The New York Legislature is considering legislation to affirm that parents have a right to opt out of state testing, and that school officials have an affirmative duty to inform them of their rights. The current testing regime is invalid and unreliable. It does not inform instruction. It has no purpose other than to demoralize students and teachers. Please add your name in support of this legislation.
The New York State Allies for Public Education urges you to:
Write your Legislators to sign onto the OPT OUT bill
TAKE ACTION NOW by supporting Senator Jackson and Assemblyman Epstein by getting your own NYS Senator and Assembly Member to show their support by signing onto the proposed legislation as a co-sponsor. This is the opportunity we’ve been waiting for years and there is no time to lose. Senate bill S5394 and Assembly bill is forthcoming.
Families HAVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE the New York State grades 3-8 ELA and math assessments. Nevertheless, and as we have seen over the past several years and throughout the state, too many schools disregard that right, fail to communicate it clearly, or worse, take punitive measures against children when their parents exercise their rights.
Simply enter your name & address, and the form will automatically generate emails addressed to your specific elected officials. PLEASE SEND your letters TODAY and share with anyone else who wants to see our rights and our children’s rights respected!
Thank you for all of your continued advocacy to protect children and bring whole child policies to your schools!
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Ugh, I have such mixed feelings about legislation like this. It should be assumed that people have a right to do something unless there is legislation prohibiting it. This is like passing legislation that says people have the right to walk their dog. The mere passage of such legislation implies that that right has to be granted, rather than assumed.
Dienne,
Under present circumstances, the state commissioner and local officials in many districts refuse to tell parents they have a right to opt out. They are also threatening schools and districts with financial punishments and low grades and threatening to put them on a list of low-performing schools if their opt out rate is too high.
Legislation is absolutely necessary to stop the thuggery.
I get that point, but then the legislation should mandate that the state and local officials must inform parents of their right to opt out.
It does. The legislation requires schools to inform parents that they have a right to opt out and there is no penalty.
Realize, Dienne, that the adminimals have to be forced to do their duty. Without that coercion they certainly won’t inform the parents.
Actually I think I’ve seen many examples over the years of legislation confirming existing rights, to correct overreach in a law’s implementation regs, or to clarify the appearance of conflicting rights. It’s inefficient in the sense you end up w/a patchwork jumble of laws. But the only alternative is to challenge the application of the law in court, which has inefficiencies of cost & time.
Correction:
“ANY testing regime is invalid and unreliable.”
See Noel Wilson’s never refuted nor rebutted “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” and some comments of mine. (updated 6/24/13 per Wilson email)
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.
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).
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.
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 words all the logical errors involved in the process render any conclusions invalid.
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.
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.
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.
I understand, Duane. But the US has a federal law requiring every public school to test every child from 3-8 and the scores are used to close schools and evaluate teachers and students and principals.
The Reformers insist on those scores and don’t want anyone to escape testing.
Once they take control of the schools, they say that the scores don’t matter.
Yes, there is a federal law. What should one do when the law itself is unjust and discriminatory? And I understand their hypocrisies. We should be calling them out on them. And you do on a daily basis.
Civil disobedience I suppose. Along with having the various anti-educational malpractice groups like NPE, AFT, NEA (wait those last two have been for those malpractices) pushing for legislative change.
Can civil disobedience be a burden on the individual? No doubt, but it took massive civil disobedience to help mitigate (certainly didn’t end) racial, gender and other discriminations. If I may leave you with the following by one of America’s premier thinkers:
““The mass of men [and women] serves the state [education powers that be] thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailors, constables, posse comitatus, [administrators and teachers], etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt.”- Henry David Thoreau [1817-1862], American author and philosopher [my additions to update to the education context]
Duane….Here in the once great state of MD, we have NO Opt-Out clause at all. We HAVE to use Civil Disobedience to REFUSE the tests for our children. And then to make matters even worse, PARCC ELA10 and PARCC Alg I are state mandated graduation requirements (they continually change the cut scores). No parents are willing to risk the HS diploma for their children so the kids are forced to test…..but at least later.
LisaM – this is a perfect illustration of what I was talking about above. Is there an actual statute in MD that prohibits opting out? If not, then you don’t need an Opt-Out clause. You automatically have the right to do whatever is not prohibited, so you have the right to opt out.
You may theoretically have the “right” but you and your school will be punished if you exercise it
Dienne77… we have to fight tooth and nail to REFUSE for our children. The state likes to cite COMAR a lot but we have a series of form letters that we use every time they come at us. Basically, when it gets down to the nitty gritty of it, we just ask them to provide to us in writing where it states that the kids must take the test. They can’t provide that. The state has an obligation to offer the test, and “the child” has the right to refuse to take the test. The dirty part of it is that some are graduation requirements and there is nothing else that can replace PARCC ELA10/Alg I….not SAT, not AP, not ACT, not IB, not good grades. We are stuck! AND K-8 are threatened by “the adminimals” with sit and stare, having activities taken away, having a proctor sign the child in/out, grade retention etc. There may not be any opt out wording, but we sure do have a problem refusing (we cannot use OPT OUT because we have no OPT OUT clause). It’s awful!
“You may theoretically have the “right” but you and your school will be punished if you exercise it”
So what? (and please don’t take that as facetiously as it sounds)
Really, I mean so what?
Do not justice and ethical concerns trump the enforcement/implementation of unjust and unethical laws?
Remember: Slavery was legal. Racial and gender discrimination have been legal. Etc. . . . People were “punished” for fighting against those things. Should they not have fought against those laws?
If I may leave you with a thought about these things from a thinker far smarter than me:
“Should we therefore forgo our self-interest? [to not be ‘punished’] Of course not. But it [self-interest] must be subordinate to justice, not the other way around. . . . To take advantage of a child’s naivete. . . in order to extract from them something [test scores, personal information] that is contrary to their interests, or intentions, without their knowledge [or consent of parents] or through coercion [state mandated testing], is always and everywhere unjust even if in some places and under certain circumstances it is not illegal. . . . Justice is superior to and more valuable than well-being or efficiency; it cannot be sacrificed to them, not even for the happiness of the greatest number [quoting Rawls]. To what could justice legitimately be sacrificed, since without justice there would be no legitimacy or illegitimacy? And in the name of what, since without justice even humanity, happiness and love could have no absolute value?. . . Without justice, values would be nothing more than (self) interests or motives; they would cease to be values or would become values without worth.”—Comte-Sponville [my additions]
Duane…..Would you really risk your own child’s HS diploma? I’m sorry, but I can’t do that and use her to prove a point. She would never get into the college of her choice if she didn’t have that stupid piece of paper that states that she knows how to take a test. I have had to pick my battles and these are MY battles…..my child is the collateral damage. It’s wrong!! You are right, Wilson is correct, but my child is held hostage and stuck in the middle of this war. I REFUSED for as long as I could without it doing damage to my child and her future.
Lisa M.
“Duane…..Would you really risk your own child’s HS diploma?”
I would let (and have) my child decide for themselves and support his/her decision.
And you have made the choice for your own family–that is how it should be.
As you have rightly pointed out, if it is invalid, whether it is reliable is irrelevant.
What does it even mean for something to be reliable if it is invalid?
Reliable for what? Certainly not for the purpose it is being used for.
The psychometricians have adopted terminology that is completely meaningless. They use the term reliable to mean “repeatable”, but it does not matter how many times one can repeat a meaningless result, it is still meaningless.
Keep at it Duane. Eventually you will break through.
Thanks for the words of encouragement SDP! I have definitely been in a funk over what I perceive as a lack of understanding by those on “our” side of these debates/policy disagreements. For the most part our side is willing to kowtow before the authorities that be, fearing punishment and retribution–really much in line with the general American zeitgeist of “being afraid” and letting fear guide their acquiescent attitude to do things, implement malpractice which harm the most innocent, the children.
In the meantime, time to go work on the garden.
About New York- Huffpo reports that the Met Museum is refusing to take more money from the Sacklers. Will the ed deform organizations that are currently funded by the Sacklers, stop pocketing opioid profits?
R.I.’s Dan McKee, a charter school politician (favorite son of DFER, Waltons and DeVos) took thousands from the Sacklers. No surprise.
There are a few members of the Sackler family that deserve the death penalty……and I’m not one to advocate for this type of punishment. They should have this done with the drugs that their company helped develop. They have had a hand in the death of thousands of people. I don’t know how any politician could accept blood money from this family.
More than 200,000 dead b/c of opioid addiction
Oh for the day when some state successfully sues the federal government to remove the burden of high-stakes standardized testing requirements! At present, according to USDE guidance, ‘the law [ESSA] maintains the requirement that states administer to all students annual statewide assessments in reading/language arts and mathematics in grades 3-8 and once in high school, as well as assessments once in each grade span in science for all students and annual English language proficiency assessments in grades K-12 for all English learners.”
Until then, Opt Out is essential. Please sign.
I cannot recall any civil disobedience aimed at educational issues past the ones related to the civil rights movement. A friend once told me she was not able to go to Princeton because she was Itallian, but I never heard any protests at that level.
I am proud to have signed the letter.
Parents have a right to, in almost all instances, decide how they want to protect their children from what they perceive to be harmful to their children’s health and well being. The state has no right to a presence in a family decision with exceptions of endangerment to the welfare of the child.
Parents are voting citizens, and they have a right to have a voice in how education policy gets made and in both the philosophies and best practices that support it. By helping shape their children’s education, parents are also knowingly shaping society, which is a very democratic and civic-minded thing to do. If policy makers have a hard time with that, maybe they should abandon politics and find a job at Walmart . . .
This opt-out issue is indeed about children, but it’a also about society. Don’t let this current ruling elite socially engineer our children and society! Let all children have schools that are palaces regardless of their families’ income level, as my good late friend, Professor Leslie Brown of Williams College, once told me at a screening of “Selma”.
Let all children be celebrated for their strengths and be supported robustly to help them strengthen their weaknesses. Let all children be recognized for their diverse intelligences, and let all of them be benefited by data that tells their teachers what to reteach or change the way something is taught. Let all children enter school ready to learn by not having the stresses of poverty and by coming into schools with experiential capital, and let every child have access to rich experiences that utilize the five senses in all their learning And finally, let every child engage in the most important business of all: PLAY! Through supported play, children learn to negotiate, experiment, synthesize new knowledge, acquire rich vocabulary, and build compassion and empathy. They learn how the world works by approximating it and building their schema with more real knowledge. They grow and become more intellectualized through play, and they transfer and generalize their play skills into academic realms by executing cooperative learning, teamwork, testing hypotheses, and engaging in endurance, experimentation, risk taking, and evaluative skills.
Tests used to tell educators how they could further help students. Today, they have become ways of labeling students, families, educators, and schools. Tests were always useful, but their purposes today have become perverted, fetish-ized, and commercialized, all at the student’s expense.
Shame on Bush and Obama and reformers. Shame on legislators who enact laws that rig the rich against the poor, creating, spreading, and growing poverty instead of eradicating it through redistribution of wealth towards the public commons!
As I said, I proudly signed this letter and encourage others to sign!
It’s a good letter. I just signed it. Thanks to the people who drafted it and who are fighting this good fight.
BTW it’s taken me until this morning to get the chance to read this post fully. I’m finding that I’m having less and less time each and every day. It’s like the acceleration of our culture has reached a tipping point the last couple years, for many of us. School (and life) have become so busy,,,so many good things…so many bad things to think about, too.
I remember back 50+ years ago when people talked about, what?, it was called the “information explosion.” Well, here we are seeing it’s full fruition…. or is that still yet to come?
Yeah, there it is, I just looked it up on the much maligned Wikipedia -part and parcel of said explosion….
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_explosion
Information is being weaponized. And, used against us and our children. How can people view standardized testing any other way?
The Right to the Bill of Rights
The parents have the rights
To quote The Bill of Rights
We need a law, you see
To make the guarantee