A Faith-Fueled Opt-Out

Ethical Educator

Scenario:

With the first round of Common Core testing approaching, some parents in the school district are opting out their children.

The state’s regulations allow parents to do so based on disability and religion. However, these parents contend any set of beliefs can be construed as religious and have dared the district to reject their application, threatening to litigate.

The state defers these decisions to the school district. The board asks the superintendent to articulate the basis on which the district should decide a religious-based objection.

Mario Ventura:

We have the responsibility to honor and respect the legal rights, values and religious beliefs of our students and their families.  Proving that a family’s religious beliefs opposed to testing on the Common Core is not based on their faith but rather on a political or philosophical position would be difficult.

The superintendent should advise the governing board to grant religious-based exemption from testing if the parents have followed district policy, taken the necessary steps outlined by the school district and demonstrated the objection is based on their religious beliefs. In most districts, the process for requesting an exemption would include describing in writing the family’s religious beliefs and how these beliefs conflict with Common Core testing.

Kelly Henson:

Federal law and state laws require public schools to annually assess all enrolled students.  When parents request their child opt out of these assessments, the first action that should be taken is an open and honest conversation with parents about what the assessment is and isn’t, addressing the concerns of the parents and informing parents of some possible consequences of an opt-out request.  These consequences would include depriving the school of data to determine course placement and data to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the student.

Also, failure to participate in the assessment may have a negative impact on the student’s grade in one or more courses (some states have rules or legislation that require the performance on an assessment, at the secondary level, to count as a percentage of the student’s final grade in identified courses).

If the parents still wish to have their child opt out using religion as the basis for their request, then the superintendent, in consultation with appropriate staff and the board attorney, must make a decision.  The superintendent should stress to the board that the threat of litigation is not a basis to defer to the parents. It also is more than likely the parents are using the religious freedom argument in a less-than-candid manner.

What complicates the superintendent’s decision is that the courts have taken an expansive view of religious freedom.  A person’s religious freedom argument does not have to be based on a specific tenet of the parent’s faith, and the Supreme Court has held that the person’s religious belief does not even have be logical.

In this case, the superintendent should rely on the advice of legal counsel, both the board attorney and, if needed, a law firm that specializes in these matters.

Sarah Mackenzie:

In spite of initial widespread support for the Common Core, the testing programs associated with it have generated controversy. The tension between federal government expectations and states’ implementation of the Common Core and assessments associated with it has produced a variety of responses -- in this case, parents’ ability to have their children released from taking the tests. Some states have not dealt with the question; others have allowed parents to opt out for any reason; while a few have imposed parameters on parents’ ability to opt out.

By deferring the decision to individual school districts, this state is indicating its unwillingness to take a stand even if the state itself established parameters for decision making. It would seem that individual school systems and their boards have been given carte blanche to decide for themselves how to approach policymaking on this issue. Considering the difficulty of deciding what is truly a religious belief, it would behoove the superintendent to suggest a decision rule that is very liberal. Any parent who articulates an objection on religious grounds has no obligation to explain the objection any further, and the voicing of an objection provides sufficient grounds to grant the opt out.

Shelley Berman:

A religious exemption should be founded on a sincerely held religious belief, as opposed to a personal, political or sociological belief. However, if parents cite religious reasons for their decision to opt their student out of state testing, it is not appropriate or feasible for a district to make a judgment about whether their beliefs meet that standard.

Across the country, resistance to state testing has been growing based on sincere concerns about the assessments’ value in terms of the information they provide, their impact on the overall structure and nature of the curriculum, and the time required for preparation and administration. Opting out of state testing is a way to express that opposition. A far more appropriate avenue for dissent would be to take these concerns to the state board of education and to state legislators with a proposal for a better or more balanced system of assessment. However, parents and students who have serious concerns that are not based on religion may believe that using the religious exemption is their only viable means of calling attention to their views.

Required participation in statewide assessments has several purposes. It enables schools to consistently track individual students' learning progress across time. It allows comparisons of learning progress between groups of students, helping us to identify and work to address achievement gaps. Finally, it facilitates comparisons of student performance between schools and districts and — where there are common assessments such as the Smarter Balanced or PARCC assessments or National Assessment of Educational Progress — between different states. Schools, districts and states can use the resulting data to improve educational programs and design interventions to ensure students make steady progress toward being college and career ready. Statewide assessment systems are not perfect. Yet, to serve their intended purposes, they must be administered fairly, thoroughly, consistently and equitably.

By opting out in significant numbers, parents undermine the credibility of the student achievement and school accountability data gathered, reduce the value of information gained from these assessments, and limit educators' and the public's ability to know how students' learning compares with that of other districts and states. Of particular concern are the inequities that opting out could introduce or exacerbate. If assessments are not administered consistently to all students, the real and persistent achievement and opportunity gaps our students experience could be artificially masked, thus reducing the impetus and the ability to address these gaps. Even worse, schools desiring to enhance their achievement scores could counsel students who are performing at less-than-proficient levels to opt out of testing, suggesting that the stress of the test and the potential damage to students’ self-concept make opting out a beneficial choice. These threats to equity prompted, in part, the federal standard for participation in assessments and the sanctions against schools and districts violating that standard.

In this case, the state has abrogated its responsibility to clearly delineate criteria for opting out. Although a determination of disability may be unambiguous, districts lack the expertise to make a decision about whether someone’s religious beliefs are sufficient to justify a religious exemption. To seek expertise from the clergy would be difficult given the diversity of religious beliefs present in our society, as well as what may be considered acceptable as religious belief in a court of law. While articulating the positive reasons for participating in the state assessment and defining as best it can the boundaries of a religious exemption, the district needs to leave the final decision to the integrity of parents.

To help parents make a fair determination, the district could develop a document that informs parents of the nature and purposes of the assessment; the benefits of the assessment for the student, parent, school and district; the justifiable reasons for opting out; and the potential negative consequences to the school district based on state and federal regulations.

Such a document would make clear that a disability exemption is allowable for students who have IDEA-identified disabilities that interfere with their ability to participate in standardized testing, even with accommodations. It would also clarify that the religious exemption is allowable for students whose parents’ sincerely held religious beliefs cause them to be opposed to state testing. It should indicate that merely wishing to avoid testing does not justify exemption, nor does having a political, personal or sociological objection to testing that is not based on a sincerely held religious belief. The exemption form could even ask the parents to acknowledge that they understand the allowable reasons for the exemption and the consequences that opting out may have on the student, school and district. However, while providing that guidance, the district will need to leave the final determination to the parents, knowing that some will make that decision based on reasons other than religion.

Many parents understand the value that statewide assessments offer. Depending on the numbers of individuals choosing to opt out, the superintendent could also recommend that the board ask its legislative delegation to spearhead a dialogue on the role, design, value and impact of the current assessment system, and clarify definitive participation criteria that districts can implement.