The Board of Elementary and Secondary Education held their May meeting at Methuen High School. The agenda can be found here. A recording of the meeting is available here. Members Mohamed and Moriarty attended the meeting remotely.
After the Presentation of the Colors by the Methuen High JROTC and the singing of the National Anthem, Chair Craven opened the Board meeting to public comment. Public comment largely focused on the proposed changes to vocational admission. There was a comment in support of the proposed change to educator licensure, and a comment critiquing the proposed competency determination regulation beyond alignment with the law. Senator John Cronin, the ACLU, the Black Educators Alliance, and Latinos for Education all spoke in favor of the revised regulation for CTE admission; representatives from MAVA, Nashoba Valley Tech (including chair of the School Committee, Charlie Ellis, MASC Division VIII chair), and Bristol Aggie spoke in opposition.
Secretary Tutwiler updated the Board on Teacher Appreciation Week, including the annual STEM summit and the Amazing Educators event. He announced that incoming Commissioner Pedro Martinez will begin July 1. The Statewide Graduation Council is continuing the public input sessions at Somerville High School on May 28 at 5 PM; the full remaining schedule can be found here. He also announced that the DESE Catalog of Aligned Supports for next school year is now available.
Attendance, which prior to 2021 was reported annually, now is being reported out twice a year: through March 1, then for the full year. The March 1 data has now been posted. While there has been some improvement, rates of absence remain higher than pre-pandemic.
The Board is expected to take up amendments to time-out regulations at the June meeting.
The Board first took up the revision to career-technical education admissions regulations. The summary of public comment can be found here; the slides presented are here. The proposed final revision of 603 CMR 4.00 is here.
Of public comment received, 1295 comments were received via email; of those, 800 were form letters; there were 782 responses via survey.
Within public comment, those in favor of a weighted lottery said it will improve equity and access; some suggested the Board should go further and adopt a non-weighted lottery. Those opposed argued the merit-based selective criteria should continue.
Public comment on student interest agreed with the signal of interest, but noted it required extra step; there was worry about accessibility, and a proposal, which the Department adopted, that a distinction be made between “interest” and “awareness.” Per the revision, awareness can be used as component for the application: it can be attendance at an open house (virtual or in-person), a tour, video module, or other as approved by DESE; interest can be used as an additional weight, and that can be an essay, a non-evaluative interview, an audio/video presentation, a letter of recommendation, or other measure as approved by DESE.
Regarding the use of attendance, within public comment, those in favor regarded it as a sign of readiness and of setting workforce expectations; those opposed cited its disproportion impact, evidence often of systemic issues. The revised regulation now clarifies that it cannot include anything before seventh grade.
Regarding the use of discipline, those in favor of its use saw it as an indicator of maturity, particularly necessary in shops around tools. Those opposed to its use cited the known inconsistent application of discipline, resulting in disproportionate impact. The recommendation limits which offenses considered; the change removes consideration of 10 days of suspension under 37 H 3/4 and may include nothing before seventh grade.
The proposed regulations require that for any school in which there are more applicants than interest, schools must use a lottery; the application may include student awareness, and the lottery may use as weight interest, attendance, discipline. The revision also requires all schools to sign an attestation that the middle school pathway exploration policy is implemented.
Secretary Tutwiler said the state is “committed to all students having equitable access to vocational education…want a future where every student has a chance to discover their interests…”
There was an exchange regarding the number of students (now many fewer) impacted by the discipline change. Member West asked about received public testimony stating that non-resident students would no longer be admitted to the county agricultural schools; the Department noted that there was no change from current language on that.
Member Mohamed wished to create an experiment in which half of the schools changed to the new method, half did not, and conclusions were drawn. Craven stated that she was supportive of no longer having a moving target, but asked about testing this; Tutwiler said he was committed to sharing data with the Board. Member Rocha confirmed through a question that this would be annually.
Member Fisher said that CTE schools are public schools, that all public schools are concerned with safety and learning, ‘though “the conversation we heard suggest otherwise.” In testimony she heard the fear that people like themselves will no longer have access; she asked that the Board consider thousands “who never had access.” She concluded that while she felt “strongly that this proposal does not go far enough…however this is great progress” and she would support it.
Vice Chair Hills said “there comes a point at every process…where you look at what’s in front of you and it’s time to make the decision…you either live with it, or you don’t live with it…I am totally prepared to live with it.” While he would say “there have been a number of exit ramps that have been missed here,” the proposal is “doable, workable…[we] need to make a decision with the cards in front of us now.”
Member Moriarty said he felt there had been insufficient enforcement, and “with better enforcement we’d be working with a scalpel rather than a chainsaw.” He felt that advocates would never be satisfied, and he felt a blind lottery is “not very good policy.” He wanted enforcement against specific districts, and to leave further action to the Legislature.
Speaking on behalf of students with whom he had spoken, Member Asikis said there was frustration by students on finding out too late what the criteria were to change or impact their own admission. They also spoke with concern of guidance counselors who never tell students that this is an option or tell them to not to bother to apply. They spoke of access as “stopping the school to prison pipeline before it starts.” They also spoke of those admitted who drop out are a “lost seat.”
Member Grant said she was in support of regulations, that at ground, the decision needed to be based in the experience of students. She thought it important to be clear about the processes that allow more access.
Member West, who chaired the subcommittee overseeing this process, said it is important to say demand exceeds supply. In meantime, the state is dealing with it as a contentious issue, because they are rationing access to a scarce resource. Because it is a compromise proposal, it is expected that there would be a lot of public comment on all sides. He said that this is “probably not where I would have ended up on my own, and probably [gestures to Fisher] a different place than Professor Fisher” would have ended up. While they have heard a lot of accusations about motives, West hopes that we can put that behind us.
Member Rocha agreed that a hard decision is before the Board. She said it was important to highlight that right now disadvantaged students are dealing with the unintended consequences of current regulation. Massachusetts is among the states that have the largest disparities in racial and economic access in education in the country, and CTE programs are part of that. She quoted “education is the great equalizer,” and, while she wished it was a move to an unweighted lottery, “this is a great step in the right direction.”
Member Stewart said she was glad to be reaching the point at which they could express their views. She noted that this decision has the potential to change lives. She stated “folks have a responsibility to meet students where they are when they come into the program and get them where they need to be,” as that is mission of public education. She said, “I was surprised at a lot of the rhetoric…found some of it very shocking.” The Board would hear from students wanting to attend these programs without discrimination, and then “hear from adults about their right to gatekeep access to these programs.” While she recognized that this was the Board taking an important step, but “I certainly hope it is not the last work…students can’t wait another 25 years.” And “a little bit of discrimination is never okay.”
Craven said “think we’re doing some positive things here today” and that it was time to put a marker down.
On the roll call vote, eight members voted in favor; Mohamed and Moriarty were opposed, and Tutwiler abstained from the vote.
Regarding the competency determination amendments, the summary of public comment received is here; the proposed final regulation is here; the slides from the meeting are here. Rob Curtin, Chief of Data, Assessment, and Accountability, reminded the Board that, notwithstanding public comment regarding graduation standards, the statutory language covers only through grade 10, thus MassCore and other such arguments exceed the purview of the Board in this instance. This is, he said, “an interim solution coming off the November ballot question.”
The proposed changes to regulation going into the public comment period included:
- removing obsolete language regarding MCAS
- defining terms
- specifying new minimum requirements to earn CD (set of courses through grade 10) for class of 2026
- adding U.S. history for class of 2027
- creating a narrow exception for students who cannot verify via transcript (using MCAS)
- requiring adoption of a district policy and allowing DESE to audit
There were 30 comments received and 146 responses to the survey. Two changes to the proposal, both minor, were made as a result of public comment: rather than a course being a year, the change was made to “equivalent of a year” (some districts have block schedules and do a full year in a semester), and the rights of students who are English learners added to parallel that of students with disabilities.
Hills asked how often audits would be expected, what they would entail, and under what conditions they would be triggered. Curtin said that they would first have to outline and define the procedures, as it is not yet in place. Hills said, “I say this with a former school committee chair: I have a lot of concern about the curriculum/grade framework…I’m not even sure how that works in a way that actually is good and productive, which might mean that there is a lot less there than meets the eye.” He also was concerned that this interim step would go a decade.
West, while saying he shared much of Hills’ concerns, said he didn’t see how we get anywhere more satisfactory than where we are in the legislative language. He thus pleaded urgency in the work of the Statewide Graduation Council and Legislature. He suggested that an audit could look at the aggregate performance of 10th graders deemed as showing mastery in their courses on MCAS and look at what is or isn’t reasonable in grades, saying “that’s the audit that we need.” He said, “I don’t think we need to go page by page through teachers’ lessons plans to see if they’re setting a reasonable benchmark.”
The roll call vote had eight votes in favor, with Hills opposed and Tutwiler abstaining.
The Board briefly discussed proposed revisions to educator licensure regulations; comments received were largely in favor of the proposed changes. The presentation reminded the Board of the proposal. Asked by Vice Chair Hills if there was a goal in mind on the alternative pathway in terms of numbers, Claire Abbott, Director of Educator Effectiveness, said that they don’t have a target on a percentage, but “really want to be sure that if you’re interested in becoming a teacher, you have options…that’s really the goal.”
The amendments passed on a roll call of nine votes in favor, Tutwiler abstaining.
The Board then received a brief update on the FY26 state budget, which CFO Bill Bell noted was being deliberated in the Senate currently. Most of the allocations recommended are parallel to that of the Governor and of the House, with differences to be worked out in conference committee. On the federal side, Bell said that the state has received the major entitlement grants, but is still awaiting adult education and Titles II, III, and IV award; they expect to see those in next month or so. They then are watching next federal fiscal year budget FY26, which would impact next fiscal year for state (FY27).
The Board then adjourned. They will next meet on June 24 in Everett.