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/

Florida Republican Primary Debate: Will there be a question on education reform?

On Monday, January 23, Brian Williams will be in charge of the MSNBC Florida Republican Primary debate from Tampa, Florida. So far, there has been zero questions on what the candidates positions are when it comes to education reform initiatives. Will that pattern of silence change?

What is it that parents, community members, and taxpayers would like to know?

Here is a Grumpy Educators short list:

1) What is your position on the development of the student longitudinal database from birth to the first year of college, the sharing of some data without parent consent, and privacy and security concerns?

2) There is broad consensus on the need for accountability; however, there is also broad consensus that classrooms have been converted into centers of test preparation rather than centers of learning. What is your view of the federal role in education?

3) There is a widespread grassroots parent movement to opt-Out of testing. Do you support the parent right to opt out?

4) Some say the billions spent on testing and the database is required to evaluate teachers. How does the expense match the need to conduct employee evaluations?

5) What is your position on the federal role in the development of national standardized testing spending and the financial impact on states and communities?

6) What is your view of the role of locally elected school boards in decision-making?

7) Charter schools in Florida have a mixed record of success, on financial and academic success. What is your position on the expansion of charter schools?

What question do you want to hear asked?

Florida: Parent, community member, and tax payer opposition strengthens

Florida legislators introduced a Parent Trigger bill, calling it the Parent Empowerment Act. Under the bill, parents and teachers could vote to turn a public school into a charter school if 51% agree and the local elected school board has no say in the matter. However, in a combined statement, these Florida parent groups have come out publicly opposing the legislation:

• Florida PTA
• Fund Education Now
• Citizens for Strong Schools
• 50th No More
• Marions United for Public Education
• Save Duval Schools
• Support Dade Schools

The Tampa Gradebook reports Parents Across America - Florida opposes the bill.

Bill sponsors Rep. Michael Bileca, a Miami Republican and Senate deputy majority leader Lizbeth Benacquisto of Fort Myers did not comment on the opposing parent views.

Parent trigger advocates fail to acknowledge the lack of accountability at the federal and state for over ten years of failed education policy that developed both the US DOE and Florida DOE into overblown bureaucracies. Parent triggers merely change the deck chairs; but do not address the underlying expensive, expanding, and experimental unfunded and unfundable mandates driving U.S. education into the ground.

One central issue is the obsession with high stakes assessment, which has turned classrooms into testing centers instead of environments of learning. Florida is one of the recipients of Race to the Top funding and participating in the development of national assessments based on the common core curriculum. This initiative will increase the assessments students will take during the school year. In response, a petition is circulating to empower parents to opt-out of the FCAT.

The data required for the high stakes assessments and complex accountability systems rely on the student longitudinal database. New regulatory changes allows some student data to be shared with research organizations and governmental agencies without parent consent. Security and privacy concerns go unaddressed.

Florida is the next stop for the Republican primary candidates. So far, these important education matters have gone ignored at federal and state levels. Will that change? If not, Republicans are on notice with yet another petition.

Here's a petition you can sign and know exactly what you're signing: "Stop the Dept. of Education's Power Grab." The petition faults the media for never asking about education in the GOP debates; it faults the GOP for manipulating the candidates in such a way that the strongest candidate is the one who says nothing about education, and for pretending to be the opposition party when it accepts education reforms with open arms.

What do we want the winning GOP candidate to say? A few things:

1. Acknowledge that American public education is going bankrupt. We believe this fact is as important as the Afghan war or gay marriage. A civilization that ignores its young will not have a long life span.

2. Point out and oppose the great rip-offs of local control inherent in Obama's "Race to the Top" and "Common Core Standards": the dissemination of your family's personal information from the Dept. of Education to the federal government at large, a payout to publishing and testing corporations totaling $30 billion nationwide which the states will have to pay (who knows how?). The schools get nothing but the shiny new standards, laid off teachers, and, for the first time, control of curriculum from Washington.

To learn more, please go to the petition, scroll down to the bio of the petition author and the automatic signer. If you agree with our petition, sign it and send it to people and sites you think would agree. Thank you!

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,

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.

NUT Report: Portland Maine parents to opt-out

Bangor Daily News reports parent requests to opt-out of high stakes standardized testing. Maine education officials say that every year a small group of parents request opting out of mandated high stakes assessment, but find no increased trend district-wide. Officials recognize parent concern regarding the amount of time test prep and testing is taking out of instructional time and note more conversation among parents on how to opt-out.

"Maine Department of Education spokesman David Connerty-Marin also noted the danger too many opt-outs present for schools in terms of complying with federal laws, but said school officials cannot compel parents to put their kids in the testing rooms."

“Every year we get a small number of folks who decide to [opt out], and we move on,” he said. “We can’t force students to take standardized tests. There’s no real ‘opt out’ provision in the law, but there’s also nothing that forces students to take the tests. Just like if there’s a parent that doesn’t want their child dissecting a frog in science class, we can’t force them to, or if there’s a parent that doesn’t want their child going on a particular field trip, we can’t force them to.”

Robert Schaeffer, public education director for the National Center for Fair and Open Testing, sees a national trend developing this year as more parents realize that there will be no testing relief through the reauthorization of NCLB and as parents "learn their rights and go public with their complaints."

“There has been, just this year, a resurgence in interest in opting out of tests,” he said. “Earlier this decade, we saw small movements [in certain places], but this year, as frustration has grown with the damage that NCLB and state testing requirements have done, more and more parents have looked into opting out, and more have taken advantage of it.”

On Saturday, October 8 at 10AM, South Carolina parents will protest punitive high stakes assessment on the S.C. State House steps. Unlike Maine, South Carolina education officials second-guess medical input to force testing in spite of parent request to opt-out for their students with complex medical conditions. Instead of helping, South Carolina's policies protect the testing and not the students.

Some resources for opting out information:
http://www.fairtest.org/
http://unitedoptout.com/
http://optoutofstandardizedtests.wikispaces.com/

Some resources on Facebook:
Parents and Kids Against Standardized Testing
OPT-OUT of the State Test: A National Movement
Uniting4Kids
Testing is Not Teaching! PBC citizens united to make a difference.
Parents Across America

The State Op-Ed: South Carolina parent asks why students cannot opt out of high stakes assessment

In a September 7, 2011 Op-ed published in South Carolina's newspaper, The State, parent Sarah Johnson asked why the carefully organized individual education plan (IEP) for special education students is pushed aside and "a seventh-grader who is reading on a first-grade level due to a low IQ will be tested on the seventh-grade level. That means he is being tested on material he has not been taught and on levels he cannot comprehend. This is not only unfair and cruel, but completely useless to the teacher and student."

Johnson says that South Carolina "spends millions of dollars on these tests, when we could instead just let our teachers use work samples, or a running record of achievement, or countless other methods to show a student’s progress. We need to eliminate the state standardized tests and use the money where it is actually needed: in the classroom. The less time spent on preparing for and administering The Test, the more time there is for valuable teaching and learning."

She was informed that the school district does not have the authority to excuse students from testing; but last year her son, a special-needs student was allowed to sit out based on her parental refusal.

Read the entire Op-Ed here.

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.

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?