On reporting on the Student Opportunity Act funding

Section 1S of the Student Opportunity Act says the following:

(a)The commissioner shall establish statewide targets for addressing persistent disparities in achievement among student subgroups in the aggregate and within subcategories, including, but not limited to, subject matter and relevant grade levels. The targets shall include annual benchmarks on the progress expected to be achieved in the aggregate and by subcategory.
(b) Each district shall establish targets for addressing persistent disparities in achievement among student subgroups consistent with the targets established by the department. Each district shall develop an evidence-based 3-year plan to meet its targets. Each district’s plan shall be developed by the superintendent in consultation with the school committee and shall consider input and recommendations from parents and other relevant community stakeholders, including but not limited to, special education and English learner parent advisory councils, school improvement councils and educators in the school district.

The sequence thus is supposed to be:

1. the Commisssioner establishes statewide targets for addressing academic disparities
2. those targets should include annual benchmarks
3. districts then are to establish their own targets in line with the state's targets
4. districts are to write a plan on how they're going to get to the targets

Guess what we don't have?
State targets.

Nonetheless, the Department released the guidance around reporting on Student Opportunity Act funding earlier this week. Districts receiving more than $1.5M over FY20 will need to fill out the long form; those receiving less than $1.5M will need to fill out a short form. Everyone's forms are due April 1 (that last in the law).

So all of this input and all of the subsequent budgetary planning is supposed to be subject to the targets we're supposed to be aiming for: it is literally written into law. But that section--the target section--is the section the Department has decided that we're holding off on until later, once we have this year's data.

You might think, therefore, that we'd then hold off on the plans until we have the targets we're going to reach for, but no:

We're going to--and I am not making this up--write up plans on how we're going to reach the targets WITHOUT HAVING THE TARGETS.
And the plans are due April 1.

Thus keeping always in mind that this is the underlying premise of this exercise, let's talk about what the expectations beyond that are.

Both the short and the long form are designed around four commitments, which fall somewhat in line with the intent of the law:

1. Intentionally focus on student subgroups who are not achieving at the same high levels as their peers;
2. Adopt, deepen or continue specific evidence-based programs to close opportunity and achievement gaps for student subgroups and allocate resources to support these programs;
3. Monitor success in reducing disparities in achievement among student subgroups over three years with a small number of metrics and targets; and
4. Engage families, particularly those families representing student subgroups most in need of support, about how best to meet their students’ needs.

The plan descriptions also focus on "doing a few things well" and "focus on implementation."
The cover letter from the Commissioner says DESE "will focus primarily on the extent to which districts are implementing evidence-based programs that will close these gaps in their communities."

Now, you might remember during the work of the Foundation Budget Review Commission, MassBudget did a series of reports on what kinds of things helped close the opportunity gaps, particularly for kids who are poor: early childhood education, wraparound services, extended day, and smaller class sizes were four of the areas looked at. This and other research then made its way into the Commission's report.
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem as though much of that made its way into the hands of those putting together the reporting requirements for DESE, as the only one of those things that gets mentioned is preschool. In particular, the Commissioner says that he is interested in, and intends to put the granting power of the Department behind:

1. expanded early childhood and evidenced-based early literacy, together as a single item. Others will no doubt note that this isn't really as much of a thing; you can be a good reader and read late; you can have great early childhood education that isn't literacy-focused.
2. early college programs, which is definitely all the rage right now, definitely still something we're working out how to do, and isn't necessarily hitting the students who might benefit the most
3. diversifying the educator and administrator workforce, which is certainly important, but is something that most are still working out how to do.

While those are definitely the focus of the Commissioner, to make those three things the driving force in how Massachusetts spends new funding, quite apart from the items that are within the law itself is abrupt and moves us away from the ongoing conversations we have had around equity and meeting actual needs over the past several years.
In other words, these are the Commissioner's priorities: does that make them the priorities of K-12 education in Massachusetts, which is much much larger than that?
The Commissioner closes his opening letter by calling the law:

a historic opportunity for Massachusetts to propel our state to become a national leader, not just in overall achievement, but for all children in the Commonwealth.

...because if we aren't beating New Jersey, where are we?
Quite seriously, though, we can lead and BE AN EXAMPLE to others who we could hope COULD ALSO DO WELL FOR THEIR CHILDREN.
Education isn't a zero sum game; our state doing better doesn't mean others have to do worse.

The law, you might recall, actually has ten options for evidence-based programs (still in section 1S):(A) expanded learning time in the form of a longer school day or school year; 
(B) increased opportunity for common planning time for teachers;  
(C) social services to support students’ social-emotional and physical health; 
(D) hiring school personnel that best support improved student performance; 
(E) increased or improved professional development; 
(F) purchase of curriculum materials and equipment that are aligned with the statewide curriculum frameworks; 
(G) expanding early education and pre-kindergarten programming within the district in consultation or in partnership with community-based organizations; 
(H) diversifying the educator and administrator workforce; 
(I) developing additional pathways to strengthen college and career readiness; and 
(J) any other program determined to be evidence-based by the commissioner
...plus there's a "you can argue with the Commissioner" allowance.
Those, of course, are more largely reflective both of the research of MassBudget and of the larger discussions that surrounded the Foundation Budget Review Commission.

The Department has now converted that list into seventeen items, divided into four parts:
Enhanced Core Instruction
1. Expanded access to full-day, high-quality pre-kindergarten for 4-year-olds, including potential collaboration with other local providers (SOA categories D, F, and G)
2. Research-based early literacy programs in pre-kindergarten and early elementary grades (E, F, and G)
3. Early College programs focused primarily on students under-represented in higher education (I)
4. Supporting educators to implement high-quality, aligned curriculum (E and F)
5. Expanded access to career-technical education, including “After Dark” district-vocational partnerships and innovation pathways reflecting local labor market priorities (I)
Targeted Student Supports
6. Increased personnel and services to support holistic student needs (C and D)
7. Inclusion/co-teaching for students with disabilities and English learners (D and E)
8. Acceleration Academies and/or summer learning to support skill development and accelerate advanced learners (A and E)
9. Dropout prevention and recovery programs (I)
Talent Development
10. Diversifying the educator/administrator workforce through recruitment and retention (D and H)
11. Leadership pipeline development programs for schools (D and E)
12. Increased staffing to expand student access to arts, athletics, and enrichment, and strategic scheduling to enable common planning time for teachers (B and D)
13. Strategies to recruit and retain educators/administrators in hard-to-staff schools and positions (D)
Conditions for Student Success
14. Community partnerships for in-school enrichment and wraparound services (C)
15. Parent-teacher home visiting programs (E)
16. Labor-management partnerships to improve student performance (E)
17. Facilities improvements to create healthy and safe school environments (J)

The Commissioner's priorities (in red above) are ones he says he "encourages" and "will likely offer multiplier funds" in, again, despite those not being shared priorities across the process.

Plans must make the four commitments above, focusing on subgroups, choosing three metrics for measurement and monitoring. If DESE metrics are chosen, the Department will update the plan for districts in the fall when they set targets; otherwise, districts will need to update their plans with targets in the fall.
But the plans are due April 1
Districts not only need to describe how families were engaged in this process; they also need to describe their "ongoing plan for engaging families." This despite clear and repeated directions from the Department that this plan is not to be a large scale new plan; how many districts already have family engagement plans?
Do note (bottom of page 7 of the long form description) that a school committee vote is required.

The Department has decided what it believes to be "new Chapter 70 revenue" and has provided a spreadsheet to the districts receiving the largest amounts of how much they are expected to expend in as "new" funding. This is based on an assumed 2.44% inflation rate (this is the 15 year average foundation budget inflation rate, lowest and highest eliminated) applied to the funding; all the rest counts as "new" aid.
As I noted online earlier today, this ignores the actual functioning of the foundation budget. Yes, the budget is subject to both a 1.99% inflation rate for most and a 2.43% inflation rate for health care. It is at ground, though, a student-based, enrollment-driven formula. Changes in student count and demographics drive changes in the formula. Some of the changes--some of the Gateway cities increases--are enrollment changes, not formula changes. To ignore that is to ignore the fundamentals, and it does a real disservice to the districts that are working through changes in both. It leaves them unable to use the funds intended to serve those students for those students.

There were several places where I was torn on the right reaction; this was one(p.8):

We also encourage districts, to the extent possible, to allocate other new or existing resources to evidence-based programs, sufficient to significantly improve student outcomes and close achievement gaps over time. 

Did...you miss the entire prior discussion? What "other new or existing resources"? The ENTIRE reason we are doing this is these districts DO NOT HAVE ANY OTHER RESOURCES and they haven't had enough from the state for years!
I would note the same for the districts that are receiving incremental minimum per pupil changes, 'though it appears to me that it is largely conceded that explaining you'll be doing some of what you're already doing will suffice.

The Department then provides a sample plan, and...wow. First, please tell me that no district serving majority students of color uses "majority minority" in describing itself. This created district not only has MCAS scores; it has recently done a student survey and it has had the funding to be tracking the college persistence of graduates.
...this doesn't sound like a district that is receiving a boost in state funding.
Not surprisingly, this district has decided that two of the Commissioner's priorities are swell, so they're doing preK and early college, plus adopting acceleration academies (which is what the Commissioner ran in Lawrence, so while DESE may not be funding them, you're good there, too).

And then we get into the math. This made-up district, we're told, has "a minimum" of $2.8M of "new funding" in FY21, to which the district is adding $100,000. This puts it a bit over Holyoke, which, just to give you an idea of how this works, is having HALF of its increase in state funding attributed as new funding. Again, this is without regard to how the district is in fact getting to that funding level.
This district is going to create eight new preschool classrooms, implying (as there is no facility cost) that they have eight classrooms standing open in their district (is this true in any of our cities?). They are hiring enough staff for a 1:10 student ratio. There is a great deal of eliding of teacher and staff time towards training (the principals are paid for PD; don't the teachers need it?), not only in the early childhood section, but throughout the entire report (not all of which is budgeted). The early college section will have "intense academic coaching" which requires staff and time; faculty will "work with their college counterparts to align curriculum" which is staff time; buses will take students to the colleges, which is a transportation cost. We're told that "[r]obust, individualized academic and guidance supports will then be developed and provided" BY WHOM? WHEN?
...I could go on, but the whole of the plan is like that. There is tons of eliding of staff time and resources without accounting for the ACTUAL COST OF THINGS.

This is not a good use of our time.
This is not a good accounting of resources.
This is not a good process.
We deserve better than this.