No one knows better than teachers how bad things were in some of our school districts during the recession of the early 1990s. Holyoke had classrooms crammed with more than 40 students, most of them poor and many of them recent immigrants. There were no state curriculum standards. Our school buildings were ranked among the most dilapidated in the country.

Students from some of our neediest schools filed a historic lawsuit, theMcDuffy case, which established that the state had a constitutional duty to educate all of its children, rich or poor, and without regard to the wealth of the community in which they lived. The Supreme Judicial Court ordered the state to carry out that duty and come up with the necessary resources to do so. Mark Roosevelt was among the legislative leaders who were already developing such a plan. Three days after the McDuffy decision, Gov. Weld signed the Education Reform Act of 1993, and the MTA joined Roosevelt and others in embracing the underlying premise: “every child a winner” in our public schools.

Funding under education reform helped dig us out of the huge hole in which we found ourselves in the early ’90s. Thousands of teachers have been hired. Curriculum standards have been established. Art, music, physical education, and guidance services that were wiped out in the early 1990s have been restored. We’re harvesting the fruits of these efforts in the form of greater parent satisfaction with schools, higher SAT scores, and larger numbers of students attending college.

Still, 10 years after the Education Reform Act, the goal of “every child a winner” remains elusive. The plaintiffs in McDuffy have gone back to court, in a case now called Hancock, because it is evident the costs of attaining the goals of education reform are much higher than the funding provided. There are still too many students who have to share textbooks, too many who arrive at school already behind, and too many who don’t receive the attention they need because classes are too large. There are still too many who fail to meet state standards by the state’s own measure–MCAS.

Meanwhile, the fiscal crisis is forcing schools to scramble simply to hold onto the gains we’ve made. Like Sisyphus, we are trying to keep the boulder from rolling back downhill.

It is not easy. With local aid cuts looming, districts are terrified of the prospect of laying off highly trained and energetic new teachers. As of this writing, the Legislature is still weighing the governor’s plan to slash funding for full-day kindergarten, early literacy programs, and hot breakfasts for poor children.

Under these difficult circumstances, it makes perfect sense to re-examine the funding formula established under education reform, as well as the MCAS graduation requirement and the charter school financing system.

While it is great news that 90 percent of current high school seniors have now passed the MCAS graduation tests, one quarter of African-American seniors and 30 percent of Hispanic seniors will not, because of MCAS, get a diploma this spring. And then there are those who already have dropped out of school in despair. Researchers at Boston College conclude that the real rate of high school students graduating on time is 70 percent, not 90 percent.

For these youngsters, who have come to school for 12 years and studied hard, the consequences are devastating. No diploma means you can’t enroll in a public college or university, can’t receive federal financial aid, can’t enlist in most branches of the military, and don’t qualify for most jobs. It’s hard to imagine what lawful options these non-graduates will have for making a living.

The state’s fiscal crisis is not the only reason to change the graduation requirement from a one-test-fits-all mandate to a system of multiple measures, but it’s certainly one reason. For next year, Gov. Mitt Romney has proposed cutting $28 million from full-day kindergarten programs, but adding $3 million to MCAS testing. Something is very, very wrong with this picture.

Another reason is pedagogical. We are not the only ones who think the state’s graduation requirement was never meant to be based on a single test, but instead on multiple measures of achievement. Martin Kaplan, chairman of the state Board of Education in 1993, when the Education Reform Act was passed, agrees. Indeed, this concern is nationwide. In March, the National Board on Educational Testing and Policy released two multi-state studies on teachers’ views on these kinds of tests. The conclusion: “A substantial majority of teachers at each grade level indicated that state testing programs have led them to teach in ways that contradict their ideas of sound instructional practices.” In light of these concerns, a re-examination of the high-stakes MCAS system is overdue.

This is also an excellent time to reconsider the system for financing Commonwealth charter schools. These schools draw funds away from students who have chosen to remain in district schools but are accountable to no one at the local level. As with MCAS, the current fiscal crisis did not cause our concern about this issue, but it certainly reinforces it.

The MTA supports creativity and choice in education. Many districts have innovative programs within their existing school systems. Worcester, for example, has used Carnegie Program funds to develop small, specialized “learning communities” within each high school, such as the Information Technology Academy at South High and the Health Services Academy at North High. Boston has established “pilot” schools–including Deborah Meier’s highly acclaimed Mission Hill School–which operate free from some district and union rules, as agreed to by all parties. Five districts have established Horace Mann charter schools, which operate within the school system but provide radically different models of education. These include the New Leadership Academy in West Springfield, which emphasizes leadership skills and community service, and the Champion Horace Mann Charter School in Brockton, which serves drop-outs.

What these programs have in common is that they are developed by and for the communities they serve and don’t drain money from their local public school systems.

Commonwealth charter schools, on the other hand, are accountable only to the state, not to their local communities. Indeed, the state has often approved charter schools over the fierce opposition of local elected officials and community residents. The main objection is that these charter schools are financed by shifting money from the regular public schools. The money they receive per pupil far exceeds the money the district saves when that pupil leaves to attend the charter school. As a result, charter schools take a big bite out of local school budgets. This year, charter schools are receiving $125 million–money that otherwise would have gone to local schools. Small wonder, then, that parents throughout the state are now leading the charge for a moratorium on new Commonwealth charter schools.

Massachusetts has come a long way since 1993. Now we have to do everything in our power to make sure the boulder doesn’t roll back down the hill, crushing the aspirations of thousands of students. Sustaining the progress we have made will not be cheap. As teachers, we will continue to work hard to provide students with a quality education. As taxpayers, we are willing to pay our fair share to make sure schools are protected from the budget axe. We ask policy-makers and the public to do the same. As residents of the richest country in the world, surely we can do no less for our children.

Catherine A. Boudreau is president of the Massachusetts Teachers Association, the state’s largest teachers’ union.