Comments by Lisa Guisbond:

Public Hearing on MCAS Bills

Before the Legislature’s Joint Committee on Education, Arts, and Humanities

September 9, 2003

Despite the last-minute notice and terrible timing of the Education Committee’s hearing on proposed MCAS legislation, an impressive array of students, parents, educators and experts testified before the committee members from 10 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on Sept. 9. As was the case two years ago, the committee heard cogent, passionate and compelling testimony that challenged the assumption and education officials’ repeated claims that the high-stakes MCAS is primarily responsible for improving public education in Massachusetts.

This post will focus on the comments of legislators, the types of comments that never see the light of day in the mainstream press, which generally portrays the legislature as agreeing with Speaker Thomas Finneran and his pro-MCAS stance.

My overall impression is that there are increasing numbers of individual legislators who hear and understand at least parts of our message, for example, Education Committee members Sen. David Magnani (D-2^nd Middlesex and Norfolk) and Rep. Karen Spilka (D-Framingham). Some of them asked very thoughtful and nuanced and hard questions of Chairman James Peyser, for example, who insists that MCAS is a near-perfect instrument and says he personally “doesn’t believe” that anyone who fails the test is competent to graduate and be successful. Sitting there and listening to the questions and the exchanges, you get a very different impression of where many legislators stand than you do reading the Globe and the Herald.

Magnani almost sounded like Deborah Meier, at times, when he spoke of all the things that are really important to employers that aren’t measured by the MCAS.  He said he wrote the language in the law that calls for multiple assessments and sensitivity to different learning styles, and that they NEVER intended voc-ed kids to have to pass MCAS to get a certificate of technical proficiency. (News flash!)

Magnani said he is concerned about the goal of getting all students to “proficiency” rather than just passing the MCAS. He seemed to be saying that the goal of getting all students to score proficient would mean that subjects other than math and English would get even less attention than they do now. He said he’d prefer to see the MCAS as a test of basic skills and that he doesn’t think it’s possible to do with the MCAS what the Education Reform act asked us to do. He said that the only part of the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System we have gotten right so far is the “Massachusetts” part. “It’s not an assessment system, it’s a test,” said the senator. “I would like us to look at broadening the way we look at the MCAS hurdle.” He said he’s concerned about the effect of the MCAS on pedagogy in the classroom.

Peyser’s response was to claim that the MCAS right now is already “incredibly flexible and robust.”

Rep. Alice Wolf (D-Cambridge) asked what the DOE is doing about moving toward multiple assessments for all children? What about the enormous gap between special education, limited English proficient, urban, poor students, and suburban kids?

Peyser pointed to the appeals process as an example of the DOE’s use of multiple assessments. Rep. Wolf replied that she’s talking about more than just 10^th graders, and in fact she always looks at 3^rd graders’ scores first. She said she thinks there should be multiple assessments and portfolios all along the way. “Children who are vulnerable should not have to wait until they’ve failed once more to be given another chance,” Wolf said.

Other legislators testified about many aspects of MCAS’s unfairness and shortcomings. Among them:

Sen. Susan Fargo (D-Waltham) said her bill would require an annual report of MCAS’s hidden costs. She asked how we can know if what we are spending on MCAS is worth it if we don’t know the full extent of the costs? She said next time you call a plumber and have trouble finding one, you might blame the effects of the MCAS on voc-ed students, who are disproportionately failing even though they may have fulfilled all the requirements of their voc-ed curriculum.

Sen. Steven Tolman (D-Boston) said it is hypocritical of the legislators to have lowered the standard of what special needs students are legally entitled to, from maximum feasible benefit to a free and appropriate education, while holding them accountable to the “higher” MCAS standard.

Rep. Spilka took issue with the claim, made by Peyser and other MCAS supporters,  that eliminating the graduation requirement would do away with everything Ed Reform has done to improve schools.

Rep. Cory Atkins (D-Acton) said she has two special needs children of her own, and that for kids like hers, MCAS is leaving children behind when they are not allowed to graduate because of the test. “We have made a policy of inclusion, but it’s not a real policy if they’re not included with dignity.”

Rep. Ruth Balser (D-Newton) said it’s time to stop acting like this is an argument between those who are for high standards and those who are not. She said that is a false and insulting distinction. It’s a major philosophical difference about the best way to encourage children to learn. She said Massachusetts has adopted a policy of using punishment to get kids to learn and that any psychologist will tell you that that is one of the least effective ways of teaching. (Balser is a psychologist.)

 Lisa Guisbond