The Garfield Stand and the Common Core: Will They Both Come to a School Near You?

-->

 The “Garfield Stand” may eventually come to a school near you following the roll out of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and related assessment implementation across the country.  What is the Garfield Stand?  It is what the teachers at Seattle’s Garfield High School are doing---they are taking a stand on important issues related to student assessment.  You can read about it in the letter from teachers at Garfield High School and at additional links provided below.  Teachers at another school, Ballard High School, are not just in sympathy with their Garfield colleagues; they are taking the same stand.

This may be the start of our seeing the hundredth monkey phenomenon related to the CCSS and other education reform issues. Individual teachers may not be comfortable or may even be fearful of speaking out on these issues but when they realize other colleagues have similar views and concerns, collectively they may take a stand as we see at Garfield. 

Is the Garfield Stand a preview of what we may see across the country in the not to distant future as teachers have first hand classroom experience implementing top down education reform mandates?

I encourage you to read the letter from the Garfield teachers.  The Ballard teachers wrote a letter supporting their Garfield colleagues.  That letter is copied below.  In a few years how many of the statements below will have a ring of truth if MAP is replaced with SBAC or PARCC assessments?

 25 teachers at nearby Ballard High School signed a letter against continuing to use the MAP test, and in support of our Garfield colleagues

  Whereas          

·       The MAP test is a resource expensive and cash expensive program in a district with very finite financial resources,

·       The MAP test is not used in practice to inform student instruction,

·       The MAP test is not connected to our curricula,

·       The MAP test has been repurposed by district administration to form part of a teacher’s evaluation, which is contrary to the purposes it was designed for, as stated by its purveyor, making it part of junk science,

·       The MAP test has also been repurposed for student placement in courses and programs, for which it was not designed,

·       The MAP test was purchased under corrupt crony-ist circumstances (Our former superintendent, while employed by SPS sat on the corporation board of NWEA, the purveyor of the MAP test. This was undisclosed to her employer. The initial MAP test was purchased in a no-bid, non-competitive process)

·       The MAP test was and remains unwanted and unneeded and unsolicited by SPS professional classroom educators, those who work directly with students,

·       The MAP test is not taken seriously by students, (They don’t need the results for graduation, for applications, for course credit, or any other purpose, so they routinely blow it off.)

·       The MAP test’s reported testing errors are greater than students’ expected growth,

·       The technology administration of the MAP test has serious flaws district wide which waste students’ time,

therefore
                        We, the undersigned educators from Ballard High School do hereby support statements and actions of our colleagues at Garfield High School surrounding the MAP test. Specifically, the MAP test program throughout Seattle Public Schools ought to be shut down immediately. It has been and continues to be an embarrassing mistake. Continuing it even another day, let alone another month or year or decade, will not turn this sow’s ear into a silk purse.

I salute the teachers at Garfield and Ballard for taking a stand.  I feel it is unfortunate teachers feel the need to take such a stand.  Should they, and other teachers across the country, be making more of the decisions that will directly effect their instructional practices and their students’ education or should those decisions continue to be made by remote educrats and others at district offices, state departments of education, business and corporate offices, wealthy foundations, and Washington, D.C.?

Seattle Ballard High School teachers have followed suit: No MAP test!

http://seattleducation2010.wordpress.com/2013/01/11/seattle-ballard-high-school-teachers-have-followed-suit-no-map-test/

The letter from the teachers at Garfield High School regarding the MAP test

http://seattleducation2010.wordpress.com/2013/01/11/the-letter-from-the-teachers-at-garfield-high-school-regarding-the-map-test/

Letter of support for Garfield High School teachers from Diane Ravitch

http://seattleducation2010.wordpress.com/2013/01/11/letter-of-support-for-garfield-high-school-teachers-from-diane-ravitch/

Garfield High School teachers say “NO!” to high stakes testing

http://seattleducation2010.wordpress.com/2013/01/11/garfield-high-school-teachers-say-no-to-high-stakes-testing/

Standardized test backlash: Some Seattle teachers just say 'no'

http://news.yahoo.com/standardized-test-backlash-seattle-teachers-just-no-230447459.html

Garfield High teachers won't give required test they call flawed

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020106684_notest11m.html?syndication=rss

Garfield High teachers refuse to give standardized test

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Garfield-High-teachers-refuse-to-give-MAP-test-186403421.html

Garfield High teachers refuse to administer District-mandated reading and math test

http://capitolhillseattle.com/2013/01/11/garfield-high-teachers-refuse-to-administer-district-mandated-map-test

Garfield High School teachers boycott MAP assessment test

http://www.king5.com/news/education/Garfield-High-School-teachers-boycott-MAP-test-186401601.html

This article was originally published January 12, 2013 on The Underground Parent at http://undergroundparent.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-garfield-stand-and-common-core-will.html and is republished here with permission from the author.

Florida Accountability Concerns Increase

In spite of Florida Commissioner of Education Gerard Robinson whirl-wind talking tour of Florida on the heels of the FCAT fiasco, parents, community members, and taxpayers remain unconvinced of the validity of Florida's assessment initiative.

Ocala.com editorial page editor Brad Rogers commented on the FCAT Writing fiasco saying: "Too many people on the front lines — principals, teachers and parents — have far too many criticisms of FCAT for Robinson, Gov. Rick Scott and our lawmakers to continue playing the hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil game."

Rogers points out the public wants accountability, but not expensive, experimentation. After all, who exactly is footing the bill?

Call me a skeptic, but nothing is likely to change. First of all, most of Robinson’s comments about FCAT concerns have largely been in defense of the high-stakes test. Second, while Robinson and his masters in the governor’s mansion and the Legislature keep raising the bar — which, I believe, most Floridians agree is prudent — they are doing nothing to help local school districts meet the challenge. For example, when the Tallahassee crowd mandated all testing be done on computers, schools received no help to buy enough computers to get the job done, despite millions in new costs.

The more state level officials try to explain, the less confidence the public has that the testing has any value. Reusing a worn out largely indefensible narrative, Robinson repeats that high stakes testing has been good for Florida and without it we would be turning back the clock on the meteoric progress made. He warns that test scores will continue to be low as the state transitions to the national assessments based on the Common Core standards; but ignores basic questions on current implementation.

Currently, four Florida School Boards (Martin, St. Lucie, Palm Beach, and Broward) have voted a resolution that rejects the FCAT as the sole means for grading Florida schools saying it is an "and inadequate and unreliable measure of student learning," and rejects the over emphasis on standardized testing. Reports indicate that the Orange County School Board is going to review the resolution.

The Florida School Board Association will convene a meeting with representation by all 67-school boards and an emergency item has been placed on the agenda to discuss encouraging the State Board of Education "to revamp its testing and accountability methods, and add more variety to the way student progress is measured."

More reporting found here.

APP Press Release: ALEC Board Delays Vote on Common Core

Washington, DC – Today, the board of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), after considering anti-Common Core legislation introduced by the American Principles Project (APP), Goldwater Institute and the Washington Policy Center last summer, delayed a decision on whether to endorse the legislation until their next meeting.

“ALEC’s delay in endorsing the resolution is troubling and plays into the strategy of the multi-billion dollar private entities that are pushing the Common Core,” said APP’s Emmett McGroarty. ”This issue has been before ALEC for almost a year. The resolution was approved by the ALEC Education Task Force overwhelmingly last December, and ALEC has discussed it at three of its national meetings. The well-financed private entities and the federal government are moving forward with their implementation of the Common Core, and Americans have been cut out of the process.”

Dr. Tony Bennett, the Indiana Superintendent of Public Instruction, presented the pro-Common Core case to the board of ALEC. Dr. Bennett is also on the Board of Directors of the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), one of the two trade associations managing the Common Core Standards (along with the National Governors Association). Additionally, he is the Chairman of Chiefs for Change, an initiative of Jeb Bush's Foundation for Excellence in Education. The Foundation for Excellence in Education and CCSSO have received $1,000,000 and $70,000,000, respectively, from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the primary force financing and pushing the Common Core.

Robert Scott, Texas Commissioner of Education, presented the case for the resolution to the board, which then deliberated behind closed doors. State Rep. Dave Frizzell of Indiana, ALEC’s National Chairman, reported that the board found that there was much to like about the legislation but decided to send it back to the Education Task Force due to concerns about some of the language. He stated that the board would forward the details of those concerns to the task force.

This week, APP and Pioneer Institute released a white paper that makes the case against state adoption of the national Common Core State Standards. Co-sponsored by Pacific Research Institute and the Washington Policy Center, Controlling Education From the Top: Why Common Core Is Bad for America argues in favor of a Common Core withdrawal resolution.

The white paper can be seen here:
http://americanprinciplesproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Controlling-Education-From-the-Top.pdf

The Resolution can be seen here:
http://americanprinciplesproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Comprehensive-Legislative-Package-Opposing-the-Common-Core-State.pdf

The American Principles Project is a 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to preserving and propagating the fundamental principles on which our country was founded - universal principles, embracing the notion that we are all, "created equal, endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
For more information, please contact Jameson Cunningham with Shirley & Banister Public Affairs atjcunningham@sbpublicaffairs.com or (703) 739-5920.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: On May 2, reports of families of 400 students opted their children out of standardized tests.
In Texas, over 400 school boards have signed a Resolution opposing high stakes assessment.
In Florida, two school boards have signed a National Resolution opposing high stakes assessment.

Indiana: Parent Opts Out and Indiana DOE Overreacts

Recently, Grumpy Educators reported on a New York parent who opted her student out of student testing. The response from the school was disheartening. Now, a parent in Indiana reports a similar experience in asserting her parental rights to opt out her son from standardized testing. In both cases, the parents were mistreated, harassed, and in New York, threatened, their students had an IEP, and the state-level officials demanded compliance to non-existing regulations. Are these appropriate responses by State-level education department staffers? Schools are ordered to comply and school officials then order the parents and students to comply without any enforceable legal requirement. The schools must give the tests, but the students are not compelled to take them and parental rights have not been overridden. When the state is asked for relevant regulations, the compliance begins to fall apart.

Read the Indiana parent's story from beginning to end.

Part 1: The Parent Requests No Testing

"I went to school with [child's name] today, Thursday, May 5th, to make sure the school did not make [child's name] take the ISTEP (he was at home on Tuesday and Wednesday this week). I was pulled out by an administrator about thirty minutes into the day with [child's name] and asked to speak with him. He brought me to his office and explained how they have to follow what the DOE requires. If a child comes to school during ISTEP they must take the exams, and today they are doing makeup exams for ISTEP. Therefore if I don’t allow him to take the ISTEP he will have to stay home until the testing window is closed (meaning the next 4 days of school he would have to stay home until May 9th). The administrator then directed me to talk with Dr. Walker at the DOE about my desire to opt [child's name] out of ISTEP and to hear what they mandate. She indicated I had no legal right to opt him out and that the state has the right to make a child take the test even if the parent/s object. She indicated if I decided to stay at school with my son that the school would have to call the legal authorizes to have us removed from school. I summarized for her the three options I thought I had:
1. Stay at school with my son and refuse the test,
2. Stay at home with my son,
3. Allow my son to take the test.

Obviously there are consequences with all three situations. The first option threatens me with physical removal from the school and undue stress on my son. The second option denies my son a right to an education. The third option denies my right as a mom to say no to the excessive testing that is going on in our schools, especially in third grade.

 I told my son’s administrator that I feel like my son and I are being run out of this school because of ISTEP. He nodded his head and agreed that is what the DOE is requiring. He didn’t agree with the mandate from the DOE but he also didn’t want to put his school at jeopardy of sanctions. He indicated that he believes there are other laws such as compulsory education laws that contradict what the DOE is saying but at this point he has to follow the DOE directions. He knew that there are 28 kids opting out at the Indianapolis Project School and the school principal has allowed this. However, he believes that situation will put that school at risk. 

We were asked to take the test at 10:30 or leave the school. I decided to leave but tried to get [child's name] back in school later in the day as he really wanted to go to his Passions class at 2:30. I was told by phone not to come back as the DOE has been notified of [child's name] departure from school and the staff has been notified that [child's name] should not be allowed back at school today. When I asked about [child's name] going to school tomorrow he said something to the affect, “Tensions are high. If you come to school it will probably be a very ugly situation”. 

I feel so upset about many of the elements of this situation. I honestly thought the school would leave an opt out child/parent alone if they came to school to ensure their son’s right to an education and denied the test for their child. I am shocked that the school is responding in this manner and that the Indiana DOE can assert their power over a school in this way."

Part 2: Indiana DOE finds another option.

"I wish to update you all on my situation.
I received an email this morning from the school principal indicating that I can bring [child's name] to school and they wanted to talk to me in person about a way for [child's name] to stay at school and not take ISTEP.
When I showed up both principals were present and they said that they regretted how the DOE spoke to me yesterday on the phone regarding my demand to opt out [child's name] from school. They said they asked the DOE to put in writing where the law states that [child's name] cannot be at school if he doesn’t take the ISTEP. In addition, they explained to the DOE that [child's name] is supposed to get special accommodations to take the test due to his IEP. The school believes this new knowledge caused the DOE to provide another option to the school.
They told me [child's name] could go to school again and not take the ISTEP but he would have to be given the opportunity to take the test under normal accommodations (in a separate room). All he has to do is say no to the test and they would let him go back to class and they would have to go through this procedure through the middle of next week. I agreed to talk to [child's name] about this option and make sure he understands the plan. After yesterday my son really understands what is going on and he is ready to say no to the test. In addition, it was a big deal to my son to be at school today and he was more than happy to say no to the test. I was given assurances that it would be done in a gentle matter.
As I walked out of the school building today, I felt emotion and some degree of victory. I feel that the school and the DOE had to show me as a parent where it says in the state law that [child's name] could not be at school. They obviously could not provide that information and realized they needed to back up from what they said to me yesterday.
I believe the school was trying to find a solution and felt that what they provided me was the best solution for now. I am grateful that they did follow up with the DOE from the unfortunate situation yesterday and asked the DOE to back up their statements regarding [child's name] right to attend school.
I would like to continue to provide pressure on the DOE to turn back their policies around threatening parents and threatening to force kids to take a test. However, I need time to think about how to use this situation to benefit the larger cause. The issues that need to be in the spotlight are:
1. The parents right to guide the well being of their child and how that supersedes the states right to force testing

2. Putting the child in a position to have to be the one to say no to the test.
Although I agreed to this and felt confident my son could handle this option, I also realize that young kids should not be put in this position. I don’t want this to be the fall back policy of the opt out movement.

3. The DOE has been caught overstepping their power in a number of ways recently. IREAD is one example. I believe we need to apply pressure on our legislators to make sure we put them back in their place.

4. More organizing at the local level around these issues is critical – I was alone in this situation. I hope to make more progress once I have time to recover from the intensity and stress of this situation

I hope that this story is helpful to other parents who run into this situation in the future. Let’s keep the pressure on the DOE."

New York: Bringing Parent Opposition and Resistance Out of the Shadows

From zero reporting on parent opposition to excessive testing, news stories published in mainstream press are popping up here and there - a good sign.
AP Buffalo covered parents opting out in that area:

"A small but growing number of local parents are deciding to have their children opt out of the state standardized tests in English and math."

The news report describes the reasons parents give for opting out:

• Too much stress on the children


• Exaggerated test-centric learning environments


• Narrowed curriculum and exclusion of development of critical thinking skills, hands-on learning, and other significant learning opportunities such as social studies and art


• Concerns over testing quality and outsourcing testing to Pearsons

Notably, in contrast to the recent school-based threat made to a Long Island parent to report opting out to Child Protective Services and proceeding with testing in spite of parent request otherwise, no such threats or punishments for making this decision were reported in this article. In fact, parents sent their students to school and the students simply left the sheet blank. The test is not scored.

In an ABC News article, Opting Out of Standardized Tests, also covering New York, a spokesman for the state indicated that opting out has ramifications for the schools and the districts. Poor scores mean the schools could close or staff changes made.
Oddly, no comment made on the benefits of testing for children, except confirming parent rights:

"There are no ramifications for parents or students who keep their children home from grades 3 through 8 tests."

Parents remain generally unaware of the rights; but as the awareness grows that opting out is possible for parents, expect this movement to grow.

2012: States Where Parents Oppose Excessive Standardized Testing

April 13, 2012 - 282 Texas school districts have now signed the resolution opposing high stakes assessment.
http://www.tasanet.org/adopted-board-resolutions

UPDATE March 29, 2012 - 219 Texas school districts have now signed the resolution opposing high stakes assessment.


UPDATE March 24, 2012 - School districts sign resolution opposing excessive high stakes assessment. So far 151 have signed, numbers increasing.
http://www.tasanet.org/adopted-board-resolutions

Texas in the news. Parent opposition to excessive testing and teaching to the test continues to grow, and they are not the only ones it seems.

The New York Times quotes Robert Scott, the commissioner of the Texas Education Agency on describing testing in Texas schools this way:

“perversion of its original intent”

The NY Times article is one of the few that brings national parent opposition out of the shadows. Texas parents are saying enough is enough finding opting out the only way to stop this "perversion."

Click on the map to see it larger.

Washington State: Parent Opposition Out of the Shadows

April 13, 2012 UDATE: CBS News Seattle coversthe Snoho,ish School District parents who opted out of expensive, excessive standardized testing. Ninety students opted out.

April 10, 2012 UPDATE: More Washington State parents opt out of standardized testing. A Washington State Senator has taken notice. The Snohomish School District islocated in Olympia, Washington. A school district spokesperson says this about the opt out movement:

"Parents always have the decision to opt their students out of these tests. We respect the decision these parents are making and we’ll see where that takes us.”

++++++++++++++++++++

The Seattle Times notes a "rebellion over standardized testing in the Seattle Hill neighborhood of southeast Everett echoes a larger uprising around the country."

Parents may opt out in Washington and have acted on this option over time, but not in the larger numbers seen now. This newspaper report may be one o f the first, if not the first, to acknowledge the mounting parent disgust over excessive testing. While bloggers have reported these events and a handful of education-oriented columns, mainstream reporting has ignored the uprisings.

The Texas Association of School Administrators reports Over 200 school districts in Texas have voted opposition to the testing "perversion."

How much longer will parent, community member, and taxpayer opposition to expensive, experimental, and excessive testing be kept in the shadows? Hopefully, this article is an indication of change.


http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/dannywestneat/2017902194_danny04.html
http://www.tasanet.org/capitol-watch/2012/03/29/nearly-200-school-districts-have-adopted-testing-resolution

South Carolina: Parent Opposition and Resistance on Ed Reform Initiatives

For Immediate Release
March 27, 2012

Contact Person: Sarah Johnson
Phone: (803) 920-4058, (843) 819-8933
Email: CVedu20@gmail.com

Local Parent/Teacher Advocacy Group Welcomes US Secretary of Education to Town

Charleston, SC – Charleston Area Community Voice for Education, an affiliate of Parents Across America, extends a welcome to US Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, who will be participating in a local round-table discussion on educational reform and touring James Simons Elementary School on Friday. The advocacy group is excited that local leaders and educators will be participating in the event.

Sarah Shad Johnson, a parent of children in Charleston County Schools and co-founder of Community Voice, says, “The timing of Secretary Duncan’s visit comes at a critical time when our state legislators are discussing whether or not to support the adversarial Common Core State Standards, as well as bills regarding school choice, charter school expansion, and tax credits for private schools; our State Superintendent of Education seems to be embracing a controversial stand on the teaching profession; and the focus here in Charleston County appears to be only on experimental, questionable, and expensive initiatives, as opposed to goals of increased learning opportunities.”

Peter Smyth, a retired educator and administrator, and also a co-founder of Community Voice, says, “After a career in education and research into educational reform, I have come to these conclusions: while South Carolina Superintendent Zais has applied for a waiver to No Child Left Behind, his proposals reflect those of Secretary Duncan and the current and previous administrations, policies which have not achieved their goals and have made raising test scores and graduation rates, rather than meaningful learning, the default goals of American education. These are policies that are not found in any other high performing countries. To paraphrase another leader, the Duncan/Zais reforms are not the solution to the problems; they are the problem. I believe that teachers’ and parents’ seats at the table have been replaced by philanthropists, corporations, highly paid consultants, and politically-driven think tanks. Most importantly, I do not believe the current reforms bode well for my granddaughter, about to enter public school in Charleston.”

Secretary Duncan’s visit also coincides with an organized national demonstration at the US Department of Education in Washington, D.C., opposing Duncan’s educational reforms. Currently, there is significant national concern over the direction of Secretary Duncan’s leadership. With thousands of parents, educators, state legislators, school districts, and superintendents across the country protesting U.S. Department of Education policies, Community Voice is concerned about the pressure Duncan has placed on South Carolina, including a verbal lashing of state leaders who have considered dumping the Common Core State Standards.

Community Voice supports:

• effective reforms, such as reduced class size


• experienced teachers


• increased time for teacher professional development and planning


• relevant content supporting critical thinking


• sufficient and equitable funding


• diversity in schools


• appropriate use of technology


• meaningful parent involvement

Community Voice opposes:

• privatization of public schools


• punitive high-stakes standardized testing


• school closings


• ignoring the influence of poverty

Community Voice is committed to moving education forward rather than maintaining the status quo policies of the last ten years. For more information about Community Voice, contact (843) 819-8933 or CVedu20@gmail.com. For more information on Parents Across America, please visit www.parentsacrossamerica.org .

Illinois Parents: "No good reasons for this excessive testing."

"Since I found out two years ago how much experimental testing was happening, I’ve opted him out of dozens of tests. He has skipped the CPS Learning First Benchmark Assessments, the Scantron Performance Series tests, and the pilot Common Core. CPS administered each of these standardized tests in several subjects, several times a year. But there are no good reasons for this excessive testing."

No good reasons indeed and no good reason for parents to get the runaround, be threatened, intimidated, punished, or misinformed, a disturbing and familiar trend nationwide as parents attempt to exercise their parental rights.

Chicago parent, Sharon Schmidt, chronicles how much effort it took to once again this year to exercise those rights and opt out her son of standardized testing. The Schmidt family has been exercising their rights in accordance to the law and provides the requisite information so that other parents have access to the facts. The lack of clear policy guidelines leads to unnecessary confusion. No parent should have to work so hard and write so many emails to clarify. This year, their son will not take the tests, but the school requires that he be kept at home on the testing days and be marked absent versus previous years when he stayed in school and did independent reading.

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.


Related articles:
In order to skip the ISAT, parents need to keep children at home during testing
Some family reasons for skipping the ISAT

National Parent Opposition and Resistance Continues to Grow

Let the testing begin! States have heightened attention on standardized testing as many states approach their scheduled testing dates.

Parents, community members, and taxpayers increase resistance and opposition:

Colorado parents are threatened with truancy if they decide to keep their students home on testing days. As of March 8, 2012, the news outlet was waiting for a school district response. Standing by on this development.

Illinois parent opts out yet again this year in a long drawn out process. Related article here. This is a very interesting story.


Indiana parent resistance mounts.

North Carolina parents, community members, and taxpayers find that "people stood up for the kind of education they believe in" and averted a repeat of 52 new standardized tests given last spring. The interim superintendent declared the 52-testing idea scrapped. (The previous superintendent who ordered the tests resigned at the end of the 2011 school year to work for Rupert Murdoch's new education company.) Related article here.

New York city parents call for boycotting standardized tests.

A national law suit affirming parent rights to opt out of standardized tests emerges.

How long will education reformers pretend legitimate concerns do not exist?

Bring parent opposition and resistance out of the shadows.

Florida Parent Trigger: Too many holes

Parents, community members, and taxpayers pushed back on the Florida "Parent Empowerment" bill and those efforts were successful. The bill died on the last day of the legislative session in a tie vote, 20 to 20. The Miami Herald reported last minute arm twisting by former Governor Jeb Bush to influence a change of position by one Senator to ensure its passage in case the bill came up for a re-vote in the final hours of the legislative session. That did not happen and the bill can be declared officially dead and buried for this year.

Much has been reported regarding the way the process of the bill unfolded including the testimony provided by non-Florida parents and residents and lobbying by non-Florida non-profits to the exclusion of Florida parent groups such as, the Florida PTA and Florida League of Women Voters. The pressure injected all the way to the end is an indicator of how much money was riding on its passage.

Analysis of the bill itself received less attention. The Thursday night Senate debate included discussion of over 20 amendments, which exposed the bill as something far other than a thoughtfully crafted piece of legislation. The amendments were intended to close serious gaps, but instead made clear the bill was more akin to a piece of Swiss cheese than a movement toward parent empowerment, local control, and fiscal responsibility.

On its merits, this bill is little more than changing the deck chairs. As long as classrooms are test-centric and standardized environments for test preparation instead of student-centered environments of learning, there is no real reform.

The Florida legislature has a penchant for "pass it now, fix it later" legislating.
Proponents of this bill used the familiar and worn-out education reformer narrative that answers valid questions with disdain and insults. Why not answer the question with facts? Opponents were characterized as "conspiracy theorists" and concerns dismissed and ignored.

Undoubtedly, the bill will return next year. However, Florida parents, community members, and taxpayers learned much this year; and as others with legitimate concerns about education reform initiatives nationally, becoming more visible and active in federal and state-level shaping of education. The push back is real and growing.

Related article: Parent Trigger: "Scholastic Snake Oil with Deliciously Deceptive Spin on Parent Involvement."

No Unnecessary Tests (NUT) Report: Parent Right to Opt Out Lawsuit Emerges

Big News!!! (March 2012)
The ACLU is interested in supporting any parents whose children received a penalty/threats for opting out of testing.
If you want to participate in the complaint please share the following:

• your story
• permission to join in on the ACLU complaint
• your return address
• a signature on a hard copy

Submit to: Nina Bishop, 3065 Windward Way, Colorado Springs, CO 80917
Questions: 719-233-1508

If you want your story published on The Innovative Educator blog, email lnielsen.professional@gmail.com

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.

Opt Out resources and information can be accessed here: http://optoutofstandardizedtests.wikispaces.com/

California: Bringing Parent Opposition and Resistance Out of the Shadows

San Diego parents oppose state mandated assessment and invoke parent rights. They publish their letter to the school and publish their letter.

February 16, 2012
Bill Kowba
Superintendent of Schools
San Diego Unified School District
4100 Normal Street, Room 2219
San Diego, CA 92103

Dear Mr. Kowba,

Please accept this letter as our request to excuse our daughter, Ruby, from participation in standardized achievement testing as is allowed in §60615 of the California Education Code. This request includes the state mandated assessments of the California Standardized Testing and Reporting assessment program (STAR/CAT 6), which will begin for our daughter in the 2012-2013 school year, as well as the San Diego Unified School District Benchmark Exam program.

We believe such testing to be unjust, counter-productive, and harmful to the education and development of our daughter; we do not see any intrinsic value in our six-year old spending time transcribing her answers from a test sheet to a Scantron. Timed, one-chance tests do not show regard to variables in context or circumstance affecting student performance on the days of testing. This is further underscored by the fact that, as a student of the Language Academy, our child is currently forced to take tests in English, a language she isn’t yet learning to read.

In addition, we do not wish to participate in mandated programs that coerce school districts into compliance with punishments that adversely affect the resources, standing, and operations of our locally controlled pubic schools. The state oversteps its bounds and does a disservice to the public when it ignores professionals in local schools, arbitrarily making educational decisions (funding, status, and otherwise) based solely upon these one-chance tests.

As parents, we resent being held hostage to tests—which cannot be cheap to administer—while simultaneously suffering absurd cuts to our school, cuts that continue to decimate our staff and much-needed resources.

We understand that it is an educator’s professional duty to assess the learning of each student in the classroom and we fully support our teachers, our principal and our staff. This request is not intended to restrict professional assessment (formative or summative) by the classroom teacher to which our child is assigned. On the contrary, we believe our talented teacher is our child’s benchmark, and that she has the skills and training to do what standardized tests cannot.

Best regards,.....

Colorado: Parents Oppose Excessive Testing

In their own voices, parents speak out against excessive testing and test-centric instructional environments, one by one.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sch_-7r3XPQ

Indiana: Bring parent opposition to excessive standardized testing out of the shadows

Yesterday, Grumpy Educators reported on Texas concerns of the testing "perversion."

Today, the highlight is on Indiana and parents who are organizing in opposition to testing.

Parent rights are at the heart of the issue. State Impact reported the story including Indiana Department of Education official Stephanie Sample response this way:

"parents do not have a legal right to opt their children out of testing. State law requires each student be tested, department officials say."

Really? From coast to coast, parents are fed up with classrooms converted into test prep centers instead of centers of learning. Indiana legislators have no answers to their participation in perpetuating this "perversion."

High Stakes Assessments: Quality and Validity Issues

Independent analysis of end-of-course test questions finds quality problems.




Related article:
FCAT hits national news: "They are defending a test with no validity."

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.

Washington State: Bringing Parent Opposition and Resistance Out of the Shadows

Grumpy Educators is committed to highlighting the growing numbers of parents, community members, and taxpayers who question the costs, validity, and impact of excessive standardized testing.

Below is a slightly edited version published letter sent by a parent to the Seattle Public Schools asserting parental rights over participation in standardized testing.
**********************************

To Whom It May Concern:
My name is _____. I am the father of two Seattle Public School students, XXXX and XXXXXX who are currently enrolled at _____.
It is my intention that this letter serve as notice to Seattle Public Schools (SPS) that I wish for my two children to not be assessed using the Measurement of Academic Progress (MAP) either during the next scheduled assessment or any future assessment, scheduled or unscheduled, that SPS imposes on its students.
While I am not theoretically opposed to the use of standardized assessments, I am opposed to the administration of the MAP by Seattle Public Schools for the following reasons.
The State of Washington mandates the annual assessment of elementary and middle school students through the Measurement of Student Progress (MSP). While some might disagree with me, I firmly believe that the MSP is a valid measurement of a child’s educational progress and that any additional assessments given above the classroom level are redundant and unneccessary.
The MAP is expensive to administer, not only because the subscription to the Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) is costly but also because of the extra staff that is needed for its administration. As SPS has difficulty meeting its budgetary obligations and has had to reduce or eliminate programming in order to keep its budget in-line, it seems illogical for the District to spend scarce resources on the MAP. This is especially true if one agrees with me that the MAP is unnecessary and redundant.
Administration of the MAP comes at the expense of valuable instructional time. When students are being assessed, they are not learning anything except how to take the MAP. For our students, time would be better spent in the classroom learning from their teachers.
The MAP also forces schools to set aside facilities such as the computer labs and libraries for extended periods of time in order for the test to be administered. These facilities are needed for other purposes with actual educational merit.
While NWEA has cautioned that the MAP should not be used to rate teacher effectiveness, that is exactly what Seattle Public Schools intends do with the MAP. Indeed, there is no research extant that supports the use of standardized tests as a means of judging whether a teacher is effective or not. Considering this, I find it unconscionable that SPS intends to use the MAP in this way. Not only will this irresponsible use of the MAP potentially ruin a teacher’s career it will also ruin our children’s education as teachers narrow the curriculum to fit the test in order to safeguard their livelihoods. There is ample evidence that this is already happening in other school districts throughout the country.
It is unbelievable that District officials are unaware of the mounting evidence against the use of standardized tests either as an assessment tool or as a method for ensuring the quality of teachers. I cannot help but conclude that there are other, insidious reasons why Seattle Public Schools continues to march down the path it has taken regarding the use of the MAP. It is shameful that the people entrusted with our children’s education would ignore their needs in order to pursue an agenda that has nothing educational as its goal.
I cannot compel Seattle Public Schools to abandon its use of the Measurement of Academic Progress. That power resides with the Superintendent and the School Board. Still, I can demand that my two children be exempted from taking part in this malicious farce. As stated above, it is my intention that this letter serve as notice to Seattle Public Schools that I am making such a demand.
Sincerely,

#OCCUPYEDUN17: Bring parent, community member, and taxpayer opposition out of the shadows

Public opposition to education reform initiatives is widespread although it receives little national news coverage. Legislators at all levels are unresponsive, uninterested, or part of the problem. The numbers of parents, non-educators, community members, and taxpayers who are becoming informed and organizing are increasing nationwide.

Weakening and undermining local control over education are outcomes of the education reform efforts. Local control is a cornerstone to our democracy and a constant in communities. There is broad agreement across ideologies on that fact.

In an effort to bring public opposition to education reform initiatives out of the shadows, below are some areas of consensus:

1. End the expensive, ineffective, and punitive high stakes assessment.
2. End classroom environments that have been converted into test prep and testing centers.
3. Use the savings from #1 and 2 to return interesting and valuable electives - drama, art, home economics, computer skills, physical education, and vocational education courses.
4. Use the savings from #1 and 2 to maintain manageable class sizes so that teachers are able to meet individual needs.
5. Stop sending large sums of dollars going to Pearson, McGraw-Hill and other companies for the purpose of implementing unfunded and unfundable compliance and data-driven mandates.
6. Use the savings in #5, to restore reasonable class size for core classes, vocational education, and electives.
7. Hold Pearson, McGraw-Hill, and these other companies accountable to the same degree as schools are being held accountable.
8. Apply greater transparency regarding deals and paid for "junkets" made with Pearson, McGraw-Hill and other companies jumping into the profitable education sector. Unsure on the "junkets"? Read about 10 state commissioners of education who traveled around the world on Pearson's tab, "When Free Trips Overlap With Commercial Purposes."
9.Ensure meaningful school-based accountability that meets the NUT principle (No Unnecessary Testing).
10. Use existing measures, such as NAEP, to give a snapshot of student achievement and to report on sub-group accountability.
11. Support local control via publicly elected School Board members and maintain a reasonable salary for those elected positions.
12. Ditch the preschool through college longitudinal database and maintain parent rights guaranteed under FERPA, requiring consent for sharing of student data.
13. Ensure parent rights to opt out of any and all assessments, punitive-free.
14. Leave it to local control to implement teacher evaluation systems that are not dependent on students taking high stakes assessment.
15. Support communities and families so that all students are fed, housed, and receive medical care versus supporting runaway testing initiatives.

Education Reform: Show me the money - still asking

More and more fact-based, smart, and talented parents, community members, and taxpayers are blogging on education reform initiatives, filling in a notable gap and spurring a better informed public on the current initiatives.

Grumpy Educators recommends Race to the Top is a Race Off a Cliff posted on the Seattle Education blog.

Education reformers like to use the words "disruptive innovation" to describe current initiatives. I see a lot of expensive disruption and little innovation.

Seattle Education details on the costly confusion and waste that Race to the Top is causing.