The School Committee on Wednesday, Dec. 11, discussed MCAS, the Am I Ready diagnostics and the state assessment, so parents and the community could see how students are doing.
MCAS scores, officials reported are commensurate with end-of-year performance compared with other schools in the state, but the bulk of discussion focused on curriculum in the wake of some parental concerns.
Assistant Superintendent of Schools George Ferro said the district is making moderate progress toward educational targets.
“We’ve done this in the past,” said Ferro of the review. “We’ve done this in different ways. We’ve done it with, simply, what have we done with our curriculum, We’ve done it with an MCAS presentation, we’ve done it with the diagnostics and what our students are learning. Today, we’ve combined it all, because we do live in a different time as far as the threat to the internet.”
He said educators are still not completely certain of where the issue is going to go with respect to graduation requirements.
The district now knows that’s no longer a graduation requirement and that the district has received two different FAQs (frequently asked question filed) from the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education as to where they might be going, according to Ferro.
He and Assistant Superintendent of Equity and Compliance, Dr. Nicole Semas-Schneeweis offered the presentation together.
“We’re going to try to give you a synopsis of what we do, why we do it and the reasons for it,” Ferro said. “What we do is based on credible laws.”
Two federal laws govern curriculum – No Child Left Behind and the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), both of which require proof of effectiveness in some way in order to secure continuing funding.
“Basically, the feds tell the states what needs to take place, and the states come up with what they do, they enact it and we have to cooperate,” Ferro said.
Semas-Schneeweis added that No Child Left Behind, demanded that interventions required since 1955 had to be scientifically based and ESSA added the requirement that they also be evidence-based.
“We are mandated to follow this federal law and choose curriculum material that are evidence-based that meet that criteria,” she said. “We don’t determine that. Curriculum developers must go out and make their own studies, submit those studies and then they get vetted. So, when you see a curriculum developer partner with an agency or a third party, that is what they are mandated to do under this law, and that is not always clear.”
Ferro emphasized that no decisions are made without evidence and a proper process.
DESE does that work and lets school districts know which curricula meet those requirements.
“There are regulations and requirements about digital learning as well,” Semas-Schneeweis said. “The pandemic just exacerbated the digital learning requirement.”
The state also has a digital literacy component to its education regulations.
She stressed that digital learning programs must also be active, rather than having students merely sitting at a computer.
Some curricula, such as My Path, adjust to the deficiencies an advancements of students. Ferro and Semas-Schneeweis said.
“Sometimes a parent will say, ‘My child is exposed to material he has not learned,’” Ferro said. “Yes, because at that point in time his diagnostic is saying he’s at a higher grade level than where he’s at.”
Semas-Schneeweis said teachers are an important part of the equation as the instructional piece, making the time to work with those students about 10 minutes a day in a station model.
Committee member Glenn DiGravio asked about the curriculum’s adjustment to students with a deficit and whether they are tested at that deficit level and how students catch up.
“There are no grades on your path,” Ferro said. “It’s helping you in your deficit skills while you’re still in math class at that grade level. … The goal of this is to say where you’re at, what grade level you’re at, what your deficits are, and then give you a plan to catch that up.”
“That’s awesome,” DiGravio said. “I just didn’t want to see students getting left behind and still getting the trophy.”
Member Rosemary Connolly said she assumed the discussion came up because of questions to the schools, asking what the path is if a child is not comfortable in their spaces and with technology at the same time, or a particular tool is helping a child.
Semas-Schneeweis said a teaching team might decide supplemental work is needed,
“No program, curriculum, technology is perfect or is going to replace good teaching,” said committee member Kara Moser. “As a teacher, I also use I Ready, not as a core curriculum, but as with the diagnostic and the My Path – there are some areas that are not perfect, However, I think it is part of thinking holistically, especially when we’re thinking about elementary level.”
Committee member Stephanie Blackman said it is also important to determine if a child who is struggling is it an issue is not being comfortable with the technology or an issue with not being comfortable with the material.
“We have a core curriculum, and this is a supplemental curriculum,” Ferro said.
Committee member Dawn Byers, going into budget season, asked that the committee be able to review the cost vs life cycle of curricula.
Following the curriculum discussion, the committee got down to talking about that parent letter.
The School Committee received a parent letter via the U.S. Postal Service Monday, Nov. 18, which was opened the next day. The letter addressed kindergarten and some of the curriculum features.
“I usually don’t get [mail that way],” Superintendent of School Jeff Szymaniak said. “I usually get everything by email.”
Semas-Schneeweis reviewed the letter to put together some information to present to the committe, according to Szymaniak.
“I didn’t want you to get something blind, because I knew the next question we were going to get was, ‘what is this and what do we do about it?’” he said to the committee.
School Committee member Dawn Byers said her concern centered around parental consent, which was bullet point number three on the letter’s reverse, which outlined the requirement for “parental consent if there is a potential for data collection.”
“This parent seems concerned about consent and approval,” she said, noting that she did a search through district school policy documents, which are available online, including [Sec. IJND] curriculum and instruction, where a section headed “permission and agreement form.”
“My question to follow up, is that our policy says, ‘a written parental request shall be required prior to the student being granted independent access to electronic media,’ and that the required permission agreement form shall be signed by the parent, and also by the student,” Byers said. “I’d be happy to make a motion to send this to our policy subcommittee, if we need to review ‘pemission and agreement form.’”
She made a similar motion to allow discussion on Sec. IJNDb, which is the access policy where there is another signature access agreement, primarily concerning the laptops that go out with students, but also mentions parental signature and agreement.
“Educational software companies don’t collect students’ personal data,” said Committee member Hillary Kniffen, who is also a teacher in another district. “It’s education policy beyond us that companies that bring in educational material electronically do not collect private data from students.”
Byers said that wasn’t her biggest concern. “The concern, actually, is the student was given a device and started using it, and the parent said, ‘What if I don’t want my child using it?’” she said. “So, we’re offering consent – it might actually exist.” She questioned if the district was asking a kindergartener to sign a form.
“I don’t see a problem with bringing that to the policy subcommittee,” Szymaniak said.
“It was probably written before all of this, too, so it probably needs to be looked at anyway,” Chair Beth Stafford said.
Szymaniak said a motion may not even be needed, but agreed to work within one if the Committee wanted to. The Committee gave unanimous approval to referring the issue to the policy subcommittee.