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 on the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System, would lead to stiff consequences like school closures and district takeovers. The overall goal was universal proficiency within 12 years. More than two decades after No Child Left Behind and 30 years after the MCAS were introduced, it’s clear we have fallen very short of 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 supposed to improve outcomes for students from low-income families, students of color, students with disabilities, and multilingual learners. They didn’t. Why hasn’t test-based accountability worked? The first reason is that tests like the MCAS don’t actually tell us that much about schools that we don’t already know. As research has consistently found, the chief predictors of standardized test scores are out-of-school factors like family income, parental educational attainment, and the language spoken at home. Secondly, the accountability formula Massachusetts uses doesn’t look far beyond test scores . As a result, it does very little to identify school strengths and weaknesses, offering little guidance on how to improve educational processes. Mostly, it’s a tool for blaming and penalizing those it was intended to help. Defenders of the current system claim that, however flawed, we need the MCAS as a graduation requirement. How else would we measure academic progress? How else can we guarantee schools and districts are maintaining uniform, rigorous standards? How do we know students are meeting the minimum criteria to earn their diplomas? Those are important concerns and, whether or not MCAS actually addresses them, federal mandates requiring tests like the MCAS will be around for the foreseeable future. But we need to expand our scope beyond rankings and scores and examine how our assessment and accountability system is used. How do we ensure students are ready to pursue post-high school opportunities that maximize their talents and aspirations? What conditions and resources are necessary to make sure all students reach their full potential? What kinds of data would improve instruction and strengthen schools? How can we recognize marginalized communities for their strengths instead of blaming them for their conditions? It is possible to answer these questions while continuing to track student progress and standards. In 2016, the Massachusetts Consortium for Innovative Education Assessment brought together forward-looking school district superintendents from eight districts and local teachers union presidents to do just that. This diverse group of urban, suburban, and Gateway City districts set out to pilot a new approach to assessment and accountability. The consortium shows there are better ways to measure what students know and can do. It utilizes educator-created performance assessments, which are integrated into day-to-day instruction and lessons to provide real-time information about what students are learning and help educators adjust their instruction. Just 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 , like original research papers, science investigations, or hands-on projects and presentations. These tasks, which better prepare students for the real world, are assessed through common rubrics. There are also better ways to measure school quality. The consortium’s research-backed model looks at factors 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 required for school success, 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 instead of focusing solely on a school’s ranking. Massachusetts leaders and lawmakers should consider the work of the consortium and its sibling organization, the Education Commonwealth Project , which works with 24 additional school districts, for alternatives to guide a new path forward. The Consortium’s approach will not solve everything, but it does offer a vision of what the state could do if education officials were willing to use the same level of critical thinking and creativity that we expect from our students. For Massachusetts to continue to lead and innovate, we need to not only ask the right questions but also have the courage to veer from the status quo. We have a long way to go if we are going to transform assessment and accountability in the Commonwealth. A yes vote on Question 2, which would remove the MCAS as a graduation requirement, can be the catalyst for change we need. Continuing to tinker around the edges of a failed system disproportionately based on a single high-stakes test isn’t the answer. Jessica Tang is president of the American Federation of Teachers Massachusetts and a founding governing 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 a cofounder of MCIEA, which is housed along with the Education Commonwealth Project at the UMass Center for Education Policy.
CONTINUE READING
