ap

Skip to content
Author
PUBLISHED:
Getting your player ready...

Thinkstock

Re: “‘Opt-out’ movement: Just say no to new Colo. assessments,” March 1 news story.

Teachers and students have long been sending a message to the bureaucracy: Standardized testing is not an effective way to evaluate teachers. And in response to yet another standardized test, students are sending the state a stronger message: We won’t stand for it any longer.

You can’t determine the quality of a teacher through her students’ performance on standardized tests any more than you can quantify students with a test score. Standardized testing forces teachers to “teach to the test,” wastes valuable instruction time, and in return provides little to no useful information about teachers.

I, for one, have had enough, and plan to join the many students at my high school who will opt out of the PARCC test in the spring. Maybe the state will finally get the message.

Edwin M. Bosch,Centennial

This letter was published in the March 6 edition.

Re: “Educator’s refusal to give PARCC called into question by district,” March 1 news story.

Your article fails to present the reasons for the success of the opt-out movement. Here are a few:

1) Students are being tested more than any time in history. The tests have bled huge amounts of class time from real instruction.

2) The new tests have no scientific validity: No studies have shown that the new tests will be helpful, and no studies are planned.

3) The cost of the current testing program is gigantic, especially because the tests must be given online. Billions are being wasted that are desperately needed for legitimate educational purposes.

All educators understand the need for assessment, but the current nonstop and unresearched approach to assessment is wrong. It is PARCC that should be called into question by Aurora Public Schools, not educator Peggy Robertson.

Stephen Krashen,Los Angeles

The writer is a professor emeritus of the University of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education.

This letter was published in the March 6 edition.

Submit a letter to the editor via this form or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.

RevContent Feed

More in News