Board of Ed for October: graduation standards

There is this memo which isn't particularly revelatory, but then there is a large PowerPoint that is not online. As the memo says:

The agency is currently developing guidance and tools to support districts towards full implementation of the proposed graduation framework. 

I am again going to point out that "fully implementing" a "proposed framework" that has yet to go through a legislative process makes no sense.

"the agency setting conditions to change practices in the field" is the theme of this year, says Commissioner Martinez

introducing MyCap and MassCore
And then hearing from researchers

regulations that the Department will bring forward for discussion next month on what?

"clarification" says Woo, that regulations proposed next month will set up requirements for what schools "must offer," not what individual students must complete

There's more than miles between us and a new set of graduation standards

 (the above is an adaptation of a line from Lil' Abner that I cannot now find anywhere online)

As a blogger who started writing out of sheer frustration with local school district governance coverage, I have a certain amount of weary understanding of the misses that happen. This is particularly true given the undercutting of the Fourth Estate and the seemingly endless churn of local reporters (when we have them at all!) for local news coverage. 

I nonetheless was puzzled by coverage of the October 8 Worcester School Committee meeting, which appeared to take as given that the graduation report from last year was moving forward into implementation.

As we have discussed here before, more than once, this is not the case. The Department does not have the authority to create new required graduation standards. The authority to determine what a student needs to graduate remains with local school committees. The competency determination, as bound by the amended law under Question 2, is within the Department's authority, and districts now all have policies that align to that. That is, though, the full extend of the authority of the Department.

Now, I'm pretty sure--I think?--that those running things here in Worcester know that, but I remain concerned that some writing for the Department might not. Recently, every superintendent received a communication from DESE that gave a deadline of late November for a report on where individual high schools were on their graduation requirements relating to the graduation report. It referred to this Companion Guide for information. 

And nowhere in any of this was there any mention of the fact that the Department cannot simply implement the graduation report, lacking utterly the authority to do so. It takes the graduation report as something that is being implemented, and this, despite the report itself--though only v-e-r-y subtly!--noting that the Legislature would need to act for implementation.

And if you think the Legislature is simply going to pass the graduation report as issued into legislation, well, I wouldn't advise putting money on that. 

While I have come to expect this sort of confusion of local reporters who often just got there, I am troubled to see it from the regulatory agency. 

UPDATE: The backup for Tuesday's Board of Ed meeting now has this memo, which continues the "the report is a recommendation which we are working to implement" without mention of the Department not having the authority to do so. 

There is a Board of Ed meeting on Tuesday

 And you can find the agenda here.

The out-of-the-ordinary part of the piece of this is that they are meeting in Williamsburg at the Anne T. Dunphy School. For those not familiar, Williamsburg is northwest of Northampton, and it is quite lovely! I recommend visiting sometime, 'though perhaps not for a Board of Ed meeting; don't miss the general store. 

The meeting will start at 9:30, presumably so those making their way west can find it (I will observe here that the heavy traffic actually goes east, and yet, somehow, those are the meetings that start at 9).

In any case...the State Student Advisory Council is sharing their goals for the year, one assumes via student member Sara Khan, who is president of the group. Also on the agenda is the Commissioner's evaluation, and the proposed regulations on literacy.

There is also "K–12 Statewide Graduation Standards: Foundational Coursework and Postsecondary Planning" as an item. I will be interested to see if that notes that the graduation report is a proposal that requires legislative action to move forward--more on that this weekend--and not a done deal, as it has been framed by the Commissioner to date.

None of the above has any backups (which is unusual at least for the regulations, such that I wonder if that is an oversight) as of Friday evening at 6 PM. 

These are Worcester trees,
but I imagine we'll get to enjoy some pretty trees on the drive to Williamsburg.

exploding a few myths of the coming Massachusetts school year

•  We do not have new graduation requirements. The council created to submit a report has done so. Those are, as I noted in my post about it, recommendations, most of which will take new legislation to implement.
  I know there are timelines in the report, but what the timelines don't take into account is the authorities necessary to fulfill the requirements. 
  Not only is that not happening for this coming school year, I would suspect that it unlikely to happen for next school year, either, as the Legislature will begin a new term in the spring. New term means new committee assignments, and so things won't get moving until spring at least.
  
  
• We do not have a state-mandated cell phone policy in schools. Yes, both the House and the Senate passed cell phones in schools bills, but they are wildly different. While that did go to conference committee, the Legislature ended formal sessions on July 31. We will only see non-controversial legislation passed in informal session, which is what remains.
  If you're seeing a new cell phone policy in your district, that is something your district is choosing to do; it is not required by state law. 
  
  
• We will not see a major revision of the school funding system ahead of the next budget. The new Foundation Budget Review Commission's report is not due until October 2028. 
  Sorry, but the next budget--the first post-SOA budget--is not going to be assisted in this fashion.  

I read the state graduation council report

 ...I am not going to say "so you don't have to," because I think if you have an interest in education, you probably should at least skim the report, which is online here.
As always, this is me writing as me on behalf of me only. 

This image deserves more space than it gets in the report, as it isn't bad thinking and it's a solid try at an outline. 
How is it, though, that they managed parallel structure for all but ONE of the items?
The upper left one is crying out for a noun!

It's a two meeting week for the Board of Ed

 As a reminder: the Board has a special meeting tonight (Monday) at 5 PM virtually, specifically on the recently released graduation report. 

They have their regular June meeting tomorrow at 9 AM (yes, both agendas are a single page) in Everett. That agenda includes the end of the school year things--the Mitchell Chester award, the end of year report from the student rep from the State Student Advisory Council--along with some end of year informational reports (off agenda) including both the chronically underperforming schools report, and the non-operating school districts report (my personal favorite Massachusetts education trivia question!). 

There is also a report on civics education (you might remember this was a request of the chair at the last meeting) and a report on the operating conditions of Pioneer Valley Chinese Immersion Charter School, who the Commissioner is recommending being released from their current conditions but:

 While I recommend that the Board remove the current conditions, concerns remain about the board’s governance practices, such as an Open Meeting Law violation and other deficiencies in complying with the Open Meeting Law; inconsistent implementation of the board’s review and approval processes; and, based on review of board and committee meeting minutes and observations of board meetings, indications that board trainings have not led to improved governance practices or a clearer understanding of the role and responsibilities of the governing body. 

This is pretty interesting, as (as you would see if you searched their history on this blog), PVCICS has had what I'd call a storied history when it comes to their relationship with the state that charters them. Among other interchanges, they're the only example I remember of Paul Sagan, when he was chair, being utterly exasperated by something publicly, when they applied over the head of the Commissioner for an expansion that had been refused by the Commissioner. I would say that they have a culture of going their own way, so to speak. Speaking so directly to their governance is interesting. 

There are also two rounds of regulations up for vote: special education (which is aligning regulations with state and federal law) and interpretation and translation. I did a brief thread on my own comment on the proposed regs yesterday on Bluesky, but I do recommend reading the public comment summary overall. 

I won't be on for tonight's meeting, but I'll be posting tomorrow from Everett. 

Do they read all the comments? Yes! There's mine.

The graduation report is out

 ...and now rather than talking about what people think it might say, it can be read. You can find the whole thing here. (I haven't read it yet.)

The report says it is to the Governor and "Legislative Colleagues," but the first formal discussion will take place at a special evening meeting of the Board of Ed on Monday evening at 5 PM. The agenda isn't up yet, but the livestreams come over this YouTube channel. 

State House News (link via WGBH) reports that two things of note for those who have been following this: 

1. This isn't going to happen right away: "The report proposes the implementation of the first MassCore cohort entering 9th grade in 2027-2028, and the implementation of the other requirements the next school year with incoming freshmen."

2. The Council appears to have doubled-down on the recommendations that the state-administered final exams count when it comes to graduation: 
   

   The report recommends one state-designed exam in English language arts, one in mathematics and one in science, while also encouraging further exploration of a history and social science assessment. The tests would be designed, administered and scored by the state and taken when students complete specific courses.
   Unlike the December recommendations, however, the final report explicitly states that "Performance on the EOC assessments will meaningfully count toward students' academic record and path to graduation." 

   Exactly how much those exams would matter remains on open question. 

   The report says, "Following additional planning and engagement of stakeholders, the Council co-chairs will determine the specific role that EOCs will play in students' academic record and graduation." 

   That language leaves unanswered whether graduation could ultimately depend on passing the exams, and seems to contemplate a significant role for test performance.

   As a number of us have been consistently noting: the state is the entity required to ensure there is a public education system that fulfills its constitutional obligation to each student. 

Board of Ed for May: Opening comments

 The Board today is meeting at Hudson High School, the school of student member Isabella Chamberlain. The agenda is here; the livestream will go up here. 

chalking outside of Hudson High School today

There is a good chance this will start late. 

Wait, what? moments from last week's Board of Ed

Due to the Consensus Revenue hearing starting at noon, I did not liveblog the last section of the Board of Ed meeting last Tuesday, which was on the interim graduation report. I did watch it later in the day--you can read my MASC coverage here--but much like the Commissioner's goals, feedback was not so much focused on the report as it was talking around associated items. 

Please enjoy this waving snowman from Palmer.
The snowman has nothing to do with the post,
but we need to take our happy things where we can.

There were five eyebrow raising moments during the meeting--two from the Commissioner's priorities, and three from the graduation discussion--that I want to be sure we don't miss, as much as everyone's attention right now may be elsewhere. 

Board of Ed for November: opening comments

 The Board of Elementary and Secondary Education meets today at 9 AM. The agenda is here. The livestream will appear over here.

The meeting is being chaired by Vice Chair Matt Hills, as Chair Katherine Craven is remote today.

Board of Elementary and Secondary Education for September: opening comments

 The Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education meets today for its regular September meeting. This is the first meeting with the new commissioner, Pedro Martinez.

The agenda can be found online here. The livestream will come up over here. I'll update once they start.

you'd never know that this was below the Revere Beach Parkway, would you?

A few thoughts on Tuesday's Board meeting

 This is my ongoing reminder that the only thing you see here is me thinking about things; no one else's policy or position is here.

• While getting to Methuen was a bit of a pain, it's nice for the Board to meet somewhere other than DESE's office. The degree to which the Board is very removed from schools is not helpful.
  
  
• We now have regulations that adhere to the mess of a law the November ballot question left us with, pending further action--eventually?--by legislators, which I guess are going to be informed by the Statewide Graduation Council. I've already noted that I am dubious about this group and its makeup, and I'm even more dubious about the work of any group this large writing a report. Plus, I don't think the Legislature should be the body deciding what it takes to graduate from high school. 
  But obviously, no one asked me.

Four bullet points about yesterday's Board of Ed

Lynn students politely asking to be heard about KIPP Lynn.
If only Pioneer Valley students could have been there.

I would call this blog post "in which the Globe gets it wrong again," but once you've used that as a title once, you've used it.

Anyway, the Boston Globe (specifically Mandy McLaren, who tends to decide what the answers are before writing articles, as evidenced by, for example, her coverage of literacy) wrote today about Governor Healey's graduation council, as announced in her State of the State address earlier this year. In the article, McLaren repeats a big misunderstanding of where November has left us: 

On the graduation requirement part of the State of the State

 State House News Service has this:

Healey also puts more detail around her plan for a successor to the MCAS standardized tests as a high school graduation requirement. Voters in November eliminated the MCAS as a graduation requirement, an outcome that Healey was opposed to.

"I respect that decision. But it creates for all of us a responsibility, to make sure every student graduates ready to succeed. We need a high, statewide standard. Students, families, and employers need to know what a diploma represents. And without that baseline, it’s always the most vulnerable students who don’t get what they need," the governor's speech says.

Healey will say she is directing a "Statewide Graduation Requirement Council" including teachers, colleges, employers and students to develop recommendations for a permanent and high standard.

"We’ll evolve to a new Massachusetts model for high school excellence that best serves our children. And we'll match high standards with great opportunities – like the Early College and job training programs that give students a leg up on their next step," the governor says.

Will someone please teach her speechwriters "constitutional obligation"? It's the entire point.  

Oh, and by the way? Don't use generative AI, including the top of the Google results, for "Massachusetts high school graduation requirements" because WOW. 

Why I'm voting no on question 2 regarding the competency determination

 DISCLAIMER: I WRITE THE FOLLOWING AS ME, SPEAKING ONLY FOR ME. I DO NOT HERE (EVER) SPEAK FOR MY EMPLOYER, FOR ANY ORGANIZATION FOR WHICH I SERVE IN ANY CAPACITY, OR FOR ANYONE OTHER THAN ME.

THUS NO, YOU MAY NOT QUOTE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING IN ANY OF THOSE CAPACITIES.

However, the speech rights of any individual are strongly protected by the federal Constitution, and even more strongly protected by the state Constitution. I've been asked several times offline how I'm voting on this question; I have shared my thinking as I outline it here.

A quick note on Thursday's upcoming Worcester School Committee

With the agenda for Thursday's Worcester School Committee meeting now posted, it seems we may need a quick explainer on a Worcester (it's part of Plan E) process, as Member Maureen Binienda has filed for reconsideration of the motion to allow students to march in graduation who have yet to complete 2 credits or fewer, a vote which she lost at the last meeting, 8-1.
I wrote about this back in 2014, but let's walk through how this works for this upcoming meeting.

September Board of Ed: historical overview of MCAS

 Craven: asked for overview prior to release of scores, will have Hills

Curtin: "nothing I say today should be construed as myself or the Department as taking any position on any proposed ballot question"
McDuffy v. Secretary

September Board of Ed: opening comments

 The agenda is here. The livestream will be here. 

updating as we go

opening introductions
Will be moving into public comment first

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.