Kate Taylor reports in today’s New York Times that both the federal government and New York State are considering sanctions to stop the opt out movement.
The state education commissioner, MaryEllen Elia, appeared on Thursday to be trying to walk a fine line — not wanting to appear to condone opting out, while saying she hoped the federal government would not withhold funds.
“I do think it’s good for kids to take the assessments,” she said. “I don’t think that it necessarily is good for kids to have resources taken away that should be supporting them in their classrooms.”
Officials at the federal Education Department have awhile to decide what to do. The state will not officially report its test participation rate to the federal government until mid-December, and the number will not be considered final until sometime after that, the State Education Department said on Thursday.
On Wednesday, the federal Education Department’s spokeswoman, Dorie Nolt, said the agency was looking to the leadership of New York’s Education Department “to take the appropriate steps on behalf of all kids in the state.”
But parents expressed defiance, and some superintendents say they respect the rights of parents to keep their child out of the state testing.
The leaders of the opt-out movement said on Thursday they were not worried about consequences and any attempt to punish districts would backfire.
If state education officials “think parents are unhappy with them now, just wait until they take money away from school districts,” Loy Gross, co-founder of a test refusal group called United to Counter the Core, said.
Elaine Coleman, a parent in Yonkers who is active in opt-out and anti-Common Core groups, said she had already begun planning expanding the movement next year. “We’re hoping we’ll get double the number,” she said.
Many of the districts with high opt-out rates were in middle-class areas that receive little federal funding. But a few were so-called high-needs districts, with relatively high poverty rates.
One such district, the Chateaugay Central School District, near the Canadian border, had an 89 percent opt-out rate. Loretta Fowler, the superintendent, said that losing the district’s roughly $150,000 in Title I funding would force her to lay off three of the district’s 46 teachers. But she said she would still respect parents’ choice to keep their children from taking the tests.
“I would say that is their right as parents,” she said. “Leadership isn’t about telling people what to do.”
Dolgeville Central School District in Herkimer County, which also had an 89 percent opt out rate, received over $300,000 in Title I funds this year. The superintendent, Christine Reynolds, said losing those funds would force the district to cut extracurricular activities and arts programs.
She said she did not encourage parents to opt out, but she sympathized with their view that the tests were being used to punish schools and teachers.
“These are very highly educated parents that started the movement,” she said. “Their rationale is solid. I can’t really argue with them.”
The parents are acting in the spirit of civil disobedience, which has a long history in this country. Federal and state officials would do well to listen to the parents or the opt out movement is likely to grow in strength.

Perhaps the real sanctioning should be on the state for its poor attempts at following Court Orders to make funding more equitable between poor and rich districts… as happened in Washington State.
LikeLike
The axis of Duncan, Cuomo and Elia vs the allegiance of hundreds of thousands of parents and teachers. I think we all know who the victors will be. Bring it on.
LikeLike
Anyone ever notice that our national anthem (at least the one verse we sing) is a series of questions? Which such questions don’t get answered (at least not until the 4th verse; most Americans don’t know the song has other verses). The last question is “Oh say does that star spangled banner yet wave over the land of the free and the home of the brave?” I’ve become convinced that, the 4th verse notwithstanding, the answer to that question is no.
LikeLike
I hope the parents stand up for their rights!
LikeLike
Shut down the test and punish dog and pony show.
LikeLike
I fervently hope this will be the catalyst that inspires and emboldens teachers, parents, and concerned citizens to begin the war to take back and save our public schools!
No one should be surprised that the state and federal governments are pushing back hard. They are bullies and they have nothing but contempt for the citizens they supposedly serve.
The federal DOE is packed with Bush operatives and TFA plants and other reformist believers. They honestly think they are smarter than everyone else, they know better what should be done, and they brook no dissent.
By any means necessary is their motto.
Remember Goldwater’s famous saying from 1954: “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue . . . . ” These reformist will resort to extremism to defend their neoliberal beliefs and they will show no moderation in achieving what they claim is justice — remember their pseudo terminology claiming to be the civil rights issue of today!
As Dennis Loo defines it, neoliberalism says: “The credo for the new age: The Ends DO Justify the Means, as Long as We’re Doing It. ” They are the smartest people in the room, as they tell us often, and they won’t let ‘the perfect be the enemy of the good’. In other words their failed programs and empty ideology will remain because they believe it is better than what we had before.
That’s how we ended up with ‘justifiable and acceptable’ torture policies from the last 2 administrations. That’s why we are unable to end gun violence even after little children are slaughtered in a schoolhouse.
When profit and money are the end result and the greatest influence over everything you do then the means to attain that profit are not subject to moral criticism. Our children are commodities to them, as Diane reported just last week.
The reformists will not back down nor will they give in without an ugly fight. Prepare yourself for that inevitability.
Elia parrots the conventional wisdom, carefully formulated by neoliberal economists, backed by the Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable, and funded by the busybody billionaire manipulators who put their sickening ideology into law through ALEC: “I do think it’s good for kids to take the assessments,” she said.”
Why? What proof is there anywhere of good coming from testing? We have heard story after story after story about children cowering under tables, crying uncontrollably, losing sleep, developing nervous conditions, and self-harming when they are subject to these tests. The damage is great and long-lasting.
We have proven scientifically that the tests are meaningless and do little else than identity the income history of a child’s family and a very small percentage of children that are talented tests takers.
Why? Why would Elia or anyone else say that it is a good thing for children to be tested?
Only because it benefits those in power currently, those who will punish us for resisting their efforts until we topple them and take them down and banish them to the darkness from whence they came.
Elia should be ashamed. The government bureaucrats threatening families who opt out should be frightened.
History teaches us what happens to those who ignore the will of the people for too long and increase the suffering of the common man.
We need to study the writings of Thomas Jefferson who foretold what would be needed in keeping the Tree of Liberty alive and thriving.
LikeLike
Noble Rant Chris!
LikeLike
Hear, hear.
LikeLike
“We have proven scientifically that the tests are meaningless and do little else than identity the income history of a child’s family and a very small percentage of children that are talented tests takers.”
Noel Wilson, in 1997, proved the COMPLETE INVALIDITY of the educational standards and standardized testing regime. His never refuted nor rebutted treatise should be mandatory reading and comprehension by everyone involved in public education from the teachers, administrators, board members, state board members, the legislators both state and federal and the supposedly “educated” Arne the Dunkster. Here’s a link: “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
Duane – Common Core and the mandatory assessments are making us all believers.
LikeLike
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
Looks like they’re at stage 3…
LikeLike
…and what about “Choice?”
LikeLike
She cut off the quote. It continues … “parents will descend on Albany with torches and pitchforks.”
Bring it, Elia. We won’t back down. #ParentsandPitchforks
LikeLike
She cut off the quote. It continues … “Parents will descend on Albany with torches and pitchforks.”
Bring it. We won’t back down.
#ParentsandPitchforks #U2C
LikeLike
Take away money because parents are doing the right thing for their kids.
There’s a recipe for political loss.
LikeLike
Oh, and take it away specifically from where it is needed most? Title I.
Genius.
LikeLike
It is obvious that the corporate education RheeFormers—this term includes the oligarchs, appointed bureaucrats, who are owned by the oligarchs; bought and paid for judges and elected representatives, who are owned by the oligarchs who paid for their elections—are using Federal funds meant for the Common Core Crap agenda in an attempt to blackmail 50 states and more than 15,000 democratic, non-profit, transparent public school districts with a goal to destroy those same public schools.
How much are we talking about?
>12% ($79 billion) total k-12 funding comes from federal public funds, but only 18.22% or $14.4 billion of that 12% ($79 billion) went toward funding the Common Core Agenda in 2014.
>44.8% comes from local public funds
>45.1% comes from state public funds
> The $14.4 billion in Common Core funding that is being used as a carrot to blackmail the states and public school districts represents 2.6% of total K-12 funding for public education. The for-profit (no matter how you look at it), undemocratic, opaque, double standard Rheeformers, who represent 0.1% of the population, are taking over the public schools on the cheap with public money that comes mostly from 99.9% of all tax paying Americans, and many of these Rheeformers pay no taxes or lower rates of taxes than the average American does.
America spends over $550 billion a year (in 2014) on public elementary and secondary education in the United States. On average, school districts spend $10,658 for each individual student, although per pupil expenditures vary greatly among states, school districts and individual schools. Spending also differs among school districts in the same state and among schools within the same district.
All three levels of government – federal, state, and local – contribute to education funding. States and local governments typically provide about 44 percent each of all elementary and secondary education funding. The federal government contributes about 12 percent of all direct expenditures.
The federal government spends nearly $79 billion annually on primary and secondary education programs. Much of the funding is discretionary, meaning it is set annually by Congress through the appropriations process. Funds flow mainly through the Department of Education although other federal agencies administer some funding for education related activities.
Through the U.S. Department of Education, the federal government provides nearly $79 billion a year on primary and secondary education programs. The two biggest programs are No Child Left Behind Title I Grants to local school districts ($14.4 billion in fiscal year 2014) and IDEA Special Education State Grants ($11.5 billion in fiscal year 2014).
Other federal agencies that administer funding for primary and secondary education include the Department of Agriculture ($20.8 in fiscal year 2014), which coordinates the funding for the child nutrition programs, the Department of Health and Human Services ($9.3 million in fiscal year 2014), which supports the Head Start program, and the Department of Labor ($5.7 billion in fiscal year 2014), which supports Youth Employment and Training Activities and Youthbuild.
http://atlas.newamerica.org/school-finance
Each federal education law is conditioned on a state’s decision to accept federal funds. The federal law applies only when a state voluntarily chooses to accept federal funds. Any state that does not want to abide by a federal program’s requirements can choose not to accept the federal funds associated with that program. Many states and districts accept the requirements and then find that state and federal funding is insufficient to cover local expenses. In these cases, local districts must transfer money from their general funds to pay expenses. This practice is often termed “encroachment” and can cause tension between general education and special education programs.
http://www.asha.org/Advocacy/schoolfundadv/Overview-of-Funding-For-Pre-K-12-Education/
The opposite of Robin Hood is the neoliberal Bill Gates Cabal, the neoconservative Walton family and the libertarian Koch brothers. They are all malevolent psychopaths.
LikeLike
I really dare them to find the authority to punish districts for the actions of PARENTS. Legislative intent matters and NCLB provisions on testing are clearly aimed at preventing schools and districts from hiding students from the accountability system. It was never intended to punish schools for behavior entirely outside of their control.
LikeLike
I find it interesting that Elia is certain that it’s a good idea for kids to take these tests. But she is less certain about whether or not it’s a good idea to take away funding/resources. Shouldn’t she be unequivocably opposed to poorer districts losing Title 1 funding? Or am I missing something here?
LikeLike
Watch them come out and blame the union – cause the union can totally Astroturf 200000 parents.
At what point will it be acknowledged this isn’t about democracy or education. Just money markets and power.
If it is about the former, then why do we need radical reforms to everything except what so many clearly demonstrate they feel is irrational and poorly conceived.
Why does our new education commissioner need to go to the Feds to try to get them to be the bogeyman for her on what is clearly a state’s rights issue?
LikeLike
This is from an ed reform lobbying site:
“The highest-scoring students (those on Level 4) in 2014, made up only 9 percent of the students who decided to bypass the math test this year, while the lowest-scoring students (those on Level 1) made up 32.5 percent.”
They’re already labeling these kids 1-4.
Were we not specifically assured that ed reformers would make an effort NOT to use the 1-4 labels? That the kids undergoing this experiment would NOT be treated as test scores?
Is this wise? Will we regret assigning national ranking numbers to 3rd graders? Why are they promoting these reductive measures?
https://www.the74million.org/article/ny-test-boycot-tops-out-at-20-percent-with-mostly-white-affluent-students-enough-union-says-to-affect-scores?utm_content=bufferefb10&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
LikeLike
It makes some sense as a parent. If you see your vigils doing well then the high test scores could have advantages elsewhere and you see little harm to your child.
If your child is being labeled poorly or is in the middle then the negative effects of the tests will clearly present themselves.
I don’t think it is about parents hiding failure, it is about the effects of the failure label on the child and that parents will most likely object when they perceive harm but otherwise will stay out of the way.
LikeLike
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
This also fails to take into account that some of us also refused in 2014. I would be surprised if my 2 high scorers (pre2014) were the only ones who would add to that 9%
LikeLike
I know the feds are a lost cause, but did NY state lawmakers respond at all to parents?
Lawmakers in lots of other states did. Most of it was probably lip service but at least there was the appearance of addressing some of the issues with testing.
LikeLike
NY lawmakers are engaged in
Mortal Cuombat.
LikeLike
It didn’t matter that much in Ohio. They convened panels and vowed to stop obsessing on test scores, but this is the Ohio Dept of Ed Twitter account:
95% testing.
More Than A Score, my foot. Nothing has changed, and nothing will change until we bust up this government/ed reform lobbyist tryst that is going on.
LikeLike
When I refused to give an end of grade test to my students with severe and profound disabilities in 2008, I was amazed at the many students, parents, and educators who had horrible experiences. I also found out the insane amount of money made off these tests by the companies who designed and created the test materials and test prep materials! This stand ended up with me losing my teaching license for “unethical” behavior. Officially, it is listed as losing it for “other-failure to administer tests”. I tried to fight it, but the state had unlimited resources and no ethics in how they took my license, and I ran out of money to pay an attorney to fight it!
And there is the ridiculous corruption that led to standardized testing becoming part of no child left behind. An example: In NC, Lou Fabrizzio worked for McGraw Hill for 16 years, lastly trying to sell states on doing state wide standardized tests. Then, he somehow became head of accountability (testing) in NC. Then, (surprise) NC decided to do statewide testing. Then Lou Fabrizzio was included as an ‘expert’ on no child left behind national committee who decided that mandatory standardized testing was needed in the whole nation. I am sure there are examples of this in other states as well!
And which is the major benefactor of NCLB and has made billions from this? McGraw-Hill! I am sure the fact that the McGraw and Bush family go back 80 years played a part as well. This is an systemic and elite issue, not a political party issue, as Ted Kennedy worked hand in hand with Bush on this.
LikeLike
Thank you for your bravery, Doug.
LikeLike
Agreed!
LikeLike
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Texas Education.
LikeLike
This is amazing – the suits are so far removed from the parents and communities and their increasing coalescing wishes that the feds cannot figure out who to punish, any more than the state can. How do you beat into submission a grass roots revolt from a distance? What these prototypical bureaucrats are trying to squash is democratic action. It’s funny in a sad way. The enforcers and their generic policies are so remote and alienated from those whose interests they purport to serve [vs, say, those corps that financially benefit from testing] and they led sheep-like by “experts” that feel comfortable directing the actions of millions of kids w/o knowing them as more than data points. It’s tragic that one place where repubs and demos have linked is on suppression of local interests in education and disregard of parental responses. This situation cries out for a revival of subsidiarity principles and a healthy tension tween local and distal policy agents.
LikeLike
This is going to be an interesting year, I can tell you that. I have the feeling that last year was, maybe, a turning point. They can push us still, but what can these reforms do? They can’t force kids to take tests.
LikeLike
IT WON’T WORK: I remember as a rookie teacher making the mistake of telling my class that EVERYBODY would have to stay late if anyone was making noise. Sure enough, a couple of students proceeded to make noise. I held the whole class in, waiting for the noisy kids to behave, but they never did. After a few minutes of quietly waiting around, the other kids started to get upset, but instead of blaming the noisy kids, they blamed me: “why am I being punished for someone else being noisy?”.
My plan to use peer pressure, punishment and authoritarianism failed. It was the school’s job to manage the noisy kids, not peers who were doing the right thing.
In this situation, the opt out families are not convinced there is a good reason to take the tests. Instead of persuading them or offering evidence, the government wants to vilify them, threatening the rest of the parents, forcing the parents to convince the opt-out parents to take the tests.
Worse yet, the government will not discuss or review the evidence after multiple challenges by the most highly qualified experts. Instead we see the feds mulling sanctions – what we do to our enemies abroad.
It won’t work. The opt out community has a great deal of research showing that the testing formulas do not function as described. They want the government to refute the evidence and prove the validity of this unpiloted, controversial methodology.
Instead, the parents are planning a year-long campaign to expand the boycott with plans to bring the debate into inner city communities. They also have hauled the government into court, beginning with the Sheri Lederman test case that argues that teacher evaluations based on student test scores are subjective, opaque and violations of the law.
Arne Duncan and state school chiefs need to “tone down the rhetoric”. Parents are looking for facts and evidence, not threats and punishments. They know the government has accepted a boatload of cash from education privatizers and distrust the corporatist non-educators driving this policy.
LikeLike
And what’s this now? (think, old Batman TV show narrator)
Elia appoints Walcott as monitor for East Ramapo! Dennis Walcott, Bloomberg’s former puppet Chancellor!
http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/239798/elia-names-walcott-as-east-ramapo-monitor/
LikeLike
Hahahaha–she has just declared war, and she has NO IDEA who she’s dealing with!
LikeLike
Those parents have all been naughty.
Put them all in detention.
And mark their disrespect of authority on their Permanent Record Cards.
LikeLike
Speaking of permanent record cards – I think everyone running for any public office should publicize their school records including their grades from K through college.
I’ll bet we’ll discover that more than a few are not career or college ready.
LikeLike
Great responses and I am grateful to the people who took the time to respond so insightfully and resourcefully.
I want to know when did we become a an Aristocracy?!
“One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws,” is attribute to Martin Luther King Jr.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing the it is stupid,” credited to Albert Einstein.
“When injustice becomes law, rebellion becomes duty,” attributed by some to Thomas Jefferson. “Hammer the Americans hard enough and you will forge the best weapon in the world!”
“Documentation for PAA paper, How high-stakes standardized testing is harming our children’s mental health” July 2015 Published by Parents Across America and posted on Dr. Ravitch’s site.
I am so irate to think the govt.- the people we elected to serve us -can be so ruthless, so
insensitive to the mental well being of your children!!!!!! Destroy their self image and you can expect retaliation. People are paying taxes for education now the politicians want to withhold that because we don’t do what they say!
It wouldn’t surprise me if it were the same politicians who meet behind closed doors with the corporate world to decide what new laws would best serve the corporations, are the same people who want to withhold funds from districts – same politicians who don’t care about our children. Getting rid of the high stakes testing would be a financial blow to the testing companies.
If the politicians and the corporate world care one iota they would take time to listen to authorities in the field such as Howard Seeman who published “The Side Effects of Standardized Testing.” For years, psychologists have spoken out about the harmful effect of standardized testing on youngsters.
Teachers have always evaluated their students without burdening them with anxiety. Through the years educators have studied ways to evaluate the students which would reflect a more true and encompassing results than the standardized tests.
All the time that is stolen from the students to prepare for those asinine tests! All the money that should be spent on personnel is thrown away on the meaningless tests. All the literature books that should be read in lieu of preparing for worthless tests remain closed. All the hands on projects that stimulate the students’ imagination remain in the wishful realm of teachers- say nothing about how our children are losing needed gym, art, music and recess time.
The governors and politicians better not tempt the power of their constituents. Martin Luther King Jr. handed down some powerful ammunition.
Who among you are going to send these responses to our governor and legislature body?
LikeLike