EXCLUSION FROM THE TEST

((Principal))

((School))

((School District))

((27 February 2004))

Dear ((Principal)):

I would like to exercise my right as a parent in the ((School District)) to have my child excluded from the ((Exam Name)) testing to be conducted in early March of this year. I would also like this exclusion to include any pre-testing or test preparation immediately before the test that is not integrated into her regular, on-going curriculum. During this time, I’m sure ((she/he)) could academically benefit from any number of other pedagogically beneficial activities you regularly make available to youngsters at ((The School)): library time, reading, journaling, computer lab, math enrichment or physical education/movement.

I am exercising this right for several reasons (reason with which you are probably already familiar). Many believe, myself included, that high stakes, standardized, norm-referenced testing (HSSNT) is bad for children, bad for our public schools and not a good way to measure the “intelligence” (or academic achievement level) of our youngsters. Tests such as these (and their year-round consequences[1]) harm learners pedagogically, emotionally and physiologically. They are bankrupting the budgets of our schools and states and forcing us to teach and organize our curricula around methods that have not been empirically shown to be successful. Finally, it has not been demonstrated in terms of scholarship that HSSNTs actually measure “intelligence”; actually, if anything, the empirical data seem to indicate that all they can really ever measure is the test-taker’s ability to take the test.[2] While national and state trends[3] may be in favor of this type of testing, I am not. And others[4] feel similarly (see, “RESOURCES,” below); and for good reason.

Please note that I have come to this decision while holding my child’s teacher; the wonderful (and successful!) bilingual dual-immersion program at the school; the school/community itself; and your leadership of the school in the highest regard. I realize that the decision to administer these tests is not yours, but rests largely with school district, the state, and local constituents (parents, community members, et cetera) who allow it to continue without protest.[5] Additionally, I was very pleased to hear that the district (and state) is considering replacing the TerraNova/Supera with a criterion-referenced exam in the next academic year. This indeed would be an improvement; although, if it were to remain a “high stakes, standardized test” (albeit criterion-referenced) some of the dangers of the current norm-referenced test, previously described, would remain as possibilities (even probabilities). Wouldn’t it be a great if we lived in an educational world where we could trust the professionalism, preparedness, rigor and smarts of the parents, learners, teachers and administrators at schools (or within school districts) such that they could be entrusted with the development and use of their own high-quality, accurate and organic (versus nationally imposed) evaluation strategy for our learners (via locally-devised measurement tools, portfolios, et cetera)?

Well, we could hope for such a world. We could even help to create one: if we have faith in each other and our abilities (and those of our children!); if we collectively organize; if we remain skeptical about, carefully critique and apply high empirical standards to state and national trends (HSSNT; pre-packaged, teacher-centered, student alienating reading programs; uniforms[6]) as panaceas of community concerns and challenges.

I very much appreciate your time in reading this letter, in receiving my request and in hearing me out. I hope you find the resources listed below helpful. Feel free to share them with your staff and with other district colleagues, if you think it’s appropriate. While I am not expert in this area, I do know others (locally and nationally) who are. If you, or others in the district, would like, I could put you in contact with them; I’m sure they would be more than happy to share information on this topic with parents, teachers, administrators, district officials or even the school board.

Most sincerely and respectfully, and thank you for your time,

Marc Pruyn, PhD

profefronterizo@yahoo.com

CC: ((The Teacher))

P.S.

If you would like me to e-mail this letter, or these resources, to you such that you would be able to more easily access the resources below—versus typing in the long URLs manually—please don’t hesitate to let me know.

M.P.

RESOURCES

Background/Opinion on HSSNRT, “Standards” & NCLB

http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/16_04/Eat164.shtml (article from Rethinking Schools On-line)

http://www.pipeline.com/%7Ergibson/rouge_forum/MarkerOrlando.htm (Dr. Perry Marker – Professor & Chair, Department of Curriculum Studies & Secondary Education, Sonoma State University)

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/01/07/Opinion/High_stakes_testing.shtml (St. Petersburg Times)

http://www.pipeline.com/%7Ergibson/rouge_forum/Standards.htm (Dr. E. Wayne Ross – Professor, Department of Curriculum Studies,University of British Colombia)

HSSNRT & Children with Special Needs

http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/highstak.index.htm (Wrightslaw)

HSSNRT & Second Language Learners

http://www.maec.org/ereview1.html (Equity Review)

Position Statements on HSSNRT

http://www.aera.net/about/policy/stakes.htm (American Educational Research Association)

http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/testing.html (American Psychological Association)

http://www.reading.org/positions/high_stakes.html (International Reading Association)

http://www.nctm.org/about/position_statements/highstakes.htm (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics)

Research on HSSNRT

http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n18/ (Education Policy Analysis Archives)

www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1554/MR1554.ch4.pdf (The Rand Corporation)

Protesting HSSNRT & NCLB

http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/16_04/Verm164.shtml (article from Rethinking Schools On-line)

http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/15_04/High154.shtml (article from Rethinking Schools On-line)

http://www.geocities.com/stophsa/ (Marylanders Against High-Stakes Testing)

Wasting Money/Dubious Effects of HSSNRT

http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/16_03/Brib163.shtml (article from Rethinking Schools On-line)

Misrepresentation of Effects of HSSNRT in Texas

http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/16_01/Tex161.shtml (article from Rethinking Schools On-line)

HSSNRT & Constitutional Concerns

http://www.educationnews.org/The-Constitutional-Abuse-Of-High-Stakes-Testing-Part-2.htm (Educationnews.Org)

Bibliography on HSSNRT

http://www.eval.org/hst.test.htm (National Evaluation Association)

[1] Like pre-packaged curricula linked to the tests (usually published by the same folks that produce and sell [at a not inconsiderable price] the exams themselves); the phenomena of “teaching-to-the-test”; a teacher-centering of the curriculum (and the move away from constructivist and meaning-based pedagogy that is its consequent result); et cetera.

[2] For example, we are all familiar with the “test-prep” courses and materials that exist to help folks do better on these types of exams. We unabashedly use them ourselves in the schools to assist ((Exam Name)) test aspirants in improving the scores they are likely to receive. And these techniques are often successful. But, did the student’s quantifiable “intelligence” (a troublesome notion in itself) actually improve over the period they reviewed test-taking techniques? Probably not. They just got better at test-taking skills. So, how then can we assume exams like these measure “intelligence” at all or produce data for us that are helpful in any real-life learning/teaching endeavor? We cannot assume that they do. The only conclusion we can logically draw using the scientific method is that these kinds of tests only measure our ability to take them. It seems to me that this is terribly un-helpful (and expensive and a waste of precious time we do not have to spare in our schools and classrooms).

[3] It should be noted, but probably goes without saying, that these national trends and “pressures” coincided with the ascendancy of the George W. Bush administration. And this is no surprise. Bush, as governor of Texas, was one of the central players in the push for HSSNT (the “TAAS” in Texas) in not just the state, but in the country. After he assumed the presidency, naturally, he brought this same policy agenda to the national scene and made it part of the fabric of his No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). While highly touted at the time, it has now been shown years of TAAS testing (and a year-round TAAS-driven curriculum) in Texas did not produce the positive results that were promised in terms of student “achievement” and content knowledge. It might even be the case that it pedagogically harmed the children of Texas.

[4] It might be helpful to the district to know that it appears, through conversations I have had, that a good number of other parents have similar concerns. Also, many teachers and even a few administrators in the area feel similarly. It brings to mind the bumper sticker an administrator colleague of mine has on her office door: “High stakes are for tomatoes!”

[5] Although, it should be noted that many communities (students, parents, teachers), schools (principals), school districts and even entire states have boycotted these types of federally “encouraged” forms of testing (despite the fact that doing so might jeopardize their access to NCLB funds).

[6] Bravo, that under your leadership (and the district’s), ((The School)) has this opportunity to discuss, debate and then vote on the issue here at our school!