What Is The State’s Role In High School Graduation?

Last November, voters in Massachusetts approved a referendum that amended the 1993 education reform law to eliminate the state’s use of its tenth grade state assessment (MCAS) as a graduation requirement. Rather than student competence for graduation being determined by scores on state tests in English language arts, mathematics, and science, students would demonstrate their competence by “satisfactorily completing coursework that has been certified by the student’s district as showing mastery of the skills, competencies, and knowledge contained in the state academic standards and curriculum frameworks…” The intent of the referendum was clear; that is, to shift responsibility for determining student competence from the state to districts, schools, and teachers.

In response, the state could have assumed the role of Pontius Pilate and simply washed its hands of any direct responsibility for certifying individual student competence to receive a diploma. The referendum, however, did not absolve the state from either its State constitutional responsibility to ensure that “wisdom, and knowledge, as well as virtue [are] diffused generally among the body of the people,” or of the duty that “lies in its obligation to educate all of its children.”

On top of all of that sits an overarching belief in the central role of education in promoting democracy and equity that has served as the guiding light for education in Massachusetts since Colonial times and was expressed by Horace Mann in 1846, in his annual report to the state Board as Secretary of Education:

Education, then, beyond all other devices of human origin, is the great equalizer of the conditions of men, — the balance-wheel of the social machinery.

Therefore, it comes as little surprise that since the vote, the state has been actively involved in figuring out what comes next. The department and state Board of Education have been scurrying to interpret the language of the revised law and provide guidance to districts regarding immediate and short-term implementation. Additionally, the governor has convened a “K-12 Statewide Graduation Council” to advise the Governor and Legislature on the development of a new statewide graduation requirement. At the core of all of this activity lie two fairly complex questions:

What is the role of the state with regard to certifying the eligibility of individual students for graduation? and
What is the appropriate role of the state with regard to establishing graduation requirements for all students?

The first question may be the one that appears most relevant in response to a referendum that eliminated the use of the state test as a graduation requirement. That question, however, cannot be answered without first answering the broader, and separate, second question. Implicit in both questions is the role of the state relative to that of districts (and within districts schools and teachers). The appropriate balance between state and districts in virtually all aspects of education has been a central issue since the beginning of public education in the United States, and education reform in Massachusetts was no different in the 1990s and is no different today.

The state’s attempts to find that balance in establishing and implementing graduation requirements in the past 30 years and its options for the future are the focus of this blog post. We may not necessarily provide answers, but at a minimum, hope to provide context and clarify misconceptions so that those engaged in finding those answers might be more productive.

Balancing The Roles of State and Districts in Massachusetts Since 1993

In 1993, Massachusetts adopted a landmark Education Reform Act which required that all students earning a diploma in Massachusetts demonstrate their mastery of a common core of skills, competencies, and knowledge through their performance on the state’s tenth grade assessments, which it also mandated. This “MCAS graduation requirement” was officially named the “competency determination” in the law.

Over the next five years, the state developed Curriculum Frameworks (i.e., state content standards) and then assessments aligned to those standards. The first MCAS tests were administered in Spring 1998. The graduation requirement was implemented for the graduating class of 2003; that is, the cohort of students who would be taking the tenth grade tests in Spring 2001 and who entered high school in the fall of 1999. That decade between 1993 and 2003 was critical for allowing ample time for

content standards to be developed and implemented,
state assessments aligned to those standards to be developed and administered,
the establishment of achievement standards, including a “passing score” for the competency determination, and
high school educators and students to understand what those standards were from the time students entered ninth grade.

1993: Balance from the beginning

As for the competency determination being set at the tenth grade, there are two critical elements that should be noted when considering the balance between state and districts:

The competency determination was designed to reflect mastery of the common core of skills, competencies, and knowledge expected of all high school graduates.
It was only the first hurdle that students would clear on the road to graduation; that is, it was a necessary but not sufficient condition for graduation.

The framers of the law expected that high school students would achieve much more and follow different pathways as they proceeded through eleventh and twelfth grade. That expectation was made clear by the two certificates that they established beyond the competency determination:

Certificate of Mastery: The “certificate of mastery” shall be based upon a determination that the recipient has demonstrated mastery of a comprehensive body of skills, competencies and knowledge comparable to that possessed by accomplished graduates of high school or equivalent programs in the most advanced education systems in the world. The criteria for a certificate of mastery may incorporate a number of factors which may include, but not be limited to, any of the following: high school graduation standards, superior performance on advanced placement tests administered by the educational testing service, and demonstrated excellence in areas not reflected by the state’s assessment instruments, such as artistic or literary achievement. Eligibility for potential receipt of a certificate of mastery shall extend to all secondary students residing in the commonwealth.
Certificate of Occupational Proficiency: The “certificate of occupational proficiency” shall be awarded to students who successfully complete a comprehensive education and training program in a particular trade or professional skill area and shall reflect a determination that the recipient has demonstrated mastery of a core of skills, competencies and knowledge comparable to that possessed by students of equivalent age entering the particular trade or profession from the most educationally advanced education systems in the world. No student may receive said certificate of occupational proficiency without also having acquired a competency determination.

In contrast to the competency determination, there was no mention in the law of using state testing to certify individual students for these certificates. Although never implemented, both of these certificates signaled the shift in balance from the state to the districts.

2001: Balance in Certifying Student Proficiency

Even with accommodations and multiple retest opportunities, there is always going to be a very small percentage of students who for one reason or another are unable to demonstrate their true level of proficiency via a test and need a non-test alternative.

For those students, Massachusetts adopted a performance appeal process that one might say was based solely on student satisfactorily completing coursework that has been certified by the student’s district as showing mastery of the skills, competencies, and knowledge containing in the state academic standards and curriculum frameworks… Since 2003, the state has “certified” student coursework by examining the MCAS scores of other students in the school with similar grades in the same sequence of courses.

2006: Balance in Getting Student Performance to Proficiency

The goal in Massachusetts, even prior to NCLB, is that students would perform at the Proficient level. In 2001, the competency determination standard was set at a lower achievement level with the promise that it would be raised at some point in the future. The time to raise the competency determination bar arrived in 2006.

Rather than raising the required test score, however, the state opted, to leave responsibility for monitoring student progress toward proficiency with local districts. For students who met the original “passing score” on the tenth grade test, districts were required to develop an “educational proficiency plan” detailing how they intended to help the student move toward proficiency in the eleventh and twelfth grade. The plan was to include the following:

a review of the student’s strengths and weaknesses, based on MCAS and other assessment results, coursework, grades, and teacher input
the courses the student will be required to take and successfully complete in grades 11 and 12
a description of the assessments the school will administer on a regular basis to determine whether the student is moving toward proficiency

Students, however, were not required to retake the state test and districts were not required to submit evidence of student proficiency to the state. All decisions were made at the district level.

The low passing score on MCAS + the district-based EPP has remained in place as the competency determination requirement since 2006.

Balancing the Role and Responsibility of the State and Districts Moving Forward

As Massachusetts moves forward without the “MCAS graduation requirement” virtually all other aspects of the current competency determination process can remain in place.

With the goal of all students demonstrating proficiency still in place (although the achievement level label has changed), there is no reason for the state to abandon the current EPP system.

Importantly, note that to fulfill state and federal assessment requirements, high school students are still required to take the tenth grade MCAS tests in English language arts and mathematics, and one of the state’s end-of-course science tests.

Additionally, the mechanisms within the performance appeals process to certify individual student performance could easily be incorporated into state-level school accountability applied instead to the task of verifying the coursework that has been certified by the student’s district as showing mastery of the skills, competencies, and knowledge containing in the state academic standards and curriculum frameworks. Large discrepancies between student performance in coursework and district test results could trigger a review and actions designed to ensure better alignment.

The question that the state will have to answer, however, is whether that level of state involvement is sufficient given the premise that “a common set of statewide high school graduation requirements is necessary to promote equitable educational opportunities for all students in the Commonwealth” and that “a consistent and uniform set [of] high school graduation requirements is essential to the college, career, and civic readiness of Massachusetts high school graduates so they can reach their fullest potential in the postsecondary and workforce futures, as well as to meet employer needs and support the overall Massachusetts economy.” (per the governor’s charge to the council)

In making that determination, however, it will be prudent for the state to recognize and acknowledge that although there has been an “MCAS graduation requirement” in place for two decades, there still is not currently anything close to resembling a common, consistent, or uniform set of statewide high school graduation requirements (short of a Phys. Ed and a course in US History).

As described in the education reform law of 1993, the competency determination was always intended to be no more than the first hurdle (the common milepost) that all students would pass before diverging on their separate pathways toward graduation. Graduation requirements beyond the competency determination were left to the discretion of local districts.
With the introduction of the district-administered EPP in 2006, the common state-level portion of graduation requirements was further reduced to the knowledge, skills, and competencies needed to attain a minimal passing score on the tenth grade MCAS tests after multiple attempts.

For those reasons, claims that there was a consistent or uniform set of high school graduation requirements in place before the MCAS graduation requirement was eliminated can only be described as overstated if not specious.

In short, even with the MCAS graduation requirement in place, the state’s role in high school graduation decisions has been minimal. Going forward, it may or may not be in the best interest of individual students for the state to become more involved, playing a more moderate role with stricter oversight of EPP, or even a heavy role in particular districts, requiring evidence of student mastery at the individual student level either through auditing or census review. Those are issues that the Governor’s Council will have to tackle, and the state Board will have to determine.

What the state and “K-12 Statewide Graduation Council” must do first however, is separate the question of the appropriate level of state involvement in high school graduation requirements from the other critical questions that the governor has placed on the Council’s table; that is, “what Massachusetts students should know and be able to do before they graduate, and “how students should demonstrate their achievements in ways that accurately reflect their skills and knowledge in ways that accurately reflect their skills and knowledge.”

It will be tempting to conflate the issues, but the process of establishing high school graduation requirements must always begin with thoughtful deliberation on what high school graduates should know and be able to do. Bringing in issues like how students should be required to demonstrate their achievements and the level of state involvement into the process too early inevitably results in constraining the discussion and ultimately narrows graduation requirements to knowledge, skills, and competencies that can be most easily assessed.

Post written in collaboration with Jeff Nellhaus.

Image by Willgard Krause from Pixabay