Please note that the above post title is very much my paraphrase.
Attorney General Andrea Campbell, who is busy suing the Trump administration more than a dozen times* in the first 100 days of this administration, weighed in on the regulations regarding vocational admission in a letter to the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education. The letter, dated April 18, was released today via State House News Service, which covers it here (which is paywalled and so far no one seems to have picked it up).
She opens right up with her own reason to be at this table: "As Attorney General, I am committed to upholding equal educational opportunity for all students in Massachusetts." This is, of course, literally part of her job.
She notes that what is proposed is a step in the right direction: "I commend the Board of Education and the Commissioner of the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education for these proposed regulations, which take meaningful steps toward equal access to CTE programs for all of our middle school graduates."
She gets in to why this work in Massachusetts matters in light of the national scene:
In light of the immense challenges and threats posed by the current presidential administration, the responsibility of ensuring educational access and opportunity for all of our students falls more heavily and urgently on the Commonwealth. The day after BESE issued the CTE admissions regulations for public comment, on March 11, 2025, the Trump Administration laid off over 1,300 U.S. Department of Education (DOE) employees, and days later President Trump signed an Executive Order directing that the DOE be dismantled. My office filed a lawsuit to fight this directive, but absent robust relief from the courts, we face a real risk that federal services and protections for our most vulnerable students will be disrupted. In light of this abdication of responsibility by the federal government, state actors must act expeditiously to create policy that will ensure that students aren’t excluded or otherwise discriminated against in our public school programs and that we welcome all of our students to opportunities that will help them thrive.
This, I would say, is the theme of her comment: she, in her official capacity as the attorney of the Commonwealth, is going to great lengths to ensure that our students, particularly those who are most vulnerable, are given the support and the access that they need to their constitutionally guaranteed education. It would be in direct conflict with this work--which also, note, has been the work of the Secretary--for the Board to do anything otherwise.
She then lists many of the students threatened by the federal administration--immigrant students, LGBTQ+ students, students of color, students with disabilities--who her office is fighting to defend, before reiterating the charge of the Board:
My office has done and will continue to do everything in its power to fight the unlawful actions of the federal government, but at the same time it is imperative for Massachusetts to shore up policies to ensure that, regardless of changes at the federal level, all Massachusetts students have access to the educational opportunities that will serve their particular needs and goals for their future.
The repeated notes of urgency, by the way, also address the House Ways and Means budget inclusive of policy language that would direct the Board not to take action** and instead let the state study the issue.
As it currently is proposed, the regulation would consider three things in admission: attendance, discipline, and interest of the student. Campbell takes them in that order.
Regarding attendance:
We are concerned that this criterion would disadvantage vulnerable and protected classes of students, particularly given the present federal context.
The Secretary himself noted in yesterday's meeting that the immigration scene was leading to "extended absences." The AG says the same:
In recent months, our office has received numerous reports of students missing school due to families’ fears of deportation and family separation – and these absences are likely to be unexcused due to concerns about student and parent privacy. Failure to report absences can also be due to cultural, language, or other barriers, and students should not.
The second sentence addresses the notion, as stated at a recent meeting, that parents can "just get them taken care of" when it comes to excused or unexcused absences.
To those who attempt to frame this as indicative of interest:
To the extent that absenteeism is actually a symptom of student’s disengagement in their current school setting, a change to a new form of education – in this case CTE programming – may be exactly what a student needs to reengage.
The Attorney General thus recommends eliminating absence from the consideration, as it would have discriminatory impacts.
Regarding discipline, she notes the following:
...the definition of student discipline in the proposed regulations, perhaps inadvertently, sweeps in a broad range of conduct, including minor misconduct, such as being disruptive, using a cell phone in class, or wearing earbuds in class, which could quickly add up to ten days of suspension under M.G.L. c.71 § 37H3/4. As the Board is likely aware, students of color and students with disabilities are more likely to be disciplined in school, particularly in connection with minor offenses.
Again, a consideration that we know to have a disproportionate impact on historically marginalized groups.
As such (and the boldface here is in the original):
We recommend removing entirely the weight associated with student discipline. At a minimum, the regulations should allow CTE schools to consider only discipline incidents from the prior two school years, and the student discipline definition should (1) exclude discipline incidents under §37H3/4; (2) include only the most serious and dangerous offenses under § 37H; and (3) include discipline under § 37H1/2 only in connection with felonies that have been adjudicated or in which the student has made an admission of guilt in court. These changes would ensure that student applicants face a disadvantage in the application process only when they have major disciplinary infractions, consistent with the intent of the proposed regulations.
Regarding student interest:
To ensure that students do not inadvertently miss out on the opportunity to express interest, we recommend that the options include a short answer question on the application form itself. We also recommend adding language to the regulations to clarify that the substance of the student’s expression of interest through any of the options may not be used for evaluative purposes or influence the admission decision. This language will ensure that students whose communication skills are not as strong because they speak English as a second language, or have a learning disability, or due to other similar factors will not be disadvantaged in the admissions process.
And again, all of the above is from the state's lawyer, which means, ultimately, the Board's lawyer.
_______________________________________
*per WBUR, 14 times. So far.
**slightly funny, at least to me, in light of the fact that we know that the state won't have a budget, and thus anything of this language, until at least June and quite probably later. This is on the May Board agenda.
No comments:
Post a Comment