No Unnecessary Tests (NUT) Report: Good Riddance Day

Today is Good Riddance Day, a tradition to say goodbye to something that caused misery, worry, and other negative reactions during the year. To join this event, Grumpy Educators wishes to say good riddance to unnecessary tests and illogical forced compliance.

For followers, the story of South Carolina mother, Gretchen Herrera, is familiar. For others, the story crystallizes the twisted nature of compliance-driven high stakes assessment regimes, which puts the health and well-being of children at risk. After denied exemption from standardized testing for her son based on a complicated medical condition, Mrs. Herrera filed a formal complaint with the US DOE Office of Civil Rights (OCR). In the jurisdiction cited by the OCR, it investigates allegations of regulations that discriminate against students on the basis of disability "by treating them differently (e.g. less favorable) from similarly situated students who are non-disabled." The OCR findings conclude that the complaint lacks sufficient evidence that discrimination based on disability occurred.

In South Carolina, limited reasons are permitted by regulation for a school to exclude a student from its reporting. Exclusions apply only to students who are homebound or not homebound, but physically/mentally unable to test on the days and make up days of testing, and have a physician letter, death, expulsion, incarceration, or transferring. Given these definitions, the OCR finding concludes that the reporting system works without discrimination.

Nevertheless, the finding leaves more questions than answers. The deeper issue regarding the rights of a parent to protect the health and well-being of their child remains unaddressed. Parents and children are caught in the middle of a reporting system that affects school grades and funding. What is in the best interest of the student is not part of the equation. The opinion of school-based and school-district staff was that the medical letter was opinion and did not qualify under any of the regulated exclusions.

In a U.S. Supreme Court determination, Troxel v. Granville, the justices relied on the 14th Amendment:

(a) The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause has a substantive component that “provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests,” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720, including parents’ fundamental right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children, see, e.g., Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651. Pp. 5—8.

In October, South Carolina Virtual Public Charter School "withdrew" the student citing the parent's failure to comply with the school rules. The student is homeschooled; however, receives specialized services in coordination with a middle school. Under this arrangement, the health, well-being, and specific educational needs of the student are the first priority and protected.

During the November 2011 Senate ESEA Reauthorization Hearings, a Kentucky teacher and witness described a terminally ill student who was denied exclusion from standardized testing, in spite of being barely able to breathe. Notably, the testimony received no follow up question by any Senator and only one follow up news report. In Correct the record in No Child Left Behind Hearing, Greg Skilling adds detail to the story. The teacher and school assistant principal filed papers and appeals without success; and finally, in spite of the lack of exclusion and instructions to begin testing, the school determined they would not test the child. Five months after the first submission of paperwork, the exemption was granted and a few months later, the child died. This event took place in 2007 and Skilling reports that the "Kentucky Department of Education is still investigating this case and has not reported any findings prior to the publication of this article."

Parent witnesses were not included at the ESEA Hearings in spite of mounting evidence of parent concerns over the effects of test-centric, compliance-driven accountability, and loss of parental rights. There are more of these stories that go unreported, underreported, and unexplored.

Ed Week follows up on S.C. parent

Ed Week followed up on parent Gretchen Herrera. What I found interesting was this comment at the end of the article:

This is a classic instance of retaliation under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the ADA. I hope the parent pursues an OCR complaint and other remedies. She and others needing help with lawless school districts might want to join the Council of Parents, Advocates, and Attorneys (COPAA) at www.copaa.org and participate in the listserve, for lots of helpful free advice and support.

The South Carolina parents have filed Office of Civil Rights complaints and the investigation is ongoing.

Grumpy Educators reported that the student has now enrolled in a public middle school and his complex medical condition and recommendations of the medical team apparently will be honored.

UPDATE: A comment added to the Ed Week follow up article is worth reading.
"Thanks for the followup on this story. I am concerned that any virtual school does not recognize medical advice as official. I thought virtual schools were often chosen by families because of medical conditions a child might have that would make attending a regular school difficult. This situation seems to have flown in the face of what was best for this student. After reading your original article, I contacted this school via facebook and was advised that to eliminate the possibility of a medically fragile student having to endure any state mandated tests, it would be best to enroll said child in the private virtual school also run by this company.

SC parent finds help in local school district

After a protracted battle with the South Carolina Virtual Charter School, a K12 franchise, over standardized testing, parent Gretchen Herrera has enrolled her son in a public middle school. Mrs. Herrera reports that her first experiences with school staff have been positive, they appear knowledgeable, and willing to accommodate her son's complex medical condition as indicated by his medical team while addressing his educational needs.

Grumpy Educators wishes this family best wishes and good luck to Anthony. We look forward to hearing of his progress and success in middle school.

Commentary

No family should have to fight this long and this hard to ensure the health and well-being of their children in public school or publicly-funded charters. In this environment of charters springing up like mushrooms, the message to parents is: Buyer Beware.

Ed Week recently reported on this story.

South Carolina parent responds to charter school

On Friday, October 7, Education Week covered the complaint and concern of South Carolina parents of special needs student and high stakes assessments. Read here.

On Saturday, October 8, parent Gretchen Herrera received notification from the SCVS director that her son was expelled for her failure to give permission to her son to take assessments. She also protested the rules and regulations on the SC State House steps that day.

Yesterday, Mrs. Herrera replied to the charter school director.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
My reply to the director's letter about Anthony's expulsion.

Ms. Reid,

I received a letter from you stating that my son is withdrawn from your school effective 10/10 because I refused to let him take the PASS test.

My son is a 12 year old little boy with Aspergers and a brittle diabetic. I presented Cherry Daniels and Donna Strom with a letter from his diabetes team stating my son should NOT take the test. It stated clearly that he would have a dramatic reaction in his health, but still he took the first part.

My son's blood sugar spiked over 200 points in 30 minutes!

I had sent ANOTHER letter in as well to his homeroom teacher stating that not only did his blood sugar go up, but while there was all of this turmoil, after I refused to let him get ill AGAIN by finishing the PASS tests, his overall blood sugar (A1C) was dangerously high! All of the stress he went through over will he or won't he be allowed to come back because he didn't return to a situation that made him physically and dangerously ill caused his A1C to reach 9.0 from a 7.0! That is documented.

Your school ignored the letter from his endocrinology team and subsequently caused him to be in a very harmful situation with his health.

Your letter states that you have to follow the SAME rules and regulations of the brick and mortar schools of this state. I have spoken to the SC DoE and was told my son can go in, sign in and leave. That would fulfill his participation. I have also spoken to my child's special needs director for Palmetto Pediatric and was told children with my son's illness and disabilities have been opted out before.

You had the appropriate documentation. Your school had a letter in hand stating clearly NOT for Anthony to take the PASS test. There was no doubt about what it was saying.

Yet, because he has a disability that exacerbates an already tricky condition, you've removed him from your school.

From where I sit Ms. Reid, your school is valuing it's testing prowess higher than a child's health.

Now surely, that can't be. Can it?

You were correct in your closing line. SCVCS didn't meet my son's needs. I trusted your school would WANT to keep my child safe. I see I was wrong.

Sincerely,

Gretchen Herrera

South Carolina parents get a national spotlight

Grumpy Educators has been following the experiences of South Carolina parents who sought waivers from high stakes assessment for their students with complex medical conditions. If there is a poster child for compliance-driven testing that fails to protect the health and well-being of children, second guesses medical input, and hinders parent rights and involvement, then South Carolina takes the prize.

At long last, this important story has garnered some national attention. In "Testing, No Testing, Too Much Testing," Nirvi Shah, Education Week's On Special Education journalist, writes about South Carolina parents and reports on California trends to increase the number of tests all students must take, including those with special needs. Citing the California Bee, Ed Week notes the following:

"Repeated failure on the regular test was beating down many special education students, Sacramento City Unified district spokesman Gabe Ross told the Bee."

"Is it more accurate to give students who have special needs a test that we know they will not be proficient in?" he asked. "How does that give you an accurate picture of student learning?"

South Carolina parents protest punitive high stakes assessment on South Carolina State House steps, Saturday, October 8, at 10 AM.

South Carolina parents to protest high stakes assessment

UPDATE: Protest date changed to Saturday, October 8, 2011 at 10 AM.

Grumpy Educators has ongoing reporting on the experience of South Carolina parents regarding opting out of mandated testing for their children with complicated medical issues. Their experiences are not unique to South Carolina, but repeated in many states across the country. The requirements under NCLB mandate that schools implement testing. The U.S. Congress did not vote that every student was required to take a test. In South Carolina, there are no laws that require students to take the tests and no laws that allow waivers from taking tests. South Carolina does not seem to have regulations or oversight on charter schools operating in their state either. Nevertheless, parents who requested their children be excused from testing have been harrassed, threatened, and medical advise affecting their children has been ignored.

What is it that South Carolina is enforcing?

Parents plan to protest on the front steps of the South Carolina State House on October 3 at 10:00 AM to make it clear to South Carolina legislators that the system of high stakes assessment impinges their parental rights, puts the health of their children at risk, and turns schools into test prep and testing centers instead of environments for learning for all students.

A letter from a 12 year old---

Sandra's on vacation-- she deserves it, she's spent more hours over the last eight months reporting on the educational idiocy being proposed than most people spend working at a job they get paid for in a year. Fortunately for her readers Fishygal will filling in most of the time, but from time to time over the next couple weeks, you'll be stuck with me..

Recently Sandra's been focusing on a couple children being forced to take standardized tests under the NCLB law and state regulations designed to enforce the law. The two children have complicated medical issues and were forced to take the tests, by the bureaucracy, in total disregard of medical opinion.

I have my own (legal) ideas about how to deal bureaucrats who'd intentionally harm a child to enforce poorly thought out regulation. I also have an opinion of NCLB and the proposed Obama/Gates/Bush Education Reform insanity...;best left for another time..

Getting back to where I belong....
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The 12 year old at the center of one South Carolina family's objection to mandated standardized testing speaks for himself and thanks all those who are supporting the efforts on his behalf and that of his family.

First of all I thank you for all you have done for me. The PASS test was horrible. They forced me to do the test and my blood went to 344. I never ate anything either so it was not my fault. I'm so grateful you are helping me out. I really am happy that something is being done. I have been hit by kids, made fun of, and embarrassed. My diabetes bag was called a purse, and once a kid took off his shoe and threw it at my head. Before I was taking a medicine that made me sleepy, so what happened? My teacher jerked me up by my arm and I had to stand in a corner, she then gave a kid that hates me a squirt gun. If I fell asleep I would be shot with it. I cried myself to sleep standing up. All my school life has been a living nightmare that was made for me. My mom put me in SCVCS so I'd be safe. I wasn't even safe there. This test is wrong for everyone not even LIKE me! No one should take this test! Why do they so called "need you to take it"? What is this for? Nothing! Zero! Again, thank you so much! Thank you God for everyone who is supporting me. Thank you again.

Anthony Herrera

GRUMPYELDER COMMENTS:

In defense of the other kids-- that's what kids do, right or wrong it's instinctive for them to pick on another kid they perceive to be different..It's the parents,teachers, police officers or other reasonably responsible adults job to intervene, and stop it.

 WTF did this teacher do? She handed another kid a squirt gun and told him to use it on a child that already has difficulty coping. Add that teacher to the list of bureaucrats I mentioned above. This sort of abuse needs to be stopped now. NCLB started it, it was screwed up and complicated at the State House Level and at the local level, they can really muck things up; you just read the letter.

Get the Federal government out of it, traditionally and Constitutionally, Education is a local issue. Tell your Congressional representative to keep DC out of it.

Tell your Rep to forget about reaffirming No Child Left Behind.. and not to even think about the Administration's Reform Schemes.

Tell your legislature to inform Washington they can shove the bribe money and the crap that comes attached to it.. On a local level, odds are you can get the local School Board Member's email addresses in a matter of minutes.

If you're a blogger, you know what to do; Anthony's Mom needs the help.

For more information look here and here.

Bringing Parent Opposition and Resistance Out of the Shadows

In March 2011, the stories of parents attempting to opt out of state high stakes standardized tests began to spread. Parents in Colorado, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina, made the news, with the Pennsylvania story covered by CNN and Fox.
These news stories sparked a wave of renewed interest by frustrated parents across the nation. While there are a number of groups providing support to parents in many states, online and on Facebook, Parents and Kids Against Standardized Testing caught my attention. Parents from around the nation began posting questions, sharing experiences, and collected in the Discussion tab. Some from public education joined posting information as they had available.

This month I looked back at those stories and several things are apparent. Notably, individual schools, school districts, state-level staff, all the way to the U.S. Department of Education provide conflicting information. A familiar refrain at the local level is that opting out is not possible since high stakes standardized tests are mandated under No Child Left Behind.

Parents want the facts and the fact is there is nothing in the federal legislation that requires students to take the test or remove parental right to not permit their child be tested. The federal legislation, however, requires that schools give the tests. Failure to give the tests in sufficient quantity and failure to meet legislated improvement levels may bring sanctions on the schools.

Individual states have established rules and regulations, some specifically address opting out and others do not mention it. Some deny opting out under all conditions, including medical doctor recommendations for students with complicated health conditions. Other states will consider unique situations and hardships, such as a medical condition, or if testing is against a religious belief, but nothing else. Then, there are states that do provide parents an option to Opt Out requiring nothing more than a simple letter to the principal.

Opting out by keeping the child at home would seem a simple solution; however, the consequences for parent and child must be considered. Since testing takes up to 10 days in some locations, absences of that length can exceed attendance rules and a child may be required to repeat the entire year. A parent in Texas reports that in their school district there are punishments.

"..if we take them out without a doctor's note for more than 3 days, we will be fined $500 per child, taken to court, and a truancy officer will visit us."

Parents with students in charter schools report that opting out of tests may lead to the school denying re-enrolling the next school year.

Parents collectively, irrespective of political party, ideology, and any other affiliation want an end to:

• Classrooms converted to test prep centers.


• High stakes assessment.


• Plans for the increased quantity of federally mandated high stakes standardized testing under Race to the Top initiatives.


• Misinformation and confusion over parent rights to opt out of high stakes standardized testing.

Parents are not saying they are uninterested in their student’s progress or opposed to accountability measures that reflect progress in their communities and across the nation. They are not saying that sub-group comparison is not important. What they are saying loud and clear is that they reject the way standardized testing has taken over the school environment and have a parental right to say no.

All eyes on South Carolina parents who are challenging the mandated high stakes standardized testing. Parent Gretchen Herrera intends to take her case to the South Carolina capital on October 3, 2011. Her story is found here.


A resource for information about your state and a place to share your personal experiences and knowledge is Opt Out of Standardized Tests.

South Carolina Parents Challenge Standardized Testing

In a U.S. Supreme Court determination, Troxel v. Granville, the justices relied on the 14th Amendment:

(a) The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause has a substantive component that “provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests,” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720, including parents’ fundamental right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children, see, e.g., Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651. Pp. 5—8.

South Carolina appears to have ignored this fact with regard to two cases where parents requested their children not participate in standardized testing.

Gretchen Herrera's son has a complicated medical condition, which is exacerbated by testing regimes. His medical team recommended he not be tested as it puts his health at risk. The request was denied, Mrs. Herrera allowed testing, and after the first day of testing, his health was negatively impacted. If a parent had neglected the health and well-being of their child, they'd find themselves in court with the government stepping in to protect the child. In this case, the government is endangering the child and ignoring the parent. Grumpy Educators reported her situation here. She has taken her request all the way to Washington D.C., and her battle continues this year.

Sharon Johnson's son has a complicated medical condition, and was treated in "an outpatient day treatment to stabilize children with severe emotional and/or behavioral problems. Among other criteria, admitted children must have demonstrated behavior serious enough to jeopardize the safety of others." Upon completion of treatment, he enrolled in public school and slated for standardized testing. In spite of a written medical recommendation that "he was mentally unable to be tested", South Carolina insists if a child can attend school, the child can be tested.

Ms. Johnson believes it is discriminatory to "require mentally unable students to take the exam when physically unable students are exempt, and she's filed a federal Office of Civil Rights complaint to that end." Her case is in process. Read more here.

District officials said this was not a question of fairness to disabled students, but rather following state and federal laws. The school district attorney put it this way:

"It's about measuring the school and district performance," Emerson said. "That's the way the standards are applied."

In the 1925 U.S. Supreme Court decision Pierce v. Society of Sisters, the finding included:

The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right and the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.

Is the State endangering the health and well-being of these students by ignoring medical recommendations?