HB14‐1202 Standards and Assessment Task Force  Public Input Received for the period of December 20 – January 8   

HB14‐1202 Standards and Assessment Task Force Public Input Received for the period of December 20 – January 8 # Comment 435. As a lifelong educator, I am deeply troubled by the use of TCAP and other packaged assessments to evaluate student and teacher performance. The following points summarize my observations. State standardized assessments evaluate children on end of the year standards in February and March. The testing conditions do not equate with the research on appropriate methods for measuring student performance. The accommodations needed by special education students, listed in their Individualized Education Plans, are not honored. An entire month of the valuable instruction time needed to teach our Colorado curriculum is lost as these standardized tests disrupt education throughout the school. There is no value in the results of these assessments. Teachers and parents do not receive specific information regarding the areas of instructional need for their individual students or themselves. A free and equal public education is what has made this country great. It is my opinion that these tests are given for the sole purpose of destroying public education and the misuse of assessment must be stopped. 436. Dear Task Force Members: The Boulder Valley School District (BVSD) supported the formation of the standards and assessment task force during the 2014 legislative session. BVSD parents, staff and students are actively engaged in the discussion of appropriate student assessments. Attached documents: 1) BVSD Board of Education Resolution 14‐04 supporting the formation of the assessment task force, approved by school board unanimously on March 11, 2014 2) BVSD analysis of Colorado student assessments. BVSD response to questions developed by the task force seeking public input: 1. What would an effective statewide assessment system include? An effective statewide model would require a minimal level of group assessment to achieve accountability for the state legislature. The present state assessment model is burdensome and disrupts quality instructional time. The state of Colorado should adhere to the student assessment requirements of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Additional student assessments should be determined by local school districts. 2. How could Colorado improve its assessment system? Please provide specific examples. Select or develop assessments that provide meaningful feedback to classroom teachers, school and district administration and the local Board of Education. Student assessment should be embedded in regular instruction so learning time is not disrupted. Assessments should be aligned with local curriculum and provide timely valuable feedback to classroom teachers and principals. Student assessment should not place additional burden on local school district resources, technology and instructional time. 3. What are the local assessments that are administered to students according to requirements for your district? If so, do you believe these assessments are valuable? Why? BVSD administers individual formative student assessments in mathematics and literacy to determine the unique needs of students. The assessment results are used to determine appropriate instructional intervention and programming for students to achieve maximum level of success. November 7, 2014 HB14‐1202 Standards and Assessment Task Force Public Input Received for the period of December 20 – January 8 Sincerely, Deirdre Pilch, Ed.D. Deputy Superintendent Bruce K. Messinger, Ph.D. Superintendent 437. Dear Representatives, I have a 3rd grader and a 7th grader in the Boulder Valley School District. I feel they have both been so fortunate to attend outstanding schools with outstanding teachers. I watch their teachers put so much thought and effort into their daily instruction. I feel that there are many, many downsides to the current amount of assessments and testing that our children experience during the year. The issue I want to highlight in this letter is the extra burden that it places on our teachers in terms of cutting into their instructional time. Please find a way to decrease assessments and testing in Colorado. I have also attached a letter specific to my son's school which I support whole‐heartedly. 438. To the Members of the Assessment Panel:
For the last ten years my work has taken me to schools across the United States as a school improvement coach. Prior to that, I served for many years as a teacher and principal in Colorado and spent several years doing education field research in school change and improvement. As an educational practitioner I have observed, and experienced, the changes in Colorado schools from the adoption of the first state standards and tests to our present day situation. I currently work in several Colorado school districts and spend considerable time in schools.I am very much in favor of using data for school improvement as well as teaching and learning. In my work, I use system‐wide data to help clients understand the "brutal reality" of their situation and the resulting need for school change. I welcome and promote the use of data in gauging school and district‐wide progress as we work to implement improvement initiatives. As we all know, the appropriate use of assessment data, both formative and summative, is one of the most powerful ways teachers can improve their practice. I teach educators to use individual student diagnostic data which will improve their school "one student at a time". However, from a policy point of view, our current reform efforts reflect a confused rationale for collecting data. Experts in organizational quality control tell us that systems can be monitored by sampling data and that the amount of the sample does not have to be particularly large. Experts in teaching and learning correctly assert that better diagnostic information will lead to more learning. But for some reason, we have conflated these two worthy "data‐use goals" into a single statewide system apparently driven by the maxim "the more, the better." We have prescribed summative evaluations for every student, every school, and every district, without regard for whether they are low performing or not. And now, the state has moved into prescribing a specific diagnostic testing regimen for all students at all levels, taking responsibility out of the hands of education professionals. We have gone so far as to mandate specific standardized tests for preschoolers, who we should know thrive when they can play, discover, and learn together ‐ not "prepare for kindergarten reading". As an aside, last February, I took a five month position as Interim Principal for a new charter school that suddenly found itself without a leader. I determined relatively quickly that a lack of focus on instruction was interfering with achievement in the school. Could I get into classrooms and help improve things? No! Preparing for CMAS ‐ establishing a computer lab, learning the testing software, scheduling students for testing, finding proctors, dealing with modifications , etc. ‐ consumed almost 100% of my time and energy. I see my experiences of last school year playing out over and over across our state. To say that a test only takes as much time as the testing period itself is a gross mischaracterization of reality. The mandated assessments are truly interfering with developing solutions to instructional challenges and building the capacity for better teaching and learning. November 7, 2014 HB14‐1202 Standards and Assessment Task Force Public Input Received for the period of December 20 – January 8 My suggestion: Develop a sampling system to screen schools and districts. If achievement problems are noted, provide help! CDE can then check out the capacity of the school for improving itself. If the potential is there for self improvement, let the school figure out how. If it can't, provide help ‐ voluntary or prescriptive, depending on the need. Develop a system of differentiated evaluation – require that schools use research based practices around assessment data, let them figure out how they will do that, then hold them accountable for results. Tight outcomes, loose methodology for achieving them. Tight monitoring of results, trust that, with some new learning, administrators and teachers can figure out the answers. We're educators, let's approach this as a learning issue, not one of punishments and rewards. If schools don't know how to do something, let's use assessment data to figure out how to help them ‐ not give them more work that to them is of questionable value. I haven't mentioned the fact that standardized tests for the most part measure lower level cognitive skills. If PARCC tests truly measure advanced common core skills, we should use them. If we can't afford to do it properly, why bother? And "doing it right" means figuring out a way to get results to teachers QUICKLY, so they can actually use the results to improve teaching and learning. Otherwise, PARCC becomes one more meaningless assessment that simply ranks schools by socio‐economic status, ignoring the fact that actual school improvement happens "one student at a time". 439. I am a parent of children attending BCSIS, a highly successful focus elementary school in the Boulder Valley School District. My family is fortunate that our children attend such an amazing and unique school with gifted, experienced staff and an involved parent community. I am writing because I oppose the newly mandated computer education assessments beginning in Kindergarten and the newly adopted measures that require increased hours of online testing in all elementary schools. BCSIS is a success story; it works. These new measures will force our school to alter its curriculum, compromise a core educational philosophy and adversely affect the exceptional education it offers our children. In addition, the time and expense required to comply with these measures will force BCSIS to cut programming that’s central to its successful integrated studies philosophy. Limiting ‐ and in early grades eliminating ‐ exposure to computers and electronic media is a critical element of the BCSIS approach. At BCSIS children interact with and learn from their teachers, fellow students and the real world instead of sitting in front of computer screens. Our school has had tremendous success in teaching children academics while opening their minds and hearts to the excitement of learning in ways that foster creativity and inquisitiveness. Our goal is to preserve our children’s sense of wonder, their joy in learning, their connection to real experience. Requiring our children to be assessed by computer starting at kindergarten and to focus on computer skills as of 2nd grade in order to take a stressful series of computer assessments (over 35 hours of regimented, standardized online testing starting in kindergarten through 5th grade) is a terrible idea for our school. Mandates coming down from the state level are often insensitive to the needs of schools. A healthy school system is like any healthy ecosystem – it needs diversity and balance to thrive. Every parent knows that children are not all the same. Some learn better under one set of teaching conditions, while others need something quite different. Statewide mandates need to be flexible enough to allow for a variety of teaching philosophies to meet the needs of different kinds of students and families. Please be our partner in helping to improve the education system in Colorado while increasing funding in manners that allow teachers, principals and local schools to determine the best ways to educate and evaluate our students. Please work with us ‐ and for us ‐ by finding alternative measures and alternative assessment scenarios that can work for our school by giving our school greater flexibility in implementing such measures and scenarios. November 7, 2014 HB14‐1202 Standards and Assessment Task Force Public Input Received for the period of December 20 – January 8 440. I am a parent of 2 children. I feel that our children are tested too much. They are required to take state assessments that are highly stressful to both the students and the teacher. The information received from this testing is not timely, nor does it offer much input to there actual skills. I disagree with 3rd grade students having to type short constructed responses. Yes most students have been exposed to a computer since Kindergarten, but typing a few things in and using a mouse are much different than actual keyboarding. Students at this age are not ready for this. They will spend more time looking for the letter they need than actually thinking about and getting their response down. I feel that the district assessments relay more information and growth over the school year. I also disagree with tying the teachers effectiveness of teaching to standardized testing. As I said before, I don't believe it give much input on the students actual growth for the year. I would rather see a 1‐2 day assessment given every other year or at key transition ages. I don't believe the current standards or standardized testing is benefiting my children. 441. I am writing today to express my deep concern over the direction in which public education in Colorado has headed in the last decade. I believe that in an effort to provide “accountability” to the tax‐paying public, a slate of misguided and heavy‐handed standardized tests have replaced actual teaching and instructional time throughout the State of Colorado. Without bold effort from this task force and the State Legislature in the coming year, we risk losing the opportunity to actually educate students in a manner that will insure that future generations have the critical thinking and creative problem solving skills needed to address the world in which they will live. Colorado embraced a school choice movement two decades ago, inviting diverse and innovative approaches to education which allowed parents to seek out the best school settings for their children. Recognizing that individual children can learn in relatively unique and different ways has filled Colorado with public schools that focus on STEM, the arts, classical education, Core Knowledge, Montessori and Waldorf, to name a few of these innovative approaches. However, with the adoption of Common Core and a nearly three‐month window of non‐stop testing, the State appears to be turning its back on this innovation in favor of a privatized, iron cage, one‐size‐will‐fit‐all approach to accountability. This inappropriate and outsized focus on standardized testing must be rectified as it is incongruous with real approaches to innovative education. There are much better ways to both insure accountability while actually educating Colorado’s children. As a result, I request that the Task Force clearly address the following issues:  Testing standards should be developed over time with the involvement of all stakeholders, and should be developmentally appropriate and norm‐
referenced. 
The number, variety, and overall duration of tests should be sufficient to gauge student skills, but not so excessive as to impinge on instructional time. 
Testing should support school accountability and, at the same time, provide real‐time results that enable teachers and schools to improve student outcomes. 
A clear, standard mechanism for “opt‐out” should be established that: a) empowers families to make reasonable choices for their children; b) obtains November 7, 2014 HB14‐1202 Standards and Assessment Task Force Public Input Received for the period of December 20 – January 8 data regarding why families choose to opt out of testing; and c) does not penalize schools for parental choices or create false accountability reports based on non‐testing. 
Curriculum guidelines for elementary, middle, and secondary school programs can and should be flexible enough to accommodate a variety of proven educational philosophies, allowing families to choose the educational environment best suited to their children’s needs. Please stand up for Colorado’s children by reigning in and refocusing the emphasis on standardized tests. Tests are merely a tool of accountability, but they will not ignite the thirst for knowledge that is inherent in everyone. Thank you for both your time and service on this task force. November 7, 2014 !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
LEADING(WITH(EXCELLENCE(
(
!
OPTING OUT OF ASSESSMENTS: A LEGAL OVERVIEW
!
!
This!memo!provides!an!overview!of!the!legal!requirements!concerning!standardized!state!
assessments!and!the!steps!CASB!is!taking!to!address!this!important!issue.!It!also!serves!as!a!
guide!to!help!our!members!effectively!navigate!the!complex!issues!raised!by!the!required!
student!participation!levels!in!state!assessments!and!students’!and/or!their!parents’!
requests!to!opt!out!of!these!tests.!This!memo!reflects!our!best!judgment!as!to!where!the!
law,!the!Colorado!Department!of!Education!(CDE),!and!the!United!States!Department!of!
Education!(USDOE)!stand!at!this!moment.!
!
What%standardized%assessments%are%required%by%federal%law?%
(
The!federal!No!Child!Left!Behind!Act!(NCLB)!requires!school!districts!that!receive!federal!
funds!to!administer!standardized!tests!to!students!as!follows:!!
!
• Annually!in!grades!3!through!8!for!English!language!arts!(reading!and!writing)!
• Annually!in!grades!3!through!8!for!mathematics!!
• At!least!once!in!high!school!for!English!language!arts!
• At!least!once!in!high!school!for!mathematics!!
• At!least!once!in!elementary!school,!middle!school!and!high!school!for!science!!
!
20!U.S.C.!§!6311(b)(3)(C)(v).!!!
(
What%standardized%assessments%are%required%by%state%law?%
!
State!law!requires!school!districts!to!administer!standardized!tests!to!students!as!follows:!!!
!
• Annually!in!grades!3!through!11!for!English!language!arts!(above!the!federal!
minimum!for!high!school)!!
• Annually!in!grades!3!through!8!and!three!times!in!high!school!for!math!(above!the!
federal!minimum!for!high!school)!!
• Once!in!elementary,!middle!and!high!school!for!science!(same!as!federal!minimum)!!
• Once!in!elementary,!middle!and!high!school!for!social!studies!(no!federal!
requirement)!!
• ACT!in!11th!grade!(no!federal!requirement)!!
!
C.R.S.!§§!22W7W409(1)(hWk),!W409(1.5)(a).!
!
!
!
!
!
State!law!also!requires!school!districts!to!administer!the!following!standardized!
assessments!to!students:!!
!
• School!readiness!assessment!for!kindergartners,!C.R.S.!§!22W7W1014(2)(a)!
(Preschool!to!Postsecondary!Education!Alignment!Act,!or!CAP4K)!
• Annual!literacy!assessment!for!students!in!kindergarten!through!3rd!grade,!C.R.S.!§§!
22W7W1201!et(seq.((Colorado!READ!Act)!
• ACCESS!assessment!for!English!Language!Learners,!C.R.S.!§§!22W24W101!et(seq.!
(English!Language!Proficiency!Act!or!ELPA)!
!
These!statutes!set!forth!criteria!or!guidelines!for!CDE!to!apply!when!selecting!approved!
assessments.!However,!the!actual!assessments!required!and,!in!some!cases,!when!they!
must!be!administered,!are!established!by!CDE!subject!to!the!requirements!in!statute.!
!
Does%the%law%require%all%students%to%take%the%standardized%assessments?%
!
Yes!W!the!NCLB!and!state!law!require!all!students!enrolled!in!public!schools!to!take!
standardized!assessments,!with!limited!exceptions!for!specific!categories!of!students.!20!
U.S.C.!§!6311(b)(3)(C)(ix);!C.R.S.!§!22W7W409(1)(d)(I)(A).!Students!with!severe!cognitive!
disabilities!may!take!alternate!assessments.!Students!with!limited!English!proficiency!may!
take!assessments!in!their!native!language!for!a!limited!number!of!years.!Private!school!and!
homeWschooled!students!who!are!enrolled!in!a!public!school!for!a!portion!of!the!school!day!
are!exempt!from!federal!and!state!testing!requirements,!even!if!they!are!included!in!the!
school!district’s!pupil!enrollment!count.!C.R.S.!§!22W7W409(1.2)(d)(3).!
!
Although!both!state!and!federal!law!require!all!students!to!take!these!assessments,!neither!
federal!nor!state!law!imposes!a!consequence!on!students!or!parents!for!not!taking!a!
required!assessment.!The!consequences!specified!in!law!are!imposed!on!states!and!
districts.!
!
What%does%federal%law%say%about%student%participation%rates%on%these%tests?%
(
The!NCLB!requires!a!school!district!to!maintain!a!95%!participation!rate!for!students!on!
the!federally!required!assessments!in!order!for!the!district!to!make!adequate!yearly!
progress!(AYP)!and!to!avoid!any!interventions!and!potential!loss!of!federal!funds.!20!U.S.C.!
§!6311(b)(2)(I).((
(
In!2011,!the!USDOE!announced!it!would!allow!states!to!request!flexibility!in!meeting!
NCLB’s!requirements.!To!receive!such!flexibility,!Colorado!was!required!to!demonstrate!in!
its!waiver!application!that,!in!the!alternative!to!NCLB!AYP!requirements,!it!had!already!
adopted!or!would!implement!an!equally!effective!system!of!academic!standards,!student!
assessments!and!accountability!systems.!Nothing!in!the!USDOE’s!announcement!or!in!the!
waivers!it!has!granted!suggests!or!implies!any!federal!flexibility!on!the!95%!student!
participation!requirement.!
2
!
Therefore,!although!Colorado!received!a!waiver,!the!state!must!still!impose!accountability!
consequences!for!school!districts!that!fail!to!meet!the!95%!student!participation!rate,!due!
to!the!language!of!Colorado’s!waiver.!Specifically,!the!terms!of!Colorado’s!waiver!provide:!!
!
Schools/districts! must! meet! a! 95%! participation! rate! on! the! CSAP! subject!
areas1!of!reading,!math,!writing!and!science!(similar!to!current!AYP),!as!well!
as!a!95%!participation!rate!on!the!ACT.!If!a!school!or!district!does!not!meet!
this! 95%! participation! rate! in! more! than! one! area,! its! plan! type! or!
accreditation!rating!is!lowered!one!level.!
(
Colorado(ESEA(Flexibility(Request,(p.!310!(initially!submitted!to!the!USDOE!in!September!
2011!and!reWsubmitted!in!January!2012).!As!far!as!we!know,!no!state!has!been!permitted!to!
waive!out!of!the!95%!participation!requirement.!
!
What%does%state%law%say%about%student%participation%rates?%
(
Although!the!95%!requirement!is!in!the!state’s!NCLB!waiver,!the(95%(participation(rate(is(
not(separately(required(by(state(law(or(State(Board(of(Education(rule.(Rather,!both!state!law!
and!the!State!Board!rules!implementing!the!Education!Accountability!Act!of!2009!provide!
only!that!student!participation!rates!will!be!factored!into!the!assignment!of!a!school!
district’s!and!school’s!accreditation!ratings.!See,!C.R.S.!§!22W11W210(2.5);!1!CCR!301W1,!Rule!
5.02,!Rule!10.01(A).!!
!
Specifically,!Rule!5.02!of!the!State!Board’s!accreditation!rules!provides:!
!
Information!concerning!the!percentage!of!students!enrolled!in!the!!
District’s! Public! Schools! who! are! not! tested! on! the! Statewide! Assessments!
will!not!be!factored!into!the!analysis!of!the!District’s!attainment!on!the!!
Performance!Indicators,!but!will!be!factored!into!the!Accreditation!!
category!assignment.!
!
Similar!language!is!found!in!Rule!10.01(A)!concerning!the!determination!of!the!type!of!
accreditation!plan!each!school!must!implement!based!in!part!upon!the!student!
participation!rate.!!A!2014!state!statute!also!provides!that!the!2015W16!accreditation!
ratings!will!take!account!of!student!participation!rates.!!C.R.S.!§!22W11W210(2.5).!
!
CDE!has!interpreted!the!required!participation!rate!to!be!95%!for!those!state!assessments!
in!the!specified!content!areas!(English,!math,!social!studies!and!science)!and!the!ACT.!See,(
CDE’s(District!Accountability!Handbook,!Version!4.1,!pp.!8W9,!41!(August!2014).!If!a!
district’s!or!school’s!student!participation!rate!falls!below!95%!for!two!or!more!of!the!
required!assessments,!the!district’s!or!school’s!plan!type!is!lowered!one!level.!Id.!The!95%!
1
Beginning this 2014-15 school year, Colorado will administer the Colorado Measures of
Academic Success (CMAS) and/or Partnership for Assessment of Readiness in College and
Careers (PARCC) assessments in these subject areas.
3
student!participation!rate!does!not!apply!to!the!assessments!required!by!CAP4K!(school!
readiness),!the!READ!Act!(literacy)!and!ELPA!(ACCESS),!nor!do!student!assessment!scores!
on!these!three!standardized!tests!negatively!affect!a!district’s!or!school’s!accreditation!
rating.!
!
The!NCLB!requires!a!95%!student!participation!rate!on!those!assessments!mandated!by!
the!NCLB.!Colorado’s!NCLB!waiver!requires!a!95%!participation!rate!on!the!NCLB’s!
required!assessments,!plus!the!ACT.!CDE’s!interpretation,!therefore,!goes!beyond!the!scope!
of!the!state’s!NCLB!waiver!concerning!student!participation!rates.!
!
How%should%districts%handle%opt%out%requests?%
(
Under!the!existing!legal!framework,!any!action!by!a!district!that!may!reasonably!be!
perceived!as!supporting!or!encouraging!students!to!opt!out!of!an!assessment!may!result!in!
CDE’s!conclusion!that!the!district!has!violated!its!legal!obligation!to!offer!these!
standardized!assessments!to!all!students.!!
!
Districts!wishing!to!comply!with!the!CDE!directive!and!avoid!accreditation!sanctions!by!the!
state!should,!at!a!minimum:!
!
• Continue!to!administer!all!state!assessments!
• Ensure!that!district!communications!explain!the!requirement!that!all!students!take!
state!assessments!and!the!potential!impact!on!the!district’s!or!school’s!accreditation!
rating!if!the!district!or!school!does!not!meet!95%!student!participation!
• Offer!students!the!opportunity!to!take!the!exam!if/when!they!return!to!school!
during!the!testing!window!
!
School!districts’!legal!and!ethical!responsibilities!to!students!are!much!broader!than!
administering!assessments.!We!do!not!believe!districts!can!force!students!to!take!the!state!
assessments!over!the!students’!or!their!parents’!objections.!We!also!do!not!recommend!
that!districts!prohibit!students!who!opt!out!of!state!assessments!from!returning!to!school!
during!the!testing!window.!School!districts!should!follow!local!board!policy!regarding!
student!absences!and!seek!legal!advice!from!the!district’s!legal!counsel!concerning!opt!out!
requests.!!
!
!
What%is%CASB%doing?%
(
In!the!fall!of!2014,!the!CASB!Delegate!Assembly!adopted!the!following!resolution:!!
!
CASB!urges!the!state!to!provide!an!opportunity!for!parents/students!to!!
opt!out!of!state!assessments!without!any!negative!consequences!for!local!!
districts.!
(
CASB(Delegate(Assembly,(Resolution(4.20,!p.!23!(adopted!September!27,!2014).!
(
4
The!Delegate!Assembly!also!adopted!resolutions!directing!CASB!to!support!legislation!to!
reduce!state!assessments!to!the!federal!minimum!(Resolution!4.19),!to!permit!individual!
districts!to!develop!an!alternative!assessment!system!(Resolution!4.21),!and!to!study!and!
devise!an!assessment!system!that!is!not!“redundant,!overly!disruptive!to!the!educational!
environment,!or!compromising!of!essential!instructional!time.”!(Resolution!4.18).!
!
Consistent!with!these!resolutions!adopted!at!the!2014!Delegate!Assembly,!CASB!plans!to!
work!with!the!2015!state!legislature!to!scale!back!Colorado’s!assessment!regime!to!the!
federal!minimum!requirements.!The!2014!state!legislature!created!a!task!force!to!study!
assessment!and!standards!this!summer!(HB!14W1202).!Two!school!board!members!are!on!
this!standards!and!assessment!committee.!CASB!is!actively!monitoring!and!working!with!
these!board!members!to!pursue!the!Delegate!Assembly’s!resolutions.!!
!
Importantly,!the!state!needs!to!reapply!for!its!federal!NCLB!waiver!in!January!2015.!CASB!
plans!to!strongly!encourage!CDE!to!modify!the!95%!student!participation!rate!requirement!
in!the!state’s!waiver!application!to!only!those!assessments!required!by!the!NCLB!and/or!to!
eliminate!the!participation!rate!requirement!altogether.!In!the!meantime,!CASB!will!work!
at!the!state!level!to!ensure!that!CDE!does!not!impose!the!95%!participation!requirement!on!
assessments!beyond!those!covered!by!the!state’s!NCLB!waiver.!
!
Finally,!CASB!will!provide!support!to!its!members!as!they!seek!reconsideration!of!any!
accreditation!sanctions!resulting!from!a!district’s!inability!to!meet!the!95%!participation!
rate!due!to!students!or!their!parents!opting!out!of!state!assessments.!
(
For!additional!questions!or!further!discussion,!please!contact!CASB!at!303W832W1000.!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Created!November!2014!
5
Jennifer Kemp
1017 Longs Peak Ave.
Longmont, CO 80501
[email protected]
January 5, 2015
Dear 1202 Task Force Members,
I am writing today to express my deep concern over the direction in which public education in Colorado has
headed in the last decade. I believe that in an effort to provide “accountability” to the tax-paying public, a slate of
misguided and heavy-handed standardized tests have replaced actual teaching and instructional time throughout
the State of Colorado. Without bold effort from this task force and the State Legislature in the coming year, we risk
losing the opportunity to actually educate students in a manner that will insure that future generations have the
critical thinking and creative problem solving skills needed to address the world in which they will live.
Colorado embraced a school choice movement two decades ago, inviting diverse and innovative approaches to
education which allowed parents to seek out the best school settings for their children. Recognizing that individual
children can learn in relatively unique and different ways has filled Colorado with public schools that focus on
STEM, the arts, classical education, Core Knowledge, Montessori and Waldorf, to name a few of these innovative
approaches. However, with the adoption of Common Core and a nearly three-month window of non-stop testing,
the State appears to be turning its back on this innovation in favor of a privatized, iron cage of accountability.
This inappropriate and outsized focus on standardized testing must be rectified as it is incongruous with real
approaches to innovative education. There are much better ways to both insure accountability while actually
educating Colorado’s children.
As a result, I request that the Task Force clearly address the following issues:

Testing standards should be developed over time with the involvement of all stakeholders, and should be
developmentally appropriate and norm-referenced.

The number, variety, and overall duration of tests should be sufficient to gauge student skills, but not so
excessive as to impinge on instructional time. As a parent, I would be much more satisfied with standardized
testing, not to exceed 1-2 days per year, in 3rd, 6th, 9th and 11th grades.

Testing should support school accountability and, at the same time, provide real-time results that enable
teachers and schools to improve student outcomes. In the my professional life, I cannot envision an
acceptable scenario where my yearly evaluation would not be received until 6-9 months after being
completed, and then with results being given to a former employer.

A clear, standard mechanism for “opt-out” should be established that a) empowers families to make
reasonable choices for their children; b) obtains data regarding why families choose to opt out of testing;
and c) does not penalize schools for parental choices or create false accountability reports based on nontesting. The need to allow parents to opt-out would likely not be an issue if the tests were developmentally
appropriate, and actually gauged student skills with results reported in real time.

Curriculum guidelines for elementary, middle, and secondary school programs can and should be flexible
enough to accommodate a variety of proven educational philosophies, allowing families to choose the
educational environment best suited to their children’s needs. If Colorado is going to continue to embrace
and encourage innovation in education, it can’t then slam an iron cage around the schools trying to do just
that.
Along with my husband and a small group of dedicated parents, I helped co-found the St. Vrain Community
Montessori School in Longmont, Colorado, and our two children, ages 6 and 10, have attended the school since it
first opened in 2009. The Montessori method is one that fits well with our family’s values and we have been
amazed at the progress, some measurable and some not, that our children have made over the last six years. We
also started this school because we wanted there to be a public Montessori option for all children in our District.
In working in the educational arena for the last six years, I have been very impressed with the standard of
education in all of the schools in the St. Vrain Valley School District. However, the adoption of such punitive
standardized tests by the State is alarming – I have seen first-hand how negatively it has impacted so many facets
of the educational system such as:

The individual student who may not test well, but whose creativity and approach to problem-solving is
unique and possibly immeasurable. Why are we crushing so many future artists, scientists, engineers and
writers with non-stop testing? And testing that seems designed for testing itself, not to help the individual
student.

The classroom teacher who is passionate about unlocking the individual potential of each of his or her
students, but can’t make that happen as preparing for the tests now supersedes any innovative approaches
to education. I have had too many heartbreaking conversations with friends who have made teaching their
life careers, but are now so thoroughly beaten up by assessments, over-accountability and a one-size-willfit all approach to education that they are ready to change careers. Our schools need these people!

The long-anticipated yearly cumulative projects that are jettisoned in order to prepare for yet another
round of tests. My daughter will never again have the chance to prepare and present her research on Early
Humans or participate in the class Potlatch during her 4th year– those things were shelved in order to
prepare for TESTS, TESTS, TESTS. I refuse to have her lose any more significant and real educational
opportunities in favor of filling out a bubble sheet, over and over and over again.

True educational innovation – a high school teacher is reprimanded for having her at-risk students prepare
multi-media presentations on the novel they have just read because those activities aren’t in preparation of
the tests. Never mind the fact that the students were finally engaged and excited about learning.
Examples such as these seem near limitless in the current educational environment. Preparing students for
standardized tests is not equal to preparing children for life. Please stand up for Colorado’s children by reigning in
and refocusing the emphasis on standardized tests. Tests are merely a tool of accountability, but they will not
ignite the thirst for knowledge that is inherent in everyone.
Thank you for both your time and service on this task force.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Kemp