Students and parents do not have the right to opt out of state standardized assessments, the Maryland State Board of Education informed the Frederick County school board Wednesday.

The Frederick County Board of Education has been tinkering with policy language related to students who refuse to take state standardized tests.

How the state board’s opinion, issued to Frederick County Public Schools and the local board Wednesday, will influence this policy has yet to be determined.

In December, the Frederick County Board of Education called for a declaratory ruling from the state education board, asking for clarity on the state board’s position on student and parent refusals.

The Frederick school board, in its request, wrote that over the past two years or so, parents in the district asked that their children not participate in state assessments, such as the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) exam, aligned to the Common Core Standards. The Maryland State Department of Education had advised local school districts to decline such requests, but nothing was firm, Frederick school board members said.

Some within the school system have drawn differences between a “refusal,” a student saying no when presented with a state assessment, and a student or parent pre-emptively “opting out.”

Frederick County’s board asked the state to clarify differences between an “opt out” and a “refusal,” but that went unaddressed in Wednesday’s opinion.

Superintendent Terry Alban said that letting a parent opt out means the school district would not meet its legal obligation to administer state standardized tests. Federal funding hinges on statewide testing of at least 95 percent of Maryland students, the state board wrote in its opinion.

But of course, a student can’t be forced to be tested, Alban said.

“We want to respect and honor parents and, at the same time, we still have to comply with the law,” Alban said. “We know that these tests are very much a part of our accountability as a school system. That is how the public will judge us doing our job. I hope that’s not the only way they judge that we’re producing a quality product, but it is definitely one way. And the state and federal government look at it as a return of investment.”

The Frederick school board also sought guidance from the state, so the school district and other jurisdictions could develop procedures to permit refusals for state assessments.

In its opinion, the state board wrote that such procedures would contradict state law. Adopting a policy that notifies parents that their child may refuse would also infringe on state law, the opinion states.

Draft policy language the board has discussed states that “refusals to participate in state- or federally-mandated assessments, either by parents who refuse on behalf of their students or by students themselves ... must be honored without question.”

In an interview, Frederick County Board of Education President Brad Young said the wording on any policy needs to be precise to avoid breaching the state board’s interpretation of the law.

“What I heard loud and clear is that they don’t want anything in writing that encourages or condones students not wanting to take this test,” Young said.

Board Vice President Liz Barrett and board members Colleen Cusimano and April Miller led the charge to develop the refusal policy.

In a phone interview, Barrett — stressing that she was speaking only for herself — said she was “furious” about the opinion and frustrated that “there appears to be no mechanism for anybody to say no.”

She and Cusimano said the board needs to discuss the policy further.

Cusimano said she was pleased the state rendered a legal opinion other than the nebulous conversations that reached the board. This way, she said, there can be specific opposition.

Cusimano said the school district has to comply with federal law and the spirit of maintaining an accountability system, but not all students, such as those with disabilities, can participate in exams. Or their parents can choose not to have them participate.

“I feel that the state findings don’t recognize the wide variety of human beings we deal with every day,” she said. “Therefore, I imagine there will be opposition to those findings. I hope so. I will be supporting that opposition.”

A parent in the school system, Nikki Moberly, has long advocated for her daughter, Erin, who has a disability and whose intellectual capabilities compare to those of a 3-month-old, Moberly has said. Moberly had previously secured an exemption for her daughter from state assessments prior to the shift to a new set of tests.

Moberly said she was disappointed with the state’s opinion. She said the school district is verging on a breakthrough with its policy and those efforts have been effectively squashed.

A bright spot in the opinion, Moberly said, is that the state recognized that despite its declaration, students still might still refuse, which opens “a crack in the door.”

The state has acknowledged that students can refuse, Moberly said, and would be discriminating against students with disabilities who can’t verbalize their own refusal.

The federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act requires that students with disabilities be tested, with no blanket state-level opt-out policy for severely disabled students, the opinion states.

The state board also wrote that the school system isn’t legally obligated to offer alternative activities for students who refuse, another point the Frederick school board questioned in December.

In a February memo to principals, Jamie Aliveto, the director of system accountability and school improvement, wrote that students who refuse to take the PARCC may sit in the classroom and read a book unrelated to course work.

Otherwise, students can remain in the classroom, sitting quietly, the memo states.

In an earlier interview, Aliveto said that parents may not refuse a test on their children’s behalf, though parents may refuse for their children who are severely disabled and cannot do so for themselves.

This was not included in the February memo, nor was the fact that the school system accepts refusals on a student’s “typical mode of communication,” such as an assisted communication device.

Aliveto said the school system works with parents to determine the best scenario and students may be removed from a testing area when they refuse, and provided an educational game to play, if staff is available to supervise.

Most states do not allow testing opt-outs, according to a report from the National Association of State Boards of Education. Only three states permit opt-outs entirely — California, Colorado and Oregon.

Follow Jeremy Bauer-Wolf on Twitter: @jbeowulf

(6) comments


What sense does it make to subject a severly disabled child to a standardized test that he/she may not even understand? Strict adherence to the "No Child Left Untested" law without some application of not-so-common common sense is ludicrous. To much time is being spent on testing and teaching to the test that our kids are not getting a well rounded quality education.


If the State Board allowed opt-outs, the school system malcontents like Cindy would opt their kids out for no reason other than to protest. If that number was over 5%, which I believe is likely, there goes our Federal dollars.


None of these programs work as intended. The problem is the federal government and state governments are trying to make all schools operate at the same level with the goal of finding schools not meeting their objectives. But all schools are different with different enrollments, some coming from very poor families with working parents and some with just single parents. They are just not able to give all the help that homes with two parents in wealthy neighborhoods can.

What we need is a pre - school program, to help those families that need it and give their children a head start. We need programs to separate the mentally deficient and tutoring help to those having problems with their classes.

We also need good budgeting by the School Board and although money alone does not make a difference, it does make a difference in education success where higher amounts are well spent.


I want to know why Cindy Rose's name isn't mentioned in this article! Or her picture! We haven't read about Cindy Rose or seen her picture in the FNP since yesterday! And the fight against school testing is Cindy Rose's signature issue! Nikki Moberly isn't suing the BOE, Nikki Moberly isn't running for BOE, what's her name doing in this article? The FNP front page belongs to Cindy Rose! The FNP needs to do more to help Cindy Rose! WFMD can't do it all! There's no pictures on radio! Go Cindy!




ar, your sarcasm caused me to go into fits of laughter and the FNP deserves it.[lol]

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it clean. No vulgar, racist, sexist or sexually-oriented language.
Engage ideas. This forum is for the exchange of ideas, not personal attacks or ad hominem criticisms.
Be civil. Don't threaten. Don't lie. Don't bait. Don't degrade others.
No trolling. Stay on topic.
No spamming. This is not the place to sell miracle cures.
No deceptive names. Apparently misleading usernames are not allowed.
Say it once. No repetitive posts, please.
Help us. Use the 'Report' link for abusive posts.

Thank you for reading!

Already a member?

Login Now
Click Here!

Currently a News-Post subscriber?

Activate your membership at no additional charge.
Click Here!

Need more information?

Learn about the benefits of membership.
Click Here!

Ready to join?

Choose the membership plan that fits your needs.
Click Here!