backup is here
Sagan: if we don't change the regs, all our talking will be meaningless since the Board said they wanted districts and schools held harmless with regard to test scores
Chester: one comment was that participation should outweigh scores in first year
concern that schools might set a low rate so as to be able to gain "what might be referred to as 'tanking'"
MTA made the argument that we should not be using the 2017 results at all, not even to establish a baseline, that a one year suspension was not enough
"nobody can move into Level 4 or 5 solely on the basis of test scores"
Doherty: "I'm a little bit confused, so I ask for your patience"
citing two pages in the reference, "are we holding these schools harmless, really, and are we or are we not using these scores going forward?"
Chester: holding harmless for the 2016-17 school year
"no one will have a lower level on the basis of the test scores themselves" for this year
going forward "this will be the baseline"
and it will be incorporated in the levels going forward
"my request is that somebody convey to the superintendents, teachers, and so forth out there that this will be part of the level going forward"
Sagan: what does "baseline" mean? they're either in or they're out; what does 'baseline' mean?
Chester: 2017 will be a baseline, we'll look at progress against those results
Noyce: my understanding was that it would be a baseline for growth but would not itself count
Sagan: that was my understanding as well
"you'd measure going forward"
"it's muddling your next year...could we do this the other way, because I don't think it's what we intended"
Curtin vote is only on next year
Sagan: "the Board gave you clear direction"
"if you say we're going to average this year and next year...I don't think we're really being" fair
Curtin "not germane to the discussion we're having today"
and Peyser says the same thing
Noyce: "I'm perfectly happy to have a vote on this matter, but I think it's important to reflect in the minutes that the Board expected schools to be held harmless for this year forever, not just for this year"
Doherty: "I agree with Penny 100%"
is the use of these (2016-17) scores part of the ESSA plan?
Noyce: there's a lot of interpretation in that
McKenna: agrees with Noyce and Doherty
baseline isn't the same as combining
Sagan: I agree with Penny, the minutes should reflect the Board's "sentiments the first time and the second time and the third time"
Chester: "I would encourage the Board to be open minded on this"
"because this is what we've consistently done on the accountability system is averaging across multiple years"
Sagan: "this idea of weighting and averaging them doesn't seem to us to be consistent with what we've said"
"we have the non-assessment metrics as well"
"averaging that comes and bites you later isn't what the Board said when you got the vote on this new test"
Board votes in favor of the reset
McKenna cites Fryer's comments that this is a test of the test
and back to this after recess
Peyser: concerned that this creates an incentive to score as low as possible
wants to average these two years or just next year's
Noyce: "in the spirit of this year can't help you" that's fine, if it can help you
Johnston: have done such a calculation in the past
McKenna: "we have spent hours and hours and hours..not to count this for many, many, many reasons; my concern is to go again to correct something that has been corrected previously"
"we cleared that up...and cleared that up"
"And not on the fly here"
"and we have muddied the waters, there's no question"
Sagan asks that districts have it clarified (?)
and it is pointed out that districts are halfway through MCAS, anyway
No comments:
Post a Comment