Teaching About Human Rights in the Trump Era (Avoiding the "Both-Sides Trap")

 

 

Above: Protests have regularly occurred in opposition to the Trump administration's attacks on U.S. democracy, growing authoritarianism, and disregard for human rights (including immigrant rights). These are images from Madison, Wisconsin on February 5, 2025, New York City on April 19, 2025, and Los Angeles on June 6, 2025.

There are not two sides to human rights. Period. 

It should not matter your political party affiliation or what community you live in, if Americans cannot agree that everyone deserves human rights, then this will be the end of the United States.

Of course, the U.S. government has a long history of violating people's human rights (treatment of Native peoples, enslavement of African Americans, Japanese American incarceration during World War II, treatment of queer Americans, treatment of women, child labor, etc.). However, even during these unjust moments, Americans citizens would express a collective commitment to basic human rights (granted, some Americans were still excluded from those rights due to their race, gender, class, sexual orientation, abilities, religion, or immigration status). While those in power may have disregarded people's human rights, movements formed to ensure freedom and civil rights. In that context, pleas to value most opinions were valid. It did seem that there was potential for the United States to become more democratic and more just. (Note, I did not say all opinions were valid; it was never right to give value to the opinions of slavery proponents, segregationists, supporters of settler-colonialism, etc., for they wanted to violate people's human rights.)

Similarly, we once lived in a nation where different political opinions should have been respected in the classroom, as well. For many years, I taught conservative, liberal, progressive, and libertarian students in my high school social studies classroom. I taught during politically difficult moments, such as September 11th, the Iraq War, Hurricane Katrina, and the Great Recession. These events challenged me as a teacher to find a way to create a fair balance in my classroom, where honest student opinions could be heard. I did my best to give equal weight to different political views (which was not always easy in very politically liberal Massachusetts).

Sadly, that time has come to an end (at least for now and at least in the United States). 

We no longer live in a nation that is engaged in an honest debate between different political ideas and policies. This is the precipice to the end of American democracy and the decline of American human rights. We need to start treating it as such in the classroom and beyond.

One political party has made clear that is does not have any care to follow any of the old democratic norms. That common ground of all political ideologies believing in human rights is over. Donald Trump and the current Republican Party are clearly willing to erode and possibly end democracy to rule in however way they see fit. They are continually ignoring the rule of law. They have no interest in listening to the views of Americans and governing according to their wishes. They are openly disregarding human rights, because they can. Not long ago, some members of the Republican Party showed alarm at Nixon's disregard for the law, police violence used on Rodney King, U.S. soldiers participating in torture at Abu Gharib, or (albeit very briefly) the January 6th Capitol Insurrection; today, this same party is widely unified in their cheering of similar incidents of constitutional and human rights violations by the Trump administration (see below). A lack of disagreement around these issues and shows how far past reasonable political debate we are and a sign that they are an authoritarian party.

In this current moment, it is especially crucial that social studies teachers do not fall into the "both-sides trap," or what media literacy scholars would call false balance. Not all stories have two equal sides (sometimes they have many sides or have primarily have one side). Not every historical even had two equal arguments for how things should have accrued. There were not two sides to the Holocaust, American slavery, colonization of Native people, Japanese American incarceration, and child labor. These events were wrong and unjust. Giving weight to counter-arguments, such as the Holocaust did not happen (a common conspiracy theory), downplaying the horrors of American slavery (commonly espoused by conservative politicians), denying atrocities and genocides against Native people (a fringe argument), Japanese American incarceration was justified (a fringe argument), or child labor was good for children (argued by some today), is dangerous. It opens the door for abhorrent ideas like slavery, genocide, mass murder, concentration camps, or child labor to return in the present. Similarly, there are not two sides to the eroding of American democracy and human rights. We are near the beginning of a very difficult and troubling timeline. As such, teachers must not give equal weight in their classrooms to arguments that support Trump disregarding the Constitution, ignoring the rule of law, or violating human rights. This is when teachers (and all Americans) must resist.

In this blog post, I hope to explain how history, government/civics, economics, geography, ethnic studies, and other social science teachers must use this journalism concept in their own teaching, especially when it related to the teaching of human rights in our current era of rising authoritarianism and politically-motivated cruelty. I don't write this post lightly. I understand how this may come across to some people, especially those who voted for or support Donald Trump. I know this is made harder by students (and parents and community members) who watch partisan media sources that do not have any commitment to evidence and are little more than political propaganda. Yet, I ask anyone of good conscious to look deeply at what is happening to the United States and try to understand why social studies teachers must play an important role in teaching against anyone's human rights being violated. 

This time is different. Donald Trump and others in his administration (and we need to be clear that this is not only one person) represent the greatest threat to human rights in the 21st century. As the most economically and militarily powerful country in the world, their actions do not only effect Americans, but everyone across the entire globe. Teachers must understand this and realize that they have a responsibility to defend democracy and justice in this moment. 

Six months ago, the Trump administration returned to power with Republican political control of Congress and the Supreme Court. Since then, the United States has quickly become an illiberal democracy, which Zakaria described as democratically-elected governments that ignores "constitutional limits of their power and deprived their citizens of basic rights and liberties" (you can watch an Associated Press clip on illiberal democracy in Hungary here). Historians and political scientists have described the Trump administration as authoritarian, white Christian nationalist, and fascist. At their core, all three of these movements are anti-democratic and anti-human rights.

The executive branch, with a general ignorance from both Congress and the Supreme Court, has detained migrants and some citizens without due process sending some to prisons in foreign countries, used the military to patrol citizens during peacetime, refused to release federal funds in education, health care, and the environment approved by a bipartisan Congress, essentially taken bribes from foreign governments and companies, and floated the idea that Trump may run for/is entitled to a constitutionally-prohibited third term. Here is a summary of the many constitutional violations by the Trump administration from law professor Steven Schwinn and the Leadership Conference on Human and Civil Rights lists the many human rights violations here. Each one of these are a small test to see if our democratic system will allow the Trump administration to violate the constitution and human rights. So far, each test has been successful and we are creeping further down the road to an illiberal democracy without human rights protections. But, all hope is not lost. As a number of scholars have argued, democracies can die (see here, here, here, here, here, and here), but they also can re-emerge (sometimes more vibrant than before) (see here, here, here, here, and here). Human rights can be restored. Here is a helpful list on how to save U.S. democracy from the Democracy Docket.

Defining Human Rights

Above: Eleanor Roosevelt holding poster of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights not long after its passage by the United Nations in 1948. 

Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, gender, class, sexual orientation, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status. They are essential to defending humanity. They are a cornerstone of democracy. Without human rights, we cannot have a world of freedom and peace. The United Nation's "Declaration of Human Rights", created over 75 years ago, offers one framework to use with students. It outlines 30 articles that define what human rights include. 

These include (I have chosen some that are particularly important for the current times): 

• "The right to life, liberty and security of person." 
• "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
• "Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law." 
• "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile."
• "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion." 
• "Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association." 
• "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family." 

Below, I list four topics and resources that social studies teachers can use to have students understand how abnormal the Trump administration's actions are within U.S. history and to consider ways that Americans can defend democracy and human rights. I have very intentionally included conservative, liberal, progressive, and libertarian sources, as well as mainstream and alternative media.

Issue 1: Treatment of Migrants and Use of Military/Law Enforcement Agents

Above: Large Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raid in Los Angeles on June 6, 2025 and a press conference after the release of Massachusetts teenager Marcelo Gomes da Silva, who was arrested on May 31, 2025 by ICE on his way driving to volleyball practice with teammates. 

"The Constitution Guarantees All People — Regardless of Citizenship — due process, free speech and other rights. DHS’ Refusal to Respect Those Rights is Ruining America’s Image as a Land of Freedom and the Rule of Law" (CATO Institute)

"How Can the President Put Soldiers on the Streets of Los Angeles?" (Brookings Institute)

One in Five ICE Arrests Are Latinos on the Streets with No Criminal Past or Removal Order (Cato Institute) 

"The Law and Lawlessness of U.S. Immigration Detention" (Harvard Law Review)

"What Does “Due Process” Mean for Immigrants and Why Is It Important?" (Vera Institute of Justice)

"Why Due Process Matters for Every American, Including Non-Citizens" (International Rescue Committee)

"Trump Seizes Power Over D.C. Using Rarely Invoked Rule" (The New Republic)

"Pentagon Plan Would Create Military ‘Reaction Force’ for Civil Unrest" (Washington Post)

 

Issue 2: Attacks on Civil Rights

Above: A woman holds up a sign demanding voting rights be protected at the U.S. Supreme Court on March 24, 2025.

"Trump Administrations Human and Civil Rights Rollbacks" (The Leadership Conference on Human and Civil Rights)

"Statement on the Trump Administration’s Attacks on Civil Rights (New York City Bar Association) 

"The Human Toll of Trump's Anti-Trans Crusade" (American Civil Liberties Union) 

"Trump on Voting Rights" (American Civil Liberties Union)

"Pushing Voting Rights Enforcement out of Justice Department Poses Risk to Democracy" (Human Rights Watch)

"Under Trump, the Justice Department is Stepping Away from Some Voting Rights Cases" (National Public Radio)

"White Christian nationalists are poised to remake America in their image during Trump’s second term, author say" (CNN)

"Trump has put Christian nationalists in key roles" (The Guardian) 

 

Issue 3:  Disregard for the Constitution and Rule of Law

 

 

 

Above: On his first day in the White House, Donald Trump pardoned all of the January 6th insurrectionists, who were convicted by juries of their peers and violated numerous federal laws in an attempt to subvert the outcome of the 2020 Election. Trump signed an executive order closing the Department of Education and laying off thousands of federal workers, which meat protests.   

"Trump's Pardons: Political Violence, Hate Groups, and the Rule of Law" (Stanford Law School)

"Trump's Pardons for Rioters 'Disturbing,' Former Top Jan. 6 Prosecutor Says" (ABC News)

"Many Trump Administration Fiscal and Regulatory Actions Are Unlawful" (Center for Budget and Policy Priorities)

"Why DOGE Is Unconstitutional" (Washington Post) 

"Trump Dismantling Education Department Violated Constitution, Lawsuits Say" (Democracy Docket)

"Trump’s Tariffs Are Unlawful: How the “Nondelegation Doctrine” Limits Congress" (The Fulcrum)

"President’s Third Term Talk Defies Constitution and Tests Democracy" (The New York Times)

 

Issue 4: Corruption

 

 

Above: Trump's home and private club Mar-a-Lago, and other Trump properties, charge (and often over-charge) the government for their use by the President during his first and second terms. In May 2025, the Trump administration accepted a free plan from the government of Qatar. In the days after taking office, Donald Trump started selling a "meme coin" and later hosted its biggest buyers at Mar-A-Logo. 

"Trump 2.0 and the Foreign Emoluments Clause" (American Enterprise Institute)

"Tracking Trump’s Unprecedented Corruption (Again)" (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington)

"Trump’s ‘Free’ Jet from Qatar and Corruption’s Slippery Slope" (American Oversight)

"The Number: How much is Trump pocketing off the Presidency?" (The Atlantic)

"Crypto, Wallets, Bibles: Trump's Assets top $1.6 billion in Latest Disclosure" (Axios)

"People Are Paying Millions to Dine With Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago" (WIRED)

"The Government's Bar Tab at Mar-a-Lago" (WNYC)

"Trump Business Deals Revive Questions About His Family Profiting Off the Presidency" (Public Broadcasting Service)

"'What Life Is This?': The Crypto Investors Who Bought a Dinner with Trump" (Politico)

Teaching About Oligarchy in the United States

Above: An 1889 cartoon "The Bosses of the Senate" by Joseph Keppler (Puck Magazine), which depicts wealthy oligarchs as money bags influencing the decisions of Senators.

On January 17th, 1961, Dwight D. Eisenhower gave his presidential farewell address. In it, he is noted for warning the United States about a growing "military-industrial complex," something that many historians will today note was quite prophetic. 

On January 15th, 2025, Joe Biden offered a very Eisenhower-like farewell address, where he warned the United States about the growing oligarchy that is threatening the nation. He said,

That’s why my farewell address tonight, I want to warn the country of some things that give me great concern. The dangerous concentration of power in the hands of a very few ultra-wealthy people, and the dangerous consequences if their abuse of power is left unchecked. Today, an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedoms and a fair shot for everyone to get ahead. We see the consequences all across America. And we’ve seen it before. More than a century ago, the American people stood up to the robber barons back then and busted the trusts. They didn’t punish the wealthy. They just made the wealthy play by the rules everybody else had. Workers want rights to earn their fair share. You know, they were dealt into the deal, and it helped put us on the path to building the largest middle class, the most prosperous century any nation the world has ever seen. We’ve got to do that again. [Read the full speech transcript here.]

Is the United States becoming an oligarchy? Most of Donald Trump's recent Cabinet nominations have been filled with generally unqualified people who have a collective wealth of $460 billion and his policy agenda is mainly focused on tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans (see also the tax-related sections of Project 2025, which is a guiding document for his administration). He has also assigned one of the richest people in the world to examine places to cut government spending. And, it is not just Biden who is warning about this. Rather, some journalists, historians, and economics have been suggesting this for over a decade.

So, what is oligarchy (or perhaps a related concept, plutocracy) and how should social studies teachers consider addressing the growing (or perhaps always present) power of the ultra-wealthy on the United States democracy? How can the people push back by the increasing influence of corporations and wealthy individuals? This posts seeks to answer those questions.

Above: Ann Telnaes, a cartoonist for the Washington Post, which is owned by billionaire Jeff Bezos, quit after the above political cartoon was censored by the newspaper's editorial board.

In approaching this topic, teachers may consider posing the following inquiry question to their students:

What measures (if any) should be taken to ensure that wealthy Americans do not have an unfair amount of influence on the U.S. government?

To answer this question, below are a series of topics and sources that can be used.

 

Defining Oligarchy and Its History

Below are a series of articles defining what an oligarchy is and how it has changed over time from ancient Greece to the United States and Russia as potential oligarchies today.

This Form of Government Leaves Power in the Hands of a Few: Oligarchies Explained" by Clare Mulroy
(USA Today)

"What Is Oligarchy, Really?" by Sammy Westfall (The Washington Post)

"What Is an Oligarch?" by Joel Samuels (The Conversation)

"What Is Oligarchy?" by Timothy Snyder

"The Oligarchs’ Revenge: The Making of the Modern Right" by Manisha Sinha  (The Nation)

Above: "I've Got the Profiteering Blues" written by Al Wilson and Irving Bibo (1920), which was a song a century ago discussing how the wealthiest Americans were making Americans poorer.

 

Legislation on Money in Politics

During several different periods, Congress has attempted to regulate the influence of money in politics. Below are several important laws dating back to the early 20th century.

Money in Politics Timeline (Open Secrets)

The Tillman Act of 1907 

Federal Elections Campaign Act of 1971

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold Act) (Ballotpedia)

"The Legacy and Impact of McCain-Feingold" by Kaitlin Washburn (Open Secrets)

"How Can the U.S. Shrink the Influence of Money in Politics?" by Russell Berman (The Atlantic)

Influence of Big Money (The Brennan Center for Justice)

 

Above: Political cartoon by Mike Luckovich (2011).

 

Buckley v. Valeo, Citizens United, and Other Supreme Court Cases

The Supreme Court has played a major role in re-interpreting the boundaries of wealth and influence in politics. Several cases have removed restrictions on political donations, considering "money as free speech." 

Buckley v. Valeo (Oyez.org)

Citizens United (Oyez.org)

"Citizens United Explained" (The Brennan Center for Justice)

"Americans for Prosperity v. Bonta" (Oyez.org)

"Supreme Court Just Made Citizens United Even Worse" by Ian Millhiser (Vox)

Above: Billionaires by country; the U.S. has more billionaires than any other nation.

 

The U.S. Oligarchy Today

Here are a series of commentaries on the current status of oligarchy in the United States.

"Study: US Is an Oligarchy, Not a Democracy" by British Broadcasting Corporation (full study by Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page)

"What Is an Oligarchy, and Is the United States Poised to Become One?" by Benjamin T. Jones (The Conversation)

"Bowing to Authoritarianism in the Gilded Age of Tech Plutocracy" by Joel Westheimer (Globe and Mail)

"America’s new plutocracy" by Will Dunn (The American Statesmen)

"The Rise of the American Oligarchy" by Tim Murphy (Mother Jones)

"What Does Oligarchy Mean? That We're Screwed." by Robert Reich (economist at UC Berkeley; progressive political commentator)

"No, America is Not an Oligarchy Run By the Ultra-Rich" by John York (Heritage Foundation; Conservative think tank)

"Stop Calling the U.S. an Oligarchy" by Samuel Goodman (The Week)

 

Ways to Stop Oligarchies

Here are some articles that discuss ways to stop oligarchies.

"Three Solutions to the Oligarchy Problem" by Zephyr Teachout and Kelly Nuxoll (Huff Post)

"Book Review: The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution by Joseph Fishkin and William Forbath" by James Pope (The Washington Post)

"4 Ways to Stop the U.S. from Becoming a Piketty-Style Oligarchy" by Matt O'Brien (The Washington Post)

"Countering Nationalist Oligarchy" by Ganesh Sitaraman (Democracy Journal)

 

Five Quick Reads on Fighting Fascism

Above: An image from the "Stop the Steal Rally" before the January 6th Capitol Insurrection which was an attempt to subvert the 2020 election and part of a widespread and on-going attack on U.S. democracy.

With the incoming second inauguration of Donald Trump next week, here are five quick reads on how to defeat fascism (and I think reading them in this order is particularly helpful)...

"How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them" by Jason Stanley

https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/586030/how-fascism-works-by-jason-stanley/

"The Black Antifascist Tradition: Fighting Back from Anti-Lynching to Abolition" by Jeanelle Hope and Bill Mullen

https://www.haymarketbooks.org/books/2223-the-black-antifascist-tradition

"The Flag and the Cross: White Christian Nationalism and the Threat to American Democracy" by Philip Gorski and Samuel Perry

https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-flag-and-the-cross -9780197618684

"Tyranny of the Minority" by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt

https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/706046/tyranny-of-the-minority-by-steven-levitsky-and-daniel-ziblatt/

(Read their book "How Democracies Die" first, if you haven't yet.)

https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/562246/how-democracies-die-by-steven-levitsky-and-daniel-ziblatt/

"On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century" by Timothy Snyder

https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/558051/on-tyranny-by-timothy-snyder/

Why I Am Voting Yes on 2

 

Above: (Top) The Bolling Building, which is the headquarters of the Boston Public Schools. (Bottom) A student filing in a "bubble sheet" for a standardized test.

This is not a post about what standardized tests do. The reality is that educational assessment is a complicated process. High-quality standardized tests can be helpful in assessing what students know, but they do not always measure what they intend to measure. More importantly, they are also only one of many assessments that teachers and schools use to get a fuller picture of what students understand and are able to do (see here for arguments on why standardized tests are problematic and evidence that students already take too many of them). 

Rather, this is a post about what standardized tests can't do. Standardized tests were never designed (and should never be used) to determine if a student should receive a high school diploma. As an educational researcher, I know a little about this. I remember my quantitative research methods professors as a doctoral student always telling us that "a test only measures what a test measures." So, you should never try to use that test to measure something it was not designed to do. The Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) was designed to measure one thing: basic comprehension in literacy, mathematics, and science. Students may be not only proficient, but advanced in other academic areas, such as history/social studies, world languages, art, music, theater, consumer and family sciences, computer science, vocational fields, or business, but if they do not reach an arbitrary MCAS score in only three subject area tests, they will not receive a diploma in Massachusetts.

The MCAS does not measure workforce or higher education readiness. The MCAS does not measure a student's ability to think critically or problem solve. The MCAS does not improve student's individual economic opportunity (but a student's economic opportunity can predict their MCAS score). The opponents of Question 2 will tell you an MCAS graduation requirement is necessary for all of these things to occur; they are being intentionally disingenuous (in fact many boldly claim that this ballot question will get rid of MCAS altogether, which it does not). Moreover, researchers have long known that social class may influence up to 84% of a student's MCAS score. In many ways, the MCAS tells us more about how much wealth a student's family or community has than it measures the quality of that student's schools or their individual learning. 

I write this post as a Boston Public Schools parent and a former classroom teacher in the Framingham Public Schools (and an education professor at UMass Boston), which are two districts where the MCAS graduation requirement has had devastating effects on our students. As a teacher, I would routinely see students drop out of school after they did not pass the MCAS exam in 10th grade (look at any school's, especially urban schools', enrollment data and that is where the student body starts to get smaller). As a parent, I hear many stories from fellow parents who have children with special needs or are language learners struggling to pass the MCAS and they have real worries about their children's futures, if they do not have a high school diploma. Based on these experiences, I strongly urge all voters to vote YES this fall on Question 2. Below I present my four main arguments for why you should vote YES.

Moreover, many of the opponents of Question 2 are not (past or present) public school parents, teachers, or students. Rather, they have a vested interest in the exams continuing to be required for graduation; some have made their political or academic careers from the multi-billion dollar standardized testing industry (or from campaigning for these types of testing-based education reforms), others are business leaders who have been sold a faulty view that an MCAS graduation exam improves their workforce, and still others do not believe in public education altogether (often attending themselves and sending their children to private schools without graduation exams) and will support anything that targets public education because they don't like paying taxes for them. The coalition who opposes Question 2 should have you questioning their motives (in full disclosure, I'm a public school parent, former high school teacher, current education professor, and Massachusetts Teachers Association union member; the MTA led the creation of this ballot question).

Above: (Top) Teachers and parents protest outside Mayor Ray Flynn's "State of the City" speech demanding more educational funding. (Bottom) Massachusetts Governor Bill Weld signs the Education Reform Act of 1993.

1. Massachusetts Can Be a National Leader in Educational Assessment

The MCAS graduation exam requirement was created as part of 1993 Education Reform Act in Massachusetts. This law was the result of a lawsuit by parents over unfair education funding, but became essentially a "grand bargain" between those politicians who wanted more education funding and those who wanted more accountability (which was not what the parents were demanding). However, the MCAS exam has also been part of a long history of standardized testing in the United States that is intertwined with racism and classism (often being used to justify segregation or economic policies that favored the wealthy in the 20th century). The Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (whose members mostly come from predominately white and wealthy communities) recently raised the MCAS score needed for graduation, which has meant that a larger number of students will be ineligible to earn a diploma. Question 2 would undo the punitive testing aspect of the Education Reform Act, while keeping the other parts that have improved schools in Massachusetts. And, we certainly have a lot to be proud of in Massachusetts, as our students are top in the nation in student achievement. But, don't be fooled by the opposition that claims this is because of a high-stakes graduation exam, which had nothing to do with it (rather, these improvements were probably despite it); only one other state in the top ten on NAEP has an exit exam, New Jersey, and there is a movement to get rid of their graduation exam there as well).

Yet, while Massachusetts may be a leader in student test scores, it has not been a leader in assessment and continues to use outdated assessment practices. Since the MCAS is high stakes, the state has continued to be cautious in making any major changes since it was first implemented in the early 2000s. Yet, a consortium of researchers and educators has been working on alternative assessments that could potentially replace the current MCAS exam and would offer teachers and schools much more meaningful data than a one-time basic assessment. The end of the MCAS graduation requirement would free up the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education to also take bold steps and create a real "next generation" MCAS assessment that could have more focus on critical thinking and problem solving, or use potential performance-based assessments, giving schools much more valuable tools (without preventing students from receiving a diploma). This is not possible while the MCAS exam continues to serve multiple purposes, including as a graduation exam.

2. Many Students Are Hurt by as MCAS Graduation Requirement

Each year, about 1,200 students do not pass the MCAS graduation exam (with about 400 eventually receiving a diploma through an alternative program); 85% of those students have a disability or are immigrant students (that is almost 2% of12th grade students in Massachusetts). Some opponents of Question 2 dismiss this number as "not many." But more than one student who completed all graduation requirements at their school and not receive a diploma is one too many. Without a diploma, a student is unable to attend college, join a labor union, or frankly work in many professions, which has a major impact on their life opportunities. Students who do not receive a high school diploma are more likely to be unemployed or incarcerated. Moreover, we know that additional 18% of students who fail the exam drop out of school well before graduation. If this ballot question passes, it may be the single most important tool in decreasing the Massachusetts drop out rate (Massachusetts has the potential to have a near 100% graduation rate if the 2% of students who drop out due to the MCAS graduation exam stayed in school and completed their courses of study).

Above: Massachusetts has a 96% graduation rate (making it one of the top in the nation); eliminating the MCAS graduation requirement could help get that closer to 98 or 99%.

3. It Will Increase Massachusetts Education Standards

The passage of this ballot question will raise educational standards. Currently, this one test, which measures something very narrow, decides if students receive a diploma in Massachusetts. Instead, if this ballot measure passes, the state will likely move to make MassCore, which is the current optional set of graduation requirements, required for all districts (Senate education chair Jason Lewis will submit the bill in January; it is currently only a suggested graduation guideline as of now, since the MCAS exam is the only legislated graduation requirement; creating standard graduation requirements for all high schools would align Massachusetts with the 42 other states that do not have graduation exams but instead consistent graduation requirements across schools). Question 2 opponents keep claiming without an MCAS graduation requirement, there will be a "different set of requirements for each district," but that is misleading; all teachers must currently follow the state's educational standards found in the curriculum frameworks, which are generally seen as a national model). They also claim, "MCAS graduation requirement helps institute 'corrective action' by allowing comparisons of student performance across different schools and districts"; also incorrect. MCAS will continue to exist and allow schools and districts to be compared; the only difference is that a student will not be punished for not getting a certain score on the exam. Frankly, the MCAS graduation requirement has long been a distraction from what would really improve the Massachusetts public education system. Most of the focus has been on this graduation test (and the only three subject areas that are tested), rather than ensuring all districts have an appropriate course of study that challenges and supports students.

4. Massachusetts Is an Outlier When It Comes to Having a Graduation Exam

Above: (Top) There is a clear correlation between a student's failure rate on MCAS and their socioeconomic status (UMass Donahue Institute Report, 2000). (Bottom) Massachusetts is only one of eight states that still require students to pass a standardized test to graduate (New York is currently in the process of dropping their graduation exams).

Massachusetts is only one of eight states that still requires a graduation exam (down from a high of 28 states in 2010). Any voter needs to ask themselves, why? One of the main motivators for adding a graduation exam was the unfunded No Child Left Behind Act and the funding attached to Race to the Top, which was part of the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (neither required graduation exams, but did emphasize standardized testing and many states looked to high-achieving states like Massachusetts for models). However, since then, states have realized that it did not help their students to prevent them from getting a diploma, if they could not pass a standardized test. The data is clear that graduation tests did nothing to lift student achievement but did raise dropout rates. That schools spent a massive amount of resources on the "bubble kids" (giving most resources to students who were just below the passing rate of graduation exams) ignoring support for lower or higher achieving students. Parents, students, and teachers raised concerns that, after Race to the Top, there was too much emphasis on testing. Moreover, states started lowering educational standards to prevent more students from not passing their exams (due to the real high-stakes natures of those exams). One by one, states began to remove their requirements for students to pass standardized test to receive a diploma. Massachusetts should follow their lead. Finally, the passage of this ballot question could open the door for students who completed all graduation requirements in the past, but did not pass MCAS, to receive their diplomas retroactively (which had a major positive impact in other states that ended their graduation exams).

If this ballot question passes, it would have a positive effect on our public school system. It will allow districts to focus more on student improvement than on a few students that are on the borderline of passing a graduation exam. It will allow schools to better support students who are at risk of dropping out of school. It will allow schools to think more holistically on what are the most important requirements for graduation.

Voting "YES" on Question 2 would allow Massachusetts to continue to be a national leader in curriculum and teaching, but add assessment. It would have important positive outcomes for thousands of students each year and ultimately increase opportunity for all students.