and we're going out of order to competency determination
Johnston: draft regulation
if there is a request for different regulations, ask that you be very clear
Curtin: walk through background information as provided in the past
(the vote here is to go out to public comment)
aligning regulation: "a whole lot of strikethrough"
deletion of obsolete language
new definitions: "satisfactorily completing coursework" will mean earning full credit
"showing mastery" successfully completes in line with grading policy" final assessment; a capstone or portfolio
specify minimum requirements to earn competency determination
baseline consistency "through the tenth grade" because the law only goes up through tenth grade standards
for class of 2026, mastery in ELA, math, and science
two years of ELA; algebra I and geometry (or integrated math I and II); and one year of bio, physics, chem, or tech/engineering
(note: this is just spelling out what the law actually means)
not saying that this has to be done in high school; algebra sometimes is taken in eighth grade
Fisher: sometimes students can opt out of the final if they have a high score
Curtin: district's equivalent measure could be identified in competency determination policy
Curtin: we've never had course requirements for 9th and 10th grade students in Massachusetts
note that statewide graduation committee will take years
this "may provide a runway" for that work
add U.S. history as "an additional area determined by the Board"
beginning with class of 2027 (as students are currently scheduling for next year)
"in a one year U.S. history course"
options to address students "in limited circumstances" where a student knows the content but cannot document that they took the course
"don't want to have student sit for the course for the sake of sitting for the course"
either take MCAS and meet or exceed expectations (500 level) to demonstrate mastery
OR district equivalent that meets same academic standards
each district shall adopt a competency determination policy
approved by the governing body
include an appeal process
be posted publicly posted and translated
be submitted to the Department along with district local graduation requirement
allow for Departmental audit of such policies
"want to be sure there is a minimum level in such policies"
DESE commitments: public posting of competency determination and local graduation requirements
state doesn't have a data repository
public reporting of performance in school courses in relation to other outcome measures; look at local grading policies are impacting outcomes
review of local graduation policies in DESE's district review process
follow up discussion of February 10 meeting: using MCAS more broadly to show mastery and satisfactorily complete coursework to earn competency determination
Hills: "you've done a far better job than where my thinking was four or five months ago"
language that looks good; it's nice and neat
auditing language "and yet, given what the law requires"
concerns that "this thing looks good as it is written but runs the risk of collapsing under its own weight"
think it isn't going to play out as nice and neatly
"I look at this and think I don't have a better idea than what you presented...but I'm not sure it's going to work, and we're not going to know for two or three years"
graduation group: not talking about anything until 2030 or later
one simple proposal: if you get a certain minimum score on MCAS, "you're going to be taking it anyway" you will be deemed to have met the competency determination
opt-in for a district: our rules
Stewart: I hope that those who weighted in on ballot question would weigh in on public comment
West: validity and reliability of measures?
how should we think about this? will DESE be regulating that?
(this is teachers' grades, here, BTW)
Curtin: "I want to answer bluntly and say 'no'" but then expand upon it
could have allowed things to keep going as DESE approved plans, but graduation classes were going by
other choice is regulation, looking at the policies, looking at the artifacts, beyond what we're seeing for the class of 2025
West: not pre-approval, in other words
"a lot of voters thought locally generated measures would be fairer to all students, but that isn't actually true"
(It isn't?)
Tutwiler: would like to ask how about competency determination and graduation requirements and MCAS
Hills: still a state requirement being met by a construct
in addition to auditing curriculum, there are a bunch of areas where I can see this not working
rather than get into a whole debate with auditors over if the specific content of a course meets the standards
Moriarty: would like more time to deliberate, but also feel sense of urgency
"source of technical assistance" especially for school committees
defining competency determination
"does this Department have the" ability to be a real source of technical assistance?
(or you could work with their actual professional association)
Johnston: upholding an MCAS pathway looks strong on pathway, but won't serve to undergird the system
Hills: that's a construct
completely agree with you of those who take things on schedule; but there may be those who don't
"not jamming a requirement in"
Craven: a sense of going to a March 10th date?
West: what would change between now and March 10th?
West: I wonder if there is an option to go out with the current version along with some reference to Hills idea with something that we'd want input on?
Johnston: we'd be very comfortable with that
would put out draft regs and then specific hone in on this issue
Curtin: public comment process: would be due April 4
Board would vote on May 20
they're workshopping what the language of their motion should say now
No comments:
Post a Comment