Nashoba committee raises concerns in first reading of state-driven competency-determination policy

The Nashoba Regional School Committee spent much of its Dec. 3 meeting on a first reading of a newly required competency-determination policy that the district must submit to the state by Dec. 31 as an interim measure while Massachusetts finalizes new K–12 graduation recommendations.

Superintendent Downing framed the policy as a locally adopted bridge while the state develops regulations and statutes. He summarized the state—s working paper as a 112-page document with seven elements, including end-of-course assessments, capstone or portfolio options and optional seals of distinction. "This policy is going to be the bridge to that moment," Downing said, asking the committee to adopt language that allows the district to meet short-term state submission deadlines without foreclosing future changes.

Committee members repeatedly asked whether the policy would make passing an end-of-course assessment mandatory to pass a course or mandatory only for the separate competency determination required for graduation. The draft lists three pathways to demonstrate mastery: completion of rigorous coursework, a final/course assessment (or aligned end-of-course assessment), or a capstone/portfolio or an equivalent measure. Downing emphasized the policy separates course credit from the competency determination: "The competency determination is independent," he said, adding districts can design multiple opportunities for students to demonstrate mastery before graduation.

Several committee members pushed for clearer language. One member said the draft reads as if "the student must earn full credit for the English courses listed above and meet the established performance criteria on an aligned end of course assessment," and asked whether failing the end-of-course assessment would mean failing the class. The chair, expressing strong concern, said: "I am flabbergasted by this policy, and I think it's going to do more unintentional harm than good," noting worries that students who work hard could still be blocked from graduating by a single assessment.

Staff and administrators proposed local safeguards: they described appeals processes for equivalency determinations, use of portfolios and capstones as alternatives for students who do not test well, and multi-tiered supports such as tutoring and additional assessment opportunities. Director-level staff noted that students placed in approved out-of-district programs are still subject to district-level competency reporting and the district would rely on DESE-approved placement standards when evaluating those students.

Committee members also discussed timing: the state will issue final recommendations in June, but districts must submit interim policy language by Dec. 31; staff said they can request extensions and will seek clarification from the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education where the draft is ambiguous. Several members encouraged the subcommittee to draft alternate language and to submit suggested wording to the state alongside any rejection of the model language.

The committee did not vote on the competency-determination policy at this meeting. Members agreed to continue refining the policy in subcommittee, seek clarifying language from the state, and revisit the item at the next meeting.