Opting-Out

The formula the state uses to figure out school rankings is quite confusing. As a result, there are schools with high opt-out rates that have remained in good standing and schools with low opt-out rates that are placed on the CSI (Comprehensive Support and Improvement) list.

This happens as a result of using multiple measures/indicators to determine CSI and TSI (Targeted Support and Improvement) schools, including, but not limited to students who opt-out of the state assessments.

For a more detailed explanation, see the next question, “How are schools identified and rated?”

TWO OTHER POINTS WORTH CONSIDERING

1.  How do we define a “good” school?  What is the measure of school, “ranking”? test scores? which ones? Should we rank schools based on standardized tests that are inappropriate, poorly constructed and come with hidden agendas? If we settle for these as a measure of a “good school” what else are we simply “settling” on?  What becomes of a curriculum that is deep and rich with meaning, thought provoking and creative?  Does it go by the wayside because it cannot be measured on a standardized test?  

2.  Also, consider the sources of who is pushing parents to “opt in,” those who are afraid of the perception of a dip in school ranking?  the consequence of paperwork?  Again, what does that actually mean?  We need to dig down deep and ask ourselves if it’s worth sacrificing curriculum that speaks to a well-rounded, whole-child for the sake of a curriculum that narrowly focuses on teaching to a standardized test because of, rankings. 

The original purpose of the 95% rule was to ensure that schools did not selectively exclude low-performing students and students with special needs from taking state assessments; it had nothing to do with parents exercising their rights to refuse the tests.  Furthermore, there is no language in the law that states schools will be financially punished for failing to meet the 95% participation rate as a result of refusing to take state assessments.

Not yet… and… it depends. A new APPR law was enacted this past April 2019. That law supersedes the moratorium that was scheduled to end in 2020. Under the new law, your school district must continue to implement its currently-approved APPR plan until your school district receives approval from NYSED of a new APPR plan. Until such time, your school district must continue to determine student growth scores and ratings using whatever measures are delineated in its currently-approved APPR plan, including any SLOs based on teacher and course-specific results; principal and building-specific results; school- or program-wide group, team, or linked results; or district- or BOCES-wide results. But, this is only until the Collective Bargaining Agreement covering the existing APPR plan expires, and a new Collective Bargaining Agreement is entered into, AND the Commissioner approves your district’s new plan. This is a situation in extreme flux; every district will be different, so it’s best to ask your district administrator where they stand with respect to their plan and Collective Bargaining Agreement.

So, what else does the new law require? Under the new law, NYS grades 3-8 ELA and math assessment scores, and grades 4 and 8 Science assessment scores, are no longer *mandated by law* to be included in teacher ratings. However, local districts that *want* to include such test scores in their APPR plan may do so. Whether to include them or not is now subject to local collective bargaining and negotiation. That’s the good news. The bad news is that the APPR statute continues to include a student performance/growth component, which is still 50% of the APPR matrix (the other 50% being observations), and that student growth component must be derived from a pre-approved NYSED list of assessments or SLOs. (However, it is important to note that the grades 3-8 ELA and math assessments, and grades 4th/8th Science assessments, continue to be used for federal ESSA accountability, ranking, and sorting purposes.)