Concerned About the Upcoming PARCC tests? Read on!

no-parccing1The upcoming PARCC tests (Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Career published by Pearson) have raised the concern of teachers and parents nationwide. Below is a public letter written by Blakely Bundy, a member of DEY’s National Advisory Board to other parents in her community. You can read more about PARCC from some well-respected educators and bloggers here, here and here. Thanks to Blakely Bundy for sharing this letter – which we hope inspires others to take action. Did you know that  Newark, New Jersey Mayor Ras Baraka recently criticized PARCC  and publicly supported parents who choose to “opt out” of taking the PARCC! 


 

Feb. 4, 2015 Dear Winnetka Parents,

I am contacting you to express my deep concern about the upcoming PARCC test that will be given to all Winnetka 3rd through 8th graders this spring. The PARCC was created as a Common Core test by the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers. Superintendent Trisha Kocanda eloquently expressed her concerns about the PARCC in the monthly Winnetka Wire, which was picked up by the national press. I echo these concerns, which include:

 Time:

  • Administration of the PARCC will take 13-14 hours.
  • The ISAT took no more than seven hours.

Impact on instruction:

  • With one test unit administered each day, students will be tested over a twoweek period, interrupting many instructional days.
  • Additional time—2-3 hours– allocated to familiarizing students with the online testing experience.
  • As the tests are taken in computer labs and resource centers, most regularly scheduled classes cannot take place for approximately six weeks.

 Stress:

  • The length of the test, the rigor, and the change of routine may cause stress and discomfort for many students.

As a long-time educator, a national advocate, a former Winnetka parent, and a current Winnetka grandparent, my additional concerns are listed below:

 “Guinea Pigs”

  • Our children are being treated as “guinea pigs.”
  • The PARCC was quickly rolled out, not allowing enough time to develop test logistics nor to verify its validity or reliability, yet schools, teachers, and children will be judged by its results.

 Keyboarding Skills

  • The online testing format is especially challenging for students who may not yet have the sophisticated keyboarding skills needed to complete the test.
  • The format is completely inappropriate for 3rd graders.

 Inappropriate questions

  • The questions tend to be intentionally tricky and convoluted. People with Ph.D.’s are finding some of them impossible to answer!
  • Children may feel anxious and inadequate.

 No diagnostic or instructional value

  • As parents, students, and teachers never see the test results, they have no diagnostic or instructional value.

 Lack of participation

  • Initially in 2010, there were 26 PARCC member states, but, since then, 17 states have pulled out as they discover the many downsides of the test.
  • Now, only 9 states—including Illinois—plus the District of Columbia remain. Why is Illinois still participating?

 Access to data

  • The PARCC was created by a private company that controls the extensive data collected from the tests – data about each and every child who takes it.
  • According to the website stopcommoncoreillinois.org, “The PARCC consortium will make the data, including identifiable records, available to a variety of federal government agencies and research firms. Student data privacy laws have been loosened to allow for this data sharing and parents will not be notified.”

What can you as a parent, do?

 The federal law mandates that schools must administer assessments, but not that children must take them. While there is no “opt out” provision in Illinois, children can refuse the test (but must do so each day the test is given).

  • Let your child’s teacher know that your child will be refusing.
  • Rally a group of children in your child’s class to say “no” together.

 Write, write, write – to your Congressman, Senators Kirk and Durbin, Governor Rauner, Secretary Duncan, and President Obama.

 Make your opinion known in letters to the editor, on Facebook, and on Twitter. As a concerned parent, I urge you to join the growing outcry–both in Winnetka and on the national scene–that the PARCC is wrong for our schools and wrong for our children.

Sincerely,

Blakely Bundy Executive Director Emeritus and Senior Advisor, The Alliance for Early Childhood; National Advisory Board Member, Defending the Early Years, http://www.deyproject.org

NYS Parents Fight to Reclaim Student Education from Excessive Testing and Data Collection

Please see the exciting press release below. Here at DEY we are happy to help spread this news from  New York!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  September 17, 2014

More information contact:

Eric Mihelbergel (716) 553-1123; nys.allies@gmail.com

Jeanette Deutermann (516) 902-9228; nysallies@gmail.com

NYS Allies for Public Education (NYSAPE) – www.nysape.org

 

NYS Parents Fight to Reclaim Student Education from Excessive Testing and Data Collection:

250,000 High-Stakes Test Boycotts Planned Statewide

Parents throughout the Empire State demand valuable student classroom learning time be returned to their children and that elected state and federal representatives rein in Education Departments obsessed with vast expansion of testing and unauthorized data collection.  New York parents have had enough and declare “No More!”

“In 2014 roughly 60,000 parents boycotted NYS testing.  We believe strongly in appropriate assessment of our children, but the high-stakes nature of testing and unauthorized data collection must stop.  Our children are subjected to a one-size-fits-all system that focuses more on test scores and data collection than on student learning and overall growth.  Parents are committed to a plan for 250,000 students to boycott NYS tests,” says Eric Mihelbergel, Erie County Public School parent and founding member of NYSAPE.

Accelerating dramatically over the past five years, public education is being stripped of quality student-centered learning in order to devote excessive time, money and focus on high-stakes tests that feed corporate and political interests.

NYS parents demand that U.S. Congress, New York State Legislators, and President Obama act immediately to do the following:

  1. Roll-Back Federal/State Annual Testing Requirements from 9 Hours to 3 Hours for Grades 3-8:  Evaluation of a third-grader’s test taking ability can readily be done with 90 minutes of tests in English and Math.  Requiring more testing is simply a mandate to drive profits for technology and data storage companies.
  2. Pass Student Data Privacy Legislation that Requires Parental Consent:  If elite private schools do not educate children through speculative collection of large volumes of student profile data into statewide and national databases shared with multiple government agencies, public school parents don’t want it either.
  3. Remove Student Test Scores From Teacher Evaluations:  There is no evidence that massive student testing and data collection does anything to improve student learning.  Student-score based teacher evaluations are merely a flawed attempt to make shoddy firing practices stand up in court while meaningful student learning time is discarded.
  4. Stop Assaulting Students with Special Needs:  The U.S. Department of Education must be put in its rightful place and stop bullying states into educational practices that are inflexible and do not allow states to address the needs of Special Education students in an appropriate and challenging way meeting their individual needs.
  5. Cease and Desist from All Punitive Actions Against Parent Test Refusals:  Schools should not be punished for supporting the fundamental right of parents to support their child’s education.

“Parent permissions slips are required for a school trip to the police station next door, yet the government collects personal data on children and shares it with private companies and other government agencies without a parent’s knowledge or sign off?  Collection of the most personal student data in national and statewide databases without Parental Consent is an affront to all Americans and our liberty.  Our representatives in Congress need to stand up for parents and strike back against government agencies far too cozy with business interests and profiteers,”   said Lisa Rudley, Westchester County public school parent and founding member of NYSAPE.

“NYS Commissioner of Education John King’s failure to comply with the recent NYS privacy legislation passed in April is unacceptable. In August, NYSAPE along with Class Size Matters sent a letter (http://www.nysape.org/letter-to-king-and-regents-nysed-failed-to-implement-state-law.html) to the Commissioner, the Board of Regents, and elected officials demanding that the New York State Education Department comply with the law. John King’s casual and dismissive attitude towards the law in NY only reinforces the need for strict parental consent legislation,” said Anna Shah, Dutchess County public school parent.

“Parent commitment to restoring quality education in our schools by removing the high-stakes nature of testing is never ending,” says Jeanette Deutermann, Nassau County public school parent and founder of Long Island Opt Out. “We won’t stop until our children’s education system returns to a focus on learning rather than test scores and data collection, and we have a plan to accomplish this.”

On its website, NYSAPE details actions that parents everywhere can participate in to help reach 250,000 boycotts.  These include:  1. Educating the public through continuous informational forums across New York State.  2. Coordinating regional parent liaisons in each school district across the state to lead parents in boycotts in that district.  3. Spreading the word through flyers, PTA groups, lawn signs, bumper stickers, book covers, and local events.

Chris Cerrone, Erie County public school parent, middle school educator, and Springville-Griffith Institute CSD Board Member, says, “We intend to reach out to both state and federal legislators through a tactical campaign.  While we already have many legislators supporting us, we have a plan to help parents across the New York State reach out to legislators specifically asking for their assistance in removing the destructive high-stakes nature of testing from our classrooms.  As state and federal legislators see a substantial increase in test refusals, they will be forced to act or be voted out.”

NYS Allies for Public Education consists of over 50 parent and educator advocacy groups across New York State.  More details about our education positions and advocacy can be found at www.nysape.org.

 

6 Reasons to Reject the Common Core State Standards for K- Grade 3

6 Reasons to Reject Common Core State Standards for K – Grade 3 and 6 Principles to Guide Policy

With the spring testing season heavily upon us, DEY has a new document which we believe will help teachers and parents understand why the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are inappropriate for Kindergarten – 3rd Grade. It will also help teachers and parents advocate against the CCSS – and for policies and classroom practices that will best meet the needs of young children. Please download and share our *NEW* 6 Reasons to Reject Common Core State Standards for K – Grade 3 and 6 Principles to Guide Policy. (Click here for Common Core color pdf or Common Core black and white pdf.) 

DEYMobilizationKitWe are also very excited to announce our *NEW* DEY Mobilizing Kit which includes ideas for planning and hosting an information meeting – including a DEY Power Point Presentation presentation outlining the issues. The PowerPoint is also here on YouTube. If you are interested in hosting a meeting or other action (such as a letter writing campaign), keep in mind that DEY offers Action Mini Grants to help.

 

6 Reasons to Reject CCSS for K – Grade 3

 

1.  Many of the Kindergarten – 3rd Grade CCSS are developmentally inappropriate, and are not based on well-researched child development knowledge about how young children learn. 1, 2

The CCSS for young children were developed by mapping backwards from what is required at high school graduation to the early years.  This has led to standards that:

  • list discrete skills, facts and knowledge that do not match how young children develop, think or learn;
  • require young children to learn facts and skills for which they are not ready;
  • are often taught by teacher-led, didactic instruction instead of the experiential, play-based activities and learning young children need; 1, 2, 12
  • devalue the whole child and the importance of social-emotional development, play, art, music, science and physical development.

 

An example of a developmentally inappropriate Common Core standard for kindergarten is one that requires children to “read emergent reader texts with purpose and understanding.”  Many young children are not developmentally ready to read in kindergarten and there is no research to support teaching reading in kindergarten. There is no research showing long-term advantages to reading at 5 compared to reading at 6 or 7.6

 

2.  Many of the skills mandated by the CCSS erroneously assume that all children develop and learn skills at the same rate and in the same way.

 

Decades of child development research and theory from many disciplines (cognitive and developmental psychology, neuroscience, medicine and education) show how children progress at different rates and in different ways.

 

For example, the average age that children start walking is 12 months.  Some children begin walking as early as 9 months and others not until 15 months – and all of this falls within a normal range. Early walkers are not better walkers than later walkers. A second example is that the average age at which children learn to read independently is 6.5 years.  Some begin as early as 4 years and some not until age 7 or later – and all of this falls within the normal range.5 Research has shown that children who score well on early intelligence tests have only a 40% correlation with later achievement tests results3 and that one-third of the brightest incoming third graders score below average prior to kindergarten.4

 

The CCSS are measured using frequent and inappropriate assessments – this includes high-stakes tests, standardized tests and computer-administered assessments. States are required to use computer-based tests (such as PARCC) to assess CCSS. This is leading to mandated computer use at an early age and the misallocation of funds to purchase computers and networking systems in school districts that are already underfunded.

 

3.  Early childhood educators did not participate in the development of the standards.

 

The CCSS do not comply with the internationally and nationally recognized protocol for writing professional standards.  They were written without due process, transparency, or participation by knowledgeable parties.  Two committees made up of 135 people wrote the standards – and not one of them was a K-3 classroom teacher or early childhood education professional.  When the CCSS were first released, more than 500 early childhood professionals signed a Joint Statement opposing the standards on the grounds that they would lead to long hours of direct instruction; more standardized testing; and would crowd out highly important active, play-based learning.  All of this has come to pass. Notably, this important Joint Statement was not even reported in the “summary of public feedback” posted on the Core Standards website. 11

 

  1.   There is a lack of research to support the current early childhood CCSS.  The standards were not pilot tested and there is no provision for ongoing research or review of their impact on children and on early childhood education.

 

The CCSS do not build on what is known from earlier long-term studies such as the Perry Preschool Project, the Abecedarian Project, the Abbott Schools of NJ, or Chicago Parent Child Centers which demonstrate what works for young children.7, 10 There is no convincing research showing that certain skills or bits of knowledge such as counting to 100 in kindergarten or being able to “tell and write time in hours and half-hours using analog and digital clocks in first grade” will lead to later success in school.

There was no research on how to effectively train teachers on implementing the CCSS.

 

5.  The standards do not take into account what young children today need when they get to school.  Children need play in school now more than ever. They need teachers who are skilled facilitators of play so the solid foundations can be laid in the early school years for optimal learning in the later years.

 

Many of today’s children are over-exposed to electronics and screens.14 Many of them  are overly scheduled and lack opportunities for sustained, unstructured, free play and especially outdoor/nature play.8, 9, 14  These conditions have led to reduced play opportunities for many children, which has in turn led to deficiencies in many of the essential foundational skills that develop through play: executive functioning, self-control, persistence, creativity, problem-solving, flexibility, attention span, and ability to call on stored knowledge when needed.15, 16, 17

 

6. The adoption of CCSS falsely implies that making children learn these standards will combat the impact of poverty on development and learning, and create equal educational opportunity for all children.

 

The U.S. is the wealthiest nation in the world and has the highest child poverty rate among industrialized nations.18 Corporate-style reformers would have us believe that we can solve the problem of poverty by mandating the teaching of basic skills in our nation’s schools. But schools cannot solve all of the problems created by societal factors that exist outside of school walls. While we do not have all the answers, years of research tell us that schools, while important, cannot solve all the disadvantages created by poverty.19  In fact, during the last decade of “education reform” – increased standards and testing, more accountability and data gathering – the inequalities in our education system have increased24 and the child poverty rate has grown.25

 

6 Principles to Guide Policy

1.  Young children learn through active, direct experiences and play.20

 

Young children learn best through active learning experiences within meaningful contexts.  They need materials that can be used in multiple ways and allow for hands-on exploration and problem solving. They need dynamic, ongoing relationships with teachers who understand child development, can build onto and extend their hands-on activities, and provide well-thought out educational experiences that demonstrate knowledge of and respect for each child. The teachers must be able to create time in the schedule to promote these active experiences between children, as peer interactions play a crucial role in cognitive learning and social-emotional development.

 

2.  Children learn skills and concepts at different times, rates, and paces.  Every child is unique.5, 26

 

Every child possesses a unique personality, temperament, family relationship and cultural background. Each has different interests, experiences and approaches to learning. Each child perceives and approaches the world differently, often taking different routes to reach the same ends. Thus, all children need learning experiences that take into account, support and build onto who they are as individuals.

 

3.  Young children learn best when their cognitive, social, emotional, and physical selves become highly engaged in the learning process. 

 

Active learning experiences and play engage multiple aspects of the child’s capacities simultaneously. A curriculum focused on academic standards and goals compartmentalizes learning in ways that are not natural for young children. Hands-on, play-based, experiential learning engages the whole child and strengthens and supports young children’s intellectual dispositions and their innate thirst for better, fuller, and deeper understanding of their own experiences. 27

 

4.  Assessments of young children should be observational in nature, ongoing, and connected to curriculum and teaching.  They should take into account the broad-based nature of young children’s learning, not isolated skills, and the natural developmental variation in all areas of young children’s growth and development.

 

Assessment methods should be developmentally appropriate, culturally and linguistically responsive, tied to children’s daily activities, supported by professional development, inclusive of families, and connected to specific, beneficial purposes: (1) making sound decisions about teaching and learning, (2) identifying concerns that may require focused intervention for individual children, and (3) helping programs improve their educational and developmental interventions.21

 

Assessments in early childhood should be as infrequent as possible to maintain high program quality.  Standardized tests are highly unreliable for children younger than 3rd grade and should not be used in early childhood settings.10, 13, 28 The linking of test scores to teacher evaluation or to program evaluation leads to an increase in standards and test-based instruction, and less developmentally appropriate play-based, experiential education.  Administrators need to emphasize quality educational experiences and teaching, not test scores in the early years.10

 

5. The problems of inequality and child poverty need to be addressed directly.

 

Almost one quarter of our nation’s children live in poverty.18 We need to do what other developed nations do which is to ensure that all of their children have health care, housing, and basic needs met for economic security and well being. Then we must fund our schools equitably, by giving more money to the schools and students where needs are greatest, which are most commonly schools in low-income neighborhoods. Educational funds should not be distributed to states based on their acceptance of specific education reforms, such as we have seen in the last decade. If we begin to redress some of the profound inequalities that exist for children in the U.S. today, this will be the surest way to genuinely improve schools and overall well-being and success for all of the nation’s children.

 

6.  Quality early childhood education with well-prepared teachers is the best investment a society can make in its future.

 

Research shows that early childhood education enhances the life prospects of children and has a high benefit-cost ratio and rate of return for society’s investment. The Perry Preschool Project, a major longitudinal study of a quality preschool education program, showed that investment in high-quality preschool education improved the lives of those who were in the program and paid handsome returns to society. Building a strong foundation for learning in the early years is especially crucial for disadvantaged children.22

 

The United States ranks twenty-fourth among wealthy nations in providing availability and quality of early childhood education.23 Committing to high quality early childhood education with well-prepared teachers is a crucial first step our nation can take in reducing the achievement gaps between rich and poor children and improving the lives of children.

 

1 Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs: Serving children from birth through age 8. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

2 Miller, E., & Almon, J. (2009). Crisis in the kindergarten: Why children need to play in school. College Park, MD: Alliance for Childhood.

3 Bronson, P. & Merryman, A. (2009). NutureShock. New York City: 12 Book Press. (pp. 99-100.)

4 Bronson, P. & Merryman, A. (2009). (p. 101)

5 Gesell Institute of Child Development. (2012). Gesell developmental observation-revised and Gesell early screener technical report ages 3-6. New Haven, CT: Gesell Institute of Child Development. Retrieved September 17, 2013 from http://www.gesellinstitute.org.

6 Almon, J. (2013, Fall). Reading at five: Why? SEEN Magazine, 24-25.

7 Guddemi, M., & Zigler, E. (2011). Children and schools: We know what to do, now let’s do it! [PDF].Community Early Childhood LEADership E-Kit [CD-ROM]. New Haven, CT: Gesell Institute of Child Development.

8 Frost, J. (2010).  A history of play and play environments.  New York City:  Routledge.

9 Brown, S. (2009).  Play: How it shapes the brain, opens the imagination, and invigorates the soul.   New York City:  Avery.

10 Gesell Institute of Child Development (2011).  Community Early Childhood LEADership E-Kit [CD-ROM]. New Haven, CT: Author.

11 Miller, E and Carlsson-Paige, N. (January 29, 2013).  A tough critique of Common Core on early childhood education. Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/01/29/a-tough-critique-of-common-core-on-early-childhood-education/

12 Hirsch-Pasek, K. & Golinkoff, R. (2003).  Einstein never used flash cards.  New York City:  Rodale.

13 Kim, J., & Suen, H. K. (2003). Predicting children’s academic achievement from early assessment scores: A validity generalization study. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18(4), 547-566.

14 Levin, D. (2013). Beyond remote controlled childhood. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

15 Moffitt, T.E.; Arseneault, L.; Belsky, D.; Dickson, N.; Hancox, R.J.; Harrington, H.; Houts, R.; Poulton, R.; Roberts, B.W.; Ross, S.; Sears, M.R.; Thomson, WM.; & Caspi, A. (2011).  A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety.  Proceedings National Academy of Sciences, 108(7), 2693-2698.

16 Leong, D. J., & Bodrova, E. (2012). Assessing and scaffolding: Make-believe play. Young Children, 67(1), 28-34.

17 Tough, P. (2012). How children succeed: Grit, curiosity, and the hidden power of character. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

18 UNICEF Office of Research (2013). ‘Child Well-being in Rich Countries: A comparative overview’, Innocenti Report Card 11, UNICEF Office of Research, Florence.

19 L. J. Schweinhart, J. Montie, Z. Xiang,W. S. Barnett, C. R. Belfield, & M. Nores. (2004). Lifetime Effects: The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study Through Age 40. Michigan: HighScope Press.

20 Singer, D., Golinkoff, R. & Hirsh – Pasek. (Eds.). (2006). Play=learning: how play motivates and enhances children’s cognitive and social-emotional growth. New York: Oxford University Press.

21 NAEYC & NAECS/SDE. (2003). Early childhood curriculum and program evaluation. Joint Position Statement, 2.

22 Heckman, James. (2008).“Schools, Skills, and Synapses,” NBER working paper 14064, http://www.nber.org/papers/w14064.pdf.

23 Economist Intelligence Unit. (2012). Starting well. Benchmarking early education

across the world. London: The Economist.

24 Karp, S. (January 23, 2013). The coming Common Core meltdown. Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/01/23/the-coming-common-core-meltdown/

25 Gabe, T. (2013). Poverty in the United States: 2012. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33069.pdf

26 Zigler, E., Singer, D., Bishop-Josef, S. (2004).  Children’s play:  The roots of reading.   Washington, DC.:  Zero to Three Press.

27 Katz, L. (2012). Standards of Experience. Retrieved from www.communityplaythings.com/resources/articles/2010/standards-of-experience

28 Duncan, G.J. et al. (2007).  School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43(6), 1428-1446.

Opting out of high-stakes testing in Massachusetts

Massachusetts public school parent Ricardo D. Rosa has publicly opted his child out of high-stakes testing. His letter to the New Bedford school board and superintendent has been posted by Valerie Strauss in her blog “The Answer Sheet” at the Washington Post. Rosa’s letter may inspire others to join him in opting out. Here is a snippet:

“…our continuous focus on scoring well evades more important public dialogue about funding inequities and the root cause of educational disengagement – poverty. Allowing testing corporations to continue reaping billions of dollars in profit from public education only exacerbates the problem. Any administrator, school committee member, or school functionary still standing before students, teachers, and families touting the virtues of high-stakes testing should be ashamed. And, if you know that it’s wrong but remain silent, you’re complicit in educational malpractice.

“Furthermore, subjecting English Language Learners to the MCAS and the PARCC after only having been in the country for one year is immoral. Emergent bilingual students are 9 times more likely to drop out of high school than their peers. These tests are part of the problem. In addition, a high percentage of students with disabilities are not meeting graduation requirements as a result of these tests.”

Rosa encourages everyone to “read the Massachusetts Statement Against High-Stakes Testing  endorsed by countless professors in the state, myself included. As MCAS is imposed on our schools next week and the rest of the school year, I encourage parents to write letters opting students out and requesting an in-school alternative to high-stakes testing. If we’re truly interested in ending bullying in schools, let’s end the bullying of high stakes testing. If families really have a ‘choice,’ they must be allowed to exercise the choice to opt-out.”

We urge you to read the entire letter here.

Rosa invites parents to join him for a forum and community dialogue on high-stakes testing and opting-out at 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, April 9 at Whaling National Historical Park Museum, 33 Williams St., New Bedford, MA. And he invites you to join the S.E. MA and RI Coalition to Save Our Schools to continue the dialogue and organization to reclaim public education in the interest of all families.

For more information you can write to ricardorosa1973@yahoo.com or cheoso@verizon.net or visit Facebook.com/SouthEastMARIOptOut.

Announcing our *new* Early Childhood Activist ToolKit

Today we are pleased to announce the launching of our Early Childhood Activist Toolkit. The ToolKit has both Informational Resources and Action Resources. It also includes information about our new Action Mini Grant Initiative!

We have heard from many of you who are working hard to keep developmentally appropriate teaching, learning and assessing in our early childhood classrooms. We prepared the ToolKit to assist you with your very important efforts. As we know, current education reform is often working against these goals.

Please visit our website and let us know what you think – your feedback is valuable. This ToolKit is a direct result of our sessions at NAEYC’s Annual Conference (National Association for the Education of Young Children) in November, and we have been working hard to answer your call.

The shaping of the ToolKit will be an ongoing process, and your input is key. If you have thoughts on other items to add, please let us know.

DEY’s Action Mini Grant Initiative
We are excited to offer a mini grant initiative to help foster your good work in your community as related to DEY’s three principle goals:

  • To mobilize the early childhood community to speak out with well-reasoned arguments against inappropriate standards, assessments, and classroom practices.
  • To track the effects of new standards, especially those linked to the Common Core State Standards, on early childhood education policy and practice.
  • To promote appropriate practices in early childhood classrooms and support educators in counteracting current reforms which undermine these appropriate practices.

We are offering grants from $200.00 to $500.00. We will begin accepting applications on a rolling basis beginning February 1, 2014. Applications will be reviewed on an ongoing basis and up to 20 awards will be granted (depending on grant sizes). Possible actions include, but are not limited to:

  • Hosting a parent information meeting
  • Organizing a Call Your Legislator Day
  • Spearheading a letter writing campaign to politicians
  • Organizing a “Play-In” at the local school board
  • Publicizing an “Opt Out” campaign
  • See our website for more ideas…

Early Learning: This is Not a Test – printed in today’s NY Times!

Nancy Carlsson-Paige has co-authored an important op-ed piece with American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten. Early Learning: This is Not a Test speaks to our nation’s increased focus on early childhood education – and acknowledges that “what is being required of young children is unreasonable and developmentally unsound.”
Among other suggestions, Carlsson-Paige and Weingarten stress that we must “Address questions about the appropriateness and the implementation of the Common Core standards for young learners by convening a task force of early childhood and early elementary educators to review the standards and recommend developmentally appropriate, culturally responsive guidelines for supporting young children’s optimal learning.”

The momentum of resistance to the Common Core State Standards and high-stakes testing is growing, as we highlighted in a recent DEY blog post. We urge you to share Early Learning: This is Not a Test far and wide as resistance continues to build.