RE: Exemptions to STAR and other standardized testing

Mr Dieste,

I appreciate your post -- thank you for taking the time to write it. I do also understand your point about above-average pupils still being at risk for underperforming in certain areas. In my own case, I am sure that there are areas where, if tested, my daughter would prove to be "behind" -- after all, everyone has strengths and weaknesses. I expect that over time, a lot of these things will "even out" by themselves. 

My concern over testing is more of a general thing, I'm not really worried about my daughter taking the test (beyond the fact that I think it places undue stress on 7, 8 and 9 year-olds). I'm worried about the test thing as a whole.

You mention the "California Distinguished Schools" program. I'm afraid that, as a "new" parent (to the schools that is, my first-grader is my oldest), I'm not really familiar with this -- but from your description, I do get the gist. Strangely enough, it reminds me of one of the outcomes I expect to see come from this STAR/SAT-9 testing. Apparently, underachieving schools will initially be given extra moneys to "come up to speed" and -- if I am understanding things correctly -- if they fail to come up to speed on their test scores, the schools are then in danger of being closed (or somehow taken over?). I fail to see how this program will enable the "worst" schools in the "worst" areas to improve their test scores. And then? What will happen to the children? Will the schools be turned over to some of those for-profit school franchises? Or will the schools be shut down, and the children be bused out of their neighborhoods? Have these things even been thought through this far? And what controls are in place to make sure that such punishments are not meted out selectively, as you suggest that the 'Distinguished Schools' program benefits have been? Is this all just an excuse to take schools out of "bad" areas? Because that is a lot of what it looks like to me.

But that is not the only harm I see in the tests. I mentioned the stress -- the school principal and teachers exacerbate the stress factor by urging the children to do their best and tell the kids that "everyone is counting on them" to do well on the tests. I also mentioned CALCare -- anyone who is wondering about the stress that the children are under might want to check that site:
http://www.calcare.org/issue/index.html

But even this isn't necessarily the thing that bugs me the most. I'm young enough to have taken these standardized tests in school, myself (even in California public schools). At that time, we were told that they were "just for fun," to see how we compared with other kids our age across the nation -- and were told that they would "never count" academically.

So with more than one of the stress factors faced by today's kids removed (that is, they didn't affect promotion, graduation, or school funding) how did these tests of old affect me and my peers?

I consistently scored above the 90th percentile. In fact, those times I scored lower -- say, at 86 -- I was very disappointed in myself. I remember the feeling of receiving the scores, and opening them with great trepidation -- only to feel a sense of relief if and only if my scores were at 98 or 99. What might have been my reaction to open the scores and see that I had scored at a respectable 60 or 50? After all, there is no "shame" in scoring right in the middle, is there? There isn't supposed to be, but I can tell you -- again, from my subjective recollection (and I do wish I had a better source than that) -- my friends who scored at 50 or 60 or 70 felt just as miserable as I did, if not more so.

Let me put it another way: if I were offered the chance, today, to take an "objective" standardized test given to all editors in my age group nationwide, just to see how I compare -- I would not take it. What good would it do me? Especially if the test were testing some of the many things I've become "rusty" at. Besides the monumental waste of time spent in taking the thing, I wouldn't really want to be ranked at the 20th percentile or the 50th -- not even in the 99th. And someone has to be ranked so, it's in the nature of the test that half of the takers must score below 50. Do you really want to know if you're in the 20th percentile in your field? And is it even meaningful? What if my skills as an editor are "people skills" ? Which are actually very important in this field. 

History is full of people like Einstein, who (reportedly, I'm not sure if this isn't an urban legend) was a miserable failure at kindergarten. Or Edison, who completed only an 8th grade education. The history of major innovations in this country includes Edison -- but also the people who founded Silicon Valley, and those who put the first men on the moon. All of this was managed without any norm-based standardized testing. But these examples are the exceptions -- much more of history is filled with people going about their day-to-day lives: shopkeepers, booksellers, teachers, factory workers, scientists and marketing folk -- to name a few. There are bus drivers, doctors, firemen (sorry -- fighters) and the list just goes on. Fully half of them will "have to" score below the 50th percentile. What is this doing to their self-esteem when they are at such a tender age? By the time today's kids are adults in mid-career, I'll be in my old age (if I get that far ;). Personally, I'd like my doctors and nurses then to be very well adjusted, psychologically. Ditto for the firemen and women protecting my life and property. And everyone else, for that matter.

The scores of the standardized tests of *my* youth greatly affected the psyche of those who scored poorly -- I witnessed this myself. And at that time, there was none of the added pressure from parents or teachers to "do well" because "we are all counting on you." 

To recap, I ask only that a campaign be mounted to tell parents that they have a right to opt out. Parents today are busy -- everyone today is busy -- there is a lot of stress going around. Most households have all of the parents -- be it a two-parent or a one-parent household -- working. We parents barely have the time to manage day-to-day activities, let alone research laws regarding opting-out of testing. You mentioned yourself that teachers ARE NOT ALLOWED to discuss this with parents!!!!!! How then are parents supposed to find out?

An earlier poster suggested that "equal time" is too much. Well, perhaps it is. But anything less won't ensure that parents get this information, that they have a *legal right* to opt out. Shouldn't parents be informed of their legal rights?!

Perhaps a public-service television commercial would serve as well -- it matters less what form the information comes in, than that it is distributed to the parents, who have a right to know.

Best Regards,
JS Kelly
parent