Archives for the month of: May, 2018

Julian Vasquez Heilig reports on the latest study of vouchers in D.C., which showed that students who used vouchers lost ground in math compared to their peers who did not.

This time with song and dance and disappointed voucher cheerleaders.

The Southold Elementary School celebrated the unveiling of a giant Mother Goose shoe, which children can play on.

The shoe symbolizes the district’s commitment to restore play to childhood.

Children were tour guides, showing visitors the sights.

Southold is led by visionary Superintendent David Gamberg, who leads both Southold and neighboring Greenport schools.

“Gamberg said Rousseau, more than 235 years ago, said, “You will never accomplish your design of forming sensible adults unless you begin by making playful children.” He added, “These words are as true today and will likely be true for all time. It is in the spirit of wanting to provide healthy and happy children that we gather here today.”

“The celebration of play and outdoor learning highlighted the school’s commitment to learning outdoors, including the award winning school garden that produces hundreds of lbs. of fresh produce every year; the outdoor easels that allow children to create works of art in the natural environment; the beautiful stone amphitheater and sandboxes that provide opportunities for creative play, and a life sized chess and a traditional swing set, as well as climbing equipment, Gamberg said.”

What a wonderful community for children.

Southold has a high opt-out rate. It also has a superb arts, music, and theatre program.

In 2013, when Bill de Blasio ran for Mayor of New York City for the first time, he was an outspoken supporter of public schools and an equally outspoken critic of charter schools. Taking him at his word, he won over many public school parents and advocates by his willingness to break with the Bloomberg policy of favoring charters over public schools. At the time, he met with me, sought my endorsement, and won it based on his firm commitment to stop privatization. I feel betrayed after reading the story that follows.

His first schools chancellor, Carmen Farina, a high-level veteran of the Bloomberg administration, walked a fine line, trying not to antagonize either side. The public schools enroll over 1.1 million children and the charters enroll 114,000 students. The charters are the darlings of the financial world and Wall Street and the big donors.

The new chancellor, Richard Carranza, visited three charter schools yesterday and embraced them as “public schools,” not “publicly funded private schools,” which is what most people see with their own eyes since they are operated by private boards and make their own rules about admissions and discipline and other matters.

Leonie Haimson, in a note to her listserve, asks these questions:

If they are public schools, why do they refuse to follow state law when it comes to suspension and expulsion policies? Why do they refuse audits from the state comptroller, and refuse performance audits from the city comptroller?

Why do their Charter Management Companies refuse to comply with FOILs or Open Meetings Law?

Why do they have the right to access space at the city’s expense, while more than half a million public school students are crammed into overcrowded buildings with no hope of relief?

The reality is that charter schools are private corporations that use public funding, and use their backing from billionaires to demand special privileges from elected officials, while refusing to follow the same rules or submit to the same oversight as public schools that are governed by public bodies.

There is an emerging body of law which is challenging the notion that charter schools are public schools. See The Legal Status of Charter Schools in State Statutory Law by Preston Green and Bruce Baker. The reality is that charter schools claim to be public schools when that advantages them in terms of funding or PR, and claim that they are private entities when that advantages them in terms of being able to ignore laws pertaining to student discipline, building code regulations, fair labor practices, fiscal and performance transparency, and a host of other issues.

I have some questions: If charters are public schools, why are they allowed to close school and send their students, teachers, and parents to political rallies in Albany and at City Hall? Will Chancellor Carranza authorize all public schools to do the same or will he forbid the charter schools from using their students as political fodder to get more money for the charters? If charters are allowed to control their admissions and discipline policies, should other public schools get the same approval to do so? If deregulation is important for those “public schools,” why aren’t all public schools similarly deregulated? If charters are public schools, shouldn’t they be subject to the same legal requirements as other public schools? Or are they private contractors who are not state actors, as charters have repeatedly said in their defense in federal courts and before the NLRB?

Sharon Otterman of the New York Times wrote:

New York City’s schools chancellor signaled on Wednesday that he wanted to usher in a new era of détente between the Department of Education and the city’s charter school sector, which have often been at odds under the administration of Mayor Bill de Blasio over issues like finances and the pressures of sharing public school space.

“Charter Schools are public schools,” Richard Carranza, the chancellor, said in the cafeteria of the Bronx Charter School for Excellence, as he wrapped up a day of visits to three charter schools in Brooklyn and the Bronx, to which he had invited reporters along. Even that simple statement was likely to make waves among charter school opponents, who prefer to describe charters as privately run, publicly funded schools.

“The question about charters versus traditional public schools,” Mr. Carranza added, addressing reporters around a cafeteria table, “is a red herring.”

“I would say that the more dialogue we have around building a portfolio of good choices for all students in the city, and the less we emphasize a dialogue about ‘us versus them,’ the better it is for all the children in New York City,” he said.

Crossing what was once a white-hot line for the de Blasio administration, Mr. Carranza said he would visit a Success Academy charter school “in the next few weeks.” Mayor de Blasio was elected in 2013 vowing to take action against the aggressive expansion of charter networks like Success Academy, which is led by his former political rival, Eva S. Moskowitz, and which now runs 46 of the 227 charter schools in the city.

“Time for Eva Moskowitz to stop having the run of the place,” Mr. de Blasio said while campaigning in 2013. “She has to stop being tolerated, enabled, supported.”

In February 2014, Mr. de Blasio reversed a decision by former Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg to provide space in city public school buildings to three charter schools, all part of the Success network.

In the political fallout, state legislators, with urging from the governor, passed a law requiring the city to pay much of the rent for new charter schools if it denied them free space, effectively curtailing Mr. de Blasio from removing more schools.

Chancellor Carranza “said he was happy to hear all three of the charters he visited hired only certified teachers, but he steered clear of the divisive political issue at play: that most charter schools in New York City are not unionized.”

Marc Tucker recently wrote a post in which he responded to a question from Mike Petrilli of the conservative Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Mike asked why Marc didn’t look at charter management organizations as models of systems that work. (I would have added “that work for some,” since charters are free to choose their students and oublic schools are not.)

Marc answered. (I’m always reluctant to post articles behind a pay wall.)

“I can see why Mike would take that view. As charter systems have grown, they have had to do what any well-run business has to do: figure out how to hire, train and support first-rate staff, produce the best possible results at an acceptable cost, find efficiencies and improve productivity. As these charter school networks grow, they have to face the challenge of growing without compromising quality, creating leadership structures that will preserve the culture the founders created without suffocating the initiative of the people on the ground and so on.

“Freed of many of the political and legal constraints that public school systems face, some of these charter management companies have been rather innovative as they have dealt with these and many other challenges. It would be natural to see them as a test bed for better ways to organize and manage public school systems. Why, Mike wanted to know, was I so uninterested in viewing them that way? A very reasonable question.

“Part of the answer is the strategy I prefer to use to search for better ways to organize and manage school systems at the scale of a state or nation. The approach that makes the most sense to me is to start by ideinitifying the systems that produce superior results and then try to find out if there are common principles that inform the structure of those systems that distinguish them from less successful systems. I know of no top-performing systems at the scale of a state or nation the success of which can be attributed to their charter-like characteristics. There are top-performing systems that feature choice, but choice does not explain their success. What does explain their success is their adherence to principles that they share in common with systems that do not have strong choice-oriented policies. The Netherlands and Flemish Belgium are good examples of such countries. So is Hong Kong…

“Because choice for parents and students among significantly different alternatives is the core principle of the charter idea, the question we should be asking about the charter idea is not whether any one charter school is better than the typical public school serving a comparable student body, but whether charter schools as a group produce better student performance than regular public schools as a group, when serving comparable students. It is, of course, possible to find very good charter schools but it is no less possible to find equally outstanding regular public schools. When we look in the aggregate at all the charters in any given state, and compare them to all the regular public schools in that state serving the same demographic, virtually all studies show no conclusive advantage for the charters.

“But my reading of the data produces a more troubling conclusion. Both in the United States and abroad, choice policies tend to exacerbate racial and socio-economic segregation. The minority, low-income parents who have the time, education, drive and cars to take advantage of the choices offered, do so and those who do not have these things, do not. The result is that the low-performing schools are drained of the students and parents who have the desire and means to take advantage of the options offered, leaving behind those who don’t, leaving in their wake schools that are even more isolated, chaotic and desperate than they were before…

“I have not given up on our public schools, in our inner cities or anywhere else. It is not just the lowest-performing schools that are in trouble. The students in every quartile of performance in the entire country are behind their counterparts in the top-performing countries. I would spend the rest of my career studying charter school management systems if someone could present any evidence that implementation of charter systems at scale would lift the performance of American students to globally competitive levels. But I have yet to see that evidence.”

I agree with most of what Marc says but I don’t accept international test scores, as he does, as the measure of our students or our schools. Our problems as a society are far greater than what test scores measure, and what they do measure is far too narrow to capture the dynamism of our youth.

Our faithful reader Charles asked me a few days ago why I had written nothing about Betsy DeVos’ appearance before Congress. I confess I have a very difficult time watching her testify because I always feel that she is being evasive or duplicitous. She doesn’t say what is on her mind or in her heart. She wants to convince people that she really cares about children, when we know that she really cares about one thing only: School choice. She has taken steps to harm children and college students but she never says flat out what she did and why she did it. Her interview with Leslie Stahl on “60 Minutes” was not atypical. She was primed and ready to dodge questions, not to explain anything candidly. She continues this pattern and I find it painful to watch.

Valerie Strauss wrote a column about DeVos’ testimony on her indispensable “Answer Sheet” blog, hosted by the Washington post.

There were five topics that DeVos could not or would not say or explain, writes Strauss.

1) DeVos could not explain the mission of the department’s Office for Civil Rights.

DeVos has rolled back or is in the process of delaying or gutting some Obama-era guidance and regulations that aimed to protect the rights of some minority groups, including LGBTQ students. The Trump administration’s budget proposals have called for funding cuts to the Office for Civil Rights in the Education Department, but Congress has overruled that. DeVos has changed the focus of the office, limiting the complaints it will address and reining in the systemic action favored by the Obama administration.

During Tuesday’s hearing, Rep. Marcia L. Fudge (D-Ohio) told DeVos that she was concerned about the weak performance of the Office for Civil Rights. Then she asked DeVos whether she knew the mission of that office.

DEVOS: The Office for Civil Rights is committed to protecting the civil rights as determined under the law of this land. And we do so proudly and with great focus each day.

FUDGE: That’s not the mission statement. Do you know what it is?

DEVOS: I have not . . . .

FUDGE: That’s okay.

DEVOS: I have not memorized the mission statement.

FUDGE: That’s okay. Please explain for me what you would believe to be vigorous enforcement of civil rights in the context of schools today.

DEVOS: It would be following the law and enforcing the law as stated . . . .

FUDGE: So how do you do it if you continue to try to dismantle and defund the office? I’m not understanding.

DEVOS: We haven’t done any such thing.

FUDGE: I think I’ve heard enough.

Later, Rep. Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan (D-Northern Mariana Islands) said, “The mission of the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights is to ensure equal access to education and to promote educational excellence through all the nation.”

2) DeVos did not provide a single detail about any plan she might have to promote inclusivity and access to an appropriate education for students with disabilities. And she wouldn’t commit to pushing Congress to fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, known as IDEA, which requires public schools to provide free and appropriate education to all students with disabilities.

3) DeVos refused to directly address questions from Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.) about potential conflicts of interest in a pilot student-aid program.

4) A legislator asked DeVos whether she would work with more urgency on her Federal Commission on School Safety to come up with recommendations to make school campuses safer after a rash of mass shootings.

5) Sablan asked her about access to higher education in U.S. territories, and she couldn’t quite answer his question.

I have left out the best parts, meaning the colloquy between DeVos and the members of Congress who asked questions. Her evasions, her ignorance, her indifference, her lack of information were on full display. You can understand why members of Congress find this hearings with DeVos to be frustrating, irritating, and outrageous. She doesn’t know or she isn’t telling what she does know.

Some state laws describe charter schools as “public charter schools.”

ALEC model legislation describes charter schools as “public charter schools.”

But calling them so doesn’t make them so. You can call a horse a camel, but it’s still a horse. You can pass a law calling a horse a camel, but it’s still a horse.

Peter Greene explains here the essential differences between public schools and charter schools.

Charter schools get public money, but that’s the only thing public about them.

If state legislators truly believed that deregulation was necessary for success, they would deregulate public schools. But they don’t. They keep passing more mandates. But only for public schools.

Greene writes:

“The charter sector has been trying to redefine “public” for years. Identifying charters as public schools solves a variety of marketing problems by giving the impression that charters include features that people expect from their public school. “Oh, a public school,” the customers say. “That must mean that the school will be open forever (certainly all of this year), it is staffed with qualified professionals, and is required to meet any special needs that my child might have. Oh, and as a public school, I’m sure it must be accountable to the public as well.”

“Of course, none of these things are true, but the use of the word “public” is a buffer against having the questions even come up. I mean, who even thinks to ask a public school to guarantee that it will stay open all year?

“”Public” when it comes to schools has been taken to mean “operated by the public, paid for by the public, serving the public, and accountable to the public.” Charter fans would like it to mean “paid for by the public” and nothing else. They would like voters and taxpayers not to think of charter schools as private schools that are paid for with public money. They would like voters and taxpayers absolutely not to think of charters as businesses that allow private people and companies to make money by billing the taxpayer. They would definitely not like the voters and taxpayers to think of charters as schools that are “accessible” to all, but which only serve a select few (like a Lexus dealership). They would certainly not like the voters and taxpayers to think of charters as businesses that are accountable only to their owners and operators– and not transparently accountable to the public. The word “public” is a handy fig leaf to cover all of that.”

DeVos wants to water down the definition of “public” even more, to allow private schools, religious schools, and every sort of entrepreneurial venture to get public money. In her view, the real public schools would be dumping grounds for the kids that the charters and voucher schools don’t want.

If we want to retain any sense of the common good, we must resist at every turn. We must protect the common good and our obligations to our fellow citizens.

Parents and teachers in Richmond, Virginia, are very concerned about their new superintendent, Jason Kamras, who was a key leader of Michelle Rhee’s team in D.C.

Kamras was the architect of Rhee’s controversial IMPACT program, which evaluated teachers in large part by student test scores. Kamras told Richmond educators that he won’t bring IMPACT with him, but he continues to believe that it was “equitable” and effective. Half of his cabinet in Richmond worked with him in D.C. He is still looking for a “chief talent officer.” (Corporate reformers do not employ assistant superintendents, they use corporate titles.)

The Richmond Times reported:

“Since the 44-year-old was named Richmond’s new schools chief in late November, Richmond School Board members, teachers and education advocates have raised concerns about the system, IMPACT, and its relationship to the “worst series of scandals in at least a decade” to rock Washington’s school system.

“It created a culture of fear,” David Tansey, a high school mathematics teacher in Washington, said of Kamras’ program. “Because it was paired with a top-down culture of getting results quickly, it became abused.”

“How Kamras, the highest-paid superintendent in Richmond’s history, plans to assess Richmond Public Schools teachers remains unclear.

“Eight days after the Richmond School Board announced Kamras’ selection in a celebratory news conference, an investigation revealed that fewer than half of students should have graduated from Washington’s Ballou High, previously touted as a bright spot in an ailing system for moving every senior on to college.

“Six days before he was sworn in at the beginning of February, an independent review found that those issues, which stemmed in part from Kamras’ evaluation system, were endemic to D.C. Public Schools as a whole.

“Kamras was noncommittal on teacher accountability when he discussed his plans for moving Richmond Public Schools forward at a community meeting the next month.”

The article quoted admirers and critics of IMPACT.

The recent graduation rate scandal began in Ballou High School, which falsely claimed a graduation rate of 100%. That revelation led to a systemwide investigation, and the discovery that the D.C. schools’ graduation rate was inflated, stemming from the fear induced by Kamras’ IMPACT system.

Richmond journalist Kristen Reed says that the power elite selected Kamras to impose Rhee-style corporate reform on the Richmond public schools. She portrays Tom Farrell, CEO of Dominion Energy, as the leader of the “Gang of 26,” business leaders who tried to eliminate the elected board and have been eager to disrupt democratic governance of the schools.

She writes:

“Farrell, who has led Dominion Energy for 10 years, has a vested interest in promoting the narrative that Kamras is a community hire. Farrell’s broader work in the power industry draws its profit model from seizing unilateral control of democratic institutions under the auspices of “public process” and “public good.” Dominion power has been widely criticized as exercising disproportionate control over the Virginia General Assembly.

“Despite extraordinary public opposition, Dominion has proven itself uniquely empowered to take Virginian land, to custom-draft its own legislation, and to do so at tremendous cost to members of the public, who have no choice but to remain a captive and disempowered consumer base. The broader public in Virginia has thoroughly articulated their reluctance to trust our energy monopoly to govern in lieu of democratic process. Our last election season communicated this message clearly when 13 candidates who ran on platforms that specifically refused Dominion funding won seats in our General Assembly. As the public pushes back, however, Farrell and his corporate colleagues continue to demand disproportionate power over public institutions.

“Farrell is right to be concerned. He not only chaired the committee that brought Kamras to Richmond, he also plays a leadership role in a particular strain of Virginia’s business elite that holds growing investment in bringing corporate education reform to our city. At stake is his long-standing interest in the Richmond public education system, which he has struggled to fully realize. In 2007, Farrell joined a movement of corporate leaders in the city of Richmond who advocated against an elected school board and in favor of a corporate monopoly on school governance.

“The Gang of 26, as they have become known, issued a now-infamous letter that demanded our democratically elected school board be “abolished.” Widespread public outcry, led by African-American education activists and the Richmond Crusade for Voters, pushed back at the prospect of a plutocratic school governance structure. Defeated, members of the Gang of 26 have continued to look for other avenues to disrupt democratic governance of public schools.”

Stay tuned.

Richmond may be the next battle between the community and corporate elites over the future of public schools.

The Inspector-General of the Chicago Public Schools called out a former board member, Deborah Quazzo, for significant financial conflicts of interest.

Blogger Fred Klonsky invented a new verb for corruption: “We got Quazzoed.”

Disgraced former Chicago Public Schools CEO Barbara Byrd-Bennett, now in prison for a kickback scheme involving millions of dollars in school contracts, accepted lavish meals at some of the city’s priciest restaurants from a CPS vendor whose investors included Deborah Quazzo, who at the time was a Mayor Rahm Emanuel appointee to the Chicago Board of Education.

That’s according to a new report from CPS Inspector General Nicholas Schuler, whose investigation led the FBI to Byrd-Bennett.

Among the findings Schuler has reported confidentially to the school board:

• Byrd-Bennett steered a $6 million contract to Think Through Math, a company in which Quazzo was invested.

• Byrd-Bennett and the coterie of top aides she brought with her to CPS had a series of expensive meals on that company’s dime during the bidding process for that deal.

• Quazzo violated the school system’s ethics code by talking up her companies’ products to CPS principals and introducing them to company representatives — which she at first denied to Schuler she’d done but acknowledged after being shown emails proving that.

“While Quazzo’s ethical violations were arguably less egregious than Byrd-Bennett’s violations involving her dealings with TTM,” Schuler wrote in the 26-page memo, obtained by the Chicago Sun-Times, “Quazzo’s violations were significant, nonetheless.”

According to the inspector general’s memo, CPS’s ethics policy violates state law and needs to be changed. Schuler wrote that it’s not enough for board members to decline to vote on matters in which they have a significant financial interest. He says CPS can’t do business at all with those companies — unless the board member with an ownership stake either divests or resigns.

In 2015, Quazzo said she saw no conflict of interest but asked Emanuel not to reappoint her after a Sun-Times investigation revealed that companies in which she had a stake had seen their business from CPS triple in the year since her appointment, taking in more than $3.8 million from deals with the city’s schools. Also, the Quazzo companies had gotten $1.3 million from CPS-funded charter schools.

It just goes to show that the person who gives the graft gets off easier than the one who took it.R

Just posted:

More information contact:
Lisa Rudley (917) 414-9190;
Jeanette Deutermann (516) 902-9228;
NY State Allies for Public Education – NYSAPE

Link to Press Release

Parents Demand the NY Legislature Repeal the Education Transformation Act & APPR; Stop Playing Political Games with Our Children’s Education

NY State Allies for Public Education, a coalition of over 50 parent and educator groups active across the state, vehemently opposes the new teacher evaluation bill, passed by the NYS Assembly and now being considered by the NY Senate as S08301. This bill would change the teacher evaluation system in the state for the fourth time since 2010. This bill, like the current evaluation system, fails the most important measure, it does absolutely nothing to alleviate the impact a test-and-punish system has had on our children.

Contrary to the claims of some of its supporters, a careful reading of the bill indicates that it continues to link teacher evaluations to growth scores, using either state standardized exams or alternative assessments approved by the State Education Commissioner. The bill also leaves the controversial HEDI rubric and corresponding weights in place.

NYSAPE recognizes that the American Statistical Association and the National Science Foundation have concluded that rating teachers based on student growth scores yields statistically invalid and flawed results.

Jeanette Deutermann, a co-founder of NYSAPE and leader of Long Island Opt Out, said “Backroom deals and political leveraging have resulted in an Assembly and Senate bill that purposely fails to decouple test scores from the teacher evaluation system, fails to reverse the destructive receivership law, fails to remove the arbitrary and capricious growth model, and leaves room for grade 3-8 state assessments to once again be used in our evaluation system. Teachers and students deserve a bill that reverses the destruction caused by the Education Transformation Act.”

NYSAPE shares the concerns of the New York State School Boards Association and the New York Council of School Superintendents that this bill, if passed, could mean even more testing. If districts decide to tie teacher ratings to student scores on alternative assessments, those assessments would come in addition to the annual state tests that are required by federal law.

Education historian Diane Ravitch points out, “The current teacher evaluation law (APPR) was passed to make New York eligible for federal funding from the Race to the Top program in 2010. Under this law, 97% of teachers in the state were rated either effective or highly effective. The law is ineffective. It should be wholly repealed, rather than amended as proposed. Let the state continue setting high standards for teachers and let local districts design their own evaluation plans, without requiring that they be tied to any sort of student test scores.”

“The entire idea of basing teacher evaluations on student growth is a farce. Districts will create new metrics that are just as unreliable and invalid as the grade 3-8 test scores. It is time that politicians cease meddling in matters they do not understand and return teacher and principal evaluation back to professionals and elected school boards,” said Carol Burris, the Executive Director of the Network for Public Education and a former New York State High School Principal of the Year.

“The worst outcome would be if this faulty bill passed in exchange for more concessions to charter schools, either increasing their funding or raising the charter cap. Already charter schools in NYC are given preferable treatment in being able to claim free space at the city’s expense, when more than half a million of our public school students are crammed into overcrowded schools, with no hope of relief,” said Leonie Haimson, Executive Director of Class Size Matters.

Parents and educators have been demanding for a long-time that the APPR system be entirely repealed so districts can design their own evaluation plans untied to student test scores. It’s time Albany stands up for children and stops playing political games with their education.

NYSAPE is a grassroots coalition with over 50 parent and educator groups across the state.


The growing impact of the assessment reform movement is clear in this week’s clips, many of which reflect a critical perspective on test overuse and misuse. This fall’s elections will play a major role in determining whether new public officials will roll back standardized exam overkill or if the same old officials will continue discredited test-and-punish policies.

Arizona Why Is “D” Rated School Shamed Instead of Helped

Florida Test Score Fixation Causes Concerns for Parents
Florida Late Test Score Reports Delay Grade Promotion Decisions Before School Ends

Georgia Are Test Scores Fair Way to Judge Charters . . . or Any Schools?
Georgia Poverty, Other Social Factors Best Ways to Predict Test Scores

Illinois Test Scores Sunk After Chicago Closed 50 Public Schools

Indiana Schools May Get Two Different Grades This Year

Massachusetts Legislators Cut Exam Funding to Challenge Testing Status Quo
Massachusetts Grading Essays with Computers Sends Wrong Message to Student Writers

New Jersey Due to PARCC Screw-Up, Students Will Be Forced to Take the Exam

New Mexico Legal Action Filed Against Test-Based Teacher Evaluations

New York Schools Chief Criticizes Exam-Based Admission and Screening
New York Teachers Union Blasts Abusive “Tyranny of Testing”
New York Governor Candidate Takes on Test-and-Punish Policies

North Carolina Assess Students’ Knowledge, Not Test-Taking Skills

Ohio Governor’s Defense of Flawed School Grades Blocks Efforts to Kill Them

Tennessee Scores From Computer Test Foul Up Won’t Hurt Teachers
Lawmakers say TNReady test can’t hurt teachers

Texas Testing Service Fined for Computer Exam Glitches
Texas State Waives Test Passing Requirement for Grade Promotion Due to Computer Disruptions

University Abolish Standardized Testing for Undergraduate Admission

International Irish Teachers Letter Launches Discussion of What Tests Really Measure

Worth Reading Lessons From the Test Opt-Out Movement for Curbing School Violence

Bob Schaeffer, Public Education Director
FairTest: National Center for Fair & Open Testing
office- (239) 395-6773 fax- (239) 395-6779
mobile- (239) 699-0468