Just saying up front: I'm not planning on liveblogging public comments. The news tonight is the question of acting Commissioner. Agenda is here. Note that the regulations proposed have been updated since the last meeting; they can be found here.
Updating as we go
I keep meaning to write a post "no, that doesn't take a law"
currently we have a public commenter who has talked about "problem kids" and "sending them back" so I think we're getting the argument about how this is in fact segregation right from the "anti amendment" public comments
also, the disparate impact was demonstrated by the Department early on; that's why we're here
"qualities conducive to vocational learning"...imagine if we limited admission to school to those who are perceived to have "qualities conducive to learning"
I don't think that these public comments are making the points that some people think that they are making.
Also: never, never, never think that public comment represents the full galaxy of opinions on an issue
Secretary Tutwiler: lift up again the proposal in the governor's budget that commits $75M to create new seats over the next few years
higher ed bond bill
Chair Craven thinks that the Board subcommittee should meet again before the April meeting
"different significantly" than what was discussed at the last board meeting
"implementation risk" is something we have to
Johnston vote would be go to out to public comment today
middle school pathway exploration pathway policy "unique to every district"
"this policy that helps students" gain understanding of options they have available
regulations need to make it every clear through mail and email and on the website of the options available
"informed choicemaking"
offer opportunities, "putting down the pieces" for each student
students more ready to express that choice and interest
students have options in this regulation for how they would express interest
"every step matters; we've never focused just on admissions"
"one of the most critical elements" of application is "an expression of interest" in order to be included in a weighed lottery
first credit is completing application including expression of interest
"a lottery is different, though, that the policy we have right now" with points are awarded
by introducing a lottery system and including attendance, it was an automatic qualifier or disqualifier
it was 10 + 10 days; now 27 days in 7 + 8 grades
"showing merit...not the consideration for admission to a CTE" have to be factors that are "essential for participation"
"under a lottery system, if you hit the 10 day threshold in 7th grade, you would automatically not be allowed to advance"
previously, lower attendance was a single factor but not determinative
"raise the number of days" to align "with what we see to be the reality" right now
breaking out across different student groups
thus the 10 days per year move to 27 out of 270 days
get into lottery; if they are below threshold, they get additional credit in the lottery
additional credit if a major disciplinary action is absent
every student then can apply; not foreclosed on an opportunity
Hills: "I don't have questions; I have some comments."
Craven: have heard a lot of questions from districts who have comprehensive systems
Johnston: this is about entrance into schools or programs
superintendents have been clear this applies
Hills "the whole conversation is driven by the scarcity of seats"
no, it's driven by disparate impact
Hills "for lack of a better way of asking this, have we really thought this through?"
DESE staff notes it isn't classes; it's programs
Craven: the Board subcommittee came up with proposals that weren't reflected
"wanted to track the different inputs here"
tracking what things the Board subcommittee had put int relative to the last recommendations and this recommendation
Moriarty: can't hear him at all
Johnston: under the current system, students who have attendance issues may still get in
not an exclusionary facet to the current system; don't want to build one in to the new system
Johnston: brought in the weighting system due to the attendance as a factor
in a way that won't automatically exclude them
Moriarty: still cannot hear him really, but something about parents and families
engagement or input from parents as part of intent "I don't think kids should just be applying alone"
and wow THAT would be discriminatory! and what does that prove?
Moriarty: additional cost of additional open house
hey, let's talk about the foundation budget!
"need a lot more feedback from the field"
Asikis: no way for students to backfill for students who leave halfway through a year
DESE: through 9th and 10th grade, students typically can be accepted off the waitlist; difficult after that
West: who we can barely hear too
Also, Craven calls him "Dr. West" so let's see if that's across the Board
concerned that don't have as much time for evaluation of new proposal
seems to be a tension between a legal standards we'd come to understand
"is this approach consistent with the legal standard"
Johnston: come back to the fact that we are really wanting to balance access and essential criteria to be essential
"one factor doesn't completely exclude you from gaining admission to the school"
if a school chooses to use selective criteria, "they still need to meet item D"
Hills: "just to share some thoughts"
"I am not in favor of sending this out for public comment"
"not wedded to what you presented two weeks ago"
"if you have a problem with the number ten, come up with a different number"
"that's your structure, and not the only way to address this"
"there's a part of me that wants to say, 'Katherine, did I miss some meetings in the past few weeks or so?'"
comments ranged from "concerns about the number 10 to sort of a philosophical point of view"
"it's responsive to some of the people who have raise some issues"
aka: not my own personal objection from the beginning
"this has been a really challenging process"
and he makes a wildly irresponsible comment about the data somehow being questionable
a "superintendent who just bashes the CTE superintendent" and asks if it is middle school
"what I've said is there needs to be a continuation of the process that you've put in place"
"let Marty's subcommittee" sign off
"I'm skeptical" of the data
"this notion that we're just putting this out for public comment...no"
this has already been belabored FAR beyond most regulatory change EVER; the degree to which this is attempting to correct disparate impact makes this position really just...
"some of the defamatory language has been ridiculous"
Moriarty: how is he talking again?
not enough time
"the stakeholders who are most impacted" (THOSE ARE THE STUDENTS who don't get in)
"hear more directly from the field"
which field? which stakeholders?
Craven: we wouldn't be able to significantly change what goes out for public comment
elements are included; could take statements from the public
could alter regulations to reflect what is heard
Hills how is HE talking again
don't make changes, not can't make changes
the weighted lottery "a game, there's almost a hokeyness to it"
"if there's an issue, deal with it" without "making it a game of chance"
Johnston: if there were an easy answer "we could have found it at the first meeting or the second meeting"
agree with additional meeting
could imagine coming up with a list of questions we specifically want to get answers to
"if we say we are open to feedback, we have" to be open to it
bring it back to committee or subcommittee and then see how we might use that to further impact
Fisher: on what West had said; agree
philosophical stance would be an open lottery; if necessary for program of studies to keep attendance and disciplinary, not understanding weight
"why the weight? Why the added?"
"can we justify the weighted" lottery
Stewart: "I feel that the expression of interest as it is" expressed falls short of a non-discriminatory process
for middle school students and parents
hard to see how that would do more good than actual harm
Motion to put draft out for public comment:
7-3 motion carries (Hills, Moriarty, and Mohamed opposed)
No comments:
Post a Comment