Testing Times

It was during this bleak period that a group of Durant School students, disgusted by the fact-filled, rote learning of their newly mandated history class, decided to act. As second-year students they had previously experienced the pleasure of the school's learner-centred classes, and they were outraged by the difference in this class, especially as it was instigated by the state standards. When the school sent representatives to speak at a regional joint legislative education committee hearing, this time only 100 miles away, about 20 students voluntarily attended, either to testify or show support. Again, the committee was deeply impressed by the students' spirit and pride in their school, and a legislative aide privately predicted that the waiver would be granted. This development, combined with reports that other students from the alliance of schools had also made a strong impression at their regional hearing, helped re-energize the fight. In addition, the staff began to work monthly with a volunteer business consultant on ways to focus their energy in fighting the mandates and gaining support for the variance.

In December 1999 the state's official response to the variance request began to take shape as the Assessment Panel of the State Education Department granted the alliance of schools a hearing in which to present their assessments. The alliance, in turn, solicited six nationally-known educational leaders, and friends of the alliance schools, to make the presentation. Not only did the alliance believe that these leaders, who also served on the alliance's performance assessment review board, would present a strong and convincing case, they also believed, according to the Durant School principal, that their prestige would lend political weight to the variance request. The night before the hearing, the six leaders gathered with several representatives from the alliance schools to discuss strategy and outline the presentation. At the two-hour hearing the following day, the six argued the case for the variance, answered questions from the committee, and defended the quality of the alliance's system of assessment. When the hearing concluded, a press conference, arranged by the alliance, was held in which the presenters attested to the urgent need for the variance.

That same day, the state's Assessment Panel issued its recommendation to the education commissioner: only a partial variance be granted, limited to the schools covered by a previous variance from state exams [this limitation excluded the Durant School], and good for only one year. When this recommendation was made known, the Durant School immediately intensified its campaign. The principal and several parents implored the school community to call and write letters to the legislative education committee members, urging them to request a full variance for the school from the commissioner. The community responded with a flurry of activity. The alliance, in turn, scheduled meetings with the education committee chairs to ask them to lobby the commissioner for the full variance as well. Finally, the day of reckoning arrived at the end of January 2000. The commissioner, following most of the panel's recommendations, issued a partial variance through the 2000-2001 school year, limited to the alliance schools in the previous variance. However, he did approve an extension of the variance to any remaining alliance schools that could demonstrate they had met the criteria of the alliance. This extension provision kept the Durant School's hopes alive, as they were certain of having already met all the criteria. By March, after the school had submitted proper documentation, the commissioner ruled that the Durant School was also covered under the temporary waiver. Significantly, the daily newspaper reported the story on the same day as it published an in- depth feature article on the Durant School in its series on the city schools, an article that had been actively solicited by the principal.