Presentation to the Rhode Island Association of School Committees: A Comparative Analysis of Education

Governance in Rhode Island and Massachusetts

John SimmonsJanuary 14, 2016

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

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

Background

4

Massachusetts Rhode Island

Total Per-Pupil Expenditures* $14,515 $14,415 Number of Pupils Enrolled 955,739 140,605State Ranking by Per Pupil Expenditures* 8 9Percent with Individualized Education Programs (IEP) 17.5% 16.6%Percent in English Language Learner (ELL) programs 7.4% 6.6%Percentage of students eligible for free/reduced lunch 38.2% 46.7%Number of FTE Teachers 70,415 9,729Pupil/Teacher Ratio 13.6 14.5

Selected Public School Data, Massachusetts and Rhode IslandTable 1

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics; U.S. Census Bureau

*Data for Fiscal Year 2013 (2012-2013 school year); Excludes capital outlays and debt service.

2013-2014 School Year

Background

5

FY 2013 R FY 2002 R FY 2013 R FY 2002 R FY 2013 R FY 2002 R FY 2013 R FY 2002 R

US 18.63$ - 17.33$ - 40.65$ - 45.45$ - 4.08$ - 3.86$ - 63.36$ - 66.64$ - MA 13.75$ 43 9.91$ 50 38.78$ 34 40.39$ 43 3.56$ 41 3.52$ 33 56.08$ 43 53.83$ 48RI 13.58$ 44 14.09$ 43 46.73$ 8 46.26$ 21 6.29$ 9 4.43$ 22 66.60$ 25 64.79$ 35

Table 2Education Expenditures per $1,000 of Personal Income

FY 2013 & FY 2002

Higher Ed. Elem. & Second. Ed. Other Ed. & Libraries Total

Source: US Census Bureau; Bureau of Economic Analysis; RIPEC calculations

FY 2013 R FY 2002 R FY 2013 R FY 2002 R FY 2013 R FY 2002 R FY 2013 R FY 2002 R

US 831$ - 550$ - 1,814$ - 1,443$ - 182$ - 123$ - 2,828$ - 2,116$ - MA 784$ 32 393$ 48 2,211$ 7 1,604$ 6 203$ 19 140$ 21 3,197$ 11 2,137$ 20RI 627$ 46 454$ 43 2,157$ 8 1,490$ 15 290$ 7 143$ 20 3,074$ 13 2,086$ 25

Source: US Census Bureau; Bureau of Economic Analysis; RIPEC calculations

Table 3Education Expenditures per Capita

FY 2013 & FY 2002

Higher Ed. Elem. & Second. Ed. Other Ed. & Libraries Total

Background

6

Change Below Below BelowState 2005 2013 2015 05-15 Basic Basic BasicUnited States 217 221 221 4 38% 62% 30% 33% 67% 34% 32% 68% 35%Massachusetts 231 232 235 4 22% 78% 44% 21% 79% 47% 18% 82% 50%Rhode Island 216 223 225 9 38% 62% 30% 30% 70% 38% 28% 72% 40%

Change Below Below BelowState 2005 2013 2015 05-15 Basic Basic BasicUnited States 260 266 264 4 29% 71% 29% 23% 77% 34% 25% 75% 33%Massachusetts 274 277 274 0 17% 83% 44% 16% 84% 48% 17% 83% 46%Rhode Island 261 267 265 4 29% 71% 29% 23% 77% 36% 24% 76% 35%

NOTE: All scores are for public schools only

Source: National Center for Education Statistics - The Nation's Report Card - Reading

Table 4NAEP Reading Assessment

Grade 4Score Percentage

At or Above

Proficient

2005 2013 2015At or

Above Basic

At or Above

Proficient

At or Above Basic

At or Above

Proficient

At or Above Basic

At or Above

Proficient

Grade 8Score Percentage

2005 2013 2015At or

Above Basic

At or Above

Proficient

At or Above Basic

At or Above

Proficient

At or Above Basic

Background

7

Change Below Below BelowState 2005 2013 2015 05-15 Basic Basic BasicUnited States 237 241 240 3 21% 79% 35% 18% 82% 41% 19% 81% 39%Massachusetts 247 253 251 4 9% 91% 49% 10% 90% 58% 10% 90% 54%Rhode Island 233 241 238 5 24% 76% 31% 17% 83% 42% 20% 80% 37%

Change Below Below BelowState 2005 2013 2015 05-15 Basic Basic BasicUnited States 278 284 281 3 32% 68% 28% 27% 73% 34% 30% 70% 32%Massachusetts 292 301 297 5 20% 80% 43% 14% 86% 55% 19% 81% 51%Rhode Island 272 284 281 9 37% 63% 24% 26% 74% 36% 28% 72% 32%

NOTE: All scores are for public schools only

Source: National Center for Education Statistics - The Nation's Report Card - Mathematics

At or Above

Proficient

Table 5NAEP Mathematics Assessment

Grade 4Score Percentage

2005 2013 2015At or

Above Basic

At or Above

Proficient

At or Above Basic

At or Above

Proficient

At or Above Basic

At or Above

Proficient

Grade 8Score

2005 2013 2015At or

Above Basic

At or Above

Proficient

At or Above Basic

At or Above

Proficient

At or Above Basic

Background

8

Massachusetts Rhode IslandWhite 64.9% 61.0%

Black 8.7% 8.1%

Hispanic 17.0% 23.4%

Asian 6.1% 3.0%Hawaiian Native/Pacific Islander 0.1% 0.2%

American Indian/Alaskan Native 0.2% 0.6%

Two or more races 2.9% 3.2%Total minority 35.1% 38.5%

(2013-2014 School Year)

Table 6Public School Enrollment by Race and Ethnicity

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics

Background

9

MA RI MA RI4th Grade 8th GradeAll Students 50.0% 40.0% All Students 46.0% 35.0%

Free or Reduced Lunch Eligible Free or Reduced Lunch Eligible Eligible 29.0% 24.0% Eligible 28.0% 19.0% Not Eligible (Not receiving) 65.0% 54.0% Not Eligible (Not receiving) 59.0% 48.0%

Race or Ethnicity Race or Ethnicity White 58.0% 50.0% White 53.0% 44.0% Black 25.0% 27.0% Black 18.0% 15.0% Hispanic 25.0% 20.0% Hispanic 17.0% 15.0% Asian/Pacific Islander 68.0% 37.0% Asian/Pacific Islander 64.0% 51.0% American Indian/Alaskan Native N/A N/A American Indian/Alaskan Native N/A N/A Two or More Races 43.0% 35.0% Two or More Races 48.0% 32.0%

Disability or English Language Learner Disability or English Language Learner Student with Disability* 20.0% 6.0% Student with Disability* 15.0% 8.0% English Language Learner 12.0% 5.0% English Language Learner 6.0% 1.0%

*Includes students with IEP or 504 Plan.

Table 7NAEP Reading Assessment Results, 2015

Source: National Center for Education Statistics - The Nation's Report Card - Reading

Percentage of Subgroups Scoring At or Above Proficient

Background

10

MA RI MA RI4th Grade 8th GradeAll Students 54.0% 37.0% All Students 51.0% 32.0%

Free or Reduced Lunch Eligible Free or Reduced Lunch Eligible Eligible 31.0% 21.0% Eligible 31.0% 15.0% Not Eligible (Not receiving) 71.0% 52.0% Not Eligible (Not receiving) 66.0% 46.0%

Race or Ethnicity Race or Ethnicity White 62.0% 48.0% White 59.0% 41.0% Black 26.0% 17.0% Black 22.0% 14.0% Hispanic 28.0% 18.0% Hispanic 24.0% 13.0% Asian/Pacific Islander 81.0% 42.0% Asian/Pacific Islander 73.0% 49.0% American Indian/Alaskan Native N/A N/A American Indian/Alaskan Native N/A N/A Two or More Races 55.0% 26.0% Two or More Races N/A 21.0%

Disability or English Language Learner Disability or English Language Learner Student with Disability* 25.0% 9.0% Student with Disability* 16.0% 7.0% English Language Learner 17.0% 8.0% English Language Learner 10.0% 5.0%

*Includes students with IEP or 504 Plan.

Table 8NAEP Mathematics Assessment Results, 2015

Source: National Center for Education Statistics - The Nation's Report Card - Mathematics

Percentage of Subgroups Scoring At or Above Proficient

Background

11

GradeMet

Expectations

Did Not Meet

Expectations

Met Expectation

s

Did Not Meet

ExpectationsGrade

Met Expectation

s

Did Not Meet

Expectations

Met Expectations

Did Not Meet

Expectations3 37% 63% 54% 46% 3 36% 64% 55% 45%4 38% 62% 57% 43% 4 27% 73% 47% 53%5 38% 62% 63% 37% 5 27% 73% 55% 45%6 35% 65% 60% 40% 6 26% 74% 53% 47%7 38% 62% 61% 39% 7 25% 75% 45% 55%8 35% 65% 64% 36% 8 12% 88% 53% 47%

All (3-8) 37% 63% 60% 40% All (3-8) 26% 74% 52% 48%

SOURCE: Rhode Island and Massachusetts Departments of Education

Table 92015 PARCC Results

ELA/Literacy MathematicsRhode Island Massachusetts Rhode Island Massachusetts

Student Performance

12

State Read Math Write Total Read Math Write Total Read Math Write TotalU.S. Average 52% 495 511 484 1490 52% -2 -2 -3 -7 47% -5 -4 -7 -16Massachusetts 86% 516 529 507 1552 84% 0 -2 -2 -4 86% 4 3 -2 5Rhode Island 77% 494 494 484 1472 73% -3 -2 -3 -8 67% 0 -1 -4 -5

Note: SAT scores and participation rates are for all schools (public, private and religious).

*Data is for students graduating in the academic year provided.

Source: The College Board; WICHE Graduation Estimates; RIPEC calculations

Table 10Overall Mean SAT Scores and Participation Rates, 2010-2015

Part. Rate 2015

2015 Mean Scores* Part. Rate 2014

1-year change Part. Rate 2010

5-year change(from 2014*) (from 2010*)

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Massachusetts Rhode IslandSuperintendents Hired and terminated by school committees Hired and terminated by school committees

Principals Appointed and terminated by superintendents Appointed and terminated by superintendents, with consent of the school committee

Teachers Hired by principals, terminated by principals, subject to review by superintendents

Hired and terminated by superintendents, with consent of the school committee

Other School Personnel Hired by principals, terminated by principals, subject to review by superintendents

Hired and terminated by superintendents, with consent of the school committee 

Rhode Island and Massachusetts School Hiring and Firing AuthorityTable 11

SOURCE: Rhode Island and Massachusetts state law

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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

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