MetroWest Daily News
By Jill Norton
My oldest son has dyslexia and ADHD (attention deficit/hyperactive disorder). These learning differences come with challenges, so objective academic markers like MCAS are vital. In fact, it was these assessments that made us aware of the extent of the challenges he was having, so we could get him the help he needed and put him on a path to high school graduation.
As a public school parent, this is why I strongly oppose Question 2, the ballot question that would eliminate the Commonwealth's only objective requirement for high school graduation: passing the 10th grade assessment. Our state is considered to have the best public education system in the country, and is No. 1 in the nation in reading and math. To me, that means I can rely on our schools to hold high expectations for all students, including those who learn like my son.
Holding high expectations is part of what we do to give our most vulnerable students a fighting chance at success. Lowering academic expectations for my son, or any other child, is unfair and harmful, limiting their choices later in life. The information from these tests has been critical in giving parents like me - as well as teachers - a tool to catch our kids when they fall.
When my son's test scores showed he was not meeting basic learning standards, we used the information to advocate for him to get support to address those specific areas, and seek extra help. This is how children succeed, by supporting them to achieve and grow - not lowering the bar. If students like my son don't get what they need in school now, they're at risk of graduating without the skills they need to be successful after high school. It means they might not be ready for the future they've envisioned.
Without the graduation requirement, the remaining statewide requirement for graduation is taking four years of gym. I want physical fitness to be part of my son's education, but I also expect the state to help ensure children have achieved minimum levels of academic knowledge by the time they graduate.
How this assessment works is the subject of a lot of misinformation. For example, the assessment is not overly burdensome. It's not the SAT or a medical school entrance exam. It measures basic competencies in math, English and science that students should learn by 10th grade. Students do not have to exhibit proficiency. Rather, they must only earn a score that's just a few points over the "not meeting expectations" level.
Furthermore, students have multiple chances to pass - even after 12th grade. Like many other students, my son gets accommodations such as extra time to finish, taking the test in a separate setting, at times having questions read to him, and using a calculator. Students who are learning English and whose first language is Spanish can also take the math and science assessments in Spanish.
Instead of spurring kids like my son to drop out, in the 20 years since the graduation requirement came into effect, graduation rates have risen and dropout rates have fallen. Most of the 72,000 students who take the test annually pass on the first try, and by graduation an average of 96% of students pass.
About 700 students do not pass it each year. I wish that number were zero. But lowering the standards for all children will not help these 700 students. What would help is a concerted focus on getting extra support for those who need to build their skills and knowledge. That would be a far more worthwhile use of resources and time than railing against an assessment that benefits the overwhelming majority of Massachusetts students.
If Question 2 passes, there is no replacement for a statewide graduation requirement. We would be left without an unbiased and fair assessment to determine our kids' readiness for success after high school. Every school district in Massachusetts would devise its own graduation requirements - that's more than 300 different standards - making it impossible for parents to get a clear picture of where their children are relative to those in other communities, and resulting in wider inequities in students' future opportunities. That would have been a disaster for my son, who might have progressed through high school without reading, starkly limiting his opportunities to attend college and pursue the career he wants.
Seeing vast amounts of money, time and resources being spent to rid the Commonwealth of something that worked for my son and others is enormously frustrating. I can't help but imagine all the good that could be done for kids like my son if this funding and energy were used to help struggling students succeed, or to make improvements to the current assessment to make it more accessible for more students, and to create a more efficient tool for teachers.
For now, I am grateful to have these academic checkpoints for both of my sons. We are lucky to live in a state that values academic excellence. Anything less than these standards would be a mistake and would quickly devalue our children's high school diplomas. That's why I will vote "no" on Question 2, and I urge other parents - and anyone with a stake in our education system and workforce - to vote "no" on Question 2 as well.
Our children deserve better.
Jill Norton is an education policy adviser and a mother of two school-aged sons, one of whom has special needs. She lives in Concord.
Comments