Ohio lawmakers recently proposed a bill (HB 420) that would remove students who opt out of standardized tests from the calculation of certain school and district accountability measures. Representative Kristina Roegner (R-Hudson), who introduced the bill, declared that “if [a student is] not going to take the test, in no way should the school be penalized for it.” Students who fail to take state exams (for any reason, not just opting out) count against two of ten school report card measures, the performance index score, and the K–3 literacy measure. Non-participating students receive zeroes, which pulls down the overall score on those components.
On first reading, Roegner’s sentiments seem obvious: Why should schools be held responsible for students who decline even to sit for the exams? Is it the job of schools to convince students (or their parents, the more likely objectors) to show up on exam day? While compulsory schooling laws do require students to attend school, there is nothing especially enforceable about exam day in particular. Ohio does not prohibit opting out. Nor does it explicitly allow it, as some states do (e.g., Pennsylvania allows a religious objection to testing; Utah and California allow it for any reason).
But this bill is short-sighted. By giving schools a free pass for non-participants, HB 420 would open the door for gaming the accountability system in ways that could hurt at-risk students the most. Senate Education Committee Chair Peggy Lehner and my colleague Chad Aldis have already identified this as the bill’s most glaring problem. If non-participants simply don’t count, schools (or teachers) could easily suggest to low-performing students that they take the day off. If and when that happens, the effect of HB 420 would be to let schools off the hook for educating their toughest students. Vital information about true performance would be concealed from parents and voters—and, indeed, from teachers as well. As my colleague Robert Pondiscio has argued, “Those most likely to be negatively affected by the opt-out impulse are low-income children of color, for whom testing has been a catalyst for attention and mostly positive change.”
If this were not reason enough for legislators to shelve the bill, they should consider another likely reality: HB 420 will make Ohio’s opt-out problem even worse (and therefore make school report card data less reliable). In addition to every poorly performing student counseled out and scrubbed from her school’s report card, there’s at least one more student—likely a higher performing one—whose parents question the value of testing. This is undoubtedly one of the reasons that the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) has encouraged schools to caution parents regarding the consequences of opting out, including its adverse impact on school and teacher ratings. This is a real motivator for conscientious, community-minded parents—those who may not see the value of testing for their own child but want to avoid lowering the reputation of their child’s school or teacher.
By removing consequences for opting out, ODE’s lever to encourage test participation loses oomph. The likely result would be more parents keeping their children home on testing day. An increase in the number of opt-outs could eventually cause Ohio to be slapped with a federal “corrective action plan.” The recently passed Everyone Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which takes effect in the 2017–18 school year, is designed to return education decisions to the states. But it still requires that 95 percent of students (and student subgroups) participate in state assessments. This isn’t a hypothetical situation, either: Thirteen states are already being compelled by the U.S. Department of Education to develop corrective action plans for unsatisfactory test participation rates. (For the 2015–16 and 2016–17 school years, NCLB rules are still in place, which means that Ohio could actually lose Title I money for falling below 95 percent.) Consider, then, that just when Ohio should be charting its own course to improve student achievement, more opt-outs could place the state right back under federal scrutiny.
While we won’t know Ohio’s 2014–15 participation rates until next month, it’s clear that the Department of Education is taking opt-outs seriously, telling states to “ensure that all students will participate in statewide assessments” (emphasis added). Example actions suggested to states include lowering a district’s or school’s rating, counting non-participants as non-proficient, and even withholding state aid from districts with low participation rates. From the sound of it, the department would not consider the wholesale removal of penalties for non-participation as a satisfactory way to address opt-outs.
In sum, any measure that deters students from taking the state assessment is destined to create more grief than solace for Ohio. It will mean turning a blind eye to districts that push aside poor and low-achieving students—essentially sanctioning what Columbus City Schools did a few years ago when they scrubbed away student test scores. It will yield an accountability system that is less accurate and robust. And it will give an unintended boost to the opt-out movement in Ohio, potentially thrusting the Buckeye State into a federal corrective action plan at a time when the state should be going its own way.
