Donn Esmonde of the Buffalo News sat down to talk with three of the parent leaders of the historic Opt Out movement in New York state. Although the mainstream media has trouble understanding that the movement is led by parents, Esmonde got it.
They don’t look or act like radicals. None dress in camouflage. All three are parents who vote, pay their taxes, stop at red lights and salute the flag. But Eric Mihelbergel, Christine Cavarello and Jodi Hitchcock – and thousands like them – form the roots of a revolution.
It would be one thing if they were a disaffected minority, a grumpy niche, a band of eccentrics. But their numbers have swelled to the point where they – and their message – can no longer be ignored. Not even by as large, autonomous and irrepressible a bureaucracy as State Ed.
The three are part of a mushrooming legion of parents who don’t let their kids take standardized state tests. Their numbers are startling: 70 percent of third- through eighth-graders in West Seneca; 58 percent in Lake Shore; 56 percent in North Tonawanda; and 49 percent in Lackawanna opted out of Tuesday’s English Language Arts (ELA) exam. Numbers were lower in other districts – but exponentially larger in most places than last year….
We sat Thursday in the living room of Mihelbergel’s tidy ranch house in Tonawanda. I wanted a better idea of the motives behind the movement. These parents didn’t strike me as irrational, uninformed or overprotective. Quite the contrary.
They have a huge – and, it seems to me, justifiable – problem with their kids being force-fed these now-annual exams of questionable content. The results are being more heavily tied by the governor into grading teachers and schools. At worst, it feeds a teach-to-the-test culture that undercuts learning, handcuffs teachers and disregards the strengths and interests of each kid.
“It’s a game nobody’s going to win,” said Cavarello. “You’re chasing test scores, to the detriment of really educating the kids … The teachers aren’t happy, but they can’t do much about it.”
When the testing tail wags the learning dog, parents stand up in protest. And their numbers are growing. To paraphrase Bob Dylan, “You know something is happening, but you don’t know what it is, do you, Mr. Cuomo?”
The parents I spoke with aren’t rising up because they don’t know what’s happening in the classrooms, but because they do. Ramping up standardized testing, and its ripple effect in schools, has turned parents into rebels, solid citizens into outliers, the law-abiding into the rule-defying.
“The state has underestimated the power of that Mama Bear and Papa Bear instinct, when it comes to protecting our children,” said Hitchcock. “This fight isn’t easy, it takes a lot of work.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
“It would be one thing if they were a disaffected minority, a grumpy niche, a band of eccentrics.”
Why are those groups not to be listened to if they are speaking truth and defying the logic of the status quo? That statement may be cute but it’s quite sad that a journalist would write such nonsense.
Any real journalist wouldn’t write it.
Donn regularly publishes human interest stories on timely topics in the News, but I wouldn’t consider him a journalist. I personally feel his commentary should be on the editorial page since his writing is basically an opinion piece.
i would also take issue with
“Ramping up standardized testing, and its ripple effect in schools, has turned parents into rebels, solid citizens into outliers, the law-abiding into the rule-defying.”
What laws or even rules have the NY parents broken?
None.
In most states (NY, included) it’s perfectly legal for parents to opt their kids out so it is simply not accurate to say what the author did
Writing such drivel may make good copy but it does not portray an accurate picture and is actually likely to keep some parents who might consider opting out from doing so.
Why not instead state the actual facts of the case : NY State specifically allows parents to opt their children out. No law-breaking required.
isn’t that what real journalism is supposed to be about?
I should have said “in some states (NY, included) it’s perfectly legal for parents to opt their kids out ”
I honestly don’t know if it is true in “most”
Super article.
I do take issue with this quote:
“At worst, it feeds a teach-to-the-test culture that undercuts learning, handcuffs teachers and disregards the strengths and interests of each kid.”
There are way more negative consequences than noted.
FYI: The Buffalo News is very pro charter. However, they couldn’t exactly ignore the massive number of opt outs in Western New York (70% in West Seneca).
What you didn’t hear from the News is how one school offered their students extra points on their report card grades for the children who took the test.
Or how rumors abounded that funding would be cut and taxes would be raised if too many kids didn’t take the test. That’s why there was only a 30% opt out rate in the Ken Ton School District whose board president threatened to ban the teats from all the schools.
Buffalo’s opt out rate was lower than I had hoped, but many of the parents are drinking the koolaid. Minority families seem to believe that the tests will help their children. They also like the neighborhood charter schools, even if they are 100% minority. Of course, all those refugee and immigrant children would never question the authorities, so opt out is out of the question.
Even though Don Esmonde wrote a decent piece this time (his wife is a teacher), he also has ties to charter schools so his commentary is sometimes favorable to the reform movement.
It is via Diane Ravitz that those in the know keep informed, definitely not from the Buffalo News.
As I leave to continue to administer a developmentally inappropriate test to children, Hannah Arendt’s concept describes this:
Arendt’s thesis was that people who carry out unspeakable crimes may not be crazy fanatics at all, but rather ordinary individuals who simply accept the premises of their state and participate in any ongoing enterprise with the energy of good bureaucrats.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7278.htm
Yes, it’s worth remembering Arendt’s phrase for that, “the banality of evil”.
Yes, but I think in terms of teachers, it’s less a matter of accepting the premises of the state and more a matter of carrying out policies they know are wrong just to earn a living. Let’s face it. There are probably very few people who haven’t sold their soul to the devil at one point or other in their lives.
How can parents and teachers be considered rebels, breaking the law, when in reality they are not only justified they are obligated to speak out and take action against abusive acts. We must protect our children and provide a good education for them which takes on many forms. Some go so far as labeling these unrealistic standardized test as being immoral because those unwarranted tests are destroying the self-image of some students. We need to support our students – not tear them down.
To repeat: Teachers and the Law by Louis Fischer, David Schimmel, and Cynthia Kelly 1981 refers to a case that went to the Supreme Court in Calf. where the court pointed out that
“tolerance of the unrest intrinsic to the expression of controversial ideas is constitutionally required even in the school.”
It’s also nice because it shows the parents value their schools. A lot of times I get the sense that “ed reform” is so willing to take risks because they start with the assumption that there is nothing to value in existing public schools- “anything would be an improvement, so let’s roll the dice!” seems to me to be the attitude.
I don’t think that’s how people feel about public schools, generally. I think they DO value existing schools, and part of valuing something is seeing downside risk. They think their schools will be HARMED.
Heroes!
I’m encouraged to see parents getting actively involved.
Beware the bogus “if you don’t take the test, it’ll affect the budget!” argument.
Over some years now people have been told to display “rigor” and “grit” in enduring cuts to all sorts of things: bye-bye to school staff like teachers and aides and librarians and nurses and psychologists; non-tested subjects like the arts and PE and social studies reduced or displaced to accommodate time for test prep, not to mention recess shortened or eliminated; class sizes allowed to grow unconscionably large; and so on.
So when fewer funds are available for less and less in favor of high-stakes standardized tests—meaning, much educational “meat” is sacrificed for measurement “chaff”—we have to put up and shut up.
The MSM outrage is only evidenced when the reputation and profits of the standardized testing industry is affected.
If budgets are so sacred, then high-stakes standardized testing is a luxury that has to go.
Time to get back to putting limited resources into genuine learning and teaching.
😎
Hopefully parents who are on the “fence” are waiting to see what happens to those children/schools with large opt out rates. If there are no repercussions, watch out for next year.
Right now I hear a lot rumors and even some threats (from Arne Duncan), but no specific actions.
Ellen #BidingMyTime
The NYSUT Retired Teachers are having their conference in Buffalo this year and a rally protesting Common Core and Testing is planned for DownTown.
Reblogged this on Exceptional Delaware.
The Duncan mentality (and that of his real masters) goes something like this:
“If those parents cared so much about their kids’ education, they would have pulled them out of public school and sent them to private schools that don’t require the PARCC or whatever.”
Following this thought train, the parents who choose to opt-out are just “whiners” who don’t really want to do the obvious thing that would set their kids up with good educations.
I mean, “everyone knows” the public schools do a crappy job. These parents who leave their kids in them must be stupid! They’re certainly not One Of Us.