Approximately one month ago on November 5, the people of Massachusetts voted 59% in favor of repealing the MCAS as a graduation requirement.
One of the main goals of MCAS’ introduction in a 1993 education reform bill was to improve the quality of education in the state by providing a benchmark test to students. The first MCAS tests were administered in 1998, but from 2003 to November 6, 2024 they were a requirement for graduating high school.
The standardized test was also used to show how much funding different school districts required. This year alone, the Federal Department of Education allocated $1.96 billion to schools or about $2,120 per student. Conversely, the state spends on average $24,360 per student. That is equivalent to $22.5 billion dollars. The disparity between state and federal funding is about $20.54 billion dollars.
With the federal government not spending as much on education in our state, how are we, the future taxpayers of America, going to notice if the Commonwealth is over or underspending on education. That role was filled by the MCAS. Since the MCAS had so much weight,the state would be able to accurately determine which schools needed better funding and which did not.
But now that it is not a requirement to graduate, will students put enough effort into the test for the state to get an accurate reading in order to fund schools appropriately?
Ali Daly, a senior here at Pentucket, says that “No one really tried to begin with, I don’t see how this will affect the overall tests.”
While some students may share Ali’s perspective, others argue that removing MCAS as a graduation requirement could reduce stress and allow teachers to focus on more meaningful learning experiences instead of test preparation.
On a more personal note, I have never been a big fan of taking standardized tests as referenced in my SAT article, and the MCAS is no exception. Now, I understand why we students have to take the tests, but I feel that there is a better way to examine how much funding each school in the Commonwealth should receive.
In my opinion, the state should analyze factors like graduation rates, dropout rates, and post-graduate success. If a school has a higher dropout rate, it is clear that more resources are needed to support students and ensure they stay on track to graduate. Additionally, the state could consider implementing alternative performance metrics, such as:
- Student-to-teacher ratios: Schools with smaller class sizes often see improved student performance.
- Access to advanced coursework: Offering AP classes or honors programs could serve as indicators of educational quality.
- Extracurricular opportunities: Programs like sports, music, and art foster well-rounded students and can contribute to school success.
These metrics could provide a more holistic view of a school’s needs, moving away from the one-size-fits-all approach of standardized tests.
As the debate continues, policymakers and educators must carefully weigh the pros and cons of removing the MCAS as a graduation requirement. The challenge lies in balancing accountability with equity—ensuring that all schools, regardless of socioeconomic background, receive the resources they need to help students succeed. Without a clear strategy for assessing school performance and funding needs, the state risks exacerbating inequities and failing its students.
