Northampton Gazette, April 25, 2000

Flaws of MCAS justify boycott

By CHRISTIAN DRAKE

Tuesday, April 25, 2000 -- As a voice of youth and a voice of experience,
having completed a test that many adults haven't given a glance, please
give me the soapbox. When I met the infamous MCAS (Massachusetts
Comprehensive Assessment System) two years ago as a sophomore, I didn't yet
consider it a threat nor find it offensive to my morals. If only I had
known then what I do now. If asked to take the test again, I wouldn't
dignify the request by filling out so much as one bubble with the standard
No. 2 lead. But, having missed the opportunity to boycott, I can only
choose to stand behind those few brave sophomores who are currently
protesting the test and ask that they be respected by their peers and the
public at large. 

There are many misconceptions about the motivation for the boycott that
need to be addressed. I should first point out that this is a genuine
boycott; these student protesters are not staying home "sick" to avoid the
test. Some boycott opponents seem to believe that the boycott is analogous
to skipping an exam. Playing hooky, per se, during a history test is a sign
of cowardice and sloth; boycotting the MCAS is a show of civil
disobedience, a willful objection on moral grounds, an open act of
defiance. And what the boycotters should and do defy is not primarily the
difficulty of the test, but rather the notion that a single test is
sufficient to gauge the overall ability of a person. After all, that was
the stated mission of the Massachusetts Education Reform Act of 1993 which
spawned the MCAS. So boycotters are conscientious objectors, not craven
slackers, and to even question their test-taking abilities trivializes
their cause. 

The second misconception is that boycotters intend to damage the Department
of Education directly. Since the DOE is not selling anything and stands to
make no profit from the test-takers, this is an impossibility. A blank test
is only something of a symbolic ballot cast in opposition to this
institution. Its purpose is to show the government that the test is
unpopular and show the population that, yes, MCAS can be fought. The change
happens with the voting public; the boycott is just a distress beacon, a
battle cry. If it is ineffective, it is only because not enough people are
boycotting. 

Third, I repudiate the concept that boycotters are seeking to destroy the
MCAS without offering a superior solution. The group largely responsible
for the boycott, known as SCAM (Student Coalition for Alternatives to the
MCAS), has posted its list of options (formulated by the adults of the
Coalition for Authentic Reforms in Education) on its Web site at
www.scam-mcas.org. Including not only student portfolios but also written
comprehensive tests in its alternative agenda, the group seeks to raise
educational standards without relying on one method of assessment for
graduation. 

While it is that single method of assessment that is the primary flaw with
the system, the boycotters and I also oppose the consequences of its
difficulty. All rumors of its esoteric and labyrinthine questions are true,
and it personally took me over 17 hours to complete the test. Because of
this, I can utterly sympathize with the vocational, special education and
minority students (not to mention your garden-variety poor test-takers) who
are being rifle-butted with this injustice. If the graduation requirement
was not the MCAS but a simple game of hopscotch, who would call it fair to
paraplegics? Since we all have our handicaps, one test cannot determine the
worth of a student. 

What makes me almost as furious as the social injustices are those adult
collaborationists in the public and in every school. These are the leaders,
once MCAS opponents, who have given up hope for ridding us of the MCAS,
financially bullied into submission by the DOE. Afraid of how the zeroes
will reflect on their school, they demand that their students play the
DOE's little game, threatening boycotters with suspensions and worse. "If
you can't beat 'em, join 'em," might well be the administrators' motto
(sort of like Vichy, France). Now that the enemy is here, let's pretend we
invited it in. 

Don't get me wrong; I absolutely encourage raising educational standards.
But I was taught that the ends never justify the means. We cannot afford to
quibble, to add and subtract, to beg the state for a compromise. At some
point, we must admit that the present test is, by its narrow nature, unfair. 

Boycotters would have nothing to lose by failing this test, as it does not
yet determine graduation, except that they face the intimidation of their
schools. They should be applauded for sticking up for their younger
brothers and sisters, for their schools and their teachers - the boycott is
the ultimate show of respect for their education. 


Gazette intern Christian Drake is a senior at Northampton High School.