Where did education reform go wrong in Massachusetts?

THIRTY YEARS AFTER the 1993 Massachusetts Education Reform Act

Many goals remain unattained despite the state’s generally honoring its commitment to student learning. Too many of our students struggle to meet minimum academic standards achieved by their peers. This predicament feeds misguided movements to lower or even eliminate standards in the name of equity rather than to commit to the best possible education outcome for every student.

Massachusetts’ Constitutional Duty

Massachusetts has a constitutional duty to provide an adequate education for all its children. The 1993 McDuffy decision issued by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court drew a straight line from the Massachusetts 1780 declaration of the Commonwealth’s responsibility for public education to the 1993 Massachusetts Education Reform Act — a comprehensive, standards-based education law.

High Standards and Accountability

Calling for high standards and accountability for student outcomes in exchange for equitable funding of school districts across the Commonwealth, the act was widely credited with driving improvements in student achievement that placed Massachusetts on top in most measures of student performance.

Successful Funding System

The funding side of the law was also extraordinarily successful. Not only do we have excellent overall student performance, our means-tested finance system places us consistently near the top in per pupil spending.

Inherent Weakness

With so much measurable success in hand, where did the Education Reform Act go wrong? Why are there still too many of our students failing to meet minimal standards? The law did not go far enough. There is its inherent weakness.

Decentralized Delivery System

While the courts confirmed that the state was responsible for adequately educating all students, the Education Reform Act made no substantive change to the longstanding tradition of using local school districts to manage and direct the delivery of educational services. The state limits itself to the roles of advisor and auditor — recommending standards and tenuously holding districts accountable for meeting standards.

The over 300 school districts are under no obligation to accept state guidance. We saddled our innovative, standards-based law with a decentralized delivery system. This weakness is also embodied in the funding system. Despite the programmatic assumptions made to calculate state aid, subsequent spending is entirely at the discretion of local officials.

Erosion of Standards and Accountability

There is no problem with home rule in education if our more than 300 school districts universally uphold standards, but the tension of state standards and accountability versus local authority erodes curriculum standards and weakens accountability measures. The progress and the promise of the Education Reform Act is deteriorating.

Threat to Graduation Standards

Look no further than the proposed 2024 ballot question to eliminate the 10th-grade MCAS requirement for high school graduation. Removing this baseline standard would render the current law ineffective and, worse, likely give rise to another costly legal challenge to the established fairness and adequacy of public education in Massachusetts.

While the tests have improved and passing scores are still rigorous, a closer look at the current MCAS graduation requirement shows that it is not the all-encompassing standard intended nor is it the high-stakes test attacked by the proposed ballot question. Alternative portfolio and cohort assessments needed for disabled students and poor test takers have always been available but many other students graduate without meeting the 10th-grade MCAS graduation standard.

In 2010 the Educational Proficiency Plan was adopted as an alternative to demonstrating proficiency on the state’s 10th-grade MCAS. Under the proficiency plan, students are tested by their school to track their progress toward subjectively defined proficiency, nothing more. The result? Typically, 20 percent of students are on proficiency plans, thereby graduating without evidence of meeting the minimally expected level of learning for most of their classmates.

A Path to Excellence

There is a path to return to our commitment to provide an excellent education for every student. The state constitution, the courts, and the laws on the books allow the state to more forcefully assert curriculum standards without taking away local control over how schools bring students up to those standards.

With scientifically based reading curricula, proven high school course selection (MassCore) and individual core subject curricula developed and tested as prescribed by the law over the past 30 years, the state knows what works. What is needed is the will to require each district to use these curricula.

Challenges and Gaps

Massachusetts schools on average are still among the best in the nation but results leveled off and declined before 2019. Both NAEP and MCAS scores dropped. Pandemic learning loss hit the Commonwealth hard. Four years later, learning recovery remains elusive. The most vulnerable students were hit hardest. Unacceptable gaps persist.

The Future of Massachusetts Education

Massachusetts may still be at or near the top among states but not for all our students. The question is for how much longer? We know how to fix this. We know what to do. Now is the time to do it.

Joseph Esposito is a retired senior financial executive who serves on the board of the Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education and has served on various boards and committees dealing with education at the state and local level.

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Analysis

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 4: Quality Education

The article primarily focuses on the issue of education and the need for high standards and accountability in student outcomes. This aligns with SDG 4, which aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• Target 4.1: By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable, and quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and effective learning outcomes.
• Target 4.5: By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples, and children in vulnerable situations.
• Target 4.7: By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship, and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture’s contribution to sustainable development.

The article highlights the need for equitable access to quality education and the importance of ensuring that all students meet minimum academic standards. These targets address the issues discussed in the article.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Indicator 4.1.1: Proportion of children and young people (a) in grades 2/3; (b) at the end of primary; and (c) at the end of lower secondary achieving at least a minimum proficiency level in (i) reading and (ii) mathematics, by sex.
• Indicator 4.5.1: Parity indices (female/male, rural/urban, bottom/top wealth quintile, and others such as disability status, indigenous peoples, and conflict-affected, as data become available) for all education indicators on this list that can be disaggregated.
• Indicator 4.7.1: Extent to which (i) global citizenship education and (ii) education for sustainable development (including climate change education) are mainstreamed in (a) national education policies; (b) curricula; (c) teacher education; and (d) student assessment.

The article implies the need to measure the proportion of students achieving minimum proficiency levels in reading and mathematics, as well as the need to address disparities in education based on gender and other factors. Additionally, the article emphasizes the importance of integrating global citizenship education and education for sustainable development into national policies, curricula, teacher education, and student assessment.

Table: SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Behold! This splendid article springs forth from the wellspring of knowledge, shaped by a wondrous proprietary AI technology that delved into a vast ocean of data, illuminating the path towards the Sustainable Development Goals. Remember that all rights are reserved by SDG Investors LLC, empowering us to champion progress together.

Source: commonwealthbeacon.org

Join us, as fellow seekers of change, on a transformative journey at https://sdgtalks.ai/welcome, where you can become a member and actively contribute to shaping a brighter future.