For months, state officials downplayed the significance and number of opt outs from state tests last April. The Néw York Times waited a week before acknowledging that it happened.
But now we know that the opt out was historic. 220,000 students–20%–of eligible students refused the tests. The previous year only 60,000 opted out. The number almost quadrupled in only one year. And the momentum will continue to build as state officials refuse to make any changes and threaten sanctions.
Now some say the high proportion of opt outs make state scores and trends invalid.
“That’s a large number, said George Theoharis, a Syracuse University professor and chair of the Teaching and Leadership program at the college. He said caution should be used in using the scores as a measure of students’ performance and schools’ accountability.
“We have to be careful about what we take from these tests and about school accountability, which is built around everyone taking the tests,” he said.
“Last spring, numerous parent groups organized to encourage people to boycott the tests, saying they were poorly written, too difficult, and created anxiety among students. The teachers’ union also joined to encourage opting out.
“The success of these efforts to convince students not to take the exams varied wildly.
“Dolgeville, about 28 miles northeast of Utica, recorded the highest opt out rate in the state, 90 percent, according to a syracuse.com/The Post-Standard analysis of state opt out data released Wednesday. At the other end, about 15 districts spread around the state reported no students opted out.
“Scores of districts, however, had 50 percent or more of their students not take the exams, the analysis showed. Ninety-four districts out of 668 (14 percent) had half or more students opt out of the ELA; it rose to 121 districts (18 percent) skipping the math exam.”
Syracuse.com has test data for every school in the state.
“The region with the highest opt out numbers was Long Island (40 percent) followed by the Mohawk Valley (38 percent) and Western New York (33 percent).
“New York City recorded the lowest opt out number ( 1 percent), the state data showed.
“Central New York had 33 percent of its students opt out.
“In Central New York, the district with the higher percentage of opt-outs was New York Mills with 77 percent opting out of math and 74 percent opting out of the English exam.
“In Onondaga County, LaFayette had the highest percentage of students opting out: 55 percent opted out of the math exam.”
Does a time come when state officials are forced to listen to parents?
It is safe to predict that the staye’s refusal to listen to parents will produce more opt outs next spring.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Funny how capitalism devalues everything of genuine value in the world —.
Funny as a broken country …
LikeLike
AMEN!
LikeLike
My understanding is that 88% of districts around the entire state did not meet the 95% federal participation rate requirement.
LikeLike
Most people are not strictly military or actively political – they just want to live their lives and play by the rules.
When the table is so tilted and crooked that such a thing is impossible is when people start standing up – this is a relatively easy and painless way to register.
Dissatisfaction. If the state prods people more though, people won’t just fall back in line – they will try to reassert control.
This is a power struggle between co opted politicians claiming to be fighting for people and the people they claim to be fighting for saying you aren’t speaking for us.
LikeLike
This is a power struggle between co opted politicians claiming to be fighting for people and the people they claim to be fighting for saying you aren’t speaking for us.
Nicely put!
LikeLike
I agree.
LikeLike
In ELA 640 out 727 districts (88%) did not meet 95% participation (this is counting NYC as a single district, as the state did on their refusal spreadsheet). In math, 669 out of 727 districts (92%) did not meet 95% participation. Across the state, districts saw an average of 31% refusals. The overall state percentage of reported refusals is lower simply because NYC is counted as a single district in the state report, but it had hundreds of thousands of students who tested, and a very low percentage of refusals (1.8% in math).
LikeLike
You’re quite right regarding the city. But the % of districts is a measure of geographic spread, not overall population (which you are correct about).
Geographic spread means people throughout the entire state–though not in equal proportions–acted contrary to the standard the Feds established. This is an impressive statement of the residents of the entire State of New York, upstate and down, urban and rural, east to west, north to south, cows or cars, lawns or pavement, Republican or Democrat.
By the standard the Feds created, NY just revolted.
LikeLike
Indeed. The geographic spread of participation in the refusal movement is the real story that needs to be told here. And for 2016 . . . activists might want to focus on NYC.
See the “District-Level Test Refusal File” at NYSED’s Information and Reporting Services page for details.
http://www.p12.nysed.gov/irs/pressRelease/2015800/home.html
LikeLike
“Most people are not strictly military or actively political – they just want to live their lives and play by the rules.
When the table is so tilted and crooked that such a thing is impossible is when people start standing up…”
I think you have hit it on the head, M. People just want to live their lives! The problem is people who think they are above the rules or who figure out ways around the rules for their own benefit.
LikeLike
Here’s a link that allows you to find districts and schools easily. http://www.syracuse.com/schools/index.ssf/2015/08/ela_math_test_scores_for_any_school_in_nys_search_for_scores.html
LikeLike
The assumption being that the tests would be valid if there hadn’t been that many Opt Outs?
LikeLike
Don’t actions speak loudly in this situation. Parents,(Taxpayers) don’t want these tests being used against their schools or to measure their students.
LikeLike
It is interesting that the obvious complaint about charter schools, vouchers, et al is that they are anti-democratic. Taxpayers, parents, and teachers have no say in their operation, unlike public schools.
Here we have tests that many feel are inapproriate in their structure and use, yet our democratically elected government refuses to hear these complaints. Opting out is a form of civil disobedience, to force the government to act democratically.
Yet the response has been to marginalize those opposing the tests, or to threaten “consequences” to those who continue opting out. This can olny cause the number “disobeying” to increase, until Albany engages in real reform.
LikeLike
I don’t understand when we get to the “help” part of ed reform. They’ve been collecting massive amounts of data for at least 15 years. At what point do they offer real assistance to existing public schools?
StudentsFirst came out yesterday and announced that these scores mean we need more charter schools and vouchers and more teacher ranking. Is that they mean, or is that a political objective?
Where are the tangible, positive benefits public school parents and kids receive in return for turning their kids over for these experiments? Can ed reformers point to one? How long are we supposed to wait for the upside? We have the grim mandates and joyless data collection. Where’s the payoff for actual kids in existing public schools? They get NOTHING in return for this? That hardly seems fair.
LikeLike
The invalid VAM , pseudo growth model is even more invalid. Funny.
Can something be more dead?
LikeLike
Yeah!!!!!!!!! Until the tests are abandoned………
LikeLike
Wonderful New York . That’s the way to take control of your students and their privacy. Refusing to participate in these tests will ultimately unvalidate them. Is the teachers union at the forefront of this movement or at least supporting the movement? Now, on to Los Angeles and other cities. Hey, can the head of this opt out come to Los Angeles as our superintendent? What a bang up job they are doing in New York State.
LikeLike
Interesting which districts opted out. Lafayette is farm country, and includes a big chunk of the Onondaga Nation. Similar with Oneida county. I grew up next to Lafayette and taking over the family farm is a common path. I don’t know enough about Long Island to say anything about those areas. I would guess if the costs of opting out are low, it’s more likely. And there’s definitely a distrust of government up there. The Second Amendment is really big as is the upstate vs downstate divide.
LikeLike
As every teacher knows, we can write a test that everyone passes or that everyone fails — or anyplace in between. Those who once worked on NAEP know that, too. One of the reasons it was easy for me to challenge the Chicago CASE tests 16 years ago was that we all knew that the only way to be sure of the validity, reliability and fairness of any high-stakes “instrument” was to examine both the test and the scoring rubrics once the test was done. At the time I sacrificed my teaching career to publish Chicago’s ridiculous CASE tests in January 1999, Massachusetts and Texas both were publishing their tests along with all relevant information after the administration of the tests. The only thing that has obliterated that bit of democracy since then has been the juggernaut of privatization or all these high-stakes tests. I could add more detail, but will stop for now. Pearson, McGraw Hill and the others have the legal “right” to do whatever they want with “their” intellectual property. Our job is to keep democracy strong by stopping the payment of public dollars into those private hands, and then allowing them to keep all of it a “trade secret” using a reactionary interpretation of federal copyright late.
LikeLike
How can something that was already invalid be invalidated?
LikeLike
It is important to emphasize and to repeat some of wisdom from certain posts:
1) From M:
Most people are not strictly military or actively political – they just want to live their lives and play by the rules.
When the table is so tilted and crooked that such a thing is impossible is when people start standing up.
2) From George n. Schmidt:
The only thing that has obliterated that bit of democracy since then has been the juggernaut of privatization or all these high-stakes tests.
Pearson, McGraw Hill and the others have the legal “right” to do whatever they want with “their” intellectual property.
Our job is to keep democracy strong by stopping the payment of public dollars into those private hands, and then allowing them to keep all of it a “trade secret” using a reactionary interpretation of federal copyright late.
To prove that George speaks from many researches, here is over 1,800 different policy initiatives from 1981 to 2002, the two (researchers Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page) conclude that rich, well-connected individuals on the political scene now steer the direction of the country, regardless of or even against the will of the majority of voters. (According to Princeton Study: U.S. No Longer An Actual Democracy By BRENDAN JAMES Published APRIL 18, 2014, 10:43 AM EDT1300546 Views in TPM livewire).
This is extra note from Robinson, William I. (2014-07-31).
Global Capitalism and the Crisis of Humanity (p. 122). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.
“The U.S. state is a key point of condensation for pressures from DOMINANT GROUPS around the world to resolve problems of global capitalism and to secure the legitimacy of the system overall. In this regard, “U.S.” imperialism refers to the use by transnational elites of the U.S. state apparatus to continue to attempt to expand, defend, and stabilize the global capitalist system. We are witness less to ”U.S.” imperialism per se than to a global capitalist imperialism. We face an EMPIRE of GLOBAL CAPITAL, headquartered, for evident historical reasons, in Washington.” [Caps added]
In short, who is “”THE”” real MASTER that controls Gates, Murdoch, and Buffet (= politic/internet, media, and economy)?
This is a MESSY masterpiece which educational GURUS should figure out.
Things happen for reason. WE CAN BE WISHY WHASHY, but reality remains.
Thanks God that INTEGRITY and WISDOM cannot be bought, but ONLY practical INTELLIGENCE hardship and practical LIVING + LEARNING experience can build up.
ONLY when Americans are no longer learn LESSONS from DICTATORSHIP in fascism and communism = Holocaust + Boat people = millions gullible trusting people die in CONCENTRATED CAMP and OCEAN, DEMOCRACY will be a MEANINGLESS WORD.
It is time to FOCUS on reminding, educating, cultivating PUBLIC about the QUALITY of any leaders through their past and present DEEDs within their own family, circle of their close friends/lobbyists and community where they grow up and actively participate in, especially in the upcoming PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. Back2basic
LikeLike
Democracy is a beautiful thing ❤ I hope by 2016 100% of all school districts opt out.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Texas Education.
LikeLike
To answer the question of the post: NO!
How can one invalidate something that has already been proven to be invalid?
LikeLike
So just how COMPLETELY INVALID are the educational malpractices that are EDUCATIONAL STANDARDS and the accompanying STANDARDIZED TESTING?
Well. . . Noel Wilson explains just how the many rationo-logical errors, falsehoods and fudges involved in those two malpractices render any CONCLUSIONS COMPLETELY INVALID in his never refuted nor rebutted “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” found at: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/577/700
Brief outline of Wilson’s “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” and some comments of mine.
1. A description of a quality can only be partially quantified. Quantity is almost always a very small aspect of quality. It is illogical to judge/assess a whole category only by a part of the whole. The assessment is, by definition, lacking in the sense that “assessments are always of multidimensional qualities. To quantify them as unidimensional quantities (numbers or grades) is to perpetuate a fundamental logical error” (per Wilson). The teaching and learning process falls in the logical realm of aesthetics/qualities of human interactions. In attempting to quantify educational standards and standardized testing the descriptive information about said interactions is inadequate, insufficient and inferior to the point of invalidity and unacceptability.
2. A major epistemological mistake is that we attach, with great importance, the “score” of the student, not only onto the student but also, by extension, the teacher, school and district. Any description of a testing event is only a description of an interaction, that of the student and the testing device at a given time and place. The only correct logical thing that we can attempt to do is to describe that interaction (how accurately or not is a whole other story). That description cannot, by logical thought, be “assigned/attached” to the student as it cannot be a description of the student but the interaction. And this error is probably one of the most egregious “errors” that occur with standardized testing (and even the “grading” of students by a teacher).
3. Wilson identifies four “frames of reference” each with distinct assumptions (epistemological basis) about the assessment process from which the “assessor” views the interactions of the teaching and learning process: the Judge (think college professor who “knows” the students capabilities and grades them accordingly), the General Frame-think standardized testing that claims to have a “scientific” basis, the Specific Frame-think of learning by objective like computer based learning, getting a correct answer before moving on to the next screen, and the Responsive Frame-think of an apprenticeship in a trade or a medical residency program where the learner interacts with the “teacher” with constant feedback. Each category has its own sources of error and more error in the process is caused when the assessor confuses and conflates the categories.
4. Wilson elucidates the notion of “error”: “Error is predicated on a notion of perfection; to allocate error is to imply what is without error; to know error it is necessary to determine what is true. And what is true is determined by what we define as true, theoretically by the assumptions of our epistemology, practically by the events and non-events, the discourses and silences, the world of surfaces and their interactions and interpretations; in short, the practices that permeate the field. . . Error is the uncertainty dimension of the statement; error is the band within which chaos reigns, in which anything can happen. Error comprises all of those eventful circumstances which make the assessment statement less than perfectly precise, the measure less than perfectly accurate, the rank order less than perfectly stable, the standard and its measurement less than absolute, and the communication of its truth less than impeccable.”
In other word all the logical errors involved in the process render any conclusions invalid.
5. The test makers/psychometricians, through all sorts of mathematical machinations attempt to “prove” that these tests (based on standards) are valid-errorless or supposedly at least with minimal error [they aren’t]. Wilson turns the concept of validity on its head and focuses on just how invalid the machinations and the test and results are. He is an advocate for the test taker not the test maker. In doing so he identifies thirteen sources of “error”, any one of which renders the test making/giving/disseminating of results invalid. And a basic logical premise is that once something is shown to be invalid it is just that, invalid, and no amount of “fudging” by the psychometricians/test makers can alleviate that invalidity.
6. Having shown the invalidity, and therefore the unreliability, of the whole process Wilson concludes, rightly so, that any result/information gleaned from the process is “vain and illusory”. In other words start with an invalidity, end with an invalidity (except by sheer chance every once in a while, like a blind and anosmic squirrel who finds the occasional acorn, a result may be “true”) or to put in more mundane terms crap in-crap out.
7. And so what does this all mean? I’ll let Wilson have the second to last word: “So what does a test measure in our world? It measures what the person with the power to pay for the test says it measures. And the person who sets the test will name the test what the person who pays for the test wants the test to be named.”
In other words it attempts to measure “’something’ and we can specify some of the ‘errors’ in that ‘something’ but still don’t know [precisely] what the ‘something’ is.” The whole process harms many students as the social rewards for some are not available to others who “don’t make the grade (sic)” Should American public education have the function of sorting and separating students so that some may receive greater benefits than others, especially considering that the sorting and separating devices, educational standards and standardized testing, are so flawed not only in concept but in execution?
My answer is NO!!!!!
One final note with Wilson channeling Foucault and his concept of subjectivization:
“So the mark [grade/test score] becomes part of the story about yourself and with sufficient repetitions becomes true: true because those who know, those in authority, say it is true; true because the society in which you live legitimates this authority; true because your cultural habitus makes it difficult for you to perceive, conceive and integrate those aspects of your experience that contradict the story; true because in acting out your story, which now includes the mark and its meaning, the social truth that created it is confirmed; true because if your mark is high you are consistently rewarded, so that your voice becomes a voice of authority in the power-knowledge discourses that reproduce the structure that helped to produce you; true because if your mark is low your voice becomes muted and confirms your lower position in the social hierarchy; true finally because that success or failure confirms that mark that implicitly predicted the now self-evident consequences. And so the circle is complete.”
In other words students “internalize” what those “marks” (grades/test scores) mean, and since the vast majority of the students have not developed the mental skills to counteract what the “authorities” say, they accept as “natural and normal” that “story/description” of them. Although paradoxical in a sense, the “I’m an “A” student” is almost as harmful as “I’m an ‘F’ student” in hindering students becoming independent, critical and free thinkers. And having independent, critical and free thinkers is a threat to the current socio-economic structure of society.
LikeLike