This new research report from Educational Testing Services is a solid contribution to the evidence base—rather than the opinion base—about the so-called “opt-out” movement. Author Randy E. Bennett finds that parents’ refusal to let their children sit for standardized tests is “a complicated, politically charged issue made more so by its social class and racial/ethnic associations. It is also an issue that appears to be as much about test use as about tests themselves.”
Opt-out true believers will likely dismiss out of hand anything coming from a testing outfit. but they ought to take a long look. The report does a good job synthesizing data from both the national and state departments of education, published surveys, and other sources to put between two covers exactly what is known—and can be sensibly divined—about who is opting out and why. “Parents who opt their children out appear to represent a distinct subpopulation,” the report notes. In New York, for example, “opt-outs were more likely to be white and not to have achieved proficiency on the previous year’s state examinations.” Test refusers are also less likely to be poor or to attend a school district serving large numbers of low-income families or ELL students. None of this is entirely surprising (it largely matches the conventional wisdom), but it does offer light to a vitriolic debate. Opt-out has become a charged civil rights issue precisely because of who is not doing it. Testing means data. Data drives demand for school improvement and school choice. Thus far, the main beneficiaries of education reform—to which testing lends credibility and moral authority—are low-SES urban families, historically among the most likely to be outside looking in when it comes to good schools. The stakes are high for high-stakes tests.
Some parts of the country emerged as opt-out hotbeds, while in others kids, trudged off to school with No. 2 pencils freshly sharpened. Why is that? “Some states, like California, did not link teacher evaluation to student test scores.” Others made linkages but “did not make test scores the preponderant evaluation criterion.” Still others merely delayed tying test scores to teachers. “Finally, most states avoided direct confrontation with teacher unions,” notes Bennett. He concludes that “while the majority of the public opposes opt-out, the minority that supports it is sizable, organized, vocal, and politically effective.”
That being the case, Bennett concludes with a discussion of how the assessment community might respond to the existential opt-out threat. I hope I will not be branded a cynic for thinking that his first suggestion—“more active and effective communication targeted at policy makers, state department staff, local educators, parents, students, and the public”—might suffer from an excess of optimism. The charged politics of opt-out seem unlikely to be ameliorated by “foster[ing] greater understanding of the value of high-quality [Bennett’s emphasis] assessment and its appropriate use” anytime soon.
Similarly, it would surely get the attention of opt-out parents to hear test makers concede “that we agree with opt-out advocates…about the limited relevance—and negative instructional effects—of relying too heavily on multiple choice tests.” But the second part of the message might fall less winningly on opt-out ears: “Common Core assessments have made important moves…such that the term standardized test no longer means ‘fill in the bubbles.’” When the report acknowledges that “the use of test scores to evaluate teachers is a highly controversial practice, even within the educational research community,” you know there’s a “but” coming. And here it is: “That said, the need to evaluate educator performance is a legitimate one, and student results might play some role, pending validation evidence.” In the end, “the community needs to build assessments that encourage participation “because parents, teachers, and students see participation, and preparation, as worthwhile learning endeavors,” writes Bennett.
And I am Marie of Romania.
OK, that was cynical. I take it back. While the ETS report is an important contribution to understanding who is opting out and why, and a worthy effort to engage various stakeholders in a conversation about the form and uses of testing, it’s hard to have a nuanced conversation in a nuance-averse environment. Quelling the opt-out impulse almost certainly has less to do with better tests and communications than how we use test results—including, most notably and contentiously, using them for teacher evaluations. Test makers can’t do that alone.
SOURCE: Randy E. Bennett, “Opt Out: An Examination of Issues,” ETS Research Report Series (April 2016).
