Analysis of State Opt-Out Legislation Michelle Croft, Ph.D./J.D. - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Analysis of State Opt-Out Legislation

Michelle Croft, Ph.D./J.D. Richard Lee, M.A. ACT, Inc.

2

• Spring 2015

– 12 states failed to meet ESEA 95% participation requirements

• Reasons for opting out

– Curriculum – Accountability use of scores – Cut score placement – Tests (length, quantity, administration mode) – Usefulness of information

• Public opinion

– Slight majority support requiring participation

Background

3

• Possible implications to validity of test scores
• Federal funding

– ESEA required 95% participation—automatically identified as failing. – ESSA requires 95% participation—states must incorporate into accountability system. – ESSA Draft Regulations

• Require states to take actions for schools missing

participation requirement

– USDOE Dec. 2015 letter to states:

• States with low participation rates need to develop opt-
• ut action plan.

Why are opt outs problematic?

4

• 1. Identify existing opt-out laws
• 2. Identify and analyze legislation introduced in

2015-2016 Purpose

5

• Existing Legislation

– National Association of State Boards of Education 2015 report

• Introduced Legislation

– CQ StateTrack – 2015: general assessment terms

• Updated using NCSL’s College & Career Readiness

Standards Legislation Dashboard

– 2016: opt-out specific search

• “opt out” w/200 assessment, “opt out” w/200 parent
• Similar searches using “excuse” and “refuse”

– Bills filed prior to June 1, 2016

Method

6

2015 Opt-Out Laws

7

• 87 bills filed—65 unique
• Enacted opt-out legislation:

– 4 states in 2015 and 1 state in 2016 – 2 states enacted opt-out related bills but did not authorize opt-outs

2015-2016 Legislation

Note: Alaska and Hawaii are not

• pictured. Alaska had a set of

companion bills introduced in

• 2015. Hawaii had three sets of

companion bills introduced in 2015 and one set of resolutions in 2016.

8

• Process
• What happens during testing
• Consequences

– Students – Schools

Themes

9

Opt-Out Process

10

Parent Notification

• General notification

– 19 bills in 12 states – Assessment information and right to opt out – Incentives for testing (WA S.B. 6474)

• Time frame for notification

– Varied from start of school year and again prior to testing (MO H.B. 2315) to 1-2 weeks prior to testing (NY A.B. 6025/S.B. 4161)

11

• General

– 17 bills in 12 states – Most had state department of education create form (n=11)

• 3 included the form language in the bill
• Differences in required form content

– Right to excuse along with the value of the assessment (OR H.B. 2655) – No disciplinary actions or effect on academic record (RI S.B. 736)

Forms

12

• 18 bills required

educational activities.

• Some defined

“meaningful activities”

– SC H.B. 4330 “promote academic and intellectual growth”

• Test security implications

– Addressed in NJ and GA

What happens during testing?

13

• LEA-developed alternative

– “Sufficient” (AZ H.B. 2246) – “Comparable” (WA H.B. 2167) – “Not more rigorous” (UT H.B. 164)

• Not exempt from local

requirements (NJ A.B. 4165/S.B. 2767 and ND H.B. 1283)

Consequences for Students

14

• Reporting

– Prevent negative impacts (UT S.B. 204) – Not include testing refusals in calculations (OH H.B. 420) – Notations on school report card (OR H.B. 2644)

• Maintaining data

– Only three sets of bills required maintenance

Consequences for the School

15

• Legislation indicates move towards formalizing

process and removing consequences

• Practical issues:

– How to provide alternative educational activities? – How to create comparable alternatives for graduation and promotion? – How to comply with ESSA requirements?

• Validity implications in public reporting

– Particularly when there are not requirements to track opt

• uts
• Communicating (and ensuring) value of

assessments for stakeholders Conclusion