IN 1993, THE Democratic-led Legislature, together with a Republican governor, entered into a “Grand Bargain” in education policy: The state would substantially increase education funding in exchange for schools using high standards and implementing a strong accountability system to measure progress against those standards. The Patrick administration and the overwhelmingly Democratic Legislature renewed and strengthened that bargain in 2010 by providing for state intervention in the Commonwealth’s most troubled schools.
From 2010 to 2012, I sat on the Southeast Regional Student Advisory Council (SERSAC), one of five regional bodies of student delegates created to advise the statewide Student Advisory Council and the student representative on the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education. My time on SERSAC coincided with the 2010 education reform law’s implementation. Elected by the student body at my high school, I participated in debates around standardized testing, charter school policy, dropout rate reduction, and the 2011 placement of the Lawrence public schools into state receivership.
Educated in an excellent suburban school district, I was initially unfamiliar with the difficulties that so many of my fellow student representatives faced. Our discussions on dropout rates, academic success, and wraparound services opened my eyes to the vast disparities that exist among public schools, with socioeconomic factors correlating with much of the difference. I already believed that education should open opportunities to all students—and I learned that the Commonwealth has a constitutional obligation to provide all students with an adequate public education.
I also learned why objective measurements of academic performance are critical tools used to protect students’ constitutional rights. Those measurements—whether test scores, graduation rates, or per pupil spending amounts—provide crucial information, without which our conversations about improving educational outcomes would have had no factual grounding. I didn’t enjoy taking MCAS tests as a high school student, but the test’s importance became clear in the context of the Grand Bargain: We need these scores to objectively assess education policies, so we can, as needed, modify or expand those policies and direct funding to the programs that work best, especially for the students who most need assistance. That overarching philosophy provided a progressive framework in which annual testing makes sense.
The Grand Bargain has borne impressive fruit. In Lawrence, for example, the state’s turnaround efforts have driven graduation rates up from 47 percent in 2010 to 71 percent in 2016. Statewide, the dropout rate has fallen by almost 50 percent since 1993. Proficiency in mathematics and English language arts, as measured by MCAS, has risen substantially across subgroups. Massachusetts remains the top-scoring state on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and has seen its scores improve since 1998/2000. While more work remains to close persistent achievement gaps, these are powerful successes.
Massachusetts Democrats should be proud of this progress—and its underlying policy model. Democrats cannot afford to abandon objective measures of student learning and equity—and thereby renege on the Grand Bargain that has driven our success since 1993. Yet this year’s Massachusetts Democratic Party platform calls for “ending the state’s punitive use of high-stakes testing.” What’s more, the Legislature’s Joint Committee on Education heard testimony this week on a bill cosponsored by Democratic lawmakers that would impose a three-year moratorium on the use of high-stakes test as a high school graduation requirement or in teacher evaluations. That would be a big step backwards.
At this year’s Democratic State Convention (which I attended both as a delegate and as a Democrats for Education Reform representative), the delegates approved the new party platform. I made the case to my fellow delegates that the Commonwealth’s accountability system is undergirded by a fundamentally progressive philosophy: All students should attend a school that meets their needs, and both ample funding and strong school quality safeguards are necessary to fulfill this vision. I explained that the Obama administration championed this model of education policy, tying increased funding through Race to the Top grants to the adoption of high standards and accountability systems. And I pointed to the progressive results of Massachusetts’s accountability program, like Lawrence’s soaring graduation rates.
As a party, we should remember that objective measures like MCAS scores have served as vital tools to advance school improvement and educational equity. We should also keep in mind the Grand Bargain by which substantial increases in funding are tied to meaningful accountability—a model we should be wary of spurning as we seek to pass the Fair Share Amendment.
The Grand Bargain works in Massachusetts. It is a proven model that brings needed money into public schools in a way that maximizes equitable outcomes. Massachusetts schools need the Fair Share Amendment to counter the rising costs of health care and special education. The Commonwealth could also use the money to expand high quality pre-kindergarten, extend learning time, or improve educators’ professional development.
As we advocate for increased revenue, we should also ensure that government keeps up its end of the bargain—both with students and with taxpayers. Common assessments, objective measurements, and state intervention in struggling schools all play a role in the progressive framework by which Massachusetts has driven its education successes. Abandoning that framework would be a mistake—both for the Democratic Party and for the children of Massachusetts.
John Griffin is a policy associate at Democrats for Education Reform – Massachusetts.
CommonWealth Voices is sponsored by The Boston Foundation.
The Boston Foundation is deeply committed to civic leadership, and essential to our work is the exchange of informed opinions. We are proud to partner on a platform that engages such a broad range of demographic and ideological viewpoints.
Democrats for Education Reform – Massachusetts is a Political Action Committee…a PAC. That descriptive detail should always appear along with its name.
Today is Day Two for this commentary’s appearance on CommonWealth’s front page. It’s written by someone paid by a political action committee…the Democrats for Education Reform – Massachusetts. Why was the commentary, “Time to update state school funding formula,” by Boston Public School teacher Alycia Steelman only given a few hours on CommonWealth’s front page? It was an absolute fluke that I came across her well written article while this DFER piece will likely be featured for four, five, six or more days.
it is obvious this cannot be proven. : “Proficiency in mathematics and English language arts, as measured by MCAS, has risen substantially across subgroups. ” With tests that are not valid and not reliable it is impossible to make this kind of claim. So therefore it is a lie or it is fraud. I believe it is fraud promulgated by Pearson Corp and they want millions more to prove they can produce a valid and reliable test; that is why they get so angry at students and parent that opt out — refuse to be the guinea pigs so that a corporation can develop a product to make millions for the corporation (while doing nothing for students, program or curriculum because the tests are to valid)…. If you take the test on a computer vs with pencil and paper you get different scores — that is the definition of “unreliable”… How long will tax payers keep paying for fraud?
at that state democratic convention in Worcester this year they had 3 very young people manning their table; I assume they were paid for the day. DFER is known for “dark money”… Also, they affiliate with the opioid millionaires who have brought this public health crisis to our cities and towns.
every year, about this time, the think tanks like Fordham Institut5e drag out an article about those tests — it will read. “Students in Christian countries get higher test scores”…. it happens repeatedly. The tests are being constructed for elitist purposes and they are white supremacist. They get the test scores up in Washington D.C. by gentrifying the. neighborhoods and make sure that the students whose surnames are on the law firms and the banks will prove they are superior on the tests. The bureaucrats arrange the cut scores on the test so that the students in the gateway cities will always show poorly on the tests and will have large numbers of our children scoring below the 25% …. the tests do not tell us anything other than where the most affluent families live.
“We should also keep in mind the Grand Bargain by which substantial increases in funding are tied to meaningful accountability—a model we should be wary of spurning as we seek to pass the Fair Share Amendment. ” Would someone please tell me what evidence there is for this? I know more money was poured into Lawrence, I know that some handful of teachers have received $10,000 bonuses… does that mean that “substantial” increase in funding has occurred? Certainly not in the cities where education dollars are just a smidgeon above the foundation level. Parents need to read the Foundation Budget report thoroughly and not listen to the people writing these articles. Support Sonia Chang Diaz’ Foundation Budget legislation. Listen to the Mayors and the city councils that are telling us how difficult it is to fund schools with local tax dollars when the state is not supporting education . Boston has been pushed back to using tax revenue in a manner that was called out in the McDuffy case as not meeting the constitutional requirements of funding schools through the legislature with appropriations. These are the same people writing these Commonwealth articles who pushed the “dark money” for charter schools … Don’t let them trick the voters with their assertions about test scores or by changing the name “charter” to some other special funding mechanism that benefits hedge funds and corporations.
we have always used tests in schools; Iowa Test, California, Metropolitan achievement tests etc. and tests for special education. The difference is those tests had to be proven reliable and valid BEFORE they were sold to the schools. Today they have one giant experiment to create a test — it is elitist and it is white supremacist. They want students in the wealthy towns to be the top #1 –but they don’t tell you MA is not #1 in equity — we are more like #28 in equity. Furthermore, the tax payers should NOT be footing the bill before the tests have been proven valid and reliable– . So the tests are flawed AND they are cheating the public .
who on earth is writing these articles and assigning headlines? “The Grand Bargain was an attempted political compromise between the Democratic and Republican Parties in which the Democrats would have agreed to historic cuts in the federal government and the social safety net, in exchange for an increase in federal taxes.[1] However, due to the rise of the Tea Party, any increased taxes were unpalatable to the Republican base, while President Obama’s base panicked over the possibility of cuts, causing the compromise to fail.[2][3][4]
Among centrist pundits, hopes for the Grand bargain lasted until the resignation of Speaker of the House John Boehner in 2015.[5][6]” (this is from wikipedia — not a great source). But who writes like this? It looks like a ghost writer asked this person to put his name on it…
There was a bipartisan agreement around NCLB also; and then after the legislation Ted Kennedy and George Miller were aghast that the Bush government did NOT come up with the promised and agreed upon RESOURCES i.e., funding to accomplish the goals. That is what we have seen repeatedly such as in the special education legislation when funds are not made available to meet the educational needs of students who require IEPS. I hope that the MA taxpayers will see through this kind of “grand bargain” and not be tricked again and again.
Let’s get real here. It’s now the fourth day this commentary appeared on CommonWealth’s front page. What makes this opinion piece worth featuring like it’s the Word of God? CommonWealth’s editors didn’t even make an effort to feature Boston Public School teacher Alycia Steelman’s well written, “Time to update state school funding formula,” for more than a few hours. There was NO GRAND BARGAIN! There was a court case filed in Massachusetts back in 1978 on behalf of students in property poor municipalities. After working its way through the system for 15 years the court ruled the state’s Constitution imposes an enforceable duty on the state to provide an education for all its children, rich and poor, in every city and town through the public schools then the 1993 Education Reform Act was passed doubling the state’s funding to local public schools over the next seven years. In 2010, the Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education released a report, “School Funding Reality: A Bargain Not Kept How is the Foundation Budget Working?” stating “Over the 17 years since the Education Reform Act passed, there has been virtually no equalization in spending or state aid between rich districts and poor.” Then in 2015 the Foundation Budget Review Commission released a report finding the state fails to adequately fund local public schools for in-district/out-of-district special education, low income, English language learners and health insurance costs. So Massachusetts is not meeting its financial obligation to local public schools under the 1993 Education Reform Act. How about the state legislature and the Governor make that happen FIRST?
Six Days. That’s how long this DFER PAC-backed commentary has been featured on CommonWealth’s front page. The real “big step backwards” is the fact Massachusetts has not been meeting its financial obligations to local public schools under the 1993 Education Reform Act…for years and years and years…but uses “high-stakes testing” to compare the academic performance of all the state’s public school districts. Let’s compare the funding disparities of just a few public school districts. Cambridge has a per pupil expenditure of $27,569…the fourth highest in this state…just behind Provincetown $30,505; Minuteman Regional Vocational Technical $28,208 and Martha’s Vineyard $27,614. For comparison Lowell’s per pupil expenditure is $13,851; Chelmsford $13,289; Tyngsborough $13,135 and Dracut which has the fifth lowest per pupil expenditure in Massachusetts at $11,318 is just above North Attleborough $11,245; Grafton $11,043; Southampton $10,745 and East Bridgewater…the very lowest per pupil expenditure at $10,400. So Cambridge spends $17,169 more per student than the lowest spending public school district. In the meantime, the Foundation Budget…the mechanism used to distribute state aid to local public schools…has been found by no less than two reports to shortchange local public schools…BIG TIME. By the way, Lowell showed up on a recent analysis as one of only two cities in Massachusetts (the other was Brockton) whose public school systems are considered among the “most fiscally disadvantaged school districts in the country — those with higher than average student needs…and lower than average resources when state and local revenues are combined.” But enough about that. Democrats for Education Reform does “advocate for increased revenue” but doesn’t acknowledge public schools are not fully funded. So yes, “the Commonwealth has a constitutional obligation to provide all students with an adequate public education” but it’s not meeting that obligation. That should have been the topic of this commentary.
SEVEN DAYS! So a Political Action Committee like Democrats for Education Reform – Massachusetts have a commentary featured on CommonWealth’s front page for seven days while Boston Public School teacher Alycia Steelman’s well written, “Time to update state school funding formula,” stayed on the front page for just a few hours. How can CommonWealth’s editors justify the disparity in treatment for those two opinion pieces? Why won’t CommonWealth’s editors provide a level playing field for an informed discussion on public education and its funding in Massachusetts? Seems like should be a big part of your mission to “advance a public agenda that supports the growth of the middle class.”
This article has been featured on CommonWealth’s main web page for eleven days. So why are CommonWealth’s editors fixated on promoting the Political Action Committee, Democrats for Education Reform – Massachusetts?