Archives for category: NAEP
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Weingarten on NAEP Results

By dianeravitch
October 30, 2019 //
3

 

This is a strong statement by Randi Weingarten. Please note that 10% of New York City’s public school students are homeless; students in many other districts suffer trauma, including homelessness, lack of access to medical care and basic nutrition, and inadequate housing. These figures should be appended to NAEP reports in the future.

 

AFT President Randi Weingarten’s Statement on NAEP Report Card
 

WASHINGTON—American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten issued the following statement in response to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Report Card:

 

“What we see in this data snapshot, while disappointing, is not surprising: Our students are still bearing the brunt of two decades of austerity, competition and test-based fixation that have failed to prioritize the needs of students, including the 90 percent of kids who attend public schools. Twenty-one states still spend less on public education than before the Great Recession, and during this decade of disinvestment there has been little to no change in either the math or reading performance of our highest-risk students.

 

“What the survey data doesn’t tell us in detail is why. Almost half of America’s kids have trauma, and they’re going to school in classrooms without nurses and counselors. For years, we’ve been advocating that children need comprehensive social and emotional supports so they’re able to engage in meaningful learning in safe and welcoming environments. It’s vital to meet kids where they are and to do what evidence shows works for improving student well-being and achievement.

 

“Since the enactment of the Every Student Succeeds Act just four years ago, some states and districts have started stepping up to the plate to use evidence-based strategies that are tailored to their communities, and we’re already seeing incremental gains in high school graduation rates. So why stop now, when our work is just starting to pay off? Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos ignores the real issues that plague our classrooms and student achievement, presumably because they disrupt her political agenda to siphon public money into private hands and expand private school vouchers and for-profit school ventures. But the evidence on achievement in voucher programs has not found statistically positive gains for students using vouchers, and most large-scale studies have found that students actually saw relative learning losses. DeVos has been putting her thumb on the scale against public schools and public education since Day One—cutting the very programs that help kids the most.

 

“So, our answer to the question of how we help students succeed shouldn’t be to go back to the competition-and-austerity era, or to pull the rug from the strategies that we know are starting to work and have potential to grow. We have to push forward and continue fighting for the investments that prioritize children’s well-being; provide wider access to high-quality instruction and learning experiences; and engage parents, communities, educators and students in making our public schools safe, welcoming environments where teachers want to teach, parents want to send their kids, and students want to learn.”
Categories Accountability, Betsy DeVos, Education Reform, NAEP, Testing

NAEP 2019 Released: No Progress in Math, Reading

By dianeravitch
October 30, 2019 //
51

After a generation of disruptive reforms—No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top, VAM and Common Core—after a decade or more of disinvestment in education, after years of bashing and demoralizing teachers, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) for 2019 shows the results:

Over the past decade, there has been no progress in either mathematics or reading performance, and the lowest-performing students are doing worse,” said Peggy Carr, the associate commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics, which administers the NAEP. “In fact, over the long term in reading, the lowest-performing students—those readers who struggle the most—have made no progress from the first NAEP administration almost 30 years ago.”

Since 2017, reading performance has dropped significantly across grades 4 and 8, with math performance mixed, based on results of the 2019 National Assessment of Educational Progressreleased Wednesday. Some racial achievement gaps closed—in part because of falling scores among white students—and gaps between struggling and high-achieving students continued to widen.

Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos used the results as an opportunity to call for more charters and vouchers, although Florida (her model state, with large numbers of charters and vouchers) saw significant declines in both subjects and grades.

According to Education Week,

“Every American family needs to open The Nation’s Report Card this year and think about what it means for their child and for our country’s future,” said U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos. “The results are, frankly, devastating. This country is in a student achievement crisis, and over the past decade it has continued to worsen, especially for our most vulnerable students.”

DeVos called the results a “wakeup call,” arguing, “We can neither excuse them away nor simply throw more money at the problem.”

Instead, DeVos seems to be doubling down on expanding school choice. She pledged a “transformational plan” by the administration to help students “escape failing schools.”

However, NCES found that in more than half of states and systems tested in math, 6 percent to 14 percent of students had teachers who reported “serious problems” with inadequate classroom supplies.

Every year for at least the last decade, NAEP results have been described either as “a wake-up call” or “a Sputnik moment.”

Wake up! Support the nation’s public schools, which enroll 85% of the nation’s children! Invest in the future of our society!

Categories Accountability, Betsy DeVos, Education Reform, NAEP

Mercedes Schneider and I Review Mike Petrilli’s Claims About “Dramatic Progress”

By dianeravitch
October 18, 2019 //
21

 

Mike Petrilli, president of the rightwing Thomas B. Fordham Institute, published a report about the “dramatic achievement gains” of the 1990s and 2000s. 

Surprisingly, he attributes most of these gains to improving economic conditions for poor families of color, not to standards, testing, and accountability, a cause that TBF has championed for years. But, not to worry, TBF has not changed its stripes, dropped out of ALEC, and joined forces with those who say that poverty is the main cause of low test scores.

So, I give Mike credit for acknowledging that improved economic conditions and increased spending had a very important effect on student academic performance. But he can’t bring himself to say that the accountability policies of NCLB and Race to the Top were poisonous and harmful, and that Common Core was a complete bust. He seems to be straining to find examples of states where he thinks high-stakes testing and school choice really were positive.

My first thought as I reviewed his data on rising achievement was that all these graphs looked very familiar.  Yes, they were in most cases the graphs (updated to 2017) appeared in my book Reign of Error: The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to America’s Public Schools (2013). I used these graphs to debunk the Corporate Reformers’ phony claim that America’s public schools were failing.  I cited NAEP data to show the dramatic test score gains for African-American and Hispanic students. I argued in 2013 that test scores had risen dramatically, that graduation rates were at a historic high, that dropout rates were at an all-time low.

The data, I said, demonstrate the hoax of the Reformers’ narrative. Despite underfunding, despite an increased number of students who were English learners, despite numerous obstacles, the public schools were succeeding. Most of the gains occurred prior to enactment and implementation of No Child Left Behind.

Now, to my delight, I find that Petrilli seems to agree. He even admits that the decade from 2007-2017 was a “lost decade,” when scores on NAEP went flat and in some cases declined. Yet, despite his own evidence, he is unwilling to abandon high-stakes testing, charter schools, vouchers, and Common Core. How could he? TBF has been a chief advocate for such policies. I don’t expect that Mike Petrilli will join the Network for Public Education. I don’t expect him to endorse new measures to address outrageous income inequality and wealth inequality, though I think he should, based on his own evidence. And I doubt very much that TBF will withdraw as a member of the fringe-right, DeVos-and-Koch-funded ALEC.

Mercedes Schneider has a sharp analysis of Petrilli’s almost “mea culpa.”

She does not forgive him for serving as a loud cheerleader for Common Core, testifying to its merit even in states that had standards that were far superior to those of CCSS.

The title of her post sums up her distaste for his newfound insight that “poverty matters.”

“Common Core Salesman Michael Petrilli: *Economics Affect NAEP, But Stay the Ed-Reform Course.”

She does not forget nor forgive TBF’s ardent advocacy for the ineffectual Common Core Standards. She refers to TBF as “Common Core Opportunists.”

Schneider accuses Petrilli of cherry-picking the data so that he can eke out some credit for standards-testing-accountability by overlooking the irrelevance of CCSS and the big gains before the era of Corporate Reform:

Moreover, for as much as Petrilli pushed CCSS in its 2010 – 2013 heyday, he is notably silent on the CCSS lack of connection in his October 2019 NAEP score analysis. Petrilli only mentions CCSS one time, and there is certainly no encouragement to further examine any connection between his Gates-purchased CCSS push and NAEP subgroup scores.

Petrilli had yet another opportunity to do so in his 2017 “Lost Decade” piece about NAEP scores from 2007 to 2017, which Petrilli links to in his October 2019 report. No mention of CCSS at all.

It is noteworthy that Petrilli’s “lost decade” begins with 2007, the year that NCLB was supposed to be reauthorized, but lawmakers could not seem to make that happen; the bipartisan honeymoon that produced NCLB had apparently ended.

NAEP scores soared prior to NCLB and continued to do so for several years after NCLB authorization in 2001, but then came a leveling off, and for all of TBF’s selling of a CCSS, the NAEP “lost decade” continued.

Petrilli does not bother to consider whether the standards-and assessments push has negatively impacted NAEP scores. Instead, he assumes that pre-NCLB IASA was the beginning of “the real revolution.”

No word why that standards-and-testing “revolution” has not continued to raise NAEP scores even though standards-and assessments continue to be the end-all, be-all of American K12 education.

However, in convoluted and contradictory fashion, Petrilli does include standards and assessments in the NAEP-subgroup-score-raising “secret sauce,” even though he has already spent the bulk of his argument justifying the mid-1990-to-2010 NAEP subgroup-score rise as related to improved economic conditions for school children.

So, NAEP subgroup score rises appear to be correlated with socioeconomics, but a slice of credit must also go to the standards-and-assessments push, but not beginning with NCLB, sooner than that– 1994– but let’s ignore rising NAEP scores of Black students in the 1970s and 1980s.

Schneider contrasts Petrilli’s newfound appreciation for the importance of economic conditions with his deeply ingrained commitment to the Bush-Obama “test-and-punish” regime, in an article published just a few weeks ago:

Here’s Petrilli again, this time from September 23, 2019, Phi Delta Kappan, in a piece entitled, “Stay the Course on Standards and Accountability”:

So what kind of changes do we now hope to see in practice?

Here’s how we might put it: By raising standards and making the state assessments tougher, we hope that teachers will raise their expectations for their students. That means pitching their instruction at a higher level, giving assignments that ask children to stretch, and lengthening the school day or year for kids who need more time to reach the higher standards.

Gotta love the “we.” Must be the royal “we” because it sure is not “we” as in “we who work directly with children.”

For all of his promotion of “accountability,” Petrilli is accountable to no one– a hypocrisy with which he is apparently comfortable enough to “stay the course.”

 

 

 

Categories Accountability, ALEC, Charter Schools, Common Core, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Education Reform, Gates Foundation, Bill Gates, NAEP, NCLB (No Child Left Behind), Privatization, Race to the Top, School Choice, Testing

Carol Burris: Federal Analysis Finds No Difference in Performance Between Charter Schools and Public Schools

By dianeravitch
September 28, 2019 //
31

 

Carol Burris, executive director of the Network for Public Education, reports on a new federal analysis comparing charter schools and public schools.

She writes:

A recent report on school choice commissioned by the US Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) documented what we already know–the performance of students who attend charter schools is no better than the academic performance of those who attend true public schools.
 
The report based its findings on 4th and 8th grade NAEP scores. No school, public or charter, can test prep students for success on the NAEP, thus it is considered by many to be the most reliable measure of student achievement.
 
In addition to a simple comparison of results, the researchers who prepared the report used regression analysis to control for the influence of parental education level on student achievement on the NAEP. This is important because it contradicts those who claim that charters do a better job at educating disadvantaged students, and that the equal academic performance between the two sectors is because public schools educate a more privileged population.  Parental education level has been shown repeatedly to have a significant effect on student achievement, even when controlling for SES. 
 
The report also told us that the percentage of students in private schools has dropped to 9% and homeschool enrollment has risen to 3%. Of the remaining 88%, 94% of all students are enrolled in true public schools, while 6% are enrolled in charter schools. 
 
The charter school sector can produce as many biased studies not subject to peer review as they like, but studies from objective sources consistently produce the same results–charters, despite their creaming of students and “freedom” do no better than true public schools. Ironically, this one was commissioned by the US Department of Education led by Betsy DeVos. 
 

—

Carol Burris

Executive Director
Network for Public Education
Categories Accountability, Betsy DeVos, Charter Schools, Education Industry, Education Reform, NAEP, Privatization, School Choice, Testing, U.S. Department of Education

New Orleans: Test Scores Stall Below State Average, Teacher Retention At Crisis Level

By dianeravitch
August 16, 2019 //
7

The New Orleans myth continues to crumble, despite efforts by privatizers to call it a miracle.

The latest state scores (LEAP) were released, and the scores in New Orleans stalled or dipped. While the state average held steady from 2018 to 2019, the proportion of students who reached “mastery” on state tests dropped from 32% to 30%.

New Orleans scores continue to rank significantly below state averages. Louisiana is one of the lowest-performing states in the nation on NAEP.

The few high-performing private charters have selective admissions. Most of the city’s private charter schools are far below the state average. Most of the city’s charters perform far below the city’s average.

Last year, an extraordinary 30% of NOLA teachers quit. The charter promoter New Schools for New Orleans says teachers should have more professional development and higher pay.

Although the privatization lobby likes to claim that test scores and graduation rates have miraculously improved since the district’s schools were privatized, there is no valid comparison because the enrollment before and after Hurricane Katrina is very different. Enrollment was about 62,000 before the storm, and 48,000 now. It is not only much smaller, but less impoverished, with less concentrated poverty. Many of the poorest families left NOLA and never returned.

Categories Education Reform, Fraud, Louisiana, NAEP, New Orleans, Teacher Shortage

Fresno: Low Scores, Great Students!

By dianeravitch
April 11, 2019 //
13

 

The boys’ volleyball team at Kepler Neighborhood School, mostly 7th and 8th graders, went for a run over a bridge near the school. They spotted a woman attempting suicide, dangling from the bridge. They raced to ask their coach what to do. He said, “Tell her that her life matters,” as he dialed 911.  The boys ran to the woman and told her again and again that her life matters, that people care about her, that she must not give up.

She pulled herself up. She did not commit suicide. The boys persuaded her to go on living.

According to the NAEP data, Fresno schools and students are among the lowest performing in the nation. Their scores are very low.

What do you think of those kids in Fresno now? Put another way, what do you think about using the scores to judge the worth of these boys?

Categories California, Character, Citizenship, Education Reform, Goodness, NAEP, Testing

Paul Thomas: The Big Lie About the “Science of Reading”

By dianeravitch
February 20, 2019 //
94

 

Paul Thomas of Furman University in South Carolina reminds us that “the crisis in reading”  is a staple of American educational history. Every generation complains that young kids are not learning to read.it began long before Rudolf Flesch’s best seller “Why Johnny Can’t Read” in the 1950s.

Jeanne  Chall, Reading specialist at Harvard and experienced kindergarten teacher, explored the mystery of reading in her book “Learning to Read: The Great Debate,” 1967, where she recommended early use of phonics, them a transition to engaging reading.

The National Reading Panel (1997) popularized the idea of a “science of reading,” and the myth refuses to die.NCLB codified it into law, but the “crisis” persisted.

Thomas exposes The Big Lie.

Mississippi is the latest example of a state falsely claiming that it has used the “science of reading” to raise scores.

Mississippi hasn’t broken the code. Neither has Florida.

Thomas writes:

“The “science of reading” mantra is a Big Lie, but it is also a huge and costly distraction from some real problems.

“Relatively affluent states still tend to score above average or average on reading tests; relatively poor states tend to score below average on reading tests.

“Some states that historically scored low, under the weight of poverty and the consequences of conservative political ideology that refuses to address that poverty, have begun to implement harmful policies to raise test scores (see the magenta highlighting) in the short-term for political points.

“It is 2019. There is no reading crisis in the way the “science of reading” advocates are claiming.

“It is 2019. Balanced literacy is the science of reading, but it is not the most common way teachers are teaching reading because schools are almost exclusively trying to raise scores, not students who are eager, joyful, and critical readers.

“It is 2019. Political and public efforts to do anything—often the wrong thing—so no one addresses poverty remain the American Way.

“It is 2019. It is still mostly about poverty when people insist it is about reading and reading policy.”

 

 

 

 

Categories Accountability, Lies, Mississippi, NAEP, NCLB (No Child Left Behind), Research

The Letter I Wrote about Changing NAEP Achievement Levels: You Should Write One Too!

By dianeravitch
September 20, 2018 //
39

The National Assessment Governing Board, the federal agency in charge of the NAEP assessments, is aware that the achievement levels (Basic, Proficient, Advanced) are being misused. They are considering tinkering with the definitions of the levels. NAGB has invited the public to express its views. Below is my letter. If you want to weigh in, please write to NAEPALSpolicy@ed.gov and Peggy.Carr@ed.gov. Responses must be received by September 30.

My letter:


Dear NAEP Achievement-Level-Setting Program,

As a former member of the National Assessment Governing Board, I am keenly interested in the improvement and credibility of the NAEP program.

I am writing to express my strong support for a complete rethinking of the NAEP “achievement levels.” I urge the National Assessment Governing Board to abandon the achievement levels, because they are technically unsound and utterly confusing to the public and the media. They serve no purpose other than to mislead the public about the condition of American education.

The achievement levels were adopted in 1992 for political reasons: to make the schools look bad, to convey simplistically to the media and the public that “our schools are failing.”

The public has never understood the levels. The media and prominent public figures regularly report that any proportion of students who score below “NAEP proficient” is failing, which is absurd. The two Common Core-aligned tests (PARCC and SBAC) adopted “NAEP Proficient” as their passing marks, and the majority of students in every state that use these tests have allegedly “failed,” because the passing mark is out of reach, as it will always be.

The National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) has stated clearly that “Proficient is not synonymous with grade level performance.” Nonetheless, public figures like Michelle Rhee (who was chancellor of the DC public schools) and Campbell Brown (founder of the website “The 74”) have publicly claimed that the proficiency standard of NAEP is the bar that ALL students should attain. They have publicly stated that American public education is a failure because there are many students who have not reached NAEP proficient.

In reality, there is only one state in the nation–Massachusetts–where as much as 50% of students have attained NAEP Proficient. No state has reached 100% proficient, and no state ever will.

When I served on NAGB for seven years, the board understood very well that proficient was a high bar, not a pass-fail mark. No member of the board or the staff expected that some day all students would attain “NAEP Proficient.” Yet critics and newspaper consistently use NAEP proficient as an indicator that “all students” should one day reach. This misperception has been magnified by the No Child Left Behind Act, which declared in law that all students should be “proficient” by the year 2014.

Schools have been closed, and teachers and principals have been fired and lost their careers and their reputations because their students were not on track to reach an impossible goal.

As you well know, panels of technical experts over the years have warned that the achievement levels were not technically sound, and that in fact, they are “fatally flawed.” They continue to be “fatally flawed.” They cannot be fixed because they are in fact arbitrary and capricious. The standards and the process for setting them have been criticized by the General Accounting Office, the National Academy of Sciences, and expert psychometricians.

Whether using the Angoff Method or the Bookmarking Method or any other method, there is no way to set achievement levels that are sound, valid, reliable, and reasonable. If the public knew that the standards are set by laypersons using their “best judgment,” they would understand that the standards are arbitrary. It is time to admit that the standard-setting method lacks any scientific validity.

When they were instituted in 1992, their alleged purpose was to make NAEP results comprehensible to the general public. They have had the opposite effect. They have utterly confused the public and presented a false picture of the condition and progress of American education.

As you know, when Congress approved the achievement levels in 1992, they were considered experimental. They have never been approved by Congress, because of the many critiques of their validity by respected authorities.

My strong recommendation is that the board acknowledge the fatally flawed nature of achievement levels. They should be abolished as a failed experiment.

NAGB should use scale scores as the only valid means of conveying accurate information about the results of NAEP assessments.

Thank you for your consideration,

Diane Ravitch
NAGB, 1997-2004
Ph.D.
New York University

ALSO:

The National Superintendents Roundtable wrote a letter.

I urge you to read this here.

The letter documents the many scholarly studies criticizing the NAEP achievement levels.

Here is an excerpt:

“NAGB hired a team of evaluators in 1990 to study the process involved in developing the three levels. A year later the evaluators were fired after their draft report concluded that the process “must be viewed as insufficiently tested and validated, politically dominated, and of questionable credibility.”

“In 1993, the U.S. General Accounting Office labeled the standard-setting process as “procedurally flawed” producing results of “doubtful accuracy.”

“In 1999, the National Academy of Sciences reported the achievement-level setting procedures were flawed: “difficult and confusing . . . internally inconsistent . . . validity evidence for the cut scores is lacking . . . and the process has produced unreasonable results.”

“Shortly after No Child Left Behind was signed into law in 2001, Robert Linn, past president of the American Educational Association and of the National Council on Measurement in Education, and former editor of the Journal of Educational Measurement called the “target of 100% proficient or above according to the NAEP standards is more like wishful thinking than a realistic possibility.”

“In 2007, researchers concluded that fully a third of high school seniors who completed calculus, the best students with the best teachers in the country, could not clear the proficiency bar. Moreover, they added, fully 50 percent of those who scored “basic” in twelfth grade math had achieved a bachelor’s degree (a proportion comparing favorably with four-year degree rates at public universities).

“The Buros Institute, named after the father of Mental Measurements Yearbook, criticized the lack of a validity framework for NAEP assessment scores in 2009 and recommending continuing “to explore achievement level methodologies.”

“Fully 30 percent of 12th-graders who completed calculus were deemed to be less than proficient, said a Brookings Institution scholar in 2016, a figure that jumped to 69 percent for pre-calculus students and 92 percent for students who completed trigonometry and Algebra I. These data “defy reason” and “refute common sense,” he concluded.

“Finally, the NAS study to which the proposed rule responds took note in 2016 of the “controversy and disagreement around the achievement levels, noting that Congress has insisted since 1994 that the achievement levels are to be used on a trial basis until on objective evaluation determined them to be “reasonable, reliable, valid, and informative to the public.”

“In the Roundtable’s judgment, such an objective evaluation has yet to be completed and a determination that the achievement levels are “reasonable, reliable, valid, and informative to the public” has yet to be seen.

“Linking studies conclude most students in most nations cannot clear “proficiency” bar

“The Roundtable points also to research studies dating from 2007 to 2018 indicating NAEP’s proficiency bar is beyond the reach of most students in most nations. When Gary Phillips of the American Institutes of Research (and former Acting Commissioner of NCES) asked how students in other nations would perform if their international assessment results were expressed in terms of NAEP achievement levels, his results were sobering. The results demonstrated that just three nations (Singapore, the Republic of Korea, and Japan) would have a majority of their students clear the NAEP bar in 8th-grade mathematics, while Singapore alone could meet that standard (more than 50% of students clearing the bar) in science.

“Subsequently Hambleton, Sireci, and Smith (2007) and also Lim and Sireci (2017) reached conclusions similar to those of Phillips.”

The fact is that “NAEP proficiency” is an impossible goal for most students. To recognize that does not lower standards. It acknowledges common sense.

Not every runner will ever run a four-minute mile. Some will. Most wont.

Categories Common Core, NAEP, Testing

Tennessee: Governor Says State May Drop Questar, Hire ETS for Annual Tests

By dianeravitch
May 15, 2018 //
21

[Testing expert Fred Smith points out that Questar is owned by ETS. Much ado about nothing.]

Tennessee Governor Haslam says the state may drop Questar, its exam vendor, because of three straight years of problems with the state tests.

The contract may go to ETS, he said.

One positive note in the testing failure is that data won’t be available to assign low-scoring schools to the failed and ineffectual “Achievement School District.”

Tennessee likes to boast about how it moved from the cellar on NAEP to the middle, but the article cited here was written before the release of NAEP 2017, where scores in the state mostly declined compared to 2015.

Categories NAEP, Tennessee, Testing

New Mexico: Democratic Candidates Want to Reverse Skandera Policies—and They Should

By dianeravitch
May 10, 2018 //
16

Last night, three candidates for the Democratic nomination for governor in New Mexico debated, and the woeful state of education was a major issue. All three pledged to reverse the policies of Hanna Skandera, who was brought to the state by conservative Governor Susana Martinez to impose Jeb Bush’s punitive Florida model of high-stakes testing for teachers, Common Core, and choice. After seven years in office, Skandera stepped down and was replaced by a TFA alum, Chris Rutkowski.

I spoke in Santa Fe a few weeks ago and told a large audience that New Mexico is at the very bottom of the nation on NAEP, vying with Mississippi for 50th, but #1 in child poverty, 5 percentage points worse than Mississippi. During Skandera’s seven years, she targeted teachers as the biggest problem and imposed a harsh teacher evaluation system that is currently tied up in court. During her tenure, New Mexico did not see any improvement at all on NAEP, not in any grade or subject. The Florida model failed.

Her successor hailed the teacher evaluation system, which found more than 30% of the state’s teachers “ineffective,” but he did not suggest where the state might find new teachers if he fired them all (which he can’t do since the whole evaluation program has been enjoined by a judge). The state has low salaries and a teacher shortage. Punishment is not the appropriate response from the top education official.

The problem in New Mexico is not teachers but poor leadership and a lack of a positive vision to solve the state’s problems and improve the lives of families and children.

Categories Florida, NAEP, New Mexico, Poverty
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »