The Every Student Succeeds Act is very clear about expectations for state assessments as well as participation rates in those assessments. Some of this may surprise you, including the mechanism by which every single student can be opted out in certain conditions!!!
Once again, no social studies requirement. Are these assessments the same as the current wave including the Smarter Balanced Assessment and the PARCC tests?
If you thought standardized tests were going to disappear from this legislation, you were wrong. They are still there. Who needs to take them? The below language clearly defines the expectation on the school or school district’s part:
There is a lot thrown into these two sections. The word “all” does not mean all students have to take the assessment. This law stipulates schools must give the test, but it does not define the responsibility of the student to actually take the test. The words coherent and timely need to be more defined in my opinion. One of the biggest arguments against SBAC and PARCC was they did not provide either, nor were they considered valid and reliable. Having the results come out after the school year ends, or even into the next school year does nothing for students who advance to the next grade. By the time parents see the results, most have long since moved on from the prior year’s assessment.
This is the big one. This is the heart of the legality of opt-out. Those two words define what the school has to do, not the student.
The above defines what the school needs to do with assessments. They must “provide for”. I can provide chocolate-chip cookies at a bake sale, but I can’t make everyone buy them.
Welcome to stealth testing! This is where personalized learning rears its head in this legislation, but not overtly said. The future of standardized assessments will be embedded into end of unit modules on student’s computers. Instead of the “once-a-year” assessment, or even 2-3 times like in the past in some states, these will be constant assessments. This law allows schools to come up with a summative score based on all these little assessment.
Yes, adaptive assessments. What we currently have in the once a year assessment, but set up for personalized learning and competency-based education.
Here is the loophole, and one of the reasons these tests are so dangerous. The adaptability allows corruption in the data. The programmers of the assessment can manipulate them in a way that certain students have a disadvantage. When a student gives an end-of-unit test, all students are given the same questions. Why should a standardized assessment be any different? But this law allows that!
Here is the snake in the grass. How can a student be determined proficient for current school year instruction if they are given items on a test that are above the grade level? I can understand items below the grade level. If a student is behind, you would want to know what level they are at. I get that. But to go above like that…it leads to all sorts of issues.
This is the clincher! And I love they put the words “local law”. Does a district board of education policy honoring a parent’s right to opt-out of the state assessment count as local law? If a state’s accountability system has opt-out penalties which could harm a school’s rating, would this not completely contradict this part of the legislation? And if it is a state law to honor opt-out and not punish, then there is nothing anyone can do about it! Which is why the legislators in Delaware need to override Governor Markell’s veto of their opt-out legislation as soon as possible!!!!
Another big thing going on right now is “assessment inventory”. I believe this will wipe out many of the district assessments in favor of the state assessments. Especially if the future will be stealth mode on assessments…
The Season Of Myths 
Why should a student be allowed to demonstrate proficiency below the grade level but not above? If my child is working above grade level, knowing that would significantly increase the ability of the teachers and school to place my child in honors, advanced placement, and gifted/talented programs. As a parent I fail to see the equity in allowing students to demonstrate lower proficiency but not higher proficiency.
LikeLike
It’s not that I question the ability to test proficiency at later grades, I question the methodology and what is done with that information. To say x amount of students are above grade level and that is above standard, then that really throws off the whole method of proficiency since the ratings should be based on where they are at grade level. It all has to do with where they set the bar for these tests. As well, these tests have not been validated to even determine this kind of information!
LikeLike
I thought the point of these tests were to determine where the students were at in their grade level? So if they test them all the same, they will know if a child is above grade level, at level or below? I think that’s a good thing unless I’m missing something? How else would a teacher or school know where a child is in their grade level?
LikeLike