Testing and Social Studies in Capitalist Schooling

2016 ◽  
Vol 67 (10) ◽  
pp. 51
Author(s):  
Donna-Marie Cole-Malott ◽  
Curry Malott
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Standardized Testing ◽  
Intelligence Testing ◽  
White Supremacy ◽  
New York Times ◽  
High Stakes Testing ◽  
High Stakes ◽  
Accountability Measures ◽  
Opt Out ◽  
Standardized Exams

In a <em>New York Times</em> editorial on August 15, 2015, the editors, following the NAACP, cautioned that the movement for students to opt out of high-stakes standardized exams was detrimental to minority students and their communities. The rigorous accountability measures of high-stakes exams, it was claimed, compelled teachers and schools to do a better job educating traditionally oppressed students.&hellip; Such views ignore the history of high-stakes testing, which has served to perpetuate class inequality and advance white supremacy since intelligence testing was developed during the First World War. More than anything else, standardized testing measures students' access to resources and proximity to dominant cultures, rather than innate ability or quality of teaching. The accountability movement has successfully exploited the existing inequalities of a white-supremacist, capitalist society to argue that high-stakes testing, one of its primary tools, is helping to overcome those same inequalities.<p class="mrlink"><p class="mrpurchaselink"><a href="http://monthlyreview.org/index/volume-67-number-10" title="Vol. 67, No. 10: March 2016" target="_self">Click here to purchase a PDF version of this article at the <em>Monthly Review</em> website.</a></p>

Should New York City Teachers Support Opt Out?: Two Views in the UFT

2016 ◽  
Vol 67 (10) ◽  
pp. 38
Author(s):  
John C. Antush
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Standardized Testing ◽  
New York Times ◽  
The United States ◽  
Teacher Evaluations ◽  
Common Core State Standard ◽  
High Stakes ◽  
Opting Out ◽  
Opt Out ◽  
Union Local

New York State's Opt Out movement was described by the <em>New York Times</em> as "the vanguard of an anti-testing fervor that has spread across the country." The movement consists primarily of parents and students who fought against high-stakes Common Core State Standard (CCSS) tests by "opting out" of taking the exams.&hellip; [However,] this article is not about the massive parent and student-led "Opt Out Spring" of 2015. It is about how Opt Out threw into relief two different ways of thinking about unionism within New York City's UFT [United Federation of Teachers].&hellip; The leadership of&hellip;[the UFT,] the largest union local of any kind in the United States&hellip;. supported the CCSS and standardized testing, including the use of student test scores as part of teacher evaluations, and refused to support Opt Out.&hellip; Meanwhile, rank-and-file UFTers in the MORE-UFT (Movement of Rank and File Educators) caucus and other groups joined the city's Opt Out movement as part of the struggle against "ed deform."<p class="mrlink"><p class="mrpurchaselink"><a href="http://monthlyreview.org/index/volume-67-number-10" title="Vol. 67, No. 10: March 2016" target="_self">Click here to purchase a PDF version of this article at the <em>Monthly Review</em> website.</a></p>

The Opt-Out Movement in New York: A Grassroots Movement to Eliminate High-Stakes Testing and Promote Whole Child Public Schooling

2021 ◽  
Vol 123 (5) ◽  
pp. 1-22
Author(s):  
Zhe Chen ◽  
David Hursh ◽  
Bob Lingard
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Social Movements ◽  
Standardized Tests ◽  
Long Island ◽  
New York State ◽  
High Stakes Testing ◽  
Whole Child ◽  
High Stakes ◽  
York State ◽  
Opt Out

Purpose Over the last five years, approximately 50% of the students in Nassau and Suffolk counties on Long Island and 20% across New York State have opted out of the yearly standardized tests for third through eighth grade. This article focuses on two grassroots organizations, New York State Allies for Public Education (NYSAPE) and Long Island Opt Out (LIOO), the two parents who have been central to the organizations’ success, and the strategies and tactics that the two organizations have adopted to achieve such a high opt-out rate in New York. Context Since the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), third through eighth grade public school students have been required to take yearly standardized tests. The most recent version of the exams focused on assessing students, their teachers, and schools based on the Common Core State Standards. Many educators and parents have argued that the standards and assessments negatively affect student learning. In response, educators, parents, teachers, and students have lobbied and publicly testified in an effort to reduce the length of the exams, if not eliminate them. However, the testimonies have had almost no impact on the policymakers. Consequently, some parents concluded that the only way to influence policymakers is to get enough students to opt out of the tests so that the scores were not valid and thus could no longer be used to compare students and teachers within and across schools for accountability purposes. Research Design This study is drawn from a qualitative research project in which we conducted interviews to understand how the opt-out movement developed and the strategies it adopted in relation to high-stakes testing in New York. The interviews with two parent leaders from NYSAPE and LIOO are the main data source for this article. Findings NYSAPE and LIOO can be characterized as real grassroots social movements in that all members have input in the goals and organizing strategies, and unpaid leaders emerge from the membership. Further, because the organizations lack permanent funding, they have to be innovative in using media. By motivating and empowering others and using social media such as Facebook and Twitter, they built a large network and a strong base so that they could influence policymakers and respond quickly at the local and state levels. Conclusion Their organizing strategies exemplified the participatory and grassroots nature of the new social movements as theorized by McAlevey. The opt-out movement is pushing back not only against high-stakes testing but also against the larger neoliberal construction of parents as simply consumers of schooling, rather than as active, informed citizens. The movement also supports whole-child schooling.

White Privilege and Power in the NYS Opt-Out Movement

2021 ◽  
Vol 123 (5) ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Rosa L. Rivera-Mccutchen
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Critical Race Theory ◽  
White Privilege ◽  
New York State ◽  
High Stakes Testing ◽  
Critical Race ◽  
Race Theory ◽  
High Stakes ◽  
York State ◽  
Opt Out

Background Part of a special issue on the high-stakes testing opt-out movement, this article focuses its analysis on the movement within New York State, and examines white privilege and power within one specific organization, the NYS Allies for Public Education (NYSAPE). Specifically, I examine how the public-facing work of NYSAPE addressed (or ignored) race and/or racism in their efforts to resist high-stakes testing. I also ask, in what ways do their public stances affirm and reinforce white privilege and power? Purpose I explore the opt-out movement in New York State, and argue that it is a movement that has been largely dominated by white privilege and power. Employing critical race theory as analytical and methodological tools, I briefly examine the development and policy positions of NYSAPE, a coalition of grassroots parent, educator and community organizations. Research Design This qualitative case study focuses on NYSAPE and employs critical race theory as a methodological and analytical framework, with specific emphasis on whiteness as property (power) and interest convergence. Conclusions/Recommendations The paper aims to engage the opt-out movement in considering how its (in)actions are shaped by racism, a deeply entrenched element in our society, and pushes the movement to take a more liberatory stance for all children. Leaders within the opt-out movement, particularly in predominantly white and middle- to upper-class communities, have to examine their complicity in perpetuating racial inequities.

Resisting the neoliberal: parent activism in New York State against the corporate reform agenda in schooling

2019 ◽  
pp. 89-102
Author(s):  
David Hursh ◽  
Sarah McGinnis ◽  
Zhe Chen ◽  
Bob Lingard
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
New York State ◽  
High Stakes Testing ◽  
Democratic Citizenship ◽  
High Stakes ◽  
York State ◽  
Reform Agenda ◽  
Opt Out ◽  
Corporate Reform ◽  
Political Success

Over the last two decades, parents and community members in New York have increasingly resisted the neoliberal corporate reform agenda in schooling, including rejecting high-stakes testing. The parent-led opt-out movement in New York State has successfully opted around 20% of eligible students out of the Common Core state standardized tests over the last three years. To understand how a parent-led grassroots movement has achieved such political success, this chapter focuses on the two most influential opt-out organizations in New York State, the New York State Allies for Public Education (NYSAPE) and Long Island Opt Out (LIOO). The chapter investigates how they used social media and horizontal grassroots organizing strategies to gain political success, along with vertical strategies pressuring the legislature and Board of Regents. Our research reveals that parents in New York are reclaiming their democratic citizenship role in influencing their children’s public schooling and rejecting the corporate reform agenda.

Parenting in the Age of High-Stakes Testing: Gifted and Talented Admissions and the Meaning of Parenthood

2017 ◽  
Vol 119 (8) ◽  
pp. 1-53
Author(s):  
Allison Roda
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
New York City ◽  
School Choice ◽  
Gifted And Talented ◽  
High Stakes Testing ◽  
High Status ◽  
Parental Anxiety ◽  
High Stakes ◽  
White Parents ◽  
Parents Of Color

Background/Context This work contributes to the growing body of scholarly and popular literature on middle-class parental anxiety and competition to ensure their children's academic success. Specifically, this study provides a better understanding of the measures parents will take to obtain high status gifted and talented (G&T) placements that advantage their own children at the expense of others, which is somewhat contradictory given the growing uneasiness they feel about putting their children through the testing process—and paying for test prep—that the system ultimately rewards. By analyzing the different ways in which White parents and parents of color conceive of good parenting in the era of high-stakes testing, I demonstrate the processes in our current educational system that help to produce inequities related to race, class, and G&T identification. Purpose/Objective This paper examines White parents’ beliefs about parenting as it relates to their school choice preferences in the segregated and stratified New York City school system. It also compares the parenting styles and school choices of lower income general education (Gen Ed) parents of color. It explores how parents’ social constructions of where their children belong in school are tied to their beliefs about parenting and doing what is best for their children in a highly competitive society and city. Research Design A qualitative case study was utilized to examine how a diverse group of 52 New York City parents make sense of and interact with an elementary school that offers both a segregated G&T and a Gen Ed program. The semistructured parent interview data was triangulated with school observations, a professional school-choice consultant interview, and an observation of a public school choice workshop for incoming kindergarten parents led by the consultant. Findings/Results The data show that White parents believe that paying for test prep, going through the “hassle of getting your child tested for G&T,” and receiving a high test score are symbolic of being a good parent in the system. In comparison, parents of color had different conceptions of good parenting that did not include prepping for the G&T test or getting into the G&T program, where their children would be in the minority. White parents had social networks of like-minded parents pressuring them to get into the G&T program. Black and Latino parents did not have the same G&T pressure from friends or family, nor did they view a G&T placement as giving their children extra advantages in terms of test scores or future schooling opportunities. Conclusions/Recommendations The findings suggest that the pressure for children to succeed on a single test feeds into parental anxiety and competition regarding getting their children into the high-status G&T program. Instead of trying to avoid an overly anxious parenting culture, the White advantaged parents in this setting get swept up in the test-prepping fad because everyone else is doing it and because of the competitive nature of obtaining a G&T seat. If policy officials want to attack the root of the G&T segregation problem, the city should consider phasing out district G&T programs altogether and instituting school-wide G&T magnets instead.

Complicating What it Means to ‘Struggle’: One Young Child's Experience with a Mandated Literacy Initiative

2009 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 218-231 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tamara Glupczynski Spencer
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
New York City ◽  
Early Literacy ◽  
Literacy Practices ◽  
High Stakes Testing ◽  
Literacy Curriculum ◽  
High Stakes ◽  
School Based ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Reading First Initiative

In this article, the author explores the implementation of the K-3 Reading First initiative and its recommendation for scientifically based reading curricula. During a time of high-stakes testing and accountability, this policy has emphasized a skills-based approach to reading and placed importance on scripted teaching models. Using data from a qualitative study in a public school in New York City, the author draws on the experiences of one young child to see how the standardization of early literacy curriculum shaped his school-based literacy practices.

scholarly journals Testing, Stress, and Performance: How Students Respond Physiologically to High-Stakes Testing

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-50
Author(s):  
Jennifer A. Heissel ◽  
Emma K. Adam ◽  
Jennifer L. Doleac ◽  
David N. Figlio ◽  
Jonathan Meer
Keyword(s):  
Standardized Testing ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Stress Responses ◽  
Test Performance ◽  
Physiological Stress ◽  
High Stakes Testing ◽  
High Stakes ◽  
Regular School ◽  
The Difference ◽  
And Performance

We examine how students' physiological stress differs between a regular school week and a highstakes testing week, and we raise questions about how to interpret high-stakes test scores. A potential contributor to socioeconomic disparities in academic performance is the difference in the level of stress experienced by students outside of school. Chronic stress – due to neighborhood violence, poverty, or family instability – can affect how individuals' bodies respond to stressors in general, including the stress of standardized testing. This, in turn, can affect whether performance on standardized tests is a valid measure of students' actual ability. We collect data on students' stress responses using cortisol samples provided by low-income students in New Orleans. We measure how their cortisol patterns change during high-stakes testing weeks relative to baseline weeks. We find that high-stakes testing is related to cortisol responses, and those responses are related to test performance. Those who responded most strongly – with either increases or decreases in cortisol – scored 0.40 standard deviations lower than expected on the high-stakes exam.

THE ROOTS AND RATIONALE OF SOCIAL DEMOCRACY

2002 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 113-144 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sheri Berman
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Political Ideology ◽  
World Economy ◽  
New York Times ◽  
Social Democracy ◽  
Progressive Movement ◽  
Opt Out ◽  
Anthony Giddens ◽  
Industrial Democracies ◽  
New Situation

Two related themes have dominated discussions about the Left in advanced industrial democracies in recent years. The first is that an increasingly integrated world economy is creating a fundamentally new situation for leaders and publics, imposing burdens and constraining choices. You can either opt out of the system and languish, or put on what New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has called neoliberalism's “Golden Straightjacket”—at which point “two things tend to happen: your economy grows and your politics shrinks.” The second is that traditional social democracy has played itself out as a political ideology, creating a vacuum that can and should be filled by some new progressive movement with greater contemporary relevance. For example, Ralf Dahrendorf has argued that “socialism is dead, and … none of its variants can be revived,” while Anthony Giddens has written that reformist socialism has become “defensive” and perhaps even “moribund.”

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document