This past week, at IS 318 in the Bronx, over 160 students engaged in an act of civil disobedience. They refused to take the practice test for the 8th grade Social Studies Regents. They did not engage in any violent acts, nor did they rebel in any way other than turning in blank essays and a petition.

According to the New York Daily News, the principal of the school has suspended the teacher, Douglas Avella, who is suspected of encouraging the boycott. Conveniently, the school is now saying that there have been long standing issues with Mr. Avella. (Interestingly, the Daily News article also has a threaded message board and Mr. Avella and at least one student have weighed in on the issue.)

This is one week after a teacher in NC was suspended for refusing to give the end-of-year test, and it comes a month after Carl Chew refused to give his sixth graders the WASL in his Seattle classroom. These stories are gaining traction, and I’m guessing we’re going to see more of them in the coming year.

The difference between the instance at IS 318 and the other two is that in this case, the kids had a choice and the students chose to send a message — not on the actual test, but on a practice test. Neither Daily News article mentions whether or not the kids were going to take the actual test. But, prima facie, it appears they chose to make their stand in an incredibly pragmatic and smart way — they wouldn’t waste their time on a practice test. In the words of Allen Iverson, we’re talking about practice.

As is often the case, the kids’ words speak powerfully:

and

She asks the right question, and she does seem to suggest that the kids were planning on taking the real test. But even more simply, if we had to pick a class where we wanted kids to question the status quo, where we wanted kids to consider rational, reasonable political acts, wouldn’t it be in a social studies class?

What’s most disturbing is the comment from David Canton of the NYC Department of Education, assuming this quote was taken in context (which is a valid concern):

If Mr. Cantor is suggesting that teaching students to think deeply about their own learning and about the ways in which they are assessed is an inappropriate message, then he is very, very wrong. We keep hearing about how schools have to teach kids to be problem solvers and critical thinkers if we want to solve the problems we face in our world. But those politicians who are making educational policies better understand that if we encourage kids to think for themselves, many of them will. That’s a good thing, as far as I’m concerned, but it does mean that the adults won’t always get their way.

I don’t know what the right way to deal with the current system of standardized testing is. I know my personal belief is that, as we attempt to change our educational system, we cannot be revolutionaries at the expense of our kids. I also know that people’s careers are at stake over issues such as these, and that’s part of the equation whether we like it or not.

So, as we teach kids to question, we also have to teach them to be responsible in the choices they make. Interestingly, it does seem that choosing not to take a practice test is a reasonable response to an ever-increasing test-based culture. One might question — one should question — who had the more reasonable response to the situation: the students who chose to make a political statement over a practice test or the adults who suspended the teacher who dared to suggest that the kids think for themselves.

Tags: highstakes tests