The Board of Elementary and Secondary Education resumed their regular school year meeting schedule with an evening meeting on Monday, September 23 and a morning meeting on Tuesday, September 24. The agenda for both can be found here. The videos for all meetings can be found on the Department’s Vimeo site..
Note also that the Department on Tuesday updated the School and District Profile site with 2024 Accountability and Assessment results.
Monday night’s meeting covered a report from the Accountability Review Advisory Committee; this is an external advisory committee, chaired by Dr. Chris Domaleski and Dr. Carla Evans of The National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment. Chief Officer for Data, Assessment and Accountability Rob Curtin first outlined the process the Committee has taken thus far and also let the Board know of their role. The report was informational at this stage for the Board.
Links to presentations will be added as they become available to the public.
The goal of the Committee was to develop a set of guiding principles and recommendations, bound by existing state and federal laws, in reviewing the accountability system, bound by the Department’s vision and priorities. The indicators used; their weighting; the years of data used; the categories; the connection with assistance work; and the engagement process were among the items within the scope. The scope of the Committee did not include the legally mandated competency determination for students; the design of the MCAS test (recently the subject of stakeholder engagement); the legally mandated designation of underperforming schools or districts; or state receivership; a minority of the Committee disagreed with this limit of scope by the Department.
The Committee was formed a year ago from a broad array of invited stakeholder groups, some of which declined, others of which accepted. The Committee held six and a half days of meetings, December 2023 through June 2024, facilitated by the National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment. Members then were solicited for feedback on the report.
Dr. Evans outlined moved from theory of action to design principles to characteristics and features. The Committee emphasized that accountability systems are most effective when they provide information about inputs and outputs most valued, as well as integrate with improvement systems. They recommended reporting on a broad range of indicators; ‘right-sizing’ federal requirements; using flexibility where possible and appropriate; and developing and integrating robust systems of support.
Dr. Domaleski then spoke of a framework that attempted to bridge the tension of ESSA requirements and broader inputs and outputs as a supplement, plus resources provided. The Committee recommended a single composite score of the first, with different methods of the second. The second are proposed to include 9th grade persistence/promotion; access to effective teaching; access to high quality academic support; curricular breadth; curricular quality; educator absenteeism; student absenteeism.
Additional indicator level and system level design specifications are needed, Domaleski recommended.
Data & Accountability Associate Commissioner Erica Gonzalez said that next the Department and the Accountability and Assistance Advisory Council will review the report; the Department will develop a project plan with stakeholder engagement and feedback; and then will bring any changes to the Board as well as U.S. DoE. There will be ongoing opportunities for Board involvement.
Asked for a timeline on possible changes, Curtin noted that this was not work that was required, and that further any changes requires significant modeling; the absolute earliest would be a year, which he characterized as “more ambitious than achievable,” outlining a change for 2026 as more achievable. Domaleski, responding to a further question, said that school climate was an indicator not already included, as Member West observed that most of the recommendations were included in the current system. He characterized as “difficult to answer” what the “gold standard” indicators might be, saying that it is connected to state priorities and approaches.
Curtin said one thing they’re interested in looking at is in the inclusion of student voice in the accountability system playing some role.
On Tuesday, the Board opened with nearly an hour of public comment, which unfortunately was not all available via the video stream. The Board did hear public comment regarding Boston Public Schools transportation; college and career readiness in accountability; revision of the accountability system; support for retaining the MCAS as a graduation standard; literacy curriculum; advocacy for both changing vocational admissions and retaining it as it is; and a request to reconsider the lowest 10% calculation while not expanding charter school seats in Lynn.
Chair Katherine Craven welcomed the new student representative Ioannis Asikis, who spoke briefly of his background as an immigrant and a former Brookline Public Schools student. Craven announced that she has appointed West as liaison to the Assistance and Accountability Advisory Council. She said that liaisons allow for “a placeholder” for discussions.
Secretary Patrick Tutwiler spoke of DESE’s “Your Presence is Powerful” campaign on attendance, which includes an invitation to submit why attendance is important. He also spoke of the Literacy Launch visit to Clinton last week. He outlined the education investments in the FY25 budget.
Acting Commissioner Russell Johnston outlined briefly Monday’s presentation. He told the Board that PCG is doing an organizational review of DESE. He introduced Leah Murphy as the person in charge of Advanced and Accelerated Learning for the Department. The Department is starting two study sessions during the October and November Monday evening meetings on CTE admissions, on the impact of changes already made and what changes might be required. The Department is also now required to make resources available on antisemitism and anti-bias.
Craven asked for a future report on teacher prep programs and if they are using outdated methods.
Matt Hills was re-elected as Vice Chair.
Regarding the Commissioner search, Craven said that “robust community engagement” was very important to this process. Developing what the needs of the community are for this position is an important need, she said. Isaacson, Miller of Boston has been selected to conduct the search. She said they are hoping for a large amount of feedback regarding what is required of the position now.
Acting Commissioner Johnston introduced the 2024 Assessment and Accountability results, which is the spring 2024 MCAS results plus the accountability determination of each district “that has sufficient data.” This included 2026 competency determinations and schools of distinction. Johnston said the results “are concerning, as we continue to combat pandemic-related learning loss.” He said he’d be acknowledging the deep responsibility this requires of all those who serve Massachusetts children.
Curtin opened by acknowledged the work of many in the Department and in the Secretary’s office in preparing all this for release.
He said “the story really is different depending on the subject you’re talking about.” ELA results are “extremely concerning” as they are down in all grades from 2023; math is up in third grade, flat in other grades; science is improved in grades 5 and 10, and lower achievement in grade 8. In reviewing ELA, Curtin said “there’s much more ground to make up” in grades 3 through 8, though 10th grade is within 4 percentage points of where 10th grade was in 2019. Student group results in ELA “basically mirror the state.”
Curtin cautioned that talking about gaps that gaps can close by groups getting “worse a little less.” “We have a long way to go for all of our students…it’s awful important to not draw conclusions” about gap closing when it isn’t “how we want to do it.”
In math, Curtin said the grade 3 math results “are inching closer to where we were in 2019.” There is still a double digit decrease in middle school from 2019. Grade 10 had a “meaningful” decrease in grade 10. By student group, “relatively flat” results in math across the board.
In science, there are mixed results: a meaningful increase in grade 5, a meaningful decrease in grade 8, an increase in grade 10, though it cannot be compared pre-pandemic, as the test was new.
A question the Department asked was what the results relate to, “the way that we would describe the results as a pretty even distribution across the Commonwealth.” Results were generally holding to the state pattern across different types of districts in terms of the change from year to year. The difference in results between students who were and were not chronically absent is stark, with a difference in ELA and math of 20 to 30% in meeting or exceeding expectations. Member Moriarty raised this in connection with the state accountability system. Vice Chair Hills asked to what extent absence was the causation; Curtin said “at least some factor” was connected, as the factor “is too large…not to have some causation here.”
Curtin notes that last year’s sophomores–the 10th graders spoken of here–are the first class to need to meet the higher Educational Proficiency Plan (EPP) and Competency Determination adopted by the Board on August of 2022, updating regulations as required, as classes of 2026 and beyond were not covered by then-regulations. The standard was set prior to those students entering high school. This raised the EPP from 455 to 470 in ELA (which is the cut at partially meeting expectations) and 460 to 470 in math; the competency determination was set at 486 for both math and ELA, and 470 in science. Those who reach the EPP level no longer need to take the MCAS; they have to have a locally administered education plan. Those who meet the CD also no longer have to take the MCAS. In order to achieve the EPP and be done with the MCAS, students need to earn:
- 39% of the possible points in ELA
- 15% of the possible points in math
- 30% of the possible points in biology (‘though this isn’t an EPP)
- 28% of the possible points in physics (‘though this isn’t an EPP)
In response to a question from Craven as to what this means, Curtin notes the common thread through this is the involvement of Massachusetts educators: from the development of the state standards, to the development of the questions, to the decision of the cut scores. This is the score set by educators to be at the “partially meeting” level and no longer need to take the MCAS.
78% of students in the class of 2026 reached at least the 470 EPP level; about 4% were impacted by the change in scores judging by last year’s. For this year’s seniors (the class of 2025), of those who didn’t pass on the first attempt, half did on their next attempt. The class of 2026 has four more attempts possible, plus appeals opportunities.
Member Dálida Rocha asked specifically about English learners. Curtin said that first year English learners are not required to take the MCAS, and first year learners are not included in the results released. The competency determination is required of all; math and science are offered in Spanish, though English is not. Students do have the same opportunities to pass the test, likewise also can appeal, showing that their coursework is equivalent.
Curtin then reviewed how the state accountability system works.
Of the 1827 schools, 219 were classified as insufficient data, usually because they serve untested grades.
Of the remaining 1608 schools, 82% were classified as “not requiring assistance,” and 18% were classified as “requiring assistance” for one or more reasons.
60% of schools, in making progress towards targets, are making substantial progress towards targets or meeting or exceeding targets. From last year to this, the state went from 6% to 3% of schools are now making no progress. Curtin notes that the full accountability system, as shown, “allow[s] us to show the progress that schools are making in other areas”
Fifty-seven schools were identified as schools of recognition, and the Department this year placed a particular focus on the lowest performing group of students (which every school has). The U.S. Department of Education named seven public schools in Massachusetts as Blue Ribbon Schools.
Craven said that a 25% or 30% “is not a very high bar” and asked if there was “something inherently unfair about the nature of what” is expected. Curtin says he always goes back to the standards “what we believe students should know at different grade and subject levels.” He said, “we believe it is possible for students to achieve” at the level set; “we’re not asking questions about things we don’t expect to be taught.”
Acting Commissioner Johnston said that this requires all of DESE to be focused and aligned, and “any missed alignment can lead” to lesser outcomes for students. He said, “this is a moment for action; this is not a moment to sit.” He has reimplemented “stock take meetings” quarterly, where they meet quarterly on progress on each goal with superintendents. The summer meeting focus was on root cause analysis. He then reviewed each of the strategic objectives again, speaking to each. Johnston said that his discussion with superintendents resulted in his concluding that superintendents need clearer deadlines for reporting what curriculum they’re using through “the curriculum and use tool.”
The second round of Student Opportunity Act plans were released in August. Johnston referred to “living” metrics.
Johnston said he has been meeting on a monthly basis with a group working on “advancing student learning.” The group has been looking on expanding learning time, on “leveraging highest impact resource” which Johnston says “is our educators,” as well as “more personalized and/or flexible learning models,” which he says includes high dosage tutoring.
Member Michael Moriarty then reported out from the recovery and literacy committee. At this point, he said, their charge is done, with recommendations set to the Board.
Johnston then spoke of the Literacy Launch, announcing that the federal government has awarded the state a further $30M in literacy support. The Department plans to extend access to early literacy support and resources. offering further professional learning, with benchmarks set for state measures of success.