AN UPDATE ON THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION PREPARED BY:
MARYLAND STATE
EDUCATION
ASSOCIATION · NEA
December 8, 2015
MEETING DATES FOR
THE STATE
BOARD OF EDUCATION
January 26, 2016
February 23, 2016
March 22, 2016
April 26, 2016
May 24, 2016
June 28, 2016
July 26,2016
August 23, 2016
September 27, 2016
October 25, 2016 / Consent Agenda Items
The State Board of Education (SBOE) postponed approval of the following since they did not have quorum:
- October 27, 2015 minutes
- Personnel
- Budget Adjustments for October, 2015
Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) Assessment and Accountability Update
Dr. Henry Johnson, chief academic officer,Dr. Douglas Strader, director for Planning and Assessment Branch, and Ms. Chandra Haislet, director of Accountability, briefed the SBOE onthe 2014-2015PARCCdata for grades 3 – 8 in Maryland.
Highlights included:
- Dr. Strader introduced the data for PARCC with a historical review of testing in Maryland.
- Ms.Haislet began reviewing current data for PARCC grades 3-8 through a series of charts in a PowerPoint presentation.
- Students earning a performance level of 4 or 5 in grades 3-8 are considered on target to meeting the grade level Maryland College and Career Readiness Standards.
- Because Maryland received approval for the double testing waiver as part of ESEA Flexibility, students in middle school taking Algebra I, Algebra II or English 10, take the High School PARCC assessment instead of the Grade 3-8 assessment.
- In Math, 10 Local Education Agencies (LEAs) outperformedthe State for the percentage of students earning a performance level of 4 or 5. LEA results ranged from a low of 10.5% to a high of 48.3%.
- In English Language Arts (ELA), 10 LEAs outperformed the state for the percentage of students earning a performance level of 4 or 5. LEA results ranged from a low of 15.6% to a high of 55.8%.
Ms. Linda Eberhart, SBOE member, requested data for Algebra separated out between middle school and high school students.
Mr. Guthrie Smith, SBOE president, asked the superintendent to explain work that has been done to improve math performance across the state.
Response:Dr. Smith pointed out that when we started, MSDE said it would take 3 years; MSDE has looked at the most promising strategies and practices, through the Math Advisory Council, further developedand sharedthose strategies.
Ms. Eberhart asked if this was done for English Language Arts?
Response:We had the advisory for math only because historically we see a drop in scores as we progress in grade levels; this does not seem to happen in ELA.
- In November,MSDE staff sent the SBOE a copy of the publication: “Score Report Interpretation Guide for Parents”that explains how to read the PARCC scores; in addition, MSDE held Understand The Score presentations - 700 parents attended across the state.
Ms. Eberhart stated that the information parents receive is very surface level. In Massachusetts, parents can go onto their computer and see more detailed skills for their child just as teachers do. Do we offer level of detail for parents? Do we plan to do this? Does PARCC?
Response:That is something we really want to do. PARCC is talking about that;Massachusetts is doing it independently- at the item analysis level; we may need to develop this if Pearson doesn’t move fast enough. Item analysis is available for teachers and education professionals; teachers can now see down to the question. This is the first time educators can see at that level; detail is not available to parents because of security and mixed platform issues;
Ms. Eberhart persisted, Massachusetts has been doing this, why can’t Maryland?
Mr. Chester Finn, SBOE member, stated you would need a 4 or 5 on PARCC to understand this! He further expressed frustration that the parent pamphlet says it is going to tell you whether your child is college and career ready but then the document doesn’t tell you that.
Response: MSDE has asked the SBOE if there are any changes or improvements they would like to see in these documents.
Mr. Finn asked why we are not automatically doing this for parents? Why are we prisoners of PARCC?
Response: Dr. Smith said this document is developed for the consortium; we can develop documents for ourselves. Please let us know if there is anything you want on the Year Two documents.
Mr. Smith said we want it as understandable to parents as possible.
Mr. Finn clarified by saying: Take notes. I will not repeat this again. I want a two boxed option: is or is not on track for college and career. That’s it.
Response:Dr. Smith replied: So noted.
Ms. Laura Weeldreyer, SBOE member, inquired as to who sends the Score Reports out? The LEAs? Response: Yes
We need to know when the YearTwo Report is going out so we know the timeline.
Ms. Eberhart stated that she was disappointedwhen she went online;she suggested everyone should look at it so Board members can tell what they want.
Mr. Larry Giammo, SBOE member, explained that in his LEA, he can see, daily,howhis child is doing; the technology is out there. Can we have a meeting so we can see what is exactly going to be shared and when?Maryland students took the tests in March and May – having the scores now is way too late.
Response: 160 days of instruction must occur before the tests can be administered. The time it takes for initial score setting was discussed. We want to hear from our stakeholders; what do parents want to see on those reports.
Mr. Giammo, stated we need to know if the LEAs arenot sending this information out in a timely basis. Also, is this a norm referenced or criterion referenced test; the more we talk, the more it is sounding like a norm- referenced test – I want this clearly answered in the future.
Dr. Michele Jenkins Guyton, SBOE member, said this report is very poor.I only know how to interpret it because I’m here.
Mr. Finn said he has been a fan of the Common Core for years; I think the test is good but the reporting is horrible; specifically, the time and lack of clarity.
Dr. Strader proceeded with the PowerPoint slide“When will PARCC results become a graduation requirement?”
- Year Two scores won’t count again as the transition continues;
- MSDE is taking stepsfor moving to scores counting and what those scores will be:
- Identify cut scores for English 10 and Algebra 1.
- What is the composite score? MSDE has engaged a workgroup of psychometrics and University of Maryland experts who have developed three preliminary models.
- Recommendations will be presented to the SBOEby February for your decision.
Response: That’s a board decision; the board decided not to have a score for the first two years. In Maryland, Algebra is taken from grade 6 thru 12; English 10 is pretty much given after 10th grade. I would like to bring the statisticiansto you so they can better explain the difference between criterion and norm referenced. While this is a criterion referenced assessment, everything may have some of both. We will bring 2 or 3 models for you to consider. It is up to the board whether to delay starting it up, or to take an incremental approach, or use a tiered model; this is the board’s decision.
Ms. Eberhart discussed cut scores, about continuing the Bridge Project, and developing a composite score - 3 pathways to graduation; asked about transition courses being used - Algebra 2 or some other method for graduation; who decided the method?
Response: That is decided by the LEAs; there are a number of assessments LEAs can use, MSDE meets with Institutes of Higher Education (IHE) to ensure we are in sync with what they will accept. Right now most LEAs use Algebra 2 and English 11. Current 11th graders need to take a transition course and the problem is the timeliness of the scores – we have decided to use English 10 and 11 scores and Algebra 1 since scores may not be available for Algebra 2 in time. MSDE mediated this solution with Community Colleges/Universities and LEAs. They all used the same cut score to comply with law to determine if a student is college and career ready.
Ms. Eberhart asked who decided.
Response:College and Career Readiness and College Completion Act of 2013.
Mr. Finn stated he wants a primer of who decides what regarding graduation requirements and college and career readiness. Why do we need to worry about cut scores if the locals decide? Maryland can’t use the 4 and 5 on PARCC as a graduation requirement; if you did you wouldn’t be in your right mind – it would block 60% of students from graduation requirements!
Response: Maryland needs to dovetail all three pathways. This is something just discussed with the LEAs; we planned to present this to the board in April; working to make sure LEAs are doing a high quality transition course; “courses or experiences” is what is written in the law; need to have dedicated time to explain the three legged stool to the board; MSDE can move the presentation up; we want to avoid it being convoluted for students.
Mr. Smith suggested a work meeting separate from the official board meeting.
Mr. Giammo, stated that there are a lot of “why” questions – Why one LEA is scoring over the other – when will we get those answers? How do these results correlate with grades students receive?
Response: we are working with data such as how does this correlate with SAT scores? Those who took math all 4 years? We have, for the first time, 4 years of transcript data so we can answer these questions.
Mr. Giammo, pointed out the board has a vote coming up as to whether we continue with PARCC or not – I need this information before I make my decision. One of the premises of PARCC is the lack of transparency. Is there a way we can take a half space back, can we address this lack of transparency; has an issue with not being able to see the questions; found out at a meeting that there are some questions that no one got right?
Response: The first batch of questions were released online in November.PARCC says this year Maryland will have scores 4 weeks after the test is taken.
Consent Agenda Items
Consent motions were now made and approved as the board had reached quorum.
Information and Discussion
Local, State and Federally Mandated Assessments
Dr. Henry Johnson, chief academic officer, briefed the board regarding the Commission to Review Maryland’s Use of Assessments and Testing in Public Schools,created as a result of HB 452/Chapter 421.
Highlights included:
- MSDE surveyed local school systems in June and July 2015; report was submitted August 2015
- School systems and interested groups submitted comments on the report to the SBOE by November 30, 2015
- The charge is now for the board to respond to the report and add any comments; MSDE will help to compile that information.
- The commission will meet monthly, starting in November, 2015.
- MSDE received data from all 24 LEAs –we looked for consistency in the reports, looked at impact on schools, looked at duplicity, looked at types of testing
- Based on their report, some LEAs have gone back and reduced their testing for the 2015-16 school year
- Comments were received from 28 local boards of education and education organizations; comments were placed in three major categories:
- Assessments – their impacts on schools, school day and instruction
- Duplicative testing
- Types, uses and purpose of tests
- MSDE staff needs to hear from the board as to what you want to include in your response; MSDE staff will help you with documents.
Response: LEAs only needed to report what assessment items that all students in a grade or subject would have to take in a county; not everyone takes the same tests from county to county.
Mr. Giammopointed out, so this data is worthless – almost more dangerous to try to make a decision based on this.
Ms. Eberhart commented that there seems to be a discrepancy from the Baltimore Sun’s report on Anne Arundel County having 22 hours of testing, yet here the school system reported 8 hours. Very different.
Response: What are the mandated tests, centrally mandated by the district, is what was asked; not what is done by teachers or a team of teachers at a school. Broad based research question like that need more specific criteria.
Additional Board Members Comments:
- These data are not a meaningful metric of time spent on testing.
- Maryland has screwed up a lot of things as to what the locals do vs. what the states do.
- Testing is a local item – if folks don’t like what is happening, vote out your local board.
- This does give some meaningfulinformation in some way - to see what the board thought of as a federal or state problem - now we know this is not necessarily true.
- Dr. Smith and Dr. Johnson and others went and met with the LEAs – most stated they are in a transition year. Maryland is rethinking what is being done.
- MSDE has all the corresponding data for each LEA and will be passing it along to the Commission.
Mr. Andrew Smarick, SBOE member,pointed out if this is not a centralized problem let’s not create a centralized solution.
Dr. Smith stated that MSDE will craft a document and send to Mr. Smarick and Mr. Smith for approval which will then be sent to the General Assembly and simultaneously to the rest of the SBOE.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
Dr. Smith began this discussion by pointing out that we are in a very different place than where we thought we’d be; had to rethink a plan as the US House of Representatives passed the reauthorization bill for ESEA and the Senate may be passing it as we speak; we thought we would be presenting and debating amendments.
Dr. Mary Gable, assistant state superintendent, Academic Policy & Innovation,informed the board what Maryland had promised in regards to the ESEA Flexibility Renewal
Highlights included:
- Currently focusing on developing systems of differentiated recognition, accountability and support.
- Maryland’s waiver was approved for 3 years (through 2017-2018)pending reauthorization of ESEA.
- Maryland committed to submitting further information regarding accountability, low performing school identification and Teacher Principal Evaluation (TPE) to U.S. Education Department (USED) in January and June 2016.
- A workgroup was created that includes superintendents, MSEA, BTU, elementary and secondary principals, etc. to guide this work.
- Maryland isconsidered a flex state;Maryland has been given a pause for accountability on LEAs and schools, but we do need to continue to look at students and subgroups.
- For this year, we only have one year of data from PARCC. Therefore, we have some rules for this year only.
- The workgroup on accountability was set up for 2 years. We may now ask for an extension on the report due on Jan 31st because of the new law; depends on what we get in guidance.
- USED said we must submit TPE data by June 2016 – we willprobably get new guidance on this, as well.ATPE Timeline slide was shown.
Comments:
Mr. Finn inquired when the new rules kick in for Maryland.
Response: Our understanding is we are operating under flex. Once the law is signed by the President, some things kick in:
- On August 1, 2016, ESEA flex will stop
- 2016-17 is a transition year. The state will still need to support low performing schools.
- MSDE anticipates that by 2017-18 all plans need to be in place and everything will be implemented.
Ms. Eberhart asked if waivers are being looked at?
Response: No waivers at this time.
Mr. Smith cautioned thatthe board needs to be thoughtful in what we want to do.
Mr. Giammotried to clarify that the law is now telling us that we do not need to do anything we had previously done regarding TPE?The board now has 8 months to decide if we want to continue TPE as it is currently or change it?
Response: Dr. Smith pointed to the Education Reform Act of 2010 that holds some of these requirements in the Maryland State Education section of COMAR.
Dr. Gable continued bystating that the board would like to put a pause on the Maryland Integrated Science Assessment.
Dr. Smith explainedthat this is a compliance issue based on what was set by this board in 2013; under the new Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), it would be an amendment. Maryland is not doing waivers on Science now.
Ms. Haisletcontinued that Maryland had put an Accountability “Pause” last year.
- Needed to reset our Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs)
- Still need to report progress
- Still need to implement interventions
- 2016-17 is a transition year, but with the new ESSA, there are unknowns.
- Academic Year 2014-15 acted as both the baseline and the first year of incremental targets
- The recommendation is that for reporting against the 2014-15 assessment results, the state should use the LEA performance to establish school-level targets and the State performance to establish the LEA-level targets
- Schools meeting or exceeding the LEA performance for All Students or Student Group will have “MET” the target
- Schools below the LEA performance for All Students or Student Group will have “Not Met” the target
- LEA performance and State performance will be determined by looking at the percent of students that are proficient