Vote ‘yes’ on question 2 to end MCAS

In 1993, the Massachusetts Education Reform Act introduced statewide standardized testing. Nine years later, No Child Left Behind expanded testing requirements to all states, raising the stakes for schools and districts. Inadequate exam results, including those from the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System, would lead to severe consequences, such as school closures and district takeovers. The overall goal was universal proficiency within 12 years.

More than twenty years after No Child Left Behind and thirty years after the MCAS were introduced, it is clear that we have not achieved that goal.

While Massachusetts consistently ranks first on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, it also has some of the largest and most persistent test score gaps. The Education Reform Act and No Child Left Behind were intended to improve outcomes for students from low-income families, students of color, students with disabilities, and multilingual students. They didn’t.

Why hasn’t test-based accountability worked? The first reason is that tests like the MCAS don’t actually tell us much about schools we don’t already know about. As research has consistently shown, the most important predictors of standardized test scores are extracurricular factors such as family income, parental education, and the language spoken at home.

Second, the accountability formula that Massachusetts uses doesn’t look much beyond test scores. As a result, it does very little to identify the strengths and weaknesses of schools, and provides little guidance for improving educational processes. Mostly it is a tool to blame and punish those it was intended to serve.

Defenders of the current system argue that, flawed as it is, we need the MCAS as a graduation requirement. How else would we measure study progress? How else can we ensure that schools and districts maintain uniform, rigorous standards? How do we know that students meet the minimum criteria to obtain their degree?

These are important concerns and whether or not MCAS addresses them, federal mandates requiring tests like the MCAS will exist for the foreseeable future. But we need to expand our scope beyond rankings and scores and examine how our rating and accountability system is used. How do we ensure that students are ready to pursue post-high school opportunities that maximize their talents and ambitions? What conditions and resources are needed to ensure that all students reach their full potential? What types of data would improve education and strengthen schools? How can we recognize marginalized communities for their strengths, rather than blaming them for their circumstances?

It is possible to answer these questions while continuing to monitor student progress and standards.

In 2016, the Massachusetts Consortium for Innovative Education Assessment brought together forward-thinking school district superintendents from eight districts and local teacher union presidents to do just that. This diverse group of urban, suburban and Gateway City districts wanted to try a new approach to assessment and accountability.

The consortium shows that there are better ways to measure what students know and can do. It uses teacher-created performance assessments, which are integrated into daily instruction and lessons to provide real-time information about what students are learning and help teachers adapt their instruction. Like the MCAS, performance assessments are aligned with state standards. But instead of taking multiple-choice tests once a year, students regularly complete meaningful and engaging tasks, such as original research papers, scientific investigations, or hands-on projects and presentations. These tasks, which better prepare students for the real world, are assessed using common rubrics.

There are also better ways to measure the quality of schools. The consortium’s research-backed model looks at factors that families and students care about, including school climate and safety, access to arts and music education, and culturally relevant curriculum. It also identifies key resources and characteristics needed for success in school, making it easier to figure out why gaps exist and what is needed. This more comprehensive approach also provides in-depth data to help school districts fully understand their strengths and weaknesses, rather than focusing solely on a school’s ranking.

Leaders and lawmakers in Massachusetts should consider the work of the consortium and its sister organization, the Education Commonwealth Project, which is working with 24 additional school districts, to find alternatives to point a new path forward.

The Consortium’s approach won’t solve everything, but it does provide a vision of what the state could do if education officials were willing to use the same level of critical thinking and creativity we expect from our students.

If Massachusetts wants to continue to lead and innovate, we must not only ask the right questions, but also have the courage to deviate from the status quo. We still have a long way to go if we are to transform assessment and accountability in the Commonwealth. A yes vote on Question 2, which would eliminate the MCAS as a graduation requirement, could be the catalyst for the change we need. Continuing to tinker around the edges of a failing system, disproportionately based on a single high-stakes test, is not the answer.

Jessica Tang is president of the American Federation of Teachers Massachusetts and a founding board member of the Massachusetts Consortium for Innovation in Education Assessment. Jack Schneider is the Dwight W. Allen Distinguished Professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. He is co-founder of MCIEA, which is housed together with the Education Commonwealth Project at the UMass Center for Education Policy.