On the Thrive Act

There's been some press this spring about the Thrive Act, which has been framed as both ending the use of the MCAS as a graduation requirement and ending or heavily reforming state receivership of school districts. As part of the legislative process, some school committees have been asked to endorse a resolution endorsing the Thrive Act. On Thursday, this was before the Worcester School Committee; it was approved, 6-1. I was the 'no' vote, and I have been asked why.

The resolution concludes:

Resolved that the Worcester School Committee urges the state Legislature to pass the THRIVE Act, ending the use of MCAS tests as a graduation requirement and for purposes of placing school districts or individual schools into state receivership; 

and be it Resolved that Massachusetts develop an alternative to the high-stakes MCAS tests. 

The short reason for my 'no' is that the Thrive Act doesn't do what the resolution says it does.

The Thrive Act is H. 495/S.246. It opens by amending MGL Ch. 69 sec. 1D(1). This is the section of state law that establishes the authority of the state (through DESE) to establish state standards for curricular areas and to establish a competency determination for graduation. The competency determination, since this section has been implemented coming out of 1993, is the high school MCAS. 

Here's what the law says now about that with emphasis added:

The ''competency determination'' shall be based on the academic standards and curriculum frameworks for tenth graders in the areas of mathematics, science and technology, history and social science, foreign languages, and English, and shall represent a determination that a particular student has demonstrated mastery of a common core of skills, competencies and knowledge in these areas, as measured by the assessment instruments described in section one I. Satisfaction of the requirements of the competency determination shall be a condition for high school graduation. If the particular student's assessment results for the tenth grade do not demonstrate the required level of competency, the student shall have the right to participate in the assessment program the following year or years.

(If the student doesn't pass, the law then sets up an educational assistance plan.)

And here's what the Thrive Act would amend it to, with emphasis added:

The ''competency determination'' shall be based on the academic standards and curriculum frameworks for tenth graders in the areas of mathematics, science and technology, and English, and shall represent a determination that a particular student has demonstrated mastery of a common core of skills, competencies and knowledge in these areas by satisfactorily completing coursework that has been certified by the student’s district as showing mastery of such skills, competencies and knowledge. A district also may include history and social science and foreign languages in the requirements. Satisfaction of the requirements of the competency determination shall be a condition for high school graduation. 

(The amendment then similarly sets up an educational assistance plan.)

So what are the changes here? 
First, there's a narrowing of what the competency determination covers to the three areas that are covered by the MCAS. The amendment then says that determination is "through coursework" rather than the assessment instrument described in MGL Ch. 69, section 1I, which is a "system [that] shall be designed both to measure outcomes and results regarding student performance, and to improve the effectiveness of curriculum and instruction." The Thrive Act doesn't touch the language in MGL Ch. 69, 1I, which the state has implemented through the MCAS, which requires assessments in (at least) grades 4, 8, and 10. 
So, first, it isn't clear to me that this actually removes the requirement that the MCAS be successfully passed for high school graduation. I understand that is the intent from the change in the competency determination, but tenth grade MCAS is still there, and I am not sure that this really requires that the Board change its regulation regarding this, particularly given the broad authorities the Board has in MGL Ch. 69, sec. 1B.

This also, and this is really where my issue on this is, really ignores two things about graduation in Massachusetts: 

1. It is almost entirely under the purview of local school committees. The state of Massachusetts only requires three things for high school graduation:
1. PE every year
2. U.S. history
3. Passing the high school MCAS in ELA, math, and science, as discussed above
...and that's it.
Really.
Nothing else is required by the state. 
Now, maybe you think that's totally okay. But the state constitution holds that it is the state that ultimately guarantees the right to every student in every city and town to a public education. How is the state to exercise that responsibility? 
McDuffy found that the state had to fund education, but only funding it, and requiring literally no more than gym every year and a history class is really not guaranteeing every student's constitutional right. The MCAS well may not do that, but "nothing" isn't the answer, I think, either.


2. Most students who do not graduate from high school do not graduate because they haven't met the local requirement, not because they ONLY didn't pass the state-required MCAS. While the Globe reported on this back in April, we've actually known this for some time; it came up particularly when the state talked over how to handle graduation during the time we didn't have the MCAS. Most kids pass both, and do so without much of an issue.
   It's honestly kind of weird to me--and maybe telling?--that we hear a LOT about "students not graduating" when the MCAS comes up at the state level, but that isn't really most kids or even most kids who don't graduate.

And finally, while the bill outlines a committee to study and come up with a replacement for state assessment, and gives a timeline for that report to be filed, there is no provision made for the other provisions the law outlines (without proposed amendment) for the use of the MCAS.

On to the receivership question: 

State receivership came in as a result of the Act Relative to the Achievement Gap in 2011, which was passed as a result of Race to the Top. Federal law--still!--requires that the state identify the lowest performing 5% of schools for intervention. Current state law then outlines a process whereby the Board can vote to put a district into receivership, which in sum removes authority from the school committee and puts authority into the hands of a state- (Commissioner-) appointed receiver. There are a number of other provisions, including ones surrounding collective bargaining.
Since that passed, three districts have been put into state receivership: Lawrence in 2011, Holyoke in 2015, and Southbridge in 2016. 

I think it's fair to say that it's been a pretty painful thing in every district, and, as has been noted, there's no evidence that this is the answer even if all you're looking at is student achievement. 

The section, both in current law and in the bill, is lengthy, but essentially the bill proposes that all districts in that lowest 5%, which would have be calculated with equal weight to growth and achievement, would have a school committee overseen process for writing a plan, which then would have (I think?) to be accepted by the Commissioner. 

Every single district in Massachusetts has to submit an improvement plan to the state, already, every three years. The parameters may be a bit different here, but it's not clear to me that this does too much different from what is already done by every district already.

To turn to the bill, first, there was a really interesting discussion at the Board back in 2018, when the Board last set the growth/achievement balance, which went into the potential issues with weighing growth more; that presentation is here. You can dislike that argument, but I know at least for me, it gave me pause in terms of just declaring that the two need to be equal. 

Next, as much as the bill frames receivership as only having been about MCAS, receivership under MGL Ch. 69, sec 1J(a) is outlined as being: 

on the basis of student performance data collected pursuant to section 1I, a school or district review performed under section 55A of chapter 15, or regulations adopted by the board of elementary and secondary education 

I may be the only person in the entire state who thinks this, but I think that the state comprehensive district reviews are among the most underrecognized useful things DESE does. They are an attempt of a top to bottom review of the work of the district. They may well not always be right, but they do give an outside view of what is happening in a district that isn't available anywhere else. 
And the thing is? The reviews were, in particular in Lawrence and Southbridge (from what I remember offhand, it was less so in Holyoke) cited as part of the reason for state receivership. 

Now, here's the deal: I don't think that having a single individual who answers to the Commissioner is a "reform" of some of the situations that were cited in the above districts. Lack of democracy is unhealthy, and clearly, it hasn't worked all that well, either. And if the governance of the district is at issue, simply removing the school committee from the playing field doesn't fix that, either. 

But "write a plan (which you already do anyway)" doesn't fix this, either. And that's what is presented here.

...all of which is a long way of saying: there are issues here. The Thrive Act doesn't fix them. And I was asked, not to endorse efforts or thoughts, but this Act. 
Thus, I am a no. 

As always, the above is my opinion alone. The things I post here are.