By Christopher Tienken, Ed.D. and Julia Sass Rubin, Ph.D.
The first administration
of the experimental new PARCC high-stakes standardized tests is only weeks away
and parents are increasingly concerned. Hundreds of families have notified their school districts that their
children will not be taking the PARCC tests.
Approximately one-fifth of
all New Jersey school districts have responded by assuring parents who refuse the
test that their children will be provided with an alternative location, or at
least the ability to read in class, while their classmates take the test.
Other districts, however,
have taken a much more punitive approach, threatening to force children as
young as eight to remain in the testing room with no other activities except
sitting and staring for the two-week duration of the test. Some districts have even threatened
students whose parents refuse the test with disciplinary actions.
In response, parents are
asking the New Jersey legislature to intervene and pass A4165/S2767. This legislation requires all districts
and charter schools to provide consistent, humane treatment for children whose
parents refuse standardized tests.
As growing numbers of legislators
indicate their support for A4165/S2767, officials within the New Jersey
Department of Education have apparently initiated a campaign to block its
passage by claiming that the proposed legislation would cost districts precious
dollars. Specifically, the NJDOE
is arguing that the US Department of Education would use powers it has under
the No Child Left Behind law to cut Title I funding for any schools that fall
below 95 percent student participation levels on the PARCC.
Keep in the mind that the
proposed legislation does not direct parents to have their children opt-out or
refuse the state mandated tests. The proposed legislation simply asks for a consistent
statewide policy of humane treatment for children whose parents choose to
refuse the testing. As more school administrators decide to make students
needlessly “sit and stare” for two weeks of testing, plus up to two additional weeks
of make-up testing, it is imperative that the legislature act to protect
children from such treatment.
So will the US Department
of Education take your school's Title 1 funds if this legislation becomes law?
The answer is NO, and here
are some reasons why.
1. There is no federal or state law that requires financial
penalties to schools’ Title I funds if parents refuse to allow their children
to take the PARCC tests.
The federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law did
include a mandate that required schools to have a 95 percent participation rate
on state tests or face sanctions. The intent of that law was to prevent schools
from hiding subgroups of students from the accountability structure and was not
aimed at preventing parents from refusing to have their children tested.
However, since 2012, NJ
has had a waiver to NCLB that replaces those sanctions with a new
accountability system.
Under the waiver, only
schools designated “priority” or “focus” schools face direct intervention for
missing state targets. New Jersey’s 250 priority and focus schools can have up
to 30 percent of their federal Title I funds re-directed by the New Jersey
Department of Education (NJDOE) for specific “interventions,” but even these
funds are supposed to be used for school improvement, not taken away. And the NJDOE already has the ability
to redirect a part of the Title I allocations received by priority and focus
schools.
And missing the 95 percent
participation rate at the school level is not unusual in New Jersey.
None of those schools experienced any federal financial repercussions to Title I funds. In fact, no school has ever lost Title I funds due to punishment by the federal government for missing the 95 percent participation rate.
3. Other states have laws that protect parents’ right to opt their children out or refuse high-stakes standardized testing and no federal financial penalties of any sort have been imposed on schools in those states as a result of these laws.
For example, in Wisconsin “Upon the request of a pupil's parent or guardian, the
school board shall excuse the pupil from taking an examination administered
under sub. (1m).” [ii]
In California,
a “parent or
guardian may submit to the school a written request to excuse his or her child
from any or all parts of any test provided pursuant to Ed Code Section 60640.” [iii]
4.
The US Congress is rewriting the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
– the federal legislation that mandates annual standardized testing.
A
reauthorized ESEA may completely eliminate the federal interventions that are
in the current version of ESEA and is likely to give individual states much
more decision-making authority when it comes to accountability and testing
mandates.
So
the NJDOE’s threat of Title I funding cuts at local schools seems premature at
best given the past practice of the United States Department of Education to
not sanction NJ schools’ Title I Funds for missing the 95 percent participation
rate. The moral imperative for the NJDOE, the NJ Legislature and for individual
school districts should be to act in the best interests of New Jersey children,
and that means treating students humanely if their parents choose to participate
in the democratic tradition of dissent.
Christopher Tienken is an
Associate Professor of Education Leadership, Management, and Policy at the
College of Education and Human Services at Seton Hall University. .
Julia Sass Rubin is an
Associate Professor at the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public
Policy at Rutgers University and one of the founding members of the
all-volunteer pro-public education group Save Our Schools NJ.
[i] http://www.state.nj.us/education/schools/achievement/index.html
[iii] Title 5 of
the California Code of Regulations, Division 1, Chapter 2, Subchapter 3.75.
A4165 Sponsors:
Diegnan, Patrick J., Jr. as Primary Sponsor Jasey, Mila M. as Primary Sponsor Caputo, Ralph R. as Primary Sponsor Auth, Robert as Primary Sponsor Benson, Daniel R. as Primary Sponsor Rible, David P. as Primary Sponsor Eustace, Tim as Primary Sponsor Vainieri Huttle, Valerie as Primary Sponsor Gusciora, Reed as Primary Sponsor Pinkin, Nancy J. as Primary Sponsor McKeon, John F. as Primary Sponsor Garcia, Carmelo G. as Co-Sponsor Giblin, Thomas P. as Co-Sponsor Caride, Marlene as Co-Sponsor DeCroce, BettyLou as Co-Sponsor
Identical Bill Number: S2767
|
No comments:
Post a Comment