THIRTY YEARS AFTER the 1993 Massachusetts Education Reform Act, many goals remain unattained despite the state’s generally honoring its commitment to student learning. Too many of our students struggle to meet minimum academic standards achieved by their peers. This predicament feeds misguided movements to lower or even eliminate standards in the name of equity rather than to commit to the best possible education outcome for every student.

Massachusetts has a constitutional duty to provide an adequate education for all its children. The 1993 McDuffy decision issued by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court drew a straight line from the Massachusetts 1780 declaration of the Commonwealth’s responsibility for public education to the 1993 Massachusetts Education Reform Act — a comprehensive, standards-based education law.

Calling for high standards and accountability for student outcomes in exchange for equitable funding of school districts across the Commonwealth, the act was widely credited with driving improvements in student achievement that placed Massachusetts on top in most measures of student performance.

The funding side of the law was also extraordinarily successful. Not only do we have excellent overall student performance, our means-tested finance system places us consistently near the top in per pupil spending.

With so much measurable success in hand, where did the Education Reform Act go wrong? Why are there still too many of our students failing to meet minimal standards? 

The law did not go far enough. There is its inherent weakness.

While the courts confirmed that the state was responsible for adequately educating all students, the Education Reform Act made no substantive change to the longstanding tradition of using local school districts to manage and direct the delivery of educational services. The state limits itself to the roles of advisor and auditor — recommending standards and tenuously holding districts accountable for meeting standards. 

The over 300 school districts are under no obligation to accept state guidance. We saddled our innovative, standards-based law with a decentralized delivery system. This weakness is also embodied in the funding system. Despite the programmatic assumptions made to calculate state aid, subsequent spending is entirely at the discretion of local officials.

There is no problem with home rule in education if our more than 300 school districts universally uphold standards, but the tension of state standards and accountability versus local authority erodes curriculum standards and weakens accountability measures. The progress and the promise of the Education Reform Act is deteriorating.

Look no further than the proposed 2024 ballot question to eliminate the 10th-grade MCAS requirement for high school graduation. Removing this baseline standard would render the current law ineffective and, worse, likely give rise to another costly legal challenge to the established fairness and adequacy of public education in Massachusetts.

While the tests have improved and passing scores are still rigorous, a closer look at the current MCAS graduation requirement shows that it is not the all-encompassing standard intended nor is it the high-stakes test attacked by the proposed ballot question. Alternative portfolio and cohort assessments needed for disabled students and poor test takers have always been available but many other students graduate without meeting the 10th-grade MCAS graduation standard.   

In 2010 the Educational Proficiency Plan was adopted as an alternative to demonstrating proficiency on the state’s 10th-grade MCAS. Under the proficiency plan, students are tested by their school to track their progress toward subjectively defined proficiency, nothing more. The result? Typically, 20 percent of students are on proficiency plans, thereby graduating without evidence of meeting the minimally expected level of learning for most of their classmates. 

There is a path to return to our commitment to provide an excellent education for every student.

The state constitution, the courts, and the laws on the books allow the state to more forcefully assert curriculum standards without taking away local control over how schools bring students up to those standards.

With scientifically based reading curricula, proven high school course selection (MassCore) and individual core subject curricula developed and tested as prescribed by the law over the past 30 years, the state knows what works. What is needed is the will to require each district to use these curricula.

Massachusetts schools on average are still among the best in the nation but results leveled off and declined before 2019.  Both NAEP and MCAS scores dropped. Pandemic learning loss hit the Commonwealth hard. Four years later, learning recovery remains elusive.  The most vulnerable students were hit hardest. Unacceptable gaps persist. 

Massachusetts may still be at or near the top among states but not for all our students. The question is for how much longer?

We know how to fix this. We know what to do. Now is the time to do it.

Joseph Esposito is a retired senior financial executive who serves on the board of the Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education and has served on various boards and committees dealing with education at the state and local level.