I am writing to oppose the excessive amount of testing currently taking place in our elementary schools. The PowerPoint being presented at the workshop does not fully reflect the scope of this issue. The list of grade level testing previously shared by school board member Debra Hixon more clearly shows the volume of assessments our students are experiencing. Teachers do not have autonomy in this process. We are required to follow district pacing guides and administer district mandated assessments. This is not principal driven or isolated to certain schools. It is a districtwide concern. Student burnout and loss of instructional time are happening now. We need immediate action. A clear district memo outlining what is district mandated, school based, and optional for teachers is an important first step.

Hello, My name is Crina Browne and I am a parent and a reading coach. The amount of testing is taking a huge toll on our students. I do invite you to get students’ answers and perspectives on this matter. The testing calendar put out is a very misleading calendar. There is a lot more testing going on… The updated testing calendar does not show the
- 2 days of testing at the end of every reading unit that kids have to take (every 15 days) 1 for multiple choice and one for writing (computer based for k-5)
- every topic math assessment (computer based k-5)
- progress learning science tests (computer based k-5… the middle of the year one had over 45 questions for 4th & over 60 questions for 5th)

When students take these assessments, it takes them their whole instructional period. For reading they take assessments on standards they haven’t learned yet.
There are 10 units in ELA which equates to over 20 days of just testing (then add FAST 3x a year , Iready 3x a year, FAST writing in 4th& 5th)
There are 14 topics in math so 14 days of testing (then add FAST 3x a year , Iready 3x a year)

Then beginning of year science and middle of year science and I’m honestly not even sure what’s in between!

As a parent, it is crazy to hear about all this testing! There is a lot of new research that shows how detrimental testing is at such a young age.

Hello, my name is January Rodriguez.

There is growing concern among educators about the amount of standardized and computer-based testing at the elementary and middle school levels.

As an educator with over 15 years of experience, I understand the importance of assessment. However, effective assessment does not require excessive testing or prolonged screen time.

Teachers are trained professionals who evaluate student learning through multiple measures. Ongoing observations, short written responses, small-group instruction, performance tasks, and meaningful classroom discussions provide accurate and actionable insight into student progress. These approaches allow educators to identify learning gaps, provide timely remediation, and document growth through authentic portfolios of student work over time.

Research continues to highlight concerns about excessive screen time and its potential effects on students’ focus, engagement, and overall well-being. Yet many current assessment practices require extended periods on computers.
Computer-based testing provides only a narrow snapshot of student ability and does not fully capture critical thinking, creativity, collaboration, or depth of understanding.

Teaching is both a science and an art. The state of Florida already has a progress monitoring system in place. What we need now is greater trust in well-researched, classroom-based assessment practices that offer a more comprehensive and developmentally appropriate picture of student learning. Reevaluating testing expectations would preserve instructional time and better support meaningful learning experiences.

Lastly, we cannot overlook the emotional toll excessive testing places on students, particularly at the elementary level. Young children are still developing confidence, resilience, and a healthy understanding of mistakes as part of growth. When students begin to equate their self-worth with a single score, engagement declines and curiosity fades. A more balanced approach would protect students’ emotional well-being while still providing meaningful data to support academic growth.

My name is Dr. Trudy Jermanovich.

By chance I found this piece of sage advice as we look to curtail the over-testing which is occurring in this district.

“What If We Let Kindergarten Be Kindergarten Again?
I do not think five-year-olds should be taking standardized tests.
I do not think there should be any formal testing before they even know how to tie their shoes.

In fact, when we look at many high-performing countries around the world, formal academic testing does not begin in Kindergarten. Early years focus on development only!

What if our Kindergarten classrooms were built around:
• Play as real learning
• Projects instead of packets
• Stories instead of screens
• Outdoor time every single day
• Movement woven into the day
• Teaching kids how to handle frustration
• Teaching them how to share, speak up, and solve problems

What if we cared less about how fast they can read
and more about whether they love learning?
Here is what the research shows.

Children who build strong self-regulation early on are more likely to succeed later academically. They focus longer. They manage stress better. They bounce back from mistakes. They persist when work gets hard.

Those skills predict long-term outcomes more consistently than early decoding speed.
You can teach reading in first grade.
It is much harder to teach resilience, curiosity, and confidence once a child starts believing they are not good at school.

Five-year-olds do not need acceleration.
They need foundation.
Kindergarten should not feel like preparation for a test.
It should feel like preparation for life.
And that begins with joy, belonging, and roots deep enough to support everything they will become.”
This was posted by Dr. Brad Johnson after another discussion on brain development in a technological world. It not only pertains to kindergarten, but could be substituted in almost any K-12 classroom.

I will send each board member a detailed discussion on the presentation which I had hoped would lead to allowing teachers the autonomy to teach their students and not be micromanaged by the district.

I am writing regarding excessive testing at the elementary level. While I appreciate the district’s presentation, it does not reflect the day-to-day reality in our classrooms.

The district has stated that Benchmark and Savvas assessments are “optional,” yet this has not been clearly communicated to teachers. In practice, there are designated testing windows that are tracked and monitored, and completion rates are reviewed. When assessments are overseen in this way, they do not feel optional. If they are truly optional, that expectation must be clearly communicated to teachers and administrators.

If these assessments are optional, may teachers shorten or modify them to better meet students’ developmental needs? Many are lengthy and require extended, uninterrupted blocks of time that are difficult at the elementary level. Additionally, may teachers administer paper-and-pencil versions instead of computer-based versions to reduce technical barriers and protect instructional time?

Another concern not addressed in the presentation is the heavy reliance on computer-based testing. Many platforms are not developmentally appropriate for young learners and frequently involve technical issues. Time spent logging in, navigating screens, typing responses, and troubleshooting results in significant instructional time lost.

The presentation also states that Broward testing accounts for under 2.5% of total school year hours. However, this figure appears to include only iReady and Science assessments and does not reflect the numerous other required district assessments administered throughout the year. This does not accurately represent the cumulative impact on instructional time.

Teachers and parents have consistently expressed concern that students are losing valuable classroom time to testing. This is not about avoiding accountability; it is about balance. At the elementary level, instructional time is critical for direct teaching, guided practice, and intervention.

We are asking for transparency, clarity, and an honest accounting of all assessments students are expected to complete. Most importantly, we ask that instructional time be protected so we can focus on teaching and supporting student growth.

As a Kindergarten teacher, I feel compelled to speak up about the excessive amount of testing in primary grades, especially in Kindergarten. Many of our youngest learners are still developing basic fine motor skills, stamina, and overall social-emotional readiness for formal assessments. Requiring them to complete frequent computer-based testing is simply not developmentally appropriate.

I have students who struggle just to navigate the computer, which often forces me to stop instruction and test students individually just to get through required assessments. This takes away valuable instructional time and increases stress for everyone involved — students, teachers, and families.

Most concerning is the emotional toll. I currently have several students experiencing significant testing anxiety. One student becomes so overwhelmed that he cries and has even become physically ill during testing. At five and six years old, our children should be building confidence, curiosity, and a love for learning not fear of assessments.

I strongly urge the District to reevaluate the amount and format of testing in early childhood classrooms and prioritize developmentally appropriate practices that support learning, wellness, and healthy growth.