Leave It Localized

At last week’s Cambridge school committee meeting, community members interrupted a budget presentation to debate whether the standardized test scores of city public schools demonstrated that the schools were improving. The contention centered around the issue of whether a high percentage of students passing the tests was significant in light of a relatively low percentage achieving proficient scores. While many specific complaints about what the scores tell us are justified, we believe this debate masks a larger issue–the effectiveness of state standardized testing in general.

The Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) is a series of standardized tests designed to measure the competency of students and schools in Massachusetts. Scores are also reported to the federal government under No Child Left Behind. The tests measure competency in English, math, science and history. Since students are required to pass several tests to graduate, and are examined by local, state, and federal government to determine how well the school is performing, the tests will inevitably have a major effect on school curricula.

Rather than dictating school curricula through centralized, standardized tests, curricula should be developed on a more localized level. This philosophy is well represented in the new budget by a proposal to give out grants of $5,000 to elementary schools that design their own curricula. In addition to encouraging creativity and diversity in education, these grants would encourage principals to shape their curriculum to the needs of their particular students, thus keeping control over education at the local level where it belongs. We can only hope such grants are successful and a similar idea is someday applied in high and junior high schools.

That being said, the new proposal still unfortunately encourages principles to be guided by state educational standards. Adhering to these standards forces teachers to “teach to the test” and undermines the pedagogical aims of elementary education. In the same way that the state does not tell universities what to teach, or hold them accountable to strict standards, primary education, even in public schools, should cede more control to teachers, principals, parents, and communities. Rather than focusing on students achievement as measured on the MCAS, educators should exercise their freedom and responsibility to focus on student learning. While principals and teachers should aim as high as possible with regard to educating their children, maximizing their score on state tests should not be a priority.

Unfortunately, many such admirable plans to localize curriculum planning may be limited by the school district’s budget concerns. This year’s budget is expected to exceed revenues, and will require about $2.8 million in cuts. This kind of shortfall is not unique to Cambridge; many municipalities in this state are short on money, and the state has provided little recourse, as it has limited the ways in which municipalities may raise money. The state must get involved to solve these problems, either providing schools with direct funding or expanding possible sources of revenue.

Finally, despite the major concerns facing the district as it moves to approve a new budget, there is a sign that encourages us to be optimistic. The turnout at this meeting was more than three times as high as usual, demonstrating Cambridge’s commitment to improving local education. This kind of parental and community involvement in education–which state standards and tests work to undermine–is where solutions to our problems must inevitably begin.