Accountability Feedback Survey Results Presented to the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education December 18, 2018

Background Survey sent to Superintendents, principals and various stakeholder organizations in the state Open from October 29th to November 16th (reminder sent November 12th) 439 responses with at least one question answered beyond name “Choice” type questions had a much higher response rate than open- ended suggestions Small majority of respondents reported as being “Satisfied” or “Very Satisfied” with the new accountability system

Who responded to the survey? Group Response # Response % All Respondents 439 100% District Leader 179 41% School Leader 144 32% School Committee 90 21% Educator/Content Coach 22 5% Advocacy Organizations* 4 1% Urban Supts. Network 48 11% Charter 26 6% Regional Vocational 23 * Included MASC, MCPSA and MBAE

How well did respondents understand the system? Group Response # Understand Well Understand Most Understand Some Do Not All Respondents 438 29% 49% 20% 2% District Leader 178 42% 8% 0% School Leader 144 26% 51% 23% 1% School Committee 90 7% 39% 6% Educator/Content Coach 22 27% 36% 9% Advocacy Organizations 4 50% Urban Supts. Network 48 38% 48% 10% 4% Charter School 26 58% Regional Vocational/Tech. 23 18% 57% 22%

How satisfied were respondents with the new system? Group Response # Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very All Respondents 439 2% 51% 42% 5% District Leader 179 58% 38% School Leader 144 48% 8% School Committee 90 52% 37% 9% Educator/Content Coach 22 50% 41% Advocacy Organizations 4 0% 25% 75% Urban Supts. Network 48 35% Charter School 26 Regional Vocational/Tech. 23 83% 13% 4%

How did understanding impact satisfaction? Group Response # Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very All Respondents 438 2% 51% 42% 5% Understand Well 126 6% 50% 36% 8% Understand Most 215 1% 53% 44% 3% Understand Some 89 0% Do Not Understand 8 25% 38%

How valuable is the normative component (school percentile)? Group Response # Very Valuable Valuable Somewhat Not All Respondents 377 16% 49% 30% 6% District Leader 161 15% 47% 32% School Leader 121 19% 48% 28% 5% School Committee 73 14% 55% 26% Educator/Content Coach 18 22% 56% 17% Advocacy Organizations* 4 25% Urban Supts. Network 42 52% 7% Charter School 23 35% Regional Vocational/Tech. 19 21% 68% 11% 0%

How valuable is the criterion-referenced component (target percentage)? Group Response # Very Valuable Valuable Somewhat Not All Respondents 378 15% 42% 33% 9% District Leader 161 20% 39% 32% School Leader 121 10% 45% 13% School Committee 74 14% 35% 7% Educator/Content Coach 18 5% 61% 0% Advocacy Organizations* 4 25% 75% Urban Supts. Network 42 31% 43% 24% 2% Charter School 23 22% 30% Regional Vocational/Tech. 19 11% 63% 21%

How valuable were different components of the system? Group Response # Very Valuable Somewhat Not Need for Assistance/Not 378 7% 30% 39% 24% Reason for Classification 8% 44% 17% Lowest Performing Students 377 18% 42% 9% Lowest Performing Subgroups 366 20% 48% 31% 4% Participation 376 6% Chronic Absence 372 15% 32% 29% Dropout 12% 49% 11% Extended Engagement Rate 10% 41% 33% 16% Advanced Coursework 38% 19%

How should indicators in non-high schools be weighted? Response # Increase Weight Keep the Same Decrease Weight Achievement (60%) 340 16% 51% 33% District Leader 151 13% 52% 35% School Leader 109 22% 46% 32% School Committee 59 15% 64% 20% Growth (20%) 341 42% 50% 8% 48% 49% 3% 110 43% 45% 24% 12% EL Progress (10%) 9% 73% 19% Chronic Absenteeism (10%) 4%

How should indicators in high schools be weighted? Response # Increase Weight Keep the Same Decrease Weight Achievement (40%) 339 31% 53% 17% District Leader 151 32% 52% 16% School Leader 108 26% 48% School Committee 59 27% 61% 12% Growth (20%) 33% 57% 10% 37% 7% 14% 25% 63% HS Completion (20%) 9% 68% 22% EL Progress (10%) 6% 73% 21% Chronic Abs./Adv. Course (10%) 49% 42%

What additional indicators should be included for non-HS? Only 130 responses to this open question Most frequent response was some variation of “None” (52) Others mentioned included: School climate/student feedback Access to the arts Educator attendance Suspension School spending K-2 Accountability

What additional indicators should be included for high school? Only 130 responses to this open question Many of the same as non-HS Additional ideas mentioned included: Broader definition of advanced coursework Postsecondary enrollment Extra-curricular participation 9th grade success

What else is on your mind? Last question on survey was open for respondents to tell us anything about the new system. Some more common themes: N-size issues in small schools and participation Chronic absenteeism is out of our control (excused absences) Use of standardized testing High-performing districts are penalized Need consistency…we keep changing system State funding for accountability