Board's Budget Committee

We'll be following development of the State's FY20 Budget until it is finally approved later this year. Funding for public ed in the Commonwealth is the purview of the State Legislature; policy and regulation belong within the Board.

Each September the Board's Chair appoints members to a Budget Committee. A preliminary discussion of the next year's budget ensues, including budget framework and timelines. The Committee works with the Commissioner and senior staff to develop budgetary areas of focus for the October Board meeting.

Secretary of Education reviews and approves DESE's current fiscal year spending plans and Administration and Finance (ANF) gives final approval in early October. ANF also determines funding estimate based on the analysis of spending plan submissions.

The Budget Committee brings forward recommendations to the full Board, then members discuss before a vote is taken on the areas of priority. A letter, or statement of values, is drafted (the Board's FY20 Budget Priority letter is here) and accompanies DESE's budget request that is sent to the Secretary of Education for consideration in the development of the Governor's House 1 (or 2) budget proposal. In 2019, it's House 1.

Budget Committee met in September following the regular Board Meeting. The focus of that discussion was on the Holyoke Public Schools budget, specifically, their budget challenges. You'll recall that Holyoke is one of three districts held in receivership by the DESE. Steve Zrike, Receiver, Holyoke Public Schools, and Anthony Soto, Business Manager, Holyoke Public Schools, joined the meeting by phone. They provided a high-level overview of the HPS budget and the challenges -- specific budget challenges that are common to at least 32 similar districts across the Commonwealth. Districts are forced to make reductions every year as revenue and enrollment remains relatively flat while other drivers in the budget continue to grow at a much greater pace than revenue, including:

• Employee Salaries
• Health Insurance
• Charter School Tuition
• SPED Out of District Tuition
• Change in funding for economically disadvantaged students

The Committee also reviewed a summary of HPS 5-year financial forecast (on page 76 of their report), which  included anticipated revenues and expenses from FY2018-FY2023.

This brings us to Chapter 70* aid and Net School Spending (NSS). HPS is but one District needing 100% of NSS, in addition to $3M in one-time revenue streams to balance the initial projected budget deficit and avoid deeper cuts. Holyoke is one of ten cities with the lowest local contribution in Massachusetts. In fact, Holyoke is one of 32 communities across the Commonwealth who are within 5% of NSS.

The Budget Committee met again Monday, October 22 and DESE updated on several items, including:

• DESE FY19 Spending Update: State supplemental funds were applied to close government business for the year, including $5M in Targeted Assistance; $7.5M for Behavioral Health and Mental Health; and $7.5M for School Safety
• DESE FY20 Development Update: Maintenance Budget (funding the FY19 Budget items in FY20, aka, no new initiatives) was filed with ANF on October 19

Open Discussion with Committee members (Katherine Craven, Chair, Margaret McKenna, and Mary Ann Stewart; Michael Moriarty, by phone; and Ed Doherty, not present). Initial Committee discussion on areas of priority (in non priority order) for FY20 Budget:

• Foundation Budget: DESE working with Governor and Legislative Leaders to implement FBRC recommendations
• Targeted Assistance: all acknowledge the STRUCTURAL PROBLEM with Foundation Budget Formula, Budget members seek to annualize the targeted amount
• DESE looking to fund STEM Learning Initiative ~$1.4M
• DESE looking for ability to accept revenue for Educational Licensure Fee Increase (otherwise it goes to the General Fund), from $100 to $150 for the 5-year license; from $25 to $50 for each additional edu license (for an additional estimated $1.5M) to better fund and improve better response time from the Office of Professional Practice Investigations (for educator ethics and misconduct issues)
• MCAS Academic Support

• Compilation of successes, including: 
• Breakfast in the Classroom, Civics Education, LOOK Act, Early Literacy, Summer learning, Dyslexia Bill recently signed

Subsequent to the meeting, I forwarded MassBudget's updated "Cutting Class" report (of 2011) with updated numbers. Interesting to read their projected scenarios of Chapter 70 aid distribution. What the MB report does not discuss is the need for new revenue, which is where true meaningful reform lives. But, I digress.

This brings us to today. All agencies have submitted their requests to the governor who will submit his House 1 budget request no later than February 27th. Governor Baker hinted there was more to come, but we'd have to wait for his budget to be submitted. During January, House and Senate Ways and Means Committees request subsequent fiscal year maintenance budget data from all state agencies. As of this writing, Committee membership has yet to be assigned.

Going forward, Mid-Year Review of Department spending by ANF in February, to identify any projected deficiencies or any projected surpluses. Joint House and Senate Ways and Means Committee conducts budget hearings, generally held across the Commonwealth in late February.

Big challenges lie ahead, particularly for House Legislators, who must work together to challenge leadership, and for activists, who must hold House members' feet to the fire. Activists must articulate what we stand for at a gut level and Legislators have a responsibility to respond. Politics in 2019 demands proactive engagement from all of us, elected and non. It insists that we not play small, that we drive urgency on the critical issues before us:

• Short- and long-term revenue

• Adequate funding for K-12 education, including improving vocational education, expanding early childhood education, and providing debt-free college options

• Safe communities for immigrant and undocumented people

• Stronger environmental protections

• Healthcare for all

• Affordable housing

• Ballot access, i.e., same day registration and ranked choice voting

• Campaign finance reform

While ambitious, this list is far from exhaustive. For legislative action to be truly effective, issues would be prioritized and informed by the needs of the citizenry.

A progressive government will operate with transparency and the highest ethical standards. It will ensure fair debate of issues and accountability to constituents, provide a decent standard of living, affordable housing as a human right, and fair work schedules for all, as institutional racism is also addressed, working, ultimately, for freedom, equality, and justice for all.

---

* (Overview and details of Chapter 70 funding may be found online at MassBudget or DESE's website). In a nutshell, Chapter 70, Foundation Budget, and Net School Spending goes like this:

• Chapter 70 is the Massachusetts General Law that establishes funding requirements for public school districts within the State. 
• The law establishes a minimum funding requirement (or “foundation budget") for each district that seeks to ensure an adequate education consistent with the Education Reform Act of 1993.
• The law also defines the payments that make up the foundation budget.
• The State uses a complex formula to calculate an adequate funding level, which is based on many factors including each district’s student demographics. 
• Then, taking into account the community’s wealth, the formula calculates the required “local contribution” (the amount the municipality can afford). 
• The State then funds the remaining amount with Chapter 70 Aid.
• In 2015 the Foundation Budget Review Commission recommended updating the formula substantially to more accurately reflect changes since enacted more than 25 years ago. The Legislature has come close but has not made any changes to date.

Image credit: Sheila Pepe's "Women Are Bricks", 1983, remade 2017. Handmade bricks, rug, cement. Currently on exhibit at deCordova Sculpture Park and Museum through March 10, 2019. Photo by yours truly.

Members of the 191st General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts may be found HERE.

ESSA: Updates from DESE

Included at the Board's regular meeting this month, was a summary of the Department's stakeholder outreach(1) from 5 Community Forums and the impact of ESSA's(2) final accountability regulations issued by the US Department of Education (US/ED) this past November.

DESE sought feedback from a broad spectrum of stakeholders on a number of ESSA-related areas. Their preliminary analysis of more than 1,500 ideas for accountability indicators appears to (somewhat) edit and reorganize the previous list the Board received at the September Board meeting. At Community Forums, DESE received feedback* to build on:

• Modifications to the accountability system
• Broad support for accountability metrics that:
• Measure school climate
• Ensure students participate in a high quality, well-rounded curriculum
• Programming to provide safe and supportive schools and well-rounded programs of study
• Broad support for programs that:
• Provide students with social/emotional/behavioral supports
• Provide educators with skills to attend to students' social/emotional/behavioral needs
• Programming to promote equitable access to high quality educators

Final regulations on accountability data for state plans were issued by US/ED on November 29, 2016. The Department is in the process of digesting all 1,100+ pages of that document by January 24, 2017, when the DRAFT State plan will come before the Board. Five accountability components are required:

1. Academic achievement: based on annual assessments in ELA, Maths, and Science
2. A measure of student growth or progress for elementary and middle schools
3. Graduation rates for high schools
4. Progress in achieving English proficiency for English language learners
5. At lease one measure of school quality or student success

Under ESSA, states, districts, and schools must establish "ambitious state-designed long-term goals" and measures of interim progress, for all students and subgroups, including a focus on gap closing. Several regulation changes were noted in the presentation (changes in italics):

• First submission of the State's plan is now April 3, 2017 -- changed from March 3, 2017

• Identification of schools in need of Comprehensive (CSI) and Targeted (TSI) support is to be completed prior to SY2018-19 -- changed from SY2017-18

• ESSA maintains the 95% assessment participation requirement, but provides calculation options

• Quantifiable state goals - based on proficiency - are explicitly required as part of the ESSA state plan

• A 4-year comprehensive graduation rate must be used for selecting high schools with a graduation rate below 67% -- has removed some flexibility

• Super subgroups are high needs subgroups that include students who are English language learners (ELL), students with disabilities (SWD), and students who are economically disadvantaged. According to the final regs, super subgroups cannot replace an individual subgroup -- DESE plans to submit each subgroup separately and as a super subgroup

• Students who were former ELL and SWD may be included in annual accountability determinations for up to four years (ELLs) and for up to two years (SWD)

• Concrete funding requirements for CSI ($500K) and TSI ($50K) have been removed.

Next steps:

• January: At the Board's meeting (in Bridgewater), we'll be presented with a proposed model that incorporates feedback received from the field
• February: Revised model, based on feedback from BESE and the field
• March: Final review of proposed model with Board
• April: Submit ESSA state plan to US/ED

- - -
(1). In developing the new state accountability plan, final US/ED regulations identify 16 categories of stakeholders who must be consulted: the governor, members of the state legislature, members of the state board of education, local education agencies, representatives of Indian tribes, teachers, principals, other school leaders, charter school leaders, parents and families, community-based organizations, institutions of higher education, employers, representatives of private school students, early childhood educators and leaders, and the public.

(2). Info on ESSA is housed on EOE's website.

*DESE's survey on suggested ESSA accountability indicators is still open: http://dese.essa-feedback.sgizmo.com/s3/ 

Board Retreat: Impressions

I'd been under the weather for several days, but was feeling better and made a point of going to the Board's scheduled retreat in Devens* this past Tuesday. I thought I'd share some of my lingering impressions:

• Elections (and ballot questions) have consequences. Once we were coffeed and seated(1), the Chair opened the meeting with some comments about "company off-sites"(2), the election, and the Board's work. About the election he said (paraphrasing), in terms of Massachusetts, we're "maintaining the status quo" for children in our schools, and members of the Board have a "role to play" and it's more important than ever that we help every student become proficient. Some members said they weren't clear if he was talking about the outcome of the national election or of the charter school ballot question. He clarified that he was indeed talking about Question 2 and was of the opinion that the outcome of that debate had [put] "limitations on this Board". Suffice to say there were several around the table still feeling sour about the outcome of Q2, which was soundly repudiated by voters 2:1.

• Safety pin solidarity. In light of the outcome of the national election, several members commented specifically about the spike in harassment, hate speech, and bullying playing out, not only in communities across the country, but with students in schools across the state. The Department noted that school superintendents are providing reassurance to support students. I raised the Attorney General's hate crime hotline and asked if either the Commissioner or Secretary had worked/is working in coordination with her on this issue. Both said no. The Secretary was of the mind (paraphrasing) that these incidents were coming on the heels of the election and might be "out of proportion" due to social media sharing. The Commissioner said he'd be meeting with superintendents and "schools as safe places". (Have to wonder who is advising the Governor and his team on this and why the Governor remains silent? As of this writing, many thousands of phone calls have been made to the Executive Office, with a request that the Governor address the issues to which my Board colleagues attest and to which the Attorney General has responded: to openly declare Massachusetts a safe haven from hate). 

• How many Board members does it take to write a mission statement? There was a good exchange of ideas about updating the Board's mission statement, with a decision to let things sit for a while, as opposed to forming a subcommittee to wordsmith a new one.

• Actually, the Foundation Budget wasn't on the agenda. There was uneven reference to it, nonetheless, and to the Foundation Budget Review Commission's analysis showing Chapter 70 funding is about $2Billion short. Inadequate education funding was brought up by one member who asked if it's within the Board's purview to advocate for implementation of adequate education funding, including the FBRC's recommendations and the "Fair Share Amendment" proposal to come before voters in November 2018. I said that adequate funding is central to everything we do and that we should be advocating for it. FBRC came up again, noted under the last bullet below.

• Does the SEA add value to schools and districts? If you're a Superintendent or Principal, the answer is yes, according to DESE data gleaned from surveys since 2009:

• Asked whether or not ESE provides services in a coherent, well coordinated fashion:
• Superintendents agreed 57.9% (24.1% in 2009)
• Principals agreed 65.9% (41.0% in 2009)

• As to whether ESE is effective in its efforts to improve the overall quality of K-12 education:
• Superintendents agreed 66.7% (41.7% in 2009)
• Principals agreed by a whopping 74.6% (58.4% in 2009)

• The Board and Department didn't strategize, per se. The Commissioner presented his slides: several slides on changing demographics in Massachusetts and the wide variation in school effectiveness; several scatter plots illustrating persistent gaps in achievement, along with the range of achievement at each level of school economic disadvantage. Teeing it up as his most "provocative" slide, the Commissioner displayed a slide with information about students in high poverty, high minority schools:  
  
   So, there followed some discussion about how to work with this information, and several questions asked by my colleagues: Had the Department looked at thus and such, and the Department responded with their data and engagement with the field. After some discussion, again I raised the fact that the Foundation Budget is some $2Billion short and this time I was met with questions from the Secretary: How does increased funding change the information [in the slide]? How does [increasing Foundation Funding] change the effectiveness of teachers in the face of these facts? I don't know, but I posit that the educational enterprise is an eco-system and everything is connected. If schools and districts had the adequate funding that the Foundation Budget Review Commission's analysis acknowledges they lack (for English language learners, in determining economic disadvantage, special education, and addressing costs of health insurance), who knows what positive impact would be felt in other areas, including teacher effectiveness? And we owe it to our children to find out.

- - -
*The Office of Charter Schools and School Redesign will host the  DissemiNATION Fair in Devens on Friday.

(1). Board Members Present: Paul Sagan, Chair; James Morton, Vice Chair; Nathan Moore, Student Representative; Jim Peyser, Secretary of Education; Ed Doherty, Labor Representative; Michael Moriarity; Penny Noyce; Yours truly, Parent Rep. Board members absent: Roland Fryer, Katherine Craven, and Margaret McKenna had informed the chair in advance of their unavailability to attend this day. Staff members in attendance: Jeff Wulfson, Deputy Commissioner; Bill Bell, Associate Commissioner for Administration and Finance; Russell Johnston, Senior Associate Commissioner; Carrie Conaway, Chief Strategy and Research Officer; Heather Peske, Senior Associate Commissioner; Rhoda Schneider, General Counsel; Cliff Chuang, Senior Associate Commissioner for Educational Options; Helene Bettencourt, Chief of Staff; Lauren Greene, Assistant Chief of Staff; Jessica Leitz, Communications

(2). Retreat off-sites are publicly posted meetings of the Board; we had one member of the public join us at a little before 10:00.

EOE Presentation

Secretary of Education, Jim Peyser, gave a short presentation at today's Board retreat in Devens entitled, "Education Reform in Massachusetts: From Good to Great". I've recreated text from his slides below, with his permission:

• Key Outcomes
• Strengthening the global competitiveness of Massachusetts' workforce
• Closing the opportunity and achievement gap

• Getting the Conditions Right
• World-class standards & assessments
• Accessible, timely & meaningful information for policymakers, providers, educators & parents/consumers
• Transparent, predictable, sustainable finance systems, with incentives for performance
• Effective educators and leaders
• Authority to act with accountability for results
• High-quality options and parental choice

• Focusing, Aligning & Integrating
• Upgrading Early Education Quality
• Workforce Development
• Kindergarten Readiness Screening
• Rate increases Tied to Quality Improvement

• Strengthening & Expanding Career Pathways
• Voc-Tech Capital Grants
• Workplace Learning (STEM high school internships)
• Expansion of engineering and computer science courses
• Early College/Dual Enrollment

• Improving College Affordability & Completion
• Reducing/Accelerating Remediation
• Commonwealth Commitment
• Alternative Pathways/Models (including On-Line & Competency Based Education)
• Coordinated Regional Planning
• Workforce Skills Cabinet
• Higher Education Capital Investment

• What Success Looks Like*
• An early education system that works in partnership with local school districts, while developing and supporting its workforce, to ensure literacy for all by 3rd grade
• A K-12 education system that empowers schools and offers parents diverse, high-quality options -- especially in high-need communities
• Expanded opportunities for high-quality career education and workplace learning in both high school and college to better prepare young people for successful careers, especially in STEM fields
• A focused, efficient higher education system that offers students and families accessible and affordable pathways to a college degree, while providing supports and incentives to ensure their success
• Integrated regional public education systems that maximize resources and capacity, while responding flexibly to the changing needs and priorities of the state and local economy

*Emphasis as it appears in the Secretary's original (bold red)

ESSA Community Forums: UPdate

If you've registered to attend the first ESSA Community Forum this Monday from 6:00-7:30 PM in Boston, you already know it won't follow a typical "public hearing" format.

As per the email from DESE, those who have registered to attend a session will be seated at tables for facilitated brainstorming sessions, and it looks as though they'll home-in on a few areas, based on the first round of survey and private meetings last spring. An outline of activities was provided in the email:

• ~10-15 minutes: DESE staff will introduce ESSA and the opportunities for Massachusetts to consider

• ~30 minutes: Brainstorming - Session 1: DESE will conduct brainstorming activities at each table. In this session, they'll be focused on the opportunity to modify our school accountability system (the measures and leveling systems used by the Department)

• ~30 minutes: Brainstorming - Session 2: DESE will conduct a second set of activities at each table. For this session, participants will choose among several topics:
• ideas to improve students' health and safety;
• ideas to ensure students have a well-rounded education;
• ideas to ensure teachers have high quality supports

• ~15-20 minutes: Open Q&A/Wrap up (15-20 minutes)

The ESSA flier has a link to a survey at the bottom of the right-hand column; if you can't make one of the scheduled Forums, you may still provide feedback. As of this post, when I clicked on the link, a message appeared that the "survey is under construction" and to check back soon to provide your feedback.

ESSA Community Forums

Five ESSA Community Forums/Fora are being hosted by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. The first Forum is this Monday, November 14 from 6:00-7:30 PM (details for all Forums/Fora below).

Each Forum provides an opportunity for stakeholders to join in a regional discussion and share ideas on how to improve K-12 public school assistance, accountability, and engagement, so that schools receive the supports they need to benefit each and every student. A stakeholder is anyone with a stake in the success of all students in our K-12 public schools, including:

• Parents
• Students
• Teachers
• Principals
• Superintendents
• other education administrators and personnel
• community members
• business leaders and entrepreneurs
• community organizations
• faith-based communities
• Statewide organizations and associations
• post secondary public and private colleges and universities
• paid or elected public service individuals and committees

Monday, November 14 | 6:00-7:30 PM: Boston Public Schools, Bolling Building, 2nd floor, 2300 Washington Street, Roxbury

Monday, November 21 | 6:00-7:30 PM: Shrewsbury's Oak Middle School, 45 Oak Street, Shrewsbury

Tuesday, November 29 | 6:00-7:30 PM: Brockton High School, 470 Forest Avenue, Brockton

Thursday, December 1 | 6:00-7:30 PM: Holyoke High School, 500 Beech Street, Holyoke

Tuesday, December 6 | 6:00-7:30 PM: Salem's Collins Middle School, 29 Highland Avenue, Salem

Join an upcoming public forum by registering online HERE. More about the Forums/Fora HERE (including a link for giving online survey feedback) and HERE.

Parent Perspective: State Assessments Under ESSA

About state assessment results, parents have said they want to know and understand:

• How does this information help me and help teachers to provide a better learning environment for my child?
• What does this mean? Is she doing well or not doing well? 
• How will teachers get the information they need?

(Note to DESE: Look at, and think about, what you're going to say to parents!)

One of the things ESSA has done is give States more flexibility* in education governance. It's not a perfect system; it's a series of trade-offs and choices.

Those trade-offs and choices begin with the question: What do you want the test to do? If one thing is to spend less time on testing, are we trading-off on content coverage, which may result in less reliable data than a longer test. How well is the assessment aligned to state's standards? Both questions are striking, given Massachusetts is in the midst of developing its 2.0 test.

(I'm told every testing vendor, if asked, can give an analysis of how well the questions line up with state standards. Note to self!) 

B: Align to Standards (ELA/Literacy) Criteria (L) & Evidence (R)

Also important is to understand what a high-quality assessment is. CCSSO criteria outlines principles for assessing a high-quality test, including testing for "depth of knowledge" (B4). Constructing a response, writing, or doing a performance assessment - all of these types of responses are considered high-quality assessments. (They also take more time and cost more money to score hence, the trade-offs!)

It seems obvious to state this, but apparently it's something frequently overlooked until quite late in the development process: To ensure a test is actually assessing higher order thinking skills, some questions should ask students to do the kinds of things we actually want them to do in classrooms.

Questions this parent still has:

• What information will be reported?
• How will information be reported?
• When will assessment results be shared with parents, teachers, and policymakers? (If teachers don't get info on how their students did until November, it really isn't going to do them any good in terms of making changes to their practice or lesson plans.)
• How transparent and accessible will those results be?
• Are we monitoring everything we're doing?
• How?
• Do we understand the capacity of our local districts?
• Do they have enough computers/devices?
• Is there sufficient bandwidth? (Many times parents feel as though the testing sessions go on for weeks and weeks, even though it's not happening to every kid; the perception is no other learning is taking place in the school).

• Is DESE ready for new reporting requirements by subgroup ("N-size") to include military students?

Upshot: Where state assessments are concerned, DESE can't do it all and can't do it all well. Test developers' decisions are made on which content standards are being prioritized (and the Board didn't establish a list of content standard priorities). Given the fact that state assessments are going to continue, and that the test represents the particular skills and knowledge the test developer has chosen to assess, I'll be referring to the above questions as the Board considers its ESSA decisions concurrent with the development of the MCAS 2.0
-----
*ESSA also provides for additional flexibility under the Innovative Assessment Pilot, but Massachusetts isn't taking this on at this time.

US Department of Education (July 2016): ESSA Assessment Fact Sheet

NASBE (January 2016): The State Education Standard

Ensuring Equity in ESSA: The Role of N-Size in Subgroup Accountability

The achievement gap, racism, and ESSA

With the Department's focus on ESSA this year, I've been revisiting links to articles, interviews, and other stuff I've bookmarked (including the piece by Robert B. Moore from 1976 excerpted at bottom of this post) in an effort to better understand where we're going before the Department submits its assessment and accountability plan to US/ED next year (either March 6, 2017 or July 5, 2017).

One of the items I've come across is a short WBUR Here & Now interview by Eric Westervelt with Pedro Noguera.(1) The interview was broadcast on December 8, 2015, just two days before President Obama signed ESSA into law.

He asked Noguera how much of an impact the new legislation is likely to have on underserved students. Noguera said he believes, "ESSA perpetuates the notion that we can address inequality and academic outcomes simply by focusing on schools".

That made me stop and think, again, that policymakers must take a hard look at what can realistically be accomplished under this new law.

With evidence of institutionalized racism coming to light every day, I'm questioning anew the validity of "closing the achievement gap", if everyone [up and down the educational enterprise] isn't first taking a hard look at their biases and the stories we aren't even aware we're telling ourselves. For many students, English language learners and economically disadvantaged children among them, these stories can have a profound impact and it's all the more important that we're aware of them.

One of the common narratives of the Common Core is that it was designed to give all children a common set of benchmarks from which to gauge progress in student achievement. But, the more I think about it, the more naïve and culturally unsound it seems. Perhaps, because, the Core ignores not only cultural differences, but because there's a lot more that schools can do to provide great learning in school for children that also promotes their strengths, and we don't seem nearly as interested in promoting that.

When Massachusetts re-wrote rubrics for educator evaluation a few years ago, a strand was added for all educators about connecting culture with instruction. If we knew, acknowledged, and understood our biases, what would change? What would we expect? What might be achieved? Could positive self-affirmations about one's identity lead to higher outcomes?

But, I digress.

The Equity and Excellence Commission delivered their report and recommendations for "improving education for every American child", but to my knowledge, neither federal or state Departments of Ed have had satisfactory conversations about race in light of that report. In terms of policy, how can we expect to effectively address the achievement gap under ESSA unless we have all of the conversations we need to have?
- - -
1. Noguera is professor of education at UCLA, where he directs the Center for the Study of School Transformation. He's a leading voice for public education and an expert on school reform, diversity, and the achievement gap. Much of his work focuses on ways schools are influenced by social and economic conditions in urban, regional, and global contexts. He's also a parent of five children who have attended public schools.

An excerpt from Robert B. Moore's Racism in the English Language, 1976

More Meaningful Stakeholder Engagement Under ESSA

This is a follow up to my post on Stakeholder Engagement at #NASBE16. First part of this post are notes from a NASBE webinar I participated in this summer; second part follows up on recent announcements from DESE. NEA noted in the Guide: "there's a big difference between engaging people and having a meeting. Stakeholder engagement, especially as far as implementing ESSA is concerned, should be something that has a positive impact on students".

 In an effort to engage stakeholders in a timely and meaningful way, the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) created this Stakeholder Guide. The Guide outlines a 10-step process as a kind of toolkit for ensuring meaningful engagement. Within the Guide are examples of what some states are doing well and what their challenges are.

The Guide is in three parts, with each part addressing a number of engagement strategies; for each engagement strategy, a series of questions forms a strategy checklist. As strategies are employed, evidence is gathered. A screenshot of Part I, below:

Part I screenshot, CCSSO Guide

Along the way, Departments of Ed are encouraged to give up some of their "individual agency" in order to work collaboratively. Washington State, for example, spent several months last spring on a road show - holding face-to-face stakeholder meetings all across the state. The meetings, or forums, were held in the evenings so that folks could attend after most working hours. Forums were premised from the perspective of parents and structured around 3 key questions:

1. What school characteristics are most important?
2. How should we measure the quality or success of a school?
3. How do we ensure all students are successful?

Kansas also hosted a listening tour in an effort to engage stakeholders. In fact, 26 states have engaged in listening tours on education.

In the Board's October Boardbook, the Commissioner informed that several Advisory Councils would be engaged as focus groups. I see that, as of this posting, the document hasn't been posted to the Board's October Docs page (behind Tab 9 in our Boardbook). The specific ACs selected as focus groups are:

• Parent and Community Education and Involvement
• Racial Imbalance
• Arts Education
• Gifted & Talented Education

DESE announced a series of ESSA Community Forums across the Commonwealth coming in November and December (flier at left - with links!)

The Department's ESSA Stakeholder Outreach Plan is HERE.

It remains to be seen which themes, aligned with ESSA components, emerge from the written and verbal comments from stakeholders, but possible vehicles to use to find out could include:

• Social media (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc.)
• Websites
• Webinars
• In-person forums
• Focus groups
• Roundtable discussions
• Newsletters
• Surveys
• Email listservs
• Personalized emails
• Text messages
• Online chat
• Conferences
• Video conferences
• Livestreaming (including periscope)

- - -
To date, additional indicators of school quality for ESSA accountability topics, as suggested by stakeholders in MA are HERE.

CCSSO - Stakeholder Guide: Let’s Get This Conversation Started: Strategies, Tools, Examples and Resources to Help States Engage with Stakeholders to Develop and Implement their ESSA Plans June 2016

Kansas Loops Stakeholders in on Conversation about K-12 Policy

New from NASBE: How Kansas is getting stakeholder engagement right - https://t.co/VtR6GHEqJs

— NASBE (@NASBE) October 13, 2016

Half of states engaged in listening tours on education. Kansas is one. Work detailed in new @NASBE rpt: https://t.co/eqLqDbcUzt pic.twitter.com/vh8CIxHlAq

— Valerie Norville (@vnorville) October 13, 2016

Special Meeting of the Board: Massachusetts Educator Evaluation

I find it difficult to both attend a meeting as a member of the Board and take notes of said meeting for a blog post, especially a post I hadn't decided to do until some time afterward. Ergo, there are holes. A very busy week, nonetheless, with two Board meetings and me trying to pull together my first slidedeck for a course I begin teaching next Tuesday...all this by way of apology for getting this post out so long after the fact. Do remember these are not "minutes" and any errors and/or misrepresentations are unintentional, but are mine.

This past Monday, May 23, the Department brought forward the topic of Educator Evaluation (Ed Eval) for a Special Meeting of the Board at 5:00 PM: "Educator Evaluation: Overview, Progress Report, and Key Issues - Discussion". The Board's agenda and back-up documents are HERE.

The Department presented a brief overview of the Ed Eval system that the Board adopted in 2011 as part of the run up for Race to the Top dollars. Senior Associate Commissioner of Instructional Support, Heather Peske opened with five key priorities that had been identified for MA's new system:

• to promote growth and development
• to place student learning at the center
• to recognize excellence
• to set a high bar for tenure and
• to shorten timelines for improvement

To answer the question, "why a new Ed Eval system", Peske said that prior to 2012, evaluations rarely included student outcomes and rarely singled out excellence among educators. The system failed to ensure educator input or continuous improvement, she said, and failed to differentiate meaningfully between levels of effectiveness. By way of example, she offered: one district, a sample of 58 teacher evaluations looking at over 1,000 indicators of performance, resulted in only 1 indicator for 1 teacher rating that was less than satisfactory.

We heard from two panels. The first panel presented a statewide, national, and research view. Members of that panel included:

• Kati Haycock, CEO, The Education Trust
• Ross Weiner, Vice President and Executive Director, Education and Society Program, The Aspen Institute
• Ron Noble, DESE, Manager, Educator Evaluation, Center for Educator Effectiveness

Parenthetically, Barbara Madeloni, President, Massachusetts Teachers Association, had been scheduled to be part of this panel, too. Prior to the Board of ESE meeting, she sent a joint letter to the Commissioner, copying the Board (letter was also signed by Tom Gosnell, President, AFT Massachusetts) explaining why she had decided not to participate. I have done a copy/paste of the content of her letter at the bottom of this post. Attached to Madeloni's email was an AFT/MTA white paper explaining why evaluating educators with statewide standardized test results is neither valid nor productive.

The Department shared the "staggered rollout" of the Ed Eval system:

1. The first wave was with Level 4 schools and early adopter districts (2012-2013);
2. The second was in districts that had signed on to the Race to the Top initiative (2013-2014);
3. And in 2014-2015, the remaining districts with at least half of educators evaluated with the new system

I noted (according to DESE's handout) that since the first roll out, the number of "needs improvement" educators has steadily decreased: from 6.8% in 2012-13 to 4.1% in 2014-15. (At the NASBE Legislative Conference last month, I liveblogged the discussion with Charlotte Danielson about using state teacher evaluation systems to promote teaching and learning. Danielson said that most eval systems are for the 5-6%, not for the 94%.) 

Representing a national view was Kati Haycock, who commented that it was "evaluation season" at Ed Trust. She stated that self-reflection and quality feedback are important keys in the process there. About MA's system, she was emphatic in stating that we should "stay the course".

Haycock said that MA's system had "avoided the quagmire that other states had gotten into" through their "formulaic approach" of state imposed algorithms and "gotcha" nature to evals. 

Ross Wiener commented on the "priority of educator evaluation across the country. He talked of the importance of "valuing professional judgement, valuing growth and development, and valuing local control". He said the appreciates MA's "balanced approach" to evals and that the state avoided a "formulaic algorithm".

In response to Board questions, Haycock said there are two goals/reasons for Ed Evals:

1. To grow the knowledge and skills of students. Here, she likened educators' love for teaching to nurses with a good bedside manner; a bedside manner is important but not sufficient for the job. Educators with content and curriculum strengths she likened to salespeople who know a lot about their product; knowledge of the product is important, but they are judged by how many times they made the sale. In each case, educators must be solid in their love for teaching and learning and in continuous improvement so that they can teach every child. She said [strong ed evals] isn't unlike physicians' ratings which are very tough and very important.
2. Good evaluation systems are strong signaling systems about what's important. The strong ones focus on both the resources they have to give and the "bounce" one gets on productive efforts.

Ron Noble spoke to the Massachusetts policy; that Ed Evals have to be inclusive of a "body of evidence". That teachers and their evaluators approach evals in a "reflective, growth-oriented manner".

In response to a Board question, Haycock talked about the "issue of the moment" which she saw was the "focus on the achievement of low-income students, who are lagging substantially", and "the propensity to assign our least well-educated teachers to teach them". She said "we need to take responsibility for that", and that parents of students of color "won't be satisfied unless educators can accelerate the learning of students who come to school already behind". She said that what the adults and children are doing in MA is very powerful.

We next moved on to the second panel: Classroom, School, and District Perspectives - a much larger panel! I believe each person had four minutes to present their views.

Shakera Walker, Senior Manager of Teacher Leadership and Professional Development, BPS (also a member of the Educator Evaluation Task Force 2010-2011 - she was a teacher then):

• Previously, Principals had been challenged to complete teacher evaluations; now they are being completed;
• New evals offer Teacher voice and agency;
• She receives quality feedback and there are high expectations for all;
• In BPS, they use PAR (Peer Assistance and Review), an approach to peer mentoring and professional development.

Kate Fenton, Chief Instructional Officer, Springfield Public Schools:

• There are 2,400 Teachers in SPS;
• They have experienced accomplishments and challenges with the new system;
• SPS implemented a 2-day inter-rater reliability certificate program;
• [Fenton had more to say, but I didn't write it down. I do have an odd notation that I did write down, apparently attributable to her: School Improvement Grants @ Site Councils. This makes no sense to me, however.]

Gene Reiber, Teacher, Hanover Public Schools:

• They have experiences positive changes in culture and climate;
• Trying to identify "root causes" of student achievement (came about after they understood a too high number of students saying they experienced suicide ideation);
• Reflection is a mindful part of this work (artifacts, data, student work);
• Experienced anxiety at not having time for DDMs: compliance and PD.

Mike Sabin, Principal, McDevitt Middle School, Waltham:

• Positives/Areas of Growth:
• Spirit of continuous improvement;
• Teacher voice, goals, self-assessment, examples of student learning;
• Areas for Improvement:
• Teacher with "Needs Improvement" at the end of the third year - especially if a Teacher has moved from one particular area to a new one in their third year (in their first year of a new role) - need not result in loss of hire, and the rubric doesn't account for this;
• More resources are necessary;
• He wants a great Teacher in every classroom - that requires better tools and resources;
• Need to consider Principal work conditions and needs
• Do the math and you can understand that it will take a good chunk of time to do thoughtful, meaningful evaluations;
• Sabin is doing 14-16 evals/year; others noted that number has been as high as 35;
• He said that it isn't difficult to imagine taking at least 20% of a Principal's time to do thoughtful, meaningful evaluations;
• He also noted: "The culture of 'Needs Improvement' as a terrible thing is very strong".

Michelle Ryan, Teacher, Randolph Public Schools:

• Implementation of Ed Evals has resulted in authentic, collaborative conversations
• Common goals
• She noted that she is able to talk with other teachers about tips they might have for her to fine tune her practice
• Can applaud strengths and get support where necessary
• Promotes risk-taking for assessments
• Opportunities to be a mentor teacher at the educator preparation level
• One of the challenges has been in the small number of administration able to take on the evals - need to make a role for instructional leader in order for rich conversations
• They use "teach point" to upload their artifacts and sometimes uploading too many can be a problem

Kim Smith, Superintendent, Wakefield Public Schools:

• WPS began implementing the new eval system during 2012-2013  school year;
• They formed a Steering Committee of teachers and administrators and ultimately adopted the model system developed by DESE;
• Then they chose to adapt the model rubrics, which proved important to a smooth implementation the following year because teachers had a voice in defining the language behind the system;
• Union leadership and other educators helped refine rubrics to "make them our own", which led to deeper understanding, buy-in, and ownership;
• The Steering Committee has continued to meet monthly over the past four years to provide recommendations for each new aspect of the system, including implementation of DDMs and student/staff feedback;
• The committee also developed an Educator Resource Manual to assist faculty in navigating the new system, including homegrown forms, examples of evidence, and a DDMs orgainzational tool;
• Smith believes that by owning the process they have avoided a "compliance mindset";
• They asked, "How do we help educators view their practice through the lens of student performance, and examine ways that their instructional practice impacts student growth?"
• Subsequently, they seized the opportunity of DESE's - for districts to build an alternative pathway;
• They ended up creating a fifth standard (the state's rubric has four standards), which WPS saw as "what students do" - this focused the work on the relationship between teacher practice and student growth.

I don't remember who noted their "bias" regarding "training and support", but their district is addressing it.

Likewise, someone referred to the importance of "distributed leadership" and "differentiated support" - both seen as positive results of the evaluation implementation.

The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:03 PM.

- - -

Building a Breakthrough Framework for Educator Evaluation in the Commonwealth (Educator Evaluation Task Force final report; I was also a member of this Task Force)

MassPartners for Public Schools (referenced in Barbara Madeloni's letter below)

- - -

May 20, 2016

Dear Commissioner Chester,

We are writing to let you know of our concerns about Monday night’s panel on the Massachusetts Educator Evaluation system, and to inform you why I, Barbara, have decided not to participate.

The idea for a panel originated when Board of Elementary and Secondary Education member Ed Doherty informed you in March that he would like to invite members of MassPartners for Public Schools to a BESE meeting to discuss one aspect of the Educator Evaluation system: the mandate that District-Determined Measures and standardized test scores be used to generate a “student impact rating” of low, moderate or high for all licensed educators. The first such ratings are supposed to be issued this fall. As this deadline has approached, administrators and educators alike have become increasingly concerned that there is no valid, reliable and useful way to use these test scores in a meaningful evaluation system. In fact, there is concern that these ratings will do more harm than good.

We were disappointed that you decided not to focus on the impact rating but to broaden the discussion to the larger educator evaluation system. Our members do have a lot of views on the system as a whole. Deep reservations about it were expressed at recent MTA and AFT Massachusetts annual conventions. But we don’t want that longer and more complicated discussion to deflect you from our immediate concerns about the student impact rating mandate. This particular aspect of the evaluation system needs prompt attention because it is: (a) widely discredited as invalid and unreliable; (b) about to go into effect; and (c) no longer required by the federal government, with passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act.

If we had been able to have the discussion we wanted, we would have told the department and board about the widespread disapproval of the mandate among both evaluators and those being evaluated. We would have mentioned the recent New York court decision that found using these kinds of value-added measures to judge educators is invalid and unreliable. And we would have shared with you our position paper, produced by AFT Massachusetts and the MTA, which we are attaching to this email.

We repeat our request that you hold a hearing or panel discussion with the entire BESE on the impact rating issue in the very near future.  We will also welcome the opportunity at another time for Massachusetts educators and the associations that represent them to engage in a deeper conversation on the entire educator evaluation system.

Very truly yours,

Barbara Madeloni                                                                                            Thomas Gosnell

President                                                                                                            President

Massachusetts Teachers Association                                                      AFT Massachusetts

cc: Members of the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education

Family engagement isn't a checklist

I'm a proud parent of three: two sons, now college grads, and a daughter in high school. I became active in their education at school when our first child entered kindergarten (lo those many years ago...) and it's what keeps me engaged during those long Board of Ed meetings each month.

Back when they were little, the family-school partnership inspired and motivated me to contribute my skills as an artist and musician to further the educational goals of students and the school. I was happy to do things other than fundraise. Besides, it was fun connecting with other families and teachers and staff in the process.

Family engagement isn't a checklist; it's about a school's openness to a relationship with all of its families for student success.

More than 40 years of research shows that students with families actively engaged in their education at school and at home do way better at school and in life - and this holds true regardless of a parent's level of education, country of origin, or socioeconomic status.

Modern school culture uses the language of "partnership" to describe the mutual relationship of schools and families to co-construct opportunities for learning. This is intentional, as it acknowledges the child at the center of decisions in schools, families, and communities. It's a statement about the shared responsibility of all who make those decisions and that they're focused on children's development and learning success. This focus impacts student skills, grades and achievement, health and safety, discipline, and other attitudes and behaviors, and includes encouraging students to develop talent in art, sports, music, technology, and other areas.

As the Parent Representative on the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, I'm one of 11 voting members appointed to provide oversight of the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education by virtue of my parent lens. 

That parent lens isn't only important for some things, it's necessary on all of the issues that have an impact on our children, our schools, and our communities. It's in all children's best interest to have families represented all across and up and down the educational enterprise and, by the time they're in high school, to have students represented, as well.

- - -
Notes, quotes, tweets

I've blogged before about my experience in a global book study with the book, Beyond the Bake Sale: The Essential School Guide to Family-School Partnerships. Some of the parents and educators from that group have gone on to have the book study with parents and educators at their school.

Learn from the mistakes of others. You can't live long enough to make them all yourself.
~ Eleanor Roosevelt

When the whole world is silent, even one voice becomes powerful.
~ Malala Yousafzai

Being talked about at the dinner table is a "good" thing. Are Your Students Thankful For You? https://t.co/OJeC8zJbmB via @mjanatovich

— Jon Harper ; (@Jonharper70bd) November 24, 2015

Remember I'm-possible!!! pic.twitter.com/Q2roOTwmXB

— Ted Huff (@TedHiff) November 25, 2015