Susan Ochshorn, who advocates for early childhood education, is aghast at the idea that children as young as four or five are expected to take standardized tests. She explained that experts in early childhood education were appalled by the idea of testing young children with bubble tests.
Then she discovered a school where anti-testing sentiment had grown to include not only the principal and the teachers but the parents as well.
Parents and teachers always ask: What can we do? At the Castle Bridge Elementary School in New York Coty, they figured out what to do, and they took action:
“Late last week, an email arrived from Emma Frank, mother of two, including a first-grader at Castle Bridge, a K-5 school in Washington Heights led by progressive educator Julie Zuckerman. After a school-wide decision to opt out of K-1 testing, Frank was calling each member of the city council (“I’m up to ‘G,’ she wrote), to protest the policy. She also passed along the following letter, written by Don Lash, to state-level officials, which she is circulating as fast as she can:
“Dear Assembly Member Nolan and Senator Flanagan:
“I am contacting you because I am the parent of a first grade student who is expected to take a multiple choice standardized test as a result of a policy directive from the New York State Education Department (NYSED) that students from Kindergarten to 2nd grade be tested using an exam mandated by NYSED.
“The test is not intended to reveal any information that would be used to improve instruction to my child, but would be used solely to evaluate her teachers. Having seen some of the sample testing material published in news accounts, which was developed by the for-profit testing conglomerate PearsonEd, I don’t believe the test has any validity in assessing the quality of her instruction or the level of mastery of the curriculum. Moreover, I deeply resent the intrusion on her learning time that would be required to master test-taking skills that would serve no purpose beyond the test.
“Finally, my child is in a dual language program, with some students acquiring English as a second language and others acquiring Spanish as a second language. The test was developed and normed in English, so it would be worse than useless in evaluating the performance of my child’s teachers. I have exercised my right to opt out of this pointless testing, but I am nevertheless concerned that if my child’s teachers and the administrators of the school are forced to administer a test with no educational value, her instruction time will be reduced whether she takes the test or not.
“As a taxpayer, I object to the diversion of funds into Pearson’s or any other developer’s coffers, and the waste of the time of teachers and other school personnel, time that could be dedicated to teaching and learning. I am requesting that as chairs of the Assembly and Senate Education Committees, with oversight responsibility for NYSED, you demand that Commissioner King reverse this ill-considered and poorly implemented policy.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
“I have exercised my right to opt out of this pointless testing, but I am nevertheless concerned that if my child’s teachers and the administrators of the school are forced to administer a test with no educational value, her instruction time will be reduced whether she takes the test or not.”
Great point.
LikeLike
I have proctored entrance exams to a gifted and talented program given to second graders in October of any given year. These were very trying for all of these children, regardless of their ability. Filling out their name, address, school, and teacher on the bubble sheet was an ordeal. Then they had to bubble. Some of them didn’t understand to go on to the next page until they found the stop sign. Some of them became extremely agitated if they did not finish the section in the allotted time. (One child had a temper tantrum and had to be removed from the room). The test was too long, although we took numerous breaks. The whole ordeal was exhausting for students and proctors.
On a side note: I have also proctored the Terra Nova with first graders – in booklets, but still a difficult task with many children in tears. (Also note: I have also proctored middle school students who have cried after taking a standardized test with questions on topics which hadn’t been covered in class – and these were advanced students).
These children were six or seven years old. I can only imagine what would happen with four or five year olds. When testing pre schoolers for admittance to the gifted and talented program at my school, it is a one on one interview with a trained professional and sometimes these children shut down because they can’t cope with a “stranger”.
The people assigning these tests don’t have a clue about children or child development. These tests are doing, what could be, irreparable damage, resulting in the opposite results stated in their objectives. And the parents, teachers, and administrators have seen or will see it. The question is: What happens next?
LikeLike
To assuage some here I apparently have to declare that I am not a K-12 educator, merely the father of 3 kids and husband of a former HS teacher.
Non-diagnostic testing of these young children makes no sense. The administration of any assessment tool, at a minimum, requires that the instructions for the test are clearly understood and that the test-takers are psychologically engaged, i.e., they are going to do their best to answer the questions. It seems to me that for such young children neither of these conditions can be met. The same conditions apply for diagnostic testing which is why most of this type of testing needs to be done one-on-one with an experienced test administrator.
Has the NYCDOE provided a rationale for such testing?
LikeLike
To add to the testing frustration, in order to properly test in a “secure environment”, the teachers have to demand complete silence during the test. They cannot say anything to students that will assist them in any way, including helping them to be on the correct page, or knowing to keep on going until the “stop sign” …because that invalidates the test results. It has always puzzled me how merely guiding a student to the right page is considered “helping with test answers”… Just HOW is scoring a child who is confused about directions or on the wrong page a valid assessment of the child’s knowledge? Of course, no one should be given the ANSWERS but I don’t believe that assisting a child who is “lost” should be considered “cheating”! I have seen kids beat their heads with their fists, cry, throw up, get nose bleeds and have panic attacks. 9 and 10 year olds … It is ridiculous. However, one teacher at my school gets great test results by creating that dynamic in his class all year until the testing is over! It sickens me.
LikeLike
It is time for parents to question ‘Why? What is the purpose of taking this test?”
Those who are requiring these tests need to justify them.
LikeLike
Nancy:
Great comment.
LikeLike