More Than a Score (27 page)
Test scores evaluate schools by publicly labeling our schools as “Outstanding,” “Satisfactory,” or “In Need of Improvement” on the state report card. Schools are evaluated in a variety of categories, and if the school failed in one category, it would get an “In Need of Improvement” on the entire state report card. One of the categories was “participation,” requiring 95 percent of students in every demographic to take every test.
2
This meant if enough students opted out, then our school would be labeled “In Need of Improvement” on the state report card. These scores would not affect the amount of funding our school received, but schools still didn't want to have a label of “In Need of Improvement” for fear that it would lower enrollment.
I brought this information to the Portland Student Union's Standardized Testing Committee meeting on January 10, 2013. Students at this meeting raised concerns that there was not equity in accessing alternative assessments, that by refusing the tests we could be contributing to the labeling of our schools as failing, and wanted to know more about what we hoped to achieve from this campaign. By the end of the meeting, we concluded that the best course of action was to work to achieve such high levels of students opting out of the tests that every high school in PPS would be labeled failing, thus rendering the label itself meaningless. In understanding that students did not all have the resources and ability to take PSAT, SAT, ACT, or IB and AP assessments, we concluded that we would encourage opting out of all the OAKS tests, offer to pay for students who needed additional support for these alternative exams, and then really push opting out of the science test as it's not required for graduation and therefore does not call for an alternative proof of proficiency. We also needed to respond to how all our schools would be labeled as failures. Our solution was to twist the label by saying “we know our schools are in need of improvement, and we don't need some incomprehensive score to tell us that. And in actuality, it's the system that's in need of improvement.” We hoped to gain media attention and really contribute to the national conversation about standardized testing and its role in our education system.
That night, I received a Facebook message from PAT president Gwen Sullivan that read, “I'm not suggesting this, just sharing information,” with a link to a
Seattle Times
article about Garfield High School's MAP test boycott that had been announced earlier that day.
3
This was one of the first moments when I realized the movement was greater than just some frustrated students; it legitimized what we were doing and gave us standing in future conversations with principals and district employees who were trying to break down the campaign. I was excited to be able to respond to Gwen with the Portland Student Union's proposed “Opt-Out Campaign” plan.
January 14, 2013, the first day of the writing test, my friend and I taped posters all over Junior Hall of Lincoln High School that read “JUNIORS: OPT OUT OF STANDARDIZED TESTING Informational meeting, Wednesday, Lunch Rm. 142.” I was immediately called into the principal's office. All three of our school administrators sat there and grilled me about the campaign. I felt sure their goal was to be intimidating. They wanted to express the power they held over me and make me feel ignorant. Vice Principal Neal explained the process for administering the test. He said that when students do not pass, we pull them out of class to teach them how to take the test, then test them again. If that second test doesn't go well, then we work with them on work samples, which takes a lot more time. This was frustrating to hear. It was so clear that these tests were not about finding out how good our school was, but how “good” we could make it appear. I asked the question, “Is our school not in need of improvement?,” which really frustrated them. Everyone in that room knew our school needed help. We are the most affluent public high school in Portland and still have overcrowded classrooms. That really brought up issues of integrity. Why was it so important that we took these exams? They so clearly were not a reflection of our school's ability to educate. Principal Chapman expressed her concerns about how a “bad” score would affect enrollment in our school, and expressed her concerns about equity, as many alternatives to OAKS were alternative standardized tests that cost money. I sat there wanting to cry out of frustration and anger that they had me cornered without other student union members there to support me. After this two-hour-long inquisition, I told them I'd pass along their concerns to the union, but I couldn't call off the campaign. That frustrated them. The students had made this decision together and were in control. I could tell that they were scared of how this campaign could impact our school. I immediately I called my friends, who reassured me this was a “good” decision. I also messaged PAT president Gwen, who directed me to Betsy Salter and Susan Barrett from Oregon Save Our Schools (Oregon SOS), saying that they could answer my questions.
January 16, I met with Betsy Salter from Oregon SOS; she was also comforting and reassured me that this campaign would be huge and we would be able to achieve the goal of contributing to the national conversation about high-stakes standardized testing. I asked her to attend the PPS Student Union meeting that night as I was planning on proposing the campaign to see if we wanted to cosponsor it. That proposal went over extremely wellâeven our district's paid adult adviser, Andrea Wade, spoke of how poorly standardized test scores are used.
It was settledâboth groups would co-lead the PPS Opt-Out Campaign. The student representative on the school board submits monthly reports to the school board of education. This is an opportunity to publicly report to the board on what the PPS Student Union and SuperSAC have been working on. My next report was scheduled for January 28. I decided to include the Opt-Out Campaign in my report and kick it off that night. The board was completely unprepared for what I was about to present.
Never had I done anything too “radical” before in front of the board. Rarely had any student representative, especially during a student rep report at a televised board meeting, done so either. Not only did I confront the board about one of their recent antiunion acts but I also publicly encouraged the community to opt out of OAKS testing. This board report went viral as did the Portland Student Union's article about the opt-out campaign.
January 29, the Portland Student Union website had more than a thousand views. And within eight hours a thousand became two thousand. Then I received an email from Diane Ravitch that read, “I am posting this early tomorrow morning. Will reach at least 50,000 people across the nation.” We were slowly finding out that this action had massive support from around the country.
January 30, Ravitch posted about us on her blog with the headline “Good News! Students in Portland, Oregon, Are Speaking Out.” On that very day we learned of the Providence Student Union's campaign against their high-stakes, standardized New England Common Assessment Program, or NECAP, exam. Now we knew were not alone and this display of student power gave us a surge of energy to continue our struggle. Now we were rolling. On January 31, we got our first interview request from the
Oregonian
. On February 2, the
Oregonian
published a story of our movement on the front of the Metro section of the paper. On February 4, we sent out a press release further detailing our demands for a high-quality public education. On February 5 we presented the campaign in more detail to superintendent Carole Smith, who, of course, did not openly support us but understood our frustrations. That same day, representatives from our unions gave four interviews, one with
Democracy Now!
and three with local news stations. On February 6 we had a press conference at the Portland Public School District headquarters.
The press conference was very successful. Juniors who were opting out spoke about why they were opposed to the OAKS testing. Susan Barrett also spoke, as well as recently elected school board member and Oregon SOS organizer Steve Buel. Additionally, a few students' parents spoke about why they supported their child's decision to opt out. Finally, Lincoln's Black Student Union submitted a statement about why they supported the campaign, as high-stakes standardized testing contributes to inequality. The experience of all these groups working toward a common cause was truly exhilarating and gave us hope that we had begun the process of reclaiming public education for students, teachers, and parents.
The power of our coalition was quickly validated when, about a week later, the PBA president McDonough and two of her employees agreed to meet with the PPS Student Union. This was absolutely one of the worst, least productive meetings of my life. We opened up the conversation by thanking them for their support on past PPS bonds and levies, and then made clear that we opposed their stance on Race to the Top. Immediately an argument broke out. They were upset with the Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) benefits that were going to teachers, and they were very supportive of high-stakes standardized testing. Little did they know I had just spoken out against the proposed PERS cuts and we were leading an opt-out campaign that opposed exactly what they were pushing for.
We tried to reason with the PBA. We pointed to education systems like Finland's that are regarded the world over as highly successful. We explained that Finland's success was the result of an approach to education that values the whole student, provides wraparound services for their students (and general populace), and does not include a single high-stakes standardized test in the entire Kâ12 system. Ms. McDonough responded with curt condescension: “Have you ever been to Finland?” So there it was; all our points were invalid. We walked out of that meeting shocked and confused, but with a greater understanding of the fight we were taking on: you cannot just reason with business interests and the profit motive, you have to build a base of power to challenge them.
Our next action: a walkout on March 14 in solidarity with the Colorado Student Power Alliance (COSPA) walkout happening that same day. In Colorado, the students would be walking out and then traveling to their state capitol building to demand action surrounding high-stakes standardized testing. We would replicate this. Jefferson High School was testing that week, and Jefferson had talked previously about an action that would unite their school's struggle with the other schools from around the district. The plan was to bring PPS Student Union and Portland Student Union members from around the city to Jefferson High School to greet students as they walked out. We would then travel to Salem, Oregon, to speak with our representatives about high-stakes standardized testing. Representative Lew Frederick, a Democrat from District 43, had created House Bill 2664 that, if passed, would require the Oregon Department of Education to call into question the role standardized testing should play in public education. His House bill did not have teeth behind it, and therefore would require the community to keep an eye on the department of education to make sure that testing was truly being scrutinized. We decided to speak in support of the bill and planned to be there later to ensure the department of education would be held accountable.
Restarting our movement in the spring hinged on the students of Jefferson, one of the most exceptional schools in Portland. In the last ten years the Jefferson High School cluster has had more school closings than all the other PPS clusters combined. It is the only majority African-American high school in Oregon and 76 percent of its students receive free or reduced lunch. It has a 35 percent graduation rate, the lowest of PPS's “traditional” high schools. OAKS tests have a huge impact on this low graduation rate, as a passing score is required to graduate and this has resulted in spiking numbers of students being denied a diploma. Moreover, as a direct result of the federal education policies of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and Race to the Top (RttT), Jefferson has been labeled a “Focus and Priority School,” which results in an extreme emphasis on measures like OAKS testingâand less attention to art, music, and other programs that enrich education. As a result, these students have a lot to fight for. Yet the Jefferson High School students decided against participating in the walkout after being pulled into the principal's office and being told that the negative label the school already had would be perpetuated if students walked out on the test. This left us with the dilemma of having a walkout we had already called for but no school to anchor it. In the rush to switch locations and go on with the show, the Portland Student Union began to break down.
Students argued over who would take on hosting the walkout. It was concluded that it would be Grant High School. However, controversy erupted as the Grant Student Union did not want to take responsibility for it. In hindsight we should have called it off, regrouped, and developed longer-range plans to build on our successes. But we didn't, which led to low turnout on the day of the walkout and many students being rightfully upset by the process.
Many of our more involved students quit the Portland Student Union after this event. Sometimes I despair that it was my fault for pushing to have a walkout that did not have enough support. Other times I think people simply took this frustrating time period as an opportunity to back away from the group and enjoy other aspects of their lives. At least no one can say that we made the grave error of remaining silent about our own education. Whatever mistakes I and other leaders may have made, the Portland Student Union continues and undoubtedly will regain its strength as more students are impacted by the test-and-punish policy.