The Board of Ed meets on Tuesday

...and a lot of it is on regulation changes.
The agenda is online here.
There's the usual round up of public comment and opening comments; by the way, h/t to Chair Katherine Craven for leading with public comment at meetings.

First up is the Student Opportunity Act. You can find much of what they're linking to here; I've downloaded and shared the regs here. Essentially, this is giving a regulatory framework to the plans, which didn't exist (one could argue that if they thought this was needed, they could have done it before now, but...). These are going to be (in whatever form they are passed) 603 CMR 55. The part of the plans is fairly general:

Each district shall develop and submit to the department a plan that identifies the amount of local, state, federal, and grant funds the district is allocating to support specifically identified evidence-based programs to address persistent disparities in achievement among student subgroups.
(1) Plan Development.
(a) The superintendent or his or her designee shall develop the plan.
(i) Community stakeholders, including parents, educators, special education and English learner parent advisory councils, and school improvement councils shall have the opportunity to provide input and recommendations to the superintendent regarding the plan. Districts shall provide appropriate interpretation and translation services to permit meaningful participation by limited English proficient parents.
(b) The district’s school committee shall vote on the plan.
(2) Plan Components. Each district plan shall include:
(a) Funding information: Each district shall state the amount of funds it will use in support of its plan, including chapter 70 and other local, state, federal, and grant funds. Each district shall explain the relationship between the allocation of funds and the educational needs of specific student subgroups, including English learners and low- income students in the district.
(b) Identification of evidence-based programs: Each district shall identify the evidence-based programs, supports or interventions included in M.G.L. c. 69, § 1S (c)(ii) that it will implement to address persistent disparities in achievement among student subgroups. Each district shall describe how it will implement the evidence-based programs, supports or interventions it has chosen. If a district elects not to implement the evidence-based programs identified in M.G.L. c. 69, § 1S (c)(ii)(A)-(I), it shall include an explanation of why these evidence-based programs would not effectively address persistent disparities in achievement in the district, and it shall select other evidence-based programs identified by the commissioner, propose evidence-based programs for the commissioner’s review pursuant to 603 CMR 55.5(2), or both.
(c) Identification of outcome metrics: Each district shall identify and include in its plan at least three outcome metrics. A district may include District Outcome Metrics, Standard Outcome Metrics, or both.
(d) Parent engagement: Each district shall include in its plan a description of how the district will effectuate and measure increased parent engagement, and shall include specific plans to encourage meaningful participation by parents of low-income students, English learners, and students with disabilities.
(3) Plan Submission
The commissioner shall determine the form and manner for submission of plans, and may publish templates, guidance and other resources.

That all seems...fine?
I still think all of this on the reporting that's being required, though.

Next is the proposed passage of the changes in vocational education; these were discussed when they were sent out for public comment back in November. THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE ADMISSION CHANGES. You can find the summary of public comment here. The regulations as proposed are here.
Can I just note here: in following regulation changes, I'm a little surprised (does this make me a cynic?) at how often specific, on topic, individual comments actually do result in changes. Flooding the Department with copy/paste clearly just irritates them, but if you have a specific concern about language, it's worth voicing. 

There also are changes in accountability which don't require changes in regulation, but still require a  Board vote after public comment. The plan is to base accountability on three years of data (so, no, 2018 isn't gone yet):

The Department would like to continue to build on its plan to incorporate multiple years of data in the accountability system by including three years of data (2018, 2019, and 2020) when calculating accountability results this year. Like last year, data from all three years would be weighted in the overall percentile and criterion-referenced calculations, with more weight on data from the most recent year. The weightings that the Department proposes for 2020 reporting are as follows: 20 percent for 2018, 30 percent for 2019, and 50 percent for 2020. These adjustments are included in the attached document, which summarizes key components of the accountability system.

The timeline outlined would have this out for public comment over March and April and back before the Board in May for a vote.
I...don't have an opinion about this?
As you may have seen already, the Commissioner is recommending probation for City on a Hill Charter school:

“Our concerns about the school’s fiscal viability, lack of demand, and poor academic performance warrant placing the school on probation with conditions,” Riley wrote in a memo last Friday to the board. “I am not, however, recommending nonrenewal [of the operating license] at this time because the school has proposed major changes to address these deficiencies, appointed a principal with a track record of academic success, and taken action this year in an effort to yield better results for students and families.”

And that's the agenda! Yes, I'll be there to blog.