|
By Dr. Robert D. Gaudet, Senior
Research Analyst,
Donahue Institute, University of Massachusetts
This report examines student performance
in Massachusetts before and after implementation of
the Education Reform Act of 1993. This work will pay
special attention to the McDuffy v. Secretary of Education
plaintiffs because they triggered the reform act and
because they give us a good perspective on education
reform generally.
The McDuffy plaintiffs were cities
and towns. The plaintiffs ranged from middle class towns
like Rockland to lower middle class towns like Winchendon
to urban core cities like Brockton. Plaintiffs sued
the Commonwealth because they felt that their children
were not receiving equal educational opportunity due
to differences in per-pupil spending among poorer and
wealthier communities.
We will look at three indicators.
1.) Reform spending: how much
new aid went to these communities because of the Education
Reform Act of 1993?
2.) Relative rank before and
after enactment of the Education Reform Act. Where did
the communities rank on statewide tests before and after
the reform act had kicked in?
3.) Examining at the "pass rate"
of two kinds of communities - those that are in the
middle of the state's demography (Middle Massachusetts);
and those that are most in need of help and at-risk
for failure - the major cities and challenged towns,
those districts at the lower end of the state's demography.
The 1992 MEAP
and the 1999
This report compares scores on two
different tests. That is not the best way to analyze
anything, but in the absence of more than two MCAS administrations,
it is the only way we have to evaluate progress. I will
look at the 1992 MEAP tests, the last year pre-reform
and at the 1999 MCAS, the latest year post-reform.
You cannot directly compare MEAP and
MCAS. They are different tests designed for different
purposes. The MEAP was administered from 1988 to 1996
and was intended to allow observers to compare district-to
district performance. It was a short test that was not
designed to gather data about individual students. The
MCAS is designed to provide data on district, school,
classroom, and individual performance. That is one reason
why it is so long. The MCAS also assesses performance
relative to established curriculum frameworks - it tests
kids based on what the state says they are supposed
to know to be well educated. The MEAP was more of a
general assessment. There were no curriculum frameworks
back then.
Having said that, there are bases for
comparison. Both of these tests were given to all systems.
The MEAP was designed to compare system-to-system performance,
something the MCAS also does. Back in 1992, the state
had expectations of certain levels of acceptable performance
for all systems, again similar to the MCAS. The MEAP
did not test special education students; the MCAS does.
Looking at results from 1992 and 1999 is interesting
in terms of giving us information about how well education
reform is working.
Before and
After the Education Reform Act of 1993
1.) Funding The Education
Reform Act gave money to places that were low-spending.
It is no surprise that pre-reform demographically disadvantaged
communities did not spend as much as advantaged communities.
Many of the McDuffy communities were disadvantaged demographically.
Please remember that Rockland, Whitman, Hanson, Leicester,
Rowley, Salisbury, and Carver were among the plaintiffs.
Those are not disadvantaged towns. They are solid middle
class or Middle Massachusetts communities, to use my
term for describing communities that are in the middle
of the state's demography.
Chapter 70 education funding increased
dramatically because of reform. In 1994, the average
state contribution per-pupil in Massachusetts was $1502.
In 1999, it was $2765. The 16 McDuffy plaintiffs received
an average of $4648 per pupil in reform aid. (This average
is pulled up because two of the McDuffy plaintiffs,
Lawrence and Holyoke, received substantially more state
funding than other communities.) McDuffy systems received
more money than other districts because they were spending
less than other places and the funding formula did a
good job of compensating for such spending disparities.
2.) Rank performances I looked
the 1992 MEAP scores for Reading and Math and compared
them to the 1999 MCAS English and Math scores for regular
education students. I looked at regular education students
because the MEAPs only tested regular education students.
If you look at the rank order of McDuffy communities
in terms of student performance on MEAP and MCAS tests,
several points emerge. The first is that the demographically
typical communities - Middle Massachusetts - sometimes
showed solid improvement and sometimes did not.
|
