Department of Elementary and Secondary Education special meeting on vocation regs

 which I am going to need to duck out of early as it is superintendent search season. I will eventually watch the whole thing!

The single item agenda is here. The written update is here. 

Riley: first run through tonight, coming back with proposed regulations in March or April or so, public comment period, then vote by June

Associate Commissioner Bennett: starting with an overview of pathways: innovation pathways, early college, three shifts of career tech ed (after dark, adult tech, expansion of ch. 74)

regional blueprints connected to labor market demand; experience in work
"students are able to choose their program of studies" through 9th grade exploratory
engagement in deeper learning
expanded option of going into workplace and/or going college
44 programs in 11 clusters in  chapter 74 programs in Massachusetts; tied to business and industry demands

current admission regulations:
Two types: Chapter 74 programs (state and federal funding, regulations and laws); Perkins programs (receive only federal funds; outside scope of this)
MGL Ch. 74, sec. 1: "conditions of admissions" is under Commissioner's authority
603 CMR 4.03 is the regulation
"selective vocational technical secondary school" can either do a lottery or use selective criteria
must include grades, attendance, disciplinary record, recommendation from sending school counselor, may include interview; nothing can be worth more than 50%

Phase 1 reg changes last year
now Phase 2; collecting and analyzing waitlist data
plan then is bring proposed reg changes to the Board in March or April, public comment period, vote in June 

Stewart: asks how many schools are using lotteries?
Either none or almost none

West (I think): curious about supply of programs
70 new programs in past years; is that new seats?
A: new programs can be both, can have new seats or can be attrition, replacing programs
looking at waitlists are the number of students over the number of seats that districts have available
West: at what pace do we expect the overall supply of seats to increase going forward?
A: "pursuing a multi-pronged approach"
using time and space more creatively as well as waitlist data collection, in addition to adding programs
Peyser: has been growth, harder to assess future trends
Hills: do people who graduate go on to careers in these programs?
A: as part of Perkins reporting there are follow-up surveys 18 months out
Hills: are we accepting students these programs are designed for? Or a wide range of students?
A: "I think the answer is the latter"
some also going on to further education in their trade (nurses, for example)

in 2019, DESE looked at overall enrollment, statewide and at schools
compared to catchment area and individual municipalities
"generally reflect the communities in their sending districts" but room for improvement, especially in Gateway cities
charts now showing economically disadvantaged, with disabilities enrolled at vocational schools slightly higher rates than statewide numbers
also for students of color and English learners enrolled at slightly more than their representation in statewide overall enrollment 
75,808 9th graders statewide; runs comparison with percentages
nuance at the school level; schools don't always match state trends
schools may have gaps over and under
most extreme gaps are in a handful of schools
Peyser: do the seats go by community or a single pool? Depends on regional district; some may proportion out by sending district
may then reflect community demographic community by community
Lombos: is the trend getting wider?
A: not sure can speak to analysis of overall schools
Moriarty: not sure the clusters that are offered are going to have same profile from one to the next
A: this is just admission at ninth grade
and not every area offers the same kind of programs
and work with industry demand
further analysis is warranted and actively being pursued
Morton: will there be that breakdown later? Yes, more coming
West: demographics of communities PLUS who applies PLUS who makes it through process

58 schools participated in a waitlist survey; 44 then went on to participate in a waitlist data collection
40 then had them for grades 9, 10, 11
which is what will be run through here 
looking at students of color, economically disadvantaged students, English learners, and students whose first language isn't English
awareness gaps in who knew to apply, had the information
opportunity gaps in who was admitted after applying
is only one year of data, may have been impacted by the pandemic
the Department does have multiple years of enrollment data of years, however, and can draw some conclusions based on that
comparing students in the category to the students who are not in the category
yield gap: who decides to attend after receiving an offer
slightly a greater acceptance of offer by each of these groups than by their (non group) counterparts
English learners in particular accept the offer at the highest rates
West: application gap is what is being characterized as an "awareness gap"? Differences in who has access to various programs; wouldn't make sense for some to apply
A: clarification: there is non-resident tuition process; can study in a district not yours
Stewart: when those programs are offered to the programs that are most needy, they take them at higher levels; they are actually are being offered less, though
goal is to attract, admit, retain students from community

State admission stages:
economically disadvantaged students apply at higher rates than their counterparts, but go through the rest of admission at the same rates as their counterparts
similarly, students with disabilities apply at higher rates, going through the process is comparable
students of colors apply at lower rates, and go process at different rates than their counterparts
similarly (to that) English learners apply at lower rates and go through process at different rates
school breakouts then different again from one another as well as from the state
schools can then consider their breakout in different pieces and consider that in their context
because of the differences in the different stages in the process, a school might consider going about those stages differently in light of this information. 

engagement with the field on this data
working with high demand districts since 2019
webinars to review data with districts earlier this month
plan to draft regulatory language, develop guidance, conduct simulations, and development statewide supports for both awareness and opportunity gaps; statewide information portal

Riley: want to be as fair and equitable in admission as possible
supports that can be given beyond regulations "perhaps to help districts do a better job in tracking"
regulations
access to sending districts 
introductory primer on what we're doing and where we're going to go

Craven: schools that are hotly sought after; what about the schools that are not?
there is a disjunction in quality; as the state is the sole arbiter of teachers licensure, why is that?
"I don't understand it"
Riley: I'm not sure demand correlates with quality of program
real variation there
"underlying that is the right question, which is how to we ensure that all schools are high quality and where we want them to be"
have now ensure standardized hours requirement
hopeful that such standardization will help
Craven: would like to see if there districts that have a lot of waivers
Riley: hard to fill areas, may have more as it may be more lucrative to be in the field
Chuang: some of the concern from the schools that are less in demand may not be able to get information out to middle school families as they would like
two way street of awareness gap
Bennett: Framework revision to really strengthen what is provided to students
monitoring processes too
access, quality part of what we see
regional agreement and Ch. 70 calculations means funding varies
about $5100 per student additional allocated in the foundation budget due to size of classes, equipment
but regional agreements then apportion local funds
Lombos: evidence-based policy making
anti-racism, inclusion goals gives a framework for looking at this problem
problem that was identified from the field and then having an equitable process to get us to a better policy
Moriarty: are students who are English learners not receiving translation for access; even before regulation
gap by community by community is enormous
very different manifestation from one school to the next
"what to equip Commissioner Riley with a scalpel and not a chainsaw"
Riley: I think everyone wants the same thing: to serve the kids who want to be there
think this will take more than just regulation
grants, work at the local vocational school level and the sending school level
Peyser: schools not as effective as they needed to be in serving English learners in the past
hopefully better now and word is getting back to school districts

West: appreciate use of data collection in looking at equity and inclusion
interested in current thinking on main takeaways on what went into it from the presentation
would be useful to hear where this focuses attention as head into regulation
Riley: provide multi-avenues to look at data
complicated process
have to take it from multiple levels as we figure out what the process is
all hands on deck approach to this
try to actively figure out how to make this 
Bennett: will be coming back to you with ideas
looking at individual districts on what they show

Couglin: provides a strong footing for students

Hills: would like a sense of where to go based on your key takeaways
focused on improvements
The more I'm concerned about using "a scalpel rather than a sledgehammer"
"the good news it's not the Commissioner's practice to take sledgehammers to things"
still working to understand this

Craven: a primer, a lot more that we need to go through before considering regulation

Stewart: appreciate Lombos comment on equity and anti-racism and approaching through that lens
regulations have to be really looked at clearly and that we understand this very clearly
ultimately looking at not just fair access but high quality schools all around
to ensure our understanding is a lot clearer as we get deeper into the process this year

Riley: opening salvo 
more information to come
proposal to come with more information
"and we'll play it out from there"

Craven: questions that we have on the topic
members take some time to put your thoughts down and collect for questions and answers
regional agreements govern regional school districts

Lombos: one thing in using an equity and inclusion lens
"if it's just grades, attendance, and discipline, we know that each of these three categories have some bias and some problems"
then we're seeing this cumulative of awareness gap, opportunity gap, yield gap
"we know low income folks may not be able to have the most stellar attendance if they move from place to place"
"we know the three categories for admission has bias in and of itself"

Riley: all looking to be as fair as possible on the path forward for our kids
come to a fair and equitable conclusion