Parents opting their kids out of technology at school

 I thought this piece from NBC on parents opting their children out of technology at school, of interest: 

National organizations representing administrators, school technology officers and teachers have urged caution against lumping in classroom screen time with recreational device use at home, saying they need to prepare students for employers who expect students to be fluent with digital tools and artificial intelligence.

But the parents opting out point to research showing that students who used computers at school performed worse academically and that information is better retained when read on paper. And education experts say there’s a significant difference between educating students about technology and completely relying on educational technology.

“It’s a bit of a mirage,” said Faith Boninger, a researcher at the University of Colorado Boulder’s National Education Policy Center who has studied flaws in digital platforms used by schools. “Students don’t need to be consumers of this technology in order to be able to use it in 10 or 15 years, when it’s likely going to be something else entirely.”

I found it particularly interesting that, towards the end of the article, they have quotes from Montgomery County, Maryland: 

The Montgomery County Council of Parent-Teacher Associations is pressing the district to provide a formal process to request “non-screen alternatives” for families that have “made the conscious effort to limit their children’s exposure to screens.”

Lisa Cline, a Montgomery County mom who chaired a parent advisory committee focused on technology, said she opted her son out when he was in third grade and then requested each school year that his teachers keep him off screens as much as possible until he graduated high school last year. She said she hopes to work with the advocacy group Fairplay for Kids to launch a national campaign urging parents to opt out of school-issued devices.

“I think it’s a win, actually, if we get to that point where the default is you opt in,” Cline said.

 Montgomery County schools were in the news last year as they were the district sued in the Mahmoud case, which I wrote about here, in which the Supreme Court provided for pretty sweeping parental opt-outs on religious grounds for their children in public schools. While the case is not mentioned in the article, I suspect that is only a matter of time. 

Locally, I'm still rather stunned that this was part of the reporting of a local subcommittee meeting: 

Two things to read today

• EdWeek notes that the push to opt-out of standardized testing has, post-ESSA, gone rather quiet. 
• This piece from EdBuild on the stranding of low income districts in states in which schools are largely dependant on property taxes is important. It also has implications in Massachusetts, as our districts become increasingly dependant on property taxes. 

March Board of Ed: MCAS with a sidetrack into test refusal

Backup is here
90% of 4th and 8th grade testing via computer
Moore: descriptors not implemented in for high school yet; new test implemented at high school with current eighth graders

McKenna: there needs to be some clarification or something about what you said or didn't say; "the punitive way it's being interpreted is pretty worrisome, it's pretty gruesome"
Chester: there is not provision to opt out of the test
students who have chosen not to take the test
"just like you can't refuse to take a math class; you can't refuse to take homework"
McKenna: sounds like there were very specific instructions, "making a kid sit down for fifteen minutes"
Wulfson: general guidance
"students are with their class, don't expect there to be any punishment, or any shaming, don't expect that there will be any alternative curriculum"
"It's not intended to be punishment but we have to do something with the kids who don't take the test"
"haven't said fifteen minutes"
guidance they're using is supposed to be for kids who cannot interact with the test (from ELL tests)
"there is no guidance for students who are refusing to take the test"
"we have basically said that it's up to the schools on where that student should be, but should not be a distraction"
Sagan: we should be clear and we shouldn't avoid the question

What happened with ESSA this week?

On Monday, the U.S. Department of Education issued regulations on the Every Student Succeeds Act around school accountability. The Department's summary is here; EdWeek does their summary here.\
First, do note that regulations are under the purview of the administration, so it's completely unclear what happens when the Trump administration comes in at the end of January.
That said, we do have regulations, so, a few pieces of note:

• states now don't have to ID schools for "comprehensive support" until the 2018-19 year, which is a year later than was originally proposed.
• the summative evaluation versus how schools are identified for support has been fleshed out a bit (if that interests you, I'd read the US Ed summary)
• the "at least one additional indicator" now has to have "a positive impact on student learning," which is more flexible than the draft language (and, should we all push, could give states much much more to consider) 
• states can set their own maximum subgroup size, but if it's bigger than 30, they must justify why it is good for kids that it is that big.
• "consistent underperformance" was original over a two year period, now is tweaked a bit to allow for more time if it can be justified
• 95% participation on testing is still required, but if states decide to come up with their own systems of dealing with that, they can have different remedies for different rates of participation (those that barely missed possibly having something less draconian).
• ELL's are to become proficient in English on a "research-based" timeline.

Also a reminder that there are TWO MORE DESE input sessions on ESSA implementation: tonight at Holyoke High and Tuesday night at Collins Middle in Salem, both at 6 pm. (Sorry for the lack of coverage on these; I have had, and still have, meetings opposite every single one.) 

Questions/discussion on accountability and test results

Craven: data for the leveling of schools
data came out less than 24 hours ago; struggling to review online
"have been an advocate for assessment my whole life...staunch defender of exams"
personally disappointed by Latin School
interim headmaster at Latin: students took both MCAS and PARCC
school and district were under impression that MCAS was their assessment
"don't want to see an erosion"
that's a lot of testing "can see parents" making that choice
that's what caused Latin School to fall
"on precipice of a new test, a hybrid test"
"very concerned about the Latin School in particular...are there other districts, other schools seeing drops because of non-participation rates on exams"
"I wonder about this as a practical reality, as we roll out new tests and different tests"
if a district thought that MCAS mattered and it was PARCC, then what?

Chester: "I want to make sure we nail this, right?"

Schools that dropped to Level 2 or 3 due to non-participation in testing.

I just pulled this together for work, but I thought others might be interested. 
A level 2 means they fell to or below 95% participation; a Level 3 means they fell to or below 90% participation. This is all in the accountability spreadsheet on column W.

(this is in DESE’s usual metro—charter—regional order):

Andover: Sandborn Elem 3

Arlington: Ottoson Middle 2

              Arlington High 2

Bellingham: B.High 2

Boston: BTU School 2

              Manning 2

              Clap 2

              Boston Latin Academy 2

              Boston Latin School 2

              Tech Boston 2

Cambridge: King Open 2

Carlisle: Carlisle School 2
Cohasset: C Middle High 2

Edgartown: E. Academy 2
Gloucester: West Parish 2

Leverett: L. Elem 3

Ludlow: Baird Middle 3

Medford: M. High 2

Milton: M. High 2

New Bedford: Jireh Swift 3

Newton: Brown Middle 2

Scituate: Cushing Elem 3

              Hatherly Elem 3

              Jenkins Elem 2

Springfield: S. Public Day Middle 2

              South End Middle 2

              Balliet Middle 3

Ware: W. Jr Sr High 3

Worcester: Columbus Park 2

Excel Charter Acad 2

Four Rivers Charter 2

Hilltown Coop Charter 3

Martha’s Vineyard Charter 3

UP Acad Charter 2

Amherst: A. Regional Middle 3

Berkshire Hills: Middlebrook Reg Elem 3

Bridgewater-Raynham: B-R Regional 3

Concord-Carlisle: C-C Regional 2

Somerset-Berkley: S-B Reg High 2

S. Berkshire: Undermountain 3

NSBA Trainers conference on ESSA

I'm in Columbus, OH this week for the National School Boards Association Trainers conference. We're getting an update from the Ohio School Boards Association on the Every Child Succeeds Act. 

updating as we go...
Initial comment "This gives so much power back to the state...all that control...still needs to be developed" Important for school boards to stay involved as states develop their own plans under ESSA

DESE on test participation

From last week's Commissioner's update:

As a follow-up to the On the Desktop, ESE sent to superintendents on April 1, 2016,ESE would like to clarify a point about students' participation in statewide standardized tests. Massachusetts' accountability system is set up to encourage high participation rates (if it weren't, the school's results would not reflect school-wide achievement). If fewer than 95 percent of a school's students take the statewide assessment, the school cannot be designated a Level 1 school. If fewer than 90 percent of a school's students take the assessment, that school, regardless of its test scores, can earn a designation no higher than Level 3. This is true whether a district takes PARCC or MCAS. The state's policy of holding schools harmless based on PARCC results in 2015-16 does not apply to cases in which participation falls below 95 percent.This is a change from last year, which was considered unique as the state's first operational year of PARCC testing.

The degree to which this makes a difference in anyone's decision making will, of course, depend on what they think of the state accountability system, as I described last year and the year before. 

As I always say to parents who ask about or cite accountability levels: can you explain how they're calculated? 

What happens when parents refuse tests?

Good read from New Bedford this morning:

According to DESE spokesperson Jackie Reis, individual schools must maintain a 95 percent participation rate in assessments, the consequence for not doing so being that the school would not be eligible for a level 1 accountability rating. If a school gets less than 90 percent participation, the school cannot be higher than a level 3.

“Generally a district’s accountability level is that of its lowest performing school, so it could have implications on the district’s level based on that,” Reis said when asked if there were any opt out-related consequences for whole districts. “And for tenth grade, it’s still a graduation requirement.”

NSBA Conference: ESSA update

updating as we go...
Zola runs policy and advocacy in DC for NSBA
all material is on the app
"we're only about 50% done; we have the law. Now we have to implement"
"be careful what you ask for"
got more local control; our responsibility to do right by this new law

DESE on opting out/ test refusal

In today's Commissioner's Update (which is not yet posted online) DESE has issued guidance to districts regarding students who refuse to take state standardized assessments this spring:

Refusals to Take an Assessment: 

As the spring assessment administration nears, please keep in mind that participation in statewide assessments is required of all students enrolled in public schools in the relevant grade levels. The state assessments provide important feedback to families, teachers, administrators, and state policymakers as to where schools are succeeding and where schools and districts need to enhance their efforts. 

In some instances, a student may refuse to take a test, either of his/her own volition or at the direction of a parent. In these cases, we ask principals to encourage parents to rethink their refusal and remind them that the assessments are a valuable gauge of their student's and school's progress. We ask principals and test proctors to handle refusals with sensitivity. Students should not be pressured to take the test, nor should they be punished for not taking the test. They may sit quietly and read in the testing room, but if they are distracting others in the class who are taking the test, it would be appropriate to have them move to another location in the school with adult supervision. There is no requirement to provide formal or informal instruction to these students during the test period; having them do homework or read a book is sufficient, provided that the material is separate from the content being assessed in the testing room.

For students who refuse to take MCAS paper tests, no special reporting is needed. If no answer form is submitted for a student or if a blank answer form is submitted, the student will automatically be considered absent. For students who refuse to take the PARCC test on paper or on a computer, the test administrator will need to go into PearsonAccessNext to manage the student’s account and mark them as Not Tested, Absent, for each test they refused to take. Additionally, if the student started an online test session before refusal, that test will need to be marked complete by the test administrator.  The Department strongly suggests that the test administrator document the student refusal and keep it on record at the school in case questions arise later about the school's participation rate.  

Watch that 95% participation on testing

While ESSA loosens federal oversight of state assessment, it does continue the 95% participation requirement. A letter went out from U.S. DoE on December 22 to state school superintendents, reminding them that they still needed a plan to deal with schools and districts that fell below the 95%.

If a State with participation rates below 95% in the 2014−2015 school year fails to assess at least 95% of its students on the statewide assessment in the 2015−2016 school year, ED will take one or more of the following actions: (1) withhold Title I, Part A State administrative funds; (2) place the State’s Title I, Part A grant on high-risk status and direct the State to use a portion of its Title I State administrative funds to address low participation rates; or (3) withhold or redirect Title VI State assessment funds.

Just how states are dealing with this in some cases remains to be seen, but Connecticut turned around with their response already. They'll be dropping districts an accountability level and withhold funds for high non-participation rates.

ESEA compromise bill coming out

EdWeek has the full rundown ('though the language isn't out yet). For those paywalled out, major points:

• testing grades 3-8 and once in high school, but what it counts for is up to states. Bottom 5% of schools, as well as those not closing achievement gap, need intervention, but how is up to states. Likewise, while 95% participation in testing is still required, what happens if it isn't met is up to states.
• while there's some block granting on the federal education grants, it doesn't look as major as it could have been (watch that one); something on the innovation bit, something on the wraparound bit as well.
• no Title I portability (money doesn't move with kids), though there's some sort of a pilot program (watch this one, too)
• also no changes to Title I calculations, though some changes to Title II calculations (Title II is teachers)

The projection is that this will be in conference next week, with a vote by Thanksgiving. 

Who is doing the opting out?

The New York Times ran a story earlier this week about opting out of standardized testing, widely blaming/crediting (depends on your perspective) teachers' unions with fueling the trend:

After several years in which the teachers' unions have been hammered on the issue of tenure, have lost collective bargaining rights in some states and have seen their evaluations increasingly tied to student scores, they have begun, with some success, to reassert themselves using a bread-and-butter issue: the annual tests given to elementary and middle school students in every state.

I was amazed by the laziness of this reporting, honestly, right down to the pro-forma quote by Jonah Edelman from Stand for Children.  No mention of United Opt Out, not a single quote from a parent, no conversations with students...it really reads like phoning it in.
This did lead to some interesting responses, including Andy Smarick's about how ed reform responds to opting out; he urges his compatriots not to repeat their mistake of dismissing critics as they've done with the Common Core.
Secretary Duncan, at the Education Writers of America, commented that opting out may require federal action:

On Tuesday, when asked whether states with many test boycotters would face consequences, Duncan said he expected states to make sure districts get enough students take the tests.
“We think most states will do that,” Duncan said during a discussion at the Education Writers Association conference in Chicago. “If states don’t do that, then we have an obligation to step in.” 

 I will leave it to others to debate the relative constitutionality of that. I will, however, point out that pulling federal funds, which is about the only consequence open to the federal government, will only continue to widen the rich/poor divide, as it is poorer districts that receive the majority of federal funds.
Possibly related, Senator Tester of Montana filed an amendment to the ESEA renewal that would strike the requirement for grade testing.
Finally, Bruce Baker points out that massive opt out has already happened by parents who don't send their kids to public school, thus all comparisons are moot already.

Update on test refusal and security agreements (PARCC and MCAS)

The Commissioner had a few updates of interest in his Friday afternoon letter (which will eventually be online here, but isn't yet) yesterday: 

Refusal to Take a Statewide Standardized Test:

Superintendents and principals are reminded that there is no provision in Massachusetts state law for parents to “opt out” of the annual statewide assessment program. (See MCAS and PARCC Participation Requirements, Oct. 15, 2014.) This program is an important component of the Commonwealth's public education system, and participation is required for all students enrolled in public school. The state assessments provide important feedback to families, teachers, administrators, and state policymakers as to where schools are succeeding and where schools and districts need to enhance their efforts. Legislators and taxpayers also expect an objective assessment of student and school performance in return for a very significant investment of public funds. In those districts that have chosen to give the PARCC assessment, having all students participate will allow the state to better evaluate the quality of the test.

Nevertheless, ESE knows there will be isolated instances of a student’s refusal to take the test, either of his/her own volition or at the direction of a parent. In these cases, we ask principals to encourage parents to rethink their refusal and remind them that students' and teachers' experiences will help the state decide whether PARCC is a worthwhile assessment. When a parent directs their child to refuse to take PARCC, they are forgoing their child's opportunity to contribute to ESE's evaluation of the test. We ask principals and test proctors to handle refusals with sensitivity. Students should not be pressured to take the test, nor should they be punished for not taking the test. They may sit quietly and read in the testing room, but if they are distracting others in the class who are taking the test, it would be appropriate to have them move to another location in the school with adult supervision. There is no requirement to provide formal or informal instruction to these students during the test period; having them do homework or read a book is sufficient. 

For students who refuse to take the MCAS or PARCC paper tests, no special reporting is needed. If no answer form is submitted for a student, or if a blank answer form is submitted, the student will automatically be considered absent. For students who refuse to take the PARCC online test, the test administrator will need to mark the student’s test as “complete” in the PearsonAccess^next system so that the test session can be closed. Completed online tests with no responses will also default to absent.

Thus a parent refusing is enough; the child him or herself does not need to be put on the spot.

PARCC Security Agreement for Educators:

It has come to ESE's attention that some educators who will administer PARCC have raised concerns about the PARCC Security Agreement included in the PARCC Test Administrator Manuals. As always, test administrators and other school personnel involved in the administration of state assessments are expected to follow the policies and protocols for test security and administration. Teachers, however, do not have to sign the PARCC Security Agreement in order to proctor the test.

Test administrators and other school personnel involved in test administration have an ethical and professional obligation to administer the assessments in accordance with the relevant policies and protocols whether or not the individuals sign the relevant acknowledgement form or agreement.

Thus teachers do not have to sign the security agreement. 

Manchester's rebelling

I had missed this: apparently, Manchester, NH, is refusing to conduct the Smarter-Balanced test that New Hampshire has adopted. They've already lost funding over it once, though it was restored when the mayor protested, and they appear willing to lose it again.

Regarding MCAS/PARCC refusal

This is my item, asking specifically what we're sending home when we get a refusal from a student, and what we're doing with the student in school in the meantime. The answer is...we're waiting for more information from the state. 

Regarding opting out

Excellent post from John Merrow reflecting on the opt out movement, particularly with regards to students:

Opting out is not new [5], but something important seems to be happening here: savvy students with a clear goal using social media to communicate with each other, the citizens of Colorado, and–now–with a national audience.

What’s happening in Colorado emphasizes the importance of seeing students–not teachers– as the primary workers in schools. Students are, borrowing Peter Drucker’s term, “knowledge workers.” They are most certainly not manual workers. [6]

Because they are knowledge workers, they must be doing meaningful work that they can respect. Their view of the work matters, and, while they don’t get to decide what to do, their voices must be heard. (So too must teachers’ voices be heard, of course, because top-down decision-making almost always produces poor learning.)

97% opt out rate in Colorado yesterday

Here's the video from seniors at Cherry Creek High School in Aurora, CO on why they've opted out of the CMAS test. 97% did so yesterday. More at the #CMASProtest hashtag on Twitter.

DESE on overtesting

This just in from the Commissioner:

Over the course of the 2014–15 school year, ESE will be conducting a multi-part study of assessment practices in Massachusetts districts. The study includes three components: statewide surveys conducted by ESE and phone interviews and case studies conducted by a research vendor. From Oct. 1-10, superintendents and charter school leaders had the opportunity to participate in a voluntary survey regarding their districts’ assessment practices. Results of that survey are attached. Similar questions are also being asked on the post-event survey from last week's fall summit in order to obtain feedback from a greater variety of perspectives.

This winter, a research vendor will conduct phone interviews with staff in 40 to 60 districts to learn more about what types of assessments districts require, how much time students spend participating in testing, and how districts schedule MCAS tests. During the winter and spring, the research vendor will also conduct case studies in four districts to create an inventory of assessment practices in each district, analyze the inventory with district staff, and identify potential recommendations and best practices around what an effective, balanced assessment system should look like. Each case study district will receive an individualized report to use as it reflects on and refines its assessment practices. Districts interested in being a case study participant should contact Carrie Conaway, Associate Commissioner for Planning, Research, and Delivery Systems, at cconaway@doe.mass.edu.

As DESE generally doesn't post these updates until Monday, I've put the results of the survey here.