A small Leverett school thrust itself into a statewide debate last spring when parents of a dozen students opted to have their children sit out a standardized test the state uses to assess performance of students.
The move had a cascading effect this fall, when the state Department of Elementary and Secondary Education lowered Leverett Elementary School’s accountability rating to Level 3 due to low student participation in the MCAS or PARCC exams.
Leverett’s dip has nothing to do with the performance of the 56 students who did take the test and everything to do with the 12 who didn’t. That’s because the state uses standardized tests to classify schools on a five-level rating system that aims to measure progress in increasing student achievement. Test results play a big part in these ratings, but student participation counts as well. Officials don’t want schools to artificially boost their results by having weaker students sit the exam out.
That’s where Leverett comes in. The state downgraded the elementary school to Level 3 because just 82 percent of its students took the test, below the 90 percent required for Level 2 status. Schools can also earn Level 3 status if they are among the lowest 20 percent of performing schools, which was not the case in Leverett.
The state may select some of these Level 3 districts for review, and the districts are required to complete a self-assessment. But unlike Level 4 schools, officials are not required to develop a state-approved improvement plan. Additionally, no Level 3 schools have faced funding loss based on participation, according to the Massachusetts Teachers Association.
Still, Leverett officials are crying foul. Earlier this month the Select Board asked Mitchell Chester, the state’s education commissioner, to reverse his department’s decision. Select Board members said in a letter to the education department that the downgrade “appears to be a retaliatory response to the decision by some of our students and their parents to not participate” and bears no relation to the quality of a Leverett school education.
The test scores for those students who did participate last spring seem to bear that out. The school’s average math score increased 5 percent compared to last year, while there was no significant change in English scores.
We doubt the state is purposefully picking on Leverett or the other schools downgraded this year to Level 3 based on lower participation, including Amherst Middle School and the Hilltown Cooperative Charter Public School in Easthampton. Like Leverett, Amherst appealed the downgrade of its middle school, a request that the state rejected.
One fault of a strict rule on participation is that it uses a one-size-fit-all formula, which can be especially harmful for schools in rural areas where a small number of families opting out can skew the participation percentages.
The rating system should be revisited, as should a broader discussion at the state and local levels about why some families staged a grassroots protest by walking away from standardized testing.
Families who opt out of the test raise legitimate concerns. They contend “teaching to the test” can zap flexibility in the classroom, narrow the curriculum and in some cases hurt children’s love of learning.
For their part, state officials point out that the participation formula echoes federal law, which mandates any school accepting federal funding have a 95 percent participation rate. They also say the system is set up to ensure that schools test all students, not just highest performers.
These are valid arguments, but state education officials should be careful not to overreact to the situation in Leverett and other communities. Instead, they should listen to concerns and gather feedback.
When the test results were unveiled last month, Chester told the Gazette, “We do not know why participation was low in those schools.”
Actually, we suspect they have a pretty good idea, given the complaints students, parents and many public educators have raised about the tests in recent years. The time seems ripe to explore those issues and consider alternatives, given that state education officials are in the midst of creating a new MCAS 2.0 testing system for next school year.
The protest movement presents the education community with an important test of its own.