PARCC/CORE Test Frustration Grows in Lakewood - Opting out?

[Betsy Voinovich]

If you saw Rob Masek's cartoon in this week's Observer you know that a lot of parents are fed up with the new CORE requirements and curriculum, and the way kids/teachers are evaluated and how often and what you have to "report out."

This week the brand new PARCC tests started in all of our schools, elementary, middle and high school causing some parents to finally take matters into their own hands. The following letter is so very articulate that I will copy it here, with the permission of its author.


February 10, 2015

Ohio Department of Education, Superintendent of Education Mr. Richard Ross
State Board of Education Member District 11 Representative Mrs. Mary Rose Oakar
Lakewood City Schools Superintendent Mr. Jeffrey Patterson
Lakewood Board of Education Members
Mr. Keith Ahearn and Mr. Joe Niemantsverdriet,

We are writing to notify you that we will not permit our children, Joshua Owen and Rachel Owen, to participate in any of the PARCC testing that is scheduled to take place beginning February 17, 2015. We understand that Ohio does not have an official avenue for parents to opt-out of testing for their children, but we have chosen this way to express our discomfort and frustration with this testing protocol.

Before we explain our reasoning behind this decision, we want to express our support for our children’s teachers, administrators and the Lakewood City School District in providing a solid and thorough education for our children. Our children have been able to experience a rich and varied education in Lakewood with a wide variety of experiences and learning opportunities across the curriculum – math, science, social studies, English, fine arts, foreign languages and physical education.

We are not permitting our children to participate in PARCC testing for many reasons. In the “big picture” we cannot help but feel that each iteration of standardized, high stakes testing is more punitive to teachers, administrators, and districts since the inception of No Child Left Behind. This leads to a greater degree of teaching to the test, more time spent on test-prep and more practice tests being administered to students. Also, we cannot escape the strong sense that testing has become a big for-profit business and wonder where it will lead. We worry about the cost burden on districts for the technology required for this testing, when many districts in Ohio struggle to pass operating levies. We are not against a solid, well developed set of educational standards. It is the excessive and high stakes testing that we are against. For students, there are just too many tests.

The Ohio Educational Association supports the Common Core, but is clear in the statement on their website that they are critical of the perpetuation of high stakes testing. These are our educators who are with our students daily. These teachers, these professionals, do not place value in testing of this kind or frequency.

For Ohio high school graduation requirements, we find that a cumulative score of 18 out of a possible 35 on the high school PARCC test series to be somewhat pathetic. For all the talk of college and career readiness, why such a low passing number? Plus, what is the motivation for high schoolers to continue to take these tests seriously if they reach 18 after the first four or five tests they complete. PARCC recommends that level 4 on a test is considered college and career ready, but leaves the graduation requirements up to individual states.

We do not believe that our district should suffer consequences if more than 5% of children do not participate in testing.

We do not believe that students’ scores on high stakes testing should be a part of teacher evaluations. Using high stakes tests scores in this way overly simplifies the complex task of teaching and learning.

We disagree with Ohio’s plan for our 8th grader, who is enrolled in geometry and is scheduled for the geometry PARCC test this year, and was told that she does not have to take the Algebra 1 PARCC, but will be given a score of a 3 for that test. To her, a straight A student, that is an insult. To us, it is a ridiculous rule for students who completed a course before the PARCC test existed. A more appropriate solution is a pro-rated system for students in this position.

The local and state news have many stories about parents, teachers, and even superintendents in the state of Ohio expressing concerns regarding the PARCC tests. It can be difficult to find current and detailed information on the ODE website. There still seem to be changes occurring regarding testing and testing policy. Ohio’s HB7 is being voted on Wednesday, February 11, 2015 – more changes that may happen a mere 6 days before testing is scheduled to start. We are concerned about reports we read finding errors in practice tests and difficulties with the technology. We are concerned that National Public Radio’s show MarketPlace aired a piece just last evening and stated “testing like this [related to Common Core] is big business”. This all casts a dark shadow on the PARCC testing and high stakes testing in general.

Our children will not participate. We will be contacting their schools and teachers to make arrangements for alternative educational activities during testing dates and times.

Sincerely,

Keith and Monica Owen



A lot of parents are talking about the new school calendar and the fact that the school year will be starting early in August, explicitly to give our students more time to prepare for these tests.

The question remains, what educational value does the test-taking have for our kids? What is being lost in the classroom because of all of the time devoted to jumping through these very specific and not at all well-thought-out hoops?

Does doing well on these tests help our kids prepare for college, or for their futures in any way?

Meanwhile we know that our District is in a bind and hasn't been given any choice about this situation. It has been imposed upon us from above, and there are many who believe that what's behind it is a plan to destroy public education.

In this case "From above" is the state of Ohio. We have representatives on the State School Board. Mary Rose Oakar is ours. They and our state legislators and senators need to be notified. This time our Lakewood School District might need our help to speak up, and for the many of the families that have had such great experiences here, experiences that are clearly being threatened, this is the time to act.

The Owens family is taking a brave step. In our family, the kids all took their tests this week, but we did it very unhappily, feeling that we had no choice. One of the reasons for starting this thread is to see how everybody's feeling about this. More soon.

Betsy Voinovich

[Amanda Tabor]

Hi Betsy,

Your post is very timely, as I was just reading another, similar letter written by a parent in New Jersey (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2015/02/20/a-superintendent-says-refusing-common-core-tests-is-dangerous-a-mom-says-hes-wrong/ if you are interested). This has not become an issue for us quite yet (my daughter is in first grade), but I am very curious to see how things go here. I am not a fan of rigid testing, particularly using it to rank schools and teachers, and teaching for a test is the best way to kill any love of learning someone has. I think extra prep time by modifying the school year is probably in the kids' best interests - if they are giving the test, anything to lessen the stress related to it is for the best in my opinion. Though that doesn't mean they should be administering the test! I'd like to see an example of the test to see exactly what it entails, but haven't seen any samples anywhere - do you know of any?

I have been so impressed with the types of projects and hands-on stuff that my daughter has been doing (she's in first grade at Grant with Ms. Hayes), it is a far cry from a lot of the boring schoolwork I remember from first grade. Anything to lessen the amount of engaging and fun learning they are exposed to is not good - the point is to foster a love of learning through many mediums, and encourage new and creative thinking. That is my biggest issue with standardized testing. But I also don't have a lot of knowledge of what these tests encompass or how much of the knowledge they test is actually useful, or how much of the school year they eat into. Hopefully as you and other parents discuss this I'll become a bit more enlightened on the subject.

Amanda

[Monica Owen]

Spread the word - Sunday, February 22, 4-7 pm at the Sweet Spot (17806 Detroit Ave, Lakewood, OH 44107).

Join us for a letter writing event to tell local, regional and state representatives about your questions, concerns and opinions regarding the new high stakes standardized testing protocols in our schools.

Whether you have opted-out or not, if you have concerns about the new Common Core and the PARCC testing and their implications for our children and teachers, it is time to tell your elected officials.

We will have names and addresses, email addresses, sample letters, and general information for you to use.

All opinions will be respected.

Thank-you to the Sweet Spot for hosting this event!

[Gary Rice]

The school testing refusal movement is not a new idea, not by a long shot. In fact, I covered some of the background of this movement in my Lakewood Observer column about a year ago. You can see it here:

http://lakewoodobserver.com/read/2014/0 ... enseplease

As a student, I was no fan of tests, and as a Special Education educator (now retired) my opinion about them never changed. The sole exception to my feelings would involve criterion-referenced tests that would be diagnostic/prescriptive in nature, and are otherwise neither potentially punitive, nor politically motivated.

Or, in plain English, diagnostic testing that is designed to discern areas where a student is weak, with specific targeted remedial assistance being immediately available to students, in order to assist them with improving whatever deficits testing might reveal. Limited pre-testing and post-testing can also be administered in order to evaluate student progress in a non-threatening and constructive way. When testing is used appropriately as a tool for instructional purposes, it can be effective.

In the framework of overall objectives, there also needs to be multiple avenues where individual students have the opportunity to experience success. Different measurement tools beyond pencil-paper testing need to be available, as well.

Academic skills need to be mastered, rather than simply covered for content. Non-threatening remedial avenues and alternative instruction must be made available to struggling students, with more in-school tutoral times being made available to those students.

Many school districts, including Lakewood's, already address a number of these concerns, but the imposition of more and more expensive (often unfunded or under-funded) and time-consuming state and federal across-the-board one-size-fits-all mandates can sometimes hamper efforts to adequately address those individual concerns, and that's one of the reasons that I believe that we are presently seeing parental and community push-back efforts.

All just my opinion here and I may be wrong, but I don't think so.

Back to the banjo....

[Erin Marie Rose]

We have opted out of all standardized testing, including the PARCC, and received shockingly little resistance at the board level. Several children at Emerson will be organizing a community service project to work on at school during testing hours. Any other Emerson children who wish to participate are welcome to join us. We have 3rd and 5th grade participants, but will welcome any.

[Amanda Tabor]

I spoke with my sister-in-law over the weekend, she teaches middle school language arts in North Royalton, and was really surprised to find out that with this testing, which is going on now, will not be providing the test results until NOVEMBER. Which makes the tests, for students, teachers and parents, absolutely USELESS. It is one thing to force a test that may have negligible value but something far worse to force one that provides no value to those who spend months preparing for it.