The high stakes testing opt out bill, HB2246, sponsored by John (Chris) Ackerley (R, LD-2), passed the House 35 to 24 and is moving onto the Senate. It’s a Republican bill supported by Republicans, but actually, the idea of opting out of high stakes tests has national bipartisan support. Case in point: The Network for Public Education (NPE), a group founded by progressive education historian and activist Diane Ravitch and others.
According to Tucsonan Robin Hiller, Executive Director of NPE, “We know these tests aren’t working for kids, teachers or schools. We believe parents should have the right to opt their children out of the tests with no repercussions to the student or the school.”
Here is the NPE statement.
Network for Public Education Supports Those Who Opt Out
The Network for Public Education stands in full support of parents, students and educators who choose to teach and learn about the reality of high stakes tests, opt out of high stakes tests, speak out against high stakes tests and who refuse to give those tests to students.
We take this stand because:
• Right now, in communities from the highest need to the most affluent, students, parents and educators are being punished for the courageous act of informing others about available options to opt out of high stakes tests and acting upon those options. These reprisals, often for merely learning and teaching about students’ rights, violate basic human rights and common decency.• There is no evidence that these tests contribute to the quality of education, or help close the “achievement gap.” Since NCLB, these tests have hindered, not helped, school improvement efforts. The scores of US students in the international PISA tests have remained flat for the dozen years of high stakes testing.
• These tests, particularly those associated with the Common Core, have become intrusive in our schools, consuming excessive time and resources. These are not the kind of tests that we took when we were children. Students in grades three to eight must spend ten or more hours on testing, and enter their answers on computer keyboards. Since teachers will not see their scores for months they have no diagnostic value. They have resulted in narrow instruction and curriculum that focuses on test preparation.
• The Common Core tests, such as PARCC, SBAC and others Pearson has developed to measure the Common Core standards, have been designed to yield widespread failure for students, and thus are an inaccurate reflection of what our students are capable of doing.
• Inequities in education are a real and devastating reality in our education system. High stakes tests exacerbate this inequity with their negative, disparate impact on students of color, students in poverty, English language learners, and students with disabilities.
This article appears in Mar 5-11, 2015.
I still support one standardized test a year for all schools(public and charter). If they are compared year-to-year it gives some accountability for tax payer’s money. They should not be used to determine teacher performance to the degree it is now. Other than the one test a year(which is what many of us grew up with), I think classroom tests on units and or chapters developed or chosen by the teacher which are kept to explain students’ grades is adequate. All of that put together plus principal observations is enough.
Robin, I wonder if most of us grew up with a yearly standardized test. My understanding is, that began with the 2002 No Child Left Behind bill. Am I wrong?
There is nothing inherently wrong (evil) with the idea of better preparing students for careers and post secondary education while focusing on higher level critical thinking skills – the basis of Common Core. The devil – as always – in the details. As Robin B. points out, the tests developed to measure success are blunt instruments when applied to large cohorts of students and ill-suited for teacher and school performance evaluations. Factor in the business and politics of school improvement movements and it is easy to understand the uneasy alliance of the Diannes (Douglas and Ravitch).
Opting out is a political act in the finest traditions of dissent in this nation. Hopefully the movement will succeed in reining in the excesses that define the current landscape of “school improvement” especially the undue influence of for profit privateers actively seeking to disrupt and reconstitute public education in the latest factory model to come rolling down the pike.
Up against the wall, Pearson, Duncan and Bill and Melinda.
David, attending suburban Minnesota schools in the 60s and 70s the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) was an annual spring event. No high stakes involved, but principals and school board members certainly compared aggregate scores across the district.
Opt out of higher education or consider requiring all PreK -12 students learn a second language.
Wish all 6 figure paid (with benefits) superintendents, assistant superintendents, and superintendents of superintendents be required to teach a complete course to a class every school year.
David, I failed to mention I went to a Catholic school in Michigan so yes I did( Iowa test of Basic Skills … probably began in later grades(3rd or 4th) but we did them every year. I went there through 1963)…
My parents kept the tests from year to year and the nuns went over them during conferences the next year. Growth was shown so my parents were happy.
When I was teaching in Michigan 1972-1980 We gave the California Achievement test(CAT). Both resembled some of the tests I have seen here although never have been able to scrutinize them … only samples. Sometimes I am in a time warp and state warp (taught in 5) if there is such a thing. I have no idea what went on in Arizona at that time.
I didn’t teach for a while when I raised my children so I began teaching again in TUcson in 1989 and yes we gave them yearly until mid 90s?. I think they were the CAT but I am ok if I am corrected. Parents got the tests in the mail I believe. Teachers were given copies of the results. We stopped for a while and TUSD was mostly whole language which I love but the kids were not measured at all other than teacher tests. Then the AIMS was given in the 4th and 7th yearly. A few years later I believe was when the big phonics only/ standardized tests came in again( as you say 2002?) because more accountability was wanted.. some evidence. You know the rest.
I am usually one for balance. Love the idea of 1 test from 2nd grade + a year. Teaching phonics and whole language together works very well for me. I often say to people why does it have to be all or nothing? I guess I have experienced the extremes enough to know that either way alone usually doesn’t work where I have been. Prediction… if we throw out all standardized tests within a few years people in power or ? will be screaming again for there would be no accountability. Probably end up here AGAIN. Boy do I sound old :-D.
I noticed a couple of omissions/ mistakes… In the 90s the parents received the results in the mail …not the tests. Other than my growing up years, I have taught in all public schools so some states did do them for long periods at times. This does seem to be the longest and the most testing I have ever seen. Overkill….
Every year I taught, starting in 1974, we gave a standardized test in the spring. Some years we did the ITBS, some years later, the CAT. There may have been other variations before AIMS came along. We used to laugh (sort of) that as soon as the kids got good and showed growth on one test, along would come another so we couldn’t compare for a couple of years. As a student half a century ago I took what were called I.Q. tests (paper and pencil standardized tests) occasionally in Ohio and in California and in AZ. There were also in high school the PSAT, and the SAT. Or sometimes the ACT. They all counted. Standardized testing as a teacher was only to show progress of the group, although principals would notice when one teacher stood out one way or the other. They did not decide job futures, but could support a teacher if scores were high.