Este artículo de opinión está firmado por un grupo de líderes de diversas industrias, quienes en su mayoría han ocupado puestos de alto rango en educación y desarrollo de la fuerza laboral en los gobiernos local, estatal y federal. Sus nombres se encuentran al final.

Antes de que Massachusetts creara el requisito de graduación del Sistema de Evaluación Global de Massachusetts (MCAS, por sus siglas en inglés) como parte de su Ley de Reforma Educativa de 1993, los estudiantes latinos enfrentaban tasas de graduación, admisiones universitarias y oportunidades de carreras con buenos salarios considerablemente más bajos.

Antes del MCAS, casi una cuarta parte de los estudiantes no llegaban a graduarse. La mitad de esos estudiantes que fracasaban procedían de Boston y de nuestras otras ciudades urbanas con alta concentración de latinos.

Ahora, tres décadas después, Massachusetts ocupa el primer puesto en educación, en parte gracias a nuestros estrictos requisitos de graduación. Aunque los latinos siguen enfrentando desafíos, familias de todo el mundo vienen aquí para matricular a sus hijos en nuestro sistema de clase mundial.

Durante la pandemia de COVID-19 de 2020 a 2022, se suspendieron temporalmente las clases presenciales y las pruebas del MCAS.

Citando el aumento de las tasas de graduación durante ese tiempo, la poderosa Asociación de Maestros de Massachusetts ha promovido una iniciativa electoral denominada “Pregunta #2” que pretende eliminar por completo el requisito del MCAS.

Esta justificación de la iniciativa electoral es engañosa. Ignora la alarmante caída en la competencia que se produjo en los estudiantes durante estos años escolares de pandemia, particularmente para los latinos, que ha puesto de manifiesto desigualdades aún más marcadas. También es probable que los estudiantes latinos sean multilingües, y el MCAS proporciona una herramienta de diagnóstico para determinar si esos estudiantes están siendo atendidos equitativamente.

Durante la pandemia, el 60 por ciento de los estudiantes latinos no alcanzaron el nivel de competencia en matemáticas y el 65 por ciento no alcanzaron el nivel de competencia en ciencias, lo que representa un descenso del 15 por ciento en ambas categorías con respecto a los niveles anteriores a la pandemia.

Si bien el MCAS actual podría beneficiarse de una actualización, sería perjudicial para nuestros estudiantes y nuestra competitividad si eliminamos por completo un modelo estandarizado de competencia académica.

Por estas razones, un grupo de líderes latinos de todo el Estado han firmado una carta abierta instando a los votantes a oponerse firmemente a la eliminación del MCAS votando ‘NO’ en la Pregunta #2 de la Boleta Electoral este 5 de noviembre.

Los defensores de la eliminación del MCAS lo han presentado como un examen único de gran exigencia que pone demasiada presión sobre los estudiantes para graduarse. Sin embargo, como el diario The Globe ha afirmado correctamente en su editorial contra la Pregunta #2, los estudiantes con dificultades pueden repetir el examen varias veces y recibir ayuda intensa hasta que lo consigan. El estado ofrece las secciones de matemáticas y ciencias del MCAS en español.

El MCAS también ofrece adaptaciones para los estudiantes con discapacidades, que pueden incluir asistencia personalizada, prolongación del horario y asistencia tecnológica. Estos recursos fundamentales no deberían eliminarse.

Otro problema evidente de la pregunta #2 es que pretende eliminar el MCAS sin proponer un estándar integral para reemplazarlo. Como escribió nuestro ex secretario de educación Paul Reville en the Globe, “el MCAS debe mejorarse, no eliminarse”.

Este tema no debería discutirse en una votación confusa que está fuertemente financiada por la poderosa MTA (Asociación de Maestros de Massachusetts por sus siglas en inglés); en cambio, se deberían brindar oportunidades de participación comunitaria para que los padres participen reflexivamente en los cambios y actualizaciones necesarios para el examen.

Si se aprueba la pregunta 2, ¿qué sucede con nuestros estudiantes vulnerables que no pasan la prueba? Si el MCAS ya no es obligatorio, ¿recibirán esos estudiantes la ayuda adicional que necesitan o simplemente obtendrán su diploma y se graduarán sin estar preparados para una educación postsecundaria rigurosa?

Esto sería un retroceso a la época anterior a la reforma educativa en Massachusetts, cuando los títulos de secundaria a menudo se consideraban insignificantes. Massachusetts volvería a tener unos requisitos de graduación en secundaria menos rigurosos que estados como Mississippi y Alabama.

Podríamos terminar con un sistema fragmentado, donde los distritos más ricos dispondrían de más recursos para desarrollar sistemas de evaluación completos, mientras que los distritos con escasos fondos y una alta población de estudiantes latinos lucharían por intentar crear y aplicar alternativas eficaces.

Algunos distritos escolares simplemente reducirían sus estándares si se eliminara el requisito del MCAS. Esto exacerbaría las desigualdades educativas existentes, afectando particularmente a los estudiantes latinos de entornos de bajos ingresos y escuelas con recursos insuficientes. Los niños latinos actualmente representan el 30 por ciento de todos los estudiantes en Massachusetts, lo que representa una parte significativa de nuestra futura fuerza laboral basada en habilidades.

Si se elimina el MCAS como requisito para graduarse, el diploma volverá a ser simplemente una medida de participación y una confirmación de asistencia.

No cabe duda de que, el MCAS puede mejorarse y los estudiantes que tienen dificultades con el MCAS (incluidos los estudiantes neurodivergentes y los estudiantes de inglés) deberían recibir ayuda específica. Pero la pregunta de la votación no resuelve ese problema porque simplemente elimina el requisito sin proporcionar una alternativa para medir la capacitación.

Trabajemos juntos para mantener nuestra promesa a los diversos niños de Massachusetts que se detalló hace una generación en nuestra Ley de Reforma Educativa.

La razón por la que Massachusetts ocupa el primer lugar en materia de educación es porque evaluamos, buscamos desigualdades y corregimos los cursos. Al mantener una prueba constante a través del MCAS, no solo promovemos altos estándares, sino que también determinamos dónde se encuentran las desigualdades, de modo que podamos crear un sistema más igualitario para nuestra próxima generación de estudiantes.

Aixa Beauchamp, Cofundadora de Latino Equity Fund

Amanda Fernandez, ex Fideicomisaria de la Junta de Educación Primaria y Secundaria de Massachusetts

Andrea Wolfe, Director Ejecutivo, Mass Insight

Andrew Melendez

Andrew Rodriguez

Eneida Roman

Dr. Evonne S. Alvarez, Ed.D., Superintendente de Lynn Public Schools

Oscar Escobar, Director Ejecutivo, Blue Nest

Isis Ortiz

Jabes Rojas

Jeffrey Sanchez, Ex Representante Estatal

Josiane Martinez, Director Ejecutivo, ASG

Juan Carlos Morales, Director Ejecutivo, Surfside Capital Advisors

Lazaro Lopez

Lucy Pineda, Líder comunitario de Everett

Mary Skelton Roberts

Natalia Hilton

Noemi Custodia-Lara

Oz Mondejar

Phyllis Barajas, líder de organización sin fines de lucro y ex Subsecretaria Adjunto del Departamento de Educación de EE. UU.

Rosalin Acosta, Exsecretario of Labor & Workforce Development

Sol Carbonell

Dr. Stephen Zrike, Superintendente de Salem Public Schools

Vanessa Calderon Rosado

Veronica Conforme, Co-Director Ejecutivo, Greenhouse E3

Vivian Iannotti, Director Ejecutivo, Stop and Compare

Yvonne Garcia

Zamawa Arenas, Director Ejecutivo, Flowetik

Como docente con más de 15 años en el sistema de educación pública, entiendo lo importante que es responsabilizar a los estudiantes por lo que han aprendido y asegurarnos de que estén listos para graduarse. También comprendo que es igual de crucial identificar los lugares donde los estudiantes están teniendo dificultades y ayudarles a superar esas brechas en su aprendizaje. Desde 2003, el requisito del MCAS ha sido una herramienta de medición fundamental para ambas tareas, ayudando a igualar las expectativas y asegurando que cada estudiante aspire a la misma meta.

Por estas razones, votaré en contra de la Pregunta 2, que eliminaría el MCAS como requisito de graduación. Si esta medida se aprueba, dejará a educadores como yo sin una herramienta objetiva e imparcial para determinar la preparación de los estudiantes. Además, profundizará las desigualdades existentes y dejará a nuestros estudiantes menos preparados para la universidad y el mundo laboral.

Actualmente soy instructora de español en la secundaria de Brooke Charter en Mattapan y, como todos los docentes, trabajo arduamente para asegurar que todos mis estudiantes no sólo comprendan el material, sino que lo dominen. En lugar de bajar los estándares académicos, deberíamos centrarnos en garantizar que los estudiantes que están teniendo dificultades reciban la ayuda que necesitan. En lugar de apoyar a estos niños, la Pregunta 2 los abandonaría.

El MCAS ha inyectado más transparencia y equidad en el sistema —dos cualidades que no existían antes del MCAS. Estas herramientas de medición nos ayudan a dirigir nuestra atención hacia las necesidades de nuestras aulas y de estudiantes individuales. Cada día, trabajamos para ayudar a nuestros estudiantes a ganar confianza en sus habilidades y a aprender a pensar de manera más crítica en el proceso. Contamos con estos indicadores para guiar a nuestros estudiantes en la dirección correcta. Sería devastador perder el MCAS, ya que sabemos que funciona y ha sido útil para muchos docentes y estudiantes. Como dice el refrán, “Si no está roto, no lo arregles”.

No obstante, nuestra demografía en Boston está compuesta por diversos antecedentes. El MCAS nos ayuda a proporcionar prácticas instruccionales equitativas en las escuelas y sus datos nos permiten adoptar métodos de enseñanza más culturalmente responsivos. Así, los estudiantes se sentirán más representados e incluidos, promoviendo la equidad y los recursos necesarios para el éxito.

Tener un estándar estatal único para la graduación ha elevado las expectativas de maneras que han resultado en una mayor equidad y logros para todos los estudiantes. Desde su implementación, Massachusetts ha ascendido en las clasificaciones nacionales al primer lugar en logro estudiantil, mientras que nuestras tasas de graduación también han aumentado y las tasas de deserción han disminuido.

Si se aprueba la Pregunta 2, no habrá nada que la reemplace. No existirá un estándar estatal para la graduación. Ninguno. En su lugar, Massachusetts tendrá más de 300 estándares diferentes y desiguales para la graduación en todo el estado, lo que llevará a evaluaciones erráticas de la preparación de los estudiantes para la universidad y las carreras, así como a inequidades aún más amplias en el logro estudiantil y las oportunidades.

Como docentes de aula, somos los evaluadores principales de los estudiantes, pero nuestras evaluaciones son mucho más subjetivas que una evaluación común estatal que mide si todos nuestros estudiantes han dominado lo básico. Los datos del MCAS son las únicas fuentes consistentes y objetivas de información que identifican disparidades en los resultados educativos y forman la base fáctica para acciones que conducen a una mayor equidad en la asignación de recursos a las escuelas. Sin estos datos, Massachusetts podría regresar fácilmente a los días en que los estudiantes históricamente desatendidos, como los aprendices de inglés, los estudiantes con discapacidades y los estudiantes de entornos de bajos ingresos, quedaron atrás.

Al utilizar estas puntuaciones, los docentes, los distritos y el estado han identificado lo que funciona bien y lo que necesita mejoras para que los estudiantes aprendan de manera más efectiva. Además, si queremos atraer y retener educadores de alta calidad para nuestras escuelas, no deberíamos hacer que sea más difícil para ellos hacer su trabajo. Eliminar un estándar común marginará aún más a los estudiantes que más ayuda necesitan y perjudicará a los docentes que intentan alcanzarlos. Sigamos avanzando, en su lugar. Por nuestros estudiantes, sus maestros y nuestro sistema educativo, por favor, voten no a la Pregunta 2.

Vanessa Salinas Faublas es instructora de español en Brooke Charter School en Mattapan. V.Salinas627@gmail.com

by Jennie Williamson in Commonwealth Beacon

FROM NOW UNTIL election day, Massachusetts voters face a critical decision with far-reaching consequences for future generations of children and our state: Should we eliminate the statewide academic standards that have defined Massachusetts’ educational progress for decades, or should we stay the course and focus on ensuring all students, especially those facing the most significant challenges, can meet these high standards?

To understand what’s at stake, we should first consider how Massachusetts transformed its public school system from mediocrity in the 1970s and ’80s to leading the pack today. Did we discover a magic solution? Hardly. The state’s progress can largely be traced back to the Massachusetts Education Reform Act of 1993, developed with extensive educator input and grounded in several core principles: establishing high academic standards in exchange for increased resources, ensuring accountability alongside local empowerment, and emphasizing teaching and leadership. While we still have a long way to go to achieve equity for underserved students, this reform has undeniably led to improved achievement levels, benefitting both students and the state’s economy.

Another critical factor was consistency. Massachusetts stayed the course for decades—even as governors and commissioners came and went, we remained committed to these guiding principles while resisting the allure of quick fixes or pressure to dilute our high standards. So, why would we abandon a proven approach now?

Voters will soon have the opportunity to weigh in directly on this issue. Ballot Question 2 proposes eliminating the requirement for students to pass the 10th-grade Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) exam in order to graduate. This graduation requirement was a crucial element of the 1993 law and has played an essential role in promoting equity because it ensures that all students—regardless of race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic background—meet the same baseline standard for graduation while allowing local districts the flexibility to decide how best to help their students meet that standard.

If passed, this measure would eliminate that standard and put nothing in its place, creating wide disparities across the state. Currently, passing the 10th-grade MCAS is the only statewide graduation requirement that exists. Unlike most other states, Massachusetts lacks a uniform set of course requirements for high school graduation, meaning that the types of coursework students take in high school and their level of rigor varies across zip codes. Unless that changes and a viable alternative statewide standard is put in place, the MCAS serves as the only safeguard ensuring all students across the state’s 306 districts are receiving a comparable high school education.

Critics of the MCAS graduation requirement often highlight the approximately 700 students—less than 1 percent—who are denied diplomas solely for not passing the exam. While eliminating the MCAS requirement might allow this small group to receive diplomas, it raises a critical question: Is it fair to grant diplomas to students who have not yet demonstrated the academic competencies necessary to succeed in college or career? The more pressing and appropriate question is, what are we doing to support these students in developing the knowledge and skills needed to meet Massachusetts’ standards? Rather than scrapping the MCAS requirement, we should focus on improving the educational experience for those who struggle with it the most.

To do this, Massachusetts should invest in targeted, evidence-based supports for students not on track to pass the MCAS, many of whom the system has consistently failed to serve adequately. These students deserve a comprehensive plan with access to high-quality instruction, personalized tutoring, and tailored services to meet their individual needs. At the same time, we must ensure that our schools cultivate safe, inclusive, and identity-affirming environments where all students can thrive and succeed academically. We must also commit to continually refining the MCAS to ensure it is more inclusive, assesses a broader range of skills, and is more culturally responsive.

Research shows that rigorous and consistent statewide graduation standards are necessary for all students to leave high school with the skills necessary for college, careers, and life. Without these standards, we risk returning to the pre-1993 era, when a high school diploma in Massachusetts was little more than a participation medal rather than a genuine indicator of readiness.

Upholding these expectations is essential to maintaining the integrity of our education system and ensuring that every graduate, regardless of their background, is prepared for future success. Now more than ever, Massachusetts must stay the course that has produced results, while doubling down on efforts to better support our most vulnerable students. The stakes are too high to turn back.

Jennie Williamson is a Massachusetts parent and the state director of EdTrust in Massachusetts, a national nonprofit committed to advancing policies and practices to dismantle the racial and economic barriers embedded in the American education system through research and advocacy.

Voters across the Commonwealth will decide on Nov. 5 whether to keep the MCAS as a high-school graduation requirement or to toss it without any real replacement that will ensure a high-school diploma actually means something in Massachusetts. Springfield’s business community must stand up and take notice.

While it is never a good time to lower standards, doing so when we are facing increasing national and international pressure to maintain our state’s economic competitiveness would be misguided at best and foolish at worst. The MCAS requirement not only helps strengthen our public education system, but also helps prepare our future workforce and improves our ability to attract and retain talent from our own backyard.

As part of the Knowledge Corridor, Springfield and its surrounding area host many colleges and universities. Education-adjacent jobs drive much of the city’s employment opportunities. Additionally, Baystate Health’s corporate offices operate out of Springfield. Other healthcare facilities, including Mercy Medical Center, bolster the area’s healthcare employment market.

Still, even with the city’s reliable employment industries, the overall employment rate is dismal, with 8.7% of Springfield residents facing unemployment, a leap above the national 5.3% average.

A well-rounded education can counter that. Now more than ever, Springfield needs an educated workforce to capitalize on the robust education, financial, and healthcare jobs that have long sustained the community. Requiring a passing MCAS score ensures public schools are producing graduates with the knowledge and skills needed for success in these markets.

MCAS data helps address and combat the inequities in our school systems that stunt student growth. Without it, we cannot accurately determine which students need the most support.

Question 2 states that, instead of passing the MCAS, students would be required to complete coursework certified by a student’s district as “demonstrating mastery of the competencies contained in the state academic standards.” While this language suggests that the state standards will still apply, as we’ve learned from our teachers in our high-school statistics and research courses, if you don’t have uniformity in how you assess something like achievement, then you don’t have a single standard. Only a common assessment can assure that.

In spite of some concerns raised when the MCAS graduation requirement went into effect, graduation rates eventually went up, dropout rates went down, and student achievement increased for all groups of students, leading Massachusetts to its first-in-the-nation status. Establishing a single, statewide standard for graduation has been central to that success.

If Question 2 passes, interpretation of the standards and whether they have been met will vary from district to district, school to school, and even within schools. In fact, just look at recent research and reports of grade inflation through and since the pandemic that has been detrimental to students, leading them to believe, incorrectly, that they are ready for college or a career.

Since the business community relies on an educated workforce to grow and compete in the 21st century, we must vote no on Question 2 and support targeted investments in our school system, including access to internships and other workforce opportunities.

As it stands, the MCAS remains the best barometer for determining whether or not students are learning at grade level. It shows where we’ve helped our students and where we’ve failed them. If we are dismayed by declining or stagnant test results, we shouldn’t tear up the test just because we don’t like what it reveals.

If our schools’ curriculums meet the same standards mandated by the state, our students should be able to pass the MCAS. If they aren’t, we should use the results to improve their performance and prepare them for a successful college and career path.

Edward Lambert is executive director of the Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education, a nonprofit organization of employers created to promote improvement in public education. He is also a former mayor and school committee member in Massachusetts.

By Matt Hills

I ask all Massachusetts voters to vote NO on Question 2. This initiative would eliminate the state’s only common standard for high school graduation.

If the ballot question is approved, the quality of Massachusetts public school education would be harmed and inequities would further widen, especially for our most vulnerable students. It is bad education policy, and is unfair and unjust for our students and families.

The grade 10 MCAS graduation requirement is the state’s only opportunity to ensure common, minimum education standards for all public high schools and provide some consistency across more than 300 school districts. The requirement is part of several decades of bi-partisan education policy providing much more state funding for local school districts together with standards and accountability for better results. As a result, we have seen meaningful increases in achievement and graduation rates and a narrowing of gaps, results that have made Massachusetts a national leader.

Question 2 is not “repeal and replace”, but only “repeal” with a prohibition on any statewide assessment requirement. If this initiative passes, each district will determine its own graduation requirements, taking us backwards to the days of lower levels of achievement and higher gaps especially for our most vulnerable students. We will return to the time of more than 300 graduation standards for more than 300 districts. We have a constitutional obligation and moral responsibility to continue and not reverse our progress.

There is a significant gap between reality and fiction in the campaign for Question 2. Certain key facts, backed by actual data, help clarify what is at stake.

If Question 2 is approved then Massachusetts will be one of only three states without comprehensive statewide graduation requirements. We will be a problematic and unfortunate outlier among states.

Grade 10 MCAS scores are predictive of future life outcomes including income and likelihood of enrolling and completing two- or four-year college. This is true for every racial, ethnic and other student group. Preparing our students for the workforce or further education are key goals of a successful K-12 education. The data confirms that MCAS is testing knowledge central to post-grade 12 opportunities and serves a crucial purpose.

Approximately one percent of the statewide graduating class of 70,000 students does not receive a graduation diploma only because they have not passed the grade 10 MCAS by the end of grade 12. It is meant to be a minimum standard, and almost all students meet or exceed that standard.

This is not a one-time test. There are five opportunities to pass the grade 10 MCAS in high school including once in grade 10 and twice each in grades 11 and 12. Ninety-two percent of those who pass do so on their first attempt in grade 10, and almost all do so by the end of grade 11. There are additional appeals processes for special needs students and for students with good grades but who are “bad test takers”, and approximately 75 percent of appeals have been granted.

Much has been made of the supposed impact of the graduation requirement on English Learners. The data does not support the allegations, and analysis indicates that less than one percent of EL students do not receive a graduation diploma solely because of a language barrier with the MCAS graduation requirement.

There is significant teacher involvement with MCAS. Each year 265 educators review and provide feedback on test items, and 280 educators participated on panels to set standards from 2017-2022.

The MCAS graduation requirement helps assure that all Massachusetts graduates have met a minimum consistent set of standards before they graduate based on grade 10 standards. Classroom preparation should consist of teaching the grade 10 content and standards that are supposed to be taught as part of the curriculum.

There are good reasons that this referendum is opposed by many elected leaders and educators including Governor Healey, Lt. Governor Driscoll, Attorney General Campbell, Secretary of Education Tutwiler and previous Democratic and Republican Secretaries of Education, House Speaker Mariano, Senate President Spilka, and a wide range of elected and community leaders.

Question 2 would result in a harmful and regressive education policy, and I urge you to vote No.

Matt Hills, a Newton resident and parent of four, is a former Newton School Committee chair and current vice chair of the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.

I firmly believe that the MCAS should continue to be a high school graduation requirement for students in the Commonwealth, and that voters should vote No on Question 2. While it is not without its flaws, the MCAS plays a vital role in ensuring educational equity and highlighting areas of improvement for schools.

It is a tool that provides valuable insights into the performance of diverse student groups, leading to more informed and targeted educational interventions, as long as that information is shared with teachers.

As a 27-year dedicated teacher and a longtime member of the teacher-led committee that helps develop the questions on the assessments, I can attest to the rigorous two-year review process that addresses bias, incorporates expert evaluations, aligns with curriculum guidelines and reviews for grammatical accuracy before it reaches students.

Our input is valued, and we play a crucial role in deciding which questions are field-tested and ultimately included on student assessments.

It is important to note that the percentage of students who don’t pass the MCAS is less than 1%. It is also important to know that students have the option to retake the assessment four times during their junior and senior years. An Educational Proficiency Plan (EPP) is created for students who fail — providing them with a targeted set of interventions to help them meet the standard.

The state already recognizes that some students who are proficient in the classroom don’t test well. That is why it created an appeal process that compares classroom grades and test results with those of their peers. Students with disabilities can seek a “portfolio review,” which provides an independent evaluation of their actual coursework, and an alternative path to a diploma that bypasses test results.

The MCAS is not just a standardized assessment; it is a critical instrument for measuring educational outcomes and tracking the progress of our students statewide. In the absence of MCAS, students in more than 300 school districts will be held to a wide array of graduation standards.

One of its most essential functions is to enable us to evaluate the performance of different subgroups, including students with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), multi-language learners (MLLs), and those from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. We can identify and address achievement gaps effectively by analyzing how these subgroups perform.

If Question 2 passes, we will be one of two states that do not have a statewide graduation requirement. Additionally, the lack of consistency statewide will broaden the gaps of inequity we already know about. This would also affect post-graduation plans for students; in short, where you go to school could determine what school you get into.

Why would anyone believe that setting lower standards for students is fair?

Creating a document from DESE that highlights all the pathways students can pass the MCAS and the local requirements would be a valuable resource for students and families concerned about graduation. Additionally, data needs to be shared with teachers in a more timely manner; it takes five months for data to trickle down to districts and then even more time to get to teachers, if it even gets to them.

Students also need to know the pathways they have available to them to pass the MCAS, and they should know how the scoring works. The culture of high stakes test pressure needs to change. The lead on that needs to come from districts, administrators and DESE.

We should be shifting our concern to the 700 students who didn‘t pass and working with DESE and districts to get these students over the finish line.

Consider the numbers 700 and 70,000, the latter being size of the typical graduating class. It is much easier to solve a 1% issue rather than take away from the 99% of students who have achieved their graduation requirements. If we want change, then we should reform the statewide graduation requirement to better serve our educators and students, not toss it out without a plan.

I am worried marginalized groups will become invisible, only leading to more disparities, shifting the pendulum of equity in the wrong direction. Let’s keep the statewide graduation requirement and the equity it ensures.

Cynthia Agruso is a teacher in the Agawam public schools. She participates in the development of the MCAS.--

Two states require that students take independently-administered civics tests to graduate high school. Eight have comprehensive exit exams. And a vast majority require students to earn credits in multiple math, science, and language classes. In all, 47 states, including Massachusetts, require an exit exam or specific course requirements to graduate.

That means Massachusetts could soon be in select company. It has essentially no course requirements to graduate. And next month, it could get rid of its exit exam.

Voters in November will weigh Question 2, a teachers union-backed measure that would repeal the state mandate that students pass 10th grade MCAS exams in math, English, and science. A recent Suffolk University/Boston Globe poll found about 58 percent of respondents supported the ballot measure.

Massachusetts is already something of an outlier, but if the measure passes, it will be even more of one. While almost every other state requires students to complete a laundry list of specific course credits to graduate, Massachusetts requires only instruction in civics and physical education. And despite a decade-old trend of abolishing exit exams around the country, there appears to be little academic research into how it has played out on the ground.

If Massachusetts voters approve the measure, it would go into effect immediately for the class of 2025 and it would be left up to districts to certify that students have met state academic standards. While the Massachusetts Teachers Association disputes eliminating the MCAS requirement would result in varying graduation standards across the state, experts who spoke to the Globe said if the requirement is removed, the state should consider alternative concrete requirements to ensure a continued graduation bar.

In 2002, more than half of states asked students to pass an exit exam to graduate high school, but that number has been slowly declining since, to just eight today (plus two states with narrow civics test requirements). The number is likely to decline further, with New York education officials considering a proposal to lift the state’s test requirement.

Many states that have removed the requirements cite similar reasons advocates in Massachusetts give, including the harm to English learners and students with disabilities, who disproportionately fail the exams, and concerns that educators focus their teaching on preparing students for the high-stakes exams to the exclusion of other skills and knowledge. In Massachusetts, about 1 percent of students each year fail to graduate solely because of the exam; most who fail the exam also fail to meet local graduation requirements. And most students who never pass are English learners or students with disabilities.

The ballot measure has pitted the state’s teachers union against business groups and has caused schisms among the state’s political class. Those opposed, including the state’s top education officials, warn the state would be left with no uniform graduation standards in Massachusetts.

However, there’s little evidence on how lifting state test requirements has affected graduation rates or other educational outcomes for students around the country. Academic research on the introduction of state tests in the 1990s and 2000s tended to find minimal or somewhat negative effects.

John Papay, a professor at Brown University’s Annenberg Institute who studies the MCAS through a research partnership with the state’s education departments, said he was unaware of any research on the aftermath of removing exit exams in other states. If the initiative passes, he said, it will be “important to study.”

Related: Half of all Mass. high schools don’t abide by state recommended graduation requirements

Graduation rate trends in states that have removed the tests show no consistent effect: Nevada’s graduation rate surged the year it ended its state test, but California, for example, ended its state test requirement in 2015, and saw its graduation rate briefly plateau. Graduation rates then continued rising — but so did rates in both Massachusetts and across the nation.

But comparison to other states may not be adequate for Massachusetts because of the lack of an alternative set of course requirements. Under state law, all high schools must offer physical education and civics classes, but students don’t have to pass them. Districts in Massachusetts are allowed to come up with their own required course lists for graduation.

Just three other states — Pennsylvania, Colorado, and Vermont — have only one or fewer course credits required to graduate, according to the Education Commission of the States, a nonprofit based in Denver.

Harry Feder, executive director of FairTest, a watchdog group in New York City that opposes standardized testing, said Pennsylvania and Colorado both leave graduation requirements up to local districts, but they have to align their requirements with curriculum standards and get approval from the states.

Related: Does the MCAS graduation requirement matter in outcomes of high school graduates?

“It’s not that the state throws up its hands and says, ‘Do what you want,’” Feder said. “There are places where people come in from the states and audit ... whether you are doing the things to make kids graduation ready.”

Massachusetts education officials already visit 15 to 20 districts each year and review their educational efforts.

Josh Goodman, an economist at Boston University who has studied the influence of math course requirements on students, said if the ballot measure passes, the state should consider imposing coursework-based graduation requirements instead, and work to ensure the content of those courses continues to meet a minimum standard. Goodman’s research examined the impact of many states adding more math requirements in the wake of a landmark federal report “A Nation at Risk,” which concluded that American students were falling behind their global peers. Goodman found the new standards substantially increased coursework completed by Black students, who were most affected by the heightened curriculum standards, and their later earnings.

“I take that research of mine as an example of how the state can step in and raise standards in a way that actually reduces inequality among students ... and I see that as quite parallel to the role the MCAS plays in Massachusetts,” Goodman said. “My fear is that if the state doesn’t play a role in that, the students who suffer are most disadvantaged socially and economically, because it’s their school districts that are the least well-resourced and for whom it’s easiest to relax standards so that their graduation rates don’t suffer.”

A recent report found half of the state’s public high schools do not require students to complete the recommended MassCore program to graduate. That sort of patchwork of graduation requirements is part of what the MCAS graduation test was intended to solve, and advocates of the test argue that having it as a measure of the state’s learning standards is part of why the state’s schools improved in recent decades.

Related: $7.7m vs. $1.2m: On the MCAS ballot measure, business-backed opponents are getting outspent — and out-campaigned

Massachusetts public schools are “number one” in the country, Massachusetts Secretary of Education Patrick Tutwiler said in a recent interview, partly as a result of a “system of assessment and accountability” that includes MCAS standardized tests.

Even if the measure passes, Massachusetts would continue to have the MCAS. All states must assess all students regularly, under federal law, and only a few states such as Massachusetts have those assessments double as graduation requirements. A handful have state tests contribute to the students’ grades in certain courses. Some states also require students to take but not pass other tests such as the SAT or make passing the state test one of several options to graduate.

Technically, even those states that still have exit exams do have alternatives. In Ohio, for example, students can graduate after failing multiple times by enlisting in the military. Massachusetts has one of the strictest requirements, but even the Commonwealth has appeals, nearly all of which are approved by the state, noted Papay.

“The appeals process is not nearly as well used as it might be,” Papay said. “That’s a big equity issue. Some districts are filing a lot of appeals and some are not, so outcomes seem to be different.”

Christopher Huffaker can be reached at christopher.huffaker@globe.com. Follow him @huffakingit.

The day after U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat, declared during a televised debate against Republican John Deaton that she would be voting in favor of Question 2 to eliminate the requirement that students pass the MCAS exam to graduate from a Massachusetts public high school, a triumvirate of constitutional office holders from her party planted their flags firmly in the camp against the measure.

Gov. Maura Healey, Lt. Gov. Kim Driscoll and Attorney General Andrea Campbell headlined a press conference hosted by the “No on 2” campaign on Wednesday afternoon in Roxbury.

Campbell had only publicly stated her position on the question for the first time the day before, as a guest on GBH’s Boston Public Radio. Healey had previously said she did not believe in removing the requirement when asked, but speaking at Wednesday’s rally seems like a shift in tone for the governor to perhaps a more proactive role against the initiative.

At Wednesday’s press conference, Healey attributed the state’s standing as the oft-ranked best public education system in the country to its teachers and to its statewide standards.

“A way to assess performance and how kids are doing, that is through the MCAS exam,” she said. “Massachusetts has the best public schools in the country because of our high standards, not in spite of them, and Question 2, in our view, would eliminate a tool that we know works in terms of our ability to assess how our young people are doing.”

Question 2 supporters say scrapping the standardized MCAS exam’s use as a high school graduation requirement would allow educators to stop “teaching to the test” and instead focus on student needs. Districts would gain more autonomy over establishing graduation requirements that reflect students who have mastered competencies in the state’s academic standards, proponents say.

The Massachusetts Teachers Association and other supporters say the measure would bolster equity among students from marginalized communities, and they often point to 700 students each year who are unable to graduate because they failed MCAS but met all other requirements.

Critics warn the measure’s passage could lead to a patchwork of education standards and ultimately harm the state’s future workforce.

“We’ll have different standards in Randolph than we will in Reading, and that’s a system that I don’t believe sets us up for success,” Healey said.

Late Wednesday afternoon, the “Yes on 2” campaign released a statement from MTA President Max Page and Vice President Deb McCarthy calling Healey’s comments “disappointing.”

“It’s disappointing that Governor Healey has chosen to side with the few corporate donors opposing Question 2 and against Massachusetts educators, parents and students,” the statement says.

A new UMass Amherst and WCVB poll found 53 percent of respondents support Question 2, while 36 percent oppose it and 11 percent are unsure.

Wednesday’s press conference could be the beginning of a more active opposition effort on behalf of some of the state’s top elected officials. In addition to Healey, Driscoll and Campbell, House Speaker Ron Mariano and Senate President Karen Spilka — the two most powerful people in the Legislature — have also come out against Question 2.

“I, too, have real concerns about Question 2 because it would not just remove our only statewide graduation standard, it would remove the state standard and offer no replacement,” Campbell said. “This would result in over 300 different and unequal standards for high school graduation across the commonwealth and potentially lead to haphazard assessments of student readiness for college and careers, and even wider inequities in student achievement and, of course, opportunities.”

As more electeds take official positions as the election inches closer, another line has been drawn — former Education Chair Rep. Alice Peisch has declared for “No on 2” while current Education Chair Sen. Jason Lewis has declared in favor of the question. Neither campaign has claimed the endorsement of House chair of the Education Committee Rep. Denise Garlick.

The initiative puts some top Democrats at home in Massachusetts at odds with a Bay State Democrat in D.C., and in line with the state’s Republican party on the issue. The MassGOP has said they recommend voting against the question, and Tuesday night the GOP challenger for Warren’s Senate seat also said he’s casting a “no” vote.

“We can’t have 351 standards,” Deaton said during the debate hosted by WBZ and The Boston Globe on Tuesday. “Our school system is still recovering from COVID. There’s statistics of fifth graders can’t even read. And there’s people being graduated, if you don’t have the MCAS and you have no standards, you’re going to get people graduating from high school that can’t fully speak English now in the state. And that puts them at a disadvantage.”

English language learners are disproportionately represented in the roughly 1 percent of students who do not graduate due to the MCAS exam.

In 2019, of 702 students who did not earn a diploma due to the exam, 281 were English language learners, according to data provided to the News Service by Board of Elementary and Secondary Education Vice Chair Matt Hills.

However, of those 281 students, fewer than 30 failed the exam just due to a language barrier alone and not other academic challenges, according to Hills’ analysis of the data, which considers that the math and science sections of the test are available in Spanish at the high school level.

Warren, leaning on her past experience as a special education teacher, said a single test is not a good measure for every child’s ability.

Warren said that the yes campaign is being driven by the state’s teachers, and the voters should listen to those who are in classrooms with kids. The campaign is being bankrolled by teachers unions, who also wrote the ballot question and have been knocking doors and collecting signatures for the initiative.

“Our teachers are telling us that the consequence of this test is actually to teach our kids less, because we’re teaching them more about test-taking skills, taking them out of the classroom. They want an opportunity to help shape a broader view of which children get a high school diploma, and that’s something that we should support our teachers who have helped us build the number one education system in the country,” Warren said.

At Wednesday’s press conference, Campbell said that voting no on Question 2 does not equate to not supporting educators.

“Parents and students don’t have unions, which sadly can leave their voice and perspective out of some of the most important policy discussions and decision making,” Campbell said.

During a radio debate Wednesday on GBH’s Boston Public Radio, co-host Jim Braude asked MTA Vice President McCarthy why Healey, whom the MTA endorsed for governor, is at odds with the teachers union over the future of MCAS.

McCarthy said Healey is not standing with educators and labor, including the Massachusetts Association of School Committees, the Massachusetts Parent Teacher Association, and Massachusetts AFL-CIO, who have all voiced support for the question.

“This ballot measure is being supported by parents, educators, community activists and students,” McCarthy said. “We met for more than seven weeks with Patrick Tutwiler, and we came pretty close to almost having a legislative solution. And there was a lot of alignment and agreement that we are not doing things right.”

The special legislative committee tasked with reviewing initiative petitions decided against taking action on any of the ballot questions this spring. In a report, the committee said the MCAS question removes the state’s uniform graduation requirement without establishing a “uniform alternative.”

“Simply eliminating the uniform graduation requirement, which will allow students to graduate who do not meet basic standards, with no standardized and consistent benchmark in place to ensure those standards are met, will not improve student outcomes and runs the risk of exacerbating inconsistencies and inequities in instruction and learning across districts,” the report said

Rattling off the growing list of names of top elected officials who are against Question 2, McCarthy’s opponent in the radio debate — Keri Rodrigues, founder of the National Parents Union — said those leaders understand the “significant impact” of scrapping MCAS, namely students will be “handed a piece of paper at the end of 12 years of education that is almost meaningless because it’s a participation trophy; it is a certificate of attendance.”

“Moving forward, the idea that we are going to fly blind and hope, based on vibes, that our kids are going to be ready for the jobs and the economy of the future — what is going to happen to the workforce?” Rodrigues said.

Healey, who also appeared on GBH Wednesday, told Braude and co-host Margery Eagan that she “actually listened to the debate that you had earlier” but still thinks Question 2 is a bad idea.

“For me, Question 2 is one of these, to me, unfortunate creations of this ballot process,” Healey said on the radio Wednesday, before going to the Roxbury press conference. “Sometimes, I don’t think that the ballot process is always the best way to make policy here in the state. And the reason that I oppose Question 2 and the elimination of MCAS as a graduation requirement is because, as a matter of education policy, I think … it’s better for us as a state to have a statewide standard graduation requirement.”

Healey noted that she is “the daughter of two union teachers, my mom was a longtime school nurse and health educator, and my stepdad was actually president of his teachers’ union.”

“Without a replacement for a uniform standard statewide, I don’t think it makes sense to go this way,” the governor said. “And I think that there’s a better way to achieve this.”

(Copyright (c) 2024 State House News Service.

As a parent and a former Cambridge School Committee member who cares deeply about setting up our children for success, I am deeply concerned about the proposed elimination of the 10th-grade assessment as a high school graduation requirement. I firmly believe that maintaining this exam as a graduation requirement is essential, especially for our most vulnerable students.

While I acknowledge the flaws inherent in standardized testing, I also recognize the necessity of maintaining some form of academic measurement. The flaws in the test do not negate the need for accountability. If Ballot Question 2 were to succeed, we’d be left with a system based on 300+ varying standards that will lead to more students graduating even if they haven’t yet learned the skills they’ll need to thrive in their adult lives.

Those in favor of removing the MCAS as a graduation requirement generally rely on two arguments. The first argument is that MCAS places enormous amounts of stress on our children. From my experience as a parent and school committee member, I believe we should teach our children how to manage stress, not remove it. This builds resiliency that will position them for success. What child doesn’t face stress in their lives? — driver’s tests, nursing license tests, the bar exam, the teacher’s licensing test. Not to mention the stress they will feel arriving on a college campus or entering the workforce and finding out they must still obtain the basic skills they should have mastered while in school. We need to give them the tools and support to manage life’s challenges, not feed into their fears.

Secondly, those opposed to the MCAS say that because some school districts and students lack the resources to succeed, we should just eliminate the standard. To me, this is unacceptable. The results of this year’s MCAS should be a massive wake-up call. If four out of five Black and Latino children in grades 3-8 are not performing at grade level now, should we plan on scrapping the high school graduation requirement so they can be handed a diploma that doesn’t indicate their readiness to graduate and jeopardizes their future? We must do more to support our children so they can reach that bar. We must send our kids into adult life knowing they are competent in writing, math and science.

Having unequal standards across the state would further disadvantage children who need the most help. I don’t understand the wisdom of lowering standards for kids who struggle to make the grade. Our goals should be lifting them up and providing them with support to succeed.

I often liken the necessity of academic requirements to school sports. While any student can join a team, they must demonstrate skill and competency to earn the chance to play. No one questions this approach in sports; we encourage our kids to practice and improve their abilities to gain more time on the field or court. We should apply the same mindset to academics, holding all students to high expectations that foster their growth and success.

As the birthplace of public education, Massachusetts has long been regarded as a beacon of educational achievement, and we must continue to lead by example. We can do this by ensuring students who are struggling get the help they need rather than lowering academic standards for all students.

Take the “Mississippi Miracle,” for example. Mississippi, which had long struggled with student reading outcomes, passed its Literacy-Based Promotion Act in 2013. This law created a more robust infrastructure around helping children learn to read and holding them back at the end of third grade if they didn’t hit a certain benchmark. The result? 97% of its school districts have improved third-grade reading scores. If we want to better equip our children for future success, we should look to initiatives like these.

As Nov. 5 approaches, it’s imperative that we engage in a thoughtful discussion about what we want for our children’s education. Will we support a system that helps bridge the gaps, or will we allow disparities to widen? The stakes are too high for us to remain indifferent.

I urge you to consider voting NO on Ballot Question 2 and to consider the importance of the MCAS — not just as a test, but as a vital tool for equity and accountability and ensuring that every child has the opportunity to succeed. Removing the requirement without a replacement, as proposed by Question 2, would be a grave disservice to our kids.

Manikka Bowman is a parent and former Cambridge School Committee member.

When I was in high school, the state of Virginia (where my family lived at the time) required students to pass a “minimum competency” exam in order to earn a diploma. My sister, two years older than me and with intellectual disabilities, passed the English language arts exam on her first try, but did not pass the math exam. She’d attended separate special ed schools throughout elementary school, and now in high school was enrolled in general ed math courses and had earned passing grades. Yet, she could not pass the state’s math competency exam for high school graduation.

You might be thinking that this is where I express my support for eliminating competency tests as a requirement for high school diplomas…but I’m not. My sister’s high school wanted to let her walk at graduation, award her essentially a participation certificate, and not ask her to sit for the math exam again. But my mother, a high school math and science teacher, wanted nothing of the sort for her. She insisted that they follow state guidelines and provide my sister with the educational support to prepare for the test and to administer the test again — and to do so until she achieved a passing score.

Not only did my sister eventually pass the math exam, she did so in time to graduate with her peers and with the same diploma that each of them had earned. This was an incredible source of pride for my sister for the rest of her life. Not just because it opened more doors to her for life after high school — more opportunities for employment and to earn her own wages — but because her credential was no different than any other high school graduate in Virginia.

This coming election day, voters in Massachusetts will decide whether to eliminate the state requirement that students pass its competency exams, the MCAS, to earn a high school diploma. For several reasons, I plan to vote “no” and I encourage others to consider the following before deciding how to vote.

Question 2 does not eliminate the MCAS

Many people believe that we should get rid of the MCAS because it is harmful to children and overly constrains teaching. Question 2 does not address this. School districts will continue to be required to administer the MCAS in grades 3-10. The only change would be that students would no longer be required to pass the 10th grade tests in order to earn a diploma.

If Question 2 passes, MA would be one of the few U.S. states with no state-wide standard for high school graduation.

Massachusetts is one of 9 states today (down from a high of 27 states) that has a competency exam requirement for graduation. But, most other states have other mechanisms for ensuring that state-wide standards are met by all public high school graduates in their state. In Massachusetts, the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) describes a core curriculum, Mass Core, that is recommended but not required for graduation. According to a recent article in the Boston Globe, half of all public high schools in the state do not require students to complete the Mass Core in order to graduate. Still, even if it were required, the evaluation of an individual student’s learning is left to the individual teacher and school.

That may sound like a fantastic solution, especially if your school has incredible teachers. But not all schools have equally great teachers, and there isn’t any way to know how teaching varies by district or school without a state-wide standard. As my sister experienced, her wonderful and well-meaning teachers wanted to let her graduate simply because she had attended school and worked hard, even though she could not demonstrate the required learning in math.

A high school diploma is not a participation award.

Our schools exist to educate students, to ensure they are equipped with the learning and skills to be able to fulfill their individual potential as thriving members of our community and society. Our schools should not graduate students simply because they’ve attended school and completed work “for years.”

Photo by Pavel Danilyuk on Pexels.com

For one, we’d be left with measuring school effectiveness based on the number of graduates, and by that measure Amherst schools are failing, given the steady decline in enrollment and graduation numbers.

But try to apply that logic to any situation where we expect a person to possess knowledge and skills. Physicians and lawyers must complete an accredited education program, but also must demonstrate their knowledge to the state via a standard exam in order to practice here.

Similarly, electricians, barbers and cosmetologists, food servers, and more can’t be licensed in their fields in Massachusetts based solely on putting in the years of training and work, or on the recommendation of their instructor.

Imagine if you had to research the coursework and grading standards for every training program or instructor when hiring an electrician or lawyer. The state sets standards of knowledge and skill that must be demonstrated through a state-wide assessment mechanism so we don’t have to.

Why should a high school diploma be different?

Question 2 will not make our schools better off.

If Question 2 passes, we lose a state-wide standard for understanding how our schools are serving students with no replacement, not even a concept of a plan for one. I would enthusiastically support an effort to improve MCAS, or to devise a new state-wide assessment approach.

But, as imperfect as it may be, today’s MCAS is a measure that ensures that every person who earns a high school diploma in Massachusetts has acquired the same minimum knowledge and skills. And it should not be tossed until a replacement is developed and ready to implement.

For more, this report from the Center for State Policy Analysis at Tufts University provides an explanation of the ballot question and summarizes the arguments both for and against it.

Allison McDonald has lived in Amherst since 2002 and has two sons who attended Amherst public schools. She served on the Amherst School Committee 2018-2023, and as chair 2020-2023. She volunteers as managing editor of The Amherst Current.

Share this:

The ballot initiative decides whether a critical measurement of academic success will be removed without a replacement

October 16, 2024—A bipartisan coalition of more than 30 Massachusetts elected leaders have come together with Governor Maura Healey, Lt. Governor Kim Driscoll, and Attorney General Andrea Campbell to voice their opposition to Question 2, a ballot initiative that would eliminate Massachusetts' only statewide standard for high school graduation, and replace it with more than 300 different and unequal standards established by each school district.

“I’m voting No on 2 because no matter the community, every child deserves the highest quality education,” said Governor Maura Healey. “If Question 2 passes, we'll become one of two states that don’t have a statewide standard for graduation. The only standard remaining would be four years of gym. Of the 70,000 graduating students each year, 99% of them meet our current standard for graduation. Our goal should be to help get that 1% of students over the goal line, not throw out a standard that improves schools for all of our kids.”

The group includes state legislators and municipal leaders, who argue that Question 2 would weaken state education standards, making Massachusetts standards less rigorous than those in Mississippi and Alabama.

“If students cannot pass basic assessments in math, English, or science, the answer is not to eliminate the standard. Rather than lowering the academic standard for all students, the focus should be on ensuring students who are struggling get the help they need,” stated Attorney General Andrea Campbell. “There is a crucial need for unbiased, fair assessments to give parents and educators a real pulse of their kids' readiness for college and career. The passage of Question 2 would prohibit these. I am joining many others in urging a NO vote on Question 2.”

These elected officials join Massachusetts House Speaker Ron Mariano and Massachusetts Senate President Karen Spilka in their opposition to Question 2.

“From the Governor and Lt Governor to municipal leaders, there is agreement that removing our statewide graduation standard and not replacing it with anything would greatly harm our children and our state,” said Campaign Chair John Schneider. “A common, objective statewide assessment equalizes expectations across school districts and ensures every student reaches for the same bar. If students cannot pass basic assessments in math, English, or science, the answer is not to eliminate the standard. Rather than lowering the academic standard for all students, the focus should be on ensuring students who are struggling get the help they need.”

Those publicly voicing their opposition to Question 2 include:

●     Governor Maura Healey

●     Lieutenant Governor Kim Driscoll

●     Attorney General Andrea Campbell

●     House Speaker Ron Mariano

●     Senate President Karen Spilka

●     Senate Assistant Majority Leader Michael Barrett (D - Third Middlesex)

●     House Assistant Majority Leader Alice Peisch (D - 14th Norfolk)

●     House Second Assistant Majority Leader Frank Moran (D - 17th Essex)

●     Senate Ways & Means Chair Michael Rodrigues (D - First Bristol and Plymouth)

●     Senate Ways & Means Vice Chair Cindy Friedman (D - Fourth Middlesex)

●     House Minority Leader Brad Jones (R - 20th Middlesex)

●     Senate Assistant Minority Leader Peter Durant (R - Worcester and Hampshire)

●     House Third Assistant Minority Leader Jay Barrows (R - 1st Bristol)

●     Senator John Cronin (D - Worcester and Middlesex)

●     Representative Ann-Margaret Ferrante (D - 5th Essex)

●     Senator Barry Finegold (D - Second Essex and Middlesex)

●     Newton Mayor Ruthanne Fuller

●     Representative Steven Howitt (R - 4th Bristol)

●     Representative Hannah Kane (R - 11th Worcester)

●     Newton School Committee Member Paul Levy

●     Representative Kate Lipper-Garabedian (D - 32nd Middlesex)

●     Representative John Mahoney (D - 13th Worcester)

●     North Andover School Committee Member Ed Moscovitch 

●     Representative David K. Muradian, Jr. (R - 9th Worcester)

●     Boston City Councilor Erin Murphy

●     Cambridge City Councilor Patty Nolan

●     Representative Francisco Paulino (D - 16th Essex)

●     Haverhill School Committee Member Maura Ryan-Ciardiello

●     Representative Paul Schmid (D - 8th Bristol)

●     Brockton City Councilor Maria Tavares

●     Cambridge City Councilor Paul Toner

●     Haverhill City Councilor Shaun Toohey

●     Representative Chynah Tyler (D - 7th Suffolk)

●     Representative Marcus Vaughn (R - 9th Norfolk)

●     Representative Donald Wong (R - 9th Essex)

Question 2 asks voters whether Massachusetts should eliminate a fair, uniform, statewide standard for graduation that measures whether students are ready to graduate with the knowledge and skills they need to succeed in college and career.

“For me, it centers around the issues of fairness and equity,” said Lieutenant Governor Kim Driscoll, herself a former Salem Mayor, City Councillor, and school committee chair. “We have the best schools in the country but we aren’t fulfilling our promise to all our kids or our promise as a state if we don’t hold every school to the same high standards. Question 2 doesn’t just change the standards. It eliminates them. Watering down those standards is not the way to achieve equity. The solution is to set high standards and do everything we can to help every child achieve them.”

The vast majority of students pass the test on their first try, and less than 1% don’t graduate on time because they have not passed the MCAS.

High school students have several chances to pass the test between 10th and 12th grades. The state also provides numerous accommodations for students with disabilities, English learners, and other students who need them so they are not disadvantaged.

“As a parent, a former Cambridge School Committee member, and a leader who learns differently, I am deeply concerned about the proposed elimination of the 10th-grade assessment as a high school graduation requirement, especially for our most vulnerable students,” said Manikka Bowman, a parent and former Cambridge school committee member. “Having unequal standards across the state would further disadvantage children who need the most help. I don’t understand the wisdom of lowering standards for kids who struggle to make the grade. Our goals should be lifting them up and providing them with support to succeed.”

Should the initiative succeed, the assessment will be removed as a graduation requirement, and nothing will replace it. Students would simply pass through high school without learning the skills they need to find success in post-high school life.

“Eliminating a common standard will further marginalize the very students who need the most help,” Schneider said. “It’s unfair to kids to grant diplomas when they aren’t yet ready to graduate.”

Protect Our Kids’ Future: No on Question 2 is a broad coalition of teachers, parents, education advocates, elected officials, and business groups formed to defeat this misguided ballot question. Its goal is to preserve educational standards for students and ensure equitable academic opportunities for all kids across the Commonwealth. For more information, visit our website at votenoquestion2.org or follow us on social media on LinkedIn, Instagram, Facebook, and X (formerly Twitter).

“Quality standards are critical to ensure students are learning what they need to be learning,” the student says. “We need to make sure all students have an equal chance at success.”

A parent in the ad states the “standard was a barometer for me, to understand that my son, with learning differences, was ready for the next level.”

The teacher argues for a No vote, saying: “Question 2 lowers education standards in our state.”

The message also notes the Boston Globe and Boston Herald’s endorsement of a “No” vote on the question. Last week, the Globe explained in its endorsement:

“By removing the MCAS requirement — without replacing it with any alternative statewide method of ensuring diplomas remain meaningful — Question 2 would put that progress at risk. Education is the core strength of Massachusetts — our workforce, our government, our future — and that is not a risk we can afford to take.”

This advertisement is the beginning of the final push by the campaign to ensure voters understand what’s at stake in this election.

“There is a crucial need for unbiased, fair assessments to give parents and educators a real pulse of their kids' readiness for college and career,” John Schneider, No on 2 campaign chair, said. “The passage of Question 2 would prohibit these.”

###

Protect Our Kids’ Future: No on Question 2 is a broad coalition of teachers, parents, education advocates, elected officials, and business groups formed to defeat this misguided ballot question. Its goal is to preserve educational standards for students and ensure equitable academic opportunities for all kids across the Commonwealth. For more information, visit our website at votenoquestion2.org or follow us on social media on LinkedIn, Instagram, Facebook, and X (formerly Twitter).

The BBJ Editorial Board

It’s been said that Massachusetts’ most valuable natural resource is our highly educated workforce. It’s why global companies in all sectors seeking an innovative edge are willing to pay top-dollar to set up a Boston-area office. And it’s what’s helped the Bay State’s economy recover from recessions faster than the rest of the country multiple times over the past three decades.

It’s also why, if we want to maintain our economic strength for the next few decades, we need to ensure that our high school graduates achieve a uniform minimum level of education, whether they attend school in Boston or Lexington. The best way to do that is to vote no on ballot Question 2, and support keeping the MCAS as a graduation requirement.

The driving force behind the effort to remove the requirement to pass the 10th-grade MCAS test in order to graduate from any public high school in the state is the Massachusetts Teachers Association. The teachers union argues that the MCAS graduation requirement places a “crushing stress” on students, and that "a standardized test … can’t fully measure whether a student has learned what they need to succeed in life.”We agree that the MCAS test causes students stress, and we also agree that it’s not a complete measure of a student’s readiness for life after school. But neither of those factors are a reason to jettison the only statewide measure of what a Massachusetts public high school student ought to know before graduating.

Despite what the union would have you believe, very few students who complete all the other requirements for graduating high school fail the MCAS exam. And students who do fail it can retake the test several times. For those students who have truly learned the required material but who are not good test-takers, options already exist that allow them to complete other work to demonstrate their educational proficiency. Lastly, there already are processes in place to appeal a failing MCAS grade.

The fact is, we need a statewide standard for graduation. Prior to the 1993 education reform law, which went into effect in 2003, standards varied greatly across the state. The MCAS, while not perfect, addressed that inconsistency, and in the years since the test was created, millions of dollars have been invested to help underperforming school districts improve. Many of those schools have been in low-income or minority-majority neighborhoods, and without the MCAS, you could argue that Massachusetts would have an even wider degree of economic and racial equity.

At a time when the workforce is already facing an extremely high cost of living, long commuting times and unfriendly tax policies, removing the MCAS as a graduation requirement just gives employers one more reason to consider expanding elsewhere. Now is not the time to send the signal that Massachusetts is lowering our educational standards. We simply can’t afford to do that.

Passage of Question 2 will ultimately harm students and school districts and will weaken the state’s greatest economic strength. We urge the business community to get more vocal about this issue, and we recommend that everyone vote no.

If one is sometimes skeptical of the MTA, it quickly becomes nigh unto impossible to pry information out of the union. Thus I was glad to have the chance to pose a few questions in a setting where the union’s leaders couldn’t simply ignore my queries.

Related: Read the Editorial Board's argument in favor of keeping the MCAS graduation requirement

Those who follow the state’s education debate may recall that as part of its anti-MCAS effort, the MTA used to assert that some 50,000 high school seniors had been denied a high school diploma solely because they had failed to pass the MCAS, which requires a 10th-grade level of knowledge. That would amount to about 2,500 seniors a year. In fact, the real figure is about 700 students a year.

So why was the MTA using the erroneous higher number? Not, one hopes, as a way to muddy the factual waters.

“If there are 700 students, we think that is 700 too many,” responded MTA president Max Page. Yes, but how did the MTA come to push its highly exaggerated 50,000 figure into the public realm?

“We used data from another group that made a mistake,” Page said. That would be Citizens for Public Schools, whose budget the MTA supports. A small, resolutely anti-MCAS organization, CPS obviously lacks both a sophisticated research capacity and any sort of objective inclination when it comes to the MCAS.

The MTA, however, is a big organization, with ample ability to pay for detailed data analysis. Noting that, I asked Page whether the MTA had made any attempt to double-check CPS’s work.

Whereupon MTA vice president Deb McCarthy interrupted to say that the matter up for discussion was the ballot question.

As it happened, I had a question for her on that very matter. Discussing Question 2 on Sept. 5 on WBZ’s NightSide (on a night when, unfortunately for the facts, well-informed host Dan Rea wasn’t manning the mic), McCarthy repeatedly referred to the MCAS as a “one-time test” or a “one-time event.” She said the same thing on GBH radio on Sept. 24. In both cases, her message was that a student’s future shouldn’t be decided by a “one-time” test or event.

An example, from her GBH appearance: “I was a fifth-grade educator for 25 years, and I believe that it is critical to eliminate this one-time event so that students are allowed to get a diploma based upon their academic performance in grades nine through 12.”

Now, a student who fails the MCAS during their sophomore year can take the test four more times during high school. (Almost all clear the MCAS bar during high school.) So why did McCarthy repeatedly describe the MCAS as a “one-time” test or event?

“It is a one-time event,” she answered.

I tried several times to get McCarthy to explain what she meant by that and how she could justify telling a radio audience that a test students are able to take five times is a one-time event.

“Because the requirement of passing the 10th-grade ELA is a one-time event,” McCarthy offered as one answer.

“Because it’s the truth. It is a one-time event,” she said as another. “Tying the passage of the MCAS ELA [English Language Arts] and science is a one-time event.”

Page interrupted, seemingly in an effort to rescue his flailing VP. I asked if he, like McCarthy, considered the MCAS a one-time event.

“It is a 10th-grade test that students have to take to get a high school diploma,” he eventually replied. That’s accurate — and if he’d added that if they fail, they get four chances to retake the test during high school and can also try again after they finish school, why, he’d have hit the factual nail squarely on the head.

I still couldn’t figure out what McCarthy was trying to say. Thus I emailed the MTA press specialists to see if they knew. No reply.

I suppose it’s possible that the MTA vice president simply doesn’t understand how the MCAS high school graduation test actually works but that seems unlikely.

But the only way I can see that one can properly call the MCAS graduation exam a one-time event is if a student passes the first time, as the overwhelming majority do, and so has no need of taking it again. But that hardly constitutes an unfair aspect of the test or something that makes it an onerous bar to clear.

As should be obvious to anyone paying attention, the MTA leaders haven’t been and still aren’t particularly concerned with factual accuracy in their ballot quest.

The union clearly doesn’t like the fact that MCAS scores function as an accountability measure for schools. Unable to persuade their Democratic allies on Beacon Hill to nix the graduation test and hobble the state’s ability to intervene in failing schools, they are now attempting to pass a ballot question that will sharply reduce the relevance of the 10th-grade exam. Because one can’t constitutionally do two separate things with a ballot question, their effort to eliminate any MCAS-related accountability will require another bite at the ballot-question apple.

To date, the MTA has dedicated upward of $7 million in union cash and in-kind contributions to their standards-eroding case. According to their last campaign finance report, no one outside the union has contributed a single dime

All this should tell voters something important about the MTA’s full-throttle, damn-the-factual torpedoes approach to deep-sixing the state’s graduation exam.

Scot Lehigh is a Globe columnist. He can be reached at scot.lehigh@globe.com. Follow him @GlobeScotLehigh.

Massachusetts has more than 500 school districts. Each one has its own standards for awarding grades and diplomas. A grade of A in one district might rise only to the level of a C grade in another district. These variable standards used to mean that students across the Commonwealth ultimately graduated with very different levels of skill and knowledge.

Related: Read the opposing view in support of eliminating the MCAS graduation requirement

Some were well-prepared for college and careers while others were not, but they all got a high school diploma, which suggested to colleges and employers that they all had the skills and knowledge to succeed when many actually didn’t. This unevenness was grossly unfair to students, particularly the most disadvantaged.

Related: Read the Editorial Board's argument in favor of keeping the MCAS graduation requirement

More than 30 years ago, policy makers found this unacceptable and took action by passing the Massachusetts Education Reform Act of 1993. It required state education officials to establish a minimum standard of skill and knowledge that every student would have to meet prior to graduating. (I was involved in that process.) The Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System, for the first time in the Commonwealth’s history, required the achievement of state standards as a prerequisite for graduation. MCAS was created to assess whether students had met standards in English and math (a science requirement was added later).

The MCAS exam was essentially a diagnostic yardstick that could be used to measure whether students had the knowledge and skill they would need to successfully perform in college or career.

MCAS data are essential for guiding the improvement of teaching and learning. While Massachusetts’ standards and the MCAS tests were widely acclaimed as the best in the nation and enabled Massachusetts to become the top performing education state in the country, the standards we set, while high compared to other states, were still modest, representing only a 10th-grade level of achievement. Is this too much to ask of our high school seniors?

The requirement that students pass the 10th-grade MCAS to graduate was instituted to measure progress against a specific set of achievement criteria, thus ensuring fairness while guaranteeing that no school district could graduate a student who lacked the skill and knowledge to succeed. This was an equity strategy, quite the opposite of what its critics assert and why voters should reject Question 2, which would remove the MCAS as a graduation requirement.

Opponents have attempted to mislead the public by claiming that the MCAS graduation requirement relies on a single test. Not true. Students have many opportunities to retest — twice in their junior year and twice more as seniors. They can also take it after graduation. Additionally there are alternate tests and an appeals process. Opponents claim that the test is “high stakes,” but students who don’t meet the standard are entitled to extra help, more instruction, tutoring, an educational proficiency plan, and all the instruction needed to meet the standard.

The MCAS as a graduation requirement made it so all graduates had a minimum body of knowledge and skill. Parents, colleges, and employers could trust that a diploma from a high school in Massachusetts meant students were prepared for success. The graduation requirement also, importantly, made performance matter because students would have to meet a standard prior to graduation and schools would be judged on their effectiveness in preparing students to pass. Students, teachers, and schools were given clear incentives to make sure that all students — the reform mantra was and is “all means all” — had met at least the minimum requirements for advancement.

Prior to the class of 2003, Massachusetts’ statewide testing had no consequences. Not surprisingly, the test was largely ignored by the public and educators. By contrast, the MCAS as a graduation requirement grabbed people’s attention, creating a sense of urgency for everyone to do their utmost to help students achieve the standards. The data generated by the test became a central diagnostic tool guiding the work of districts, schools, and teachers. The media followed the results closely. A sense of accountability was infused into a system that had been largely unaccountable for performance.

One immediate indicator of the focusing power of MCAS came from the students themselves. The class of 2003′s student performance on the 10th-grade exam skyrocketed over the preceding year. Students and their teachers had gotten the message: learning counts, mastery counts. They were paying attention. If the ballot measure succeeds, that message will die, and many students will stop paying attention.

It’s important to remember that MCAS is just a measuring instrument. The graduation requirement ensures that everyone will pay attention to the measurement data. Because everyone has to meet the standard, teachers and students will want to know exactly where they’re falling short so they can make up the difference. Without that data for diagnostic purposes, educators have less guidance as to how students and schools can improve performance. Many of those who oppose the graduation requirement actually aim to eliminate MCAS altogether, even though this federally mandated assessment provides vital information to guide the closing of achievement gaps.

MCAS should be improved, not eliminated. For example, MCAS could factor in more data, such as attendance rates, to present a more complete portrait of factors affecting school performance.

Opponents of the graduation requirement want to return to a world where all standards were local and variable, where there was no public data on performance, no accountability, and where students were routinely graduated without adequate preparation to do college or career work. Opponents like to proclaim that data on individual students are not necessary and that there are other approaches to measuring performance. Many of these untried alternatives typically rely on subjective judgment, are expensive, and present major practical problems, to say nothing of their dubious validity and reliability.

This retreat from common-sense assessment would guarantee a return to an era of social promotion, graduating students based on seat time rather than subject mastery. Social promotion disproportionately punishes low-income and minority youth by sending them forward without the preparation to succeed. Massachusetts shouldn’t return to those darker days when such inequity was somehow acceptable.

Improving learning is important for students, school systems, and the communities they serve. When mediocre or poor performance doesn’t really matter, it will be ignored. MCAS and its graduation stakes make learning matter and drive the performance improvement that is essential if we truly aspire to every child having a fair chance at social and economic mobility.

Paul Reville is the Francis Keppel Professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, where he is the founding faculty director of the EdRedesign Lab. He is a former Massachusetts secretary of education.

Massachusetts has consistently ranked first in the nation when it comes to education. Whether or not we stay there is on the ballot this November. The way we determine whether or not our students are prepared for college and career is also on the ballot. Whether we continue to strive toward equality in our schools or go back to the days when vulnerable students fell through the cracks – all of it is up for a vote. I am a teacher at Brooke Charter School in Dorchester and have been in the classroom for more than 15 years. I will be voting no on Question 2, which seeks to end the MCAS test as a graduation requirement, maintaining that a test cannot fully capture a student’s abilities or that testing disproportionately harms students of color, English Language Learners and those with disabilities.

This is simply not the case. This is not to say the MCAS doesn’t have issues; there are certainly some modifications the state could make. But if we entirely eradicate the requirement, we will lose the only objective measure for what it means to graduate in the Commonwealth.

Further, having a patchwork of standards would only exacerbate existing inequality in a system where the quality of education can already depend on your zip code.

If we eliminate this objective measure, districts will self-assign their own goal posts to a point where in some cases a curriculum would set a higher bar for proficiency than the MCAS while in other cases it would lower it. This is a recipe for deepening inequities. Some school districts will simply adopt lower standards so that students can “graduate” even if they haven’t learned the skills they need to succeed.

Fair and unbiased assessments are the only way parents and educators can get a real pulse of their kids’ readiness to graduate. The passage of Question 2 would eliminate this opportunity and Massachusetts would end up with less rigorous high school graduation requirements than Mississippi or Alabama.

While the Yes on 2 campaign tells some heartfelt stories about students who aren’t able to graduate under the current system, they neglect to mention that the number of those students is vanishingly small. Further, around three-quarters of the students that currently do not meet MCAS requirements are also not meeting district requirements to graduate. This means that for the majority of students not becoming proficient on MCAS, it’s not the exam that’s the barrier to their receiving a diploma.

When I hear people say that teachers shouldn’t have to “teach to the test,” I completely agree. If you are teaching to the depth of the state standards, you shouldn’t have to teach to the test. The level of proficiency required to pass the test isn’t exceptionally high, so if a curriculum is up to the standard, then it is, in many cases, beyond the requirements of the test itself. This means that passing MCAS should just be a matter of course – as it is for the overwhelming majority of students in Massachusetts.

Another assertion from the Yes on 2 crowd is that the test won’t go away entirely; it just won’t be a requirement. This is shortsighted. When something ceases to be a requirement, it tends to become much more laissez faire. Teachers would be less invested, students would be less engaged, and data would be less reliable. Additionally, many students would likely opt out of testing. Allowing students to choose out would lend itself to the same excuses that papered over the inequities and failures of our school system before we adopted standard-based reforms.

A common, objective assessment equalizes expectations and ensures every student reaches for the same bar. Eliminating a common standard will further marginalize the very students who need the most help. The required statewide assessment makes our students better, and pushes them toward success, which is why a No Vote on Question 2 is the only option to ensure that all of our students have the best possible chance to succeed.

Cedric Jacobson has been an educator for more than 15 years. He teaches AP Biology and Advanced Chemistry at Brooke Charter High School in Dorchester.

The first ad features a public school parent discussing how vital the statewide graduation standards are to ensuring a bright future for her kids. The second ad reminds voters that Massachusetts has the best schools in the country because of our high standards and warns that Question 2 would gut those standards, leaving Massachusetts with lower standards than states like Mississippi and Alabama.

The first ad showcases public school parent Keri Rodrigues. “I have three sons, six, seventh, and eleventh grade. I grew up in the last generation of kids before MCAS was mandatory,” Rodrigues says. “You had kids who were functionally illiterate. I don't want that for my kids. We need to check every year to make sure that they are on the right path to success. The end goal of all of this is economic mobility to make sure that they are going to have a bright future. Now, there's an effort to weaken these standards. I don't get it.”

The other is a 15-second ad that includes photos of teachers, parents, and students and argues that Question 2 would “gut” our state’s education standards. “Teachers, parents, and students agree: Vote No on Question 2. Massachusetts students attend the best-ranked schools. But Question 2 will gut our education system and leave us with lower standards than Mississippi and Alabama.” The ad concludes: “Protect Our Kids Future: Vote ‘No’ on Question 2.”

"Eliminating Massachusetts' only statewide graduation requirement will leave some students behind and increase inequality,” John Schneider, Chair of Protect Our Kids Future: No on Question 2. “Some districts will inevitably adopt lower standards so more students graduate, even if they haven't actually learned the knowledge and skills they’ll need in math, science, and English to succeed. This will impact kids for the rest of their lives.”

The new ads also highlight the recent endorsements of The Boston Globe Editorial Board and the Boston Herald Editorial Board.

Notable figures support a No vote on Question 2, including Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey, Massachusetts Secretary of Education Patrick Tutwiler, Massachusetts Speaker of the House Ron Mariano, Massachusetts Senate President Karen Spilka, former Secretary of Education (under Governor Patrick) Paul Reville, and former Secretary of Education (under Governor Baker) James Peyser. All have publicly opposed Question 2.

Protect Our Kids’ Future: No on Question 2 is a broad coalition of teachers, parents, education advocates, elected officials, and business groups. Its goal is to preserve educational standards for students and ensure equitable academic opportunities for all kids across the Commonwealth.  For more information, visit our website at votenoquestion2.org or follow us on social media on LinkedIn, Instagram, Facebook, and X (formerly Twitter).

As an organization that represents employers across Massachusetts, we are deeply concerned about ballot Question 2, which would remove the requirement that students pass the 10th grade MCAS assessment to earn their diplomas. Lowering our educational standards will impair our ability to properly prepare the future workforce, which will have a ripple effect on our economy.

Already, employers across Massachusetts are finding it challenging to hire qualified candidates. A November 2023 survey of business leaders, conducted by the Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education, a nonprofit organized to promote improvement in public education, found that 87% say it’s very (35%) or somewhat (52%) difficult to find people with the right skills. Additionally, we have far too few students earning college degrees and certificates that would qualify and prepare them for these positions.

Eliminating the graduation requirement will only exacerbate these challenges, as more high school students would graduate without the know-how and skills employers need. For the small percentage (1%) of students who don’t pass the test, we need to provide them more support, not abandon them by eliminating the only statewide standard. It’s shameful to even consider.

For Massachusetts to continue leading in education and have a robust economy, the only possible vote on Nov. 5 is “no” on 2. We need to support these students who have fallen behind so they will bloom, and the economy will continue to flourish.

Ed Lambert

Executive director, Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education, Boston

As someone who grew up in Mississippi and witnessed firsthand the challenges within our education system, I can attest to the transformative power of rigorous academic standards. In 2019, Mississippi implemented testing protocols modeled on Massachusetts’ MCAS requirements, focusing on early literacy proficiency. By shifting to science-based reading instruction and introducing data-driven teacher accountability, the state saw remarkable improvements.

According to the 2022 National Assessment of Educational Progress, Mississippi’s fourth-grade reading scores soared following the reforms—from 45th to 21st nationally—a leap that underscores a fundamental truth: standards matter. These reforms didn’t just elevate test scores; they opened doors for students who were previously left behind, proving that high expectations can lead to significant achievements.

The proposed ballot initiative to eliminate the MCAS graduation requirement threatens to undermine the very foundation of educational excellence in Massachusetts. While some argue that standardized tests are restrictive, they are essential tools that ensure all students meet critical learning benchmarks. Lowering the bar would not only disadvantage our students but also diminish the state’s reputation as a leader in education.

I urge voters to consider this evidence and vote NO on Question 2. By upholding rigorous standards, we affirm our commitment to providing every student with the quality education they deserve and continue to set an example for other states to follow.

Robert McGehee

West Newton

Massachusetts has more than 500 school districts. Each one has its own standards for awarding grades and diplomas. A grade of A in one district might rise only to the level of a C grade in another district. These variable standards used to mean that students across the Commonwealth ultimately graduated with very different levels of skill and knowledge.

Some were well-prepared for college and careers while others were not, but they all got a high school diploma, which suggested to colleges and employers that they all had the skills and knowledge to succeed when many actually didn’t. This unevenness was grossly unfair to students, particularly the most disadvantaged.

More than 30 years ago, policy makers found this unacceptable and took action by passing the Massachusetts Education Reform Act of 1993. It required state education officials to establish a minimum standard of skill and knowledge that every student would have to meet prior to graduating. (I was involved in that process.) The Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System, for the first time in the Commonwealth’s history, required the achievement of state standards as a prerequisite for graduation. MCAS was created to assess whether students had met standards in English and math (a science requirement was added later).

The MCAS exam was essentially a diagnostic yardstick that could be used to measure whether students had the knowledge and skill they would need to successfully perform in college or career.

MCAS data are essential for guiding the improvement of teaching and learning. While Massachusetts’ standards and the MCAS tests were widely acclaimed as the best in the nation and enabled Massachusetts to become the top performing education state in the country, the standards we set, while high compared to other states, were still modest, representing only a 10th-grade level of achievement. Is this too much to ask of our high school seniors?

The requirement that students pass the 10th-grade MCAS to graduate was instituted to measure progress against a specific set of achievement criteria, thus ensuring fairness while guaranteeing that no school district could graduate a student who lacked the skill and knowledge to succeed. This was an equity strategy, quite the opposite of what its critics assert and why voters should reject Question 2, which would remove the MCAS as a graduation requirement.

Opponents have attempted to mislead the public by claiming that the MCAS graduation requirement relies on a single test. Not true. Students have many opportunities to retest — twice in their junior year and twice more as seniors. They can also take it after graduation. Additionally there are alternate tests and an appeals process. Opponents claim that the test is “high stakes,” but students who don’t meet the standard are entitled to extra help, more instruction, tutoring, an educational proficiency plan, and all the instruction needed to meet the standard.

The MCAS as a graduation requirement made it so all graduates had a minimum body of knowledge and skill. Parents, colleges, and employers could trust that a diploma from a high school in Massachusetts meant students were prepared for success. The graduation requirement also, importantly, made performance matter because students would have to meet a standard prior to graduation and schools would be judged on their effectiveness in preparing students to pass. Students, teachers, and schools were given clear incentives to make sure that all students — the reform mantra was and is “all means all” — had met at least the minimum requirements for advancement.

Prior to the class of 2003, Massachusetts’ statewide testing had no consequences. Not surprisingly, the test was largely ignored by the public and educators. By contrast, the MCAS as a graduation requirement grabbed people’s attention, creating a sense of urgency for everyone to do their utmost to help students achieve the standards. The data generated by the test became a central diagnostic tool guiding the work of districts, schools, and teachers. The media followed the results closely. A sense of accountability was infused into a system that had been largely unaccountable for performance.

One immediate indicator of the focusing power of MCAS came from the students themselves. The class of 2003′s student performance on the 10th-grade exam skyrocketed over the preceding year. Students and their teachers had gotten the message: learning counts, mastery counts. They were paying attention. If the ballot measure succeeds, that message will die, and many students will stop paying attention.

It’s important to remember that MCAS is just a measuring instrument. The graduation requirement ensures that everyone will pay attention to the measurement data. Because everyone has to meet the standard, teachers and students will want to know exactly where they’re falling short so they can make up the difference. Without that data for diagnostic purposes, educators have less guidance as to how students and schools can improve performance. Many of those who oppose the graduation requirement actually aim to eliminate MCAS altogether, even though this federally mandated assessment provides vital information to guide the closing of achievement gaps.

MCAS should be improved, not eliminated. For example, MCAS could factor in more data, such as attendance rates, to present a more complete portrait of factors affecting school performance.

Opponents of the graduation requirement want to return to a world where all standards were local and variable, where there was no public data on performance, no accountability, and where students were routinely graduated without adequate preparation to do college or career work. Opponents like to proclaim that data on individual students are not necessary and that there are other approaches to measuring performance. Many of these untried alternatives typically rely on subjective judgment, are expensive, and present major practical problems, to say nothing of their dubious validity and reliability.

This retreat from common-sense assessment would guarantee a return to an era of social promotion, graduating students based on seat time rather than subject mastery. Social promotion disproportionately punishes low-income and minority youth by sending them forward without the preparation to succeed. Massachusetts shouldn’t return to those darker days when such inequity was somehow acceptable.

Improving learning is important for students, school systems, and the communities they serve. When mediocre or poor performance doesn’t really matter, it will be ignored. MCAS and its graduation stakes make learning matter and drive the performance improvement that is essential if we truly aspire to every child having a fair chance at social and economic mobility.

Paul Reville is the Francis Keppel Professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, where he is the founding faculty director of the EdRedesign Lab. He is a former Massachusetts secretary of education.