The test question
Parents and educators are behind a renewed assault on California's high-stakes testing

By Ellie Kieskowski

Insisting that schools need to be made more accountable, the California legislature in 1999 raised the stakes of standardized tests, even linking some school funding to test results. But parents and educators who are disillusioned with high-stakes testing are stepping up the fight. The San Francisco Board of Education is considering a resolution that could make the San Francisco Unified School District a leader in opposing Sacramento's testing mandates, which are also facing a legal challenge.

Under California's Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program, all students in grades 2 through 11 are tested annually.

Ruth Grabowski, an employee at San Francisco Community School and the parent of a student there, sees both sides of the debate. "As a parent, I'm horrified by the amount of time taken up by the STAR tests, rather than doing a more meaningful assessment," she said. "But any additional funding coming into a school is significant."

Using as a model a resolution the Los Angeles Board of Education is considering, San Francisco school board members Mark Sanchez and Eric Mar drafted a resolution against high-stakes testing. When the measure was discussed at the board's Curriculum Committee meeting June 5, supporters denounced the unintended side effects of placing too much value on test scores. "Standardized tests tend to narrow the scope of what is taught," said Sandra Mack, a teacher at Lowell High School. "If science isn't on the test, then it is not going to be taught in a poor school under pressure to improve its scores."

SFUSD officials cautioned that any additional tests the district might create would only increase the amount of classroom time spent on testing. Students in the 10th and 11th grades already face up to 23.5 hours of testing a year, including the new high school exit exam.

Sanchez says he hopes that if the board approves the resolution on June 25, the SFUSD will take the state to court over its testing mandates. "There is a precedent for this district to stand up to the state," Sanchez told us, referring to the SFUSD's battle with the state over testing students whose native language is not English, who are called English Language Learners. The district refused to test new ELL students between 1998 and 2000 but eventually backed down in a legal settlement. The settlement also gave teachers permission to tell parents they have a right to opt their children out of standardized tests.

But groups opposed to high-stakes testing say teachers are forced to walk a fine line between informing and advocating, and they point to the case of Stacey Miller as an example. In April, Miller was removed from her classroom at San Jose's J.W. Fair Junior High for more than two weeks because administrators believed she had orchestrated her classroom's high opt-out rate. Miller admits she sent her students home with a flyer explaining the opt-out procedure – and asked her ELL students to translate it for their parents. But she says she didn't do anything wrong. "I talk to parents as much as I can to keep them involved," Miller said.

Larry Aceves, Miller's superintendent, declined to discuss her case. But he said, "While I don't think those tests are measuring the students properly, I am legally required to give them."

Some parents feel administrators try to prevent them from excusing their kids from testing. Shelia Sexton, the parent of a second-grader attending an SFUSD school, was surprised to learn only one week before the tests that she needed to meet with the head teacher in order for her daughter to be excused. "Word got out that we were organizing an opt-out campaign, and a conference was suddenly required," Sexton said.

Test results became more important in 1999 when the state legislature passed the Public Schools Accountability Act, mandating that all schools receive an academic performance index rating based on multiple factors. But for the past three years the API, the primary means for comparing California schools, has been entirely based on results of the SAT-9, the controversial cornerstone of the STAR Program. Aaron Reaven, an organizer with the California Coalition for Authentic Reform in Education calls the API the latest example of politicians' "fetish for quantitative information."

Schools or classrooms that show improved test scores receive API reward money. Those deemed "underperforming" are given a onetime grant but also face state intervention if they don't improve. If 10 percent or more of a school's students don't participate in testing, that school becomes ineligible for API funding. Several southern California school districts with a high percentage of ELL students have been deemed ineligible and have filed a lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court that challenges the state to cut ties between STAR scores and funding – and to develop performance measures that are more equitable.

"Right now school districts are between a rock and a hard place when it comes to kids opting out," said Laura Schulkind, an attorney representing the schools.

In an odd twist, state budget woes threaten the continued funding of the API program. The SFUSD has yet to receive its API money this year. "Davis would like to see the money released because the school-reform legislation was his baby, but the state senate finance committee is holding back because of budget issues," said Jim Stack, supervisor of district assessment and accountability for the SFUSD.