One of the main issues affecting education today is the current Opt-Out Movement which can be defined as parents refusing their child’s participation in high-stakes testing. For New Jersey, this test is the PARCC or Partnership for Assessment for Readiness for College and Careers, a new modern standardized test that is designed to see where students are struggling and evaluate student progress. Some believe that parents should not be allowing their children to opt-out of these tests, such as James A. Crisfield, the former superintendent of the Millburn Township public schools. Others, such as Sarah Blaine argue that she has chosen to not have her daughter take the PARCC, not because she thinks her child will do poorly but because the pressure
…show more content…
He writes, “…opting out is a concept that cannot work. Even though it will be unpopular and will attract an aggressive reaction, somebody has to stand up and point out that the opt-out movement has to stop” (p. 1). It is interesting that Crisfield makes himself out to be a martyr for the movement against opting out; however, he was not going to be the person taking much of the heat since he was about to start a new job, not only in a different district, but in a completely different state. He did have people directly argue him on his points, such as Sarah Blaine, but he was no longer in control of the district in which they were both talking …show more content…
1). In her article “Milburn graduate takes on superintendent’s logic,” Blaine (2015) argues that standardized testing pre-No Child Left Behind and standardized testing post-No Child Left Behind are two completely different tests (p. 3). Prior to NCLB, standardized testing was not used to evaluate and potentially fire teachers, determine funding, etc. Right now, politics has such a firm grasp on education, that school districts have no choice but to administer high-stakes standardized tests to their students. That is what began the argument of opting out. The school districts may not have a choice but the parents do. Parents can say no to these tests; however, Crisfield does not believe that they should. Overall, the timing of this article comes during a time of heavy political debates about standards, testing, funding,
He writes, “…opting out is a concept that cannot work. Even though it will be unpopular and will attract an aggressive reaction, somebody has to stand up and point out that the opt-out movement has to stop” (p. 1). It is interesting that Crisfield makes himself out to be a martyr for the movement against opting out; however, he was not going to be the person taking much of the heat since he was about to start a new job, not only in a different district, but in a completely different state. He did have people directly argue him on his points, such as Sarah Blaine, but he was no longer in control of the district in which they were both talking …show more content…
1). In her article “Milburn graduate takes on superintendent’s logic,” Blaine (2015) argues that standardized testing pre-No Child Left Behind and standardized testing post-No Child Left Behind are two completely different tests (p. 3). Prior to NCLB, standardized testing was not used to evaluate and potentially fire teachers, determine funding, etc. Right now, politics has such a firm grasp on education, that school districts have no choice but to administer high-stakes standardized tests to their students. That is what began the argument of opting out. The school districts may not have a choice but the parents do. Parents can say no to these tests; however, Crisfield does not believe that they should. Overall, the timing of this article comes during a time of heavy political debates about standards, testing, funding,