MCAS Resolution (10 minutes)

Transcript (~17 min @ 43:16)

Speakers identified by voice; unnamed voices are numbered within this recording. Auto-caption text — verify against the video.

▶ 43:15 Speaker 7: Mr. Selm please thank you so the overarching purpose here is to reaffirm to the community that all are welcome that racism and bigotry have no place place in our schools, in our classrooms, or on our exams. While there are certainly greater topics for discussion here, namely the invalidity or validity, however you view it, of high stakes testing, this resolution is aimed at pushing the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education to hold them accountable, such that they should not punish students who took the role of whistleblower, and that if we must operate under a high stakes model, They release their exam questions to districts at the conclusion of the testing year to ensure egregious errors such as this do not happen again. It is important to note a couple things. First, the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education upon hearing the public, upon the public learning of this ELA writing prompt pulled it from exams that had not yet been administered and agreed to disregard answers to this question for whom, for those who took exam already. Also, there are five groups back in April who came out in a public statement stating that just this, that they should hold the exam, DESE should hold the exam harmless. Those five groups, the Massachusetts Teachers Association, the Boston Teachers Union, the American Federation of Teachers Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Education Justice Alliance, and the New England Area Conference of the NAACP. And they want it held harmless, regardless of whether the question was removed or was present at the time the students took them, and regardless of how the students scored. My intent is that you review the letter and the resolution, and at this time, I invite and expect suggestions and comments for revision. The intent here is to have you discern over this and that we return with an updated document set for discussion and vote at the next meeting. At this time and with your leave, I would read the letter to Desi. Dated June 11th, 2019, the Honorable Jeffrey C. Riley, Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education, the Honorable Katherine Cronin, Chair of the Massachusetts Board of elementary and secondary education 75 pleasant street malden massachusetts commissioner reilly chair Cronin we the members of the mo school committee sorry lost my place are writing to request the department of elementary and secondary education exempt all students who took the 2019 10th grade mcas exam from the graduation requirement this exam was flawed containing a writing prompt from Colson Whitehead's The Underground Railroad where students were asked to write from the point of view of an openly racist character who actively forsakes slaves attempting to flee to freedom. This question, which required students to adopt a racist point of view in answering the prompt, only provides seeds for furthering racial divides, fostering marginalization and bigotry and has no place in today's educational landscape further we request the department of elementary and secondary education adopt the policy of releasing old mcas exam questions to districts across the commonwealth to ensure no such egregious errors happen again we thank you for considering our views and for all you do for the great commonwealth of massachusetts sincerely members of the city of melrose school committee

▶ 47:10 Speaker 7: very good thank you for that at your leave I can read the resolution itself I'll be it I believe everyone can read it themselves should they feel the need

▶ 47:19 Speaker 1: thank you for that and thank you for bringing this forward both of those documents are in the packet are there any comments or questions at this time

▶ 47:27 Speaker 7: yeah if I may I would ask that if you do propose things tonight please put them in writing for me later so I can properly add them proper thank you so

▶ 47:39 Jennifer McAndrew: much for bringing this up I think it's really important I just wanted to point out I guess for discussion or for your consideration that I think that the language in the resolution itself is not quite the same as alleged the language in the letter and so I think we should sort of make a decision on which way to go so for example in the to make it consistent I think you would want to for example add the word English before MCAS or after MCAS to make clear that this was being held harmless in the 10th grade MCAS English exam not which is in the resolution but not in the letter I wouldn't I don't think we're implying that we would suggest this applies to math and biology so that was one thing and then in the letter and you mentioned this when you're in the resolution it says you know be it resolved to exempt students who took the test with the rejected question but the letter just says to exempt students who took the test and so I think we need to decide what which sort of which we mean and then either make the resolution consistent with the letter or vice versa because it is a big difference I mean I understand that either way this is just a request putting forward our views to the Commissioner to do as he will but I do think we should make that clear so again going back to the conversation

▶ 49:15 Speaker 5: we've been having equity if you just reject the kids who took the test with the objectionable question there are other students who still then I know that need the ELA for their graduation is that what you're getting at I'm not

▶ 49:32 Jennifer McAndrew: suggesting that right or wrong I'm just saying that what we have in two documents does saying both things and so we we need to make I would think the resolution consistent with what you said and what's in the letter if we mean holding all students who took the 10th grade MCAS in 2019 harmless from the graduation requirement then we should say that in the resolution to not just

▶ 49:57 Jennifer McAndrew: students who took because we don't know right who i mean well they know they know but we don't know

▶ 50:04 Speaker 9: they know but we do not know right mr obramsky yeah i would like to see it just cover the entire mcast i mean the ela test is given first it completely disrupted uh the testing environment for all students across the state uh it was uh very obvious that the question was inappropriate but I mean that the MCAS test itself as a high-stakes test it that's what it's evolved into originally that wasn't its intent its intent was originally just a line curriculum across the state and it was given only in fourth eighth and tenth grade and then it's evolved into this test that's really bigger than life some school districts it just encompasses almost everything they do which is ridiculous and it's a test based more on selling textbooks than anything then really trying to see what kids are doing or what they are learning and I think that can be emphasized just by this one question that we're talking but I I can reference questions that go back years we we had a question many years ago revolving around a snow day it was an essay question and that's when they released all the questions but in the district where I work we hadn't had a snow day in two years and we have kids from all over the world they had no idea what a snow day was and they're answering a question oh it's a great day it's a snow day and the assumption that a snow day is a great day was crazy because it's not a great day for some kids it disrupts their whole day so I think we really should emphasize the fact that you know we are in complete

▶ 51:52 Speaker 9: disagreement with this as a graduation requirement for any student who took the

▶ 52:01 Speaker 4: MCAS test you know it's it's an interesting that you bring it up John

▶ 52:03 Speaker 5: because we were just talking about cultural responsiveness and it's a test that's never been culturally responsive my favorite story is about the fourth grade math test

▶ 52:14 Speaker 5: in which they had asked kids to find the diameter of a patio there were kids who didn't know what a

▶ 52:18 Speaker 9: patio was no equestrian some of the questions revolve around equestrian right it's it's it's absolutely ridiculous the way that some of the questions are formulated and that they're ASSUMED TO BE VETTED, BUT I DON'T KNOW.

▶ 52:35 Speaker 1: MS. MCKINDREA, PLEASE.

▶ 52:38 Jennifer McAndrew: SO JUST BUILDING ON THAT, I WONDER THEN IF THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO EXPAND THIS LETTER EVEN FURTHER, NOT TO GIVE MR. SELM MORE WORK, AND I'M HAPPY TO HELP, TO TALK ABOUT ALL OF THESE ISSUES AROUND HIGH-STAKES TESTING. AND THIS IS OBVIOUSLY A BLATANT EXAMPLE, AND WE KNOW ABOUT IT ONLY, AS YOU POINTED OUT, BECAUSE OF STUDENTS AND THEIR their educators who advocated who stepped forward and talked about it when they're instructed not to actually um so i wonder if that i mean i'm just wondering if given mr ramsay's comments if that's something that the committee is interested in um making a slightly more expansive statement

▶ 53:22 Margaret Raymond Driscoll: using this as an example mr please um i think that's a really interesting um idea i do think I think that there is benefit sometimes in asking for something very specific at a specific time with a specific request and an outcome date. Like you want, I think you're asking to do something within a certain period of time that affects certain students. And I think, I would hate to see that message get lost in a bigger issue that sometimes evokes emotion around people. I'm not opposed to having that kind of discussion. I just would hate to muddy the waters, and I think it would give us more time to reflect on the larger issue. And any position we might want to take.

▶ 54:08 Speaker 7: Just a thought. Mr. Sall, please. If I may redirect, to all three of my colleagues' points. This, or some version of this that is very limited, already passed uh medford school committee and somerville school committee and is under discussion in malding currently that i'm aware of um i would welcome a greater resolution i think mr school's point to a narrow view is helpful um and and very pointed um I might suggest, Ms. McAndrew, that we look at this in concert with a second one that looks at a greater issue.

▶ 54:54 Speaker 2: Ms. McAndrew, please.

▶ 54:55 Jennifer McAndrew: That's fine with me. I'm actually not suggesting changing the resolution itself. I'm talking about changing the preamble in the letter. Really? Because I think Mr. Obremski is bringing up important context about this sort of, I agree, we're asking for this one specific thing around this egregious example, but it's it is indicative of a pattern and that of that is not maybe known to many people and and there are other issues around high-stakes testing that and disparities among students that I think is probably worth you know writing into the setting the context of the letter but I'm not suggesting besides the few changes I recommended to the resolution I'm not suggesting changing what we're actually asking them to do this year back to the strategic

▶ 55:50 Speaker 5: plan to we were talking a lot about cultural competence and responsive teaching and learning and that if a test doesn't match our values that we should definitely have a longer deeper conversation about it because you know I think everyone around the table is very invested in having an inclusive district inclusive practices and also uh trying to work on you know the problem of racism as it exists in our world so um i i also enjoyed the comments made during public comment we could potentially look at the letter that was offered to us today but not tonight to make any decisions about but we can certainly have that influence our conversation further because i think we all all want the same thing which is one community open to all and if we're going to challenge you know I think DESE offers great training that I've gone to about lots of different things and it's good to reflect back to them that if they want teachers and educators to be excellent that they have to offer an excellent product too so I don't think we're going to ever get to the point where we have to we can get rid of standardized testing because I think It's part of the world that we live in right now, but we can certainly ask for what they would want from us. I think that's appropriate.

▶ 57:12 Speaker 1: Well said. Mr. Wierbski.

▶ 57:14 Speaker 9: I think also, from the Department of Ed's standpoint, they're always saying data drives instruction, data drives instruction, and that's been the emphasis for years. In the past, they've dismissed the fact that now we're taking the test, it's completely computer-based, and all the data, if you looked at it through the years, kids would perform better if it were paper paper and pencil they completely dismissed that the idea that for years the department of ed has said you know we're not ranking school districts we don't rank school districts like the boston globe would publish a ranking of school districts now there is a percentage there's a rank on the accountability standards i i think that the idea that they're going to allow this question to go by a kid taking that test seeing that question what did that do to that kid on that day and it just further emphasizes what we were saying earlier like parents can't rely that right rely on this test as an indicator of their child success the best indicator of a child's success is to go and talk to your kid's teacher and they will tell you how the child is doing how the child is performing and the child's growth but this this test in this specific test this year the 10th grade test is it should be completely dismissed by anyone who wants to have a fair and equitable testing practice it's just it's ridiculous thank you very good thank you any further

▶ 58:52 Speaker 1: comments questions alrighty so more to come on this it sounds like some work to be done do you have any final comments or thoughts as to how we should proceed

▶ 59:01 Speaker 7: in this regard mr. some so as to not violate any open meeting law what is the

▶ 59:13 Speaker 7: best way to to to invite comment and revision so I would say at the next

▶ 59:19 Margaret Raymond Driscoll: meeting if you would maybe consider the suggestions that have been made this evening and everybody come with any additional suggestions we will have the packet at the same time as the public on Friday we read that and we come with any additions and they can be discussed and we can reach consensus and and as per my

▶ 59:41 Speaker 7: understanding if miss McAndrew and I were to collaborate on this it would not be it would still be within the norms excellent thank you very good thank you