Civil disobedience is the hallmark of a democratic society. It is the privilege of the masses to raise their unabashed voices in a uniform outcry against a large-scale injustice. Protests, peaceful demonstrations and riots are instances that exemplify unrestrained, pure democratic outrage. 
But when a show of resistance has punitive consequences to the public that outweigh any common good to be achieved, this course of action rationally must be abandoned. Such is the case with the “opt-out” movement, a growing battle against standardized testing. Gaining traction and growing in both number and scope, this peaceful protest is ultimately detrimental to the children it is trying to protect.
The opt-out movement is a reactionary movement fighting fervently against the system of high-stakes testing in the public school system. According to the United Opt Out website, their claims include that teaching in a test-driven environment stifles true creative education, fosters an environment of cheating and punishes teachers based on a flawed rubric and scale. Opt-out derives its name from the movement’s most frequently used and preferred mode of disobedience: when parents opt to pull their child from the tests.
Examining the literature on their website, the United Opt Out National movement had this to say: “The State Test and additional tests being required of my child cannot define the worth, potential and achievement of any student.” I do not disagree with any part of this statement. My condolences are extended toward any parent who has taught their child otherwise. However, a standardized test provided and administered by the state is not meant to surmise the worth of a student. Rather, it is the most convenient, and, to some extent, the most effective way of determining whether or not a student has obtained the information required of them by the core curriculum.
Many parents, according to the aforementioned website, are worried that teaching students material that will appear on the tests will hinder the development of creativity. Again, I sincerely apologize to the parents whose children are not being taught how to get imaginative with mathematical principles. Perhaps students can take a lesson in creative interpretation from the tea party when it comes to facts regarding history.
A further worry that permeates the website’s rhetoric is the supposed “corporate interests.” They claim it is in the interest of money-making juggernauts such as Kaplan to sell the idea that tests are the best way to measure a child’s performance. These companies can then continue supplying the tests that they conjure from the realm of “bunk science” (I kid you not, that is a frequently uttered phrase on the website). Despite their claims of “bunk science” in regards to pedagogy, nowhere have they provided statistics to support their position. Furthermore, I do agree with them that it is within a company’s interest to sell tests to schools to provide to children. It is similarly within a company’s interest to keep a parent’s supply of fried chicken at an all-time high, thus contributing to the rampant problem of childhood obesity.
What parents seem to fail to understand is that, according to the No Child Left Behind, a policy so graciously imposed by the grand President Bush, a school’s funding is put into serious jeopardy if less than 95 percent of students participate in state proctored exams. But I suppose those parents are “creatively choosing” to ignore that fact.
I don’t think that anyone will argue that the standardized tests administered to children aren’t perfect — but then, what system is? I would personally like to see the tests themselves reformatted to extend to a greater variety of subjects and test a more comprehensive form of thinking. However, keeping a child from participating in the evaluation process is only detrimental to that student’s progress. Without proper assessing, how will a teacher know in what areas a student needs more attention? The potential of funding cuts will only further ensure a broken system falls into further disrepair. Opting out should not be an option.