|
INTRODUCTION
AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The
Massachusetts Educational Reform Act of 1993 has been law for seven years,
but one component of the act is only now receiving intense public scrutiny.
Starting in the spring of 2001, all tenth grade students in all Massachusetts
public schools will be required to pass the standardized testing component
of the act, the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System, (the
MCAS) by their twelfth year in school, or else they will be denied a diploma.
There is mounting evidence that many, perhaps even a majority, of all
twelfth grade students in many school districts across the commonwealth
will fail the test and thus not graduate from High School. Alarm
over the possibility of such a pending social disaster has galvanized
public attention.
The debate over the appropriateness of this so-called high-stakes testing,
and over the MCAS in particular, has become increasingly acrimonious and
politicized. While MASC has serious concerns about high-stakes testing,
it also believes that the MCAS has value as one form of district, school,
and individual student performance assessment. This document sets
forth MASC’s position on the MCAS while defining a middle-of-the-road
approach to addressing our concerns about the use of the MCAS as the sole
state-mandated criteria for high school graduation.
The paper begins by reviewing the basic tenets of the Educational Reform
Act and how those tenets were implemented by the Massachusetts Department
of Education, particularly the concepts of student academic competency
and how it is assessed. Some of the key issues related to high-stakes
testing are reviewed and alternative methods of assessing academic competency
for regular, special, and vocational education students are proposed.
Finally, the paper reviews the issues raised by the public’s responsibility
to offer remedial assistance to students who fail to graduate.
The issues raised by high-stakes testing are too important to be resolved
solely in the political realm. The issues have everything to do
with the lives and the future of our children. MASC calls upon all
participants in the discussion to strive together in a spirit of cooperation
to seek a solution that remains faithful to the ground-breaking goals
of the Massachusetts Educational Reform Act while still offering our public
educators and our children every opportunity to succeed.
This paper presents MASC’s positions on the issues and will, we hope,
make a positive and effective contribution to the public search for a
solution.
BACKGROUND
THE MASSACHUSETTS EDUCATIONAL REFORM ACT: The Basis of Accountability
for Educational Reform
The Massachusetts Educational Reform Act of 1993 (MERA) and its subsequent
amendments offered an ingenious system to improve public education. It
linked a new method of school financing, a system for standardizing general
curriculum areas across the state, a process for setting high standards,
a means of evaluating progress toward excellence, and a program for holding
accountable not only school districts and individual schools, but also
administrators and students. The law created “a deliberate
process for establishing and achieving specific educational performance
goals for every child” and “an effective mechanism for monitoring
progress toward those goals and for holding educators accountable for
their achievement.”
Specific provisions of the law have helped improve the balance between
wealthy districts with resources to pour into public education and less
economically advantaged cities and towns without the means to support
an equally effective school system. The law established a way to gauge
how school systems used their own, locally generated revenues in combination
with increased state financial aid to public education to reach a minimum
spending standard, or “foundation budget” that would help to
ensure quality. Over seven years since passage of MERA, the legislature
has increased state aid to education significantly. In fact, most districts
have reached their foundation budgets and the gap between wealthier and
less advantaged communities has narrowed.
The legislature also gave great and broad powers to the state Board of
Education to oversee education reform in Massachusetts. It authorized
the Board to oversee development of a basic outline for curricula called
“curriculum frameworks” and to set standards to measure achievement.
MERA also creates a process for holding each school district accountable,
not only for its spending but also for the performance of individual schools
and the achievement of its students. It describes a process for declaring
a school or district to be “under-performing” or “chronically
under-performing” and creates a means for the Board and the Commissioner
of Education to intervene and use powerful sanctions in those districts
that failed to improve.
Students, individually, are a special focus of MERA. The law empowers
the Board to “establish the standards for the recognition of high
achievement by students and school districts” and to set the criteria
for high school graduation. This power has become the most controversial
of all the parts of education reform.
In a key section, now found in Chapter 69, Section 1D of the MA General
Laws, the power of the Board to develop academic standards in core subjects
for grades K-12 is explained.[1] The language is broad,
yet inclusive, and it is ambitious in its intent. Since 1993, the Board
has approved or considered various “frameworks,” which are detailed
outlines of curricula. The frameworks identify those skills and bases
of knowledge for school districts and schools to match against their individualized
curricula. A statewide, coordinated, consistent set of academic goals
and standards will be theoretically possible once all the frameworks,
standards, and measures of accountability are put in place.
These frameworks and various methods of accountability will be critical
in setting high goals for students, measuring the effectiveness of individual
schools and districts, assessing student progress, and attaining high
levels of academic excellence. The same devices can be used to hold district
administrators, principals, and teachers accountable.
In short, this comprehensive reform program is very different from other
attempts at “reform” of previous eras. Every component, as none
developed for reform plans in the past, commands the attention and focus
of each constituency. Should one question the effectiveness of MERA compared
with other efforts, one should appreciate that no earlier initiatives
included such breadth, depth, and strength: alignment of curricula, definition
of standards, measures of accountability, direct linkage of financial
support, and clear, multi-tiered implications for so many individual
constituencies (administrators, principals, teachers, individual schools,
school districts, and students).
STUDENTS AND HIGH STAKES TESTING: Determining “Competency”
for Graduation
The device the Board of Education has decided to use to measure accountability
for students is a series of standardized tests administered at various
grades, including those at the 10th grade for which students must achieve
a passing grade in order to graduate from high school. Central to
the discussion over high stakes testing and a test-based veto over graduation
are the questions of a) whether the law in fact authorizes such a single
criteria and b) whether the Board of Education has used the best options
to assess student achievement by relying on a single test to determine
“competency” instead of other options, including those outlined
in the law.
How Competency is Determined
MERA establishes three levels of determinations or certifications to define
student levels of achievement: 1) Competency Determination which
is the basis for high school graduation; 2) Certificate of Mastery to
identify outstanding academic achievement; and 3) Certificate of Occupational
Proficiency for students who successfully complete vocational technical
education programs.
| |
•
“Competency Determination” is based on academic standards
and the curriculum frameworks. A critical sentence from the
law states, “Satisfaction of the requirements of the
competency determination shall be a condition for high school graduation.[2]”
Key to the debate over the Education Reform program’s graduation
requirement is how the Board of Education defines “competency.”
The same statute also describes the complex array of services that
must be available to students who fail to satisfy the requirements
of the competency determination to ensure that they receive the
assistance they would need to meet those standards and overcome
their initial failures.
It
is the debate over what should constitute that particular “competency
determination” that has made the MCAS test a central, controversial
item.
|
| |
•
“Certificate of Mastery” is to identify and recognize high
levels of academic distinction based on various standards including
demonstrated excellence in a range of measurements including state
required tests, College Board examinations, artistic and literary
achievement, and other determinations. |
| |
•
“Certificate of Occupational Proficiency” (COP) is to be
issued to those students who successfully focus their secondary education
on technical, trade, and related skills areas. This certificate
targets students in vocational technical schools and programs. The
certificate would attest to prospective employers a student’s
potential following high quality preparation in specific vocational
training. For example, such a certificate may be critical to
a student’s being able to enter a union apprentice program. In
other cases, employers may value the COP as a sign of a well prepared
potential employee. However, according to MERA, no Certificate
of Occupational Proficiency may be issued unless a student has achieved
“competency determination,” or, specifically, a high school
diploma. |
CRITERIA
FOR MEASURING COMPETENCY AND ACHIEVEMENT
MERA recognizes that schools must be administered effectively to provide
students with the tools, resources, and training to succeed. It empowers
the Board of Education to “adopt a system for evaluating on an annual
basis the performance of both public school districts and individual public
schools.” As found in Chapter 69, Section 1I of the MA General
Laws, critical additional language explains the criteria that should be
used. This language is very important to understanding the overall
intent of the legislature and interpreting the way standards and measures
of accountability should be evaluated for students (bold italics added
below):
| |
“The
system shall be designed both to measure the outcomes and results
regarding student performance, and to improve the effectiveness of
curriculum and instruction. In its design and application, the system
shall strike a balance among considerations of accuracy, fairness,
expense and administration. The system shall employ a variety of assessment
instruments on either a comprehensive or statistically valid
sampling basis. Such instrument shall be criterion referenced, assessing
whether students are meeting the academic standards described in this
chapter. As much as is practicable, especially in the case of
students whose performance is difficult to assess using conventional
methods, such instruments shall include consideration of work samples,
projects and portfolios, and shall facilitate authentic and direct
gauges of student performance.” |
| |
“In addition, comprehensive diagnostic assessment of individual
students shall be conducted at least in the fourth, eighth and tenth
grades. Such diagnostic assessment shall identify academic achievement
levels of all students in order to inform teachers, parents, administrators
and the students themselves, as to individual academic performance.
The board shall develop the procedures for updating, improving or
refining the assessment system.” |
| |
“The
system shall take into account on a nondiscriminatory basis the cultural
and language diversity of students in the commonwealth and the particular
circumstances of students with special needs. Said system
shall comply with federal requirements for accommodating children
with special needs. All potential English proficient students from
language groups in which programs of transitional bilingual education
are offered under chapter seventy one shall also be allowed opportunities
for assessment of their performance in the language which best allows
them to demonstrate educational achievement and mastery.” |
IDENTIFYING
A COMPETENCY STANDARD: Is High Stakes Testing the Only Way?
As one way of meetings its obligation to measure student achievement,
the Board of Education developed a complex set of standards and measures
which is known as the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS).
Among the parts of the overall MCAS system are various standardized tests
administered at different grade levels. They are used to assess achievement
against the curriculum frameworks and minimum standards set by the Board.
These tests are in use, in development, or in various states of refinement
at this time. However, the first high-stakes component, specifically a
test tied to a graduation requirement, falls upon the current class of
10th graders, the “Class of 2003.” A student in that class must
achieve a predetermined minimum score on an MCAS test in English and mathematics
in order to receive a high school diploma at the end of the senior year.
The first round of truly “high-stakes testing” will take place
in the Spring of 2001 for these 10th graders.
It is this high-stakes testing process, the impact upon students, the
quality of the examination, and the implications for students who do not
achieve the minimum score that has become the focus of considerable public
attention.
MERA authorizes the Board to publish profiles of each public elementary
and secondary school and school district with information on student achievement
and a wide range of other data that the public can readily understand
and that officials and citizens may use to compare districts across the
state. The publication of aggregate test results by individual school
and school district has attracted great media attention. Within communities
and school districts, the performance of individual schools has been published
for all to review and interpret on their own. As a result, even without
a high-stakes test having been administered, preliminary data are available
for tests taken before the start of the 2000-2001 school year. By
their very presence, these data “get everyone’s attention.”
The overall system of an educational reform program that includes developing
standards, measuring achievement against them, publishing test data for
general review, and adding a powerful high-stakes component for students
– a graduation requirement tied to a single test - has captured
the attention of the public. It has the potential to use the forces of
competition, public scrutiny, and dramatic implications for student failure
to “get everyone’s attention.” However, responsible
advocates argue persuasively that there are flaws in the MCAS testing
program that must be corrected and that there are more effective, fair,
reasonable, and appropriate ways to measure student achievement other
than a single, high-stakes test with the power to deny a student a diploma.
ANALYSIS:
THE QUESTION OF USING A SINGLE, HIGH-STAKES TEST AS A GRADUATION REQUIREMENT
The MCAS test requirement has become the most controversial item of public
policy on education reform. It has drawn national attention and comment
from a full range of academicians, educators, public policy makers, professional
advocates, attorneys, parents, students, and citizens at large. The debate
has ranged from the objective and reasonable to the self-serving and hyperbolic.
MASC believes that so much partisan rhetoric, ambiguous survey data[3],
vague ballot questions, and selective economies with the truth have been
poured into the debate that the public has yet to understand fully and
adequately the depth and full substance of the discussion.
The Massachusetts Association of School Committees believes that school
committee members are among those who have special roles in this debate.
They have a unique position for a number of reasons:
| |
1.
School committee members across the state serve without any financial
or economic interest in preserving or eliminating high stakes testing.
As such, these members, elected on a nonpartisan basis, are able to
be more objective in viewing many critical elements of education reform,
including setting graduation standards. |
| |
2.
School committee members are the selected advocates for children in
their communities. Their most important objective in this debate and
in their mission in general is to look out for the best interests
of students. School committee members have remained committed to high
standards, quality education, and accountability for their districts.
We believe that all children deserve access to a high quality education
and many believe and argue convincingly that the definition of such
cannot be explained by a single criterion. |
| |
3.
Members collaborate closely with superintendents of schools to set
standards for promotion and local graduation requirements including
required courses of instruction, mandatory coursework, determination
of passing or failing grades, attendance, and other criteria necessary
to receive a high school diploma. |
| |
4.
School committee members are those members of the educational community
whose ears are closest to their communities, parents, and students.
As such, they understand with greatest sensitivity the perspective
of the public and must respond to the concerns of the local citizenry. |
| It
is also important to note three discussion points. |
| |
1.
MASC and other responsible advocates support the MCAS test as a
valid, useful diagnostic and assessment tool for measuring school
and student achievement. When used appropriately, MCAS standardized
tests as they are presently designed can offer students, parents,
and teachers invaluable insight into strengths, weaknesses, and underdeveloped
academic areas for individual young people. Moreover, when aggregate
data are used correctly, they can help assess how closely school districts
follow the state curriculum frameworks and how effectively individual
school districts and schools themselves are progressing. Moreover,
MASC has congratulated the Department of Education for providing test
reporting formats that not only meet the legal requirement of simplicity
and usefulness for parents and teachers, but also are valuable diagnostic
tools. While the test is an important tool to assess strengths
and weaknesses, it is not at this time an appropriate vehicle to serve
as a sole determination of whether or not a student should receive
a high school diploma. |
| |
2.
Many students do not graduate from high school now, a fact that seems
to have been conveniently lost in the rhetoric. Moreover, MASC does
not suggest that students who fail to rise to the standards set to
complete high school or participate in programs designed to bring
them to a successful level of achievement should be allowed to graduate.
A diploma is not a right one attains by simply showing up, staying
in high school for four years, attaining a specific age, or even trying
hard. We do not suggest that students are entitled to a high school
diploma without meeting a valid set of prerequisites. Students who
cannot master minimum skills should not receive passing grades in
basic courses until schools provide them with the support necessary
to ensure that they can master the content. If students do not complete
rigorous course requirements and technical skills with passing grades,
acquire sufficient academic credits, attend school faithfully as required
by local policy, participate in class discussions and related work,
engage in appropriate alternative educational settings as prescribed,
or meet other district requirements they are not allowed to graduate
from high school under current practice. |
| |
3.
We agree that every party to the educational reform discussion
must work diligently to ensure that no student is disregarded, written-off,
or neglected and that each young person deserves a full measure of
effort to help them to succeed academically and meet the standards
to graduate. The fact that many drop out of high school at this
time is no excuse for failing to mount an active campaign to increase
resources and our efforts at every level to support these students
who are at risk or who might be encouraged back into the public schools. |
There
is a critical place for the MCAS testing program in public education,
but it must be one that is fair, appropriate, and consistent with the
intent of the legislature and debated in proper context.
It is helpful to analyze the appropriateness and even the legal basis
for setting a single, high-stakes test threshold for graduation. Nowhere
in MERA nor anywhere else in state law is there a requirement that the
Board of Education establish a single, high-stakes test. While the law
may be broad or ambiguous enough to sustain the Board in its intent, the
legislature retains, unmistakably and undeniably, the full right to define
further its intent and objective and provide further direction to, or
restriction upon, the Board of Education.
Focusing on this point, MASC will offer legislation for consideration
in 2001 calling upon the General Court to provide further clarification
and restrict the use of a single, high-stakes test.
During this debate, it is most appropriate that advocates for students
continue to raise their issues with the Board and, also, take their case
to the legislature should the Board of Education remain unwilling to explore
alternatives or address important questions about the current system.
Some of the key questions in this ongoing public policy debate include:
| •
Is the use of a single test criteria appropriate, fair, or legal per
se? |
| •
Are there more fair and appropriate ways to assess student performance,
achievement, or worthiness for graduation? |
| •
Are the legitimate needs of special student constituencies being addressed? |
| •
Do the high failure rates among key student groups, including those
drawn from test results released in November 2000, raise questions
about the validity of the examination itself and whether the MCAS
test measures fairly not only student response, but also the overall
worthiness of students for graduation as the law requires? |
| •
Is there an official “catch-22” in the system for students
of vocational technical schools who cannot obtain Certificates of
Occupational Proficiency unless they pass the ‘competency determination”
to graduate with a specific MCAS test grade? Is it fair for vocational
technical schools to assume responsibility for many students who transfer
into these programs at the 9th grade level? |
| •
Are the resources currently in place and likely to be available in
the future to ensure that school districts can and will provide students
with the academic tools necessary to meet the high standards? |
•
Is the impact upon students fair and reasonable given:
| •
the volume of time necessary to take the test; |
| •
the time diverted from teaching to administer the examination;
|
| •
the additional stress, and anxiety heaped upon an already pressured
cadre of young people; and |
| •
the timeliness of areas of testing compared to completion of
course work? |
|
In
November 2000, representatives of 167 school committees across Massachusetts
acting in their official Delegate Assembly, voted upon a resolution that
identified critical questions regarding the appropriateness and fairness
of the MCAS 10th grade assessment when used as a single criteria graduation
requirement. By an overwhelming vote of 137-30, they called for suspending
the MCAS test graduation requirement pending more detailed research on
four critical questions. This vote represented a diverse cross section
of urban, suburban, and rural communities as well as cities and towns
across the economic spectrum. The critical questions are the following:
| |
•
Has an appropriate variety of assessment instruments been developed
so that students are evaluated fairly? |
| |
•
What additional criteria need to be developed so that no single test
will determine the fate of a student or value of a school system? |
| |
•
Does the test require an inappropriate amount of time to be taken
away from teaching and learning? |
| |
•
How fair it is to impose the test without considering the effect upon
student constituencies, including vocational technical school students,
students in special education programs including those with individual
education plans under Chapter 766 of the Acts of 1972, and students
in bilingual education programs. |
In
addition, MASC seeks responses to the following critical questions before
devoting further consideration to any high-stakes testing program:
| |
•
To what extent does the existence of a high stakes test contribute
to the decision of students to drop out of school prematurely?
Are there comparative data available or accessible to assess this
question? Have the effects of high-stakes testing upon various populations,
including racial, ethnic, or linguistic minorities, been assessed
accurately? To be fair, are there appropriate programs that must be
implemented before certain cadres of students may be held to the high-stakes
standard? |
| |
•
What is the impact upon students of additional stress anxiety from
having to take another level of extended and high-stakes testing?
Are there students for whom shorter test periods would provide a more
fair evaluative process? |
| |
•
Has the Commonwealth provided and have school districts had sufficient
time to adopt and implement the critical components of the curriculum
frameworks in such a way to allow students to prepare over time for
high-stakes, standardized testing programs? |
In
November, 2000, a diverse cross section of urban, suburban, and rural
school committees, acting in the official Delegate Assembly, voted to
seek suspension of the graduation requirement pending further research,
study, and response to specifically identified problems with the MCAS
test. MASC calls upon the Board of Education and the legislature to suspend
the graduation requirement until more persuasive research demonstrates
conclusively that a single-test, high stakes, veto-agent graduation requirement
is appropriate, fair, an accurate assessment of the worthiness of students,
and reasonable.
Here’s why.
ALTERNATIVES
TO A SINGLE HIGH-STAKES TEST
MASC believes that there are equally effective but more appropriate and
accurate measures of student achievement and worthiness for high school
graduation that are more consistent with the law and fair to students.
These measures could include, but not be limited to an assessment integrating
many, but not relying on any one, of the following criteria:
| •
Completion of a full and rigorous schedule of coursework in a fully
accredited high school. |
| •
Course grades from the secondary school transcript. |
| •
Evaluation of course completion and attainment of standards of proficiency
in technical and vocational coursework for students in vocational
technical programs. |
| •
Formal assessments of students and their work by teachers and administrators
including a team of professionals who could review overall student
performance. |
| •
Assessment of student portfolios reviewing a body of work completed
by individual students that reflect more accurately a student’s
capabilities, achievement, and personal growth. |
| •
Alternate standards for graduation for students with diagnosed disabilities
so as to accommodate their legitimate needs. |
| •
Performance on valid standardized tests. |
MASC
also recommends the following:
| |
•
Administrators and principals should be held accountable to ensure
that students have appropriate development plans in situations where
students might otherwise simply be moved along grade-wise rather than
ahead developmentally and academically. |
| |
•
There should be more frequent but less time consuming diagnostic testing
to help teachers and students focus more quickly and appropriately
on weaknesses and exploit strengths. |
| |
•
The legislature should empower a special study commission to review
the unique status of students in vocational technical high schools
who have elected an alternative structure by linking their secondary
school curriculum with attainment of technical and work skills. In
particular, analysis should be made as to whether these students do
not, in fact, acquire critical language and mathematics skills which
are deployed uniquely in their technical fields but which are measured
differently and unfairly by the MCAS test. |
| |
•
This same special study commission should review the steps in place
to assure that the rights of students being served withindividual
education plans under “Chapter 766” are protected, their
special needs accommodated, and that they are not subject to an unreasonable
graduation standard; and that the steps are in place to protect
students in transitional bilingual education, English as a Second
Language, and other related programs from unreasonable graduation
standards. |
| |
•
There should be more timely availability of test results so that subsequent
remediation may take place more quickly, rather than requiring students
to wait nearly three months into the next academic year to learn the
results of the previous year’s tests. |
| |
•
The legislature should establish an ongoing, objective, non-partisan
commission to assess the effectiveness of overall MCAS progress, evaluation
of other useful alternatives, validity of testing instruments, and
applicability to various unique student constituencies. This entity
should also assess uses of data and outcomes and the statewide adherence
to curriculum frameworks. |
| |
•
The legislature should establish an ongoing, objective, non-partisan
commission to assess the effectiveness of overall MCAS progress, evaluation
of other useful alternatives, validity of testing instruments, and
applicability to various unique student constituencies. This entity
should also assess uses of data and outcomes and the statewide adherence
to curriculum frameworks. |
| |
•
The legislature should establish an ongoing, objective, non-partisan
commission to assess the effectiveness of overall MCAS progress, evaluation
of other useful alternatives, validity of testing instruments, and
applicability to various unique student constituencies. This entity
should also assess uses of data and outcomes and the statewide adherence
to curriculum frameworks. |
| |
•
The legislature should establish an ongoing, objective, non-partisan
commission to assess the effectiveness of overall MCAS progress, evaluation
of other useful alternatives, validity of testing instruments, and
applicability to various unique student constituencies. This entity
should also assess uses of data and outcomes and the statewide adherence
to curriculum frameworks. |
The
legislature should establish an ongoing, objective, non-partisan commission
to assess the effectiveness of overall MCAS progress, evaluation of other
useful alternatives, validity of testing instruments, and applicability
to various unique student constituencies. This entity should also assess
uses of data and outcomes and the statewide adherence to curriculum frameworks.
| |
Thorough
assessments of the actual results, programs, and initiatives of other
states should be made so that data from elsewhere may be discussed
in correct perspective including questions relative to: lowering standards
to camouflage under-performance; maintenance of testing programs without
linking them to graduation requirements; incentive programs for students
that impact results; incentive programs to school districts and individual
schools that impact results; the comparative status of a “passing”
grade on MCAS tests with those utilized in other states. |
| |
The
legislature should amend MERA to authorize the awarding of a Certificate
of Occupational Proficiency without linking it directly to the General
Competency Determination for a period of up to four years provided
students in vocational technical schools have completed all other
requirements in a technical discipline. |
| |
Establishment
of a required district-based assessment and annual report demonstrating
the consistency of local curriculum with the state frameworks, a means
of assessing school-based and student achievement, and a plan for
remediating under-performance and improving performance overall. |
MASC
also believes that individual school districts should take steps to address
under-achievement earlier by using MCAS testing in grades 4 and above
to target more directly those areas where individual students must focus
on weaknesses. This will prevent generations of under-achievers
from moving up the academic ladder unprepared.
Finally, MASC calls attention to those special circumstances where eligibility
for adult education services, government benefits, and certain other programs
requires a formal high school diploma. There may be additional questions
to raise if individuals risk being blocked from participating in or taking
advantage of critical self-help programs, skill development, or public
benefits on the basis of a single, high-stakes test.
The
Massachusetts Association of School Committees supports the MCAS program,
including standardized testing as one of many valuable diagnostic, teaching,
and development assessments for students. We believe it has a useful role
to play in measuring some elements of student progress. As with other
components of education reform, we believe that it is among the powerful
tools that may be used to help students and schools improve their performance.
However, MASC believes that linking a particular MCAS score to eligibility
for graduation from high school is at best premature and at worst inappropriate
and unfair. We categorically reject any suggestion that to question the
validity of MCAS testing as a graduation requirement is in any way backtracking
from the commitment to powerful educational reforms, strong standards
of accountability, and the pursuit of excellence in the public schools.
Instead, we call for a more reasonable but no less powerful set of alternatives,
including MCAS testing as one of multiple criteria, until critical questions
can be addressed.
MASC calls upon the Board of Education, the General Court, and proponents
of excellence in public education to continue the discussion, present
legitimate research, analyze critical data, and respond to important questions,
and MASC calls upon the public at large to weigh carefully all input to
the debate.
We also believe that it is unfair to put students at risk before implementing
fully the standards and accountability measures upon other stakeholders.
MASC believes it is premature to link high school graduation to a particular
set of standardized tests because so many questions remain unanswered
at this time. We urge the Board of Education and the General Court to
research and respond to the points raised within this position paper and
to extend the debate to welcome and incorporate meaningful input from
the public, and address the critical issues we have identified.
Finally, we echo the position of the Connecticut Board of Education that
puts in proper perspective the role of standardized tests.
| |
“These
(standardized test) results do not provide a comprehensive picture
of student accomplishments. There is a danger that overemphasizing
state test scores to evaluate a student’s, a school’s or
a district’s performance can result in an inappropriate narrowing
of the curriculum and inappropriate classroom instructional practices.
Focused preparation for the state tests should be a small fraction
of a year-long comprehensive curriculum that balances the competencies
assessed on the state tests with other critical skills and objectives.
Teaching isolated skills for test preparation or using repetitive
tasks that go far beyond reasonable practice do not represent good
instruction. In addition, no one assessment – state or local
– should be the sole basis for promotion, graduation or other
important decisions in the education of a student.” |
For
further information, contact:
Massachusetts Association of School Committees
One McKinley Square
Boston, MA 02129
617-523-8454
www.masc.org
|