Last year, Jeff Nichols and his wife Ann Stone wrote an article that appeared in the New York Times about taking the “practice” version of the third-grade English language arts test. The test was sent home with one of their children as “vacation homework,” an oxymoron in itself.
Both college professors, they did it for fun with two friends. All have Ph.D.s. they couldn’t agree on the right answers and concluded the test was ridiculous. They became activists in the opt-out movement.
Recently, Jeff wrote a high-ranking official at the New York City Department of Education to inform him that his children will not be taking the tests this spring. The official (who was once an anti-testing activist when he was a teacher long ago) replied that parents have the right to t out but their school may be punished if the participation rate falls below 95%. Is this not a profile in courage? By the way, there is no risk that anyone at the DOE will see this blog, because the computers are set to block all WordPress sites.
Jeff Nichols wrote this letter, which he sent to many others, including me:
“Dear Mr. Suransky,
“An email you recently sent to various CECs in the city affirms that families in New York City do have the right to substitute a portfolio assessment for the mandated state tests, yet seems to hold over those families the threat that such individual acts of conscience can cause adverse consequences for schools:
· State accountability: Under No Child Left Behind, New York State measures each school’s rate of participation in state tests. If 95% of a school or one or more of its subgroups of students (e.g. Hispanic students, students with disabilities, Limited English Proficient students) do not take the assessment, the school does not make Adequate Yearly Progress – which has funding and intervention consequences for schools.
I am just a parent with a child in the NYC public schools. That is my only standing to challenge this statement. But I believe if the era of “accountability” in which we find ourselves is to mean anything at all, then education officials must be held accountable to children and the parents who raise them. So I would appreciate a forthright answer to the following questions:
Is it not a distortion of the original intent of NCLB’s 95% rule to penalize schools, not because the schools are concealing low performance on the part of their students (by having their least capable students stay out of the testing in order to receive a more favorable rating by the state), but because parents who are deeply involved in and concerned about their children’s educations (and whose children therefore are, if anything, likely to perform well on state tests) are choosing to opt their children out of a regime of high-stakes testing that the best minds in education in our country have long since repudiated?
And if the actual effect of a federal law as upheld in our state is not only destructive to schools but also directly contrary to the original intent of that law, then why would you and your colleagues not seek all means to mitigate the situation? In my opinion, local education officials with decision-making authority should be exercising their powers to the utmost to prevent such unjustifiable and unintended consequences from being realized, rather than passing along to parents a passive, worst-case interpretation of the potential impact of this malfunctioning federal law on their children’s schools.
My wife and I will not be allowing our children to take state-mandated standardized tests until those tests are designed and implemented in a manner we regard as consistent with best educational practices. This is our constitutional right, and we do not appreciate the DOE’s continuing efforts to intimidate parents with threats against schools that, given the mayor’s policy of shuttering dozens of schools for no discernible reason other than low test scores, are all too credible. The opt out movement is not going away and it is time for city officials to treat those of us taking this conscientious and proactive step to better our children’s educations with the respect we deserve.
Thank you for taking the time to consider these questions.
Sincerely,
Jeff Nichols
father of: Xxx, grade 3, and Xxx, grade 4″
I know that George Miller tried to fix the 95% tested as follows – if a student doesn’t test, just simply count them as failing, then see if the subgroup makes AYP. The argument was that if you had only 5 students in a subgroup, you needed 50% to make AYP for the subgroup, if one student didn’t test, you failed AYP for the school even if every other student in the school passed, including the other four in the subgroup, giving that subgroup a passing rate of 80%, well above the targeted 50%. The Bush administration opposed the change.
Given that in many inner city schools 90% attendance would be considered a good day, the 95% requirement, intentionally or not, is a way of ensuring “failure” – again, even if every other student in the school passes the test.
And because the school is put under pressure to test 95%, the school then pressures parents even if they are exercising legal rights. That then leads in more than a few documented cases to retaliation against the student.
As we have known for years, and is now clearly documented with the charges in Atlanta, the more pressure we put onto statistics the greater the likelihood those statistics will be meaningful as people will respond to the pressure and manipulate them. This is true not only of student test scores, but as we are seeing in NYC in arrest rates, as we have seen on Wall Street on quarterly stock prices, and so on. But why should we be surprised? Donald Campbell warned us about this almost 40 years ago.
While I applaud this parent’s choice and eloquence, it falls on deaf ears.
I am afraid these people only understand one thing.
Power.
Time for civil disobedience.
Refusal to test IS a kind of civil disobedience, and activist parents should take advantage of he opportunity. Since my kid is no guarantee of improved scores for the school (along with virtually any kid with an IEP) we’re likely doing he schools a fair along he way.
Jeff,
You wrote: “My wife and I will not be allowing our children to take state-mandated standardized tests until those tests are designed and implemented in a manner we regard as consistent with best educational practices.” First, I say thanks for opting your children out. I will be best for them and the school in the long run.
It seems that you will never be allowing your children to take a state-mandated standardized test because they and the “educational standards” upon which the tests are based have so many errors associated with them that the whole process is invalid. I invite you to read and understand these errors/problems as shown by Noel Wilson in “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” found at: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/577/700 . Wilson completely destroys the concepts of educational standards, standardized testing and the “grading” of students.
Duane
I was upset when my children had to take practice tests in class and received letter grades on them. How do you feel about this?
Anne, I would not stand for that. Practice is practice, not to be graded. Go raise hell with the educational leaders. They have all the control.
I have a huge problem with my kids being tested on material they have not even been taught.
I have an even bigger problem with my district sharing personal information about a minor without my consent, only to be shared with multimillion dollar software companies. I don’t even let my kids have emails yet or go on social networking; why would I want my school district to offer up such personal information such as
grades, social security number, sports, absences, tardies, discipline, etc. all for the sake of marketing??????
Mom,
If you live in NY ,it has already been done. Ugh!
Dear Sir,
One point of contention with your post: Mayor Bloomberg is not shutting schools down because of low test scores. Low test scores provides him the excuse to close schools so the veteran teachers will wind up in the ATR pool. The real goal is to force the higher salaried veterans to retire/quit. Years ago on Long Island veterans were routinely forced to retire after 20 years by suddenly getting unsatisfactory rating. At least they were permitted their 20 years so that they would get a small pension. Under Bloomberg there is no consideration for the hardship caused by losing your job after let’s say 18 years, with poor job prospects and a minuscule pension. And if you lose your job in less than 10 years there is no pension. By the way the policy of finding 20 year veterans suddenly unsatisfactory in L.I. was stopped by a court ruling.
If those with PHD’s cannot figure out a 3rd grade test, then what is it? And of what use is it really?
What is it? 100% USDA grade AA bovine excrement!
What use is it really? Cat litter box/bird cage lining material.