IDEA Is Still The Law Of The Land

Unless you've been living under a rock, you know the US Department of Education (USDOE) rescinded 72 Dear Colleague and other letters of explanation to state education agencies regarding special education. 

Dear Colleague or guidance letters clarify a point in the law. In this case, we're talking about Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Generally, these letters are issued because state education agencies ask for clarification of the law. As advocates, we want this because we don't want local school districts misinterpreting or ignoring the law. Children get hurt when this happens. 

USDOE does, from time to time, "clean house," but as far as I can tell, this many at once is rare. They are removed because new guidance or new regulations replace them. In and of itself, removal is not a bad thing.

It's really difficult to not be skeptical of anything that happens under DeVos' tenure. Her general ignorance of the law, feigned or not, is reason enough to be on guard. 

When the department released the original list of rescinded letters, there was no explanation for their deletion. Later, they did release another list along with a brief comment about why. By that time, I had been through a good portion of the list and was able to cross-reference what I had already found. 

The majority of letters that I could find (not all were listed with a link) were, in fact, outdated. Many had been replaced with either new or updated guidance, or by changes in the law. In the case of letters about how money should be spent, those pertained to fiscal years that are past. 

A couple of things stood out to me. 

First, the guidance letters on transition and vocational training (not IDEA-specific). The federal program related to those letters no longer exists. Further guidance and programs do exist under Office of Disability Employment Policy, which falls under the US Department of Labor. It's clear, the need exists for those kinds of programs in high school, and to age 21. Certainly, NJ could use a much bigger emphasis on trades and vocational training for students with disabilities...and really, students without. 

The other issue is the letter about Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) in preschool. The 2012 letter was replaced in January 2017 with a lot of language about "inclusion" before they got to what is essentially a re-hash of the rescinded 2012 letter about what LRE actually means. To me, this letter is confusing and problematic because it promotes "inclusion" and then reminds everyone of LRE, like it's an afterthought.

I know from my own experiences with parents around the state that local districts either don't understand LRE, or use it as an excuse to provide only inclusion settings to all but the most severely disabled. What causes that ignorance, willful or otherwise, is anyone's guess. Mine would be a caustic mix of lack of funding available to districts and administrators doing as little as possible while hoping parents don't know better. Yes. I'm very, very cynical about LRE. 


What's important to remember.

Please keep in mind that any guidance letter that is rescinded and replaced, or not replaced, but regulation is still in effect, does not change the compliance requirements of IDEA. Those letters are merely further clarification of statute or regulation, usually brought on by a significant level of clarification requests from state agencies. IDEA remains in effect...at least for now. 


As always, if I have missed something, please let me know in the comments below or via PM. 

New Jersey's Insider Special Education Ombudsman

Yesterday, the New Jersey Department of Education (NJDOE) announced the appointment of an acting Special Education Ombudsman. You can read the press release here. It's taken an impressive ten months to fill this position which was officially announced in August 2016 with an Amended Notice of Vacancy (I wrote about that here), having been signed into law by Governor Christie in January 2016. 

When the bill was first introduced in November 2015 by Senator Ruiz to the NJ Senate Education Committee, she did so knowing the Governor would not support a Public Advocate. In other words, there was no support for a truly independent advocate for students with disabilities in the state of New Jersey. Understanding that many families face significant obstacles to identification, evaluation, classification, and placement/services, the Special Education Ombudsman position was created. 

At the time, I plead with the Committee to not create this position if it would only be another roadblock or hurdle for parents and students to navigate. We don't need another office tasked with providing "information" about services. We need someone to enforce the law.

Once the Ombudsman bill was signed into law, I asked to have the position report to somewhere else other than NJDOE. The NJ Department of Justice was floated and ultimately rejected. The position would be in and report to NJDOE. 

Sen. Ruiz said she expected the person chosen to be objective. Great. Glad to hear it. However, anyone who has spent time as a special ed parent or advocate can attest to the difficulty of securing proper services in this state. It doesn't matter what the demographics of the district are, grossly negligent underfunding has impacted everyone. 

In the spirit of Senator Ruiz's intention, an independent and objective person, whom did Kimberley Harrington, Commissioner of Education for the State of New Jersey, choose? Dr. Dolores Walther, an investigator with NJDOE's Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). While Dr. Walther may be the most competent person on the planet, she is certainly not an independent and objective agent. 

I'm sure to catch a lot of heat for that opinion, but when districts don't fulfill their responsibilities, and OSEP behaves as an agent for the districts, an ombudsman that is and has been a part of OSEP is not going to be helpful to the people who need a truly independent ombudsman. 

Parents and students deserved so much better than this. I certainly hope the next governor will consider a true Public Advocate. 

Inclusion and What It Means From Our Kids' Point of View

It's that time of year. Graduations. So much possibility. For many high school students it means college, for some it means entering the trades or training programs. For a very few, it means entering transition programs, hopefully, pursuing what they love. This time of year also means graduation from college, and for some, from those transition programs. 

I have a guest post today. It's from a dear friend whose daughter is an incredibly talented young woman who also happens to have a disability. She's very lucky in her parents, who have tirelessly fought to provide her with support to pursue her passion for music. As she graduates from Berkshire Hills Music Academy (BHMA), she enters into the "cliff" phase of life for people with disabilities. The next fight is to find a place where her talents are not just appreciated, but celebrated. That is no small task. 

I'll warn you to have a box of tissues handy as you read my friend's post and watch the video of her daughter's speech at graduation. 

What a day yesterday ...so full of possibility.

Today we are back home, still basking in Julia's accomplishments, but also wondering, how to make it all possible. How to help her fulfill her dream.

After listening to the 15 BHMA graduate's speak about, their struggles, fears and now, their accomplishments....you can only see how important it is, to educate, support, give opportunities and include. 

What we were reassured, after hearing them, is that they may be differently abled, but they are surely ABLE.

The Keynote speaker was Dan Habib, photojournalist and documentarian (award-winning film Including Samuel). (See his TEDTalk on inclusion here.)

As father of a disabled child, he spoke from the heart about Inclusion.He relayed how he has seen firsthand how his son's presence has brought out the better in those around him and how at the same time his life has been enriched with the interaction.

As a parent of a special needs child, our learning comes every day, with every moment. Although it's no easy road, it's one full of reward, when accomplishment comes. Yet, it's difficult to do it alone. All we want is for our children to have opportunities and acceptance. Not much to ask, you say?... in reality, difficult to achieve.

As our speaker said (and I'm paraphrasing) having these special individuals participate in our communities fully, will makes us all better for it .As you will hear firsthand from Julia, to some it may come as a surprise, that our "Happy" girl, who is known, for always having a beautiful smile on her face, at times that smile , was not in her heart.

I ask you all to help us and commit to continuing to together build a stronger caring community with INCLUSION.

Here is Julia's speech Now take out the tissue box....#inclusion #differentlyabled #danhabib #bhma

Another Loss for Paterson Students

NorthJersey.com reports that online speech therapy is up next for students with disabilities in the Paterson School District. This, after the Education Law Center filed a complaint against the district for not delivering services to students with Individual Education Plans. 

Imagine having online services in place of having a therapist in the room with the students in Ridgewood or Princeton or Saddle River. You can't? I can't either. This is the latest hit to some of New Jersey's most vulnerable students. 

53 students in School 18, an elementary school, will be the test subjects for this program. I cannot support using a service that separates the student from a therapist. Students need to have the therapist in the room with them, directly interacting with them, and providing feedback that includes body language. 

How does this work for the student who needs feeding therapy? What about students with intellectual disabilities? What about those who need to be in a group setting for social skills support? I could keep going on, but you get the idea. There are so many basic limitations to having a therapist deliver services through a computer. 

Why is Paterson not hiring speech therapists? It's not like there's a shortage in New Jersey. Is the practice by many districts of only hiring though agencies (to save money) getting in the way? Does the cancellation of Paterson's contract with Kid Clan prevent them somehow from entering into a contract with a new agency? Why the drop in appropriated funds for special ed in the 2017-18 school year? 

Paterson Public Schools is a state controlled district, which makes it particularly galling that the state continues to underfund this district. All students suffer when there aren't sufficient funds to properly manage students' needs. In Paterson, the special ed kids must endure another failure to meet those needs.

Our kids deserve so much better than this. 

What Will Happen To Special Education?

Yet another reason to be concerned about Jeff Sessions as US Attorney General. Special Education. Back in 2000, when he was an Alabama state senator (formerly the state's attorney general), Sessions made an utterly ignorant, and now potentially dangerous, statement about special education and the federal law which guarantees the rights of students with disabilities, the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA). You can read his whole statement here. 

It's difficult to pull quotes out of the text because the entire statement is so heinous. Yes, students with disabilities have rights. No, those rights, and those exercising those rights are not "a big factor in accelerating the decline in civility and discipline in classrooms all over America." The disqualifier at the beginning of that paragraph does not excuse the ridiculousness of the statement either. So glad to hear that he didn't want to end IDEA.

Sessions quotes parts of letters written to him by teachers who are frustrated by their students and what they described as problems with the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA). While I am sure there are teachers who are frustrated by what they see in their schools, to blame students with disabilities for those frustrations is absurd. 

Sessions does give a nod to the lack of funding associated with IDEA. It has never been fully funded, nor has it come close to the goal of 40% funded. Ever. He should have been railing against a system that purposely defunds, or underfunds, education mandates, no matter whom they directly affect. To blame the students and IDEA is absurd. 

As I read through Sessions' statement and the statements by teachers, I saw what, in my opinion, is violation after violation of those students' rights. IDEA is not a permission slip for students to behave badly. It does not prevent "discipline." It does not require students to be mainstreamed with their neurotypical peers. 

What IDEA does do is requires states, and therefore school districts, to place students in a Least Restrictive Environment (LRE). It requires them to conduct Functional Behavior Analyses, using those results to create Behavior Plans for exactly the scenarios which are described in Sessions' statement. This is not rocket science. This appears to have been completely lost on every one of those teachers and their administrators and Sessions. It also appears to be lost on these people that wrong classroom settings, inappropriate placements, and lack of services contribute to inappropriate behavior - in any setting. 

Before someone piles on here, yes, there are students, unfortunately, who do act out and have no self-regulation or control. God bless the teachers and paras who teach and assist them. It is a reality. However, it should not be happening in a general education setting. LRE does not mean a general education, mainstreamed setting. LRE means providing the best environment for that student. It's a simple concept that is grossly misused. 

I was astonished at the claims that teachers are leaving the profession because of lawsuits brought by special education parents. The statement implies parents are going after teachers. That's not how the law works. It's absurd to state that as though it is fact. 

The last story is from a superintendent. He laments not being able to mete out similar discipline to two students who brought weapons to school. One student, with no disability, was given a 1-year suspension. The other student, with a disability and IEP, was placed for 45 days in an alternate school setting before returning to his regular school. 

I'm twitching as I write this because I cannot believe the rank stupidity of this decades-long educator. IDEA has an entire section dedicated to discipline (Sec. 300.530). In fact, there's even a section on weapons. He most certainly could have suspended that student with an IEP for 1-year, just like the first student. His own ignorance of the law made for the inequity. Further, it made his reference to Animal Farm ("All are equal, but some are more equal than others.") even more inappropriate. 

It also demonstrates that Sessions, as Alabama's former attorney general, either didn't know the law, or he knew and used this sorry excuse of a story to fortify his position that special education is ruining public education and teachers' careers. Shame on them both! 

Unbelievably, the superintendent continues with this ditty: "I became a teacher in 1965 and I do not remember hearing of gun shootings prior to 1975 when Congress began telling ten percent of our students you are not responsible." Gaslighting at its best, folks. When in doubt make an absurd claim, based on nothing, and blame it on the special ed kid. Disgusting. 

Sessions ended his abhorrent statement with this: "I think these teachers make a point. It is a matter we need to give careful consideration to, not overreact, not undermine the great principles of the Disabilities Act Program. But at the same time, we need to say that a child is not allowed to commit crimes, to disrupt classroom, to curse teachers, principals and students, and abuse them and do so with impunity."

Again, that is not what IDEA actually says. You'd think a state attorney general would know that. What will the enforcement of IDEA look like under a US Attorney General who doesn't know the law? Or, perhaps worse, one who does know the law and ignores it?



Edit to add: Valerie Strauss at The Washington Post republished part of this blog in her column Answer Sheet: Trump’s pick for attorney general once linked special education law to ‘decline in civility’ in classrooms. Thank you to Valerie!

New Jersey's Special Education Ombudsman

On August 2nd, the New Jersey Department of Education (NJDOE) released an Amended Notice of Vacancy for the new position of an Education Program Development Specialist 3 (Ombudsman). You can read the details here. This is a position State Senator Ruiz, Chair of the State Senate Education Committee, had actually wanted to be a Public Advocate. In the world of New Jersey politics, however, that desire got turned into a much watered down Ombudsman position within NJDOE. 

When Senator Ruiz introduced bill S451 which created the position, well over a year ago, I happened to be at the Committee meeting. I was uncharacteristically unprepared, but provided testimony anyway. I told the Committee, parents and students don't need another hoop to jump through. We have a difficult enough time securing classification and services without having yet another obstacle. If the Senator was serious about this position being autonomous, with the actual power to effectively provide help, then great, we need the help. If she couldn't deliver a truly autonomous position, then we don't need it. Senator Ruiz said her hope for the position also encompassed the ability to bring together, or at least help parents identify, the help of other New Jersey agencies, like NJ Division of Developmental Disabilities. The bill passed through the Senate and Assembly and on January 19, 2016, the Governor signed it into law. 

Following its passing, I reached out to Senator Ruiz's office hoping to find a reporting line that was not inside NJDOE. It was suggested the position be housed in NJDOE, but reporting to the NJ Department of Justice. It certainly sounded like the most reasonable way to keep the position from becoming an internal NJDOE position. It was a way to maintain a certain level of autonomy. The idea, apparently, went into a black hole and seven months later we have an Education Program Development Specialist reporting directly into NJDOE. *sigh*

Now, instead of having an advocate for parents and students, we have another staffer at NJDOE. Their job? From the official description:

Under general direction of a manager in the Office of Special Education Programs, the Ombudsman supervises the design, production, and delivery of curricula, training, program improvement, and related education services to education agencies to ensure achievement of mandated goals and to meet existing and emerging needs; performs mandated regulatory functions; performs professional work with minimal supervision in monitoring and evaluation of education programs in school districts statewide. 

Got that? The Ombudsman works for Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) within NJDOE and for an unspecified manager. They are doing all kinds of work that has nothing to do with supporting parents and students in their quest for classification and services, as a public advocate would have. The description goes on:

The Ombudsman may be responsible for the provision of information and communication strategies to parents, students, educators and interested members of the public regarding the special education process, supports, evaluations and services according to State and federal laws and regulations governing special education in a pleasant, positive and efficient manner; performs work of a professional nature in a confidential manner with utmost fidelity; does other related duties.

Got that? This person will tell you what the special ed regs are. Seriously? Isn't that what OSEP already does? Isn't that what SPAN and virtually every other disability-related group in the state already do? 

We know what the regs say. We just don't have anyone willing to enforce them! Not OSEP, not OCR. What we need is an actual Public Advocate. As with everything related to education in this state, it looks like we will be waiting a long time (read: when we get a new Governor) before we get that position. 

Yes, Social Impact Bonds. Again.

I've written about Social Impact Bonds, aka, Pay for Success (PFS) before. You can read those blog posts here, here, and here. I provided testimony on Pay for Success to the US Department of Education (USDOE) in Washington DC at the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) hearings. That testimony you can find here. 

This past Friday, August 19th, USDOE announced a Preschool Pay For Success grant competition. Instead of, y'know, actually funding a preschool initiative, USDOE has set aside $2.8 million dollars to go to "7 to 14 grantees" who will have the great privilege of conducting feasibility studies, not on the effectiveness of high quality preschool (we already know that works), but on the effectiveness of PFS. States will have to go out and find partners and then use the USDOE money to fund studies...studies which one really hopes states would have done on their own anyway. 

"The ultimate aim of the pilot is to improve early learning outcomes through a future high-quality Pay for Success project by providing grants for feasibility studies. However, the pilot does not fund the implementation of preschool services. Preschool programs that are the focus of these feasibility studies must be inclusive of children with disabilities and the Pilot will also establish safeguards to protect the rights of children with disabilities to ensure that they receive the services they need." (emphasis mine)

Who knows? Maybe they were listening to me last January. I'm very interested to see what those "safeguards" are beyond what the law already prescribes, because that shouldn't be ignored under any circumstances. Right? 

To backtrack for a second, there are Preschool Development Grants (and Expansion Grants) available through USDOE. In 2014, several states, including New Jersey, received those grants. Here's a brochure from the program. You'll notice that "high quality" programs are necessary for receiving the 2-year grant. 

Now, take a look at the program description for Pay For Success. 

"This pilot does not limit feasibility studies to programs that meet the definition of “high-quality” preschool used by the Preschool Development Grants (PDG) program in its 2014 grant competition in order to allow the PFS demonstrations to demonstrate high-quality in different ways, including through the impacts that the pilots are able to achieve. In this way, such projects could further develop the evidence-base of programs that are demonstrated to be effective." (emphasis mine)

*Sigh* Let's understand that statement for a moment. USDOE recognizes that "high quality" preschool programs are necessary and work. They are trying to find a way to help out their friends in the banking sector by attempting to justify the use of Pay For Success programs while also desiring successful outcomes for students. They want to demonstrate the cheaper-for-the-taxpayer-to-achieve-great-results-ness of PFS, but the studies USDOE will be paying for do NOT need to include "high quality" preschool programs. 

Surely there's a really good reason for that, I am, though, currently at a complete loss of what that might be. Anyone from USDOE is free to shoot me an email at any time. Or, maybe Mike Hynes can ask John King when he finally is granted an audience.

I'll simply say, Pay For Success is a terrible idea. In this context, our children's education is at stake. There has been a specific narrative from those pushing these programs. It's unconscionable that Pay For Success is sitting in the middle of a federal education law. I'm not alone in that thinking. 

Yesterday, Kenneth Saltman published an article called "Wall Street's Latest Public Sector Ripoff: Five Myths About Pay For Success" and it's a doozy. Please take the time to read it. I'll give you a teaser on Saltman's reason for the existence of PFS programs:

"Banks love Pay for Success because they can profit massively from it and invest money with high returns at a time of a glut of capital and historically low interest rates. Politicians (especially rightist democrats) love Pay for Success because they can claim to be expanding public services without raising taxes or issuing bonds and will only have the public pay for “what works.” Elite universities and corporate philanthropies love Pay for Success because they support “innovation” and share an ethos that only the prime beneficiaries of the current economy, the rich, can save the poor."

In the context of preschool and how PFS has been used to theoretically lower the rate of special education classification of children entering kindergarten, I could not agree more (and I said as much, months ago) with this: 

"Who is authorized to develop the metrics, what is their expertise, what are their interests, and how do they assess the rules they set in place?; To whom are those legislating the accountability measurements accountable? The scientism of metrics obscures these kinds of questions. Accountability should be a part of educational projects but not through restricted metrics that conceal the broader politics informing the project. Rather, accountability should be in a form in which knowledge is comprehended in relation to how subjectivity is formed through broader social forces and in ways in which learning can form the basis for collective action to expand egalitarian and just social relations."

If your state is entertaining using Social Impact Bonds/Pay For Success to pay for preschool, please, I beg you, have those conversations with your legislators. Know exactly who is determining the criteria for success and how the money will be paid back and to whom. 

NJ State Board of Ed Ignores Public Testimony

If the New Jersey Department of Education (NJDOE) and the New Jersey State Board of Ed (NJSBOE) are not listening to the public, who are they listening to? What is their reaction to all of our testimony? NJDOE provided responses to testimony when they released the August 3rd agenda and this is what stood out for me.

In some cases they simply disagreed and said so. In other cases, they had some interesting citations to back up their claims related to validity. And, for the special education-related comments, clarification of just who is in control of the graduation requirements for students with IEPs.

One comment, in particular, stuck out (besides the ones that were aimed at me) because the testimony belonged to Dr. Eric Milou, a Rowan University professor, recipient of the Max Sobel Outstanding Mathematics Educator Award, former president of Association of Mathematics Teachers of New Jersey (AMTNJ) and the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. This is exactly the kind of education professional this board should have been listening to, but this is their response:

40. COMMENT: The commenter stated there is no evidence the PARCC assessment is an improvement over previous standardized tests, raises student performance, provides useful diagnostic information, or indicates career or college readiness.  The commenter also stated only rigorous curriculum, instruction, and the use of formative assessments will have a significant impact on student educational success. (99)

RESPONSE: Several studies (e.g., National Network of State Teachers of the Year, 2015; Massachusetts Executive Office of Education, 2015; Center for American Progress, 2016; Fordham/Human Resources Research Organization, 2016; American Institutes for Research, 2016) have supported PARCC as an accurate measure of college and career readiness and endorsed PARCC as an improvement over previous assessments.

Dr. Milou got right to the heart of what's wrong with standardized tests in general and what's wrong with PARCC specifically. It doesn't actually provide the information that's being claimed. As we pour millions of tax dollars into a highly flawed testing system, shouldn't it, at the very least, do what NJDOE claims? Shouldn't someone, somewhere, define what college and career ready means?

Also relevant is how you go about determining validity and whom you choose to document those claims. Isn't that what we're allegedly trying to help our kids navigate? Knowing who is behind the research supporting your arguments, so you understand and account for undo influence? That's really important stuff, right?

Well, in this case, NJDOE is relying on information from sources that I would consider to be questionable because of where their funding comes from. I'm not going to tip-toe around that because when the same very deep pockets are quietly funding organizations that people trust, we all need to know where those organizations are coming from. I want data, information, opinions, from places where a particular and singular influence can be accounted for. In this case, NJDOE is clearly very happy with anything funded by the Gates Foundation. An entity with a very singular focus on the privatization of US public schools, on Common Core State Standards, and on the associated testing, like PARCC. Nothing the Gates Foundation does or supports is friendly to PUBLIC education. 

Let's look at who NJDOE and NJSBOE are listening to:

National Network of State Teachers of the Year (NNSTOY) From the Gates Foundation website: in 2015, NNSTOY was awarded a $1,000,000 grant "to improve student learning across the nation by defining, sharing and advocating for effective teaching practices and policies." 

NJDOE didn't bother to name any of the studies to which they refer, but I'll presume they are talking about "The Right Trajectory" study released earlier this year. Twenty-three Teachers of the Year took a look at PARCC, SBAC, NJASK, NECAP, DCAS, and ISAT at the 5th grade level. They applied Webb's DOK, along with other tools of assessing the level of challenge in each of the tests. The problem is, given how the questions were asked, they didn't appear to actually apply what they found. It reads more like an opinion questionnaire - which would be fine if you weren't trotting it out as evidence of validity. The study does not demonstrate PARCC as "an accurate measure of college and career readiness."

I was not familiar with this particular study and it's interesting to see what these teachers thought of the construct of these tests and, possibly, their usefulness. That said, there is nothing in the study that speaks to the validity of using PARCC to assess college and career readiness as a high school exit exam. I would argue the simple fact that they only looked a 5th grade, and they specifically left out consideration of students with disabilities, means the scope of the study doesn't include anything that supports college and career ready at the high school level. The study's conclusion is that PARCC is more challenging than NJASK. Ok. I'm good with that. NJASK was never written as "deep skills and knowledge" test, so I wouldn't expect them to find it was. 

Center for American Progress (CAP) is a heavily Gates Foundation-funded entity. From the Gates Foundation website: Since 2008, up to June 2016, they have been awarded $8,998,810 for everything from "to support Common Core implementation" to "enhance degree completion for low-income young adults through the publishing of new policy papers, stakeholder engagement, and media outreach" to "continue researching, understanding and promoting better human capital policies to benefit all public school students and to tackle the implications of developing education reforms".   

I have no idea which study NJDOE refers to in their response. CAP has many "reports" on their website, but nothing that either compares PARCC to anything or demonstrates value in a high school exit exam. If anyone knows or has the study, please send it to me.

Fordham/Human Resources Research Organization (Thomas B. Fordham Institute and HUMRO). This was an interesting way to cite two different studies that worked in parallel. The studies looked at PARCC, 2014 MCAS, ACT Aspire, and SBAC. From the HUMRO study summary, "A parallel study was conducted by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute (hereafter referred to as Fordham), which implemented the [The National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment] Center’s methodology for grades 5 and 8 summative mathematics and ELA/literacy assessments. Taken together, HumRRO and Fordham were first to implement the Center’s evaluation methodology. HumRRO and Fordham conducted their studies separately; however, the two organizations communicated often about the evaluation methodology and collaborated on the steps to implement it." 

HumRRO also acknowledges who made their study possible: "This important work was possible from funding by the High Quality Assessment Project (HQAP), which supports state-based advocacy, communications, and policy work to help ensure successful transitions to new assessments that measure K–12 college- and career readiness standards. HQAP’s work is funded by a coalition of national foundations, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Lumina Foundation, the Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and the Helmsley Trust."  

I haven't poked into just how much money that is, but Thomas B. Fordham Institute has been awarded $5,214,650 between 2006 and 2015, "to support the activities of an emerging network of state level education advocacy organizations in support of a convening around strategic issues" and "for general operating support" and "to track state progress towards implementation of standards and to understand how what students read changes in response to the standards."  

Interesting to note the Fordham study looked at grades 5-8. Arguably, that has nothing to do with the validity of a high school exit exam for either math or English.

And, the HumRRO study looked at PARCC's PBA and EOY. New Jersey doesn't use their PBA (only the first year, after which they dropped it) and the EOY, starting this year, was allegedly some combo of the PBA and EOY. So what exactly has NJDOE extracted from a study that doesn't talk about PARCC in the form it actually uses?

American Institutes for Research (AIR) is also Gates Foundation-funded, although they are primarily focused on post-secondary education. Since 2009 they have been awarded $9,296,140 in grants. Since NJDOE didn't bother to name which AIR study they were referring to, I'll guess that it's the National Benchmarks for State Achievement Standards 2016 study. The purpose was to look at the quality of college and career ready standards in the test using grades 4 and 8.

From their "key findings," the standards for PARCC ELA are equivalent to NAEP "basic" and PARCC math is equivalent to NAEP "proficient."

Go to page 19 of the study and read the list of "caveats." My favorites?

"Second, in some states, some of the grade 8 mathematics students took an end-of-course test, such as Algebra 1. In this benchmarking study, this factor could have had the effect of making the state grade 8 mathematics standards appear higher."

"This should not be interpreted to mean that NAEP’s Proficient levels in grades 4 and 8 are the gold standards for deciding whether our students are on track to be ready for college. No evidence has been presented by NAEP that the proficient standard in grades 4 and 8 predicts college success."  

"Fifth, this report does not, in any way, address or evaluate the quality of the CCSS. The CCSS are content standards, while this report deals only with achievement standards. Content standards represent the curriculum that teachers should teach, and the scope and sequence of what students should learn in school. Achievement standards are cut-scores on the state test that represent performance expectations." Here's what Drs. Tienken, Sforza, and Kim found on the "quality" of CCSS. 

Again, grades 4 and 8 were used, not any of the high school grades. There is nothing to support the validity of college and career ready at high school level or as an exit exam. 

Massachusetts Executive Office of Education (MEOE) They are, presumably referring to the Mathematica study done last year, comparing MCAS and PARCC for MEOE. Why they didn't just say that, I have no idea. At this point, I have no idea why NJDOE does anything. Anyway, I saved this one for last because I've written about it and provided testimony that is contrary to how NJDOE has framed this study in their support of PARCC. You can read my whole piece here, but I will just share these two particular points in this post:

1. From “key findings” on page ix of the report, “Both the MCAS and PARCC predict college readiness. Scores on the assessments explain about 5 to 18 percent of the variation in first-year college grades…” What does this mean exactly? It means that 82 to 95 percent CANNOT be explained by the results of the PARCC test. 

2. Dr. William Mathis, managing director of the National Education Policy Center at the University of Colorado, former Deputy Assistant Commissioner for the state of New Jersey, Director of its Educational Assessment program, a design consultant for the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and for six states, had this to say about the Mathematica report in a Washington Post article on 27 May 2016, “A tour through the literature shows that predictive validity coefficients are quite low in general and commonly run in the 0.30’s. One conclusion is that the PARCC is just about as good as any other test — which is the report’s finding in regard to the MCAS. On the contrary, the more correct conclusion is that standardized tests can predict scores on other standardized tests (which this report confirms) but it cannot validly predict college readiness at any meaningful level.” 

You could probably write a book about how much these studies do NOT support using PARCC as a college and career high school exit exam. I think NJDOE and NJSBOE need a lesson in how to read studies like these and how to properly draw conclusions from them. 

I will say, again, that having public ed policy so constrained by standardization is nothing but lazy. It does not serve our children. It does not serve our society. I am furious that we all have to wait in hope of a Governor who will have much higher expectations of public education in New Jersey. And who understands that test scores are incredibly limited in their usefulness. Our kids deserve nothing less.

To: NJ State BOE: I Can't Believe We Still Have to Protest This Crap

Tomorrow, the New Jersey State of Education is taking its last public testimony on the use of PARCC as the graduation requirement. It took a long time to decide what to write about. What more can possibly be said that has not already been said by me and many, many others? A friend joked that he would simply state, "Please refer to my previous few testimonies" and then icily stare them down for the rest of the allotted speaking time. I was thinking along those lines, but this came out instead. 

1 June 2016New Jersey State Board of Education 
Testimony on PARCC for graduation requirement: I can’t believe we still have to protest this crap.

The title of this testimony is not meant to be disrespectful to this Board, merely a demonstration of my frustration with having to continually appear before this Board and provide testimony that will only fall on deaf ears. Whether that testimony is heartfelt, stemming from personal experiences that none of you currently sitting on this Board would have any first-hand knowledge of, because (1) you don’t have children in public school, and/or (2) you aren’t the parent of a student with a disability. There is barely a hint of recognition on your part that you are missing a great deal by not listening to and engaging with the actual stakeholders in this mess, namely, parents and their children. 

It also hasn’t mattered when testimony has been presented with hard facts and figures. Unbelievably, there appears to be no curiosity at all about why there is so much pushback on Common Core and PARCC testing. This isn’t just some little hiccup. This is a monumental policy failure that will impact schools, teachers, and students, actual people, for a very long time. Your response? Do more of the same. It is remarkably lazy policy.

So here it is. PARCC is a failure. All of that time and money for a failure. Last October, Mathematica released the results of a study comparing PARCC to MCAS, the Massachusetts state standardized test, and their predictive validity for college and career readiness. This is highly relevant since you are about to make PARCC the gatekeeper for a high school diploma in this state. The education policy that you endorse is only about that insipidly narrow focus on the yet undefined term “college and career ready” as determined by a score on PARCC.

The Mathematica study looked at Grade 10 Math II, Algebra II, and ELA. (Let me remind you here, that Drs. Tienken, Kim, and Sforza took a look at that grade in a study and found the Common Core Standards to be well below the former NJ standards. See my testimony from 10 February 2016. note: I wrote about it here.) The result, from “key findings” on page ix of the report, “Both the MCAS and PARCC predict college readiness. Scores on the assessments explain about 5 to 18 percent of the variation in first-year college grades…” What does this mean exactly? It means that 82 to 95 percent CANNOT be explained by the results of the PARCC test. So how can that possibly, validly, predict “college and career readiness”???  Answer: It can’t. It doesn’t. 

Dr. William Mathis, managing director of the National Education Policy Center at the University of Colorado, former Deputy Assistant Commissioner for the state of New Jersey, Director of its Educational Assessment program, a design consultant for the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and for six states, had this to say about the Mathematica report in a Washington Post article on 27 May 2016, “A tour through the literature shows that predictive validity coefficients are quite low in general and commonly run in the 0.30’s. One conclusion is that the PARCC is just about as good as any other test — which is the report’s finding in regard to the MCAS. On the contrary, the more correct conclusion is that standardized tests can predict scores on other standardized tests (which this report confirms) but it cannot validly predict college readiness at any meaningful level.” 

He also said, “With such low predictability, you have huge numbers of false positives and false negatives. When connected to consequences, these misses have a human price. This goes further than being a validity question. It misleads young adults, wastes resources and misjudges schools.  It’s not just a technical issue, it is a moral question. Until proven to be valid for the intended purpose, using these tests in a high stakes context should not be done.”

The response to Dr. Mathis, from the creators of the Mathematica study, “Mr. Mathis is also correct that the correlations are low enough that many students (and parents, and colleges) would overestimate or underestimate their true college readiness—if they relied only on the test score to make the judgment. Fortunately, students have lots of other information available to inform their judgments alongside the test scores (most importantly, their high school grades). We wouldn’t recommend that anyone rely exclusively on the test score for high-stakes decisions.”

So, why would this Board consider, even for minute, further wasting time and tax-payer money on PARCC? Let alone use such a faulty measure as an obstacle for the students in this state? It is your obligation to the public to not allow PARCC to be used as a graduation requirement. 

Thanks, Mike Simpson, for the picture.

NJDOE + NJ Chamber of Commerce = Act of Incredible Desperation

A few weeks ago I attended a presentation in Clifton. The presenter, Dana Egreczky, was there on behalf of the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce (NJCC). Ostensibly, the purpose was to help parents understand the importance of standardized tests and their children's future in the business world. 

Anyone who pays attention to what's happening in Trenton, and, frankly, in DC, knows that the Chamber is a regular attendee at legislative education committee meetings. They often provide testimony and it's always on the side of the so-called education reform movement. I would even go so far as to say they, and the NJ Business and Industry Association, have more influence on what happens in our schools than parents and teachers. 

So, when the NJCC steps out into the daylight to weigh in on standardized testing, you bet I wanted to hear what they had to say. Two organizations that I am a part of are members of our local Chamber of Commerce. If NJCC is going around spreading misinformation on my behalf, I want to know about it.

The Clifton presentation was appalling. I haven't been able to get a copy of the presentation given to parents, but here is a link to the presentation she gave to Clifton students. A dad who was at the parent presentation audio taped it. He also blogged about it. You can read and listen to it here. The presentation was delivered in an angry tone, she made incredible claim after claim in an attempt to scare parents into letting their children take the PARCC tests. When asked for citations to back up her claims, parents were chided for having "opinions" and that in the 50 times she had delivered this particular presentation (no citation for that claim either), no one had ever asked for citation. Basically, her answer to any question was to bugger off. 

The next day, a parent sent an email to the president of NJCC asking for an explanation. The president wrote back and claimed no responsibility for Dana, saying she did not work for NJCC, even though she had identified herself as a Sr VP at the Chamber and President and CEO of the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce Foundation. Here is part of his response:

“thank you for the feedback....Ms. Egreczky is a consultant on a grant regarding CORE curriculum issues, not an employee of the Chamber....she is just beginning her presentations so your feedback is greatly appreciated as the intent is to be educational, not confrontational...we will make sure to modify her presentations to achieve our goal in a more user friendly style....please understand that she is not speaking for the Chamber and the issues you expressed concern about are not advocated by the Chamber....if you would like to discuss further, please contact me...thank you again"

Fast forward a couple of weeks and she was in another town delivering her message of despair. Parents reported that her presentation was toned down from what they heard happened in Clifton. NJCC likely had a conversation with her and I hoped the rhetoric had been brought down to the usual Kool-Aid level you hear at PARCC-in-the-Box presentations. I decided to wait until she came into my area to see it again. 

Last night, a friend sent me the presentation given in Deptford. Well, it is different than the one she gave in Clifton. Still no citations, still claims from crazyland, only now the presentation is on behalf of We Raise NJ, a coalition of Gates-funded reform groups. NJCC is still listed in the presentation, but now in a much less conspicuous way. 

The reason for the backstory and purpose of this post is to let everyone know what We Raise NJ is spewing. Their "coalition" is the NJ Chamber of Commerce, NJ Charter Schools Association, National Council of La Raza, NJ School Boards Association, Garden State Coalition of Schools, NJ Black Alliance for Educational Options, NJ Council of County Colleges, NJCAN, NJASCD, NJ Business & Industry Association, and New Jersey PTA. And, yes, lots of Gates Foundation money in exchange for pushing Common Core State Standards and the aligned testing in this group. 

The Clifton presentation ignored students with disabilities. The new one does not. This gem is on slide 63 and looks like it was thrown in as an afterthought. I hope you are all as appalled as I am with this 50+ year old line of thinking. Keep in mind We Raise NJ is telling parents that taking a test is the answer to everything, but for students with disabilities - meh, they are just a blight on society and should be forced to take the test too, just because.

Following this line of logic, We Raise NJ thinks that a single, not yet validated, test based on low level standards is going to the address how we take care of (nothing here about actually lifting up students and individuals with disabilities) our most vulnerable population. This is disgusting. And then to suggest that the parents and teachers of these students don't know how they are doing and that this test, which is NOT DIAGNOSTIC in any way shape or form, is going to enlighten them? Seriously? 

Just so parents of gen ed students are not left out. These are directed at you. God forbid you want a manicure, you've just put your child's future at risk.

The purpose of all this is: 

Got that? By taking PARCC, your child will not be living with you 30 years from now. 

If you're wondering WHY Dana is making the rounds to schools all over the state to deliver this garbage to you. Well, probably a good idea to ask to see your district's Corrective Action Plan (technically, the ESEA Accountability Action Plan). This show counts as an approved "action" by NJDOE. 

Have you had enough yet? I sure as hell have. Our kids deserve better than this! 

Julie Goes to Washington Part 2

Otherwise known as, It Was Supposed To Be Testimony on ESSA, But Really Was Testimony To The Influence of Gates Money. How's that for a title? Perhaps it's a bit wordy. However, it is how it felt walking into that conference room at USDOE on January 11th. If you missed watching the testimony on their livestream, I've posted a link to the day's testimony at the bottom of this post.

The synopsis of most of the testimony was, not surprisingly, test so there is equity, test so students with disabilities and English language learners have their civil rights upheld, test because we need accountability and without testing we won't have accountability, test so we have more data, test so we know which teachers suck, and when all else fails, what the heck, just test some more.

That's your plan? Testing, pseudo-accountability, and test some more? Could anything possibly be lazier? 

I'm going to piss off a few people by what I say next, but here's the deal, standardized tests are not going close educational gaps. It's not a civil right to be tested. If anything, it is a violation of your child's rights to be subjected to these tests especially if they are a student with a disability or/and English language learner. Tests that have not be validated, that are developmentally inappropriate, that serve no purpose other than to rank and sort them, their teachers, and their schools, are certainly not an example of a civil right. It’s more like a violation of FAPE.

It was appalling to listen to the policy directors from The Leadership Conference, La Raza, and MALDEF talk about testing, data, more testing, accountability by using the data collected from the tests. That's the best you can do for your constituents? It is LAZY.

It makes no sense until you look at who contributes money to them. We’re talking about tens of millions of dollars donated to them from The Gates Foundation to specifically push Common Core State Standards and the accompanying tests. I understand they need the money for all the really good work they do for the communities they serve. To say the least, it’s a shame their education policy flies in the face of all that other work.

When it comes to the National Urban League and Business Roundtable, I expect to see the business push. I expect them to be inappropriately forceful about testing and accountability because they very wrongly think they should have a say in P-12 education. Unsurprisingly, National Urban League has taken about $6.5 million from Gates to push their education policy agenda.

Are you seeing the pattern here? Lots and lots of money in exchange for influencing education policy at the highest level. They could have swapped their testimony it was that close in language and nature.

The majority of testimony ignored the very people these educational policies will influence – the children. It was shocking to listen a policy maker from the National Association of Charter Authorizers glibly tell all of us that if a charter school is failing to just close it. That’s it. Don’t have the charter participate in whatever the state’s version of a turnaround program is. Just close the school. I have no particular love of charters, but that statement lacked any recognition of the harm it would bring to the children in that school. This was about a business transaction, not about education, and certainly not about the negative impact of “just close the school”.

So where were the representative voices for the students? The parents? The teachers in the classrooms? Three teacher and two parents are certainly not enough. However, as far as I could tell, we were the only ones not being paid to be there.

When asked what I’d like to see in education policy, I say this, I want policy that is not LAZY. What we have had for 15 years is lazy. Shaping 13 years of a child’s education around standardized tests is lazy. I want to see joy in learning. I want students to be the center of education policy. I want teachers leading the way – they are after all, the people who are the experts. I want to see programs that look like the NY Performance Standards Consortium. I want students to be engaged, love to learn, love to share and demonstrate what they’ve learned. I want existing laws pertaining to special education to be enforced. I want school environments to be inclusive, to the largest extent possible, for all students. I don't think I'm asking for too much.  

  

See the full day's testimony here. Me at 55:00, Jamy Brice Hyde 1:16:23, Marla Kilfoyle 3:20:18, Melissa Tomlinson 4:55:32

Julie Goes to Washington with Jamy, Marla, and Melissa

Last Monday, the US Department of Education held the first of two public testimony hearings on the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). This hearing was held in Washington DC. The next will be in California. Short notice, with release just before the holidays, felt like timing was meant for parents and teachers to miss it. I was not off to a warm and fuzzy feeling about it. 

I didn't see the agenda for the day until after I checked in at USDOE. The speaking order and the approximate times for each of the three sessions were listed. The list of speakers was, predictably, the who's who of education reform -- just off the top of my head, several hundred million dollars or so in Gates funded associations. Disheartening to say the least. From what I can gather, only one other "just a parent" spoke that day and three actual teachers, two from New York (Jamy Brice-Hyde and Marla Kilfoyle) and one from New Jersey (Melissa Tomlinson). 

                                       

                                       

It really was difficult to decide what aspect of ESSA to discuss. From a special ed point a view, ESSA makes NCLB look lenient. The 1% cap on alternate assessments for students with disabilities is particularly cruel. It's also the fuel needed to continue to encourage opting out of these stupid tests. 

I decided, though, to talk about Social Impact Bonds. Sorry if you're getting bored with this topic, but I don't think it can be argued against enough. An experiment, which requires a negative outcome (NOT classifying students) to be considered a success, has no business sitting in the middle of a federal education law. 

Here is my testimony: 

11 January 2016

Testimony on the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) to US Department of Education  

My name is Julie Borst and I’m resident of Bergen County, New Jersey. I am a mother to a 17-year-old student with a disability. I am a parent advocate and an organizer for Save Our Schools New Jersey, Opt Out NJ, and for BATs in Special Education. My comments today are my own. 

I have to admit, it was difficult deciding which section of ESSA to address today. While many are cheering the change from No Child Left Behind (NCLB), I’m feeling much more cautious. As a family, we have not had good experiences under NCLB. It was clearly in serious need of revision, and I don’t believe that ESSA really aleviates the myriad problems with NCLB, particularly for students with disabilities. 

Among the worst, the onerous standardized testing continues. More students with disabilities will be required to take irrelevant, developmentally inappropriate tests. Local districts will continue to waste precious dollars on infrastructure to support these tests, and for what? That’s a conversation that could go on for weeks. Let’s just say, that from where I sit, as a parent and advocate, the tests are a waste of time and money. Well trained, dedicated professional educators are what’s needed. Not more tests. 

However, the reason I’ve come here today is to talk about Social Impact Bonds, otherwise known as Pay For Success (PFS)¹, ESSA page 797, line 17. The current landscape in special education is a dire one. In states like New Jersey, it has become increasingly difficult for parents to get appropriate identification, classification, and services for their children. OSEP and OCR have become yet another roadblock to appropriate services.
I believe the root of that difficulty is money. IDEA is poorly funded, as it has been since its inception. Money now is spent on everything related to high stakes testing – prep, massive curricula changes, computers, infrastructure, and teacher professional development geared to use of that technology instead of honing the skills of their profession.

In New Jersey, there is a more formalized process, Response to Intervention (RtI), on the horizon. A program that will make it even less likely for a student with a disability to get timely identification, classification, and services. There appears to be little, actual focus on identifying learning disabled students as early as possible and doing something about it. 

Preschool, “high quality” preschool, has become the new mantra in that vein. Studies show that high quality preschool can reduce the percentage of the students who go on to kindergarten and are then classified for special education. Those percentages are anywhere from a reduction of 10% to 50% of students who would have otherwise needed special education services. The impact is clearly a positive one. 

It does makes sense to support high quality preschool. What doesn't make sense is for private investors or Wall St. to fund those preschool programs with the aim of making money off students NOT being classified. 

Pay For Success is use of private money invested into public programs, in this case public preschool. The program, first tested in Utah and now in Chicago, was funded by Goldman Sachs. The program in Utah was claimed to have a 99% “success” rate. 109 of the 110 students identified as “at risk” or possibly needing special education, out of a group of 600 preschoolers, did NOT require special education. Goldman Sachs received money back for every one of those 109 students and will continue to do so for every year those 109 students are NOT classified for special education, through 6^th grade. 

To be perfectly frank, this raises a lot of questions. What was the starting criteria for those students? What diagnostic tests did they use? Medical history? Demographics? How many students would have likely had to have special education if they didn't have the "high quality" preschool experience? How many would they expect to classify even with the experience? What is "high quality" preschool? What does "high quality" preschool cost? How much does Utah spend on preschool? What is the threshold that has to be met for Goldman Sachs to earn its money back? Who would have covered the costs is the program “failed”? 

In Utah’s case, only one test, PVVT, was used. It’s not normally used, especially by itself, to identify students for learning disabilities. English language learners typically do not do well on this test because it is vocabulary based. It doesn’t necessarily mean they have a disability. From the outset, the criteria presumed all 110 “at risk”-identified children were going into special education without the high quality preschool. That is not a valid presumption.
There is also the issue of cost. High quality preschool costs are general 3-4 times what Goldman Sachs invested per student. It’s still not clear how the “high quality” label was actually executed, as some of the students were apparently placed in daycare.  

Utah set the rubric, but they also would have had no preschool at all without the program. Why were they allowed to set the bar so low and so obviously skewed to have this as a win for Goldman Sachs? Perhaps more importantly, what is Utah doing to ensure those “success” students were, in fact, properly NOT identified for special education? 

I understand that on the surface Pay For Success sounds wonderful. Public money, that is already so lacking, will not have to be used to fund preschool programs. However, “success” based on a negative outcome of our most vulnerable students demonstrates the loss of our moral compass. 

Pay For Success has no business being in a federal education law. There are too many unanswered questions. Too many ways for this program to go very wrong for our most vulnerable students – especially in the current environment. There is no magic pill to cure learning disabilities, but there are many well-documented, teacher-driven practices to address identification, classification, and delivery of services. We should be concentrating on those, not on making Goldman Sachs richer at our children’s expense. 

¹ p. 797
17 40) PAY FOR SUCCESS INITIATIVE.—The

18 term ‘pay for success initiative’ means a perform-

19 ance-based grant, contract, or cooperative agreement

20 awarded by a public entity in which a commitment

21 is made to pay for improved outcomes that result in

22 social benefit and direct cost savings or cost avoid-

23 ance to the public sector. Such an initiative shall in-

24 clude—

p.7981 ‘‘(A) a feasibility study on the initiative de-

2 scribing how the proposed intervention is based

3 on evidence of effectiveness;

4 ‘‘(B) a rigorous, third-party evaluation

5 that uses experimental or quasi-experimental

6 design or other research methodologies that

7 allow for the strongest possible causal infer-

8 ences to determine whether the initiative has

9 met its proposed outcomes;

10 ‘‘(C) an annual, publicly available report

11 on the progress of the initiative; and

12 ‘‘(D) a requirement that payments are

13 made to the recipient of a grant, contract, or

14 cooperative agreement only when agreed upon

15 outcomes are achieved, except that the entity

16 may make payments to the third party con-

17 ducting the evaluation described in subpara-

18 graph (B).’’;

Marla's Testimony:

Testimony of Marla Kilfoyle

Thank you for allowing me to offer my recommendations and advice on Title 1 of ESSA

My name is Marla Kilfoyle.  I have been a public school teacher for 29 years.  I have taught in Rural, Urban, and Suburban school districts.  I have a Masters in Education and am National Board Certified.  My proudest role, however, is  that I am a mother of a child with disabilities enrolled in public school in New York. 

Here are my recommendations and advice:#1 We need to fund Title 1 with more money.  We have seen, over the last decade, more and more of our children living in poverty.  I applaud that the bill increases funding for key formula grant programs. The increases overall of funding by 2 percent each year in 2018-2020 is hopeful. Increases in Title I ($1.2 billion over the 4 years of the authorization), a more than a 20 percent increase. We applaud the increase in authorizations for Title III (English Language learners), Title VI, American Indian and Alaska Native programs and Impact Aid are excellent. Increases in the Mckinney Vento leave us hopeful that our homeless children will be serviced and supported but we will need more.

#2 I have concerns that “personalized learning “ will be a vehicle for students to be placed in front of a computer screen all day or have them moved out of their public school to a school that is not housed in their community.  This school could be an online learning center or a charter school; both which have been proven not to be beneficial over a strong public neighborhood school.    Why should children have to move out of their community school to be educated?  We need to support strong sustainable public schools in the communities that our children live.

#3 I  am vehemently opposed to testing children each year in grades 3-8 and once in high school.  We are the only nation that demands this of our children.  Grade span testing by random sampling will allow more time for learning.  We have done this successfully using NAEP.  Testing has depleted much needed funds for our children in need.  The only people that testing every year benefits are the testing companies.

#4 I also do not agree that our ENL/ELL populations should be subject to multiple statewide interim assessments during the academic year.  This, once again, results in more testing and less learning for our non-English speakers.  What we are seeing for our ELL students is less time with their ELL teachers in instruction to teach them to speak/acquire the language.  The drive to get them ready for a test at the end of the year that they are not yet ready to take, due to lack of language, is abusive and inappropriate.  Although pushing them into classes with their English speaking peers is excellent, there must also be a balance of making sure that we are giving them the instruction that they need to acquire the English language.  This has been taken away from them in many districts across the nation.

#5 I am opposed to computer adaptive assessments listed in the Act.  I feel that testing and technology companies put together inferior products, sell them to districts to make money and now districts are left with inferior assessments and no money.  I am also opposed to the idea of  ‘innovative assessment system', as outlined in Part B Title 1, that could be used as assessments in school districts.  As educators, we have seen technology companies and testing companies pillage the coffers of public education with products that are inferior and do not enhance teaching and learning.  This is not what America wants for its children.  We do not want our classrooms to become places in which children sit in front of a computer for several hours a day and the teacher becomes just a facilitator.  We see a need for technology and to make sure that our students are using it to enhance learning but it should not replace the human interactions that they need in the classrooms to become productive global citizens.  

 #6  Finally from Part A of Title 1 I feel that allowing alternative routes to certification will only guarantee that our neediest children will get the least trained, for example, Teach for America.  We should require every teacher, in every classroom to be fully licensed and accredited from a strong college education program. 

In closing I would like to take a few moments to also address the letter that the USDOE sent on Dec. 22^nd  to the Chief School Officers in states that had high test refusal rates.  The letter, which threatened to withhold Title 1 money for states with high test refusal rates, was absolutely deplorable.  As Mr. King knows from his tenure in NYS, standing between a parent and the decisions that they choose to make for their children is not a good idea.   To create conditions where a local school district must pressure parents into making decisions they do not want for their child is not good for the positive relationships that school districts need to create in order to work cooperatively with parents. 

Thank you again for your time and consideration.