TPERN Responds to Houston ISD Warning Letter

Written by admin on . Posted in Other, STAAR | EOC Testing. 1 Comment

The Houston Chronicle recently published an article noting that Houston ISD had sent a warning letter to parents who opted out of STAAR assessment.  The letter was full of legal and factual errors, but was also notable for its blatant declaration that mandatory summer school awaits all kids who have opted out of STAAR.  This is contrary to law.  TPERN’s response is found below.  This response will be sent to Houston ISD, the Chronicle and Houston CVPE.

Regarding the recent article:  HISD letter warns parents against opting out of tests (4/24/15)

In the Chronicle’s coverage of the CVPE alternative learning event, the following quote correctly summarized the ability of parents to refuse standardized assessment for their children.

“”The fact is parents can request their child be removed from standardized testing,” said Elaina Polsen, executive director of communications with Clear Creek ISD”.

Unfortunately, Houston ISD apparently cannot comprehend that there is no method in statute to force assessment.  Parents cannot and will not be compelled to submit to standardized assessment of their children.  Instead, Houston ISD and Mr. Gohl have chosen the route of fear-mongering and intimidation to try to persuade parents to provide data on an assessment that has serious validity issues.  In so doing, however, Mr. Gohl has apparently announced that it is Houston ISD, and not the parents, that will refuse to follow the Education Code.  Such a posture is intolerable, and Mr. Gohl or those who formulated this illegal policy should be immediately terminated.  Lawless behavior should not be rewarded with a paycheck from the taxpayers.

I refer to the following line from Mr. Gohl’s letter to the parents of opt-out kids.  “[S]tudents will be required to attend summer school and will be reevaluated by the Grade Placement Committee prior to the end of summer school for a determination of promotion or retention.”  Mr. Gohl even bolded and underlined “attend summer school” so parents would know he is serious.  Mr. Gohl is not following the law.

Section 28.0211(c) of the Texas Education Code provides:

“After a student fails to perform satisfactorily on an assessment instrument a second time, a grade placement committee shall be established to prescribe the accelerated instruction the district shall provide to the student before the student is administered the assessment instrument the third time.  The grade placement committee shall be composed of the principal or the principal’s designee, the student’s parent or guardian, and the teacher of the subject of an assessment instrument on which the student failed to perform satisfactorily.” (emphasis added).

Now, the second administration has not occurred yet.  As a result, no Grade Placement Committees have been formed and no course of accelerated instruction can have been prescribed.  Indeed, the parent is a member of the committee and must be involved in developing the Accelerated Instruction plan.  Yet, Mr. Gohl seems to suggest that the decision has been made.  Summer school is required . . . for everyone.  If this is the case, Houston ISD is in plain violation of the law, and has not prescribed a valid accelerated instruction plan.  I would suggest that if Houston ISD is concerned about following the Education Code, it look at itself first.  Get rid of petty bureaucrats like Mr. Gohl who think that the law does not apply to them.

I would also note that a one size fits all summer school prescription goes against everything the concept of Accelerated Instruction is intended to address.  The TEA’s Student Success Initiative Manual is clear on this:

“Neither the law nor the rules specify the amount of time to be provided for the accelerated instruction. To support the SSI grade-advancement requirements, the law and the commissioner’s rules provide districts and charter schools with flexibility to determine on an individual student basis the appropriate form, content, and timing of the accelerated instruction. The policy governing accelerated instruction is intended to allow districts flexibility to meet individual student needs.” (p. 33).

The idea the summer school is required for STAAR failures is a myth.  The idea that schools can unilaterally impose it is a myth.  Mr. Gohl knows this, but he chooses to ignore the law and try to scare parents into submitting their kids for assessment.

This type of behavior by a public servant is intolerable and I call on the Houston ISD to repudiate it immediately.

Sincerely,

 

R. Scott Placek
Chairman
Texas Parents’ Educational Rights Network

Note: This response does not address numerous other legal errors contained in the letter from Houston ISD.

Update:  Houston ISD has admitted the letter to Opt Out parents contained errors regarding required summer school.  The blame this on an editing error.  Full article here.

Five Responses When The School Says 26.010 Means You Can’t Opt Out

Written by admin on . Posted in STAAR | EOC Testing. 7 Comments

It’s that time of year.  Schools are sending around copies of Tex. Ed. Code sec. 26.010, accusing Opt Out groups of misleading parents, and trying to coerce people into subjecting their kids to assessments.  Don’t be a sheep.  The TEA’s interpretation of Tex. Education Code sec. 26.010 has never been affirmed by any court.  This is just what they hope it means.  There are strong legal construction arguments which indicate that the TEA is wrong.  Here are five different responses to the 26.010 argument.  If the TEA or any school district lawyer can provide a case that says any of these are incorrect, let’s see it.

Five Responses When the School Cites 26.010 Saying It Prohibits Opt Out

1 – The STAAR is not a test; it is an assessment. STAAR is created by Chapter 39 of the Education Code which refers to it as an assessment over 450 times, while referring to other testing instruments as tests. The Legislature is presumed to intend the words that it chooses. By choosing to call STAAR an Assessment and not a Test, the Legislature precludes the school from relying on the “avoid a test” portion of 26.010.

2 – Chapter 26, taken as a whole, shows STAAR is not a test. Chapter 26 contains parental rights provisions, including the right to access various curricular material. It contains a separate section for access to assessments (26.005) and access to tests (26.006). Thus, in the same chapter as 26.010, the legislature clearly indicates that there is a difference between assessments and tests. You can’t conveniently conflate the two concepts when the legislature has purposely distinguished them.

3 – Access to STAAR is available to parents only through 26.005 and not 26.006. Apart from the definitional issue, the practical reality shows that STAAR is not a test. If STAAR were a test, schools would be required to provide parents access on school premises under 26.006. They do not and cannot. The only access is from the TEA under 26.005. If you get a 26.010 letter from the school try this response: “Dear School: If STAAR is a test, I demand access to it after my child takes it at the school under Texas Education Code 26.006. If you cannot provide me a date to examine the STAAR assessment at the school within 30 days, I will presume that you do not really believe it is a test.” (Update for 2019: Although this point is still technically true, with the addition of STAAR questions to the parent portal, the difference in access is much less stark.  For that reason I’d don’t suggest using this tactic, other than to note what is stated in the first sentence).

4 – My purpose is not to avoid a test. Section 26.010 is written in terms of purpose and not effect. A parent can’t invoke 26.010 to avoid tests. They can invoke 26.010 on the basis of their religious or moral beliefs, and that may result in a missed test. If the school’s interpretation were correct, parents could opt their child out of sex ed classes, but then be required to return to the class and view graphic anatomical charts on a test. That is not how 26.010 works and the schools know it. They are simply reading it that way to coerce parents into letting their kids be assessed.

5 – Subsection (b) does not limit opt out rights. Subsection (b) simply codifies the fact that parents who choose to opt out must still satisfy grade level or graduation requirements. Reading (b) as a limitation on (a) even though it contains no limiting language or exception language is sloppy lawyering.  It indicates a desire to reach an outcome, not analyze an issue.  Since substitute assessments and GPC processes exist to accomplish both promotion and graduation requirements, subsection (b) cannot be read as a limitation on the right to Opt Out of an assessment, even if that was the intent of the subsection! In fact, the better argument is that the existence of subsection (b) shows that parents can opt out but must still meet grade level or graduation requirements of the school.

Ten Common Mistakes Parents Make During the IEP Meeting

Written by admin on . Posted in Section 504 | Special Education. 2 Comments

. . . It is important that parents become informed and involved in their child’s education. There are many sources of information and support in your state. However, the more skills you have and the more information you learn, the better you can advocate for your child. Over the past few years we have found that parents tend to make some common mistakes during the Individual Education Program (IEP) meeting. The following is a list of the common mistakes and some suggestions for avoiding them: . . .

Full Article Here (Kids Together, Inc.)

Was Your Child Forcibly Tested?

Written by admin on . Posted in Constitutional, STAAR | EOC Testing, Testing Irregularity. 3 Comments

We have received a disturbing number of reports of students being forced to complete the makeup STAAR via lies and coercion.  We know that schools are required to offer the assessment to the child, but several reports have come in that the child refused the assessment and was told “you can’t write refused on it.”  Others were told “you have to complete it, it’s the law.”  At least one child was denied the opportunity to ask their mother if it was OK to take it.  Yet another report (second hand) claims that the school told the mother that if she did not tell the child to take the assessment the TEA had instructed them to forcibly take the child to the testing room and make her to the assessment.  It is reported the mother asked the TEA about this and no such instruction was ever given.  Opt out parents who return their children on makeup days are assisting the school by letting them count the refusal as a participation.  It’s wrong of the TEA to do that, but there is absolutely no excuse for certified educators to lie to children and parents just to make a kid give them data.  In almost every one of these instance the school is forcing, tricking or convincing the child to disobey their parents.  Such actions destroy any bond of trust between the parent and the school.

If your child is forcibly tested on make up days against your instructions, and the child attempted to refuse but was not permitted, please do the following:

1. Take a deep breath and relax, we need to focus.

2. Assemble all your e-mails and other communications with the school that preceded the STAAR.

3. Write down your recollection of what you were told verbally, including names, dates, and the precise words as best you recall them before the incident occurred. Then write down everything you remember about what happened and how you learned of this. Note who said what and their emotional state.

4. If your child is OK, have them write down what happened in their own handwriting, or audio or video record them giving their account. Do this as soon as the child is able. Please do not prompt or guide them. Before you start remind them to use names and the exact words people said, including the child. After you have done this, go over it with the child and make notes f any names the child left out or statements they were not clear about. Do not re-video the child and do not have them re-write their account.

5. File an Incident Report form with www.txedrights.net (it is on the website). Please provide all information requested. We will follow up with you after the report is reviewed. Please do not e-mail us video or documents until we request them.

Principal Issues Threats Contrary to Law

Written by admin on . Posted in STAAR | EOC Testing. 4 Comments

The hypocrisy of the schools in their campaign to intimidate parents into subjecting their kids to the STAAR assessment is truly remarkable.  Any outside observers would have to be left scratching their heads.  On the one hand, schools tell parents, sometimes in forceful, nasty letters, that the law does not let parents refuse the STAAR, and that parents and schools must follow the law.  On the other hand, when parents start to assert their rights to opt out and refuse assessment, the schools waste no time in making threats against the parent and child that are contrary to law.  We always recommend that when a parent is threatened with retention, summer school or truancy, that they ask the person making the threat to send an email with all that information so the parent “can fully understand the position of the district.”  Almost without exception, the schools refuse to put it in writing because they know the threats are hollow and that what they are saying they are going to do is refuse to follow the law themselves.  But sometimes they mess up.  Sometimes they leave tracks.

Just this morning, a principal (whose name we have deleted from the message) at an elementary school called a parent regarding her son’s absence from school due to parental refusal.  The mother didn’t answer the phone, but the principal wanted to make sure that the message was delivered.  So she left it on voice mail.  Oops.  In the span of 24 seconds, the principal threatened that if the child didn’t come to school and take the STAAR assessment, he would have to have tutorials, summer school, and repeat fifth grade.  That’s one threat every 8 seconds!  And two of them demonstrate an intention to not follow the law.  Let’s give it a listen:

The SSI manual published by TEA describes the process schools must follow when a 5th grader has failed to perform at satisfactory levels on the STAAR.  For the most part it tracks the Education Code, but provides much more detail and direction.  While the manual says a failure on the first administration requires accelerated instruction, it does not say that must be in the form of tutorials.  But we will give the principal the benefit of the doubt, because they have some discretion there.  We’ll call that a minor omission, but not a lie or a refusal to follow the law.  But the next two we can’t excuse as easily.

Summer school.  Summer school is a form of accelerated instruction that takes place after a second failure and before the third assessment date.  But, as we have discussed many times, summer school is not required by the Education Code, by the TEA regulations, or by the SSI manual.  In fact, the SSI manual clearly states on p. 33 that  “Neither the law nor the rules specify the amount of time to be provided for the accelerated instruction. To support the SSI grade-advancement requirements, the law and the commissioner’s rules provide districts and charter schools with flexibility to determine on an individual student basis the appropriate form, content, and timing of the accelerated instruction.”  Districts have flexibility.  AI could be a single class session; it could be an online tutorial done at home; it could be summer school.  So since summer school is a possibility, why is it so bad for the principal to threaten it?  Because she doesn’t get to make that decision!  Both the Education Code and the SSI manual clearly state that after a second failure, the accelerated instruction plan is to be created by the Grade Placement Committee and individualized to the student.  And who is on the Grade Placement Committee?  The principal, the subject teacher and the parent!  The parent has a vote on this.  The decision can only be made after a GPC is formed and the appropriate materials reviewed.  When the principal says that the student is going to summer school if they don’t take the STAAR, that communicates that a decision has been made and an AI plan formulated before the GPC ever meets.  This is illegal; any such “plan” is invalid; and the sole purpose of this threat is to coerce the parent.

The same goes for promotion or retention.  After the third administration, a student who has not passed the 5th grade STAAR reading will be reviewed by the GPC for the promotion or retention decision.  The factors that go into the promotion decision are a part of state law and can be found in the Education Code.  Willingness to take the STAAR is not a factor they can consider.  Rather they must look at grades in classes, teacher recommendations and STAAR scores to the extent applicable, which means if there are no scores it is not applicable at all!  Again, though this is a decision made by a committee.  When the principal states that if the student doesn’t take the STAAR he will have to be “in 5th grade again,” she is conveying that there is no way to be promoted without taking STAAR. This is untrue. She is also conveying that a decision to retain the student has been made prior to second or third administration, without the committee and without consideration of the statutory factors for promotion.

Why would a school do this?  There is one reason only: to bully and coerce the parents into subjecting their kids to assessment.  To achieve this goal, they make threats that are contrary to law and process.  Usually they don’t leave evidence of this.  Today, they slipped up.  On this 24 second voice mail, you have the problem in a nutshell.  It doesn’t matter how nice or concerned you sound.  If you are threatening not to follow the law and punish a student, you need to be corrected, and you need to take a hard look at why you are doing this.  Is a single piece of data for Pearson worth your integrity?

I’d suggest it is not.

TEA Responds to Letter re Social Media Monitoring

Written by admin on . Posted in STAAR | EOC Testing, Testing Irregularity. Leave a Comment

In response to TPERN’s inquiry, the Texas Education Agency has provided the following information.  It is reprinted below, but Pearson is not required to monitor social media by contract, and the TEA does not ask them to do so.  The TEA does monitor public social media.  The TEA did not disclose whether Pearson engages in social media monitoring of STAAR takers of its own volition.  The full reply is below:

March 27, 2015
Dear Mr. Placek,

Thank you for your recent correspondence to the Texas Education Agency (TEA) regarding the monitoring of social media accounts of students who take state assessments. The commissioner has forwarded your letter to the Student Assessment Division for response.

The current contract for the Texas state assessment program does not require any monitoring of social media by Pearson, the vendor for the state assessment program, and TEA makes no requests for the vendor to do so.

As required by 19 TAC §101.3031, the Student Assessment Division oversees the maintenance of test administration procedures and training activities to ensure the validity, reliability, and security of assessments. Requirements for ensuring test security and confidentiality are delineated in test administration materials annually and detailed in the Test Security Supplement (19 TAC §101.3031 (b)(2)).

Monitoring procedures as outlined in the Test Security Supplement require districts and campuses to implement necessary measures to prevent student cheating. This includes monitoring student use of cell phones and electronic devices during test administrations. TEA considers it a serious testing irregularity if a student photographs or duplicates secure test content or disseminates this information using an electronic device.

As obligated by TEC §39.0301, TEA has established procedures to ensure the security of assessment instruments. This includes the monitoring of public social media. In its review of information posted to public social media, it is possible that personally identifiable student information could be observed.

TEA understands its responsibility to protect student confidentiality. As a result, TEA has developed operating procedures that require all staff to adhere to the agency policy that personally identifiable student information collected and maintained by the agency will be protected from unauthorized disclosure to safeguard confidentiality. The agency is subject to the same requirements for controlled accessibility to confidential student information as are school districts, education service centers, and charter schools. Under no circumstances will personally identifiable student information be released except in accordance with FERPA. Therefore, if a posting on public social media is discovered that violates the requirement to maintain test security and confidentiality, TEA will respond in keeping with its obligations under federal and state confidentiality laws and under its own operating procedures.

[The response was not signed or sent from an individually identifiable e-mail adress].

Schools: STOP THE LIES

Written by admin on . Posted in STAAR | EOC Testing. 17 Comments

I’ve had it. I am tired of parents reporting threats and intimidation tactics by schools that are nothing but lies. At first I tried to give the teachers and administrators the benefit of the doubt and think they must just be misinformed. But the reports are coming so hot and so heavy that I am left with only one conclusion: schools, teachers and administrators will say and do anything to try to intimidate you into making sure your child takes the STAAR. They will lie; they will bully; they will threaten. It needs to stop. This is not an adversarial system. Education is supposed to be a partnership between parents and educators for the benefit of the children. In the business world, when partners lie to each other they get sued. Too bad the schools have no such deterrent.

Let’s count the lies:

1. Students have to pass Math STAAR for promotion this year. False, the TEA has removed it from SSI requirements. (Link)

Update for 2016: Math STAAR is part of SSI this school year.  Even so, the Education Code provides a path for promotion for 5th and 8th graders who do not pass STAAR in Math or Reading (or both).

2. If you child doesn’t take STAAR in 3rd/4th/6th/7th grade, they can’t go to the next grade. Almost always false. Check your school district’s policy online for Policy EIE (Local). Look for the section entitled Grade Advancement Testing. Most policies only say passage of the state assessment is required for Grades 5 and 8. Houston ISD is a notable exception. But I have not found any other districts that have enacted such a policy. No, they cannot retain your child for opting out of STAAR in 3rd, 4th, 6th or 7th Grade. To do this Google the name of your ISD and “board policy online”. From there, click on “Section E: Instruction” and locate policy EIE (Local). The typical section reads something like this: “Grade Advancement Testing: Except when a student will be assessed in reading or mathematics above his or her enrolled grade level, students in grades 5 and 8 must meet the passing standard on the applicable state-mandated assessments in reading and mathematics to be promoted to the next grade level, in addition to the District’s local standards for mastery and promotion.” By the way, the “in addition to” language at the end demonstrates that STAAR is not a part of the District’s local standards for mastery and promotion that apply to all other grades.

Update for 2016: Houston ISD has apparently suspended their promotion policy for non-SSI grades.  To my knowledge H-E-B ISD is continuing their policy on non-SSI year passage.  I have not found any other districts requiring STAAR passage in non-SSI years.

3. Your 5th/8th Grader Can’t Be Promoted Without Taking STAAR. False. The Education Code provides that students who have not met the standards for passage of STAAR in 5th or 8th grade are reviewed by a Grade Placement Committee for promotion. .Tex. Educ. Code sec. 28.0211 (e).

4. Our District WON’T Promote you if you don’t at least try STAAR. Either False or an overt statement of their intention to break the law. There is nothing in the Education Code, or any school policy we have seen, which permits a district to take into account the refusal to take STAAR as a factor in promotion or retention. The Education Code dictates the factors to be considered. Refusal to participate in STAAR is not one of them. When a district says this, they need a lawyer letter sent to them. Tex. Educ. Code 28.021(c).

5. If you don’t take STAAR, you have to go to Summer School. False. There is nothing in the Education Code that requires STAAR failures or refusers to go to summer school. The TEA’s SSI manual is very clear that there is no specific amount or type of Accelerated Instruction required for kids who have not passed STAAR. Specifically, the quote from p. 33 of the manual states, “Neither the law nor the rules specify the amount of time to be provided for the accelerated instruction. To support the SSI grade-advancement requirements, the law and the commissioner’s rules provide districts and charter schools with flexibility to determine on an individual student basis the appropriate form, content, and timing of the accelerated instruction. ” It is also a decision for the GPC, which you are a member of!  For 5th and 8th grade students, summer school cannot be required by district “policy”, notes from the principal or any other method other than GPC.

6. If you don’t take STAAR, you have to lose an elective next year. False. For the same reason above.

7. – Updated: Your high school student cannot go to the next grade unless they pass STAAR. Completely false. Again check Board Policy EIE (Local). The standard language says “Grade-level advancement for students in grades 9–12 shall be earned by course credits.” Credit comes from grades. STAAR is a graduation requirement only, although alternate assessments are available. Please check your local board policy to confirm.

8 – Updated:  If you opt out in grades 3-8, your child can’t graduate high school.  Completely false and deliberate lie.  There is absolutely no connection between performance or participation in pre-secondary STAAR assessments and high school graduation.  The high school requirements (which do not even require passage of all STAAR EOC assessments) are independent of the requirements for Grades 3-8.  No part of high school graduation requirements look at participation in STAAR for grades 3-8.  This is so well known, that if a school tells you this, they can only be trying to scare and intimidate you.

9 –  Updated: If you opt out you cannot be promoted to 6th/9th grade.  You can only be placed in the grade. False.  The Grade Placement Committee, by law, can do only one of two things: promote or retain.  Placement is not a “thing” under the education code, except in one rare instance that has nothing to do with STAAR and does not involve a GPC.  This is just a lie designed to make the parent feel their child will be labeled as something inferior.  It is not true.

10 – If you are at school and refuse STAAR, you get a ZERO! False.  Nobody gets a zero.  Nobody in the history of all STAAR has ever gotten a zero.  Students who refuse assessment receive the minimum scaled score.  Now let’s ask two questions. First, what does that matter?  A refused assessment does not yield valid educational data whether they score is a 0 or a 1,000,000.  It is meaningless.  Second, if nobody gets a zero, why do schools say that?  Because getting a zero sounds scary to parents in a way that getting the minimum scaled score doesn’t  Schools will lie to you to scare you in order to get you to take the assessment.  That’s really pathetic.  Don’t fall victim to these scare tactics.

I am sure there are more and as I see them, I will add them in. Here is my advice for parents. When your district makes a threat like any of the above, tell them you want to see it in writing. You will be amazed how many of these “threats” will disappear when you ask them to sign their name to it. That is because they know they are lying.

And one other thing, if you give in to these lies, they will continue. If you allow yourself to be bullied, you are setting yourself and future parents up for more of the same treatment. You are an adult. They can’t take your lunch money from you unless you let them. Stand up to the lies.

A Great Refusal Letter

Written by admin on . Posted in STAAR | EOC Testing. 2 Comments

Here is refusal letter a mom from GPISD shared with us! I’d love to see how the school responds to this!

Dear (school name protected) Administrators and Teachers:
My name is [parent name]. I’m a mother of a 5th grader in GPISD. It was suggested to me that I contact you to discuss my concerns about STAAR testing. I will be honest about how I feel about STAAR, but I seek guidance about how to approach the issues at hand. I don’t like the STAAR test, I don’t agree with and I certainly don’t approve of the curriculum that comes with it. As I mentioned, my daughter is in 5th grade and was diagnosed with double-deficit Dyslexia late last year. Since that time, she has failed all of her STAAR tests. The stress she’s already feeling about testing causes her to lose sleep, get headaches and stomach aches. She spends more time than her peers just trying to keep up, but still is falling behind. I have pushed to have her tested for other learning disabilities and that is in the works, but hasn’t happened yet. She has two first year teachers this year, one for reading, one for math and her science teacher has been out on maternity leave, so she has had a sub the last few weeks. She went several weeks without any math instruction at all because her Dyslexia class interfered with instructional time for math.
As a parent, I feel that it is my responsibility to protect my children from anything I deem as harmful and I strongly feel that the STAAR test is harmful, not only for my child, but for EVERY child, however, I only have the ability to protect my own. I don’t want my daughter to take the test, but I also understand that she’s in a “critical” year for testing, which puts me in a quandry. It is my understanding that the 5th grade kids must pass reading this year to be promoted to 6th grade. Based on what I’ve seen with the homework she brings home and the struggles she has with it, I feel pretty certain that she won’t pass it. Nor do I feel she will pass the math or science! The structure of this test is developmentally inappropriate for their ages! I have two older children and neither of them, nor myself, are capable of understanding some of the assignments nor the method of teaching that is being conveyed to my 5th grader, and I assure you that it’s not due to lack of intelligence!
This assessment means absolutely nothing to me. It doesn’t measure intelligence, nor does it measure teaching or learning ability, so why is it so critical? Because the State says it is!
Here’s my quandry…I know what my rights are, but I want to know what stance GPISD takes and if her school and district administrators will support my daughter and I or are they going to fight us.
Do I allow my child to take the test, knowing the physical, emotional and psychological damage it causes her along with the physical illness it creates, knowing the likelihood of her passing is slim, or do I do what my maternal instinct is telling me and refuse for her to take it? Will I have support from GPISD or will GPISD challenge me, making things even more difficult for my daughter and myself? Do I continue to allow my daughter to be made to feel like she doesn’t matter, that she has no value because she can’t pass an insignificant test? I have always taught my children to stand up for what they believe in and what is right, even if that means they stand alone, so doesn’t that mean I should lead by example? I have always taught my children to always do their best in everything they do. Do I allow my daughter to continue to feel like a failure, even though she is doing her best? Is GPISD going to tell my daughter that her best isn’t good enough?
I feel that whatever direction I choose to go, it could potentially negatively impact my daughter and I don’t want that. She faces more than enough challenges at this age and certainly doesn’t need anymore.
The more I write, the more concrete I feel in making my decision. I must use my voice to protect my child until she is capable of using her own. With all due respect (and I DO highly respect each of you and your positions), please let this serve as formal notice that my daughter, (name protected) will abstain from taking any and all STAAR tests this year.
Please know that I have not made my decision lightly. In fact, it has caused me a great deal of turmoil. However, I must do what I feel is best for my daughter and since GPISD is funded by the State of Texas and must follow their rules, I’m taking that power away and making the decision myself. My daughter’s self-worth cannot be measured by a test score or monetary value. I only hope that one day, the State of Texas and GPISD will feel the same way and allow the school administrators and educators to do their jobs and provide our children the true education that they so richly deserve.
Please advise me in advance of what instruction will be provided for her on testing days and feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns.
Respectfully,
[Mom]

TPERN Requests TEA Clarify Pearson Monitoring of Students’ Social Media

Written by admin on . Posted in STAAR | EOC Testing, Testing Irregularity. Leave a Comment


Amidst numerous reports of Pearson Education monitoring the internet and social media postings of students taking assessments in the northeastern United States, TPERN has requested that Commissioner Williams disclose to Texas parents the extent to which Pearson is contracted to monitor the social media postings of Texas students.  A copy of our letter is below:

March 18, 2015

Dear Commissioner Williams:

Recent news items from New Jersey and Maryland have confirmed that Pearson Education engages in active monitoring of social media accounts of students who take Pearson created standardized assessments.(Link).  Pearson Education proudly asserts the importance of its review of the social media posts of minors in the name of test security and protection of intellectual property rights. (Link).  At the same time, however, it appears to have prevailed upon its software vendor to remove any reference to their work together from the vendor’s website. (Link).  This dissonance between its public stance and private actions is concerning.  It is unclear to what extent Pearson engages in social media monitoring of children in Texas.  However, from its public statements in regard to New Jersey and Maryland, there seems to be little doubt that Pearson does or intends to monitor Texas students online social media postings.

In that regard, the Texas Parents’ Educational Rights Network respectfully requests that the Commissioner or his designee answer the following questions for Texas parents:

(1) To what extent does Pearson Education monitor the social media postings of Texas students?  Is social media monitoring a part of the Pearson contract?  If so, how much do Texas taxpayers pay Pearson to review the internet postings of Texas students?

(2) What restrictions are placed on Pearson Education’s use of data derived from social media monitoring of Texas students, both as to data that may trigger further action in the name of test security, but also data that does not raise any alerts, but is nonetheless captured and reviewed by Pearson?  In what document may those restrictions, if any, be found?

(3) What notice, if any, is provided to Texas parents and students that their social media postings may be monitored by Pearson or the TEA?  In what documents may any such notices be found?

(4) What safeguards does Pearson Education have in place to assure that its staff that reviews social media postings of minors does not misuse this information for private and/or improper purposes?  There is no doubt that contact via social media is a primary grooming tool for child predators.  How does Pearson screen its employees to assure that those employees permitted to review the social media posting of children are not risks to child safety?  Does Pearson’s monitoring software separate content from identity, such that no one person can obtain information that might enable this information to be used privately for threatening or grooming purposes?  What written policies does Pearson have in place regarding private usage of this information by its employees and how are those policies enforced?

It is a sad truth of our modern age that technology has enabled child predators to approach and groom victims in relative anonymity.  It is a further truth that predators gravitate to work which enables them contact with potential victims.  Any business which engages in the monitoring of social media of minors must be aware of these risks and proactively address them.  Texas parents deserve to know what steps Pearson has taken to assure the safety of Texas students whose internet activity is being actively monitored.

With the first STAAR administrations of 2015 forthcoming, your timely response to this inquiry would be appreciated.

Sincerely,

R. Scott Placek
Chairman
Texas Parents’ Educational Rights Network

Of particular interest to TPERN is what safeguards are in place to assure that no Pearson employee misuses the data obtained to solicit or otherwise approach a minor student.  This risk is inherent in any position that provides regular access to children or their personal information.  Discussion of child protection has been sadly missing from the debate of Pearson’s monitoring of minors on social media.  We will update you with any response received.

© 2022 Texas Parents' Educational Rights Network