Remember how the Every Student Succeeds Act was transferring power from the Feds to the states? Well, not everything. The law still requires annual testing as before. It still requires a participation rate of 95%. The U.S. Department of Education sent a letter to education officials across the nation to advise them about these basic facts.
But what happens when large numbers of students opt out to protest over testing, loss of the arts, and lousy tests?
As Alyson Klein explains in Edweek,
When it comes to opt-outs, ESSA has a complex solution. It maintains a requirement in the previous version of ESEA, the much-maligned No Child Left Behind Act, that all schools test at least 95 percent of their students, both for the whole school, and for traditionally overlooked groups of students (English Language Learners, racial minorities, students in special education, kids in poverty). Under NCLB, though, schools that didn’t meet the 95 percent participation requirement were considered automatic failures—and that was true under the Obama administration’s waivers from the law, too. (That part of the NCLB law was never waived.)
Now, under ESSA, states must figure low testing participation into school ratings, but just how to do that is totally up to them. And states can continue to have laws affirming parents’ right to opt their students out of tests (as Oregon does).
This is the year of opt-outs, and no less than a dozen states—Rhode Island, Oregon, Wisconsin, Washington, Delaware, North Carolina, Idaho, New York, Colorado, California, Connecticut, and Maine, received letters from the U.S. Department flagging low-participation rates on the 2014-15 tests—statewide or at the district or subgroup level—and asking what they planned to do about it. The department is reviewing the information it got from states. So far, the administration has yet to take serious action (like withholding money) against a state with a high opt-out rate.
So what’s this letter about? It sounds like the department is reminding states that they must come up with some kind of a plan to address opt-outs in their accountability systems, even in this new ESSA universe. And if they don’t have some sort of a plan in place, they’ll risk federal sanctions.
And, in a preview of what guidance could look like now that ESSA is in place, the department gives a list of suggested actions states could take in response to low participation rates. These actions are all pretty meaningful, like withholding state and district aid, counting schools with low participation rates as non-proficient for accountability, or requiring districts and schools to come up with a plan to fix their participation rates.
The letter makes it clear that states can come up with their own solutions, though. So it’s possible a state could decide to do something a lot less serious than the options listed in the letter. But importantly, states’ opt-out actions would likely have to be consistent with their waiver plans, since waivers are still in effect through the end of the school year.
But the bottom line is that no state can prevent parents from opting their children out of state tests. They may threaten sanctions, but the larger the number of opt outs, the hollower the threats. This is called democracy. When the government announces a policy–in this case, a policy that was agreed upon behind closed doors, without any democratic discussion or debate–the citizens can register their views by saying NO.
No other nation in the world–at least no high-performing nation–tests every child every year. Annual testing was imposed on the nation by Congress in 2001 and signed into law as NCLB in 2002. We were told that annual testing meant that “no child would be left behind.” That didn’t happen. What we got instead was narrowing the curriculum, billions for the testing industry, cheating, and teaching to bad standardized tests.
The people who love high-stakes testing make sure that their own children attend schools like the University of Chicago Lab School (Arne Duncan, Rahm Emanuel) or Sidwell Friends (Barack Obama), where there is no high-stakes testing. The onerous testing of NCLB and the Race to the Top is not for their children, just yours.
Despite the failure of annual testing to fulfill the promise, Congress imposed it again. The more parents opt out, the sooner Congress will get the message that this policy is wrong.
Protect your children. Protect education. Cut off the money flow to Pearson and friends.
Opt out in 2016.

….And as usual too few fought against this reauthorization. Too many thought it would be a lesser evil than the NCLB and the current waivers. I think they are wrong and believe this law is the end of Public Education as we once dreamed and need it to be.
LikeLike
Exactly right. ESSA is NCLB repackaged with special confirmation of the legal rights and claims of privatized charters to demand public financing, a step worse than NCLB.
LikeLike
Both you and Ira Shor are correct – and my wife and I are sadened beyond words. We tried in our small and obviously what is now an insignificant way to explain what was happening – and most importantly – how we got to where we are regarding education reform. Yes – the battle seems to be all but lost – and I don’t want anyone to jump on my case for saying this! Perhaps in the future some may want to choose their education reform champions more carefully. That being said – read “The Origins of the Common Core: How the Free Market Became Public Education Poilicy.” After you read it – then we can talk. Reach me on facebook via The War Report!!! This is a sad time for our democratic system of locally controlled public schools!
LikeLike
Thomas, I will read and then reach out to you on Facebook. I could not agree more that those who appear to be intractable supporters of public education have agendas that have nothing to do with educating “all” of our children, and holistically considering their welfare and educational needs. My email is marcielipsitt@outlook.com and I have several pages on Facebook, the Special Education Wall of Shame and Michigan Alliance for Special Education.
LikeLike
Expecting children to magically improve just because they were tested so frequently, was always a fairy tale, and it inevitably led to much teaching “to the test” and taking practice tests because of the high stakes. At the expense of art, music, PE, and other needed subjects.
As I had commented on a previous post, it would be like me buying a large scale and weighing my beef cattle all the time, expecting that this would magically make them healthy and put on weight.
Oy!
LikeLike
Zorba: yes, another case where the rheephormsters hope to Trump rheeality doesn’t actually trump reality.
*The older version: you don’t fatten a pig by weighing.
How NOT surprising that the bullying/punitive side of rheephorm, like a zombie, simply refuses die.
But that was alway the intent. I have included this before but it so telling that it bears repeating.
Dr. Frederick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute, 2 years ago, an articulate rheephorm insider and a charter member of the corporate education reform establishment. Think of CCSS as just one manifestation/acronym of a core rheephormista principle.
[start]
In truth, the idea that the Common Core might be a “game-changer” has little to do with the Common Core standards themselves, and everything to do with stuff attached to them, especially the adoption of common tests that make it possible to readily compare schools, programs, districts, and states (of course, the announcement that one state after another is opting out of the two testing consortia is hollowing out this promise).
But the Common Core will only make a dramatic difference if those test results are used to evaluate schools or hire, pay, or fire teachers; or if the effort serves to alter teacher preparation, revamp instructional materials, or compel teachers to change what students read and do. And, of course, advocates have made clear that this is exactly what they have in mind. When they refer to the “Common Core,” they don’t just mean the words on paper–what they really have in mind is this whole complex of changes.
[end]
To access his original piece and much valuable contextual info, go to—
Link: https://deutsch29.wordpress.com/2013/12/28/the-american-enterprise-institute-common-core-and-good-cop/
Out of the mouths of….
Well, finish that statement as y’all see fit.
😎
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Crazy Normal – the Classroom Exposé and commented:
Do not allow your children—OUR children—to take high stakes tests that are still mandated by the federal government with threats to cut funds. Opt Out!
LikeLike
Opt Out in Masse needs to increase and continue in every state! Beware of the next wave, as they constantly assess teachers and students by means of such noble sounding Computer curriculum such as blended learning, proficiency learning, mastery learning etc. etc. etc. These tools used every day in most schools and school districts are taking privacy and data points unbeknownst to parents and students, well the students and their teachers will be evaluated and assessed at the same time. So while the reformsters and state and district administrators might in fact reduce and of your high-stakes testing, they are still assessing non-stop. Meanwhile, software makers, test makers, curriculum developers and other education profiteers continue to steal your tax dollars, as they destroyed public schools and increase the plethora of charter schools.
http://unitedoptout.com
http://www.pegwithpen.com/search?q=Next+wave
LikeLike
Well, wasn’t that the point of the whole thing in the first place? So that the education profiteers could make money?
The states and districts were sold a bill of goods. “Oooooh, look! Shiny! Technology and testing will solve every single problem in the public schools! We don’t even need trained teachers!”
No, they won’t “fix things.”
They need to spend the money to address the profound problems of poverty in this country, and fix the crumbling buildings and inadequate resources that so many of the schools in the poorer areas of this country are suffering from.
You can put all the money you want into testing and techno-driven widgets, but kids who come to school hungry, kids whose parent or parents aren’t home much because their folks are working two or three jobs just to make ends meet, aren’t going to give a rosy rat’s @ss about the constant testing and teaching to the test. Nor should they.
LikeLike
Here’s where Republicans stumbled upon the right answer. As a broken clock is correct twice a day, the conservative states’ rights concerns indeed uncover federal overreach. Impinging upon a parent’s right to make decisions protecting their child from the harm of punitive, invalid standardized tests, the Democrats seem tone deaf. Wake up, Clinton and Sanders. Taking away parental rights in such an arbitrary manner pinches a very sensitive nerve with many, many families trying to raise children in the real world, not the elite bubble of neo-liberals.
LikeLike
CA Ed Code allows parents to Opt Out of any test, standardized, etc.
I don’t know how this will play out but state’s rights should prevail.
LikeLike
j135cooper: thank you for the reminder.
Cautiously optimistic…
😎
LikeLike
“The people who love high-stakes testing make sure that their own children attend schools like the University of Chicago Lab School (Arne Duncan, Rahm Emanuel) or Sidwell Friends (Barack Obama), where there is no high-stakes testing. The onerous testing of NCLB and the Race to the Top is not for their children, just yours.”
We know that there is annual standardized testing at the Lab School and Sidwell Friends:
“[Standardized tests] can help parents and teachers understand more clearly and completely a child’s balance of strengths and needs. Teachers may review the scores in detail, looking for patterns that emerge from one year to the next, and then use that information to be more effective in the classroom.” — Sidwell Friends School, Washington, D.C., administers tests in grades 5-8
““[Standardized tests] allow us to think critically about our curriculum and instruction . . . results are used by Lab to compare with more content-specific, curriculum-based measures of performance. This comparison can be useful when identifying those students whose skills and achievement scores show marked discrepancies.” — The University of Chicago Laboratory Schools, Chicago, Illinois, administers tests in grades 3-6
Whether the tests are high-stakes for the teachers is an unknown. Almost all of the elite schools are non-unionized, at-will workplaces, and the schools don’t need to rely on test results to remove ineffective teachers.
There is little doubt that the tests are high-stakes for their students. The reason why elite private schools can charge $30-40,000 or more for tuition is their superior record of college placement, and children who end up falling off that track are often asked to leave the school–http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/06/nyregion/06private.html. Subpar results on standardized tests are a grave cause for concern, and the exams aren’t optional—there’s no “opt out” movement. On the other hand, there is also very little test prep or narrowing of the curriculum.
And that is the approach the public schools should take. Test to verify, but assume that a good curriculum and genuine learning is the best form of test prep. Just like Sidwell, Lab, Lakeside do.
LikeLike
Apologies for not properly formatting the hyperlink to the NYT article about private schools counseling out. This one should work:
LikeLike
Prior to NCLB standardized tests were administered exactly the way you describe. They were snapshots of a couple of days’ performance that offered percentile levels on various reading and math skills. They were noted, and filed, and nobody was overly concerned about them. Even then they were not truly diagnostic.
Post NCLB standardized tests have morphed into a political weapon to be used to threaten teachers and schools. The tests based on CCSS seem to be flawed, and they have an unrealistic cut score. Now the tests are an enhanced political weapon to aid in further privatization, and they want to to use a mystery algorithm to fire teachers. There is little of educational value in tests that are on a frustration level for most students, and these tests yield little information to parents. Now testing is mostly about politics, data mining and selling more products.
LikeLike
Tim, I have been thinking a lot about these snippets about standardized testing that you posted, so since I have some time on this holiday weekend, I just read the Times article and looked a little more closely at (some) of the sources you quote above. First, the conclusion that you draw from the article re standardized tests at private schools (“There is little doubt that the tests are high-stakes for their students.”) does not seem to be borne out by either the article or readers’ comments on the article. Overwhelmingly, it seems that failing to meet BEHAVIORAL standards is what leads most independents to “counsel out” children. The farthest the article goes is to *suggest* that they are removed for academic performance, and even there, standardized tests ARE NOT MENTIONED, but rather, failure to focus in class, etc.
The commenters overwhelmingly indicate that behavior is the real issue. When academics are mentioned, it is grades, not standardized tests, that are invoked. A sampling:
+Doug G San Francisco January 5, 2011
This article misses the most important reason why we (I’m a teacher and former middle school head in an independent school) ask kids to leave — it is because a student is consistently acting out or violating rules and norms such that it is hurting peers in the classroom, undermining the school or creating concerns about safety. We lose a handful of students out of 300+ enrolled every year, and almost all for this reason.
I have students every year who struggle academically — some can afford tutors, many cannot and often get help from teachers or sometimes from former students who come back to help out. They work through their challenges and go on to high school.
+dot new york January 5, 2011
As someone who was “counseled out” of a private school because of average grades (which were not that bad, no D’s or below), I can assure everyone that I learned a great deal, whether or not it translated into high test grades. However, it took me about 5 years to get over the experience, until around my second year of college. I also saw that some students who broke that law by bringing illegal substances into school were allowed to come back after a few months “rehab.” Is that dangerous behavior or is it accepted assuming you can pay the bill?
Furthermore, here is the broader context for the Sidwell Friends quote you include: “Parents will receive results by the first week of March. [i.e. One month after administration.] It is important to remember that standardized test scores are only one measure of a student’s academic profile, a snapshot if you will. A more complete and accurate picture emerges when the scores are combined with classwork, daily performance, regular assignments, projects, and tests.”
Tim, you seem to be an intelligent man. Surely, you have to see the wisdom of this snapshot/tiny puzzle piece idea. I myself was an extremely good standardized test taker and I fail to see ANY difference that has had for me long or short term, other than at one point soon after college I tutored people to take SATs etc. There were areas I really did/still need improvement in, but the tests did not find them. These were things having more to do with executive function, time management, perfectionism, etc. and are much more germane to my actual life. To devote students’ time in prepping for these bloated tests (I noticed that Sidwell Friends’ CPTs seem to take less than half the time public school tests do) or suggest that they be used to judge teachers and schools is wasteful and wrong.
LikeLike
Not sure why Klein would write, “This is the last year for opt-outs…”.
LikeLike
Tim, what consequences are attached? Do you think Sidwell Friends etc. will be turned into charter schools or join an “Achievement District?” Once again you miss the point. Furthermore, the private schools usually do not take anyone that won’t pass these tests, they can, therefore, ignore the things attached to these poorly written tests.
LikeLike
Old Teacher: don’t bring up facts.
That just confuses him.
😎
LikeLike
The DOE letter is Orwellian enough to move informed readers to contact Washington.
LikeLike
If I recall, it was the Dems who voted against opt out. More Republicans were in favor. Just goes to show how aligned Dems are to Duncan.
LikeLike
Isn’t part of the problem the fact that the current tests are inappropriately difficult, have too high a passing grade (according to Diane’s book, “Reign of Error…,” any score lower than the equivalent of a B+ fails) & discriminate against children of color, from poor households, &/or w/special needs? If the tests were revised to address these issues, would it still matter if the tests were required?
LikeLike
Rigor is undoubtedly an element of difficulty, but there are numerous other issues.
A quick anecdote: I have taught four years in Arkansas, and the first two years we were told to “transition” to Common Core State Standards [and take interim testing based on these standards] while the state tests, which had labeled our school as “in distress” were based on previous frameworks [fortunately, the students scored well enough to lift us out of that label]. My third year, the state switched over to the PARCC exams, then tossed them out at the end of the year [before we could even see results] in favor of this year’s ACT Aspire tests. The new tests have also ushered in a reliance on technology, which forced my district to spend ridiculous amounts of money on technology and put my students with limited technology experience at a severe disadvantage going into the testing. And in an under-resourced school, testing required the rest of the school to essentially “hit pause” for over a month, since all teachers would have to proctor exams and go through multiple layers of training.
Three types of tests in four years, with no reasonable professional development or curriculum support to transition schools/teachers/students. Numerous interruptions to classroom instruction, lack of proper training and implementation, and a severe burden of technology resources for school districts.
I guess I’m saying is that from where I’ve stood as a relatively-new teacher, testing has been a disheartening obstacle to my students’ learning rather than an asset, and it’s not just about the rigor.
LikeLike
Cross posted at http://www.opednews.com/Quicklink/ESSA-Does-Not-Protect-Opt-in-Best_Web_OpEds-Diane-Ravitch_Students_Testing-151228-283.html#comment577286
LikeLike