The MCAS and Lincoln-Sudbury: A Statement from the Lincoln-Sudbury Regional
School District Committee

As with all important policy debates, the controversies surrounding the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) and the high stakes test that all state students will soon have to pass to earn a high school diploma, are not easily resolved. There are, in fact, good reasons to support a process that ensures that all students have achieved a minimum skill level in reading, civics, science, and math before earning a degree. This will help ensure that school systems meet their responsibilities and take seriously their role of preparing all students to manage in our increasingly complex world. We further recognize that standards cannot be enforced without accountability, and requiring passage of a well-constructed and fair exam is one way to determine whether they have been met.

However, in our view, the current system is neither fair nor well-constructed. More importantly, the MCAS exam is not being used as part of a comprehensive assessment of a school system¹s performance but rather is being used as the sole assessment tool to measure a school¹s effectiveness. Since our committee represents a suburban regional high school only, we will focus our comments on the curriculum frameworks underlying the system and the 10th grade exam, which next year¹s sophomore class will have to pass in order to graduate.

Regarding the frameworks, we recognize the difficulty of devising a uniform curriculum that can be applied across all school systems. The continuous revisions and modifications to the frameworks are testament to this difficulty. We suggest that the State step back, review the frameworks currently in place, and certify those which meet quality standards. In the interim, however, what sense does it make to require that all systems adjust their curricula, often developed to meet the specific needs and philosophy of that particular system, in response to a continually changing target? That is what MCAS does: it requires schools to modify curricula and educational philosophies to ensure that students pass tests of dubious quality, based on these ever-changing frameworks.

At Lincoln-Sudbury, we are especially, though not exclusively, concerned about the history and science frameworks and the potential impacts they will have on the rich curriculum and elective program that our faculty and administration have developed. The very popular electives provide students with the opportunity to investigate topics and issues in detail, providing a far superior educational experience to the rote memorization of facts that the frameworks would require. Remembering a specific date or litany of minutiae does not teach higher level thinking skills or instill a love of learning. Unfortunately, for convenience rather than educational reasons, this is what these frameworks compel.

Compounding the problems associated with the frameworks is the State¹s decision to require passage of a test, based on them, as a prerequisite for earning a high school degree. The MCAS test has become the sole criterion that the State will use to evaluate school systems and individual students, despite the fact that this directly contradicts the position articulated by the Education Reform Act and the Department of Education. The law states that: "the system shall employ a variety of assessment instruments. As much as is practicable, especially in the case of students whose performance is difficult to assess using conventional methods, such instruments shall include consideration of work samples, projects, and portfolios, and shall facilitate authentic
and direct gauges of student performance." In its 1995 Master Plan, the Education Department noted that there is a "limit to how authentic an assessment can be if it focuses on how a student performs at a single sitting."

Still, we are left with evaluating our students on this single sitting, a sitting that occupies more than 13 hours of class time. The State seems intent on using this high-stakes test to measure both minimal standards and to set goals which students should strive to attain. We contend that one test cannot do both. It would obviously be more difficult to utilize a more comprehensive evaluation system. That difficulty does not justify imposing a blunt assessment tool with such significant ramifications. 

We do not pretend to speak for other schools or school districts. We are very concerned, however, that the imposition of this well-intentioned but ill-conceived system will have a negative impact on the education that we can provide our students. Moreover, we have serious reservations about the State¹s usurpation of our rights, as a locally elected committee, to set and administer standards for graduation. We do not take this responsibility lightly and are confident that any assessment of the high school would demonstrate that we set high standards and push our students to achieve them. In fact, we have completed our own assessments and can also cite the average SAT, ACT, and AP scores of our students, as well as the very high percentage of them who go on to college.

An assessment of our program would also show that we recognize that some students cannot, for a variety of reasons, perform as well academically as others. We take pride in the programs we have developed to help these kids succeed and make sufficient progress to earn a degree from our school. We trust the professional judgment of our teachers and staff to determine the best ways to assess individual students, students they know very well.

Unfortunately, we know that some of these students will never pass the MCAS exam. More tragically, they know it as well. The vast majority of L-S students who failed parts of the MCAS exam in the past two years were already receiving significant amounts of extra help, through educational plans or special attention to their needs. Forcing these students to take this test, with the added pressure that they must pass it or fail to graduate, hardly serves any educational purpose. Rather, it can seriously disrupt and undermine efforts to show them that they can learn, even love to learn, and succeed in a manner that allows them to become contributing members of society.

So, what do we plan to do? We will continue our efforts to improve the frameworks and to convince the State of the need to adopt a more comprehensive assessment tool that includes, but is not limited to, a well-designed exam. We will continue to take the exams seriously and stress the importance of trying hard and doing well, on all our students. We will not condone boycotts of the exam. We will move very cautiously in modifying our curriculum to respond to the new frameworks, resisting those changes we believe are counter-productive. We will support the rights of our faculty and staff to voice their concerns about the system, but will insist that they carry out their responsibilities to prepare our students for the exam and assist in its administration. Lastly, we will work closely with the communities of Sudbury and Lincoln to develop a response to the thorny problem that awaits us in June 2003 when students, who we believe have earned a degree from Lincoln-Sudbury, are told by the State they cannot graduate. We do not know what that response will be. We do know that it will likely be the most important decision we make as a School Committee.