Big news from DESE this evening: Commissioner Riley is resigning

Commissioner Riley is ending his tenure with the Department, submitting his resigning effective March 15 of this year:

I am writing to let you know that after six years of service, I am stepping down from my position as Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education, effective March 15, 2024.

The full letter, as shared by MASS, is here. He says it is due to needing to care for elderly parents, as well as the Department needing someone who can devote the next five years to service.
I will reserve comment. 

So what happens now? 
For this, we look to MGL Ch. 15, sec. 1F:

Whenever a vacancy occurs in the position of commissioner, the board shall by a two-thirds vote of all its members submit to the secretary, for the secretary's approval, a recommended candidate to fill that vacancy. The secretary may appoint the recommended candidate as commissioner. If the secretary declines to appoint the candidate, the board shall submit a new candidate for consideration. The secretary may appoint the commissioner only from candidates submitted to the secretary by the board.

Riley is recommending Russell Johnston as the interim (like a superintendent, we have to have a Commissioner); that very much does not preclude further action. I would suspect, as last time, that they would do a full national search, with a confidential round of interviews with a search committee. But that is only my hunch. 

The rest of that section, incidentally, reads as follows:

The board may in its discretion by majority vote of all its members remove the commissioner. The commissioner shall be the secretary to the board, its chief executive officer and the chief state school officer for elementary and secondary education. The commissioner shall receive a salary to be determined by the board.

The board may delegate its authority or any portion thereof to the commissioner whenever in its judgment such delegation may be necessary or desirable. The commissioner shall exercise such delegated powers and duties with the full authority of the board.

As Riley noted at his last meeting was then approaching his six year anniversary; he was appointed in January of 2018 after Commissioner Chester died the prior June, with Jeff Wulfson serving as interim (after being appointed at genuinely the weirdest and saddest Board meeting ever).

Also, I had some thoughts about how I'd do if if I were in charge (which I very much am not) the last time we did this. I may give some more thought to that now, in, as always, my personal capacity.

Images of full letter:

More as there is anything! 

Five Massachusetts education hopes for 2018

I tweeted this out this morning, but I believe the thread is broken a few places, so...

1. I hope we don't get a terrible Commissioner. I haven't seen nearly as much attention paid to this as one would hope; it's a powerful position that could screw up a whole lot. I'm not sure that the political side (particularly the Legislature) appreciates just how much power the Commissioner has, especially stemming from the 2011 Act Relative to the Achievement Gap. Maybe, at the time, the thought was that they were just giving that power to Mitchell Chester; Commissioner Chester is gone, but the power remains. Most notably, this, of course, is state receivership, on a Board vote but on the Commissioner's recommendation. The general direction of the Department, though, stems from the Commissioner (I know I'm not alone in seeing and feeling a difference in the past six months). Where things are going well, I don't want to see them go badly; where things are improving, I want to see them continue to do so. Where the Department lately has conceded that maybe they don't know the answer, I want to hang onto figuring things out. The new Commissioner has the authority to send this all in a very different direction. 


2. Let's get S. 223 out of the Joint Committee on Education and passed. Let's pass an FY19 budget that changes the foundation budget. I can't say it better than Horace Mann: 

If [Massachusetts] would continue to mount higher and higher towards the summit of prosperity, she must continue the means by which her present elevation has been gained.

(Report to the Board of Education, 1849)
We didn't do that by wooing Amazon, or by giving tax breaks to GE, or any of the other wild goose chases we've seen the political leadership indulging in lately: we invested in education for everybody. We did it early--remember, we passed the taxation of "visible estate" in 1646 and then required public schools the following year--and we expanded what it means often, usually ahead of the rest of the country. We have to recognize something more like actual costs. We're billions off, and that hurts kids more than anyone.


3. We need to start paying more attention to western and north central Massachusetts. The Berkshires have wrangled a report, and Superintendent Thomas and others in north central are talking about merged services. We have fewer and fewer kids spread out over a lot of space. And those towns have just as much as a sense of self and of place as anywhere east of 495. I don't have an answer, but we need more than The Berkshire Eagle and the western legislative delegation paying attention.


4. Dare I mention the state accountability system? I'm honestly a little reluctant to say it too loudly, lest we scare it off. I hope the Board doesn't mess up changes to the worse; I hope the new Commissioner doesn't trample over what progress has been made. My other hope (and plea) is to the field: stop trying to recreate rankings! I know we can't (no matter how much we yell!) get the Globe to knock it off (and see my liveblog from the last meeting for Acting Commissioner Wulfson's ruefulness on that account), but let's stop recreating the trap ourselves. I can't count the number of articles I read from this spring in which superintendents, principals, school committee members, parents, and others essentially said, "yes, we know there are no levels for elementary schools, but how did we do compared to the guys next door?" This round isn't on DESE: Knock it off. If we're going to say that the level system hurts us, that we need support rather than judgment, that we're more than test scores, then we have to follow through when it is left to us on the ground. My bet is we get another "no new levels" on the high schools this spring (that's a guess): don't do this again. And while we're talking about "more than scores," go tell DESE about what you want in a school and district report card.
   
5. Less sniping, more actual thoughtful discussions. School committees have taught me that there is a very broad array of people involved in education in Massachusetts; the usual assumptions about Massachusetts being a blue state don't always bear out. Very few people involved in  Massachusetts education actively want things to be worse for kids (there are policy makers who don't, in my view, care). When we resort to our trenches, flinging accusations of who never listens, or who just wants to blow up the system, or who is just a shill, we don't get anywhere. And I see a lot of that. And it's exhausting. I hope to see less next year. 

Who are those guys? A bit about the Board and Department of Elementary and Secondary Education *

*title reference after the break, should you not know it
I was having dinner with a friend who is active in her school district earlier this week, and she said (here I'll paraphrase): I know there's a Commissioner, and I'm hearing a lot lately about this guy Sagan, but what are their jobs and who does what?

And so, a (very small) Board and Department explainer.

I could write at length about the history of Massachusetts education (and maybe at some point I will), but know that the Board of Education was established (by state law) in 1837, making it among the oldest Boards in the country. Initially, it didn't have power: it was intended to be a statewide study group, as there was a great deal of concern coming out of the American Revolution both that the quality of education had fallen (people were a little distracted) and then that private academies, established with the intent of getting boys into Harvard, were pulling resources away from the public grammar schools (much of which may sound oddly familiar). Both the Governor and Lieutenant Governor sat on the Board, which otherwise was appointed by the Governor and served for eight year terms. The first group was fairly geographically disbursed, though I will point out that two of the men were from Worcester:

BOARD OF EDUCATION: Established by an Act of the Legislature; April 20, 1837.
The Governor and Lieutenant Governor, ex oficiis; Hon. Thomas Kinnicutt, of Worcester; Emerson Davis, D.D., of Westfield; George B. Emerson, Alexander H. Vinton, D.D. of Boston; Hon. Stephen C. Phillips, of Salem; Mark Hopkins, D.D. of Williamstown; Rev. Edward Otheman, of Chelsea; Hon. Issac Davis, of Worcester; Barnas Sears, D.D., Secretary; Hon. Thomas Kinnicutt, Treasurer.

The Board had the power to appoint a Secretary, whose job was two-fold: he was to collect information about how public education was working in the Commonwealth, and he was to share, as we'd put it now, best practices. The man they appointed, Horace Mann, is generally recognized as among the most important figures in American education because of the work he did as Secretary.

As industrial, or what we'd call vocational, education grew up over the latter 1800's, a board overseeing those schools was likewise established. When the Legislature in 1909 abolished both that and the Board of Education overseeing the other schools, as well as the position of Secretary, creating instead a combined oversight, they also created the position of Commissioner. The Commissioner then, and still today, is the executive officer of K-12 education in the state. He--they thus far have all been men--oversees the day-to-day operations of the Department for Massachusetts.

The Department and the position of Commissioner are described in MGL Ch. 69, Sec. 1A. It specifically lays out the Commissioner's duties, with more in much of the rest of the chapter, with the implication that the Department as a whole will carry them out. It's a lengthy list, which has since been supplemented by the duties states are expected to carry out under every federal education law since.

The Board of Education, as reconstituted in 1909 and again since, is described in MGL Ch. 69, Sec. 1E, with their duties described in MGL Ch. 69, Sec. 1B. A great deal of the duties harken back to that original concern of standards of education. Thus the board sets curriculum standards, but also standards for things like teacher licensure. It is a nine member board, with one member nominated by the state labor council, one to represent industry, and one of the parents' group. They are appointed by the governor to five year terms, of which they may serve two; one member serves conterminously with the governor. They meet once a month (with exceptions) to do this work, and the Commissioner is appointed by the Board as I explained here.

The Secretary of Education, who oversees not only K-12, but also pre-K and higher education, is a cabinet official of the Governor. He is appointed by the Governor and serves at the pleasure of the Governor. As a part of that, he holds a voting seat on each of the three boards of education. While he oversees an executive office, most of the work at the state level on education happens within the three departments, not within the executive office.

To put names to the above: the prior Commissioner, who passed away in June, was Mitchell Chester. Currently serving as Acting Commissioner is Jeff Wulfson. The Secretary of Education is James Peyser.
Something which is largely not remembered, 'though it was mentioned upon his appointment as Secretary, is that Peyser previously served as Chair of the Board of Education, after being one of two finalists for Commissioner, a job that went to David Driscoll, Chester's predecessor, in a deal worked by the previous chair John Silber.

Board of Ed in sum

crossposted at MASC
On August 17, the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education held a previously unscheduled summer meeting, due to the untimely death of Commissioner Chester the morning of the June meeting. The meeting was called largely to discuss the process for hiring a new Commissioner.

---

In opening the meeting, Acting Commissioner Wulfson acknowledged the significant support he is receiving from all of DESE staff, most particularly the senior staff. All recognized the passing of Kathy Kelley, former president of AFT-MA (information regarding services can be found here).

Taking advantage of the Board being together, the Department gave an update on the state's ESSA plan (notes here). Matt Pakos reminded the Board of the process to date; Rob Curtin then reviewed the feedback received on the plan and the Department's planned response. The Board also received the proposed accountability indicators to date, with the repeatedly emphasized caveat that these will change once results from this spring's assessments are available. At this point, the major difference between the US DoE and the state is the measure on assessments for the academic achievement indicator: US DoE has insisted on grade level proficiency (that is, the percentage of students getting a score above the proficient cut off on testing), while the state has proposed the use of the average scaled score (averaging the scores of all students against a proficiency standard, which relates to where schools are starting at and increases over time). The state does not plan to change this in their submission later this week. Late yesterday, Connecticut received approval for their state plan that used a similar measure, which may indicate that a more positive direction for Massachusetts is possible.

Russell Johnston, serving as interim receiver of Southbridge, gave an update on work in the district (notes here). After reviewing the work that had been done on curricular alignment and work with technology and ELL students, he spent more time discussing the work on budgeting. In particular, he spoke of the centralization of purchasing, as too much authority had devolved to the schools on purchasing; the district was not, he said, "following best practices." The Department directly supported finishing the FY17 budget, such that the close of year balanced. Currently, the Department is in negotiations with a contractor for business management services; due to the previous high rate of turnover in the business office, Johnston felt that hiring an individual would not be best. The search for a new receiver will take place after local input on the characteristics needed in a new receiver. Johnston said the emphasis would be in "quality over speed." He will be reinstating the curriculum and budget subcommittees of the school committee in an advisory capacity. The district currently is orientating new teachers; this year, 70 teachers are new in a district of about 175 teachers. As part of their orientation, new teachers are touring the town on buses, meeting with parents, business owners, and other community members to be introduced to the strengths of the district.
The Board received an FY18 budget update, as the Governor signed the budget after their June meeting. From the Department's perspective, beyond flat staffing, the main concern is the conference committee's decision to budget the assessment line at $4 million less than the Governor's budget. DESE does not, at this point, plan to cut their spending; they are "moving forward assuming we will have that (higher) level." The federal budget picture remains, of course, unclear.
Chair Sagan then took up the search for a new Commissioner.  The Board is required to operate under the Open Meeting Law in their search; as such, final interviews, deliberation, and voting will take place in public session. An initial round of interviews will take place with an appointed subcommittee of the Board in executive session. The Department will be sending out an RFP with the intention of hiring a search firm to assist them in the search.  In response to a question from student representative Trimarchi regarding public input, Sagan proposed a small advisory committee, as well as encouragement of public input through their regular meetings.
Finally, the Board voted a 10% raise for Acting Commissioner Wulfson for the duration of his service as acting commissioner. Wulfson does not intend to apply for the permanant position.

The Board next meets on September 26.

August meeting of the Board of Ed: opening remarks

The Board of Ed begins meeting at 9 am; you can find the agenda here. This is not a regular meeting; there will not be opening public comment, though the Acting Commissioner, Secretary, and Chair may address the Board. No live video today, we're told, but they'll post video later.
updating as we go
It looks as though we have a member taking advantage of remote participation this morning: Hannah Trimarchi, the new student representative.

Sagan: special meeting of the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education; main item that we're going to talk about is the search process that we have to undergo to find a new permanent Commissioner. Acknowledges passing of former AFT president Kathy Kelley (details on services here)
Also Tim Nicolette, new head of the Mass Charter School Association is here
Present: McKenna, Peyser, Sagan, Morton, Noyce, Moriarty, Stewart (Craven on her way)

Wulfson: "want to publicly acknowledge the support and help I'm getting from everybody here at the Department; everybody has been pitching in to keep things going at what is obviously a difficult time"
Condolences to Kathy Kelley's family and her larger teacher family

Peyser adds his condolences on Kathy Kelley's passing

Sagan: will resume public comment in September

Update from DESE regarding the late Commissioner

From today's Commissioner's update:

Message from Acting Commissioner Jeff Wulfson: 

This has been a difficult week here at the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. With Mitchell Chester's passing, we lost not only an inspirational leader, but a great friend, colleague, and mentor. Thank you to everyone who reached out to us with messages of encouragement and support and to all those, locally and nationally, who paid tribute to his lifelong contributions to education. As Secretary Peyser said, we were blessed to have had Mitchell with us. 

At his family's request, this week's burial service was private. Condolence cards for his wife, Angela Sangeorge, and his children can be sent care of Helene Bettencourt here at ESE, and we'll make sure that they get to the family. Contributions in Mitchell's memory can be made to Habitat for Humanity, the Southern Poverty Law Center, or a scholarship fund that will be announced at a public memorial service that is being planned for August or September. 

Mitchell is gone, but the important work he led, the work that all of us are engaged in, goes on. Here at ESE, we are committed to honoring his memory by pursuing that work with renewed dedication. At the same time, the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education will soon begin the thoughtful and deliberate process to select the Commonwealth's 24th education commissioner. As acting commissioner, I will do my best to keep you informed and provide any assistance you need. Please do not hesitate to contact me.

I've added links to the above for donations. 

What happens now?

Yes, I know Commissioner Chester just died. It's also been so long since we've needed a new commissioner--Chester was appointed in 2008--that I'm sure most of us don't remember how this works. Thus, your answer.
We're now operating under MGL Ch. 15, Sec. 1F:

Whenever a vacancy occurs in the position of commissioner, the board shall by a two-thirds vote of all its members submit to the secretary, for the secretary's approval, a recommended candidate to fill that vacancy. The secretary may appoint the recommended candidate as commissioner. If the secretary declines to appoint the candidate, the board shall submit a new candidate for consideration. The secretary may appoint the commissioner only from candidates submitted to the secretary by the board.

Thus, Secretary Peyser makes the appointment but may do so only from candidates submitted by two-thirds of the Board.
In terms of the Board itself, note that currently there is an open seat, to be filled by Governor Baker, due to the resignation of Roland Fryer. The student representative, who does get a vote, will also join the Board this fall. The Board members, with the exception in this case of Chair Sagan (who has a term coterminus with Governor Baker) serve five year terms, subject to a single renewal. I believe--and if you know otherwise, please correct me here--that Member Noyce is currently serving her second five year term and thus will leave the Board in October, leaving another seat to be filled by Governor Baker. With thanks for the correction: member Noyce is on her first term.

There's some history in some of the people currently involved around this: more to come on appointing Commissioners. 

Commissioner Chester has died

Giving this its own post
Appointed in 2008, he was the longest-serving Commissioner (/state superintendent) in the country. He was 65.
More from WBUR here.
Requiescat in Pace 

June Board of Education meeting: ABBREVIATED MEETING

The Board of Education is having their June meeting in Malden this morning at 8:30. The agenda is here. 
Posting as we go.
Chair Sagan just took a call and has gathered the rest of the board (not a quorum here) around him; members of staff coming in teary-eyed and exchanging hugs. 

Chair Sagan opens the meeting by announcing that Commissioner Chester died last night "after a short but difficult illness."
They will conduct an abbreviated meeting.

The Board of Education has their June meeting on Tuesday: UPDATED

The Board of Elementary and Secondary Education meets for June on Tuesday at their offices in Malden. You can find the agenda here. 
A couple of things that are not on the agenda, but are coming in as reports:

• The annual survey of superintendents and principals is back. You can find a lot more breakdown of the results here. 
• An update on the revision of the social studies and history standards is included. The short version is we're done with the initial stakeholder engagement and moving on to the drafting of draft standards.
• The annual non-operating school districts (that tuition out all of their students) report is included. Note that a number of these are small towns that run K-6 and then tuition out their high school students (choosing not to belong to a regional school district).

On the agenda:

• proposed Early College Program Designation process and criteria for discussion and vote. This is essentially formalizing and creating new versions of the linking of high schools and colleges for high school students to gain college credit and experiences in high school. I continue to feel as though this misses the major point, which is that no one seems to know what to do with high school anymore. Shoving them all into college early misses some growth that ought, I think, to be happening in high school.
• a presentation on the Safe Schools for LGBTQ students program
• a discussion and vote on proposed revisions to teacher licensure. The only bit that's particularly new here from earlier discussion is the removal of what was proposed as broadening language around removal of licensure; if you skim down the link, you can see the discussion of what was the section most objected to by the state teachers' unions. Note in particular this comment: " The removal of some of the proposed amendments to 603 CMR 7.15(8) does not affect, change, or narrow the Commissioner's legal authority."
• There will be an update on the four Level 5 schools, of which two are in Boston, one in New Bedford, and one in Holyoke. With the return of the Dever to operation under Boston Superintendent Chang, three of these schools will be operating under the authority of their superintendents as receiver, though in those cases not reporting to their school committees (with the exception of Holyoke, where the entire district is under state receivership).
• The Commissioner has his annual performance review, done by subcommittee. You can read the full report here. He is being given a 4.95 rating out of 5. More than anything, this reflects to me just how far removed the Board is from most of education in the state.
• The Board is being asked to waive the week's notice of charter school lotteries in the case of three schools that had to reschedule due to a snowstorm in March. 
• The Board is being asked to do their usual summer delegation of authority to the Commissioner. 
• And the Board is being asked to vote their schedule for next year.

Liveblog/tweet coming Tuesday. 

UPDATE: Today (Friday) they added:

Executive Session to Discuss Litigation Strategy

May meeting of the Board of Education: opening remarks

You can find the agenda here. Note that we'll hear from Scituate as part of the opening this morning, as Sciutate High School is hosting today.
Also, interesting note for DESE watchers: the Commissioner is not here today, so Deputy Commissioner Wulfson is sitting in.

Congratulations to Katherine Craven who is home with a new daughter!

Welcome today to Scituate High School.
"flies under the radar, but is doing some exceptionally well things here"

Joint Hearing on Ways and Means FY18: in sum

There were two main themes that emerged in testimony at the education hearing before the Joint Committee on Ways and Means Wednesday, March 29 at UMass-Amherst: the impacts of issues outside the classroom on the classroom, and the need for funding reform in both K-12 and higher education.

March Board of Ed: revision of ELA and math

back up is here
Chester: don't want to run right past this moment in time
Massachusetts history of setting strong standards, "envy of most of the nation"
anchoring a state educational system that has succeed in way that no other state has
industry practice to periodically review and revise standards
lots of commentary, lots of discussion of what's working well, what can afford to be clarified
Very "robust process"
standards "are the Commonwealth's own"

The Board of Ed meets Tuesday, March 28

You can find the agenda here.
There are two big items on the agenda: the state standards around math and English, and the state's federal education plan.

After comments by the Chair, the Commissioner, the Secretary and the public, there is a presentation by a Randolph social studies teacher, Michelle Ryan.

As part of the monthly updates on the Level 5 districts, Lawrence receiver Jeff Riley is presenting; that link also has an update on the Dever School in Boston, which is in state receivership but transitioning to being under Boston Superintendent Chang's authority. Note that Lawrence has been in receivership since 2012, and still no word on when that will change.

The Board is having a final discussion and vote on the new revised math and English standards, after their period of public comment. The link goes to the memo which has some discussion of how the public comment period went.

The Board is also having their final discussion, but are not==contrary to what has been said for months--being asked to vote on the state's ESSA plan. The full plan was released to the Board on Friday afternoon, ahead of their Tuesday discussion. You can download the Executive Summary here; I've uploaded the full 129 page plan in my Dropbox here. As I know many including myself were hoping for and even seeing some signs of movement towards a more well rounded view of public education in Massachusetts, the plan as submitted represents a shift back towards the emphasis on test scores, and thus on a system that ties students and schools to levels of poverty in their outcomes. In particular, I'd call your attention in the executive summary to page 11:

We heard strong support from stakeholders for the inclusion of certain input measures, specifically access to a well-rounded curriculum including the arts, physical education, advanced coursework, computer science, career development education, and other offerings. At least in the initial years of the new accountability system, such input measures are better represented as indicators in a school or district report card so that the information is readily accessible to parents, policymakers, and the public, rather than as indicators in an accountability system.

...which means it won't count towards actual accountability levels. Likewise, page 12:

Among the accountability index indicators (core measures) to which we are committed are: • Students’ scores on our statewide assessments • A measure of growth to standard (i.e., based on year-to-year gains, whether the student is on track to reach proficiency within two or three years) • Gap closing by accelerating the gains of the lowest performing students • High school graduation rates • English learner progress and attainment of proficiency in English 

Other accountability index indicators that we are considering include: • Student engagement (e.g., attendance, chronic absenteeism) • Dropout rates • Successful completion of a broad and challenging curriculum • Ninth grade success 

These measures would be aggregated into an overall school performance index. Per the federal law, the core measures outlined above would be given much greater weight in the calculation than the additional measures. For certain measures, we may begin by including them in enhanced reporting on our school and district report cards to encourage state and local conversations about programmatic and/or policy changes, such as expanding course offerings and ensuring a well-rounded curriculum including arts, physical education, and service learning.

...but they won't "count."
And this is really disappointing, because there's a lot of work (inside and outside the Department) that went into making this a more progressive assessment system. Our only hope at this point is that we did hear, more than once, that plans can evolve. Here's hoping.

The Board is being asked also to vote on MCAS 2.0 descriptors, which are as follows:

• Exceeding Expectations A student who performed at this level exceeded grade-level expectations by demonstrating mastery of the subject matter. 
• Meeting Expectations A student who performed at this level met grade-level expectations and is academically on-track to succeed in the current grade in this subject. 
• Partially Meeting Expectations A student who performed at this level partially met grade-level expectations in this subject. The school, in consultation with the student's parent/guardian, should consider whether the student needs additional academic assistance to succeed in this subject. 
• Not Meeting Expectations A student who performed at this level did not meet grade-level expectations in this subject. The school, in consultation with the student's parent/guardian, should determine the coordinated academic assistance and/or additional instruction the student needs to succeed in this subject.

The Board is also being asked to vote out some obsolete regulations on private occupational schools.

The Massachusetts ESSA plan is posted, and I'm worried

The Board of Ed meets next Tuesday, and you might remember that this is the meeting at which they were scheduled to vote on the state's ESSA plan.
Except there's no vote scheduled: there's a "discussion."
Now I have no idea if this means that they aren't planning on rolling forward with submitting it for the April deadline (thus this would send it back for review again) OR if the Commissioner has discovered he doesn't need a Board vote and it just going to submit it regardless.
I will say that sending it in without a Board vote is contrary to the repeated stress on public consultation that ESSA is supposed to be giving us. It's a bad signal if the administration simply moves forward without some nod to public process, however flawed.

But there is a more worrying thing: I have yet to read the plan, but I have heard from more than one direction that the stresses placed on non-test scores has backed way off in this round. That "test scores über alles" Secretary Peyser was pushing? It sounds as though it won out.
Thus if you were hoping/testifying/supporting a plan that was more well-rounded? That emphasized breadth of curriculum and access to the arts and social-emotional learning and basically anything other than "hey, good job on those standardized tests"? Not so much.

Again, I haven't reviewed it (I hope to), but if this is concerning to you, check out the plan and get in touch with the Board.

As always, more as I have it.

Lack-of-empowerment zones

Over the weekend, you may have caught this laudatory piece from MassLive on Springfield's Empowerment Zone. There was a parallel article in the Globe, so clearly the charm offensive is on. Thus it was no big surprise to see an equally laudatory Globe editorial supporting HD445 and SD1209, the bills that would allow empowerment zones across the state, including zones declared by the state by the Commissioner with only a single Level 4 school.
Did you notice what's missing in this push?
Any evidence of success.
As MassLive noted in June:

Only time and data will tell whether the interventions put in place under the auspices of the Empowerment Zone are working.

We haven't had that yet.
As the Globe article (but not the editorial) notes:

...a turnaround could take years to achieve. Test scores at the zone’s highest-performing middle school are in the bottom 9th percentile statewide, meaning more than 90 percent of other similar schools scored better. The worst-performing school is in the bottom 1st percentile.

We don't know yet that this does anything positive. You can see the first year of results, which were not great, on page 18 and 19 in this report here.
We do have other examples of what works in Massachusetts, but somehow those never make it into bills.

It's important to note that the above bills go beyond what have been touted as "empowering" bills in the past, which would have expanded district power (to redo contracts, for example). The bills would allow the Commissioner to declare an "empowerment zone" in any district that has a single Level 4 school, which could include other schools that aren't underperforming! 

Empowerment zones don't answer to their local communities. They bypass the local school committee and create a quasi-private board to run schools.

I thought we knew that was a bad idea in Massachusetts?

Board of Ed: ESSA redux

Sagan: hope you took it constructively
"how we use this as an opportunity to raise standards across the Commonwealth"
"I think we were trying to understand it"
timeline question first
Chester: thought it was a terrific discussion last night
appreciate your opening comments on this
cites Curtin's work on this

Public comment at the Board of Ed on charters and votes on charters

recess as Higher Ed Board leaves
agenda is here 

comments on charter schools then votes on charter schools

Joint Board meeting: MCAS

meeting backup is here
Chester: in final stages of updating math and ELA standards, have just done science
MCAS "are such a hallmark of the work in Massachusetts"

December Board of Ed in sum

The Board of Education met in Malden on December 20.
Note that the Board of Ed not only is now being livestreamed during the meeting, but the meetings are beginning to be archived online.
In his opening remarks, Commissioner Chester noted the substantial number of proposed changes to regulations and standards that are currently out for public comment. I've posted all of those here.
Public comment included an early childhood perspective on ESSA, concerns about a proposed dropping of the instructional technology license, and grave concerns from MTA president Barbara Madeloni regarding the MCAS proposals. Madeloni asked the Board to "step back" from the increase of testing, saying "we've found ourselves in the smallest place of what teaching and learning can look like."

There was an update on the receivership of the Holyoke Public Schools, with a particular focus on the Morgan School, which went into state receivership a year ahead of the district. There was a particular emphasis on data updates and secondary pathways by student.

The Board then took public comment on the Mattahunt in Boston, followed by their own discussion of the school and future for its students. Several of the Board members clearly were concerned about what happens to the students being moved (with member Craven mentioning that they likewise had requested updates of what happened with the students of Dorchester Collegiate when it closed, which they have not received). There was also some concern about the community not having the same understanding of how the school was doing as the state did. The Commissioner, commenting that he had heard nothing in the last month to change his views about the school or decisions made, said it was time to move on.

There was a presentation on and a discussion regarding the PISA results which came out earlier this month. While there was some discussion of the stellar results of Massachusetts students, the Commissioner mentioned what he referred to as "very provocative" points on schools in China, Singpore, and Vietnam, which in some cases outperform Massachusetts in math, commenting that they have large class sizes of 40 or 45 students, but a low adult/child ratio, and teachers don't spend as much of their time teaching students.

There was a presentation on the state's plans for ESSA, particularly in light of the public sessions (one pager on that here) that took place in November and December. Additional indicators the public comment sessions indicated as important include school climate, access to the arts, and access to a well-rounded curriculum (one pager has them all AND acknowledges potential problems with them, as well). At this point, DESE plans to present again to the Board on this next month, with the plan before them in March, possibly to be submitted in the earliest window of April 3. All also acknowledge that no one at this point is clear of the plans of the incoming administration at the federal level.

There was an initial discussion about proposed changes to educator licensure. The changes, to my eyes, largely seemed about making it a more straightforward process.

There was an update on MCAS, specifically on the high school competency determination. The biggest change here is the proposed addition of a history assessment, which, as Secretary Peyser noted, is already in regulation and would thus require no change, just an implementation. Deputy Commissioner Wulfson commented that the state is "looking at all of our options: not tying ourselves to a pencil and paper or a computer based options" and was clearly open to inclusion of classwork, projects, and other assessment methods for this assessment.

There was a fairly lengthy presentation and discussion (of which I only have a hard copy) of early college high school ahead of next month's joint meeting with the Board of Higher Ed. Essentially, a substantial amount of groundwork has gone into possibly expanding such programming in Massachusetts.

While they had the recalculation of low income to economically disadvantaged on the agenda, there was no discussion of it.

As mentioned above, the January meeting is a joint meeting with the Board of Higher Ed, to be held at Bridgewater State.