opting out

Students in pockets of rural, suburban Colorado drove down PARCC participation

Seniors at Fairview High School in Boulder protest state tests in 2015. (Photo By Helen H. Richardson/ The Denver Post)

By at least one measure, the epicenter of anti-testing backlash in Colorado last spring was an isolated rural community where distrust of government runs deep and the school superintendent gets an earful at the Superette coffee shop if things aren’t going right in the classroom.

The Dolores County School District, based in Dove Creek in southwestern Colorado, had the lowest participation on PARCC English and math tests of any Colorado district — 8.4 percent. Just 13 of 155 students in the farm-rich area near the Utah border took the new tests aligned with the Common Core, according to data made public Friday.

When Colorado gained notice last spring as fertile ground for a movement opting out of state standardized tests, much of the attention fell on protests at high-performing, wealthy suburban districts.

District-level PARCC data released Friday  showed that was warranted — a total of more than 30,000 students from the Boulder Valley, Douglas County and Cherry Creek districts sat out the tests.

But when it came to low participation rates, rural districts led the way. A Chalkbeat analysis found 18 of the 20 districts with the lowest participation rates are rural districts, from all corners of the state.

In other words, the more affluent suburban districts with large student populations had far more students skip the tests, but a greater proportion of students at those rural districts opted out of them.

20 districts with lowest participation

Chalkbeat’s calculations took into account participation in English language arts tests. Participation rates on math tests were similar.

Generally, elementary school test participation was high and participation steadily decreased in higher grades, sinking in high school. High school testing for 2016 was curtailed in testing reform legislation passed this year.

Low participation in state tests typically carry consequences for school and districts, but not this year.

Federal law requires at least 95 percent participation on language arts and math tests in grades three through eight and once in high school. In Colorado, districts that fall short have faced a one-step reduction in their accreditation rating in years past.

But a testing reform law passed last spring created a one-year timeout in the accountability system. The U.S Department of Education’s recent approval of Colorado’s waiver from federal education laws also means Colorado school districts won’t face the loss of accreditation. However, districts with substandard test participation will be required to spell out plans for boosting it.

Just 32 school districts reported their overall PARCC participation at 95 percent or above, according to a Chalkbeat review.

Michelle Murphy, executive director of the Rural School Alliance, said opt-out momentum in rural districts gained steam after a resolution last spring from the state Board of Education saying districts and schools shouldn’t be punished for low participation. Word travels fast in small communities, she said, and there’s a “lack of buy-in” in the testing and accountability system.

“These people live in districts where their accreditation rating has changed from year to year because one family moves out,” Murphy said.

In Dolores County, Superintendent Bruce Hankins was a vocal opponent of the tests, arguing the results come far too late to inform classroom instruction and are too flawed to use for accountability. Hankins made it easy on parents, providing a form letter on the district website for opting students out of tests. If he needs to be held accountable, he said, it’s going to happen at the local coffee shop.

“Parents are tired of their kids being stressed out over a test that doesn’t mean anything to them,” Hankins said. “They are tired of teachers being beat up when they are busting their butts to do what is best for kids. And they’re tired of districts and schools being labeled failures when they know they’re not.”

Concerns also were voiced, Hankins said, about the government unnecessarily collecting data on students. The district is about 93 percent white and has no English language learners. Hankins said many families qualify for subsidized lunches but won’t apply because they don’t think their income is anyone’s business.

A number of rural Colorado districts, including the Dolores County district, are working toward developing an alternative accountability system that moves beyond using state tests as the primary measure.

Not all rural districts harbored anti-testing sentiment. Three Colorado school districts reported 100 percent PARCC participation, and all were rural: Prairie, Genoa-Hugo and Stratton. A number of other rural districts reported participation numbers well above the state average.

Participation rates in Colorado’s 10 largest districts

No district had more students skip the tests than Douglas County. More than 13,700 students did not participate, putting the south suburban district’s participation rate at about 70 percent. District leadership has been sharply critical of the state testing system.

“Parents have patiently waited for the standardized testing movement to get to the right amount of tests and the right tests and the right experience for their children, and I think their level of frustration has steadily grown because they haven’t seen movement in the right direction in their opinion,” said Douglas County Superintendent Liz Fagen.

The participation rate in the Boulder Valley School District was even lower — 67 percent. The highest opt-out rates were at the two high schools in Boulder where protests of earlier state social studies and science tests attracted widespread attention and likely helped fuel the PARCC opt-out movement.

Superintendent Bruce Messinger said his sense is that parents weren’t targeting PARCC, but rather were reacting to what they perceive to be the burdensome nature of state assessments as a whole.

“It was their way of saying, ‘Enough is enough,’” Messinger said.

The state also documented cases in which parents refused to allow their children to take the tests. However, districts were not required to turn over documentation of refusals, so the picture is incomplete. Others may have skipped the test in protest without filling out forms.

Backers of the tests argue they are critical to ensuring the state has an accurate picture of student achievement, especially with poor and minority children.

Reilly Pharo Carter, executive director Climb Higher Colorado, which champions the state’s academic standards and aligned tests, said the central question is whether high opt-outs will hide achievement gaps in some districts.

She said that while she understands parental rights, large numbers of opt-outs mean the state doesn’t get a true understanding of challenges facing schools.

“You are not getting the full picture,” Pharo Carter said.

Graphics by Sarah Glen/Chalkbeat

Testing reboot

ACT do-overs pay off for 40 percent of Tennessee high school seniors who tried

PHOTO: Alan Petersime

Tennessee’s $2 million investment in helping high school seniors retake the ACT test appears to be paying off for a second year in a row.

Almost three-fourths of the class of 2018 took the national college entrance test last fall for a second time, doubling the participation rate in Tennessee’s ACT Senior Retake Day for public schools. State officials announced Wednesday that 40 percent of the do-overs resulted in a higher overall score.

Of the 52,000 students who participated in the initiative’s second year, 2,333 raised their average composite to a 21 or higher, making them eligible for HOPE Scholarship funds of up to $16,000 for tuition. That’s potentially $37 million in state-funded scholarships.

In addition, Tennessee students are expected to save almost $8 million in remedial course costs — and a lot of time — since more of them hit college-readiness benchmarks that allow direct enrollment into credit-bearing coursework.

But besides the benefits to students, the early results suggest that Tennessee is inching closer to raising its ACT average to the national average of 21 by 2020, one of four goals in Tennessee’s five-year strategic plan.

After years of mostly stagnant scores, the state finally cracked 20 last year when the class of 2017 scored an average of 20.1, buoyed in part by the senior retake strategy.

(The ACT testing organization will release its annual report of state-by-state scores in August, based on the most recent test taken. Tennessee will release its own report based on the highest score, which is what colleges use.)

Tennessee is one of 13 states that require its juniors to take the ACT or SAT and, in an effort to boost scores, became the first to pay for public school seniors to retake their ACTs in 2016. Only a third of that class took advantage of the opportunity, but enough students scored higher to make it worth expanding the voluntary program in its second year.

Last fall, the state worked with local districts to make it easier for seniors to participate. The retake happened during the school day in students’ own schools, instead of on a Saturday morning at an ACT testing site.

Education Commissioner Candice McQueen said the expanded access has paid off tenfold. “Now, more Tennessee students are able to access scholarship funding, gain admission to colleges and universities, and earn credit for their work from day one,” she said.

Of the state’s four urban districts, Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools, which serves Davidson County, increased its average composite score the most (up .5 to 18.4), followed by Hamilton County (up .3 to 19.4), and Shelby County Schools, (up .2 to 17.1). Knox County Schools and the state-run Achievement School District, which operates high schools in Memphis, saw slight drops from their retakes and will retain their higher average scores taken earlier.

Statewide, 10 school systems logged a half point or more of growth from their junior test day to the senior retake:

  • Anderson County, up .6 to 19.3
  • Arlington City, up .6 to 22.5
  • Collierville City, up .6 to 24.3
  • Davidson County, up .5 to 18.4
  • Franklin County, up .6 to 20.1
  • Haywood County, up .5 to 17.5
  • Henderson County, up .5 to 21.2
  • Humboldt City, up .8 to 17.4
  • Maryville City, up .5 to 22.1
  • Williamson County, up .6 to 24.1

Tennessee set aside up to $2.5 million to pay for its 2017 Retake Day, and Gov. Bill Haslam is expected to fund the initiative in the upcoming year as well. The state already pays for the first ACT testing day statewide, which it’s done since 2009.

Correction: January 17, 2018: This story has been corrected to show that, while the state set aside $2.5 million for its ACT retake initiative, it spent only $2 million on the program this fiscal year.

double take

Will Indiana go through with a ‘confusing’ plan that could mean every school winds up with two A-F grades?

Students work on assignments at Indianapolis Public Schools Center For Inquiry at School 27.

Imagine a scenario where Indiana schools get not just one A-F grade each year, but two.

One grade would determine whether a school can be taken over by the state. The other would comply with federal law asking states to track student test progress and how federal aid is spent. Both would count, but each would reflect different measures of achievement and bring different consequences.

This could be Indiana’s future if a state board-approved plan moves ahead at the same time the state is working on a conflicting plan to comply with a new federal law.

If it sounds complicated, that’s because it probably would be, said state Superintendent Jennifer McCormick. Originally, A-F grades were intended to be an easy way for parents and community members to understand how their school is doing.

“It’s extremely confusing to have multiple accountability systems with multiple consequences,” McCormick told board members last week. “All along our message has been to get as much alignment as we can.”

Indiana would not be the first state to consider dual accountability systems — Colorado operated separate systems for years under No Child Left Behind and is now doing so again. Virginia, New Hampshire, and South Carolina have also had two models in years past. But this move would be a big departure from Indiana’s efforts over the past several years to simplify accountability, and education officials warn it could create more problems than it would solve.

Dale Chu, an education consultant who previously worked in Indiana under state Superintendent Tony Bennett, said it’s actually not common for states to have multiple systems, and doing so for political reasons, rather than what helps students and families, is concerning.

“We all know how confusing accountability systems can be when you just have one,” Chu said. “To create a bifurcated system, I don’t see how you gain additional clarity … I would certainly hope that if that’s the direction the state is going to move in, they are very thoughtful and intentional about it.”

The changes come as Indiana works to create a plan to comply with a new federal education law, known as the Every Student Succeeds Act. McCormick’s education department has been working to align the federal system with Indiana’s grading system, and is struggling to bring some state measures in line with federal laws, most notably in the area of graduation requirements and diplomas.

At the same time the Indiana State Board of Education is negotiating this alignment, it is also revamping the A-F grade system.

A new grading proposal approved by the state board last week would put more emphasis on student test scores than the A-F system that now unifies state and federal requirements. Those new rules would include extra categories for grading schools, such as a “well-rounded” measure for elementary schools that is calculated based on science and social studies tests and an “on-track” measure for high schools that is calculated based on credits and freshman-year grades. Neither component is part of  the state’s federal plan.

While that proposal is preliminary, if approved it would go into effect for schools in 2018-19.

Officials were already expecting to issue two sets of A-F grades to schools in 2018 — one state grade, and one federal — as the state continued to work all of Indiana’s unresolved education issues into the new federal plan. Figuring out how to ensure state graduation rates don’t plummet because of other federal rule changes dictating  which diplomas count and incorporating the new high school graduation requirements, for example, will take time — and legislation — to fix.

Read: Indiana has a curious plan to sidestep federal rules — give schools two A-F grades next year.

But ultimately, officials said, if some of the state board-approved changes make it into final policy, and Indiana’s federal plan doesn’t change to accommodate it, the state and federal accountability systems could remain at odds with each other — meaning schools would continue to get two grades after 2018.

The original intent was to have all Indiana’s state grading system line up with federal requirements before the plan was sent to federal officials in September. Then, once the federal government gave feedback, the state A-F revamp could continue.

But just this past fall, after the federal plan had been submitted, some members of the state board began adding in additional measures, some of which reflect their personal interests in how schools should be rated.

Those measures were added after board members had multiple chances to discuss the federal plan with the education department, conversations that were held in an attempt to ward off such changes this late in the game. Yet even last week at the state board’s monthly meeting, where the new grading changes were approved, some board members didn’t seem to realize until after the vote that the A-F systems would not match up.

David Freitas, a state board member, said he didn’t see the conflicting A-F grade rules as a problem. The board can make Indiana’s state A-F system whatever it wants, he said, and there will be plenty of time to iron out specifics as the rulemaking process unfolds over the next several months.

“We’re not banned from having two different systems,” Freitas said. “But we need to consider the implications and consequences of that.”

Read more of our coverage of the Every Student Succeeds Act here.