On Tuesday, Nov. 5, Massachusetts voters will go to the polls and decide on five significant ballot initiatives. Among the various choices voters will make, one stands out as one of the most talked about ballot initiatives this season.
Ballot question 2 would eliminate the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) as a statewide graduation requirement. Instead, this will pave the way for districts to determine how students will demonstrate mastery of state academic standards.
This question has split educators, parents and some of the state’s top politicians. The Massachusetts Teachers Association (MTA), which is the sole spender behind the measure, has spent over $7 million in support of it. Chair of the Education Committee State Senator Jason Lewis, Senator Elizabeth Warren and State Senator Jo Comerford have all come out in support of a yes vote on Question 2.
Some of the state’s top Democrats have come out in opposition to the measure, including Gov. Maura Healey, Lt. Gov. Kim Driscoll, Attorney General Andrea Campbell, Senate President Karen Spilka and House Speaker Ronald Mariano.
At a press conference, Attorney General Andrea Campbell expressed concern over what she argues could, “Potentially lead to haphazard assessments of student readiness for college and careers, and even wider inequities in student achievement and, of course, opportunities.”
Sen. Comerford, explaining why she supports Question 2, believes that the high stakes exams are a detriment to good teaching.
“I, like many people who support Question 2, want excellent education for my two children who are in public school. What I don’t want is a state that allows one test to determine whether or not a student obtains a diploma. That is antithetical to good teaching and good learning,” Comerford said.
Critics argue that removing the requirement will lower standards and impair the state’s ability to collect necessary data on student outcomes, which Sen. Comerford contests.
“We have to have standardized testing because we get federal funding. I actually like standardized testing because I want to understand geographic differences. We’ll always have the schools work to evaluate students within the paradigm of the state curriculum, which is fairly well outlined and exacting … We’re just saying that those that that not one measurement is going to be outsized when it comes to the awarding of a diploma,” she explained.
Sen. Comerford argues that removing the graduation requirements is one step in addressing systemic inequalities that plague our education system. She notes that students in underserved populations are left behind and that the current system does not adequately address the root cause of the inequity.
“What’s really broken is the ability of the federal state government to have funded public education adequately,” she said. “Also what’s really broken is that we’ve allowed this one test to masquerade as a panacea when it’s actually causing great injury.”
Brendan Sheran, a teaching associate and Ph.D. Student in education, leadership and policy studies at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, notes that research shows that underserved students are struggling with the exam. The data demonstrates a fundamental disagreement between both sides in terms of how to improve student equity and success, according to Sheran.
“Opponents argue that there wouldn’t be something that would hold districts or students accountable to meet a certain bar,” Sheran said. “Supporters say if this doesn’t pass, we’re going to continue to see students in areas that are economically depressed struggling, and those who have the resources and means excelling … People want the same thing, but through different avenues.”
By removing the requirement, districts will have to form their own standards for graduation. This, according to Sheran, could lead to an inconsistent level of standards across the state. He notes that opponents argue that this inconsistency will lead to further inequity, but supporters argue that removing the requirement will better equip teachers to teach the state’s rigorous standards
However, Sheran expressed cautiousness over resolving this issue on a ballot initiative, arguing that an issue like this should be resolved through deliberative policy discussion.
“It’s an argument and a nuance that is lost when you put into a yes or no question. It doesn’t address those core issues…The question does not remove MCAS completely, but I think stakeholders need to get together and figure out what we want to measure consistently, if we can do that across the state,” he said.
Sheran also encouraged voters interested in learning more about the issue to check out the fact sheet produced by the UMass Amherst Center for Education Policy (CEP) and a civic summit with educators hosted by the CEP.
Samuel Cavalheiro can be reached at [email protected]
