HMMM. This might be interesting. Maybe you wondered about this, as did I.

As you know, President Trump has nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/us/politics/supreme-court-nominee-trump.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=span-ab-top-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

The nomination fight begins. But this post is not about that.

Meanwhile, back at the special education desk, we have an important case before the Supremes right now—Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District.  Oral arguments were heard before eight Justices in early January. The question they will (presumably) resolve is:  What level of benefit does a school needs to provide to a student with disabilities in order to meet the FAPE (free appropriate public education) standard in the law?  Or, in legal parlance, will the 1982 Rowley decision be affected, changed, amended, overruled, remain the same?

Without getting into the weeds about Endrew F., here’s the geography quandary.  Did this puzzle you also?

First the facts.

Judge Gorsuch is currently on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, in Denver, Colorado.  The three-judge panel decision by that Court in Endrew F  was appealed to the Supreme Court and currently before it. Judge Gorsuch was not part of the three-judge panel that heard the case at the 10th Circuit.

Now some questions.

What will the Supremes do?  Will this nomination have an effect on current cases before the Court, such as Endrew F. Will the Supreme Court continue toward a decision with the eight Justices who heard oral argument in early January?  Will the case be withdrawn?  Will the Supreme Court rehear the case so a 9th Justice (Gorsuch or another) can hear it and be part of a decision?  What will happen?

Stay tuned.  Don’t we live in interesting times?

 

What do I think of Betsy DeVos?

As someone who has benefitted from and worked in public education all my life–as a teacher, hearing officer, lawyer, author, student, and parent–and is currently working to transform special education by creating a new law, I am asked this question a lot.   I don’t know much about her and look forward to learning more.

What I know that she has worked as a philanthropist, favoring parental choice through vouchers and charter schools. HMMM. For me the interesting question is, How did we get here?  How did our US public school system reach this point–that an advocate for choice, often out of our schools may become our next Secretary of  Education?

Valerie Strauss’s recent Answer Sheet column, “Democrats reject her, but they helped pave the road to education nominee DeVos” helps me understand what’s going on a bit.  Strauss’s point is that Democrats have paved the road through their recent approaches that now appear to be backfiring. A column worth reading.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/01/21/democrats-reject-her-but-they-helped-pave-the-road-to-education-nominee-devos/?utm_term=.74c1f6043b74

In the special education realm,  I see an analogous situation. Special education has succeeded over the last 40 years in providing access to all students with disabilities to public education. That was a huge victory worth celebrating. Yet, beyond the success, the special education law and system has continued  to grow, morph and become dysfunctional–often ignoring the voices of many educators and parents and often in the face of flawed (or nonexistent) objective data.  My upcoming book, Special Education 2.0–Breaking Taboos to Build a NEW Education Law, sets out much of this history and proposes five new directions going forward.

Now, you may ask, what does this have to do with Ms. DeVos.  Good question.  I see a parallel to Ms. Strauss’s recent column. Let me paraphrase from the book.

Among many, many reforms that public schools need–to be excellent for all students–is special education. Since that is the field I know best, let me focus on it here.

Special education needs systemic and radical reform to move beyond its successes  and tweaks over the past 40 years. We need a new law; a new approach. And, to get the movement forward, we need  to start the long-overdue national conversation among all stakeholders to build a better law so public schools, the backbone of this nation, can be equitable and excellent for everyone.

Continuing to avoid the conversation by tweaking special education and growing it– is risky. Avoidance leaves many voices unheard and encourages, even unwittingly, the further splintering of public education. This splintering leads to the growth of schools for the haves (public, private, elite, home, and others) without addressing the needs of the have-nots (students who can’t afford their way out or who nobody wants, in part because they have multiple needs—social, disability, poverty). Also, inadvertently, among many other areas of public education that need systemic and radical reform, not fixing special education may help pave the way for and fuel the current school choice and vouchers push.

Hence, Ms. DeVos. Much is at stake for our schools and children.  We need to hear from all stakeholders in public education, even those with discordant voices. We need to breaks taboos.  As a first step, we need to talk.

QUICK  RESPONSE TO GAO REPORT ABOUT SPECIAL EDUCATION’S ADMINISTRATIVE AND COMPLIANCE BURDENS

February 19, 2016

 

Well, what do you know!

In January 2016, the GAO issued a report about the special education administrative burdens imposed by federal, state and local governments, “SPECIAL EDUCATION—State and Local Imposed  Requirements Complicate Federal Efforts to Reduce Administrative Burdens.”  The GAO studied federal and state/local paperwork and compliance requirements that impede educators from their job—education, and Congress’ attempt to ease them.  The report can be found at http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/674561.pdf.

Of course, it’s good that the paperwork and compliance burdens imposed by laws on educators and schools is getting  yet another public look.   However, and not surprisingly (but interestingly), the GAO found that Congress’ 2014 IDEA efforts toward paperwork reduction—had no effect in the nation’s schools and classrooms. Specifically, Congress created two pilot projects allowing waivers:  one, to have multi-year IEPs, and the other to waive certain paperwork requirements. Neither happened! Nobody used them!

Why, one may ask. The report cites several possible reasons. Here, two of them are highlighted.

First, according to NASDSE (National Association of State Directors of Special Education, Inc), “the application (for the pilot projects) were much too resource-intensive for the potential value they would bring, and implementation of either pilot program would most likely require additional staff that federal funding would not cover.”

We can’t make this stuff up.  The pilot projects required more paper and  more staff members to reduce paper!

Second, the NASSP (National Association of Secondary School Principals) indicated that no members favored the paperwork reduction waivers “in part because the perceived risk of exposing local districts to potential litigation if they were to eliminate any of the requirements that parents have come to expect.” (emphasis added).

Again, we can’t make this stuff up. It’s time for honesty and real solutions. The law created a paperwork and compliance monster in 1975 that continues to grow and morph to this day. Congress needs to fundamentally change that—fundamentally, from the ground up. Band aid attempts to fix it will not work. The only way around it is to end that compliance monster. With finality. With clarity. Not with scary waivers and new paperwork that add new burdens!

While we wait for that to happen (undoubtedly a long, long wait), in the meantime, Congress should affirmatively allow and encourage voluntary agreement options to thrive. One of these was “Procedures Lite,” which we successfully implemented several years ago in Massachusetts until the authorities forced that effort to shut down!  A sad day indeed, as I saw it.

At the very least in any new reauthorization, Congress should state unequivocally that it encourages voluntary parent and  school agreements to work cooperatively and  to waive requirements that they believe impede the planning and education for the child.  To make this work, Congress should assure parties that the law will not impose additional paperwork burdens on them (as described above by NASDSE).   Otherwise, reforms will not spring up, as we learned the hard way in Massachusetts.  We can only hope!

The GAO has shown what so many of us know:  So long as this legal entitlement (for parents and students with disabilities) exists, it is reasonable for schools, and state and local authorities to be reluctant to not dot all I’s and cross all T’s.   The waste of time and effort and loss of trust and collaboration involved in doing all of that means that the education for all children will continue to suffer.

 

 

 

 

Administrators in public schools are well aware of the fact that the Department of Education issues “Dear Colleague” letters on many issues from time to time. While these letters don’t have the force of law, they often create controversy and confusion. One of these, the November 16  Letter about a free appropriate public education, is discussed below.

 

http://www.aasa.org/aasablog.aspx?id=38814&blogid=286

6, “

 

November 16, 2015; Dear colleague” Letter by the US Department of Education about a FAPE: A school attorney’s response

By Miriam Kurtzig Freedman

The seven-page Letter tells educators—presumably, general and special educators—that holding students with disabilities to “rigorous academic standards and high expectations” is a “shared responsibility for all of us,” and that these students should be taught the “same challenging academic content and achievement standards [as] all children in the State”… at the “grade level in which the child is enrolled” TheLetter raises many concerns.

First, it is unclear whether the general education teachers and administrators’ perspective was taken into account.  Their voice and leadership in this “shared responsibility,” especially as most services are provided in general education classrooms, is vital. Two special education Department offices authored this Letter—OSEP (Office of Special Education) and OSERS (Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services). Where is general education’s OESE—Office of Elementary and Secondary Education?  While this Letterpresumes to be about special education, it is also very much about general education.  OESE needs to be at the planning table especially since the Letter urges the same standards for all students “regardless of nature or severity of the disability.”  Without input from general education, this Letter is simply a one-sided approach—like the tail wagging the dog.

Second, while no one disagrees about the importance of holding all students to high standards and expectations, I fear that the Letter downplays the cornerstone of special education law—individualization.  The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) provides services to meet eligible students’ unique needs. Yet, this Letter appears to gloss over the reality that, even with similar curricular standards, students’ rate of learning and ability to master skills and concepts will differ, as they are impacted by the nature and severity of their disability.  The concept of “closing the gap” (Letter, at page 5), while prominent in thisLetter, is inconsistent with the IDEA!

Special education focuses on whether students make gains in their areas of need—not on how they measure up against others. For some students with disabilities, the gap between them and their non-disabled peers will widen over time.  That does not mean per se that they are failing to learn, or that their teachers are failing to teach them. Sadly, this Letter leads us to see failure even when students succeed—in direct contrast to the law’s mission and good education practice.

Third, in order to include students with disabilities in general education settings, this Letter favors the use of modifications of assignments, audio and other aids—inadvertently creating a trap for schools. Such methods often bypass the student’s unique needs and entitlement to a FAPE (free appropriate public education). The sad reality is that schools that follow this Letter’s approach may lose at due process hearings and in the courts because the approach can be viewed as a way to get students to “pass” and get “through” school—without providing the individualized benefit the law requires.

In sum, general education teachers and administrators who currently work in our schools need to lead the effort and be at the table to build schools that truly educate all students—from the most needy to the most advanced.  Their input is especially vital now, given the Department’s push for inclusion to occur in general education classrooms.  The Department should aid schools in their efforts to comply with current legal mandates, not divert them to paths that contradict the law.

Miriam Kurtzig Freedman has written six books (including the influential Fixing Special Education) on law and education and has spent her career representing public schools 

 

 

The bank robber’s secret to early childhood education

Miriam Kurtzig Freedman

September 10, 2015

 

In the vast “how-to-fix-education” universe, early childhood programming seems to be the new elixir. Governors and mayors push it, as does our president, viewing it as a smart investment in the future. Many children come to school unprepared to learn, so we have to intervene earlier. Right? An instinctive response is to advocate for more early childhood education. Who can argue with that? Some seek universal full-day programs for three- and four-year-olds, while others focus on babies from birth to age two.

As an early childhood observer (though not a practitioner), I suggest we step back to ask whether a different, more direct approach might be better. Before we create new programs, let’s consider Sutton’s Law. This delightful decree is named after Willie Sutton, who robbed banks because, as he put it, “that is where the money is.” Thus, when diagnosing challenges, consider the obvious first. “When you hear hoof beats behind you, think horses and not zebras.”

When children come to school unprepared, think home! Build on the reality that home is where children reside with their first teachers, their parents and caregivers. The road to improve early education—especially in the area of language skills, so vital to school readiness—surely begins at home and branches out from there to daycare centers, preschools, or schools.

The research basis for this approach is powerful. In 1995, Professors Betty Hart and Todd R. Risley turned early childhood education on its head. Frustrated by their experience with programs that did not have a lasting effect on children’s language and growth, they sought a different approach. Now, some twenty years later, their landmark research remains strong.

Hart and Risley tracked verbal interactions in forty-two “well-functioning” families of infants and their parents living either in poverty, a working-class home, or professional comfort. Every month until the age of three, the researchers tracked conversations at home, counting the number of words children experienced. The numbers in the three groups varied widely, creating the now-famous “thirty million word gap.” Even if that oft-cited number is too high, the point is made: Children whose families were on welfare heard and processed far fewer words than did those in professional families. The researchers found that school readiness differences, much of which are centered on language and communication, were related to these disparate numbers from children’s earliest years.

Of course, the study was more nuanced, detailing the types of conversations and parental directives that children heard, but the above summary will suffice here. The importance of parent-child conversations—reinforced by recent follow-up studies and work at Stanford, the University of Chicago, and elsewhere—cannot be overstated, especially as we know that early gaps continue into the school years.

Given this reality, the latest push for early childhood programs seems to circle back to earlier, often-disappointing approaches. Shouldn’t we instead follow the language development research to focus on babies and toddlers at home first, pursuing the direct avenue of working with parents? It can’t be said often enough—proposed programs should be based on objective research of efficacy.

Also, and most unfortunately, current reform efforts put the entire burden of closing this gap on schools! Yet where is evidence that creating more programs outside the home will be effective on a large scale? Can we really expect public educational institutions to get us where we need to be, even if they start children earlier and they are truly excellent (a big if)? Why not look for horses instead?

The Economist cautions:

In January Barack Obama urged Congress and state governments to make high-quality pre-schools available to every four-year-old….

That is a good thing. Pre-school programmes are known to develop children’s numeracy, social skills and (as the term “pre-school” suggests) readiness for school. But they do not deal with the [language] gap in much earlier development that [research has] identified. And it is this gap, more than a year’s pre-schooling at the age of four, which seems to determine a child’s chances for the rest of his life. [Emphasis added.]

Simply stated, for early language development, school is too late. Home is where the work should begin. And if parents do not realize how important their role can be, it is our duty to share with them the value of talking with, reading to, and playing and singing with their babies from the earliest opportunity.

Let’s end on a high note and mention important efforts currently underway. For example, Rhode Island’s “Providence Talks” program sends trained visitors into homes to assist parents in introducing their children to more words. A group called Too Small to Fail has launched campaigns for children between birth and age five by in various cities; California’s First 5 initiative enrolls parents and caregivers in research-supported practices; Ten Books A Home sends volunteers into homes to help model literacy and language skills; and the Head Start’s National Center on Parent, Family and Community Engagement also helps parents and caregivers learn to talk, read, and sing with their children.

We should scale up these promising practices before (or along with) the early childhood push currently underway. Helping parents improve their communication skills with their babies and children will go a long way toward closing the thirty million word gap and improving school readiness. This is where we should put our creative national resources to work.

Willy Sutton robbed banks because that was where the money was. We should build capacity in the home because that is where young children and parents are. Let’s help children’s very first teachers be as effective as they can be! Then they can send their kids to school ready to learn.

http://edexcellence.net/articles/the-bank-robbers-secret-to-early-childhood-education

Here is the post. If you look on line, you’ll see a lovely picture of two children playing.

 

The bank robber’s secret to early childhood education

Miriam Kurtzig Freedman

September 10, 2015

 

In the vast “how-to-fix-education” universe, early childhood programming seems to be the new elixir. Governors and mayors push it, as does our president, viewing it as a smart investment in the future. Many children come to school unprepared to learn, so we have to intervene earlier. Right? An instinctive response is to advocate for more early childhood education. Who can argue with that? Some seek universal full-day programs for three- and four-year-olds, while others focus on babies from birth to age two.

As an early childhood observer (though not a practitioner), I suggest we step back to ask whether a different, more direct approach might be better. Before we create new programs, let’s consider Sutton’s Law. This delightful decree is named after Willie Sutton, who robbed banks because, as he put it, “that is where the money is.” Thus, when diagnosing challenges, consider the obvious first. “When you hear hoof beats behind you, think horses and not zebras.”

When children come to school unprepared, think home! Build on the reality that home is where children reside with their first teachers, their parents and caregivers. The road to improve early education—especially in the area of language skills, so vital to school readiness—surely begins at home and branches out from there to daycare centers, preschools, or schools.

The research basis for this approach is powerful. In 1995, Professors Betty Hart and Todd R. Risley turned early childhood education on its head. Frustrated by their experience with programs that did not have a lasting effect on children’s language and growth, they sought a different approach. Now, some twenty years later, their landmark research remains strong.

Hart and Risley tracked verbal interactions in forty-two “well-functioning” families of infants and their parents living either in poverty, a working-class home, or professional comfort. Every month until the age of three, the researchers tracked conversations at home, counting the number of words children experienced. The numbers in the three groups varied widely, creating the now-famous “thirty million word gap.” Even if that oft-cited number is too high, the point is made: Children whose families were on welfare heard and processed far fewer words than did those in professional families. The researchers found that school readiness differences, much of which are centered on language and communication, were related to these disparate numbers from children’s earliest years.

Of course, the study was more nuanced, detailing the types of conversations and parental directives that children heard, but the above summary will suffice here. The importance of parent-child conversations—reinforced by recent follow-up studies and work at Stanford, the University of Chicago, and elsewhere—cannot be overstated, especially as we know that early gaps continue into the school years.

Given this reality, the latest push for early childhood programs seems to circle back to earlier, often-disappointing approaches. Shouldn’t we instead follow the language development research to focus on babies and toddlers at home first, pursuing the direct avenue of working with parents? It can’t be said often enough—proposed programs should be based on objective research of efficacy.

Also, and most unfortunately, current reform efforts put the entire burden of closing this gap on schools! Yet where is evidence that creating more programs outside the home will be effective on a large scale? Can we really expect public educational institutions to get us where we need to be, even if they start children earlier and they are truly excellent (a big if)? Why not look for horses instead?

The Economist cautions:

In January Barack Obama urged Congress and state governments to make high-quality pre-schools available to every four-year-old….

That is a good thing. Pre-school programmes are known to develop children’s numeracy, social skills and (as the term “pre-school” suggests) readiness for school. But they do not deal with the [language] gap in much earlier development that [research has] identified. And it is this gap, more than a year’s pre-schooling at the age of four, which seems to determine a child’s chances for the rest of his life. [Emphasis added.]

Simply stated, for early language development, school is too late. Home is where the work should begin. And if parents do not realize how important their role can be, it is our duty to share with them the value of talking with, reading to, and playing and singing with their babies from the earliest opportunity.

Let’s end on a high note and mention important efforts currently underway. For example, Rhode Island’s “Providence Talks” program sends trained visitors into homes to assist parents in introducing their children to more words. A group called Too Small to Fail has launched campaigns for children between birth and age five by in various cities; California’s First 5 initiative enrolls parents and caregivers in research-supported practices; Ten Books A Home sends volunteers into homes to help model literacy and language skills; and the Head Start’s National Center on Parent, Family and Community Engagement also helps parents and caregivers learn to talk, read, and sing with their children.

We should scale up these promising practices before (or along with) the early childhood push currently underway. Helping parents improve their communication skills with their babies and children will go a long way toward closing the thirty million word gap and improving school readiness. This is where we should put our creative national resources to work.

Willy Sutton robbed banks because that was where the money was. We should build capacity in the home because that is where young children and parents are. Let’s help children’s very first teachers be as effective as they can be! Then they can send their kids to school ready to learn.

 

Here’s a piece that was just posted on Diane Ravitch’s blog.  Lots of comments! Hopefully this will move the conversation forward t0 good public policy.

Miriam Kurtzig Freedman, an attorney who represents public schools in education matters, including testing and special education—and is currently working to reform special education—posted this comment. Her website is http://www.schoollawpro.com.

 

Can we really use student tests to measure teacher effectiveness?

 

Miriam Kurtzig Freedman, M.A., J.D.

 

This is the year! Tests related to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are launching across our country. They are designed to measure how well students are learning the CCSS. Meanwhile, some states, with federal encouragement, plan to use them also to measure teacher effectiveness. Is this use valid?

 

There is no shortage of controversy about educational testing and, unfortunately, this controversy includes the opportunity to file lawsuits. The use of student achievement data to also evaluate teacher effectiveness is certainly controversial. Notably, Arne Duncan, the Secretary of Education, gave states a year’s reprieve on implementing this practice. Across the country, teacher unions have called it unfair. My concern is far more basic. It’s about validity.

 

As an attorney who has represented public schools for more than 30 years, I am concerned about this multipurpose use. It may not get us what we need—a valid, reliable, fair, trusted, and transparent accountability system. The tests at issue include the PARCC and SBAC, two multi-state consortia that are funded by the U. S. Department of Education and private funders. They were charged with developing an assessment system aligned to the CCSS by the 2014-15 school year.

 

At last count, these consortia have 27 states and the District of Columbia signed up— affecting 42% of U.S. students according to Education Week.
The media remind us constantly that our ‘failing’ schools need fixing; that, to do so, we should assess student skills and knowledge to help teachers improve instruction; that we also need to evaluate and rate teachers and weed out poor performers. And we are told that these tests can be multipurposed to do all of the above!

 

Sounds good? Actually, it sounds too good to be true. Does this multipurpose use to evaluate teacher effectiveness clear a key psychometric hurdle: test validity?

 

What is test validity?

 

At its core, it is the basic, bedrock requirement that a test measure what it is designed to measure. Thus, if a test is designed to measure how well 3rd graders decode, we judge the test according to how well it does that. Can students decode? If it is designed to be predictive; say, to measure if students are ‘on track’ or progressing toward college or career-readiness, we judge it accordingly. Either way, we must ask if a test whose purpose is to measure what students learn or whether they are ‘on track’ can also be used to measure something else—such as how well teachers teach?

 

So what are these tests’ purposes? For answers, let’s review the PARCC and SBAC websites. First PARCC, the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers:

 

PARCC is a group of states working together to develop a set of assessments that measure whether students are on track to be successful in college and their careers. These high quality, computer-based K–12 assessments in Mathematics and English Language Arts/Literacy give teachers, schools, students, and parents better information whether students are on track in their learning and for success after high school, and tools to help teachers customize learning to meet student needs.

 

PARCC is based on the core belief that assessment should work as a tool for enhancing teaching and learning. Because the assessments are aligned with the new, more rigorous Common Core State Standards, they ensure that every child is on a path to college and career readiness by measuring what students should know at each grade level. They will also provide parents and teachers with timely information to identify students who may be falling behind and need extra help. [Emphasis added]

 

Second, the SBAC, Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium:

 

The [SBAC] is a state-led consortium working to develop next-generation assessments that accurately measure student progress toward college- and career-readiness. Smarter Balanced is one of two multistate consortia awarded funding from the U.S. Department of Education in 2010 to develop an assessment system aligned to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS)by the 2014-15 school year.

 

The work of Smarter Balanced is guided by the belief that a high-quality assessment system can provide information and tools for teachers and schools to improve instruction and help students succeed – regardless of disability, language or subgroup.

 

Smarter Balanced involves experienced educators, researchers, state and local policymakers and community groups working together in a transparent and consensus-driven process. [Emphasis added]

 

Clearly, these tests’ purpose is to (a) measure student progress on the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and college or career readiness, (b) give teachers and parents better information about students, and (c) help improve instruction. No mention is made of gauging teacher effectiveness.

 

Yet, questions about the validity of using these tests in this multipurpose way seem to be missing from national discussions, even as other validity issues are raised. For example, questions are raised about score validity when tests are administered in different ways (on a computer or with paper and pencil) and at different times of the year.

 

Also discussed are questions about whether these tests are aligned to the CCSS. The media reports battles among states, unions, and others about how to measure teacher effectiveness through these tests; e.g., through value-added models, student growth percentages, or other approaches. But, questions of basic test validity from the get-go about this multipurpose use of these tests are not part of today’s public discourse.

 

They should be.

 

If we continue on this track of creating high stakes for teachers with tests designed for a different purpose, we may well end up with unintended consequences, including distrust of the system, questionable accountability, and lawsuits.

 

My suggestion? Given the reprieve for states and growing concern among the public about these tests and the CCSS themselves, test consortia and our federal and state governments should take a deep breath and do two things.

 

First, the consortia should remind the public that the purpose of these tests is to measure student achievement on the new CCSS and career and college readiness, provide better information to teachers and parents, and improve instruction.

 

Second, the states (with federal approval and encouragement) that intend to use these results also to evaluate teacher effectiveness must inform the public explicitly about how they intend to validate the tests for this new purpose. They need to provide solid proof that their proposed use, which differs from the stated purpose of these tests, is valid, reliable, and fair. The current silence is worrisome, not transparent, and unwise.

 

This test validity issue needs to be fully aired and resolved satisfactorily before we can begin to tackle the larger issues about the multiple uses of testing. Otherwise, in our litigious land of opportunity, the ensuing battles may be costly and not pretty. Let’s not go there

I just read an excellent piece by Jonathan A. Plucker, “Common Core and  America’s High-Achieving Students.”  It is on the Thomas B. Fordham Institute website.

For the most part, the piece uses terms appropriately–‘high achievers,’ ‘advanced.’ But, unfortunately, the terms, ‘gifted’ and ‘ high-ability’ also slip into the piece. Those are labels placed  on children.  Using those labels is not helpful in advancing the important argument of the piece–which is that we need to focus on the needs of advanced students in the roll-out of  Common Core.

As I see it, we go off the rails when we group students by ‘ability,’ or ‘giftedness’ as those concepts are fluid  and the labels create unnecessary divisions among students. Far better to group students by ‘current performance’ levels or by calling them ‘advanced.’  These terms relate to the academic tasks at hand.  They  are about the WHAT that is being studied and  mastered, not the WHO that the student supposedly has been labeled.

Terms related to current performance levels, skills and knowledge are also fluid and subject to change—which is a good thing. They don’t carry the baggage associated  with labeling children as gifted or not.

I just read this piece about needing a New Deal for testing… and add my voice to the conversation.
Using student test results to measure teacher performance is not just ‘starting to damage our schools.’  It is flawed in a far more basic way–it is invalid use of those tests.  These tests are designed to measure student performance against the Common Core–and to assess college and career readiness. They are NOT designed to measure teachers.  I’m afraid that using them for this invalid purpose (no matter how carefully the statistical model may be) invites litigation and further erodes support for education reform.