The Board of Elementary and Secondary Education held their regular monthly meeting on December 17, 2024 at 9 AM. The agenda can be found here. Video recording of this and all meetings can be found here.
The Board opened with public comment.
Sen. Brendan Crighton with Rep-elect Sean Reid spoke in opposition of KIPP Lynn’s charter expansion, noting that “an expansion of KIPP would cost the city of Lynn roughly $24M.” He said the “entire Lynn delegation supports” position of the mayor, superintendent, and school committee in opposition. Reid, who is currently a member of the Lynn School Committee, said the district is “already starved for resources,” and that this would reverse many of the gains of the Student Opportunity Act.
MTA President Max Page and Vice President Deb McCarthy spoke, with McCarthy relaying three things she’d learned from working on the ballot initiative–respect for education and for educators; the needs of ‘invisible’ learners, and the wish for many to be involved in next steps–and Page setting out MTA priorities for the next year. He said “a diverse union of education workers” is the MTA’s new tag line.
The presidents of the Quincy and Brookline teachers’ unions both spoke, with the first speaking of the “implications of long term underfunding of education” and the need for a fix to the “devastating glitch in the formula” on inflation, and the latter focusing on the experiences of teachers due to physical, emotional and other harms and understaffing, leading “talented, passionate educators” to leave the classroom, calling for additional supports.
The superintendent of TECCA thanked many there and asked that the Board support the increase in virtual school tuition.
Dan French, Citizens for Public Schools, member Vocational Educational Justice Coalition spoke on vocational admission, saying the “only equitable vocational admissions policy is a lottery” for students in ninth grade. In responding to MAVA submitted testimony, he said that comparison to students in sending districts “not the civil rights issue at hand.” He said lotteries increase opportunities for groups historically discriminated against; “you can’t reliably determine if a students behavior and attendance [in middle school] is reliably determinative of their attendance and behavior” as a vocational student.
An attorney from Lawyer for Civil Rights said arguments about statistically inconsistency don’t change the perpetuation of inequality through the current vocational admission system. She said federal civil rights laws mandates non-discriminatory access to public education; she said the argument made by MAVA and others about greater safety risk on dangerous machinery “is both flawed and harmful,” that “exclusionary practices based on unfounded fears” “is not only unjustified; it is also discriminatory.”
A panel from MAVA including MAVA President Nashoba Valley Regional Technical Superintendent Denise Pigeon, Greater New Bedford Regional Superintendent Michael Watson, and the lawyer representing MAVA next spoke. Pigeon noted their interest in the newly created subcommittee to student CTE admissions, which met on December 16, saying they welcome the interest and are pleased to see the subcommittee understanding limitations of the data. They “welcome the opportunity to collaborate” through the process. Watson commented that the Department has refused to share the anonymized admission data with the Career and Technical Education schools [the data is anonymized for admission purposes]. The lawyer representing MAVA said, “fighting about access to this data is a waste of resources”
asked “the Board to help us help you do this analysis correctly.”
MASC Executive Director Glenn Koocher spoke, saying he had a slightly different angle on how best to address inequities. He raised the question of if the legislative, regulatory, or local approaches were best, saying that he was “concerned that [the Department is] solving problems through a regulated approach” rather than legislative or local approach. Work is being done with the legislature–“we’re making a great deal of progress”–and he argued that the process should be left to local vocational districts overseen by legislation.
Chair Katherine Craven relayed some of her recent Board related activities. She then flagged, as she did last meeting, the constitutional concern over the results of the MCAS ballot question: “if the SJC required the Board of Ed…to ‘cherish’ the interest of public education…my fundamental question is how does the Board fulfill its fundamental mission” of that finding; the Board cannot abdicate to local communities.
Secretary Patrick Tutwiler congratulated Mass Teacher of the Year Luisa Sparrow, and noted the progress made in the past two budget cycles.
Acting Commissioner Russell Johnston updated on the three receivership districts. On December 9, he met with the Holyoke School Committee local control subcommittee; he now meet every other month. He’s pleased to see that adjustments to their plan are made along the way as needed, as an unfolding commitment. He met with local leaders in Lawrence to develop a strategic plan; this multi-year plan will live alongside turnaround plan for a time to then guide beyond it. The Department is offering ongoing technical assistance as well. In Southbridge, he met with the delegation and local officials to discuss capacity building needs; they’re providing ongoing support to strengthen local leadership across town government to work to transition to local control. He offered a shout out to the Southbridge School Committee, who spent an “entire day of training” this past Saturday with MASC.
Johnston also said that he’ll be bringing educator licensure updates to the Board next year. While this are separate from the economic development bill signed into law this year, they do parallel them in offering alternative paths to licensure.
The Board next welcomed 2025 Massachusetts Teacher of the Year Luisa Sparrow, who teaches fifth and sixth grade students with disabilities at the Oliver Hazard Petty School in South Boston. In introducing her, Johnston praised her presumption of competence in her students, reflecting on the time he had gotten to spend in her classroom.
Sparrow said that she’d use both person-first and identity-first language, having been taught one and recognizing the growing advocacy for the other. She noted that nearly 8 of 10 American adults with an intellectual disability are unemployed; disabled students must have access to inclusive learning opportunities in order to be ready for workplaces that are not subseparate like classrooms are. She said, “my students have intellectual disabilities and they also have big dreams,” listing them. She said she “would like to see us reframe” how we think of placement in schools, to design spaces with all learners in mind, with supports and staffing that all learners need. She’d advocate for the value of students in the same classroom learning at different rates and producing different learning products. She spoke about a cooking club she has created, which gives her students a chance to be part of something together with their more typically developing peers, in a situation in which all can learn. She closed by thanking her paraprofessionals and her daughter’s childcare teachers, the “unsung heroes.”
Member Ericka Fisher, commenting Sparrow has “an A+ teacher name!” said her experience really resonated with her own, and thanked her for spreading the message of inclusion. Member Dálida Rocha and Craven spoke similarly.
Johnston next spoke of the alignment of DESE projects with the vision of the Department. He said that next year will be about moving from “alignment to coherence.” He said that there is now one date by which all DESE projects are due, and all plans are reviewed for alignment to strategic objectives and the racial equity decision making tool; the catalog to come out in May this year (rather than June).
Vice Chair Matt Hills asked about high-dosage tutoring; Johnston noted the FY26 budget request included it. He said that the January meeting will focus on literacy with researchers from Johns Hopkins coming in. Member Michael Moriarty expressed concern regarding availability of the number of tutors that will take, warning a ramp up is needed now.
Member Marty West, who is chairing the Career and Technical Education admissions subcommittee, the charge of which is to determine if changes are needed in the admissions of the CTE schools, updated on the prior evening’s meeting. He said the crux of the issue was if admission criteria created disproportionate impact. The subcommittee, which also includes Fisher, Hills, and Rocha, has already received “voluminous data” and has requested more. Craven, Moriarty, and Hills all spoke on the concern of the MAVA panel on the sharing of data. West noted, due to the amount being asked, they “should manage expectation on when we’re going to have a report from the Department.” Fisher said she had addressed this with the subcommittee but wanted to share with the full Board: the question is what selective criteria if any is essential to the program of study?
The Board unanimously and without discussion approved the recommended per pupil increase in virtual school tuition for the coming fiscal year to $13,114 with $75 per pupil that stays with the Department, further delegating authority to Commissioner to raise in FY26 in line with inflation.
Finally, the Board took up the competency determination. Chief Officer for Data, Assessment, and Accountability Rob Curtin presented. Note: we include here images of the topical slides; the full presentation can be found saved here.
The presentation opened with a review of the change the ballot question made to state law, as shown:
Johnston noted that “history and social science, [and] foreign languages” remain statutorily, as subjects within the law but not covered by the MCAS in 2023, possible areas of coverage. He also noted the law’s “completion of coursework” (not courses or classes) as the statutory language, as well as the question of demonstration of mastery.
Moriarty inquired if the planned civics assessment is on track; it is, for eighth grade, and thus has no bearing on the competency determination.
Curtin introduced what is before the Board and the Department as three tracks: one for current seniors who have not achieved their competency determination; another for the students in high school, who may or may not have; and for students not yet in high school. Each has different responsibilities for the Department and for the Board.
He stressed the importance and urgency of the first, ensuring school districts understand what needs to take place for students who have not yet earned a competency determination for the class of 2025. The local graduation requirements as determined by school committees remain, but, Curtin responded to a question from Member Mary Ann Stewart, the competency determination is something that needs to be separately determined by the local governance body. He gave as an example a local graduation requirement of two years of science; if those were life science and geology, that coursework does not meet the language of competency determination of science of assessment of 2023, which is what the law says. He said the Department strongly believes that there needs to be a separate process that the coursework aligns as the law itself says.
At this point the Department has issued two rounds of an FAQ, updated language on the website, and has conducted webinars and other trainings with districts.
Regarding topics that have been covered by the FAQ shared by the Department:
- local districts remain empowered to create local graduation requirements
- districts can choose to use MCAS achievement level as a local graduation requirement
- districts remain bound by the free and appropriate public education requirement of federal law; students with disabilities may not be exited to graduation so that the district does not have to provide services for them any longer
- the Department at this point is offering recommendations for the competency determination; “perhaps they’ll be more than that at some point”
- for many years, the Department has provided a path to a diploma for those who did not pass the competency determination; this responsibility now shifts to districts, who need to provide a path for former students who met local graduation requirements but did not pass the competency determination
Stewart noted that Senator Jason Lewis has spoken of legislating MassCore as a statewide graduation requirement.
Hills asked how many seniors do not have their competency determination; as there was a November retest, the most recent number is not known. Curtin said that they “had enough concern that we wanted to bring this to the attention of the district…even if there was a need for second semester courses to change.” Hills agreed, commenting that he could imagine school committees needing to scramble to provide appropriate courses to cover what the law outlines, “but the law is the law and this is coming.” Curtin said that there is that need to pivot and to pivot quickly;
“the main message is it might be three and it might be thirty but [districts] need to identify those students and give them a process this year.”
Moriarty said he was “not very optimistic where this goes…I don’t have any sense…[of who is] working hard to provide solutions for their students.”
hope to get better information from who is really embracing this and “providing best practices at the school board level”
Curtin said he thinks they’ll talk about what is to be done at the Board level.
In the medium term, the Department will develop and implement oversight of district processes, and provide public reporting of those processes, which can be done “under the powers of the Commissioner to collect data.”
The Board could provide additional definitions of terms in the legislation through regulation; for example, “what does it mean to satisfactorily master something?” The Board possibly propose “additional areas” in accordance with new statutory language through regulation, those areas that an MCAS wasn’t administered in (as of 2023) is provided for in law. The Board could also possibly create requirements on district processes; at this time, those are recommendations, but could be made requirements.
In the long term, the Department would “like to develop recommendations for new statewide graduation requirements.” This may involve new legislation or under current law; the Board could create regulation under current law. “I would say that it’s important that we get to work on this,” Curtin said, observing that middle schoolers are already on paths for math in high school.
West commented that he thinks they can’t come up with a coherent approach within legal language; “I think what we have now is hard to make sense of.” Coursework, he said, doesn’t prove mastery; the language could be thus read as requiring an assessment. The Board must provide regulation for the districts to work from. He said, “this language is a mess…we need to get to work!”
Hills said that he understood and respected the role of the Legislature, but “as we think of what we can do within the existing legislation, we’re really limited in doing much that is significant and of consequence.” While he was skeptical that MassCore could get passed, he said “the mere requiring of coursework” doesn’t demonstrate skills or knowledge. He said it would be important that whatever is worked on, if it requires legislation, be something that could be passed; he said, “let’s not pretend we’re doing something that we can’t actually deliver on…if we need changes, let’s work cooperatively on something that’s realistic.”
Moriarty said, “we’ve been disempowered to engage in this in a meaningful way” but the constitutional mandates are still there. He asked for information on the efficacy of MassCore.
Johnston asked for direction from the Board for the medium term. Hills responded that he should use whatever cylinders can be fired, as “there’s some urgency.”
Member Farzana Mohamed asked about local graduation requirements and was told that there is variety.
The Board adjourned and will hold their next regular meeting on January 28.