Hundreds of Riverhead students opt out of state assessment tests: What’s behind it and what impact will it have?

With 613 students, amounting to more than 26 percent of Riverhead school district students in grades 3 through 8, opting out of the state tests Superintendent Nancy Carney says “there is no question that the number of opt-outs we currently have will affect the validity of the assessments.”

Parents across Long Island have made the decision to opt out of the New York State Common Core standardized tests, with some districts such as Comsewogue having opt-out rates of 82 percent. The English language arts tests began on Tuesday and continue through today. The math assessments will begin next week and many suspect the numbers may increase.

Parents asked why they decided to opt their children out of the testing, generally cited two main factors: the belief that the tests are not developmentally appropriate and the fact that teacher’s evaluations are tied to student performance, which many believe leads to extensive test prep, or ‘teaching to the test.’

Parents and educators are also frustrated by tests they believe are not written with student’s current reading levels in mind. One Long Island administrator who agreed to be interviewed for this article with the understanding that his name and district not be disclosed stated that “kids are set up to fail” noting that on the third grade assessments “stories released for 3rd grade reflect reading levels at the 4th, 5th, & 6th grade level.”

The administrator recommended that those interested in understanding the tests visit the Engage New York website .

“As you look through the stories, NYSED has a page detailing the readability. For 3rd grade the first story is on a 7th grade reading level. These 8-year-olds are being tested on 7th grade material with a set time limit. It is developmentally inappropriate. And Cuomo is blaming teachers for this. So in the end…parents should opt out not because of teachers or their evaluations. Opt-outs should be because the tests are not a true evaluation of student learning. If students are to be challenged, give them the time to use what they have learned and show what they know. A 5th grade student today said, “why don’t they give us the time to go back in the story to determine which answer is best? All four choices are correct but the best answer requires my re-reading.  I know I could finish this test and do well but they didn’t give me enough time”,” the administrator explained.

Allyson Matwey of Wading River is opting out both of her children who are in grades three and six. “I also have seen some sample test passages and math problems and began to realize that these tests were assessing skills that were above the grade levels that they were purporting to assess. They are developmentally inappropriate for kids. So how fair is it to say teachers are ineffective based upon tests and curriculum that are not at the grade level they teach?” Matwey questioned.

To understand the issues parents and educators have with state testing, it is necessary to go back a few years. New York State was one of the first states to begin state tests based on common core learning. Most states are waiting for either Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium or the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers to create Common Core aligned tests which were anticipated to be available for use this year. New York did not want to wait until 2015 to begin testing and chose to move forward ahead of the others by hiring Pearson to create tests in 2013. That first year, the test results were not factored into teacher evaluations and were considered a benchmark year. see this article:

Last year was the first year that 20 percent of the teacher’s evaluations were based on the outcome of state testing. What is confusing to many people is the way that those scores affect teacher evaluations. It’s not strictly based on the student’s performance on the tests, but rather on student improvement – or growth – from year to year.

“The APPR requirements are complicated when it comes to the 20-percent state side for state assessments. Cuomo speaks about achievement but it is not related to achievement at all it’s related to student growth. For example, we had special Ed classes who had no students passing, yet the students made significant growth compared to last year based on their rank with like peers and [teachers] scored highly effective. We had teachers who had 50 percent of their students pass, yet when these students were ranked with their like peers, the teacher scored 0 and [were rated] ineffective or 4 [rating] them developing,” the administrator explained.

If that’s not confusing enough, it gets even more complicated when you factor in the opt-outs. The administrator explained it this way:

For this year, if you try to figure out impact on teachers it is quite difficult for the following reasons:

• Students in this year’s class who opted out last year can’t get a growth score;
• Couple this with added opt-outs, and a growth score for the teacher will be minimal. Remember, the higher the number, the greater the average score. The lower the number, the lower the average score;
• High scoring students who opt out do not hurt the teacher as much as low scoring students. The reason is low scoring students make larger growth as the cut scores are more weighted to failing than passing. Although, high scoring students do help the teacher for achievement;
• Teachers require a minimum of 16 test scores, so opt-outs will minimalize the number. For elementary ELA and math count as 2 scores per student;
• High scoring students who scored high last year, let’s say 95, are compared to like students. So if said student scores a 91 and their like peers score higher, the student ranks in the bottom and gets a 0 growth score negatively impacting the teachers overall growth score.

The administrator concluded by saying “last year’s scores compared to this year’s is what mostly makes up the convoluted system the state has devised.”

All of this demonstrates how the current system is set up. Governor Cuomo has proposed for teacher’s evaluations to be based 50 percent on the state tests, rather than the current 20 percent.

This is the tipping point for many parents.

“Not only do I disagree with the inappropriate content of these tests, I don’t want my children used as political pawns to rate their teacher’s performance,” Calverton resident Kimberly Reichenbach said. “Now, half of teacher’s evaluations will be based on one state test.  Tests are written grade levels above children’s abilities,” she added. “Please understand that both my children are good students. This has nothing to do with fear about how they might perform. This is an act of civil disobedience.  It is the only way to attempt to make it clear to my school district, the SED, the governor, the Board of Regents, and the state and federal governments that I do not agree with what is happening to my children’s education. And I will not participate in a political game.”

And she is not alone. “I do have concerns about the scores being used so prominently in the teacher evaluations. Nowhere does it take into account the types of learners in the classroom. Again, research has supported that lower scores are prevalent in lower SES communities. How can a teacher and even an administrator be honestly assessed when factors outside of their control are heavily contributing to their student’s performance? It is a tragedy for both the student and the educational professionals,” stated Marguerite McCabe of Wading River.

A study by the education advocacy group High Achievement New York asserts that opt-outs are more common among affluent parents.  See New York Post article. According to the article, the study found that nine of the 10 districts where students opt out of the state tests last year were in affluent long island communities.

Aquebogue resident Yolanda Thompson has concerns about an over-reliance on test scores and what that will mean for the classroom, creating “a culture of drilling and teaching to the test. Valuable class time will be spent on test prep and the children will feel the pressure that their teachers’ jobs are on the line based on how they perform on these tests. That is unfair pressure to place on children. That is not a position children should be put in.”

Consistently, parents cited their belief that the tests are developmentally inappropriate, in addition to the concerns regarding a portion of teacher evaluations being based on student growth scores on these tests. However, other concerns were mentioned that factored heavily on the decision to opt out. One is what is perceived as changes in the classroom environment since these tests were introduced in 2013. Parents feel that social studies and science have been devalued as educators focus on ELA and Math.

“We were not happy with the change in the classrooms. We had an older daughter and older cousins who went through the district to compare curriculum and learning environment to. We noticed that our oldest child had a better foundation for math and enjoyed reading for pleasure. My younger two children avoided reading at home (“we do so much reading at school, don’t make me”),” McCabe explains.

“Let’s not forget the almost nonexistent science and social studies curriculum. I’m not sure people realize that their child’s day is blocked into literacy and math. Why? Because that is teaching to the ELA and math state tests.  There is very little time to teach anything else,” Reichenbach said.

For some parents the problem isn’t common core, it is the way that Common Core is being implemented. “The idea of Common Core is a good one, it’s the backwards implementation and linking it to teacher evaluations that has me ticked,” stated Aquebogue resident Tracy Oak who added that she believes that Common Core was rolled out poorly.

Looking to the future, short of eliminating all student testing, Matwey feels that she has an idea for a compromise “while I would love to completely do away with state assessments altogether, I feel that grade span testing (grades 4,8 and high school) would be sufficient as long as the tests were developmentally appropriate and can truly be used to inform instruction, unlike the current tests which no one can see or discuss.”

Moving forward, it is uncertain what decisions the committee as determined by the New York State Board of Regents along with the state education department will make as to what the make-up of the state tests will be that are expected to account for 50 percent of a teacher’s evaluation system. For teachers who do not teach subjects covered by the state tests, the committee has the responsibility of determining what assessments may be used to calculate evaluation scores.

While no one, include the superintendent of schools, likes the prospect of tying 50 percent of teachers’ evaluations to state testing of students, Carney has repeatedly stated that she is optimistic that the system will be fairer than feared because educators have a hand in determining the makeup of the tests and how they will impact teachers.

“SED is now in charge of the APPR process; it’s really going to be a collaborative effort including educators. I’m hopeful they’re going to include a process that’s fair for teachers,” Carney said at the April 7 special meeting of the Board of Education.

For now, there’s anxiety by both educators and parents as they wait and see what the committee will come up with. Gary Karlson, vice president of the Riverhead Central Faculty Association said he isn’t sure whether the significant number of opt-outs affect the outcome of those decisions, but says “it is our hope that whatever message(s) constituents deliver to lawmakers will be factored into their decision-making regarding this issue or any other for that matter.”