EduShyster tells a gripping tale of parents’ struggle to opt out from state testing in Salem, Massachusetts. She got her hands on emails that were obtained by the parents through the Freedom of Information Act. Local officials tried their best to convince the parents that their children could not possibly skip the tests.
Read the twists and turns as officials scramble to get their answers right. The good news is that the parents won. Their children don’t have to take the state tests or the many practice tests.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
She is a very clever writer. I always like reading her posts.
Some would say that having the children take the tests is putting the children in the middle of an adult philosophical debate, not the parent refusing it. I have heard parents describe much of reform like that. . .that in order to prove the inadequacies of certain educational approaches, the children are being used to make points through tests.
It’s interesting to watch ed reformers struggle with the standardized testing argument when it butts up against the “my child, my choice” narrative they also promote.
Their standardized testing argument (if you accept it, which I know many here don’t) is really a “commons” argument- all kids have to be tested every year because we then identify inequity, target resources and make large-scale decisions based on data” – that’s a community responsibility idea.
But their narrative around “choice” is ALL “my child, my choice” with no “commons” component – in fact, the “choice” narrative is openly competitive: market-based. Winners and losers.
No wonder parents are confused 🙂 It’s incoherent.
I think they run into the same problem with the Common Core.
“all kids have to be tested every year because we then identify inequity, target resources and make large-scale decisions based on data” – that’s a community responsibility idea.”
I can’t tell whether or not you understand that the increased resources for those children in need, not only doesn’t happen, but in fact, is less than what it once was.
Because of the increased cost of data collection, APPR, outside consultants… etc, etc, etc. those children that need more assistance are getting less and less, not more.
Betsy Marshall: you nailed that mix of lies, half-lies and outright lies to the wall!
Quite literally, if you’re in the classroom and there are students that can’t read, for example, it’s not a secret. And I am not being facetious here.
What’s more, as you point out, in these financially straitened times, the precious resources that should target areas of inequity are being lavishly wasted—literally, not figuratively—on telling teachers and others what they already know.
The killjoy rheephorm movement is all about putting the business interests of a few adults ahead of the vast majority of students, parents and public school staffs.
As Linda Darling-Hammond put it re NCLB: “The biggest problem with the NCLB Act is that it mistakes measuring schools for fixing them.” [MANY CHILDREN LEFT BEHIND, 2004, p. 9]
In the same vein, even Sandy Kress [Mr. NCLB His Own Bad Self!] agrees that you don’t fatten a pig by measuring it! See this blog—
Link: https://dianeravitch.net/2015/01/13/nclb-architect-defends-nclb/
Thank you for your comments.
😎
The diagnostic testing affects schools in other ways too—–for example, a school might structure their schedule to allow for long blocks of data meetings, and so they put 32+ kids together for a class of 50 minutes for specials for Knd and 1st grade, promising the assistant’s help with the large group for such a long time. But then when diagnostic testing occurs, they pull all of those assistants so specials teachers are left with 32+ Knd and 1st graders for 50 minutes without an assistant (which is not the end of the world, but also isn’t ideal).
These are the things state leadership doesn’t realize when they “double down” on testing, but also cut personnel and budgets. It affects the quality of a child’s day and group instruction.
I still think, if anyone cared what I had to say, my emphasis would be the quality of the experience at school, balanced with outcomes a little better when planning and mandating. School report cards should account for the quality of the day and the learning environment (to tie this post in with yesterday’s post about school report cards).
Have we really become that spineless, where we need to be asking ourselves if we are allowed to do something that is clearly in the best interest of our very own children?
Good point!
I am curious as to whether there is a legal opinion on whose rights take precedence. Do schools legal obligations to follow state testing laws over ride parent’s rights to make educational decisions for their children attending public school? Here in Louisiana we are being told that if a student shows up at school, then we have to administer the state mandated PARCC test, even if a parent has opted them out. Our state law requires that we test every student. If students stay home, then mandatory attendance laws kick in, which can allow for jail time for parents of truant students. We are hoping for a moratorium by state BESE board during this first year of PARCC testing. I have a feeling once the actual scores come in ( 6-8 months after the test) parents will be livid. If you haven’t gone to the PARCC site and tried the practice test, you really should. Confusing wording and developmentally inappropriate, especially at the lower grades.
I wish someone could tell us which take precedence. State laws or parent right?
Here’s a legal opinion developing in CT:
http://jonathanpelto.com/2015/02/10/superintendents-note-leading-connecticut-law-firms-observation-opt-issue/
Thanks. Very helpful info.
Bridget – Neither federal nor Louisiana law or Louisiana BESE policy says that every student must take the test. State policy says that all schools must administer the test. Federal law uses the term “accessibility.” It’s a civil rights issue the intent of which is to provide equal and equitable opportunities for all children to have access to public education services, including testing. When one also considers that it is a parent’s moral and legal responsibility to make decisions about the welfare of his/her children, it’s a no-brainer that no one can force a parent to make a child take this test.
Really disturbing are some of the responses and pushback by administrators who obviously have no clue about student and parental rights. As you know John White has declared this first year of PARCC testing a moratorium on high stakes for students and teachers (VAM) but policy says that a zero will be assigned to the school for each non-testing student which will affect the school performance score. When White declared the moratorium on high stakes he either didn’t think he would have this problem so he didn’t clarify the zero rule for schools or he did expect opt outs and this is his ace in the hole. What he evidently hasn’t counted on is that if a parent opts out and the school has no control over that he cannot justify assigning a zero to the SPS. I believe he will be forced to remove the zero rule.
White’s zero rule has had the benefit of bringing to light his screwy school performance score formula. In elementary schools, every score in the Unsatisfactory range is assigned a zero, every Approaching Basic score gets a zero, every basic score gets 100 points, Mastery 125 and Advanced 150. Figure that out.
Oops. Parental rights.
In Salem they spent nearly One Million Dollars for three years of ANET testing. That would have paid for many reading teachers, special educators, and ESL teachers to help children who need it!