1. Presentation to the Rhode Island Association of School Committees: A Comparative Analysis of Education Governance in Rhode Island and Massachusetts John Simmons January 14, 2016

2. Table of Contents Introduction Background Student Demographics and Education Funding Levels Student Performance Conceptual Framework for Analysis Constitutional and Legal History Education Reform Education Governance State Level Local Level Other Issues Summary 2

3. Introduction Problem statement: Why do students in Massachusetts outperform students in Rhode Island? Explored potential structural causes: Student demographics; and Education funding levels. RI and MA have similar student demographics and education funding levels – must be another cause What role might education governance play? Initial findings suggest that RI and MA have very different state and local governance structures for education. Findings are preliminary – still more work to be done. Want to discuss with RIASC, Dr. Ken Wagner and others. 3

4. Background 4

5. 5

6. 6

7. 7

8. 8

9. 9

10. 10

11. Background 11

12. Student Performance 12

13. Conceptual Framework for Analysis 13 Attempted to explore the differences in education governance between RI and MA by examining the following: State constitutional provisions; Education reform efforts; State statutes; The impact of legal decisions; Powers and responsibilities of each state’s commissioner of education; Which individual(s) or bodies have the power to make personnel and budgetary decisions, develop and implement curriculum; How teacher/staff performance is evaluated; Educator professional development; Collective bargaining; Teacher licensure process and requirements; and Standardized test requirements

14. Constitutional and Legal History 14 RI and MA state constitutions and legal history demonstrate fundamental differences in how education is viewed, who is responsible for providing it and the role equity plays. Although the relevant text of each state’s constitution is similar, it has been interpreted very differently in the courts. In MA, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the state constitution imposes an enforceable duty to provide an education for all of the state’s children, regardless of any community’s economic standing. By contrast, the RI Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution does not guarantee equitable school funding and that decisions regarding state support of education were the sole province of the legislature.

15. Education Reform 15 In 1993, MA adopted the Massachusetts Education Reform Act (MERA). MERA has five strategic goals: Ensure standards and programs for students that ensure high achievement; Establish a fair and equitable system of school finance; Reform school and district governance to improve student learning; Enhance the quality and accountability of all school personnel; and Introduce new models of school organization, finance and parental participation.

16. Education Reform 16 MERA also introduced the following elements to the MA school system: A school council in every school; Continuing education for educators; Greater authority for school principals; More clearly defined roles for school committees; and Measureable statewide standards for students and schools. MERA also mandated high-stakes testing based on new curriculum standards that every student was required to pass in order to receive a diploma. Key takeaway: MA enacted education reform on a comprehensive basis.

17. Education Reform 17 RI has also engaged in education reform efforts in recent years. Updated the Basic Education Program (BEP); Implemented a Uniform Chart of Accounts (UCOA) to track education expenditures; Established a statewide school funding formula; and Reformed the structure of the state Board of Education into a single body. In comparison to MA, RI has implemented education reform in a less comprehensive fashion accomplished through a combination of legislation, regulation and guidance issued by RIDE.

18. Education Governance: State Level 18 MA utilizes a secretariat model of state education governance, while RI utilizes a department model. The MA Commissioner of Education works in conjunction with the state board of education and has great flexibility to implement education policy. In RI, the Commissioner of Education takes on a more supportive role and, by statute, must receive approval or certification from the board of education before taking a number of actions. The language of each state’s statutes differs in how it defines the commissioner’s duties. MA language is directional: it sets desired outcomes and provides flexibility in reaching those outcomes. RI language is prescriptive; it tells the commissioner exactly what to do and how to do it.

19. Education Governance: Local Level 19 RI and MA differ greatly in terms of education governance at the local level. One of the major reforms under MERA was to move towards a school-based management model in which the majority of personnel and operational decision-making authority rests with the school principal. This change removed personnel decisions from the school committees and, as a result, established clear and direct lines of accountability for educators. In MA, school principals have the authority to hire, evaluate and dismiss teachers and their staff, subject to approval of the superintendent. Additionally, school principals are authorized to make all purchasing and curriculum decisions within a framework established by each school committee.

20. Education Governance: Local Level 20 In contrast to the MA model, the entire care, control and management of public school interests are vested in school committees in RI. In RI, all school personnel decisions, including the hiring and firing of superintendents, principals, teachers and other school personnel are made by school committees.

21. Other Issues 21 RI and MA also differ in their approaches to professional development, standardized testing, teacher licensure and evaluation and curriculum. Professional Development: MA Commissioner, in consultation with board of education, develops an annual plan for providing statewide assistance for preparing and implementing prof. development plans. Every MA school district also adopts and implements a prof. development plan for principals, teachers and other staff. RI delegates most prof. development responsibility to individual LEAs and provides annual appropriations in support of these efforts.

22. Other Issues 22 Standardized Testing MA has embraced “high-stakes” standardized tests as a high school graduation requirement since MERA was enacted. RI planned to implement testing requirements for graduation, but the General Assembly delayed implementation until 2017 and the state board of education further delayed testing requirements until 2020. Teacher Licensure MA requires teachers to pass the state-specific Massachusetts Tests for Educator Licensure (MTEL); no other tests are accepted and licenses must be renewed every five years. RI requires teachers to pass Praxis Series exams, which are used in 46 states across the nation; licenses must be renewed every five years (initial licenses after three years).

23. Other Issues 23 Teacher Evaluation In MA, standards for evaluating teachers, principals and administrators are developed by the state board of education and implemented by each superintendent. MA results from 2013-2014 found 8.1 percent of teachers received the highest ranking of “exemplary.” In RI, five different teacher evaluation models were used during the 2013-2014 school year. RI results from 2013-2014 found 56.6 percent of teachers received the highest ranking of “highly effective.” Curriculum In MA, curriculum frameworks are developed by the state Dept. of Education and allows LEAs to develop more specific curricula using these frameworks. In RI, each LEA develops its own curriculum aligned to the Common Core State Standards.

24. Other Issues 24 Collective Bargaining RI and MA both guarantee teachers the right to negotiate and collectively bargain. RI state law excludes superintendents, assistant superintendents, principals, assistant principals and other supervisors above the rank of assistant principal from collective bargaining. MA state law guarantees the right to collective bargaining to all public employees, including the positions excluded under RI law. Agreements in both states may not exceed three years. RI and MA both authorize teachers to bargain on issues related to wages, hours and other terms of employment.

25. Summary 25 RI and MA have very similar student demographics and education funding levels. Despite similar demographics and funding, MA students outperform RI students by substantial margins on most standardized tests. RI and MA have different education governance structures at the state and local levels. These differences in governance are evident in terms of who has responsibility for making personnel, budgetary and accountability decisions.

26. Questions? How can the discussion of education governance and other education issues be moved forward? Should the roles and responsibilities of the different bodies and individuals involved in education governance be reviewed? Should there be an increased emphasis on a school-based management structure? 26

27. Contact Us Find us on the web: www.ripec.org Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/RIPEC_ Like us on Facebook: Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council 27