts (that tuition out all of their students) report is included. Note that a number of these are small towns that run K-6 and then tuition out their high school students (choosing not to belong to a regional school district).

On the agenda:

• proposed Early College Program Designation process and criteria for discussion and vote. This is essentially formalizing and creating new versions of the linking of high schools and colleges for high school students to gain college credit and experiences in high school. I continue to feel as though this misses the major point, which is that no one seems to know what to do with high school anymore. Shoving them all into college early misses some growth that ought, I think, to be happening in high school.
• a presentation on the Safe Schools for LGBTQ students program
• a discussion and vote on proposed revisions to teacher licensure. The only bit that's particularly new here from earlier discussion is the removal of what was proposed as broadening language around removal of licensure; if you skim down the link, you can see the discussion of what was the section most objected to by the state teachers' unions. Note in particular this comment: " The removal of some of the proposed amendments to 603 CMR 7.15(8) does not affect, change, or narrow the Commissioner's legal authority."
• There will be an update on the four Level 5 schools, of which two are in Boston, one in New Bedford, and one in Holyoke. With the return of the Dever to operation under Boston Superintendent Chang, three of these schools will be operating under the authority of their superintendents as receiver, though in those cases not reporting to their school committees (with the exception of Holyoke, where the entire district is under state receivership).
• The Commissioner has his annual performance review, done by subcommittee. You can read the full report here. He is being given a 4.95 rating out of 5. More than anything, this reflects to me just how far removed the Board is from most of education in the state.
• The Board is being asked to waive the week's notice of charter school lotteries in the case of three schools that had to reschedule due to a snowstorm in March. 
• The Board is being asked to do their usual summer delegation of authority to the Commissioner. 
• And the Board is being asked to vote their schedule for next year.

Liveblog/tweet coming Tuesday. 

UPDATE: Today (Friday) they added:

Executive Session to Discuss Litigation Strategy

DESE Accountability survey and what it doesn't ask

This article from EdWeek on how Colorado is handling their state responsibility to reimagine their state accountability system under the new federal education law caught my eye yesterday. Colorado officials are holding town hall meetings across the state asking "What do we need to fix?" And they're getting an earful:

"I see this as a golden opportunity to rethink our entire accountability system," she said. Speaking from a torn-out sheet of notebook paper, Jones cited a long list of complaints: The department has become too heavy-handed. Its labeling of schools is demoralizing. Its standards are inconsistent.

Today brings a similar article from Florida, which will begin with an online forum, and go from there.

In Massachusetts, the feedback method that DESE has chosen, at least as an opener, is this survey, which I took this morning.
Let me start by saying that the first option the survey gives you is to upload a letter to them, in lieu of or in addition to taking the survey. I'd highly recommend you take them up on it.

The survey starts with a series of ranges, in which you are to mark which end you are closest to along a line. The ends are:

• simplicity v robustness in what is measured
• comparability v rich detail in what is measured
• inputs v outputs in classrooms
• achievement v growth in results
• comparison v standard in measuring districts
• lowest performance of school in district v overall performance of schools in district being district measure

Now if you spend a lot of time at state accountability meetings, all of the above is pretty common terminology. But for most of the rest of the population, the above ranges are pretty meaningless, even with the attempts at explanations given with each question. 

This isn't how people--regular people--talk about education. 

And having this be the survey is extremely off-putting.

These, and the questions that follow about things like achievement and growth, identifying schools by performance levels and the like all assume one thing: we're going to measure schools by some very standard, graphable way.

But is that really the way people--parents, kids, neighbors--talk about their schools? 

Yes, MCAS scores come up, but there are a whole list of things parents (in particular) want to know about their schools: how clean is it? do they have enough supplies? how long is recess? do the kids get art/gym/music every week? for how long? what happens if a kid misbehaves in class? how is special education handled? how are students with ELL needs taken care of? are kids treated fairly by teachers? who are the kids that go to this school? are the elementary kids really getting social studies? what kinds of classes can the high school students take? do they have access to AP/dual enrollment/IB/etc/etc classes? how often is the bus late? do we need to pay for sports? what kinds of colleges do kids go to after this school? what kinds of things do the kids who don't go to college do? are they ready for it? do graduates stay in town or move elsewhere?

...the list is exhaustive.

MCAS touches literally none of the above.

And the survey touches none of the above.

We have a chance here, Massachusetts, to have a REAL conversation about how our schools are doing and how we measure it.

So far, we're missing the chance.

UPDATE: This is also something that appears to be concerning Congressional Democrats:

"Unfortunately, as states embark on plan development, there are early reports of systemic barriers impeding the participation of teachers, paraprofessionals, specialized instructional support personnel, parents, and other stakeholders in state and local plan development," Murray and Scott wrote to King. "For example, lack of consideration for working parents and community members in scheduling meetings with stakeholders or the inability of teachers, paraprofessionals, and other school personnel to secure release time to enable full participation in plan development." 

Notes on public testimony

including remarks on principals, charter schools, Holyoke, vocational education

DESE on overtesting

This just in from the Commissioner:

Over the course of the 2014–15 school year, ESE will be conducting a multi-part study of assessment practices in Massachusetts districts. The study includes three components: statewide surveys conducted by ESE and phone interviews and case studies conducted by a research vendor. From Oct. 1-10, superintendents and charter school leaders had the opportunity to participate in a voluntary survey regarding their districts’ assessment practices. Results of that survey are attached. Similar questions are also being asked on the post-event survey from last week's fall summit in order to obtain feedback from a greater variety of perspectives.

This winter, a research vendor will conduct phone interviews with staff in 40 to 60 districts to learn more about what types of assessments districts require, how much time students spend participating in testing, and how districts schedule MCAS tests. During the winter and spring, the research vendor will also conduct case studies in four districts to create an inventory of assessment practices in each district, analyze the inventory with district staff, and identify potential recommendations and best practices around what an effective, balanced assessment system should look like. Each case study district will receive an individualized report to use as it reflects on and refines its assessment practices. Districts interested in being a case study participant should contact Carrie Conaway, Associate Commissioner for Planning, Research, and Delivery Systems, at cconaway@doe.mass.edu.

As DESE generally doesn't post these updates until Monday, I've put the results of the survey here.

Cutting through the lingo in the ESEA waiver survey

It's been brought to my attention that if you tried the ESEA waiver survey to which I directed you yesterday, you may well have found yourself over your head in education lingo. Let's see if we can cut through some of that!
First of all, the survey is part of an effort to get some public input on Massachusetts' application for an extension of our No Child Left Behind waiver. You probably remember that every school in the country was supposed to be 100% proficient by 2014? That'd be this spring. As everyone recognized that this wasn't going to happen, but no one was able to get things together enough to fix it (and they didn't all say to ignore it), the federal department of education granted waivers from this law if the states met certain conditions (which bore a remarkable similarity to Race to the Top).
Anyway, that's what's going on here.
The chart which is the second question is tackling two things, both of which have to do with MCAS scores:

• proficiency gaps are (as they say) the space between every kid getting to proficient on the MCAS and where they are now. This is measured for all kids, but it's also for subgroups of kids: kids on IEP plans, kids who are learning English, and so forth. The deal Massachusetts made with the state was that we would half the MCAS score gap for everyone by 2017. The districts and schools with the largest proficiency gaps are poor and in cities.
• accountability levels are the "Level 1" to "Level 5" grades (so to speak) that schools and districts have been assigned. For schools grades 3-8, it's based on slicing and dicing the MCAS scores a couple of ways--but it's all MCAS. For high schools, it also includes dropout rates and graduation rates. This is a new system--it came in under Race to the Top--as the old one was "everyone gets to proficiency by 2017." And "best student outcomes"? In the suburbs, largely wealthy ones, largely white ones.

The next bit talks about "student growth." This is, again, how much a student's MCAS scores have gone up from one year to the next; it is assumed that this is entirely within the control of the school and the teacher, who are those being held "accountable" for it.

Student subgroups are what we were talking about before: all the kids who are on IEPs, all the kids who are learning English...and how much difference there is in their MCAS scores versus last year. Likewise, dropout and graduation rates are as above.

For section 6, they're looking at the fairness of the leveling system (which is great, though it'd be better if they looked at whether we should have it all at). Right now, if the Creamer Center were considered a separate school, it would get a level, even though it handles entirely kids who are at risk. Essentially, the current system penalizes that school for the very reason for its existence. They're also talking about having to get students through grade 9 as a measure of success.

The last two in this section are on the new PARCC exam. The Governor (and others) promised that they would only switch if the new test is better than MCAS. The question on this is kind of impossible to disagree with--is anyone going to say "no, you should definitely go for the test which is worse?"--but it presupposes that the MCAS is a good test to begin with. The second part is the trick we've been talking about with PARCC: MCAS, and the levels it creates, still counts, even as we switch to a new test. While the default answer appears to be (much like on the above question) "of COURSE we should keep schools accountable," that isn't really quite what's going on here.

Section 7 is a sort of "give us a feel for the people who you talk to" question, which one supposes means we should be careful who that is. Each question asks if parents are "aware" of an issue and then if they "support" the issue; in other words, do they know about it? And do they like it? The district accountability system is "how are you bringing up MCAS scores," and "support" for that is going to probably read as support for the whole system. Likewise, do they know that we're switching tests, and do they support trying them out this spring? Do they know we're evaluating teachers differently and do they support that?

Then, the fun part: comment section. If there's a character limit, I know I didn't hit it, so type away!

And let me know if you ran into anything further you didn't get, please. Also, take it this week! It ends Friday.

Weigh in on the state NCLB waiver!

The state is currently looking for public input into their renewal of the NCLB waiver.
PLEASE GO TAKE THE SURVEY!! It's quick, largely multiple choice, but has a comment field!

Colleagues: Thank you so much for agreeing to help us spread the word about our statewide survey regarding our ESEA flexibility waiver:

In February 2012, Massachusetts received a waiver of some requirements of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA, also known as the No Child Left Behind Act). This waiver allowed the state to revise its school and district accountability system in exchange for implementing several key initiatives:

• College- and career-ready expectations for all students
• Differentiated recognition, accountability, and support for schools and districts
• New approaches to educator evaluation and support
• Reducing duplication and unnecessary burden on school districts.

The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education is seeking feedback from stakeholders about what changes we might make to further improve our accountability system. We welcome feedback from all community members, including parents, students, teachers, school and district administrators, school committee members, and other interested citizens. Stakeholder input will be used to inform the proposal to be submitted for federal review at the end of February 2014.

A primary way we are gathering feedback is through a statewide survey, at the following link: http://www.surveygizmo.com/s3/1482037/ESEA-waiver-stakeholder-survey/

• The survey is available in English and Spanish. To switch to the Spanish version, click on the bar at the top of the first page that says, “Seleccionar otro idioma / Select another language.”
• This survey will be open until January 10, 2014.
• Individual responses will be kept confidential, and only a summary of the results will be reported.
• If you have questions about Massachusetts’ ESEA flexibility waiver, please email esea@doe.mass.edu. If you have questions about the survey, please email research@doe.mass.edu.

Carrie Conaway
Associate Commissioner for Planning, Research, and Delivery Systems
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
75 Pleasant St., Malden, MA 02148