I am a participant in Education Reform both as a parent and serving on the School Council for our High School. With all due respect to the intent of the legislature, I have not seen any benefits of MCAS in our community. The MCAS is not energizing teachers or students. If this was not the case, we would see increased graduation rates!

Like all districts, we already had multiple assessments (the Iowas, Stanford 9). Furthermore, Brookline is widely recognized as a successful district. My wife and I moved to Brookline for the schools and my children have been in the system for 13 years. Therefore, I support H3487 and all efforts to eliminate the MCAS graduation requirement. It is not required by NCLB and we are all spending a lot of time and money on this. And in human terms we already have 5000 discouraged students of the Class of 2003 with limited opportunities. Finally, as a taxpaying citizen who believes in public schools, I find it inequitable that public school students have this additional MCAS requirement to attend our excellent public universities in the Commonwealth. Are we suggesting that the fine public servants in these admissions departments need the MCAS to determine which Massachusetts students should attend?

Barring that, I welcome the implementation of alternative assessments recognized by the state available to all -- not just the smallest percentage of special education students. The legislature needs to act on bills such as S257 because we heard Chairman Peyser this morning say that he is happy with the status quo. I was outraged that the Chairman said that a multiple choice test format was an example of a competency. I am outraged that only 1 HS portfolio was approved last year and no refinement of that lengthy process.

I urge the legislature to act now, because very soon the DoE will add history and science requirements.

As a citizen, I find it frustrating that the Peisch H1250 and the even more limited Budget section 635 for making the Special Eduction appeals more equitable were passed in the last session by overwhelming majorities but when vetoed by the Governor, they has not yet been an overide vote. I am quite concerned about the Special Education graduation requirements not as a parent of such a student but because I know from serving on our council how difficult it was for our staff to go through the current appeals process (the time, the coaching, coming up with cohorts). Local graduation requirements worked for years.

I am completely unimpressed by the DoE’s attempt to reform appeals. I refer to such proposals the parental notification and reasons for denials in writing. I don’t trust the DoE in this case to implement the wishes of the legislature except if it codified in law. Philosophically, I am opposed the degree of centralization that has resulted from Ed Reform. Here is another case where DoE is striving to maintain its bureaucratic control at the expense of local school boards and superintendents.