Did Your School District Inform You of Your Rights?

As many of you are aware, there is a new federal law on the books regarding education that is titled Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). There is an interesting provision in this law that parents may find useful, according to Senator Murkowski's Office. 

Oh, Alaska parents, did you not know that the Alaska Department of Education and your local school districts were suppose to inform you of your rights to refuse the test under the new federal law?  

Perhaps Interim Commissioner MacCauley is too busy calling parents a threat to be bothered to study the new ESSA?  Because under the new law, it is her job to notify parents of their right to refuse the test, not to demonize them in power noodle presentations. 

Once again, this blog will be about the work that your tax dollars pay others to do.


First, there is the provision that districts are suppose to inform parents that they have the right to refuse/opt out of testing. 

Section 1111(e)(2), which reads:

‘‘(e) PARENTS RIGHT-TO-KNOW.—

‘‘(2) TESTING TRANSPARENCY.—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—At the beginning of each school year, a local educational agency that receives funds under this part shall notify the parents of each student attending any school receiving funds under this part that the parents may request, and the local educational agency will provide the parents on request (and in a timely manner), information regarding any State or local educational agency policy regarding student participation in any assessments mandated by section 1111(b)(2) and by the State or local educational agency, which shall include a policy, procedure, or parental right to opt the child out of such assessment, where applicable.

‘‘(B) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.—Subject to subparagraph (C), each local educational agency that receives funds under this part shall make widely available through public means (including by posting in a clear and easily accessible manner on the local educational agency’s website and, where practicable, on the website of each school served by the local educational agency) for each grade served by the local educational agency, information on each assessment required by the State to comply with section 1111, other assessments required by the State, and where such information is available and feasible to report, assessments required districtwide by the local educational agency, including—

‘‘(i) the subject matter assessed;

‘‘(ii) the purpose for which the assessment is designed and used;

‘‘(iii) the source of the requirement for the assessment; and

‘‘(iv) where such information is available—

‘‘(I) the amount of time students will spend taking the assessment, and the schedule for the assessment; and

‘‘(II) the time and format for disseminating results.

‘‘(C) LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY THAT DOES NOT OPERATE A WEBSITE.—In the case of a local educational agency that does not operate a website, such local educational agency shall determine how to make the information described in subparagraph (A) widely available, such as through distribution of that information to the media, through public agencies, or directly to parents.

Second, the federal law cannot override state and local legislation--or the Alaska Constitution. It is in the law itself.  Again,  Section 1111(b)(2)(K)m which ensures that State or local laws allowing parents to opt their children out of assessments cannot be overruled by the U.S. Department of Education.  Section 1111(b)(2)(K) reads:

‘‘(2) ACADEMIC ASSESSMENTS.—

‘‘(K) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION ON PARENT RIGHTS.—

Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as preempting a State or local law regarding the decision of a parent

to not have the parent’s child participate in the academic assessments under this paragraph.

Then there is that pesky 95% test rule from No Child Left Behind. The old rule stated that a state was not making Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) if 95% of students failed to take the exam. It seems the "requirement" is still there in Sec. 111.

Sec. 1111

‘‘(c) STATEWIDE ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM.—

‘‘(4) DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM.—

‘‘(E) ANNUAL MEASUREMENT OF ACHIEVEMENT.—

Annually measure the achievement of not less than 95 percent of all students, and 95 percent of all students in each subgroup of students, who are enrolled in public schools on the assessments described under subsection (b)(2)(v)(I).

‘‘(IV) the weight of any measure or indicator used to identify or meaningfully differentiate schools, under this part;

‘‘(V) the specific methodology used by States to meaningfully differentiate or identify schools under this part;

HOWEVER,  under ESSA,  the 95% requirement is no longer a pass/fail indicator.  If a state chooses for it not to be a requirement, it can simply rewrite the weights assigned in the formula for evaluating schools, or in the case of Alaska, the Alaska School Performance Index,  commonly called the ASPI by education technocrats. For example, give a weight of 0.1% to participation rate in evaluating schools and the Department cannot make them do otherwise:

Sec. 1111

‘‘(e) PROHIBITION.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or permit the Secretary—

‘‘(B) as a condition of approval of the State plan, or revisions or amendments to, the State plan, or approval of a waiver request submitted under section 8401, to—

‘‘(iii) prescribe—

‘‘(III) indicators that States use within the State accountability system under this section, including any requirement to measure student growth, or, if a State chooses to measure student growth, the specific metrics used to measure such growth under this part;

‘‘(IV) the weight of any measure or indicator used to identify or meaningfully differentiate schools, under this part;

‘‘(V) the specific methodology used by States to meaningfully differentiate or identify schools under this part;

‘‘(XI) the way in which the State factors the requirement under subsection (c)(4)(E)(i) [the 95% participation rate; see above] into the statewide accountability system under this section; or

‘‘(C) to issue new non-regulatory guidance that—

‘‘(i) in seeking to provide explanation of requirements under this section for State or local educational agencies, either in response to requests for information or in anticipation of such requests, provides a strictly limited or exhaustive list to illustrate successful implementation of provisions under this section; or

‘‘(ii) purports to be legally binding;

Don't forget, your right as a parent doesn't flow from the state of Alaska, it flows from the founding documents, along with the due process provisions of the 14th Amendment. Alaskan parents should not be bullied.

The "Refuse the AMP" Sample Letter

Refusal/Opt Out of ESSA Testing--- Sample letter for Alaska



I am the legal parent/guardian  of _________________________ at ___________________________

                                                      (Child's name)                                  (School/District)

I am refusing to consent to my child being administered the Alaska Measures of Progress (AMP) in the 2015-2016 academic year. 

Without my consent, the data from the Alaska Measures of Progress, along with other information in the Online Alaska Student Information System (OASIS) is being given, without my consent, to the Alaska Commission on Post-secondary Education. From there, the data is being shared with other entities. Commissioner Hanley gave assurance in May 2015 that the data would no longer be shared and the P-20W grant would expire. However, a recent presentation in Juneau by ACPE indicates that the ANSWERS project is alive and well. This data sharing and tracking of students continues, despite assurances otherwise made by the Commissioner in May 2015. This violates my child's right of privacy under the Alaska Constitution and violates my right as a parent.

Furthermore, the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development has not provided any documentation showing the validity of the AMP test.  In the 2014-2015 academic year, the test scores did not provide educators with any useful information in a timely fashion. With less than 20% of the state testing at the proficient level, it seems there are major problems with the test as a measure of student progress. This is not a metric I want on my child's permanent record. 

The Alaska Department of Education and Early Development is eliminating the test in subsequent academic years. This means that if there are any results, there will be no basis of comparison. Therefore, there is no benefit to my child for taking the test. 

As the parent, I have the right to refuse the test without retribution to myself or my child. That right was recognized in hearings before the Alaska Senate by outgoing School Board President Esther Cox and in October 2015 by Commissioner Hanley. The right to refuse is also included in the 2014 AMP District Test Coordinator Manual, page 112, and by the Alaska State Senate Education Committee.

The right of the parent flows from the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment in Meyer v Nebraska (262 U.S. 390, 402) and upheld in Prince v. Massachusetts, (321 U.S. 158). Constitutional law has greater weight than Alaska's Administrative Code. 

While the District may be obligated to make sure 95% of all students are tested, the new federal law allows states to determine how that calculation is made and how the sanctions are determined. Since the Commissioner is already on the record that there will be no retribution, it would be difficult for any school to be penalized over the 95% rule. 

__________________________________

Parent Signature & Contact Information

AMP's Adaptive Testing, Project AWARE--Why Should You Care?

The Alaska Measures of Progress is an adaptive test. There is a "flat" non-adaptive version that will be offered in limited area and groups this year. In subsequent years, it is suppose to be adaptive. Adaptive tests are not quite the same thing as "dynamic tests." In dynamic tests, the questions are similar with side-loop tutorials for students who miss the question. Students who demonstrate mastery by-pass the side-loops. Students in a class will have the same material, but the pace of the material is different.

This test is not a dynamic test. This test is adaptive. There is a difference in the technology. Before discussing the technology, it is important to note that the Alaska Department of Education claims that no psychometric data is on the test. However, there is a concurrent project worth nothing.

Related Projects 

If your school is offering the computer version of the test, it will be adaptive. The Alaska Department of Education and Early Development claims that the test focuses on academics. Perhaps this is so. However, there is a project that seems to overlap the test that should give parents pause.

"Project Aware" is a $9.1 million project that seems to overlap the AMP test.  Somehow, it survived the legislature's surgical knife. It  is a  project in the south central region of the state known  aimed at mental health awareness issues. It is unknown precisely what this covers.  This project appears to involve the American Institute of Research. The project will capture over 60% of Alaska's testing population. It may be in subsequent years this project will be expanded to the rest of the state and will overlap the the AMP. The data could be readily correlated.

Perhaps it is a bit of paranoia to speculate on the implementation of a mental health survey concurrent with adaptive testing. Given the American Institute of Research's longstanding involvement with military and CIA contracts on psychological issues, it is probably rather innocent. Since the AK DEED won't release the AMP scores until October 2015, one wonders why a computerized scoring service is receiving the student data. It may be they plan to correlate testing data with some of these mental health indicators. 

Adaptive Testing Technology

Adaptive testing is nothing "new." What is "new" is the use of technology. The problem with adaptive tests is that it open to manipulation, and there is no way to determine how the test was manipulated or what questions your child was asked.  However, paper tests can be adaptive, and past efforts at adaptive testing were with pencil and paper. It is cumbersome and time consuming to do adaptive tests with paper and pencil, but there was an effort to do so in Pennsylvania years in the 1980s. When they were finally able to get the test released, activists discovered that these tests were not covering material that the average parent would have expected them to cover.





Adaptive testing is a test where subsequent questions change based on the response to the previous question. Questions vary in difficulty as well, and the student's ability to perform on one type of question is considered. Jon Cohen, Vice President of the American Institutes for Research and developer of the adaptive technology used in the SBAC and PARCC tests describes adaptive testing in the video below.

One of the reasons adaptive testing fell "out of fashion" with the education establishment  was the known bias against lower socioeconomic groups. The litigation risk due to bias became clear in Allen et al. v. The Alabama State Board of Education (1999), among other cases.  Has anyone in the state considered the litigation risk of giving a biased test?


 Jon Cohen explains in the video below how adaptive testing is biased against test takers in lower socioeconomic groups. Andrew Halcro, a member of the Education Sustainable Task Force noted on the final day of the task force (December 29, 2014) that in Anchorage, those of lower socioeconomic groups tend to be more racially diverse. The implication then, is that these tests will be biased against racially diverse populations.

One might wonder why the Alaska DEED would give such a test when there are race-based targets set in the accountability measures. There are plenty of reasons for speculation, but nothing is particularly certain. It does seem as if certain areas of the state might be set up to fail the test. The Alaska Department of Education established target test scores for students in their Annual Measurable Outcomes, or AMO, by student race.  It selected a technology that is known to hurt students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.  One can't help but think this is a set up of sorts.

The other question many have pondered is why the Native community isn't upset about these tests and the AMO targets. One can only speculate on what Elizabeth Peratrovich would say today. 

The reason, of course has to do with the purpose of the test. The test isn't designed to measure student achievement. The test is designed to measure if the material has been covered that the state wants covered and to evaluate the teacher. Whether that teacher is in a brick and mortar school or in a homeschool, that is what the state is trying to measure.

That is why they can get around the bias issue in testing. They claim they are not measuring your child, but measuring the teacher. 

If they are measuring the teacher and not the student, why does the information go into the P-20W data system under the student's name?

So, even if a parent is fine with the data security issues, the scores on the test won't be comparable to other students in the class. They are to check to see if the school is covering the Common Core materials.

Programming Issues

It is bad enough that Alaskan students have had to suffer indignities of the Terra Nova and the programming errors associated with that test. For those unaware, the Terra Nova had serious problems in scoring.  The scoring of the test was invalidated on several occasions. Of course, parents in Alaska never heard about it, but how many teachers, students, and parents were affected by false low reading scores on this test?

"Over time, McGraw Hill determined that a programming error caused the percentile rankings on the TerraNova to be too low at the lower end of the scale and too high at the upper end. As a result, approximately a quarter of a million students in six states were given the wrong national percentile scores."  (Errors inStandardized Tests:A Systemic Problem, National Board on EducationalTesting and Public Policy, Boston College, p. 11-12).

Alaska could have had their scores examined. However, the Alaska Department of Education at that time chose to ignore what was happening in the lower 48.

Then there were the math errors on the exit exams in Minnesota that were the subject of lawsuits. It took parents months to get a copy of the test, and when they did they found several errors from a miscoding of the answer key in the programing (Boston College, p. 15).  Indeed, after reading Errors in Standardized Tests:A Systemic Problem, National Board on Educational Testing and Public Policy, Boston College, one might be hesitant about the use of computers at all.  Those problems were found because there was a paper version of the test, and the test was the same for each student.

In computerized, adaptive testing, there is no paper copy, and there is no way to determine what question a child had to determine if there was a problem with the computer programing or the student.  One can believe that the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development will be all to happy to tell a school that the student or the teacher needs remediation rather than check the validity of the test.

A Final Word on Adaptive Testing 

Adaptive testing was used in an earlier era and its use prompted a slew of legislation afterwards restricted the use of these tests. The most notorious of these tests was the Pennsylvania EQA. One of the more voracious fighters against the EQA was a lady named Anita Hogue. Her video is long is over an hour long and worth every minute. She is the lady referenced by Peg Luksik in the video above.  Watch it when you have time to really focus. These tests are backed by people who have an agenda.

Refuse The AMP To Preserve Your Child's Data Privacy

http://tiny.cc/NOAMP

See Page 112 of http://tiny.cc/AMPBook

If you don't know what to say in your letter or email, you can use the following form. Be polite, but be firm. Just say no thank you.