I posted earlier today a letter from a parent to a high-level NYC official, complaining about the city’s threat to cut the school’s funding if too many children opted out of state testing.

What do you think the official replied: we must follow the law. We must do as we are told.

Don’t you long to hear a governor or mayor or superintendent say to the parent: You are right. The law is idiotic. We will join you in a mass action of civil disobedience.

Don’t expect to hear it from anyone who works for the testing-obsessed Bloomberg administration. This is a mayor who has used his autocratic control to close more than 140 public schools based on their test scores. Without those scores, he would not know what to do next.

Here is the response from Shael Polansky to Jeff Nichols:

Jeff, the State Education Department has issued guidance that all eligible students are expected to participate; there is no formal provision allowing parents to opt their students out of State tests. The State also requires that all students in attendance during test administration are given the opportunity to take the exam.

With respect to the federal rule on participation – this is something that is out of our control – the application of this rule is governed by federal law and only impacts state accountability designations.

That said, any consequences that flow from being designated as a Priority or Focus school by New York State are within our purview and we carefully look at all the quantitative data as well as the qualitative information we have about the school. The purpose of this review is to come to a decision on the best way to improve the school. I can’t imagine a good school being penalized on our watch solely because they didn’t meet AYP as a result of the 95 percent participation rule.

Last year, there weren’t many students who opted out of the exams, approximately one hundred students out of several hundred thousand, and in these cases parents kept students at home.

For promotion purposes in NYC, we always use a combination of exams and student portfolios so students who miss exams for any reason can be considered for promotion based on a rigorous assessment of a portfolio of their work.

The larger issue you are raising though is about the quality of the exams and how they impact teaching and learning in our schools. I would agree that historically our state exams have not done a good enough job measuring the deeper skills of critical thinking and problem solving. This is beginning to change, partially in response to concerns that both parents and educators have raised.

I would welcome the opportunity to continue this important dialogue in person as I don’t think the exams are going away, but I do believe we can work together to strengthen them and ensure the information they generate is used in a thoughtful and balanced way.

Best, Shael