Archives for the month of: May, 2016
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Texas Court Rejects Appeal to Fix State Funding Formula

By dianeravitch
May 15, 2016 //
10

Nearly two-thirds of the school districts in Texas filed a lawsuit against the state formula for funding public schools. A lower court judge ruled that the state’s funding formula was unconstitutional. Hopes were high that the lower court ruling would sustain that decision.

Unfortunately the state Supreme Court sustained the current methodology.

The legislature cut $5.4 Billion out of the schools’ budget in 2011. Many districts have never recovered from those draconian cuts.

“Houston lawyer Mark Trachtenberg, who represented 88 property-wealthy school districts in the case, said the ruling “represents a dark day for Texas school children, especially given the Legislature’s repeated failure to adequately fund our schools.”

“A recent study by the National Education Association found that Texas ranks 38th in the country in per-pupil public-education spending.”

Pastors for Texas Children issued the following statement:

“Pastors for Texas Children Executive Director Rev. Charles Foster Johnson on Today’s Supreme Court Decision

“The Texas Supreme Court’s ruled today that the Texas public school funding system technically meets “minimum constitutional requirements”—a ruling belied by the direct professional experience and expert witness of hundreds of thousands of Texas educators.

“The Court’s conclusion may be based on legal technicality, but the burden of this sophistry will be borne by our 5.3 million schoolchildren.

“We hover near the bottom nationally in monetary support for our schools. It is sinful for a society as rich as Texas—an economic “miracle,” as a recent governor put it—to make our schoolchildren eat the crumbs that fall from our state’s table of bounty.
Our Lord famously said, “To those whom much is given, much is required.” But, the Texas Supreme Court and the Texas State Legislature have perversely revised that moral dictum: “To those whom much is given, less is required.”

“Of particular moral offense is the arrogance shown by certain state leaders whose cynical tactics seek to divert our attention away from the grave injustice of inadequate school finance.

“Pastors for Texas Children will not fall for these ridiculous distractions.
80,000 new schoolchildren enter our public school system every year, in classes that are overfilled, with teachers that are underpaid, in schools that are underfunded. Over 60% of our Texas schoolchildren are poor. Our dedicated teachers work long hours at low pay to provide God’s gift of education for them while enduring demoralizing attacks from the very leaders constitutionally charged and Biblically sworn to support them. This is the moral outrage of our day.

“We recommit ourselves to holding our Governor, Lieutenant Governor, 31 State Senators and 150 State Representatives accountable for the “suitable provision of free public schools,” as our own Texas State Constitution mandates, as the American civil tradition establishes, and, most importantly, as the Biblical call to justice unambiguously announces.”

Categories Budget Cuts, Funding, Texas

BATs Write a Letter to New Chancellor of New York State Board of Regents

By dianeravitch
May 15, 2016 //
18

The following is an excerpt from a letter written by the BATs to Chancellor Betty A. Rosa.

 

 
Dear Chancellor Rosa,

 

Congratulations on your well-deserved chancellorship. Students, parents, educators and taxpayers across NY state have sorely missed out on guidance from experienced practitioners in the challenging conditions of the real world. We also applaud your prioritization of the CFE state funding ruling because the state has avoided compliance for too long.

 

NY BATs are vocal members of our communities working to inform state and local policymakers on the in-classroom consequences of Albany’s policies. Allied with parent groups, we foster public engagement in education and electoral debates via a resolved grassroots presence.

 

STATE OF CONTROVERSY: NY’s test refusals show a deep, sustained rejection of top-down standardized testing. Those most impacted have experiences to share as well as scientific and scholarly research which needs a close read. Free from some federal mandates, the battle has come to fifty state houses. In Albany, well-established networks of monied corporations and private consultants drive privatization policies, greatly exaggerating actual educator or local input.

 

Public discourse is also changing, with media spending, advocacy and spin failing to use the Common Core’s requirement to source claims and show critical rigor. If we ask students to contrast and respond to differing viewpoints, why does our “adult” communication consist of exaggeration, distortion and people talking past each other?

 

TIME LOST: We haven’t seen open debate of snapshot-based assumptions or hidden formulas used to define and weigh ‘growth’. Nor a debate of data integrity following post-testing manipulations and 700 different implementations. These “comparative” results, already skewed badly are turned into “swiss cheese” once the opt-out families refuse participation. These experimental attempts at standardization have cost us time we can never have back.

 

STUDENT SUPPORT? We need the best evidence in policymaking, media, and even in the courts. The stated purpose of the tests is to identify need in order to send in support. The test results have purported to show major, widespread need of improvement. But where has the support been? Instead of in-classroom resources, we have seen a changing of standards and steady expansion of testing, receivership policies and charter schools, all actions that displace funding to support students.

 

THE BIG CONTOURS: The most basic fallacy driving NY’s testing lumps all learners into a one-year age-based range of assessment – only in two subjects – calibrated to the highest third of a bell curve, and then ponderously backwards-mapped to benchmarks that mandate conformity to a single, consistent pace of physical, cognitive and emotional development.

 

In struggling schools, students losing the opportunity to learn on their functioning level, all year long. Today we still see testing benchmarks driving curriculum rather than student need.

 

CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT: Could a test case ask the Supreme Court whether there was ever any federal authority to impose testing, let alone the testing criteria? The NYS Board of Regents should consider this question in interpreting whether age-based benchmarks are appropriate for every learner in every circumstance across the state. If so, evidence of efficacy or reliability is paramount.

 

STANDARDIZATION WHY? The “cookie cutter” approach conflicts with best practices in education, where teachers are specifically trained to exercise autonomy in recognizing and meeting student need. Each year, NY districts struggle to comply with ever-changing tweaks, reinventions and overhauls of policies built on unproven theories of assessing learning.

 

Diverting millions per year, local educators’ ability to meet need is hampered, with individualized attention at the school level sacrificed for tests and macro-comparison. NY’s homegrown portfolio-based models, such as those used in the Performance Standards Consortium, have proven better suited to meet student need and value individual student ability.

 

BACKROOM, TOP-DOWN DEALS: NY’s closed door process gives us decrees without transparency or inclusiveness. Educators who know best what works in schools are shut out as special access is given to connected lobbyists and consultants. But their corporate ideas have failed to deliver improvement or support, year after year, showing that we need a shift to research-based, piloted and proven teaching methods.

 

We were told annual testing in ESSA was renewed because “civil rights groups” demanded it. More accurately, it was the leadership of these groups, awash in influence from reformers. We recognize the desperation to level the playing field for underserved schools, disproportionately located in communities of color, but we do not buy that standardized test-based accountability works. We believe wraparound services and removal of obstacles to whole-child learning are what’s needed.

 

NARROW MEASURES: The belief cognitive ability can be measured and compared in a vacuum is inherently unscientific, fraught with oversimplification that denies important real world variances. Can student growth legitimately be boiled down to annual test scores in just two subjects? Do “norming” controls for language, disability and poverty cover the true range of issues affecting outcomes? Even farther removed, can these scores be used across the state in a flat numeric percentage purporting to capture the impact of teacher practice?

 

DOJ and CDC research suggests measures of non-cognitive development are more accurate predictors of future success and societal costs. If ever we were looking to optimize the search for “red flags” to direct support and early intervention, it is the social-emotional markers that more directly tell the story.

 

MORATORIUM NOT ENOUGH: NY’s version of VAM is APPR, assailed by study after study before being hauled into court. The six-Regent position paper published last June requested that APPR should be suspended for reexamination. The Board passed a moratorium, but we still await the review, including overdue responses to the 2014 report by the American Statistical Association or the report by the American Educational Research Association.

 

Opt-out leader Jia Lee has suggested that the 4-year moratorium is designed to outlast parents whose kids will age out of testing, as younger teachers also proliferate. Perhaps it’s “kicking the can down the road” during an election year, but we hope that a transparent process to expose VAM will lead to decisions based on technical merit and efficacy.

 

NY TRUSTS ITS EDUCATORS: Who shapes these policies is also germane to the debate. Should we entrust the officials coming and going through the “revolving door” whose track record led us to this moment? Can we recognize that the professionals most familiar with the students had it right from the start? The NY Principals Paper on APPR was signed by over a third of NY’s principals back in 2011, showing that NY’s top field practitioners weighed in on this – apolitically – long before public trust was compromised, hoping to avoid costly waste and social experimentation.

 

In 2013, teachers organized – outside of unions – activating a process of learning, sharing and speaking out against testing and evaluation policies we found were hatched by a sprawling network of “philanthropists”, hedge fund managers and billionaire PAC bundlers.

 

In 2015, NY parents statewide finally forced the media and political class to notice, building on gains made in 2014 centered in Long Island. The more parents learned, the more likely they became to refuse the tests. But deliberately off-putting technical jargon ensured most New Yorkers wouldn’t question the validity of tests. NYBATs asked incoming Commissioner Elia to explain or source the state’s reliability evidence in an open letter last July……

 

TEACHER TINKERING: We anticipate ESSA provisions concerning teacher recruitment, licensing, training and mentoring to be problematic based on any top-down federal approach. We suspect these will be new avenues for privatization and usurpation of local control and stakeholder input. Competitive grants increase inequity, politicization, and federal interference in education, introducing perverse incentives. We ask the Board to put NY’s proven teacher-training practices ahead of federal standardization incentivizes.

 

Deference to market-based approaches instead of basic, equal distribution of resources has led your predecessors astray, and the damage has awakened a concerned public. The continually botched implementations of privatization policy in our state have hurt, not helped learning in classrooms, directly illustrating how money-in-politics affects children.

 

NY’s educators have already developed alternatives to federal standardization strictures. We hope to support you in the effort to treat kids as individuals and restore sensible, democratically accountable and transparent decision-making to NY schools.

 

So signed,

 

 
NY BATS
badassteacher.org

Categories BATS, Common Core, Education Industry, New York, Privatization, Testing

Thomas Ultican: Time for A Moratorium on New Charter Schools in California

By dianeravitch
May 15, 2016 //
12

Thomas Ultican teaches high school mathematics and physics in San Diego, in a school where more than 50% of the students are English language learners and 75% are Title I. In this article, he calls for a moratorium on the expansion of the charter sector in California. That state happens to have more charter schools and more students in charters than any other state. This is no accident. The charter school legislation is extremely permissive. If a charter applicant is turned down by the local district’s board of education, he can appeal to the county board of education. If he is turned down by the county board of education, he can appeal to the state, which does not review the reasons that the local board rejected the application. If the applicant has trouble writing his application, he can turn to the California Charter Schools Association, one of the most powerful lobbies in the state. Its staff will help newcomers develop a proposal that it is likely to get adopted somewhere along the line.

 

California has had many charter scandals, financial and academic. The charter schools are virtually unsupervised, as the state lacks the administrative staff to watch what they are doing. The charter schools claim to be “public schools” when they seek funding but they are exempt from many laws and regulations that apply to public schools. When a couple of charter operators were indicted for misappropriation of funds, the California Charter Schools Association filed an amicus brief, which contended that charters are not really public schools and not subject to the same criminal laws as public employees. The charter operators are “private entities.” Their plea failed; the couple were convicted and sent to jail.

 

Ultican lists the reasons why a moratorium is past due. The sector is growing “explosively,” without transparency or accountability. Schools open quickly, but at the same time, other charter schools fold, creating instability in the lives of their students. The charter industry is riddled with fraud and profiteering.

 

Ultican quotes distinguished professor Gene V. Glass, who wrote:

 

“A democratically run public education system in America is under siege. It is being attacked by greedy, union-hating corporations and billionaire boys whose success in business has proven to them that their circle of competence knows no bounds.”

 

Ultican concludes:

 

Let’s heed the words of real experts. It is time to put a halt to the privatization of public education long enough to see what we have wrought before we do further damage.

Categories Accountability, California, Charter Schools

Laura Chapman Explains the Education Department’s RESPECT Program (How Do You Spell Co-Opt?)

By dianeravitch
May 15, 2016 //
17

From our steadfast reader and superb researcher, Laura Chapman, retired arts educator:

 

 

Here is an example of the empty rhetoric from the Obama/Duncan administration, still in play and revealing a totally corrupted set of meanings for trust and respect.

 

The Obama/Duncan administration launched the so-called RESPECT program for “Recognizing Educational Success, Professional Excellence And Collaborative Teaching” in 2013. RESPECT was nothing more than a pitch from McKinsey & Co. for teachers to give up all quests for job security and embrace longer hours, fewer days off, tiers of merit pay for raising test scores (minimum “a year’s worth of growth” every year) and so on.
USDE enlisted board certified teachers, teachers of the year, and Presidential fellows to endorse and to market these ideas in meetings they were to convene in every state. These spokespersons and meeting conveners were given a draft of the RESPECT proposal to distribute, a fully scripted discussion protocol and time allocations for pacing the meeting (as if the teachers could not be trusted to lead a meeting.) The conveners were asked to distribute a participant form, solicit written comments from every participant on sections of the proposal. These written comments became the “feedback loop” for tailoring the next rounds of marketing. The project was not much more than a large scale series of focus groups from credible leaders, achieved at low cost. It traded on the aura of respect attained by the teachers, but it did trust them to engage in pro-actively in any critically informed discussions about their profession. McKinsey & Co.’s role in this was not advertised.

 
The Obama/Duncan administration’s trust in teachers and respect for them as professionals is/was nil. Nothing came from the RESPECT program. Apart from marketing USDE’s marketing of that plan, the consultants at McKinsey & Co. continue to earn big fees for the same boilerplate “fixes” for teaching, for school districts, and entire states. The formula is cut, cut, cut.extract more bang for the buck by any means you can get away with. http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/obama-administration-seeks-elevate-teaching-profession-duncan-launch-respect-project-teacher-led-national-conversation

 

 

Marketing campaigns framed as “conversations” are IN, so are faux-conversations about elevating the profession, “lifting” it up, “rebranding” this work, calling for “great teachers, great schools, and great leaders…while forwarding the commercialization of these ratings via data feeds to fake non-profit sites like greatschools.org—data for sale there, ready to exploit package deals including access to “site traffic data ” tailored to your interests and wallet.
http://contentmarketinginstitute.com/conversation/

 

 

The Obama/Duncan regime in education is coming to a close, but the rhetorical moves it has used to delineate expectations and roles for teachers is still in place: the oxymoronic concept of “impacting student growth,” the mindless demands for “rigorous” and “high quality” this or that. The pompous rhetoric of “elevating” the profession of teacher and of “lifting up” teacher voices—nothing more than marketing drivel to diminish professional autonomy and hype short-cuts for entry into the enter teaching. http://marketingland.com/linkedins-newest-app-elevate-helps-employees-share-content-helps-employers-view-results-124932

 

 

Now there are efforts to just rebrand the profession of teaching. I kid you not, expertise from graphic designers, funding from the National Endowment of the Arts, replying on the high arts and developed craft skills of aesthetic persuasion. Check out the rebranding project here: http://www.aiga.org/case-study-teach/

Categories Teachers and Teaching, U.S. Department of Education

Celia Oyler’s Controversial PARCC Post, Redacted Under Legal Threat from PARCC

By dianeravitch
May 14, 2016 //
41

Celia Oyler, professor at Teachers College, Columbia University, posted a biting commentary by an anonymous teacher about the flaws of PARCC. She received a letter from PARCC threatening legal action unless she removed the post because it contained copyrighted material —and divulged the name of the author.

 

Oyler left the post on her blog but removed anything that might be copyrighted. She has not given up the name of the author. Many people who posted a link to Oyler’s original post or tweeted it received an email warning that they should remove the link or expect legal action.

 

Peter Greene posted about the test, based on Oyler’s blog, and flew under the radar. He didn’t receive a threat from PARCC, and I feel badly for him.

 

He wrote, in his inimitable fashion:

 

“You know what kind of test needs this sort of heavy security? A crappy test.”

 

As Leonie Haimson said in a tweet, it is crazy to give a test to millions of students and expect that no one would write about it or talk about it.

 

There is something worse than disclosure of “secure” test items. There is loss of reputation. And that is what PARCC  is putting at risk with its heavy-handed tactics.

 

 

 

Categories Education Industry, Testing

Audrey Hill: My Standards as a Teacher Are Much Higher Than Those of Common Core!

By dianeravitch
May 14, 2016 //
40

Audrey Hill is a middle school English teacher who has been teaching since 1987. Recently, when she said something critical of Common Core on Twitter, someone asked if teachers work was “unconnected” to having their kids meet “a high bar.”

 

Audrey responded with this post, where she says that her students met a much higher bar than the Common Core standards before they were published. Common Core sets a “false bar.”

 

She offers a series of examples of the high bar her students meet.

 

 

I teach to a very high bar. I would argue that my standards for teaching are higher than the Common Core in several respects… particularly in the area of critical reasoning. The 7th grade CCSS are primarily focused upon students learning to use text based evidence to analyze claims made or implied by an author. They do not address using text based evidence to make original claims. This is a great flaw because it reduces the learner to the consumer of information rather than a creator of information. I would argue, therefore, that in my classroom, neither teaching nor learning has been improved by the Common Core. At best, the CCSS has provided a new labeling system. Here are some artifacts that illustrate my bar as well as give some evidence for what I think my job is.

 

Debate Project: This is a piece of a 7th grade unit on argumentation that I have conducted for the last 15 years in my cluster. I am still in the process of moving it to the cloud. In this project, students’ critical reasoning skills are honed along with their research, writing, reading, public speaking skills, as well as their use of evidence and justification. This year, I am adding the Harvard video so students can get a whiff of utilitarianism (consequentialism) and the categorical imperative in a watered down way. When I have had the time (which I don’t because of the outside intervention and impact of testing on school culture) they read Kennedy, Locke, Chisolm, Paine and Churchill and modeled writing and thinking upon these and others. I also do a lot with rhetorical devices and logical fallacies that are not moved to this page yet. NOTE: The content here will not be reliably measured by the State test, as has been evidenced by schizophrenic scores which shift from year to year for no discernible reason despite clear evidence of my skill as a teacher and my continuing high standards. (I’ll address this in another post about a false bar)

 

She gives other examples where students work hard to think and create and have original work.

 

That won’t be measured on the state tests.

 

 

Categories Common Core, Testing

New Jersey: Selling Atlantic City to the Highest Bidder and the Most Politically Connected

By dianeravitch
May 14, 2016 //
8

This post is not directly connected to education, but it says something about the connection between politics and high finance and the selling off of public assets. Think education.

 

This comes from the website of “In the Public Interest,” an anti-privatization organization.

 

New Jersey: The plan by Gov. Christie, Senate President Steve Sweeney, and South Jersey Democratic boss George Norcross III to sell off Atlantic City’s public assets and bust union contracts advances to the next step. “Assembly sources pointed to Atlantic City’s beachfront property as the real prize. Joseph Jignoli and Jack Morris, two politically connected developers with ties to Sweeney by way of public-private developer Devco’s work in Cherry Hill and New Brunswick, could be first in line as plots of land on the coast fall into the state’s hands.”

 

“Sweeney has repeatedly insisted that he favors monetizing the city’s water by handing the authority over to Atlantic County to cut costs. Phillip Norcross, another brother of George Norcross, is a lobbyist with New Jersey American Water, the company most likely to purchase the authority under a state takeover.”

Categories Accountability, For-Profit, New Jersey

Where Are Schools and Communities Working Well to Help Children?

By dianeravitch
May 14, 2016 //
18

Dear Readers, 
I know you live in every state. You are parents, grandparents, educators, and concerned citizens. Can you respond to this request that I received? Please respond here and I will forward your suggestions to Mr. Casteel.
“Dr. Ravitch,

 

“Greetings.

 

“I work for the Danville Regional Foundation (DRF), a place-based, hospital conversion foundation located in Southern Virginia. We focus on the transformation of a region that has a population of about 125,000 in a geographic area on the Virginia/North Carolina border about the size of Rhode Island. Generations ago this region made their economic bets on textile manufacturing and tobacco, and for a few generations that worked out really well. Now the median household income in Danville Virginia is about half that of the state average. And many realize we’re not simply coming out of a recession where things will get back to normal, but we’re struggling to find a new normal in a transformed economy. Our foundation is one of the partners trying to help the region find new competitive advantages. We focus most of our efforts on education, workforce development, economic development, and health and wellness. 

 

“Every other year DRF takes our board of directors on a trip to places which are farther along the developmental curve in certain areas than this region. In the past we’ve been to Greenville SC (downtown revitalization), Lewiston-Auburn Maine (regionalism), and Dubuque Iowa (economic development platforms). We do this not to find silver bullets, or buy models off the shelf and try to plug them in here, but to try and understand the issues more deeply and to “see the possible” of what’s out there and working in other places.

 

“We want to go to places that look like this region as much as possible, rather than significantly larger and wealthier cities with lots of resources. This year, the board is interested in a trip that would highlight a place that is doing innovative work in education.

 

“We’ve made some significant investments (for us) in education, including over $9 Million in the region for the creation of a local program focused on early childhood education. With those efforts we realize measuring impact is a long-term prospect. We’re looking for a place being thoughtful about various innovations that are focused not on “failed fads and foolish ideas” and not models built only to improve the test scores, which I fear is what many think success looks like. Ideally, perhaps, would be a school district where the community and the schools have a shared vision about what success looks like for them and agreed upon strategy to get there. 

 

“I very much appreciate your work and ideas in the field and I write today to see if you have any suggestions of places we should consider, or other guidance you can offer.

 

“Sincerely,

 

“Clark Casteel”

 

 
 
 

 

Categories Arts Education, Childhood, Pre-K, K, Education Reform, Hope

Peg Robertson: Why No Protest Over Approval of Relay, a Fake Graduate School of Education?

By dianeravitch
May 14, 2016 //
37

Peg Robertson is rightfully outraged that the Relay Graduate School of Education received state approval to operate in Colorado.

 

She was even more outraged that no one spoke out in opposition to this travesty.

 

She writes:

 

This is the story of a fake graduate program getting approved by the Colorado Commission of Higher Education. CCHE has approved that non-educators trained by non-educators can be “certified” teachers who are in charge of the social, emotional, physical, mental and academic well-being of Colorado’s children. Imagine your child in that classroom. I’d like to see all the principals and leaders in Colorado who attended Relay Principal training PUT THEIR OWN CHILDREN IN THESE CLASSROOMS.

 

These fake teachers must prove that they can achieve one year’s growth via TEST scores in order to graduate from Relay. You can be assured that they will be stellar at teaching to the test. This is all that they know. And in order to make this happen, militant disciplinary methods must be used because children, and adults, ultimately find this form of dog training to be boring, redundant, and insulting. Therefore, it must be enforced – and as it is enforced this conditioning will become normal – it will be accepted as “as good as it gets.” Democratic thinking will continue to erode.

 

These fake teachers will be led by a fake dean who appears to be 31 years old and is a former TFA. She has two years teaching experience and appears to have some bizarro M.S.T. in which she got her training by speaking to robotic students via video games. Meanwhile her bachelor’s was in sociology.

 

Daniel Katz of Seton Hall University wrote a scathing article about Relay last year. Of course, Arne Duncan praised it.

 

Katz described it thus:

 

It is a “Graduate School of Education” that has not a single professor or doctoral level instructor or researcher affiliated with it. In essence, it is a partnership of charter school chains Uncommon Schools, KIPP, and Achievement First, and it is housed in the Uncommon Schools affiliated North Star Academy. Relay’s “curriculum” mostly consists of taking the non-certified faculty of the charter schools, giving them computer-delivered modules on classroom management (and distributing copies of Teach Like a Champion), and placing them under the auspices of the “no excuses” brand of charter school operation and teachers who already have experience with it.

 

This is a direct assault on the very idea of teacher professionalism. This alleged graduate school has no Ph.D.s or EDDs on its “faculty.” It consists of charter teachers teaching prospective charter teachers how to raise test scores. No research. No library. No scholars. Of its several campuses in five states, not one has a dean with a doctorate. They are mostly TFA graduates. They will now train and award master’s degrees in test-score raising.

 

Relay is spreading like kudzu, offering to “train” teachers and principals. It has been approved in New York by the Board of Regents. It was approved in Massachusetts. And most shocking of all, it has been approved by NCATE, which apparently has no standards for what constitutes a graduate school of education. Having a masters’ degree in raising test scores should be about as valuable as a BA from Corinthian Colleges.

 

 

Categories Colorado, Education Reform, Hoax, Teacher Education

Pearson? Questar? What’s the Difference?

By dianeravitch
May 14, 2016 //
29

After loud and persistent complaints from parents and educators about the testing giant Pearson, the New York State Education Department announced that Pearson would be replaced by a new testing vendor, Questar. That was last year. The footnote was that Pearson would continue to be the testing contractor for 2016 and 2017. Then the state would switch to Questar for fully online assessments.

 

But lo! What’s this?

 

Questar just hired a Pearson testing expert–Katie McClarty– to be in charge of Questar assessments.

Katie may be a fine psychometrician, but what are the chances that the new assessments will be a change from the old assessments? Sounds like Pearson all over again.

Categories New York, Pearson, Standardized Testing
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »