Updates from Garfield Teacher Action Against MAP

Just back from the well-attended press conference.  To note, educator Diane Ravitch has already blogged about this action and added her support.

First up, the district response (partial): 

Seattle Public Schools expects our teachers to administer all required tests, pursuant to our policies and procedures. Last fall, during an annual report to the Board on Nov. 28, it was agreed that the District would review the effectiveness of MAP testing. We look forward to hearing from our principals and teachers as part of that process. A report back to the Board is expected to be presented in the spring.  

This response seems to indicate the district wants the teachers to continue giving the test BUT that MAP is going to be reviewed with a report to the Board by spring.  Good news.   We are now in the 5th year of MAP and it would seem a review would be in order.

The press conference was held with at least 25 Garfield teachers and staff in attendance as well as several students representing the ASB including ASB President Obadiah Terry.  The Garfield ASB listened to the teachers/staff earlier in the day, considered the issue on their own and voted to support the teachers/staff stance.

What was striking about the press conference is the lack of anger or frustration.  What you got was a roomful of teachers worried about their students.  Their two main issues:

- MAP does not appear to align with the curriculum they are required to teach.  Students expressed frustration over questions that are not part of what they are learning (i.e. geometry questions in an algebra test) or questions on topics not covered in class.

The teachers cannot see the test or even a sample question so they only have knowledge of questions based on what students tell them.  One 9th student asked his teacher about "poetic enjambment."   The teacher, Kit McCormick, said she was really surprised as this is a term that she rarely teaches and only to advanced 12th graders. She said she could not understand it being on any test for a 9th grader.

The teachers expressed real concern over students' frustration over not being able to do well and feeling stupid (even if it was not material they had not yet learned).  

- loss of instructional time.  The students taking the test in high school - and this differs from school to school - are generally 9th graders, algebra students, ELL and Special Ed students.  Many of these are students who NEED that instructional time and the time would be better spent in the classroom than on testing.

The teachers did not know what the principal or the SEA thought of their action.  They did point out that the SEA had, a couple of years back, made a statement against the use of MAP. 

ALL the teachers said they supported testing.  They all said they are fine (more or less) with the HSPE and end-of-course tests but that the MAP was a flawed instrument.

When asked how the results of the MAP are used by them, the teachers laughed.  Apparently, it is of little use to them and they have received little guidance in using test scores.

As for what will happen if they refuse to give the test, they shrugged.  They could be suspended (as was a teacher in years past for refusing to give the WASL). 

They pointed out that the MAP will be used, starting next year, for their evaluations and that is also a concern.  Again, it wasn't the testing and they said they would be fine with the HSPE being used for that part of their evaluation.

The takeaway lesson from them - "We care about our students and will stand up for them."


SkritchD said…
yay... about time
Kristin Bailey-Fogarty said…
It makes sense that the district expects all schools to administer all required tests pursuant to policies and procedures.

As a parent, I have expectations too.

I expect any test my daughters take to be one that they are prepared for and invested in. I expect the test's results to be accurate and useful to my daughters' teachers. I expect that any test the district requires is one the district has adequately resourced schools to administer, so that a school with 1300 students, like Eckstein, has more than about 120 working computers in labs big enough to use during testing. I expect the district to know how disruptive it is to administer the test at Bagley, where parents volunteer their time to set up a temporary lab on the stage of the cafeteria (thank you parents!).

As a parent I expect that if the district rolls a test like MAP out as a "useful diagnostic tool to help teachers individualize instruction," they don't then use said test to rank a teacher's effectiveness. I do not want my daughters' teachers to make instructional choices based on futile efforts to guess what will be on the math and reading MAP, and then design curriculum in the hopes they'll hit a hidden target.

I expect the district and the school board to support a group a teachers who are advocating for what's best for students. It's what great teachers do.
Anonymous said…
I'm interested in seeing what the outcome will be (although, we'll probably never hear). I was asked to resign a teaching position due to my kids "not making progress" on MAP, I obviously have some negative experiences with it! I'm glad these teachers are bringing up these very important points about the test and curriculum.

-YayforMAP...or not
Eric M said…
I agree with K B-F.

The MAP does not meet any sensible, sane, efficient, cost-effective criteria.

It was purchased under corrupt circumstances by a superintendent who sat, secretly (at least to SPS folks) on the board of NWEA, the company that markets it.

It is not tied to our curriculum.

It does not inform instruction.

It consumes absurd amounts of resource.

It has been repurposed by SPS/SEA as a teacher evaluation tool, which is utter junk science. Even NWEA states publicly that it should not be used for this purpose.

In short, the MAP test exemplifies the most vile aspects of education reform:
a) line pockets of insiders
b) divert very finite resources away from actual classrooms and teaching
c) create and force-feed products no one in the trenches asked for, needs, or uses.

My roof leaks, right in the center of my classroom, right on new computers.
THAT'S what I would spend the MAP test money on.

Eric Muhs
National Board Certified Teacher
Anonymous said…
Not only has this test not been shown to be helpful, the district is also using it in ways that are not even approved by the writers of the test.

For instance, the writer's of the test say it's never to be used as the sole criteria of placement in classes. Guess what Bob Vaughan thought would be great to use as the sole criteria as entrance to Algebra 1 for 6th graders?

The test is a waste of time, and then the district miss uses the test on top of it.

-get rid of map - yay for Garfield
That is a good last point and that was made at the press conference. The makers of the MAP - and this was handed out at the press conference - did not say it should be used to evaluate teachers and yet it will be next year. (And as for using it for gate-keeping Advanced Learning, I don't like it.)
Anonymous said…
I work in an elementary school (not a teacher).
.selected for corrupt reasons
.given three times a year, this frequency seems cruel and unethical to children
.children get stressed out and CRY
.sometimes data disappears and many many students need to retake the test so that it is more than 3x/year
.special MAP taking laptops are usable while many classroom computers are not
.utilizes a ton of tech resources. everything else in the district related to tech support pretty much stops during testing periods because all the techpower goes to MAP. People new to buildings that need computers can wait 3 months to get one.
.utilizes a ton of human resources. key staff people spend weeks organizing, coordinating and overseeing the test. No extra staffing is provided. It drains individual school budgets and resources.
.class time is lost due to testing
.testing site (computer lab, library, etc) is otherwise unavailable during testing
.test seems to offer very little informative value, especially considering all above.
.children spend enough time in front of screens as it is.

hooray for Garfield for pulling the plug!

Anonymous said…
My child (6th grade) took the MAP test for the first time this fall. We are new to the district. She had to try to take the test three times before it could be successfully administered. Yes, three was the charm apparently. The first time, her account could not be accessed. Three days later, they tried again. This time, the computer did not work. Finally, a week after the first try, they were able to get her set up to take the test. While she was taking the test this third try, they had a fire drill. Ironically, I had emailed her teachers after the first two failures and said that she could try again, but that I did not want her to be tested AGAIN during math, SS, or LA. I suggested PE, leadership, etc. While they emailed that they agreed with me, she was administered the test during math class (not blaming the teachers at all for that). At the end of all this I have a number. A number that sits on a piece of paper, waiting for some meaning or use to be prescribed to it.

Our school is gearing up for round two of the MAP test to start next Friday. Woo hoo!

dan dempsey said…
MAP is nonsense

It was sold as being aligned to state standards. The state standards that teachers are supposed to be teaching. BUT it is NOT.

It was sold as a tool that would be useful for planning instruction and targeting specific student weakness for intervention.
BUT it does NOT do that in a useful way.

After it was purchased it became the tool for measuring student growth to be used in evaluating teachers. BUT the NWEA states it is NOT a tool for that use.

Value Added Measure -- (means measuring student growth for evaluating teachers through the testing of students.) BUT VAM does NOT work. The results are not reliable or valid.

The Billionaire Oligarchs love this idea of tools that can be used in a Centralized Top Down one size fits all fashion.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation just released the findings of its $46 million three year study on Evaluating teachers. The findings are NOT supported by the data in the study.

BMGF produces spin not honest conclusions.

You can find the truth about BMGF and teacher evaluation here =>

Understanding the Gates Foundation’s Measuring Effective Teachers Project


What Success Would Have Looked Like

Looks like Garfield Teachers are tired of tossing away money and time on nonsense.

I suppose the School Board could duck with the old line about - we are about policy not micro-management ... but they bought it.

Bought it hook line and sinker from MGJ.

Where will Banda go from here?

Bravo Garfield for putting the MAP decision under a spot light in the middle of the table.
Anonymous said…
Nothing was EVER done with MAP test results to help my child who attended Hamilton IMS. I was told by our child that many kids purposely messed with the computer testing model...just because. As far as we could tell, it served no purpose for our student. When it was made clear to me that we could simply NOT have her tested anymore, she was done with MAP. Darn!

Year and a half to go!
TraceyS said…
Individual families can always opt out of the MAP tests within their schools. All you need to do is file a written letter with the principal stating your child is opting out the MAP assessment.

I am very glad the Garfield teachers are willing to point out the flaws with MAP and take a stand. It takes real guts to point out the Emperor has no clothes.
Watching said…

Please consider standing in solidarity with Garfield teachers by clicking "like" on their facebook page.
Anonymous said…
Awesomeness! Thank you GHS staff. You've got guts and we appreciate you!

Anonymous said…
Not only is MAP pretty useless, some of the questions are outdated anD completely inappropriate. My third grader, for example, received math questions about smoking--not health ed type questions, but rather along the lines of "if Bob has x cigarettes and smokes y per day, how long will they last?" I contacted NWEA for an explanation, and they were completely unhelpful.

Anonymous said…
At the elementary level the test covers way too much material that is not a part of our curriculum or state standards. Most of my fellow teachers do not have time to analyze all the data nor teach the additional material.

SPS teacher
Anonymous said…
I am a SPS special education teacher. I have felt MAP to be beneficial in only ways that help the top kids who might not otherwise be noticed as strong students. But that is it. The time it wastes. The sucking up of the computer labs. The undue stress on children as young as 5 years old. It's almost complete uselessness. The few benefits I have seen from it can be found in other ways. Thank you GHS, for standing up for our students. I hope we all follow suit.

Fellow teacher
mirmac1 said…
I'd just note that, even you submit that "opt-out" letter, expect that the left hand has no clue what the right is doing. I took considerable effort to communicate my direction that my child not be MAPPED. Nevertheless, when the day came to march everyone down to the computer lab, there she was.

Let's just say that mistake NEVER happened again. Particularly when, in elementary, the alternative was sitting in principals office during the testing period. Can we say "mixed messages" heah'!
Charlie Mas said…
The last time the District "reviewed" the contract with the NWEA for MAP testing they acknowledged that the assessment wasn't useful for any of the intended purposes but they HAD to renew it because it was being used as the measure of student progress for teacher evaluations. That was the primary reason that they felt they could not discontinue the contract which they would otherwise choose not to renew.
Anonymous said…
we had "training" way back when ... how to point and click through web page after web page. 2? 3? clicks per 150 students ...

yeah, I have time for that.

I requested summaries of missing skills by class - never did hear back on that one, probably too useful an idea and, what would that data have to do with fabricating unscientific "evaluation" arithmetic.

I haven't taught an EOC math class for a few years - one of my co-workers pointed to the district Alg 1 pacing guide & the 30 something topics to be covered which ... ha ha ... map ...to the Alg 1 EOC and the co-worker pointed out that s/he didn't know which of the 30 something topics was tested on MAP, and s/he pointed out that MAP didn't tell which of the 30 which kids were struggling with -

BUT - your kid is 214 with a Number Sense score of ___

Yeah Garfield - I wonder what the keystone kops of SEA /WEA will do to crush this Garfield thing, since it rocks the boat on their

Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
dan dempsey said…
Charlie wrote:

"The last time the District "reviewed" the contract with the NWEA for MAP testing they acknowledged that the assessment wasn't useful for any of the intended purposes but they HAD to renew it because it was being used as the measure of student progress for teacher evaluations. That was the primary reason that they felt they could not discontinue the contract which they would otherwise choose not to renew."

So does the school district realize that the Value Added Measure testing to measure teachers has been completely discredited?

Does the school district know that the Gates Foundation prefers spin to analysis?

The recently released report Measuring Effective Teachers ..... contains data that shows .... the teacher evaluation model that is being used by the district is neither valid nor reliable.

So the district is buying all this stuff because the SPS are the servants of those with Petty Little Dictator Disorder.

Understanding the Gates Foundation’s Measuring Effective Teachers Project

What Success Would Have Looked Like
Anonymous said…
Did not the teachers union, the SEA, agree to use MAP for teacher evaluations? Maybe these Garfield teachers need to get involved in contact negotiations.

just sayin'
Anonymous said…
How do you opt out of the MAP test?

Anonymous said…
Yes, "just sayin." I believe the two assessments were agreed upon for the 2012 CBA.

But now it's 2013, and teachers have more experience with the MAP and have learned it's neither an accurate or meaningful assessment.

Anonymous said…
I mean 2010 CBA.

And while I'm back on, Dan, can you keep it focused on the MAP? I'm sorry, but it gets tiresome when with every comment you start ranting about Gates and Goodloe-Johnson and SPS in general.

The MAP doesn't serve kids, period. It's not worth the resources it requires, period. Teachers are right to refuse to put their students through it.

It's not about some dictator conspiracy theory.

Anonymous said…
MAP tells you if a 4th grades reads at a 10th grade or 7th grade level and if that student can succeed in advanced math. I think that is good.
As far as the contract, teacher evaluations are here to stay and the union and its members, you, need to find a way that works. MAP is a tool, many, many parents like it and it does work for placing kids in the advanced classes which I think we can all agree is a good thing.

Unknown said…
For me the best news here is that we have teachers organizing and taking a stand. May their doing so become infectious among other teachers with or without union support.

It will be interesting to see how the Banda administration responds. Let's hope he's the "listener" he has presented himself to be, because the Garfield teachers are saying something he needs to hear if he hasn't already, and they are saying it in a thoughtful, principled, and responsible way that cannot be dismissed.
Anonymous said…

As a teacher, I know when a child is reading at the high school level. I'm sure math teachers and their parents know when a child is ready for advanced math.

The MAP is unreliable, and takes up an inordinate amount of resources to tell parents and teachers what they already know.

Last year I had a student drop 30 points because the computer froze, jumped ahead three questions, and he couldn't go back and answer them. Should he be barred from advanced placement? I had a student move three times to different computers to find one that worked, forcing her to miss her science class in order to finish the test. Her score was low because she was in a hurry to get to her lab. Is her score meaningful? It's not a good tool.

Anonymous said…
I want to know which other schools will follow Garfield's lead? Don't leave them hanging out there by themselves.

And I want to see a statement of UNCONDITIONAL support for the Garfield teacher from SEAS. I mean YOU, Jonathan.

-- Ivan Weiss
I did call Jonathan Knapp for a comment and am still awaiting his reply.
Anonymous said…
Dear Teach,

You stated you wanted me to focus on MAP.

I did focus on MAP. MAP came in to be used as a Measure of Teacher effectiveness, even though it was not sold as such that is the principal reason it is still with the SPS.

The Gates Foundation study is called MET = Measuring Effective Teachers project

So what part of my posting do you see as NOT related to MAP.

-- Dan Dempsey
Anonymous said…
JS said MAP tells you if a 4th grades reads at a 10th grade or 7th grade level and if that student can succeed in advanced math. I think that is good.

The MAP score alone cannot tell you if a student will succeed in advanced math. Even NWEA literature stresses the importance of multiple measures. It frankly didn't tell me anything about my child's skills that I didn't already know. Not knowing what questions were asked and what types of errors were made, it really is not helpful to me as a means of targeting instruction for my child.

Anonymous said…
On the drive to school I asked my daughter what she thought of the MAP. She said it was okay, but not that great because she couldn't "check herself." I asked her what that meant, and didn't she get a score at the end? She said, "No. You just go until there's a barking dog on the screen that says, 'good job!' What does that mean?"


suep. said…
You can opt out of the MAP by sending a letter (email) to your school principal at the beginning of the year. Some schools require a repeat reminder before every MAP test session (ie. 2-3 times a year).

It's a good idea to CC your letter to the school librarian, or whoever oversees the administration of the MAP in your building, and all of your children's teachers, so they do not to send him/her to the test. You can request that your child be allowed to read quietly or do homework instead.

Re: Dan's comments about Gates and Goodloe-Johnson. The fact is, the Gates Foundation did help pay for MAP and has supported the discredited concept of "merit pay" and tying teacher "effectiveness" (nebulous, meaningless word) to standardized student test scores. Gates also helped underwrite Goodloe-Johnson's "Strategic Plan" and bankrolls LEV and the Alliance for Ed, which also push the very narrow "teacher effectiveness = increased student test scores" mindset.
Without the designated money to pay for MAP that wealthy corporate ed reformers like Gates & Broad have brought, it is less likely our district would have the MAP. So Dan's comments are relevant to the discussion in that significant respect.

It's also true that the district has done a major bait and switch with MAP. It was introduced allegedly to serve one purpose -- as a tool to help teachers help our kids -- but has since been morphed into a measure/barrier for advanced placement and as a teacher evaluation tool/truncheon.

Someone said…
"You just go until there's a barking dog at the end" - wow that is priceless ;o) - my kid doesn't go to SPS but I would for certain opt her out if she did - she's prone to test anxiety already, and I can only imagine what this behemoth would do to her self esteem.

Good for Garfield and I do hope other schools join in - there are clearly more effective and efficient ways of achieving the alleged goals of MAP, just based on the teacher/parent feedback of this and other recent threads.
Anonymous said…
How can a computerized test tell you a student’s reading level? The only way to asses a child’s reading level (k-5 specifically) is by listening to them read. Using MAP to place kids in APP (and before its funding dried up, summer school) is nuts, for K-1 kids and students with limited computer access they are really being tested on how well they can use a computer.
-Abby G
Anonymous said…
Forgive me, but I don't think all teachers know their students reading level when it is five grade levels above standard or when a 6th grader is ready to skip into Algebra 1. The two things to be avoided are moving a kid ahead and having her struggle or fail, or , conversely, missing the opportunity to move a kid into an appropriately challenging class. Yes, other tools are needed; teacher input and parental input -and these are in fact used. But to discount MAP as a tool, however imperfect, is shortsighted.

Js, the question, though, is money.

We have limited dollars and if the return on MAP is not better data that both parents and teachers can use AND the test results are aligned with what is being taught in the classroom, then we are not getting our money's worth.
ws said…
does anyone have a petition started to suppport the Garfield teachers? I don't have facebook and can't sign the page witout it.

Anonymous said…
Keep MAP to 1x a year and don't test K-2. I'll will say though for one of my children, MAP scores were an eye opener for the teacher and convinced us to get the child tested for AL. Sometimes you need the hard number to convice people. The state's exams test for minimum competency and MAP tests for achievement potential. If it comes down to cost effectiveness and if MAP isn't up to snuff, then let it go. Unfortunately with common core and all the asinine testing that comes with it, we're still stuck with endless standardized testing.

another POV
Anonymous said…
"MAP scores were an eye opener for the teacher and convinced us to get the child tested for AL."

Few people seem to know or care that MAP also screens qualified or potentially qualified students out. Students with disabilities very typically wind up showing whether/how they can take a test even when their cognitive capabilities are very high. Talk about falling through the cracks. The MAP is constantly misused.

Anonymous said…
Just posted this on one of the previous posts on this topic -- there is a Change.org petition going around now. No FB required to sign.


CWright, Parent of a SPS 9th grader
Anonymous said…
Elementary students who take the MAP 3x/year spend a good (or should I say bad) part of at least 12 days taking the test.

Anonymous said…
Just sayin' is right, any conversation about MAP must recognize that it is now deeply embedded in the SEA contract in order to generate teacher ratings which call for two test points. MAP is the only K-11 measure they've got right now, so this means there are two scores only for those grades with MSP. All the effort right now has been going into finding another K-12 measure, and it would be a huge setback to lose MAP because then they would have to find TWO more tests. I don't want to go all conspiracy on Teach, but until the Alliance and the state and the Feds (TIF) lighten up on their fanatic drive to tie teacher evaluation to test scores, we are going to be stuck with this insanity. Other districts are developing other ways to show student growth that honor instruction and teacher professionalism. Let's go Seattle.

n said…
Wow! Quite a bevy of negative opinions. I agree that the MAP should not be used for teacher evals nor for program placement.

I do think it is valuable for providing some information about children's base of knowledge. KBF makes good points but we do know what the test consists of - at least at elementary - because an itemization of targeted data is available. It can be downloaded by any teacher.

I find the test helpful. As long as it is regarded as one more tool - and, yes, fully supported financially, I'm okay with it. Twice a year is enough. It takes my kids an hour and a half two times a year. That's it. Fortunately, we have a complete computer lab and lots of helpful parents. If parents aren't available, District personnel should be.

And it is not foolproof. Kids having a bad day will not do well. That's absolutely true.

Finally, it has changed/expanded/focused (yes, all three!) my base of teaching considerably. I'm more targeted in what I teach. That can't be all bad.

Some bad and some good. But I'm not nearly so reactive as many teachers seem to be.
Anonymous said…
When are the elementary schools going to stand in solidarity with Garfield?
Proctor said…
I think that there is difference in the students' attitude about MAP in elementary vs. middle & high school. I have proctored in middle school & I see significant numbers of students just clicking through the exam without even reading the questions. What does it matter to them?

In high school many students only take the reading MAP. (Because they are not in a typical grade level math class.) So teachers of the 5 other subjects get no information from it at all. And the language arts teachers only get data on their 9th graders.
Anonymous said…
It's not the test; it's the be-all-and-end-all test/data obsession that's the problem. Scores become like "numbers" to a salesman: Hit them, or you're out.

Watch the Frontline piece on Michelle Rhee and see how she myopically focused on test scores to undermine career teachers and quantify education into a widget-based commodity. She then claimed outrageous results which turned out to be, well, false. She now hauls in 50k per speech, flies first class, and stays only in 5 star hotels. So, the tests sure were great for her, weren't they?

To understand where we are, one must go back to the beginning of NCLB and see how, by design, standardized testing was the tool by which public education would be privatized, after breaking unions, purging teachers, and declaring all public schools "failing schools."

To those "conspiracy nuts" who believe Gates, and his ilk are deeply involved in it, I advise you to do some simple googling, which will reveal that the conspiracy is far wider than Gates and Broad. It also involves the Waltons, many hedge fund managers, the Koch brothers, the founders of the GAP and Lands End (who profit handsomely from school unforms), and many supposed Democrats who march hand-in-hand, stride-for-stride with Right Wingers to the 1 Trillion dollar feeding trough that is U.S. Public Education.

Is it a conspiracy? Hell yes it is! Bigger than you can imagine, and the Garfield Teachers just punched it in the nose.

Now watch the anti-union thugs go nuts decrying their "insubordination" and scream "fire them all" or "vouchers" etc., etc. WSDWG
Anonymous said…
I think MAP is reasonably useful for elementary, once you have a handful of scores & see trends. But I'm unhappy that the teachers of my kid's grade level decided to go for the fall test. 3x a year is ridiculous. I don't understand why 1st grade teachers would want to do that. What's the motivation? We are a high scoring school, FYI.

Another NE mom
Anonymous said…
Re-posting the previous post with no name:
"When are the elementary schools going to stand in solidarity with Garfield?

1/12/13 1:04 PM"

And how about the other high schools? Or middle schools?
One school is not enough
There are many cheaper and better tests; MAP is not the be all and we can do better.
Linh-Co said…
I don't mind the MAP and I do find the trends useful as a parent and a teacher. I also like the nationally normed aspect of it unlike the MSP and EOC tests.

As far as other cheaper tests, we could go back to the paper and pencil ITBS (Iowa Test of Basic Skills) which the district previously used about 8 years ago.
dan dempsey said…
The Garfield Stand and the Common Core: Will They Both Come to a School Near You?

Individual teachers may not be comfortable or may even be fearful of speaking out on these issues but when they realize other colleagues have similar views and concerns, collectively they may take a stand as we see at Garfield.
Dan Magill said…
I'd like to voice my support for the Garfield teachers as well. It's great to see teachers standing together against things like this that do more harm than good for our students.

I wrote a longer piece about this on my blog: http://www.edu-truth.com/2013/01/in-support-of-garfield-boycott.html

(To help remind who I am, I'm the Dan Magill who wrote the piece in the Times last Feb about the meddlers, which got a lot of positive feedback from teachers)
Po3 said…
What I have never understood is how the MAP test became a tool for teacher evaluation when it only measures reading and math.

How are science, PE, social studies, music, art, spanish teachers evaluated in their contract?

How are high school teachers beyond 9th grade evaluated with MAPS is not given in these grades?
Anonymous said…
Coming to the party a little late, but I'm rather surprised at the volume of negativity that MAP is all bad/awful.

So, I'd ask instead if not MAP, then what? People kvetched about the WASL endlessly too. Or are most of you advocating absolutely no standardized testing of any kind?
Anonymous said…
The MAP didn't replace the WASL. The MSP did. The MAP test is an additional district mandated test. Garfield teachers arent' boycotting any number of other tests currently being administered (MSP, EOC, HSPE).

Also Question for Mirmac1 and Suep:

What kind of push back did you receive when trying to opt your kids out of MAP? My daughter is a 9th grader at Franklin and took the Reading portion last week. I sent a letter today but it was too late - she just texted me that she got called out of class to do the math portion this afternoon. But she was aware of my wishes as we discussed this a lot over the weekend and tried to ask the proctor about opting out and got some major attitude back. So curious to hear from parents who have been successful in this.

CW - SPS Parent

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

Seattle Public Schools and Their Principals

COVID Issues Heating up for Seattle Public Schools