Making the Grade by Sam Zurier

Lessons from Massachusetts

In 1993, Rhode Island and Massachusetts stood at comparable levels of student achievement, but since then, Massachusetts has received national recognition for its initiatives to educate the great majority of its children to achieve at a high level. This fall, the Rhode Island Department of Education (RIDE) issued regulations that emulate some of the Bay State’s formula for success. While we certainly hope for improvements, RIDE’s package suffers from limitations that become clear in a report that the Rhode Island Public Expenditures Council (RIPEC) published this fall, comparing the resources each state contributes to its public schools. In this column, I will explain the connections between the State regulations and the RIPEC analysis, which in my opinion demonstrate why it will be difficult for our State’s program to succeed in its current form.

When Massachusetts reformed its public schools in 1993, it took bold action on a number of fronts, including standards and accountability. The state developed a clear set of academic standards for each student to achieve, grade by grade. Massachusetts developed “high stakes testing,” by which students must succeed on standardized tests in order to qualify for a high school diploma. After a phase-in period, the standards and the tests succeeded, as the great majority of Massachusetts high school students now gain diplomas after passing the state tests, demonstrating a level of knowledge and skill at one of the highest levels in the country.

With its new regulations, the Rhode Island Department of Education introduces “high stakes testing” to our students. Beginning in three years, statewide standardized testing will count for one third of graduation requirements for the issuance of a high school diploma. To ensure that school districts work towards this goal, the new regulations also require them to develop intensive intervention programs (such as extra instruction) for students who are one or more years below grade level in English or mathematics.

Rhode Island’s plans to introduce tests with consequences and mandate district support for underperforming students flow from the best of intentions. If Massachusetts can ensure that almost every high school graduate masters certain fundamental skills as part of his or her education, then why can’t we?

I am sorry to predict that many local school districts, such as Providence, cannot gain significantly from the State’s initiatives, because these districts will lack the resources to implement the initiatives successfully. For example, the State regulations will require Providence to provide additional tutoring and instruction for the more than 60% of its middle and high school students that need extra help to achieve at grade level in English and mathematics. The District has estimated the cost of these additional teachers to exceed $35 million. There has been no increase in State aid for two years, and the Paiva-Weed law limits local tax increases to prevent the funding of this program.

Similarly, the new State requirement of “high stakes testing” will run into severe challenges in communities such as Providence. For example, more than one third of the City’s high school students show “little evidence of achievement” on the State test of mathematics problem solving for 11th graders. If those students fail their high stakes tests, and receive the equivalent of an “F” for one third of their math grade, it obviously will reduce the number of Providence 12th grade students who can graduate each year. Between math and English, it would appear likely that at least one third of the students who otherwise would graduate from our public high schools will not receive a diploma because of the “high stakes” test.
The authors of the new RIDE regulations may respond that Providence’s current public education program needs to change if its students cannot perform at the level of the State’s standardized tests, and they would be correct. With that said, one can question whether this observation justifies the consequences that one third of our current high school graduates would suffer were they denied high school diplomas.

In my opinion, it will be difficult for Rhode Island’s new regulations to produce Massachusetts-level success, because we have not adopted other, equally important parts of the Massachusetts program, including Massachusetts-level state school aid. According to the RIPEC Report, Massachusetts supplies more than $6,000 per student in aid to public schools, exceeding Rhode Island by more than $2,000 per student, or 50%. The actual amount each district (or school) receives per student varies based upon the district’s financial strength and its students’ needs; therefore, a Providence student receives more state aid than the Rhode Island average, as would a Worcester student compared to the Massachusetts average.

While this complicates comparisons, some rough approximations can be illuminating. If Providence received Massachusetts-level financing of an additional $2,000 per student ($50 million) or an increase of 50% in State aid ($90 million), we could afford the tutoring that the State seeks to mandate for students in need of extra help. Massachusetts-level state aid also could finance any number of other programs that Providence has lost over the years, including a fully-funded science curriculum, advanced academic program, arts and music, athletics, extracurricular activities and so forth.

In addition to a much greater State commitment of financial resources to districts, Massachusetts also provides a much stronger foundation of State support and intervention. The Massachusetts Department of Education has educators who can go to districts and work “hands on” with local schools and districts. In contrast, Rhode Island’s office lacks the bodies for this task – for the most part, RIDE’s role is limited to announcing standards and threatening to “take over” districts without having the resources to do so. Also, Massachusetts introduced a type of “site-based management” in 1993, as principals were given greater authority to recruit the best teachers and dismiss (to other schools) those teachers who were not performing well.

These other components of the Massachusetts package are critical to supporting efforts by schools and districts to educate students to a higher level.

While Rhode Island’s plan to hold students to high standards, and to deny diplomas to those who do not pass the tests is well-meaning, it cannot by itself achieve the desired goal. To use an analogy, we encourage our children to take Advanced Placement courses, because we know that success in those courses is worthy of college credit. But as valuable as these courses may be, most of our children will not succeed in them without a good teacher. Similarly, it is not enough for the State of Rhode Island to issue edicts to local districts mandating new performance requirements and punitive consequences for noncompliance; instead, Rhode Island should emulate its neighbor to the north by providing resources, support and guidance to local communities so that they can succeed in achieving the important new goals.