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?

Cato Institute Podcast: Neil McCluskey speaks on waivers and national standards

NUT Report: Parents, community members, and taxpayers

Who benefits from Race to the Top initiatives including expanded standardized testing? A lot has been written about publishers. Here's what McGraw-Hill says in the lower right-hand corner of the document:

How McGraw-Hill May Benefit:
New assessment and instructional materials: The Common Core movement has favorable implications for new assessment and instructional materials. There is an expectation that there will be more new purchasing as states adopt materials that incorporate the new standards

Less need for customization: As states adopt the new Common Core Standards, the demand for customized material may also be reduced, which could translate into cost savings in content development

Who else benefits?




A recent report on performance on the ACT test adds to the continuing evidence that the testing mandates have not provided a return on investment. Florida Commissioner of Education Gerard Robinson says this:

"Our current education reform strategies are aligned with this exact goal and I am confident that through the continued hard work of our educators and school leaders we will see significant progress in this area in the years ahead," he said in a statement."

Sound familiar? Parents, community members, and taxpayers have given up on unresponsive, unaccountable, and unrealistic policymakers and legislators, and have formed a group - OPT OUT OF THE STATE TEST: A NATIONAL MOVEMENT in an effort to reign in failed and entrenched standardized testing initiatives that have converted schools into test prep centers and not environments of learning. Will this group be successful in its mission? Check it out on Facebook.

NUT = No Unnecessary Testing

Secretary Duncan to Hold #AskArne Twitter Town Hall

The Department of Education announced today that Secretary Arne Duncan will participate in the first-ever #AskArne Twitter Town Hall on August 24, 2011 at 1:30 p.m. EDT. Veteran education journalist John Merrow will moderate the town hall that will also be broadcast live on ED’s ustream channel.

Beginning today, Twitter users can submit questions to the Secretary using the hashtag #AskArne.

Read more here.

It's not going to be quite so easy to ask meaningful questions with Twitter character limitations, but I've got a few:
1) How much is the total cost down to the local level to implement the new generation of assessments?
2) Where is the money going to come from to fund this initiative?
3) Will sub-group comparisons still be required?
4) Why is it necessary to implement excessive standardized testing?
5) What recommendations do you have to confront the high turnover of teachers at charter schools?
6) What is the rationale for a database from birth to first year of college?
7) Given the rash of security breaches and hacking into secure sites, why should any parent or community have confidence FERPA Privacy protections will be maintained?
8) Why should parents be excluded from any access to their student's information?

Then, I might Twitter: "I am a NUT. No Unnecessary Testing."

What questions will you pose?

Are charter schools sweat shops?

A recent Stanford University study reveals that charter school teachers have a higher turnover rate than traditional public school teachers. Elementary teacher turnover is 33% higher than turnover at public schools and close to four times higher at the secondary level. The report indicates that younger unmarried teachers without children who work at charter schools are "better able to handle the intense teaching demands more than those with family responsibilities." Do charter schools pay attention to teacher burn-out?

Steven Brill's recent article in the Wall Street Journal, Super Teachers Alone Can't Save Our Schools does not look at working conditions deeply enough although he exposes the views of two charter "super teachers."

"I feel overwhelmed, underappreciated and underpaid," a teacher told me one morning at one of the Success Charter Network schools in Harlem. Like KIPP, these are schools whose students consistently top the charts in achievement scores, often testing at or above the level of students in affluent nearby suburbs.

"I work from 7:30 to 5:30 in the building and then go home and work some more," the teacher told me. "I get disrespectful pushback from parents all the time when I try to give their kids consequences. I get feedback from my [supervisors], who demand that I change five or six things by the next day. I think we are doing a great job, so I keep at it. But there is no way I can do this beyond another year or two."

Brill interviewed Success Charter Network school founder, Eva Moskowitz, who advocates scaling "this", without elaborating what "this" is. Moskowitz discusses turnover this way:

"Sure, we have turnover, but our teachers make good money," and "they can advance quickly."

"I have [assistant principals] who are 28 years old and making $100,000 or $120,000, who get six weeks' vacation," Ms. Moskowitz said. "How bad a career path is that?"

How bad a career path is it? Great question. Successful businesses across the nation recognize the importance of working conditions on motivation, productivity, and retention.

Brill reported that Success Charter Network lost one of those super-teacher turned assistant principals because the demands created an "unsustainable" life, both on her health and her marriage. At 28, she walked away to save herself.

KIPP Charter School co-founder Dave Levin believes reform requires ending teacher unions in order to increase the number of "super teachers":

".....if you tore up every union contract in the country, that would just give you the freedom to try…. Then you would have to train and motivate not 70,000 or 80,000 teachers"—the number now teaching in charter schools—"but three million," the approximate number of teachers in American public elementary and secondary schools.

As Mr. Levin explained to me, "You can't do this by depending only on the kinds of exceptional people we have around here who pour themselves into this every hour of every day."

"Every hour of the day????"

Somehow Levin and Moskowitz miss the important and widespread best practices from the business world that acknowledge it takes more than money and 6-weeks vacation to retain talented employees. These charter school leaders express no vision on a teaching environment that retains talent and seem almost cavalier at the level of turnover. There are cost implications when investing in training and losing the talent. So, why are charter schools that have higher turnover rates than public schools and operate like sweat shops considered exemplars for replication at "scale?"

The nation cannot afford 3 million teachers trained and burning out in two years. Taxpayers should not be called upon to fund such a model. Where's the accountability to students, parents, community members, and taxpayers?

UPDATE: The 28 year old assistant principal who left the charter school position found a position in a traditional school, which she found to be more sustainable. Found this detail on Alexander Russo's blog. He says he will be posting an interview he had with Mr. Brill in the next issue of Scholastic Administrator.

Goofy on teachers in 1952

North Carolina student data revealed online: State Longitudinal Data Systems Revisited

A phone call from a parent alerted North Carolina Department of Public Instruction officials that private data on school students was posted online.

"Data housed on a N.C. State University computer server that contained private information for about 1,800 schoolchildren from Richmond and Wilson counties was inadvertently made available online, university officials said Tuesday.

The data, gathered from 2003 to 2006 as part of a research study on classroom practices, included names, Social Security numbers and dates of birth. The three affected elementary schools are the now-closed Ashley Chapel in Richmond County and Gardners and Wells in Wilson County."

Read more on this breach of data here.

Although the source of the error is not described, the news report alludes to a computer "glitch" of some type. How seriously should this breach be taken? Could student data be hacked, repackaged, sold, and revealed?

Recent reports reveal an Anonymous group of overseas hackers have threatened attacks on U.S. law enforcement computer systems. Of the 70 attacks claimed by the group, only Arkansas and Louisiana attacks have been verified. Officials say that no sensitive data was accessed.

Last month the U.S. National Security Council released a report in which it named cyber crime as a major threat to national security, and costing the U.S. $1 billion annually in losses.

With Race to the Top dollars, states have been developing State Longitudinal Data Systems using federal parameters and guidance. However, the Los Angeles Times reports that California's Governor Brown recently decided to reverse that State's decision in development of the SLDS saying districts had the data they needed.

In a February 2010 letter, U.S. House Representative John Kline wrote Secretary of Education Arne Duncan last year regarding this initiative:

"As part of what you described as a "cradle to career agenda," the Department of Education is aggressively moving to expand data system that collect information on our nation's students. I am concerned by recent reports that indicate the Department's hasty pursuit of this goal could compromise student privacy rights."

Kline goes on to say: "The Department's efforts to shepherd states toward the creation of a de facto national student database raises serious legal and prudential questions. Congress has never authorized the Department of Education to facilitate the creation of a national student database."

Read Rep. Kline's full letter here.

Teacher performance pay is described as the rationale for this massive data collection initiative. Does a performance pay structure through data collection outweigh the costs, risks, and privacy considerations?

For facts and details on SLDS, go to Truth in American Education.