Last month, the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education heard MCAS scores trended down. Better data was expected following a recent cash infusion kicking-in and the end of the pandemic.
Next month, voters may strike language from state law tying test scores to graduation. The timing is auspicious. State regulations raise the threshold for high school competency going forward.
This year, BESE will consider adding a school climate survey to the accountability system’s core indicators, like test scores. Meanwhile, the search for a new education commissioner continues.
Ed Lambert, executive director of the Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education, expects the next commissioner to have the final say on any “significant change” to the system.
Part of the committee that recommended the changes, he also serves on a statutory council that will advise on the next steps.
Changes require an amendment to our state plan and approval by the U.S. Department of Education.
Lambert foresees tracking “postgraduate outcomes,” like college persistence and wage rates, as indicators of school quality.
A decade before Education Reform in 1993, Massachusetts tracked postgraduate outcomes for each vocational career track. Federal Law required such reporting.
Massachusetts’s accountability system today descends from a data-based system of incentives created by Chapter 188 of 1985. And, that was the culmination of a scientific approach to education pioneered in the late 1800s.
The 1980s led to the “standards-based movement,” said Chris Domaleski, associate director for the Center for Assessment.
He aided the committee reviewing Massachusetts’s accountability system and described earlier forms as “accreditation.”
State law once allowed BESE to defund any district under certain criteria: test scores below average by 20 points, a basic skills test failure rate 50 points above average, the dropout rate 50% above the previous year or if the teacher-to-student ratio was 20% below average. By the final metric, 31 districts, including charter schools, would be in jeopardy today. Attleboro, Belmont, Brockton, Bridgewater-Raynham, Hopkinton, Taunton and Wachusett were over 20% off in 2024.
Since
then, the sanctions for underperformance changed. Backed by potential
state takeover, the turnaround process now begins with goal setting,
planning and oversight. Additional resources were promised too: “equal
educational opportunity grants” based on the results of BESE’s annual
assessment of schools and districts.
Domaleski
said these systems use “a signaling function,” to highlight weaknesses.
Data collected also informs policymakers. Finally, they prescribe
supports for those furthest behind.
The
last, he said, “is where systems tend to be in need of improvement”
nationally. He encourages policymakers to theorize how actions
interconnect with outcomes.
Strategizing
effective support systems, he said, was “beyond the scope” of the
September report. “A solution without that would be incomplete.”
Until
1993, BESE assessed the school funding formula annually. That year’s
law shifted oversight to a Foundation Budget Review Committee that would
meet once every three years. Now state law prohibits an FBRC from
meeting more frequently than once a decade.
Domaleski
notes, “It’s always important to evaluate the adequacy of funding.” He
said tracking inputs to school success, “whether or not inputs are
formally in accountability,” will be “important to the overall theory of
action.”
Some inputs
recommended by last month’s report include the percentage of diverse,
qualified teachers; coursework in arts, technology or world languages;
and educator absenteeism.
Massachusetts
has experience with systematic outcome measurement. Even before 1985,
DESE reported district-by-district results across 34 assessment
instruments.
Afterwards, educator-committees developed the Massachusetts Education Assessment Program.
MEAP
aimed to evaluate curriculum effectiveness, in spite of differences
between communities. A summary concludes “despite the strong influence
of home and personal factors on students’ school performance, the role
of school cannot be ignored.”
One
era of accountability reporting compared results across four kinds of
communities, reflecting differences educators still grapple with today.
UMass
Amherst Professor Jack Schneider studies accountability systems
nationwide. He sees an “unstated theory of change” in their design:
Underperformance indicates people “are not applying their best effort.”
The threat of consequences, therefore, supposedly incentivizes better
effort. He said that’s “flawed.”
Educators,
Schneider argues, are commonly underpaid and “motivated by the prospect
of making a difference in young people’s lives.” Since test scores
strongly correlate with demography, he said, testbased accountability
systems aren’t measuring school quality.
“Inequality outside of schools comes pouring into the schools.”
Consequences
aren’t being “directed at the worst schools,” Schneider said, just “the
poorest communities.” He writes for MCIEA, a consortium of six public
school districts and their teachers unions.
Change
could tweak how underperformance is measured, alongside new incentives.
DESE should “step in with support and resources rather than
consequences and punishment,” he said.
Currently, aid to underperforming schools and districts, Schneider said, “isn’t really that helpful.”
MCIEA
is developing performance assessments graded by teachers, hopefully
with the same “reliability and validity [as] a standardized test.” “If
voters decide to get rid of the MCAS graduation requirement,” Schneider
speculated, MCIEA’s tests could suffice. The organization is working to
demonstrate teacher graded testing could be ‘comparable’ across schools
and districts.
“The
true gold standard,” said Schneider, would involve trained teachers
evaluating other classes’ work against a rubric and compilation of
examples of past scoring. He likened this to the AP test.
Acknowledging
the challenge of scalability, Schneider said, “it just depends on how
much we care about accuracy and consistency.”
“Standardized
testing costs a lot too,” he noted. The last state budget set aside
$41.4 million for standardized testing. Schneider also sees a “cost to
young people’s education.”
Frustrations with the MCAS may reflect its intended purpose: revealing educational inequality.
As
a public policy mechanism, it is meant to push us to excel. Those who
don’t excel deserve the boost our accountability system promises to
provide. Even so, MCAS is not draconian. A failsafe allows students who
have no more than nine unexcused absences and a robust portfolio to
graduate.