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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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%

5. 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%

6. 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%

7. 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%

8. 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%

9. 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%

10. 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%

11. 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%

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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