District/School Administration Administration
Board in Brief

Thursday, April 17, 1997

This is Board in Brief, issued at the request of Commissioner Bob Antonucci, to bring you up to date on Board of Education developments of interest to the Department staff. The following is a report on the Board meeting held on Monday, April 14, 1997 at the Gerena Community School in Springfield.

History/Social Science Framework

The major item on the Board's agenda was discussion of the latest draft of the History/Social Science framework. Disagreement over whether to approve the framework, or to work on further refinements, was the focus. The Board did not vote on the framework, since Chairman John Silber ruled that under the by-laws, a vote would require a two-thirds majority because the Board had not previously discussed this version of the framework. Members who urged immediate passage argued that the newest draft was merely an amended version of material that had been discussed by the Board at previous meetings.

Chairman Silber appointed a new committee to review and further refine the History/Social Science framework for approval by the Board in May or June. He named Board members Patricia Crutchfield, Edwin Delattre and William Irwin, Jr. to the committee, and said they will be joined by educators from elementary, secondary and higher education.

Chairman Silber acknowledged the work of the Board committee that produced the latest draft of the framework. He said that group, composed of members James Peyser, Roberta Schaefer and Abigail Thernstrom, made "remarkable progress" since it was formed in December. Commissioner Robert Antonucci said "we have followed an open process for developing and seeking comment on the draft framework." Chairman Silber said he has dismissed the committee, and it is time to proceed.

"This is the most difficult framework to complete," said Chairman Silber. "It touches everyone's lives, and everyone has an opinion on it. I have high regard for this framework. My intention is to make it better. We have come so far. It would be unfortunate to snip off discussion and accelerate the process in a way that forces us to make unnecessary mistakes. It is wise to take additional time. This framework will be around for a long time."

Chairman Silber and Dr. Delattre offered criticisms of several aspects of the current draft. They questioned what they called overly ambitious expectations. Some of the material, they said, might be too difficult for students in the early grades to master, and they wondered whether it is possible to cover so much material in breadth and depth in the course of a pre-Kindergarten through grade 12 education.

"There is so much to be covered that schools cannot do it justice, and I think there is a dreadful risk of superficiality," said Dr. Delattre, who highlighted comments that he had detailed in a 17-page critique submitted to Board members a few days earlier. Among other points, Dr. Delattre expressed serious concern that this framework would cause undue disruption because it would compel schools to move the teaching of American history to grades 9 and 10, rather than grade 11 where it is now more commonly taught.

Chairman Silber and Dr. Delattre also said they would prefer to see standards established for each grade level, instead of for broad grade spans, to provide guidance to teachers and greater program consistency for students transferring from one school district to another. Ms. Crutchfield expressed concern that the theme of diversity is not as strong in the current draft as it was in earlier versions.

In urging further revision of the framework, Chairman Silber also referred to a letter signed by 29 members of the Legislature requesting that the Board convene a new committee of teachers and others to develop a final framework suitable for statewide adoption.

Board members who urged immediate approval of the framework argued that the drafters had successfully addressed many of the concerns voiced during the public comment period. Mr. Peyser outlined changes that were made since the March draft, including partially integrating the learning standards and core knowledge in history, reducing the major subject areas to encourage depth as well as breadth, and strengthening the treatment of non-Western history.

Dr. Thernstrom added that approval of the document this month would not preclude later refinements, as was done with previous frameworks the Board has adopted. "This is a living document," she said. "It is time to end the top-down process and let teachers use the framework in the field."

Dr. Schaefer said it is important to get the framework to schools at the earliest opportunity so that it can be used in classrooms this September. Further delays, she said, could interfere with the Board's schedule for implementing the statewide assessments. Dr. Schaefer also said she believes Dr. Delattre objects to the current draft because he would like Dr. Paul Gagnon, primary author of the October draft framework, to be more involved in the final document. Dr. Delattre refuted the assertion, and said his objections to the current draft are based strictly on its merits.

Performance Levels

The Board began a preliminary discussion of the performance levels to be used on the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System. Commissioner Antonucci stated to the Board that "The next step in the development of the MCAS is establishing student performance standards. Performance standards answer the question, 'How good will be good enough?' The response to this question will send a powerful message to parents, educators and policy makers about the high academic standards we expect." Chairman Silber said he was impressed with the sample definitions corresponding to the "proficient" performance level, and that they show this effort is "on the right track." The Board will discuss this issue further in the coming months.

Regulations

The Board took action on two regulatory items. First, the Board authorized the Commissioner to solicit public comment on proposed regulations on dispute resolution under the Parental Notification Law, G.L. c. 71, § 32A. The proposed regulations govern the resolution of disputes arising under the new state statute concerning notice, access to instructional materials, and student exemptions with respect to curriculum that primarily involves human sexual education or human sexuality issues. The regulations are designed to encourage local school officials to prevent and resolve disputes at their level. For disputes that reach the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, the proposed regulations are designed to keep the state-level resolution process flexible, rather than mandating a formal adjudicatory hearing in every case.

Following the period of public comment, the Board is expected to vote on approval of the proposed regulations in June.

The Board also voted to adopt amendments to the regulations on School Building Assistance, increasing school construction cost standards by 4% effective July 1, 1997. The new rates are: $153 per square foot for elementary schools; $163 per square foot for middle schools and junior high schools; $174 per square foot for high schools; and $185 per square foot for vocational schools.

The next regular meeting of the Board of Education will be held on Monday, May 12, 1997, at Melrose High School.