This is the presentation that was bumped from the last meeting because the one on gifted and talented went on and on and on.
Agenda is here; livestream will be here.
Craven notes that this is a discussion only item.
Riley "how we can set ambitious yet attainable targets"
learning recovery
Curtin: introduces Erica Gonzales as Associate Commissioner for Data and Accountability
target setting process for accountability as well as for SOA
having to do this for two reasons:
- ESEA: set targets for both state and for schools
- SOA: "for addressing persistent disparities"; for state and districts
Thus for state, for districts, for schools, and for all the subgroups therein
Target setting has been happening for many years; public document
pandemic has created new challenges, outside the usual norms of what we would do
"so that everyone understands what our intentions are"
between districts, schools, subgroups have to set between 60-70,000 targets annually
but challenges due to pandemic
did not see huge swings in graduation rates; and this is true of the majority
not so of student achievement; "we have never seen variance like this"
it's the variance within the levels that is such an outlier, from 2019-22
had schools that also didn't lose ground
have to come up with a system that fits all
schools that lost extreme amounts, some of that lost small amounts, and some that made gains
how to have schools recover and then go beyond
process that both provides for that and provides for going beyond where schools were in 2019
two paths:
path to recovery: each district, school, subgroup will have a full 'recovery target'
Acknowledging what has happened over the course of the pandemic
asking them to recover back to where they were in 2019 before moving beyond there
the amount of decline requires thinking differently depending on where schools are starting from
amount of that decline will determine the group's 'time to recovery' quartile
those in the bottom quartile will have more time than those in higher quartiles
must show "care to where schools are"
simply saying that schools need to get back to where they were in 2019 "simply doesn't work"
applied to a student group, a school, a district, the state
"want to note that this is a rigorous requirement of schools"
this is a bigger expectation than what would have been set under prior system
"a fair and careful approach"
make sure those that didn't have as much of a loss over past years would have goals at least as rigorous
also important to think how to move forward: to accommodate different combinations
once a district, school, subgroup recovers, then need a path forward
Those will focus on closing achievement gap; those furthest behind; particular attention need to be paid to those groups
"very complicated process, where you have schools that are in multiple places"
but we "have to develop a process that meets our schools where they are"
every year, schools would be moving from the path to recovery to the path forward
Canavan: asks if any reflection of usual underperforming
Curtin: "kind of a mix"
largest loss "by no means just a list of our historically lowest performing schools"
Canavan: do we have a forecast on when these paths will converge?
"I have some real concerns for our kids who have been most impacted"
Curtin: "I think it's important that we recognize that those that are furthest behind, getting back to recovery is very much progress."
"We need to meet our schools where they are right now."
"We have kids coming up into our tested grades right now who likewise were impacted by the pandemic."
"Yes, they would have a long runway, but I think it's really important to acknowledge what kind of progress that would be"
Canavan: "the phrase that was in my head was 'separate but equal'" though don't want to liken to Jim Crow South
"I'm concerned about the equity impacts"
"I think that we have to do better"
ESSER funding, SOA funding
"should we be looking at wildly different strategies"
"I know we have tensions here on local control"
"wonder if SOA plans are a lever to require" tutoring, extended day
"you have my full support"
West: nothing magical about where we were in 2019; why go back to that
would be working to ensure that the targets that are set would be more ambitious than those set under the previous system
compared to what the targets would have been if we'd simply continued
Curtin: in year one, guarantee they'd be at least as rigorous as the previous system; for bottom distribution, much more rigorous
"Any time you draw a line" one side gets one treatment, the other another
at some point, we had to draw some lines
a function of us having to develop a methodology here
Hills: "I want to give you a reaction"
"at the end of the day, our success or failure as a Board will be largely a function of how we're moving the needle on student achievement"
I think this is incorrect FWIW
getting to 2019 "nothing to write home about"
"But there's a whole lot of money that's pouring in"
Money will stop soon from the federal government and stop increasing from state "and we won't have even gotten to the achievement gap"
"this is not a matter of beating up on districts or anything like that...districts have to figure out how to do it"
and that's it in a nutshell
"They also have to get us to a point where we have to be happy to get to that point"
if others on the Board, maybe you need to come back to us
this isn't under their purview, FWIW
Curtin notes that it isn't the lowest performing districts that had the largest loses (again, because he already said that)
Hills is now feeling himself to ask that question again
Curtin answers it again
"I think that the assumption that schools aren't going to start on that path forward until four years from now" is incorrect
"I wouldn't want to leave the impression with you that 25% of our schools is what's going to happen each year"
Again notes that the historically lowest performing
Plankey: think that clarification of timeline is useful
"almost expecting linear recovery"
"we keep talking about how unprecedent these drops in achievement are...when we have these...is it possible that these drops might take exponentially longer" to recover?
Curtin: yes, developing a system within the unknown
Plankey: really the question we want to ask is what does this mean our job is and what support we need to give districts
Curtin: developing this with assistance folks, working in coordination
"very much trying to think about the quantitative side of things"
Plankey: think the combination would be helpful
Mohamed: creates a health care analogy which is creating the No Child Left Behind act
"what does this say to this family or concerned parent about what our expectation is for those students"
"we seem to think will fall further and further behind"
"I wonder what other states and doing what other countries are doing and particularly all this funding that we have available"
"how should we be signaling"
Curtin: have gotten feedback already from council
Those that have lost the most believe that these targets are ambitious
"I believe we really need to be careful...it's a little like No Child Left Behind was: everybody is going to be proficient"
recognizes the complication of the conversation
Moriarty: 2019, last logical thing
"I didn't find much about 2019 to be acceptable"
rather than thinking about how long the runaway is, think like triage
"much more urgent intervention, guardrails" from the state needed due to those losses
to do what?
Time to recovery shouldn't be measured in reaching its next point, how much more do we have to do to reach that next step
"with good triage, we're looking a lot under the hood"
scores "never answer the questions so much as tell us the next questions to ask"
building stronger systems, what made some schools better withstanding than others
Stewart: would apply to both SOA and ESEA?
Curtin: yes
Stewart: other indicators besides the achievement scoring
really being clear about privilege and bias
Curtin: very much thinking about the questions that...who? has asked us
try to eliminate those biases as much as we could
districts are free to supplement SOA indicators set by DESE with their own
Stewart: missing data on real information around attendance and absence
I don't understand what this data is actually telling us
"if you had to touch base with families on some of this stuff, I don't know how it's going to feel surmountable at all"
Curtin: certainly can supplement around assistance efforts
discussed with advisory committee prior to coming to the Board
important to note that there are a lot of different indicators in the accountability system that made pandemic related decisions
illustration of how we have shown flexibility in the past
Peyser: to Craven saying this is "absolutely" his last meeting
"I don't know; there's always tomorrow"
Target really has two purposes: setting relevant targets; also used for accountability system
sometimes those are in conflict
two or three years sounds like an awfully long time to get back to where you need to go
we know that this is the actual children who have to do the work to get there, right? Like this isn't a thing DONE to kids?
he riffs on some sort of two year categorization, and I'm sure I'm not the only one thinking that he is not going to be on the Board in 48 hours
oh, that was targets for individual students. We can add that to the 70,000 that DESE already has to create
And he wants more ambitious targets for 3 and 4 grade reading performance
West notes interest in supports for districts and asks about path forward
Curtin: yes, going back to 2019 methodology but would increase rigor within methodology
past performance of like schools was past practice, but would choose a point in the continuum that is more rigorous than that used in the previous methodology
Stewart notes national state boards of education is taking up this topic in March
Craven asks about talking about this at the next meeting "on your impressions of what the Board has said"
Curtin said "we have to let districts know what their targets are so there is a bit of a time crunch"
happy to work with Commissioner on following up on comments