Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Assessment Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Minuteman committee asks legislative subcommittee to draft letter criticizing MASC process on Question 2
Summary
The Minuteman Regional Vocational Technical School Committee directed its legislative subcommittee to draft a letter objecting to the Massachusetts Association of School Committees's decision to endorse Question 2 (eliminating MCAS as a graduation requirement) without polling membership; the committee did not take a formal pro/con position on the ballot question.
The Minuteman Regional Vocational Technical School Committee voted to have its legislative subcommittee draft a letter to the Massachusetts Association of School Committees (MASC) objecting to the association's process in taking a public position on Question 2 for the November ballot.
The motion, made and seconded during the committee discussion, passed by roll-call. The chair said the intent of the letter is to register displeasure with MASC's process of adopting a public stance without broad member consultation, not to instruct the committee to take an official position for or against Question 2.
Superintendent Heidi Driscoll urged members to read balanced information and clarified the scope of the ballot question: "the vote is actually to eliminate MCAS as a graduation requirement," she said, noting that MCAS testing itself would still be administered and continue to produce data used to assess schools. Driscoll cautioned that removing the graduation requirement could weaken incentives for consistent assessment and complicate comparisons across districts.
Members raised procedural and practical concerns. The chair described the board's unilateral action as "unbelievably annoying" because members were not polled before MASC took a position, and a number of members warned of logistical "day two" problems if the graduation requirement were lifted. One member urged the committee to focus the letter on process rather than the substance of Question 2 so towns and school committees could form their own views.
The legislative subcommittee was asked to produce a draft within one to two weeks; the chair said the committee may hold a special meeting to review, revise and approve the letter expeditiously. The committee framed the planned correspondence as a procedural challenge to MASC's governance and messaging, rather than an endorsement or rejection of the ballot question itself.
What happens next: volunteers were asked to join the legislative subcommittee, a draft letter will be circulated to members for review, and the committee may convene a special meeting to vote on the final text before it is sent to MASC.
