Taking Root - Massachusetts' Lessons for Sustaining the College- and Career-Ready Agenda

Taking RootMassachusetts’ Lessons for Sustaining

the College- and Career-Ready Agenda

About Achieve

Achieve, created by the nation’s governors and business leaders,is a bipartisan, non-profit organization that helps states raise aca-demic standards, improve assessments and strengthen account-ability to prepare all young people for postsecondary education,careers and citizenship.

About the American Diploma Project (ADP) Network

In 2005, Achieve launched the ADP Network—a collaboration ofstates working together to improve their academic standards andprovide all students with a high school education that meets theneeds of today’s workplaces and universities. The ADP Networkmembers—responsible for educating nearly 85 percent of all ournation’s public high school students—are committed to takingfour college and career readiness action steps:

• Align high school standards with the demands of college andcareers.

• Require all students to complete a college- and career-readycurriculum to earn a high school diploma.

• Build assessments into the statewide system that measurestudents’ readiness for college and careers.

• Develop reporting and accountability systems that promotecollege and career readiness for all students.

© September 2009 Achieve, Inc. All rights reserved.

Taking Root: Strategies for Sustaining the College- and Career-Ready Agenda would not have been possible without the gener-ous support of the GE Foundation.

Table of Contents

Introduction ......................................................2

Sustainability Lessons inMassachusetts ......5

Next Steps and Challenges forMassachusetts................................................14

Conclusion......................................................16

Case Study Interviews&Works Cited ................................................17

Education Reform inMassachusetts

Introduction

In 1988, a determined group of business and educationleaders set out to transform public education in Massa-chusetts. “Every Child a Winner!” published in 1991 bythe Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education(MBAE), laid out a compelling case for state leaders totake action on an ambitious agenda for improving theschool system and student performance, citing thechanging global economy and the gaps in Massachu-setts’ education system.

This comprehensive reform agenda became one of ahandful of conceptual frameworks that led to the land-mark legislation first introduced in 1992 and signed intolaw in June 1993, the Massachusetts Education ReformAct (MERA).

Reform leaders pushed, pulled and cajoled the Legisla-ture into enacting the MERA, which established higherexpectations, statewide academic standards and as-sessments based on the standards; accountability sys-tems for students, schools and districts; managementflexibility for superintendents; new educator certificationand training rules, including teacher testing; and charterschools. Equally important, the law established a newfunding formula that had the effect of reducing localschools’ reliance on property taxes and injecting nearly$2 billion of additional funds into public education overthe course of a decade. This “grand bargain”—reformwith resources—enabled significant changes in thecommonwealth’s school systems.

Just a few days after the law was signed, the Massa-chusetts Supreme Court, in McDuffy vs. Secretary ofEducation, ruled that Massachusetts was not meetingits constitutional obligation to provide children in low-wealth school districts with an education that equipsthem for citizenship and postsecondary training. Thisruling helped sustain the commonwealth’s commitmentto funding MERA over the next several years.

Today, more than 15 years since the MERA was passed,Massachusetts is consistently near the top of any list ofstates with the most successful education reform ef-forts, and its students have made steady and sustainedprogress over the last decade. In fact, the performanceof students and schools has propelled the Common-wealth to the top of the national—and even interna-tional—education achievement charts.

• Since 2005, Massachusetts’ 4th and 8th graders haveplaced first or tied for first on all four subject areas onthe National Assessment of Educational Progress(NAEP).

• Massachusetts is the best-performing state in thenation in the percentage of adults age 25 to 64 witha college degree.

• On the 2007 Trends in International Mathematics andScience Study (TIMSS), Massachusetts 4th gradersranked second worldwide in science achievementand tied for third in mathematics; the state’s 8thgraders tied for first in science and ranked sixth inmathematics.

2

Today, more than 15 years sincethe MERA was passed, Massa-chusetts is consistently near thetop of any list of states with themost successful education reformefforts, and its students havemade steady and sustained progressover the last decade.

Taking RootLessons for Sustaining the College- and Career-Ready Agenda

To give states the information they need to sustainhard-fought education reform effectively, Achieveconducted research on state education reformsthat have been sustained successfully for over adecade or more. Funded by the GE Foundation,Achieve hopes this work will help other state lead-ers, wherever they may be on their road to reform,replicate successful strategies and acceleratesystemic reform in their own states, particularlyaround the college- and career-ready agenda.

The project includes:

• Four case studies that examine both govern-mental and non-governmental strategies thatwere effective in making reform last in Indiana,Massachusetts, South Carolina and Texas.

• A paper that draws on and synthesizes the casestudies’ overarching lessons and states’ strate-gies for sustainability.

• A tool that states can use in their own planning.

The four states were chosen because they wereable to pass and sustain significant education re-forms over time, for at least a decade. The focusof the case studies is not on the specific policiespassed, but rather the process and strategies thestates employed to make significant change last.

By all accounts, Massachusetts’ journey to edu-cation excellence is a model for states around thenation. This case study attempts to capture thelessons that Massachusetts has learned in the 20-plus years it has been working on education re-form, particularly with respect to how thecommonwealth has successfully sustained its ef-forts over time. What did Massachusetts do? Whowas involved? How did they make it happen?What’s kept it going, especially in the face of in-evitable opposition?

Strategies for Sustaining the College- and Career-ReadyAgenda

3

1986 —Representative Mark Roosevelt elected to the Massachusetts state Legislature

1991 —Governor William Weld enters office

—Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education (MBAE) releases report, “Every Child aWinner!”, and calls for education reform

1992 —Senator Thomas Birmingham elected

1993 —The Massachusetts Education Reform Act signed into law

1993-96 —Common Core of Learning standards developed

1995 —First 15 charter schools open

1997 —Governor A. Paul Cellucci enters offices

1998 —First MCAS administered to 4th, 8th and 10th graders; statewide teacher certificationtest required

2001 —10th graders in first class (2003) for whom MCAS is graduation requirement take test

—Governor Jane Swift enters office

2003 —First class required to pass MCAS graduates

—Governor Mitt Romney enters office

2007 —Governor Deval Patrick enters office

—Massachusetts is one of two states that participates in the Trends in Mathematics andScience Study (TIMMS), an international assessment

2008 —Massachusetts’ 4th and 8th graders perform first in the nation on NAEP and near thetop on TIMSS

—Governor Patrick’s Readiness Project releases its 10-year vision for P-20 education

MajorMilestones


4


5

Sustainability Lessons inMassachusetts

Every state—and every reform effort—has its ownunique elements, history and political context. While

these often make for interesting observations, they are oflimited utility for other states trying to create their owneducation reform plans and manage their own reform ef-forts. Of more value are lessons and strategies thatspeak directly to what makes a public-policy changesuccessful and what helps it “stick” in the system.

The following lessons were gleaned from one-on-oneand group conversations with individuals who haveplayed key roles in Massachusetts’ education reform ef-forts. They include elected officials and their staff, gov-ernment employees, education leaders and practitioners,business leaders, leaders of community nonprofits, andmembers of the media.

External champions are essential to build and main-tain pressure for change—and support the imple-mentation of reforms over timeAs in most other successful states, Massachusetts re-lied on a combination of inside-the-system and outside-the-system champions—primarily the businesscommunity and the media—to push for and sustain ed-ucation reform.

In the late 1980s, businessman Jack Rennie realizedthat Massachusetts was not keeping up with globalchanges. Economically, the state was at risk of fallingbehind; academically, its students were doing relativelywell compared to other states but, like all U.S. students,were getting pummeled by better-prepared studentsaround the world.

With a sense of urgency, Rennie flew into action and, asthe founding chairman of the Massachusetts BusinessAlliance for Education (MBAE), produced the “EveryChild a Winner!” report that laid out an ambitious educa-tion agenda for the commonwealth and called for far-reaching, standards-based reform.

Many agreed that something needed to change in edu-cation, but there were sharply competing ideas aboutwhich policies would make the biggest difference, aswell as widespread disagreement among key stakehold-ers about whether all kids could or should achieve athigher levels of performance. When MBAE suggestedthis proposition at the time, it was a radical notion.

Over the course of three years, from about 1989 to1992, Rennie, founder and CEO of Pacer Systems, aMassachusetts-based high-tech firm (and a former U.S.Navy-trained fighter pilot), and Paul Reville, a formerteacher, the founding executive director for MBAE andtoday the commonwealth’s secretary of education,crisscrossed the state talking to business groups, rotaryclubs, teachers unions and elected officials, beating thedrum of education reform and recruiting supporters towhat would later become a national model of success.

Massachusetts’ Key Strategies for Sustainability

• External champions are essential to build andmaintain pressure for change—and support theimplementation of reforms over time

• Strong and consistent political and educationleadership is vital to sustain reform

• Investing in the reforms over time enables results—and sustainability

• Sticking to the tough reforms even in the faceof intense political pressure requires politicalcourage and confidence in the quality of thestate’s expectations, measures and procedures

• It pays to engage stakeholders early and often

• Transparency in the development and use ofstandards and assessments is important to buildand maintain support


6

Early on, Rennie and Reville partnered with state politi-cal leaders, notably then-Senate President Billy Bulger(D) and Speaker of the House Charles Flaherty (D). Pres-ident Bulger and Speaker Flaherty forged a pact to takeon comprehensive education reform with the businesscommunity and Governor William Weld, a Republican.1

They then appointed two talented young committeechairs—Mark Roosevelt in the House and Thomas Birm-ingham in the Senate—to manage the substance andthe deal-making. These two leaders quickly becamepassionate and dedicated champions of reform.

All along, MBAE also engaged with education stake-holders, discussing the issues, engaging in the com-plexities, debating points of view—unafraid to take onthe “sacred cows” and unwilling to dismiss legitimateconcerns. As several observers recalled, the two yearsleading up to the passage of the legislation were char-acterized by open dialogue and consensus-building.

After extensive public debate and closed-door negotia-tions to reconcile different versions of the legislation andwrestle over the toughest reform issues, such asteacher tenure, the Legislature enacted the MERA withbroad bipartisan support in 1993. The law is lengthy andcomplex, containing many innovations and changes towhat was then the status quo and specifying a new eraof statewide authority.

But, as Senator Birmingham recently reflected, “for all ofits multifaceted complexity, the core of the EducationReform Act can be reduced to two, fairly straightforwardprinciples: (1) We will make a massive infusion of statedollars into our public schools and (2) In return, we willdemand high standards and accountability from all in-volved in the education process. This is the ‘grand bar-gain’ that is education reform in Massachusetts and agood bargain it is both in terms of policy and politics.”

The Role of Business and Foundation Leaders

As the reforms took hold, other business and civic or-ganizations stepped up. The Massachusetts BusinessRoundtable (MBRT), led by Alan MacDonald, and Asso-

ciated Industries of Massachusetts (AIM) have consis-tently advocated for MERA and fended off the dozensof legislative attempts each year to undo key tenets ofthe law. Business for Better Schools, led by formerState Street Chief Executive William Edgerly, haspushed for charter schools and more market competi-tion. Mass Insight Education and Research Institute(more commonly known as Mass Insight) has providedsubstantial “air cover” through its sustained communi-cations about the state’s standards-based reforms toparents and the general public. Civic leaders and foun-dations—such as The Boston Foundation, Nellie MaeFoundation and others—have provided critical supportover the years, as well, through resources, research andnonpartisan leadership.

The business community got the ball rolling and keptpushing—for nearly two decades. Massachusetts’reform plan would not have been conceived, enactedor sustained if the only champions were a handful ofelected officials and state education agency staff.What was needed, and what the business communitybrought to the table, was pressure for change and thestature to get leaders to pay attention. MBAE, MBRT,AIMS and Mass Insight did the work that is critical tothe success of any reform effort, including:

• Creating the early interest and establishing the ur-gency: By tying reform to global competitiveness andthe need to keep up with a changing world, MBAEwas able to make the necessary case for educationreform in Massachusetts.

• Bringing diverse stakeholders to the table—and servingas a trusted convener—to develop the plan for change:MBAE purposefully chose to include those who tradi-tionally might align against major reform efforts, suchas school boards and teachers’ unions, concluding itwas better to engage them at the front end than fightthem at the back end. MBAE also set the tone for ap-proaching discussions with integrity and honestly bro-kered negotiations and disagreements.

1 Bulger’s and Flaherty’s successors—most notably House Speaker Tom Finneranand Tom Birmingham when he rose to become Senate President—also deservecredit for their continued leadership and commitment to doing right by the policyand financial commitments of MERA.

Taking Root

• Spreading the word to constituents: By traveling thestate and talking to community, business and educa-tion groups, business leaders were able to make theircase for reform and explain the specific componentson the table to a broad cross-section of stakeholders.Outreach efforts began during the early 1990s, as thereform plan was being shaped and enacted, and con-tinued throughout implementation of the law.

• Keeping the flame alive: The Massachusetts businesscommunity began the reform effort and stuck with itlong after the package had passed through the Legis-lature—refusing to go away, be quiet or quit pushing,even when things got ugly or messy.

The Media as Champions

As in many states, newspapers in Massachusetts haveconsistently and loudly championed education reform.From the beginning of the debate over whether a newstate compact was needed to the present day, thecommonwealth’s newspapers of record have, by andlarge, made education a front-page issue. The editorialpages in particular have consistently supported reformover the status quo.

Ranging from the Boston Globe to the WorcesterTelegram & Gazette, the newspapers’ editorial boardshave supported charter schools; teacher testing; andthe system of student, school and district accountabil-ity predicated on the state’s assessments, the Massa-chusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS).Many observers credit the print media for helping tokeep the public spotlight on both the complexity of howto change the vast system of public education and theimperative to do so.

Strong and consistent political and educationleadership is vital to sustain reformExternal champions can help bring about the climate forchange that enables reform, but inside-the-system polit-ical leaders are critical to steering the education reform

efforts. States need elected and appointed officials withthe stature to make change happen and the courage topush ahead, even in the face of system inertia or resist-ance from the status quo. Champions need to betrusted by those in the field and out, they must have awell-tuned ear for politics, and they need to have a keenunderstanding of the policy that undergirds reform.

Lessons for Sustaining the College- and Career-Ready Agenda7

• Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education (MBAE): Es-tablished in 1988 by Jack Rennie, then chairman andCEO of Pacer Systems and a major leader in the drivefor education reform, MBAE has been a long-time leg-islative force for the business community in educationpolicy. “Every Child a Winner!”, a report it published in1991, was the basis for the Education Reform Act of1993. Following the passage of this bill, it refocused theirenergies toward monitoring the implementation of newstandards, funding mechanisms and equitable deliveryof education. www.mbae.org

• Mass Insight Education and Research Institute: Formed in1997, Mass Insight provides advocacy for education re-form, helps sustain public demand for reform throughbroad communications, and supports schools and dis-tricts as they implement reforms. www.massinsight.com

• Massachusetts Business Roundtable (MBRT): An associationof chief executive officers from Massachusetts’ leadingcompanies, MBRT’s Education Task Force has focusedin recent years on maintaining the region’s competitive-ness through innovation and education reform, improv-ing teacher development, advocating for public highereducation funding, and supporting early childhood edu-cation, primarily through legislative advocacy and part-nership building. www.maroundtable.org

Key Business-EducationOrganizations


8

Inside the system, from the early 1990s until today, thecause of education reform in Massachusetts has bene-fited from the efforts of four governors, several legisla-tors in key leadership positions, five state board ofeducation chairs and countless board members, threeeducation secretaries, three state commissioners of ed-ucation, and long-serving senior staff at the state edu-cation agencies. What separates the commonwealthfrom other states with strong state-level leadership isthe unique cadre of deeply committed education lead-ers, including urban superintendents, who used thestate reforms as both pressure and support to makechange in their school systems. It is this broad anddeep inside-the-system support and unwavering com-mitment to the reforms that many observers credit forthe commonwealth’s sustained success.

There are important lessons from Massachusetts aboutthe types of leaders that need to be engaged, how theyare involved and the decisions they make that apply toany state context.

Legislative Champions

Senator Birmingham and Representative Rooseveltwere early the champions of the reform package recom-mended by MBAE. Once MERA was enacted, they wereamong the leading legislative protectors of the reform,aided by continued strategic and tactical support fromthe House and Senate leadership. Representative Roo-sevelt, who later ran for governor and led a prominentMassachusetts think tank, was the reform’s keyspokesman at the time of the ramp-up to and passageof the MERA.

As Senator Birmingham recounted in a recent speech,“In 1992, in some communities we were spending$3,000 per child per year and in other communities wewere spending $10,000 per child per year. The absenceof a comprehensive statewide system of standards im-posed real hardships on poor and minority school dis-tricts, which were not only under-funded but alsoafflicted with society’s low expectations as to what theirkids could be expected to learn. Before the passage ofthe Education Reform Act, there were only two state-

imposed requirements to get a diploma in the Common-wealth of Massachusetts: one year of American historyand four years of gym.”2

Just as critical was these officials’ continued involve-ment over the long years of reform implementation.Many leaders credit Birmingham with single-handedlysecuring the law’s additional funding for schools for wellover a decade, until he left the Legislature in 2002. Healso championed the line-item appropriation for remedi-ation to help students meet the passing standard on theMassachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System(MCAS). And he stood firm on charter schools despiteintense pressure from his colleagues and allies in thestate’s two teachers’ associations.

As Senator Birmingham moved up the ranks of his cau-cus’ leadership to senate president, he continued toemphasize school finance and reform, going so far oneyear as to hold the state budget up for eight months toget the level of funding he believed school systemsneeded. As a native of and later as an elected officialrepresenting the poorer neighborhoods of Chelsea, Sen-ator Birmingham experienced first-hand the unequal ed-ucation delivered to some students and later watchedas the school system was put in receivership andhanded over to Boston University to manage. He de-scribes these experiences as formative to his commit-ment to strengthening standards, accountability andschool finance.

As House Education Committee chair, RepresentativeRoosevelt kept the attention of the House on education

Outside champions can create pres-sure for change, apply that pressureto policymakers when the effort isstalled and make sure reforms con-tinue forward despite setbacks orturnover of key elected leaders.

2 These two courses remain the only state-mandated courses for high schoolgraduation.


9

reform, even getting the speaker of the house engagedin blocking annual attempts to undo reform (Roosevelthas remained so committed to education reform that henow is the superintendent of schools in Pittsburgh).

Gubernatorial Leadership

Change-making is easier when you have the governoron your side to use the bully pulpit and his or her politi-cal capital to advance reform. At a minimum, reformerswill need gubernatorial support and help to exert politi-cal capital with legislators to move reform forward. Thatsaid, a key lesson is that often the most effective way agovernor can improve education policy is by leadingand convening, on behalf of, rather than “owning” theagenda, since an agenda too-closely aligned with an in-dividual person may become in jeopardy when a newelected official comes along.

Massachusetts’ governors have been remarkably stead-fast in their support of reform. From 1991 through 2006,four different Republican governors sustained MERA,despite increasing and, especially from 1999–2003,sometimes overwhelming political pressure to under-mine key tenets of the law, such as charter schools orthe high school graduation requirement. Each exertedstrong leadership on education and intervened at criticalmoments in the reform’s trajectory. Governor Weldbrought policymakers and educators together to negoti-ate the law. Governor A. Paul Cellucci reorganized theState Board of Education (BOE) and appointed a newchair when some worried the development of the state’sacademic standards were off track.

During the highest levels of political opposition to the re-forms, Governor Jane Swift never blinked on the MCAShigh school graduation requirement. Governor Romneyalso kept the momentum going by sustaining the foun-dation budget for K-12 public education.

Elected in 2006, Democratic Governor Deval Patrick hassaid education is the top priority of his administration. In

2008, he released a 10-year strategic vision for publiceducation from early learning through postsecondaryeducation under the banner of “The Readiness Project.”Governor Patrick, as with the four governors he suc-ceeded, has thus far resisted calls to undo charterschools or the MCAS graduation requirement, evenwhile calling for a broader vision of assessment and newforms of non-traditional public schools.

Strong Board and Agency Leaders

One of the most important features of education gover-nance in Massachusetts—despite at least three majorreorganizations of preK–12 education policymakingsince 1993—is the relatively strong authority of the BOEand commissioner of K–12 education overseeing thedepartment of education (DOE). Until 2008, the governorappointed the chair and the members of the BOE tofive-year terms and could not replace BOE membersuntil their terms expired. As one newspaper editorial-ized, “This tended to force board members with differentideas to work together, and the board’s very independ-ence tended to attract talented people willing to serve.”

One typical legislative tension that the MERA balancedwell was providing enough detail in the legislation to setforth a framework and guide later decisionmaking, whilenot putting so much in the law that could micro-manageor impede the decisionmaking about the reform imple-mentation. The Act established, for example, a statewidesystem of high academic expectations and a compre-hensive system of assessments in English languagearts, mathematics, science and the social sciences, butleft the details to the state board and department of ed-ucation to manage. As one interviewee commented,“There was enough ambiguity in the final law to leteveryone feel their side would win in the end.”

This balancing act might not have worked as well if theright people had not had the right jobs at the right time.The BOE chair after the law was passed, Marty Kaplan,led an inclusive and consensus-focused process to

identify the “Common Core of Learning” that wouldserve as the basis of state expectations and assess-ments. Thousands of educators were engaged over thecourse of a few years to produce draft documents. TheAmerican Federation of Teachers (AFT), in its 1995 land-mark report, “Making Standards Matter”, reviewed thequality of each state’s standards, and gave the Englishand social studies draft standards poor marks (mathwas not yet ready for review). Only the science contentexpectations met the AFT’s criteria at that time. Reform-ers worried that the entire reform would be jeopardizedif the standards were not finished quickly and with at-tention to rigor, clarity and specificity.

In response to these concerns, Governor Weld pro-posed a massive reorganization of the state board ofeducation—dropping the number of members from 20to 9—and appointed a new chair, John Silber, presidentof Boston University during the time that the universitymanaged the Chelsea Public Schools.

Silber’s tenure as chair of the BOE was marked by con-troversy and he remained chair for only a few years. Oneof his major accomplishments, however, was movingrapidly to force the DOE to complete the developmentof the standards as “curriculum frameworks.” In its 1997and 1998 reports, the AFT praised the new standardsand the accompanying assessment guides that hadbeen developed to clarify the content and performancesthat would be tested on the new MCAS.

Around this time, State Education Commissioner RobertAntonucci, who had led the development of agency-wide plans to implement MERA, decided to retire. Thestate board of education was split as to whether to hireas commissioner Jim Peyser, who had served as asso-ciate commissioner for charter schools in the DOE andnow was the education director for the Pioneer Institute,or David Driscoll, who was deputy commissioner underAntonucci and a math educator for more than 30 yearsin public schools. Simultaneously, Board Chair Silber’sfirebrand style of leadership was intensifying. To breakthe impasse and respond to concerns from the field,

Governor Cellucci stepped in and brokered a deal thatled to Jim Peyser taking over as BOE chair and DavidDriscoll becoming DOE commissioner.

At first, many were skeptical about the notion of Peyserand Driscoll being able to work together after competingfor the same job. Instead, the combination of their twoleadership styles, their approaches to politics and theircredibility with different constituencies proved to be theright formula. The two met monthly and mapped outaction plans for board and DOE action. Peyser andDriscoll together oversaw the development of the Mas-sachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System(MCAS) in English language arts, mathematics, scienceand social studies; the successful implementation of theMCAS high school graduation requirement that first ap-plied to the class of 2003 in language arts and mathe-matics; the approval of numerous high-performingcharter schools (currently, the majority of Massachu-setts’ charters outpace similar traditional publicschools); and several efforts to strengthen the state’seducator certification and licensure system—all majorelements of the MERA.

Urban Superintendents

Several observers noted that the strong and vocal sup-port of urban superintendents, who deftly defended theuse of MCAS as a high-stakes graduation test, was piv-otal to keeping the requirement in place. Interestingly,while suburban superintendents could feel confidentthat their students would not have problems passing theminimum-skills assessment, many of them clamoredagainst its use. Urban superintendents, however, whosestudents were mostly low-income and of color, saw therequirement as a strategy to promote higher expecta-tions and secure additional funding for their schools andstudents.

Superintendent Thomas Payzant of Boston, for exam-ple, hinged his five-year strategic plan’s capacity-build-ing efforts around the state standards and MCAS. Thedistrict used the infusion of new state funding and lever-aged private funding (such as from the AnnenbergChallenge) to strengthen and deepen professional de-


10


11

velopment in content, data and use of assessments. Healso was a visible and vocal advocate for maintainingthe requirement that high school students pass the 10thgrade MCAS by the time of graduation.

Other superintendents—such as Karla Baehr, JamesCaradonio and Basan Nembirkow—similarly champi-oned the reform efforts, even when their local schoolcommittees joined the growing opposition movement tothe MCAS and exit exam. The urban superintendents’political courage, coupled with their credibility as educa-tors, has been widely credited with staving off retrench-ment from the graduation requirement.

Investing in the reforms over time enables results—and sustainabilityCreating new policies will only improve student achieve-ment when the resources are invested to build capacity—of school systems to serve teachers and students, ofteachers to be more effective in the classroom, and of stu-dents to meet high standards. To many of the leaders whopushed for and designed the MERA, the accompanyingresources were just as important as the education reforms.

One of the fundamental components in the 1993 legisla-tion was the state’s commitment to provide greaterfunding to schools. A new “foundation” funding formulawas enacted in statute, which distributed as much as$350 million in new dollars to poorer districts each year.This formula promoted two principles of school finance:adequacy and equity, by increasing resources to prop-erty-poor school districts across the commonwealth. Anact of the Legislature is required to override the formula.One result: Massachusetts is one of the few states inthe country that spends more on students in poor dis-tricts than students in wealthy ones.

In addition, as much as $100 million in targeted supportfor MCAS remediation was allocated over a five-yearperiod. These dollars helped school systems provide in-terventions such as double doses of literacy and math,before- and after-school academic support and teacher-

led extra academic support, and online tutoring for stu-dents not meeting the standards.

Though the current economic recession is making it diffi-cult for state budget writers to sustain the heady levels offunding in all their various forms from the 1990s, the“grand bargain” of resources plus reform is cited univer-sally by educators and political and community leadersas a fundamental enabler of the state’s strong educationperformance and of the reform’s sustainability.

Sticking to the tough reforms even in the face of in-tense political pressure requires courage and confi-dence in the quality of the state’s expectations,measures and proceduresMany components of the reform package elicited vocifer-ous opposition from educators and local leaders, particu-larly as they were rolled out. Accountability was a majorsticking point both for students, in the form of a high-stakes graduation test, and for educators, by eliminatingtenure—making it easier to replace unqualified teach-ers—and publicly rating school and district performance.This opposition may have been successful were it not forthe strong leadership of individuals throughout the com-monwealth and their willingness to make compromises tokeep reform moving forward.

Administration of the MCAS began in 1998, with resultsthat were decisively disappointing and even a littlefrightening. Statewide, 28 percent of 10th graders failedthe English test, and 52 percent failed math. In Boston,57 percent of students failed English and 75 percentfailed math. Students in Massachusetts’ towns andcities, like Worcester, fared even worse. Proponents andopponents alike wondered how Massachusetts couldmove forward in the face of such dismal performance.The story even went national: Reformers across the U.S.viewed the Massachusetts graduation test requirementas a litmus test for a state’s ability to sustain its high ex-pectations in the face of potentially higher-than-palatablefailure rates and intense opposition. The controversy

over the MCAS graduation requirement was so strongthat the opinion pages of The New York Times weighedin at one point, urging the Massachusetts Board of Edu-cation not to back down from high standards.

Indeed, the MCAS was perhaps the most difficult andexplosive component of the reform package, promptingmany complicated questions. Which tests should stu-dents be required to pass? What should be the cutoffscore? Who, if anyone, should be exempt? When shouldit become a graduation requirement? These questions,and many more, dominated the years leading up to2003, the first year passing the 10th grade MCAS by theend of high school became a graduation requirement.

Opponents stressed that a high-stakes test was unfair,especially to students in low-wealth districts. There waswidespread worry that failure rates would be off thecharts when the test began to “count” for students, thatrecord numbers of discouraged students would dropout, and that low-income and disadvantaged studentswould take the worst hit, through no fault of their own.In 2002, a lawsuit was filed on behalf of six studentswho had not passed the MCAS. The suit claimed thatthe state had not adequately prepared students and thatthe tests discriminated against minority students. Thatsame school year, the Massachusetts Teachers’ Associ-ation launched an expensive television ad campaignportraying the (untimed) MCAS as a deadline being heldover students’ heads.

In an article in theWashington Post, then-State Com-missioner David Driscoll noted that he was ”burned ineffigy” during this time and that “marches, protests andweeping were all part of the political conversation”around the MCAS requirement.

Certainly, it would have been easier for CommissionerDriscoll, Board Chair Peyser, Senator Birmingham, Gov-ernor Swift and other state leaders to back down underthe intense pressure that was applied to delay the test-ing requirement, but they held firm. Urban superintend-ents also stood by the reform, though their studentsarguably had the most to lose. All of these leaders’tenacity paid off, in large part because they werebacked by undeniably high-quality standards and as-sessments and because they were willing to make nec-essary compromises to keep the reform moving.

Many observers cite the technical and policy work doneby the department of education as a major reason whythe graduation requirement survived. If clearer stan-dards and aligned assessments are to truly change in-struction in the classroom, they need to be of thehighest quality to ensure students are learning what isexpected of them and to help teachers be more effec-tive in the classroom.

In 2002, Achieve called Massachusetts’ standards andtests “the strongest and most aligned of the state sys-tems Achieve has studied in depth.” Achieve found theMCAS to be “rigorous, yet reasonable,” a sentimentshared by AFT and The Fordham Foundation, who bothcontinue to give Massachusetts very high marks fortheir rigorous academic standards.

In addition to the educational and technical value of thestandards and tests delivered by the department of edu-cation, the board of education made thoughtful, reason-able policy choices around the use of the test forgraduation. Compromises were struck that ensured thatreforms would keep moving forward. For example, theboard decided to require students in the class of 2003to pass the 10th grade tests in English and math, whiledelaying the science and history requirements.3

To further relieve the pressure, policymakers agreed toset the passing score required for graduation at 220, the“needs improvement level,” which Commissioner


12

3 The science MCAS will become a graduation requirement for students in theclass of 2010; the Board of Education recently decided that the history MCASwill not count until the class of 2014.


13

Driscoll has called the “Goldilocks” level. Although pro-ponents originally pushed for a passing score of 240,the “proficiency” level, policymakers decided that, atleast initially, 220 placed the bar at “just the right” level.The state put in place focused retakes, which wereshorter versions of the test designed specifically tomeasure whether students could meet the 220 score.Also blunting the edge was an escape valve appealsprocess that allowed students having difficulty passingthe paper-and-pencil test to demonstrate that they hadmet state standards if they had comparable grades toclassmates who had met the MCAS standard.

By the time the class of 2003 neared graduation, thepublic had had five years in which to adjust to theMCAS, helping to abate some of the opposition. Thefact that 93 percent of the class of 2003 passed theMCAS in time for graduation showed that the policy wasworking (another 2 percent passed the MCAS by theend of summer 2003, bringing the total percentage ofstudents meeting this requirement to 95).

Since then, student performance on the MCAS hassteadily increased. The gaps in achievement are narrow-ing—although more work needs to be done to close theachievement gaps fully between advantaged and disad-vantaged students—and Massachusetts students arenow on pace with their international peers.

It pays to engage stakeholders early and oftenInvolving stakeholders in the reform process is one of themost important strategies available to states. While con-sensus doesn’t necessarily need to be the ultimate goal,all stakeholders should feel heard, valued and included.

In Massachusetts, MBAE set the tone of inclusion fromthe outset: Everyone was welcome, all ideas wereheard, and no one person or agenda was allowed todominate the conversation. Prior to the reform adoption,Jack Rennie and Paul Reville met with stakeholdersfrom across the state, including teachers’ unions and

other groups that may traditionally have been opposedto large-scale reform. Senator Birmingham noted thatMBAE kept open the lines of communication with teach-ers’ unions at all times, even when their opposition toMCAS was at its peak.

After MERA’s passage, thousands of educators in thefield and others were engaged in the development of theCommon Core of Learning curriculum frameworks andthe MCAS, which not only added transparency to thework but also provided buy-in from teachers and otherswho might otherwise have objected to the standards.

Ten well-publicized regional open-house forums wereheld to directly solicit comments, and the state boardhosted a two-day televised forum at the State House tohear from distinguished speakers from government,such as Governor Weld, Senator Ted Kennedy and Jus-tice Stephen Breyer; from academia such as BostonUniversity President John Silber, Harvard President NeilRudenstine, Mt. Holyoke President Elizabeth Kennan,Northeastern President John Curry, Simmons PresidentJean Dowdall and University of Massachusetts Presi-dent Michael Hooker; and from business such as thecorporate leaders of Fleet Bank, New England Tele-phone and Jack Rennie of Pacer Systems.

In addition, a 22-minute videotape entitled" Voices ofReform" was developed and distributed along with50,000 brochures to every school council and schoolcommittee in the commonwealth. During the years thatthe curriculum frameworks were developed, from 1995to 1998, more than 10,000 educators and other inter-ested parties provided feedback to the state board ofeducation on the draft frameworks.

Transparency in the development and use ofstandards and assessments is important to buildand maintain supportTransparency alone won’t lead to successful reform,but it is part and parcel of any policy change that lasts.


14

Transparency leads to better communication and under-standing of key issues by stakeholders and can effec-tively build (or destroy) grassroots support.

Perhaps the most notable aspect of the state’s efforts toensure transparency is the sharing of the test questionsand student work. Eighty percent of the questions on the10th grade MCAS are released each year to educators,parents and students, along with examples of studentresponses below, at and above the needs improvementlevel. In fact, the student work examples proved enor-mously helpful during the height of the anti-MCAS con-troversy because the samples showed clearly just howminimal the skills required to hit the 220 level were.

Next Steps and ChallengesforMassachusettsCertainly, Massachusetts has much of which to beproud. But leaders there will be the first to admit that thework is not done.

Achievement and attainment has leveledWhile the state has seen strong results at the highschool level, in large part because of the urgency cre-ated by the graduation requirement to help studentsover the bar, scores have been relatively flat for Massa-chusetts’ 4th and 8th graders.

Massachusetts’ success in some part masks seriousand ongoing achievement issues for low income stu-dents and students of color. Overall results on the MCAScontinue to rise, yet education achievement and attain-ment in Massachusetts still correlate too closely witheconomic status. Massachusetts needs to address thisachievement gap to fully meet the promise of MERA.

Opinions and research are mixed as to whether MCASdid or did not increase the high school dropout rate; theDOE estimated that two-thirds of students who droppedout had passed MCAS. Yet there is no doubt that thestate’s four-year graduation rate is not high enough;statewide, the overall rate hovers around 80 percent,while there are much lower rates for disadvantaged stu-

dents. The achievement gap in basic skills that largelyhas been erased at the high school level has not carriedforward to eliminate the graduation gap.

The state has an unfinished agendaAs other states have taken on the goal of stretching theceiling as well as the floor by ensuring all students grad-uate ready for college and careers, the commonwealth’sprogress in this area has been slow. The Board of Edu-cation has identified a set of courses that could preparestudents, the “Mass Core,” but only as a voluntary pro-gram that districts can choose to implement. Nor has thestate refined the accountability indicators for highschools to provide a fuller picture of high schools be-yond 10th grade test scores and the cohort high schoolgraduation rate.

In the last couple of years, the BOE has adopted newpolicies for educator, school and district accountability.The accountability targets the commonwealth has set forschools and districts remain among the most rigorous inthe nation; BOE and DOE leaders have not tried to“game” the system and lower the bar. Prospective ele-mentary mathematics teachers will be required to take atest of their mathematics proficiency to gain certification,the first such requirement of its kind in the nation. Likemost states, Massachusetts still needs to take evenbolder steps to redesign the entire system for training,hiring, retaining, evaluating and compensating educators.

The BOE has introduced some innovative options toturn low-performing schools into Commonwealth Pilot(or Co-Pilot) schools, based on the acclaimed BostonPublic Schools’ Pilot School model. Yet, by and large,the state does not have a strategy to turn around failingschools and districts, despite a serious number ofschools and districts whose performance has failed toimprove year after year.

Controversy continues to rage over whether to expandchartering, even as recent high-quality research has in-dicated that students in charter schools outperform theirpeers in traditional public schools and even in theBoston Pilot Schools, as charter school capacity in thestate is close to maxing out.


15

The dire economic situation may threaten futureprogressGovernor Patrick’s year long, statewide, inclusive effortto create a 10-year strategic plan for education via theReadiness Project has provided new goals for P-20 edu-cation reform. The goal is for this project’s reports andpriorities to become the blueprint for the next chapter ofeducation reform in the commonwealth.

Perhaps for the first time since education reform beganin the state, the backers of the Readiness Project de-scribe capacity as both instructional capacity for educa-tors to deliver on standards, and greater capacity andalignment of before-school and out-of-school factors(such as providing universal early childhood education,extending the school day and year, and aligning healthand human services with in-school supports). Views onhow well the Readiness Project addresses “the unfin-ished agenda” are mixed. Some advocates are con-cerned that implementing the plan may distract fromtackling the unfinished pieces of MERA or even under-mine some of the core components, such as the rigor-ous standards-based curriculum frameworks, thehigh-quality MCAS and charter schools.

Even without the differing perspectives on the Readi-ness Project, in the next few years the fiscal climatemay prevent the state from adopting the ReadinessProject plan comprehensively. Some observers haveestimated that the 50-point plan’s full implementationmight require at least $1 billion in new spending andresources. Exact costs—and benefits—are unknown,though, as some of the recommendations would reducecosts, some would increase costs and many would re-quire more effective uses of existing funds.

However, Governor Patrick’s “Readiness Schools,”which offer some of the autonomy and innovations en-joyed by Pilots and charters, may be a bright spot in theshort term as a concrete piece of the Readiness Projectagenda that can be enacted even at a time when thestate is being forced to make painful cuts in servicesand spending.

ConclusionLooking forward, part of what has sustained reform inMassachusetts has been the ingenuity and commitmentof local leaders to implementing high standards. Thoseworking on the front lines of education reform don’t ac-cept the notion that progress and improvement are im-possible without new funding. Schools and districts arereinventing their approaches and practices to absorbfunding cuts, while holding fast to the ideals and deliver-ing on the outcomes required. The current economicsituation is, in many ways, a test like no other before it—but it shouldn’t preclude continued forward action.

Secretary Reville recently summed up the promise ofthe Readiness Project for finishing the unfinishedagenda. “As someone who has been with this since thevery beginning at MBAE, I see us now having a realisticvision of what it will take to close the gaps and deliveron a proficiency standard for all children. Now, we haveto commit the resources and execute. Therein lies thechallenge, but it’s a very exciting moment.”

“As someone who has been with thissince the very beginning at MBAE, Isee us now having a realistic vision ofwhat it will take to close the gapsand deliver on a proficiency standardfor all children. Now, we have tocommit the resources and execute.Therein lies the challenge, but it’s avery exciting moment.”

— Paul Reville,MassachusettsSecretary of Education

There are a number of factors that put Massachusettson the road to success: The commonwealth substan-tially increased the adequacy of equity of funding toschools; it had inspiring leaders who never gave up and,equally important, knew what to do to achieve lastingreform; and it has a public that understands the chal-lenge and importance of keeping up in a rapidly shiftingglobal economy.

While many things are out of states’ control, cultivatingthe right kind of leadership is one area where reform ad-vocates can have an impact. The qualities that Massa-chusetts’ leaders had in common, whether they wereelected officials, DOE staff or external champions, weretenacity, passion, integrity and conviction. They had in-tellectual courage and stamina, knew how and when toplay politics and were able to persevere, even whenthings got ugly. These leaders were “visionary pragma-tists” who kept their eyes on the end goal while workingday-to-day on behalf of kids.

In large part, these visionaries have succeeded. Low-in-come and minority students are doing better than before.More Massachusetts students are going to college. Na-tional and international comparisons show that the com-monwealth’s young people are keeping pace with thetrend-setters, and these assessments also verify the rigorand strength of the state’s standards and assessments.

While there remains much more work to be done to fullymeet the promise of a high-quality education for all stu-dents, there are many lessons states may cull from theMassachusetts story as they develop and implementsustainable policies.

Final Competency Determination (Percent Passing Both Math and ELA)

Class of 2003 Class of 2004 Class of 2005 Class of 2006 Class of 2007 Class of 2008*All 95% 96% 94% 95% 95% 94%White 96 98 97 97 97 97Black 88 88 85 86 89 86Latino 85 85 85 87 89 85Asian 97 95 95 96 97 95

*These figures may change because complete data on the Class of 2008, including all retake opportunities, are not yet available.


16

In the early 1990s, momentum was building acrossthe country for states to step in with a more activistleadership role than they had traditionally played inspurring/demanding school-system improvement and topursue a more systemic rather than piecemeal approachto school reform, using the idea of higher and clearerstandards and better assessments. The recommenda-tions in “Every Child a Winner!” were consistent with thisnational trend, and the 1993 legislation enacted in Mas-sachusetts was actually more comprehensive than simi-lar standards-based reforms enacted in other statesaround the same time.

MERA’s five primary components:

• Establish new standards and programs for studentsthat ensure high achievement

• Administer a fair and equitable system of schoolfinance

•Work with school districts to create a governance struc-ture that encourages innovation and accountability

• Enhance the quality and accountability of all educa-tional personnel

• Improve the Department of Elementary and SecondaryEducation’s capacity and effectiveness in implement-ing Education Reform

Masschusetts EducationReformAct

Robert Antonucci—President, Fitchburg State College (formercommissioner, Massachusetts Department of Education)

Karla Baehr—Deputy commissioner, Massachusetts Departmentof Education (former superintendent, Lowell Public Schools)

Thomas Birmingham—Senior counsel, Edwards Angell Palmer &Dodge (former president, Massachusetts State Senate; chair, Sen-ate Education Committee)

Andy Calkins—Senior vice president, Mass Insight Education &Research Institute

Bill Guenther—President and director, Mass Insight Education &Research Institute

Jennifer Davis—Co-founder and president, Mass2020Henry Dinger—Partner, Goodwin Procter LLP; board of directors,Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education

David Driscoll—Former commissioner, Massachusetts Departmentof Education

Arthur Dulong—Assistant director, Massachusetts SecondarySchool Administrators’ Association

Dan French—Executive director, Center for Collaborative EducationJamie Gass—Director, Center for School Reform, Pioneer InstituteRobert Gaudet—Senior research analyst, The Rennie Center forEducation Research & Policy

Patricia Haddad—State representative; co-chair, Joint Committeeon Education, Massachusetts House of Representatives

Linda Hayes—Assistant director, Massachusetts Secondary SchoolAdministrators’ Association

Tim Knowles—Executive director, Center for Urban School Im-provement, University of Chicago (former deputy superintendent,Boston Public Schools)

Alan Macdonald—Executive director, Massachusetts BusinessRoundtable; board of directors, Massachusetts Business Alliancefor Education

Jim McManus—Principal partner, Slowey McManus; board of di-rectors, Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education (formerchief of staff, Senator Robert Antonioni)

Jeffrey Nellhaus—Deputy commissioner, Department of EducationBasan Nembirkow—Superintendent, Brockton Public Schools(former superintendent, Chicopee Public Schools)

Peter Nessen—President, Nessen Associates; board of directors,Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education

Leslie Nicholson—Executive director, Stand for ChildrenMassachusetts

Linda Noonan—Managing director, Massachusetts BusinessAlliance for Education

Michele Norman—Director of strategic planning and collaboration,Executive Office of Education, Governor Deval Patrick

Thomas Payzant—Professor of practice, Harvard School ofEducation (former superintendent, Boston Public Schools)

James Peyser—Partner, New Schools Venture Fund (former direc-tor, Pioneer Institute; former chair, state board of education)

Ann Reale—Former commissioner, Department of Early Care andEducation (former education advisor, Governor Mitt Romney)

Paul Reville—Massachusetts secretary of education, ExecutiveOffice of Education, Governor Deval Patrick

Tom Scott—Executive director, Massachusetts Association ofSchool Superintendents

Kathy Skinner—Director, Massachusetts Teachers’ AssociationBob Turner—Former editorial page writer, Boston GlobeAnand Vaishnav—Chief of staff, Boston Public Schools (formereducation reporter, Boston Globe)

Works CitedBirmingham, Tom, “Has Education Reform Stalled in Massachu-setts?” November 2, 2002. Keynote address, Pioneer Institute.

Boston Foundation and Massachusetts Department of Elementaryand Secondary Education, “Informing the Debate: ComparingBoston’s Charter, Pilot and Traditional Schools.” January, 2009.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, “Ready for 21st Century Suc-cess—The New Promise of Education.” Executive Office of Educa-tion. June 2008.

Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education, “Every Child aWinner!” 1991.

Massachusetts Department of Education, “Commonwealth Readi-ness Project.” 2008.

Mass Insight Education, “The Unfinished Agenda—Charting aCourse for the Second Decade of Massachusetts Education Re-form.” February 2005.

Mass Insight Education, “How Massachusetts Kept Its Promise.”October 2003.

MassINC, “Incomplete Grade. Massachusetts Education Reform at15.”

Vaishnav, Anand, “Swift Focuses on Class of 2003.” The BostonGlobe. July 1, 2002.Vaznis, James, “Bright Sign for Tech in Mass.” The Boston Globe.December 10, 2008.

Case Study Interviews

17

Achieve, Inc.

1775 Eye Street NW, Suite 410 • Washington, DC 20006

P 202.419.1540 • F 202.828.0911 • www.achieve.org

Documents

Taking Root - Massachusetts' Lessons for Sustaining the College- and Career-Ready Agenda