Another Charter School to Expand

With January's regular meeting, the Board begins closing out of this year's charter school season. Final votes remain to be taken, possibly at a special meeting on February 11 and, at the regular meeting on February 12.

Two votes taken yesterday, Tuesday, January 22, determine how a charter school may move forward in New Bedford (in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 71, Section 89, and 603 CMR 1.00).

Alma del Mar Charter School in New Bedford requested an amendment to expand its enrollment from 594 to 1,044 seats. Commissioner Jeff Riley, Mayor Jon Mitchell, and Founder and Principal of Alma del Mar Charter School Will Gardner agreed on a proposal that would, instead and among other things, increase enrollment to 900 seats and transfer an unused school building from New Bedford Public Schools to Alma del Mar. Alma would be responsible for seeing the building (unused since 2015) is in good repair by its opening in August 2019. (The Department's announcement of the proposal is HERE; others have reported and/or responded, including HERE, HERE, and HERE). 

The Motion was approved by the Board:

• Location: New Bedford
• Maximum enrollment: 900
• Grades served: K-8
• Effective school year: FY2020
• Yes: Craven, West, McKenna, Fernandez, Peyser, Sagan, Morton, Mathews, Moriarty
• No: Stewart
• Abstain: Doherty

The Motion states that the increase in maximum enrollment is explicitly conditioned as follows:

1. The school will participate in good-faith negotiations with New Bedford Public Schools that will result in a memorandum of understanding that supports effective implementation of the proposed collaboration and substantially aligns with the terms of the letter of intent agreed to by both parties and the Commissioner. The memorandum of understanding between Alma del Mar Charter School and New Bedford Public Schools is subject to Commissioner approval prior to execution.
2. As soon as possible, the school shall submit a draft enrollment policy that reflects the negotiated integrated enrollment process with New Bedford Public Schools and the proposed growth plan to reach 900 students, for Commissioner approval.
3. The school will promptly and effectively communicate with the Department regarding any and all significant matters relevant to the suitability and readiness of a second campus location for occupancy at the start of the 2019-2020 school year. These communications shall occur within a reasonable period of time but in any event no later than 96 hours after occurrence.

The Motion further states:

• If the Commissioner determines that these conditions have not been met or that necessary legislation has not been enacted this enrollment increase of 450 seats is null and void. 

In the event that legislation conditioned in the above approval has not been enacted, a second Motion was also moved and approved:

• Location: New Bedford
• Maximum enrollment: 1,044
• Grades served: K-8
• Effective school year: FY2020
• Yes: Craven, West, McKenna, Fernandez, Peyser, Sagan, Morton, Mathews, Moriarty
• No: Stewart, Doherty
• The Board grants this increase of 594 seats if the Commissioner determines that either good-faith negotiations on the memorandum of understanding between the school and New Bedford Public Schools have irretrievably broken down or the necessary legislation has not been enacted in sufficient time for planning and implementation of the model proposed in the letter of intent among the parties.
• The Commissioner shall report to the Board if he determines that this enrollment increase of 594 will take effect.

New Bedford Public Schools Superintendent, Thomas Anderson, and Alma Del Mar's Charter Operator, Executive Director, and Founder, Will Gardner were seated together at yesterday's Board meeting. They commented enthusiastically on the proposed arrangement and also took some questions.

Negotiations are not typical in the charter school process. School Committee and teachers were not part of the new proposal, either. Parents have not had a chance to respond to details of the new proposal in the week since it was announced. The community as a whole has not had an opportunity to contribute to the process as newly proposed and -- based on my questions to the couple seated at the table -- were not likely to. There could be school-based conversations, though.

Had this new proposal had the benefit of a substantive process in New Bedford, and with key stakeholders weighing-in (School Committee members, parents in the neighborhood and across the city, etc.), it might have had my support.

We all have a stake in the solid education of all our people, least of which are countless situations where our personal interests depend on others' competence, empathy, and compassion. I continue to hold that no new charter schools should be approved or expanded until all of our schools are fully funded as recommended by the Foundation Budget Review Commission.

---

Photo credit: New heating system, pipes/instruments, part of the renovation completed at Bowman Elementary School, Lexington in 2013.

Thoughts on the Commissioner’s Evaluation

Evaluating the Commissioner is an important dimension in providing citizen/public oversight of the Department. In my comments at the Board meeting Tuesday, June 28, I expressed my primary concerns about Reading, Social Emotional Learning (SEL), and Advisory Councils. However, due to time constraints, I wasn't able to share all comments, commendations, recommendations.

As the Board has heard in two Special Meetings (in May and June), all educators are evaluated with a rubric specific to their educational role. Rubrics are comprised of 4 standards (customized for each role) and many indicators and all educators are given a performance rating using one of four performance levels: Unsatisfactory; Needs Improvement; Proficient; Exemplary.

By contrast, the Commissioner is evaluated using a set of criteria determined by the Board's Evaluation Committee, with input from Board members. I attended two meetings of the Committee (October 19 and May 24) and was pleased that they accepted some of the changes I recommended over the previous year's evaluation.*

This year's criteria are based on the Board’s mission and five core strategies in the Department’s Strategic Plan. I also considered a variety of evidence in completing my evaluation.**

The Commissioner's performance rating also differs from the one used in MA's Educator Evaluation System. Unlike the Ed Evals' four performance levels, the Commissioner's performance is rated with a 5-point numeric rating: 1 (Unsatisfactory); 2 (Needs Improvement); 3 (Proficient); 4 (Very Good); 5 (Outstanding). Is a numeric rating the most useful for a high-performance evaluation? I think not. There's wisdom in the performance levels used in MA's Ed Eval system. Education is progressive, in that it's continuously improving; it's more instructive to know what to focus on than to consider a number, or worse, to consider some lower ranking "as a slap in the face" or a "terrible thing".

I shared my evaluation in a phone call with Penny Noyce, Chair of the Evaluation Committee, on Monday, April 25. The Board received a copy of the Commissioner's Self-Evaluation on May 20, followed by an updated self-eval on June 3. I was able to share my evaluation with Commissioner Chester in a phone call on Thursday, June 16.

Of particular concern:

Category I: Facilitate Student Achievement and Growth (30%) My biggest concerns lie in the final two bullets of Category I:

• “to develop a plan to address gaps in reading achievement”, which is part of the Department’s Strategic Plan; and
• "to develop and implement a plan to strengthen support for students’ social/emotional health”, also a Board priority

WRT Reading: The Board received no information whatever about a plan in the works to address gaps in reading achievement. We did see announcements about Massachusetts NAEP results, touting the Commonwealth's #1 ranking in reading, which is commendable, but moving forward, we should be less concerned about our ranking among other states and focus on our children's needs in MA - - 50% are not proficient in reading or math. That there is no plan for improving reading achievement is Unsatisfactory: rated 1.

WRT SEL: Some work is already underway, and the Board dedicated one of our Special Meetings to the topic, but we saw nothing about a plan to strengthen support for SEL.

SEL Needs Improvement: rated 2.5.
Commendations include: Reporting on the LEAP initiative. Recommendations: 1). That we hear about L4s at least once a year - there's a criterion that the Commissioner report on Level 4 and 5 districts and schools. The only L4 district/schools we heard about were the Springfield middle schools, via the Springfield Empowerment Zone at the regular meeting last month. 2). When the Board received Mitchell's self-evaluation we read for the first time that a reading pilot had been launched in BPS for Kindergarten and grades 1 and 2. Further recommend that the Board be informed when new initiatives are launched.
Category I: 3.0 overall.

Category II: Management & Operations (25%) Concern here has to do with Advisory Councils. A majority of ACs were asked not to schedule meetings this year, which didn't sit well with many of them. Councils are comprised of numerous volunteers, who submit applications for appointment. They, collectively, put in many hundreds of hours on behalf of public education in the Commonwealth, advising both the Commissioner and the Board in this regard. Recommendation that the Commissioner use the Board and Advisory Council leaders to find solutions to this unfunded mandate together. Advisory Councils Needs Improvement: 2.5. Commendations include: 1). Organizational review - DESE was adjusting to diminished resources and staffing due to state budget priorities (including early retirement program) and the end of federal RTTT funds. I thought this was a wise use of funds. 2). And while the Department has yet to communicate to the Board about implementing a new Strategic Plan based on the organizational review, my Recommendation is to include the Board in Strategic Planning.

Category II: 3.1 overall.

Of little concern:

Category III: External Relations and Communication (25%) Commendations include: The ongoing role of the Department on the Foundation Budget Review Commission, which lead to its final report in October (2015). Recommendations include: 1). The Commissioner/Department should've engaged with the Board to convene several public hearings on ESSA, in addition to the Commissioner's privately scheduled meetings with stakeholder groups. 2). The Commissioner meets privately with various external groups and education associations and he frequently provides very brief updates to us. Much of this Category pertains to the external groups; I understand that the Committee looked more closely at this and I responded where the Board had had direct information about external communications.
Category III: 4.0 overall.

Category IV: Board Support and Effective Interactions (20%) Commendations include: 1). Timely receipt of materials is improved over last year. Thank you. 2). Also, good professional working relationships with Senior Leadership and Office Staff. Recommendations include: That the Chair update the Board following weekly meetings with the Commissioner; the Chair represents all of the Board. No detail need be provided - the Chair's update could be as simple as a bulleted list of topics.
Category IV: 4.3 overall.
Once all Category performance ratings were weighted with percentages as designated, my overall evaluation results in a 3.6 performance rating. This acknowledges the Commissioner's adept and practiced expertise. It also acknowledges that the work is continuously improving. It's not as high as the performance rating of 4.7 found in the Committee's Performance Review.

The MOTION offered by the Committee was included in our Board Book along with the Committee's final report:

that the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education approves the Commissioner's FY2016 performance rating of "outstanding" as recommended by the Board's Committee. The Board further approves a salary increase for the Commissioner of 2%, effective July 1, 2016.

Given my expressed concerns, I couldn't support an "Outstanding" rating. We benefit from the Commissioner's eight years of stable educational leadership and I wanted to support the recommendation of the Committee to increase his salary by 2%.

At the meeting I offered a MOTION that effectively split the original MOTION into two questions/votes; it wasn't seconded.

The Committee's MOTION prevailed on a vote of 9-0-1: Penny was absent; I voted "Present".

- - -
Final Report that majority of the Board endorsed as presented, "Commissioner's Performance Review for FY2016" is HERE.

Margaret Raymond Driscoll, Chair of the Melrose School Committee, was present at the Board's regular Tuesday meeting and blogged about it HERE.

* My recommended changes from 2014-2015 Performance Criteria for consideration for the 2015-2016 Performance Criteria is HERE, with tracked changes (everything in red and strike throughs).

The final Performance Evaluation Criteria used by the Evaluation Committee is HERE.

A MS Administrator (an EdEval panel member last month) noted, "the culture of 'Needs Improvement' as a terrible thing is very strong” #MAedu

— Mary Ann Stewart (@MAStewartMA) June 27, 2016

** Evidence considered in my evaluation: 2015 Strategic Plan; Annual Reports of Advisory Councils; Autism Endorsement; Board Committees on Charter Schools, Budget, Assessment 2.0, Commissioner's Performance Evaluation; Board Discussions on ESSA; Board's website; Briefings and Commissioner Comments at Board Meetings; Candidate Assessment of Performance (CAP); Commissioner's Self-Evaluation; Commissioner's Weekly Update sent to subscribers; Communications to US/ED Regarding the "two test" option and their decision to subsequently designate the Department as "high risk"; Communication from Commissioner's Office Staff, Senior Leadership, General Counsel; Content Standards Review of ELA, Maths, History, and Social Studies; Definition of College and Career; Department's Online Accountability Survey; Department's website; Discussion and backup materials in advance of the MCAS/PARCC Decision; Email; EOE website; First of 3-year Turnaround Plan in Holyoke; Foundation Budget Review Commission's Final Report; Graduation Rates; LEAP initiative; May Presentation of the Springfield Empowerment Zone; MGL, Ch.15, sec.1G (Advisory Councils); MGL, Ch.69, sec.1K (Receivership); Monthly Phone Calls with the Commissioner; NAEP; National reporting in print and digital media on education in Massachusetts (e.g., Center on American Progress, Education Week, etc.); Peck School, Eagleton School, and Discipline Reporting at two UP Academy Schools; Press Releases; Quarterly Reports on Level 5 Schools; Recommendations from the Parthenon Group; Recommendations of the Local Stakeholder Group, Southbridge; Reference to Meeting with MassPartners; Reference to Meetings with Twenty-four members of the Urban Superintendents Network; References to Association and other conferences; References to Traditional School District and Charter School Leaders Working Group (new); Reports on Student Discipline Data; Scheduled Meetings of Board's Advisory Councils; Schedule of Meetings with Stateholders Regarding Options for Accountability Under ESSA; Science, Technology/Engineering Standards; Second 3-year Turnaround Plan in Lawrence; Southbridge District Review Report; Special and Regular Board Meetings, especially in September, October, and November; Standards for Digital Literacy and Computer Science; State Equity Plan to US/ED; Updates on L5 Districts; US/ED Special Education Letter of Determination; Weekly Message from the Commissioner to Board; Working Group on Assessment 2.0; Working Group on Civics Engagement; Years of strong assessment (MCAS).

Commissioner's Annual Performance Evaluation Criteria

In the absence of a rubric, criteria for the commissioner's annual performance evaluation was determined last fall by the Commissioner's Performance Evaluation Committee (Penny Noyce, Committee Chair; James Morton, Board Vice Chair; and Paul Sagan, Board Chair); all Board members were invited to provide input. Criteria were drawn from the Board's Mission Statement and goals in the Department's Strategic Plan. The Board is scheduled to conduct its public evaluation of Commissioner Chester at the Regular Meeting on Tuesday, June 28. As of this writing, the evaluation is agenda #5 of 11 items for Discussion and/or Vote.

Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education

2015-2016 Performance Criteria

For

Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education

Background

The mission of the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education is to strengthen the Commonwealth’s public education system so that every student is prepared to succeed in postsecondary education, compete in the global economy, and understand the rights and responsibilities of American citizens, and in so doing, to close all proficiency gaps. The Commissioner is the secretary to the Board, its chief executive officer, and the chief state school officer for elementary and secondary education (Mass. General Laws chapter 15, section 1F).

In support of the Board’s mission and the goal of preparing all students for success after high school, the Commissioner and Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) have adopted five core strategies (listed on page 1 of the Strategic Plan):

• Strengthen standards, curriculum, instruction, and assessment
• Promote educator development
• Turn around the lowest-performing districts and schools
• Use technology and data to support teaching and learning
• Support students’ social/emotional health

The following performance criteria focus on the Commissioner’s roles, accountabilities, and goals and are organized in four categories:

1. Promoting Student Achievement and Growth
2. Management and Operations
3. External Relations and Communication
4. Board Support

The criteria promote measurable outcomes that are realistic and attainable. The Board is recommending setting these function areas into priorities that will set the Commissioner’s work plan and distribution of his time and efforts.

Performance Criteria

I. Facilitate Student Achievement and Growth (30%)

Make substantial progress on the five core strategies listed above to facilitate student growth and achievement, including:

• Develop, implement, monitor, and report on clear turnaround strategies for Level 4 and 5 districts and schools 
• Lead the effective rollout and implementation of major initiatives around curriculum and assessment, including the next generation of the statewide student assessment program
• Promote educator development through continued implementation of RETELL, the educator evaluation system, and other initiatives
• Ensure effective engagement of district leaders by promoting, motivating, measuring, and communicating progress of efforts to close proficiency gaps and raise student performance in underperforming districts
• Develop a plan to address gaps in reading achievement
• Develop and implement a plan to strengthen support for students’ social/emotional health

II. Management and Operations (25%)

• Lead the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) by setting the vision, approving the strategies, and establishing a culture that promotes the Board’s mission and makes substantial progress on the five core strategies listed above
• Manage within the parameters of DESE’s budget to achieve goals, including:
• Report on and implement a strategic plan for DESE based on recommendations from the Fall 2015 organizational review
• Ensure that the DESE is structured, staffed and aligned across all centers to meet its annual operational targets and stated goals, within the limitations of DESE’s budget and state hiring parameters
• Respond appropriately to changes in federal and state requirements
• Increase diversity within the DESE staff, and within the advisory groups

III. External Relations and Communication (25%)

• Manage relationships and communications to maximize alignment of external stakeholders (e.g., Legislature, Governor’s Office/EOE, MTA, AFT-MA, MASS, MASC, principals’ associations, business groups, foundations) with the Board’s overall priorities and goals 
• Engage and responsively communicate with the field and citizens regarding major Board and Department initiatives
• Effectively lead the discussion and communications regarding Massachusetts educational policies and initiatives
• Represent Massachusetts on the wider educational scene through participation, presentations, and leadership, enhancing the Commonwealth’s position as a national leader in K-12 education and positioning Massachusetts to benefit from best practices nationally and internationally

IV. Board Support/Effective Interactions (20%)

• Effectively interact with members of the Board
• Engage Board members in setting the strategic vision for DESE and discussing DESE priorities and local/national policy issues relevant to Massachusetts
• Keep the Board updated on subjects necessary for the Board to fulfill its role, including timely transmission of materials for meetings
• Receive feedback from Board members during annual performance review process

Rating Structure

•    Outstanding = 5
•    Very Good = 4
•    Proficient = 3
•    Needs Improvement = 2
•    Unsatisfactory = 1

Some reflections on the Board's vote for a new statewide test

I don’t know about you, but I’m a little burned out on arguments about statewide assessments. I accept that we need them, but we’re spending way too much time on them just because students from other countries are "out-performing" students in the US on standardized tests.

It bothers me that we've been angsting over these assessments for so long when there are many other areas in need of our attention and dollars. Plus, I’m more interested in the larger educational context that is our vision and our plan for learners. (I'm not going to call it "21st c learning" because, 2015...!)

Across the discussion of “how to do tests in Massachusetts", I’ve observed a tension between what, on the one hand, is essential for child/student well-being and learning and what, on the other hand, strikes us as essential for the future economy. I will argue that until and unless we are dedicated and accountable to child/student well-being, teaching and learning may have little relevance for many children, thus we contribute to a problem we're trying to solve while putting students at risk of being unprepared - not only for their role in the future economy, but for their lives. Education is more than a talent pipeline for employers, after all, it's an end in itself.*

Beleaguered by the political morass, teachers and learners are losing ground. The teacher/learner relationship is the most essential and everything Principals, District Leaders, School Committees - and State Boards of Education - do must be to support that primal relationship in the learning environment, and build capacity for that relationship to thrive for effective teaching and learning. 

We're seeing how education must be personalized for each student no matter who they are, where they live, what language they speak, or how they present. The skills and dispositions they must possess require a multi-dimensional approach of the kind not undertaken before in K-12 education. A lift of this magnitude requires resources in the form of educational and economic investment from federal, state, and local partners in government, as well as deep and sustained alignment with all components of our educational eco-system, including true partnership with families and communities.

To be truly effective (and more than a blunt instrument of accountability), assessment might be part of a wholly supported, integrated system that's realigned with structures not only for technology and education, but also organizational development and capacity, school climate and culture, budgets, and School Committee policies. Why place the standardized assessment ahead of our needs for high quality professional development, student-family-community engagement, social-emotional learning, and teaching and learning? How can we move forward with an assessment system that's not critically aligned with these in partnership with local districts?

We’re already working from a technology deficit because we lack effective technology in every classroom, in every school, in every district across the Commonwealth. Where that technology isn't present or aligned as part of a strategic framework for educational transformation, it hasn't been identified as a priority and/or committing scarce dollars is a reality. Some business and education leaders suggest that getting online assessments in place first will, therefore, leverage meeting our compelling technological needs.

This thinking isn't correct.

Technology is a part of realizing our vision for learning and student success, not apart from it. Partnering with districts to move toward digital learning environments is more than having the requisite test-taking technology. We're absent a grounding vision that not only supports the learning eco-system, but sustains it with time for learning, teaching, collaboration, and reflection.

Fewer than 25% of people living in communities are families with children in schools. Education, progressive in that it's always moving into the future, should be a source of pride in all communities. These are our schools, our children, our future and we all need a voice in shaping them.

The mission of the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education is to strengthen the Commonwealth's public education system so that every student is prepared to succeed in post-secondary education, compete in the global economy, and understand the rights and responsibilities of American citizens, and in so doing, to close all proficiency gaps.

How will the Board achieve its stated mission? How do we set up the right conditions for all learners and educators? It's not with a standardized test. Standardized tests have not driven us to higher achievement. They've driven us to higher test scores, but not to higher achievement.

And therein lies the rub.

Many children do very well by these tests, and will continue to do well with the new test, especially if they're white and from affluent families, but not all children and schools are well served by them. Poor children do much less well.

The decision the Board has made is tiny compared to its mission and to the other important things I've mentioned.

I agreed with 6 of my Board colleagues who voted (7-4) to support a two year "hold harmless" provision for districts while a new test is developed, but I prefer that we go further.**

Whether we're in a knowledge economy, an innovation economy, or a purpose-driven economy, learning is life-long. There's a lot to be done to prepare our students for life and the future, including knowing exactly what part assessments are to play to inform instruction and improve learning with their timely data and feedback to skilled, knowledgeable professionals with the people, financial, and technological resources to identify learning gaps, modify curriculum, and adjust instruction for whole child and student success.

- - -
Notes, Quotes, Posts, tweets
* A reference to John Dewey's 1893 essay, "Self-Realization as the Moral Ideal". (The Philosophical Review, Vol. 2, No.6 (Nov., 1893), pp.652-664; Published by: Duke University Press on behalf of Philosophical Review; DOI: 102307/2176020; Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2176020). The embedded link in the above post should lead directly to page 660 of the journal - which provides the context for the oft quoted, "Education is not preparation for life but life itself."

** I support bill H.340 of Rep. Marjorie Decker's calling for a 3-year moratorium on the high-stakes punitive nature of testing in Massachusetts.

If you pass a test, didn't you learn something?

Sustaining Improvements in Urban Schools

You wanna fly, you got to give up the shit that weighs you down.
~ Toni Morrison, from Song of Solomon

So much of our work depends on taking time away from students to be the best teachers possible.
~ The JLV

Is Education broken? - @stevewheeler interviews @AudreyWatters http://t.co/y5xHc2NyZv

— Edumorfosis (@edumorfosis) October 15, 2015

What's Behind Door #3? [PARCC::Part II]

We've been reading (for example, HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE, among other places, like HERE, HERE, and HERE) that a recommendation is pending from Commissioner Chester to the Board of ESE about how to move forward with statewide assessments in ELA and maths. He's been floating around his idea for a third way since October 19th's Board meeting, sharing his change of view and describing his process for how he will inform the Board of his recommendation. We assume said recommendation will be similar to what we've been reading and hearing about. Time will tell.

At October's meetings, the Board learned that tech upgrades to infrastructure were estimated to be $3.1 million; another $12.3 million estimated for additional technology in schools. Many schools may be ready for computer-based testing but very many more are not at all equipped with equitable, effective digital learning environments.

Acknowledging our tech deficit across the Commonwealth in this regard, I'm concerned that technology for learning is being driven with an eye to test-taking instead of blending future focused, student-centered, content-rich interactive curricula. What's the plan to align and effectively integrate those environments, while ensuring great teaching and learning?

• How are we supporting practitioner-led professional development that's framework-aligned and tech-integrated? 

• Are all educators in regular and frequent conversations with the rest of the team? Is the instructional technology team part of grade-, course- and/or department-level PLCs?

• How are school staff collaborating with families and community partners to connect students and families to expanded learning opportunities and community services in order to support achievement and civic participation? 

• Is the organization developed sufficiently with integrated tools and resources, including non-cognitive supports for all learners, no matter the language he speaks or where she lives?

• Do educators have what they need when they need it to support all students, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds?

To live in a media-rich, technology-driven environment, the entire educational enterprise must have command of the essential skills of collaboration, communication, problem-solving, critical thinking, and reflection through the integration and effective use of technology.

The point is this: no test ensures great teaching and learning. Teachers in the learning environment are the true catalysts for change. A more effective statewide assessment system in 2015 might be focused on seamless integration with its complementary parts, not on the sturm und drang over the standardized assessment tool.

Educators are skilled professionals - practitioners working to inform their practice so they can nimbly respond to a learner's needs, modify curriculum, and improve instruction. The urgency isn't about getting everyone in a 1:1 relationship with a device for test-taking. It's about remaining focused on great teaching and learning for our digital age, providing opportunities and time for reflection and collaboration, aligned with a vision that holds student-learning at the center of all decisions.

- - -
Resources, quotes, tweets
See HERE, HERE, and HERE for the Department's vision and support for digital learning in MA K-12 schools.

Great read on the Obama administration's changing views on standardized testing.

Those bills in the Massachusetts Legislature calling for a moratorium on testing and on other accountability measures.

Read and heard elsewhere: recent references to "door number three thinking":

• An article about the Lawrence receivership that ran in CommonWealth Magazine on October 12, 2015

• The Secret History of Thoughts - Dark Thoughts that aired on The Invisibilia Podcast on January 9, 2015, rebroadcast on WGBH-FM, November 2, 2015, which is when I heard it

PARCC::Part I

Note: The Board will hold a final public comment session on PARCC -->Door #3 (?) Monday, November 16, 4:00-7:00 PM at Malden High School auditorium (in lieu of Public Comments at Tuesday morning's regular BESE meeting, 8:30 AM).

Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere.
~ Albert Einstein

A great obstacle to discovery is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge.
~ Daniel Boorstin

Our best measures of educational performance are cognitive because that's what's easiest to test. If the things that are harder to test matter more, that presents something of a conundrum for people trying to formulate educational policy.
~ Megan McArdle in Bloomberg View (Note that Ms. McArdle's article describes key takeaways of an experiment in parent engagement undertaken by Roland Fryer, Stephen Levitt, and John List; Roland Fryer is now a member of the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education).

Great ed leaders inspire others with vision and hope not pressure and fear.

— Pedro Noguera (@PedroANoguera) September 1, 2015

American schools are modeled after factories and treat students like widgets. Right? Wrong. http://t.co/A1FyhOL6Yl

— Jack Schneider (@Edu_Historian) October 10, 2015

Welcome to my World [PARCC::Part I]

The Board has convened five Public Hearings on PARCC. I attended three (in Fitchburg, Lynn, and Springfield) and I'm in the process of reviewing public testimony from all of the hearings.

I appreciate that educators from schools and districts with first-hand experience of the Commonwealth's unique two-year testing trial shared their insights at these public hearings. From educator testimony the Board has heard, some concerns stand out for me, including:

• developmental appropriateness of some ELA questions, especially in the 4th grade test;
• the chaotic nature of administering a new test format [online] and challenges in scheduling the computer-based test;
• appropriate accommodations, such as extended time for all students, including students in special education and ELL;
• lack of equity with regard to technology in all buildings;
• lack of planning time for districts [for funding and professional development]

In a PARCC Position Paper*, MASS Superintendents expressed their preference for an "...implementation process that is regarded as ongoing in nature with frequent opportunities for feedback regarding the success of our efforts..." and shared their thoughts about:

• what constitutes a high quality assessment;
• ensuring the new generation of assessment supports teaching and learning, paying particular attention to
• frequency and timing
• necessary conditions
• logistical considerations
• critical roll out 

Some members of the public noted that some parents and community members were unable to get to venues in time to sign-up for live testimony due to work and/or family schedules. Parents who were able to give live testimony noted:

• excessive time for standardized test-taking;
• a narrowed curriculum, especially in the days and weeks before testing days;
• equity concerns between the paper-based test and the computer-based test;
• questions about the validity of the new test
• lack of clarity about what they wanted to know about the new test and what they would be responsible for if schools and classrooms shift to online learning and testing;  

I've taken several practice maths, finding it challenging at times to "drag and drop" parts of equations into the answer box, often located on a different part of the screen that is unseen when answering the problem. "Screen freeze" was frequent and work not "saved" when this occurred. These might be frustrating for some students (results of a student survey state that 32% of students found this to be true), but perhaps issues such as these could be ameliorated over time.

Questions I still have about the PARCC:

• Is this the right test? Rather, is there such a thing as a "right" test?
• If implemented, how much autonomy and control will Massachusetts have regarding specific testing features?
• What is our vision for 21st c learning?
• What do families need to know? What is the outreach to all families about the changing educational landscape?
• If PARCC represents "next-gen" assessments, what's the implementation process to ensure districts, schools, and classrooms are also next-gen, with instruction, professional development, and technology aligned?
• What resources do teachers and teams need to access high quality training? How much time is necessary with peers to collaborate, brainstorm, and share best practices?
• Are resources for professional development adequate? Do they ensure great instruction for every child no matter who they are, where they live, what language they speak, or how they present?
• Which is more important for students: to be engaged in their careers or to be work ready for their careers?

- - -
Notes, Quotes, tweets
* To read the PARCC Position Paper referenced above, it's currently posted on the Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents website: go to Professional Development and scroll down to "Conditions and Considerations for a New Generation of Student Assessment in Massachusetts".

Note that a final public comment session will be held at Malden High School auditorium Monday, November 16 from 4:00-7:00 PM - this is in lieu of a public comment period at the regular Board meeting Tuesday, November 17 beginning at 8:30 AM.

If we teach today's students as we did yesterday's, we rob them of tomorrow.
~ John Dewey

I think the most important thing that young people should be taught at school is how they can decide what they're being taught is true.
~ Harold Kroto, 1996 Nobel Prize recipient

Looking forward to @karinchenoweth's series with educators on using data to improve: http://t.co/6R7QRi6eSX via @HuffPostEd #eddata #k12

— Carnegie Foundation (@CarnegieFdn) October 2, 2015

Complicating MCAS vs. #PARCC decision in MA, new study shows two tests equally good at predicting college readiness. http://t.co/xqOjasdEkr

— Michael Jonas (@bostonjonas) October 13, 2015

Public Testimony

My written testimony

On June 11, 2015, Massachusetts Joint Committee on Education held a public hearing on several bills related to testing in K-12 public schools. I was unable to attend the hearing in person, but did submit testimony in support of H.340: An Act relative to a moratorium on high stakes testing and PARCC.

A panel assembled to speak in opposition of the bill included representatives from the Executive Office, the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, and Board of ESE, in the persons of: Secretary of Education Jim Peyser, Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education Mitchell Chester, Board of ESE Chair Paul Sagan, and a former Board of ESE member Jeff Howard. (Where available, I've linked each person's name to their testimony).

Note that at no time before or after the public hearing did BESE discuss any of the bills.

My testimony below.

Members of the Joint Committee on Education

The Honorable Senator Sonia Chang-Diaz, co-chair

The Honorable Representative Alice Hanlon Peisch, co-chair

Sate House Public Hearing on Assessments

Room A-2 [the hearing was subsequently moved to the Gardner Auditorium in order to accommodate the high number of people who turned out for the hearing]

June 11, 2015

Dear Legislators,

My name is Mary Ann Stewart and I'm a parent of a high school student and two college graduates. Though I am a member of the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, I am speaking for myself and not as a Board member; my comments are my own.

I have been following, with interest, mounting concern being expressed about the impact high-stakes standardized testing and test preparation is having on our public school students, their schools and districts, and educators who teach and work in them. Leaders in every level of government, along with folks in neighborhoods across the state and country, are expressing a range of views stemming from a concern about these tests and their impact: On narrowing curriculum (especially in the weeks leading up to testing dates); on educator evaluation; on the increased time and money spent to administer them; on the over-reliance of high stakes accountability measures on schools and districts for state and federal dollars.

In many states, the concern rises because the impact of these tests coincides with the increased use/availability of technology and also the implementation of new frameworks for educator evaluation, a condition for many who hoped for federal RTTT dollars. In Massachusetts, in addition to the educator evaluation implementation, high stakes accountability measures intersect with the development of district determined measures, the RETELL initiative, and soon, perhaps, the PARCC assessment (or MCAS 2.0). These concerns impact schools, families, students, and districts in the toniest communities, but students in low-income communities of color are hit the hardest - and at a time when we are trying to close gaps.

We are working against our future best interests if allowed to continue with the current testing regime. We want our students to be excited about their future. We want our schools to truly impart a love and joy for learning. We want creativity in teaching - and so much more.

Before we launch the next generation of assessments in Massachusetts, let's not just keep doing what we've been doing since we ushered in the MCAS.

It's time to call for a moratorium on the high-stakes standardized testing era so that we can work together with our communities, schools, educators, policymakers and legislators to re-evaluate with an eye to improving our schools from the inside out, not from the top down.

Thank you for your consideration, courage, and commitment to our children,

Mary Ann Stewart

Lexington MA

This testimony has also been posted to the Massachusetts Education Justice Alliance website.