Tuesday, July 9, 2019

Outputs Versus Inputs

Rita Moore in her closing arguments as chairperson of the PPS School Board said the main thing the district needs to focus on Is good student “outputs”
This focus is the incorrect approach. What the board needs to focus on is good student “inputs”. Inputs are what it can actually control. Inputs are easily measured and supported. Talking about “outputs” is in vogue in education – it is how educators are talking. But it is flawed. 
Think about raising children. Let’s say one of the outputs you want is a healthy child. You get there by creating the right inputs which you can actually see and measure. “Healthy” is a term which has many, many components. Do you want your child to just be physically healthy, to make healthy life choices, to be mentally healthy, to be strong, free of disease, be empathetic, able to make good choices in their eating, to exercise well.? There are a million and one ways to get your child to be healthy. Measuring how you did is both after the fact and relatively impossible. Your child gets chicken pox so you are a failure. Your child doesn’t brush his or her teeth well, so you are a failure. And on and on. 
But what you can control is what you do. You can encourage your child to eat and like vegetables and understand how this helps their health. You can encourage your child to exercise by getting her or him in a soccer league or buying them a bike. You can make sure you model good health habits yourself. 
You can do many, many things to help them be a healthy child and adult. And you can easily look at what you are doing to help him or her be healthy, and this is now, not after the fact. It is not hard to understand you can’t do everything (how about hiring the best therapist in New York and having them fly out each Wednesday to work with your child). Not going to happen. It is easy to say, yes I want my child healthy and to look at what you are doing to get there. And it is the getting there that you can measure and direct.
It is the same in education. We want all children to read. That is not the focus. The focus is what are we doing – the inputs – to get there. That is the crux of the discussion, the planning, and the strategy. What are we doing or not doing. Has not a darn thing to do with looking at the outputs. We can check and see what percentage of our kids are reading at a certain level, but knowing that level doesn’t tell us what we are doing right or wrong. We need to look at what we are doing for improvement to be made. 
Now some people might say that we can test and see what is working or not. For reading – are you kidding? There are hundreds of reasons why a child isn’t reading well and there is no way you can isolate out the variables to see why they are not reading based on testing. You can show they need phonics help say and get it for them. But testing won’t show you why they didn’t get this help in the first place. What shows you that is looking at the inputs. 
The inputs are the ball game. If you lose a game 5 to 1, this doesn’t tell you why you lost, only that you did. You have to look at what happened during the game. What were the inputs? 
So where is the harm in focusing on outputs? You miss the important part, the inputs. You waste huge amounts of time and energy. You narrow the possible inputs? You don’t consult the people working with the actual children – you sit in a room and look at the data. And another hundred reasons. 
End of story.

Steve Buel

Monday, April 15, 2019

Save Money, Gain Time, Dump SBAC!

Last week the Oregon Legislature’s Joint Committee on Student Success unveiled its plan to increase funding and improve public education. Oregon Save Our Schools would like to suggest a way that the legislature could save a little money and improve education: assess Oregon’s assessment system.

The most egregious problem with the state assessment system is the Smarter Balanced Assessment (also known as SBAC, coming out of the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium). This is the assessment that students in grades 3 through 8 and grade 11 currently take to fulfill the federal requirement for annual testing.  SBAC is a tremendous drain on time and resources if the vast majority of Oregon’s educators are to be believed.

While there is a federal requirement for annual testing in those grades, the federal government does not require a specific assessment. High school students and families have opted out of SBAC to the extent that the state is considering many other options for the federally required grade 11 assessment but elementary students will still be subjected to the months long annual slog through the Smarter Balanced Assessment if our legislators don’t act to change that.

SBAC consists of two tests for English Language Arts (ELA) and two for Math. It takes an average of 8 hours to complete the four tests. (Reminder: “Average” means that 50% of kids will take longer than this to finish the tests. This includes third graders, typically 8 and 9 year olds.) SBAC is given for months at a time in the elementary school, testing grade level after grade level. It can overshadow every other activity in the school during those months, becoming the complete focus.

Staff are often pulled from their regular duties to make sure that all students finish, including students who have been absent on one or more of the many scheduled testing days. Those students are in turn pulled from regular class time to finish. This inappropriate focus on test scores has also caused loss of time in physical activity, the arts, music, and other content areas, including Science and Social Studies in the elementary grades.

Finally, because of the increasingly intense focus on a single test score, many districts have decided to purchase “interim assessments” to measure “progress” towards passing Smarter Balanced. Some of those assessments can be purchased from SBAC but also include assessments like iReady or MAP testing. Portland Public Schools alone recently signed a $1 million contract with NWEA  for delivery of MAP testing. These interim assessments are typically given up to three times a year and take between one and three hours for students to complete, again in both ELA and Math. Add those hours to the many hours of SBAC testing.

We also have the ELPA, or English Language Proficiency Assessment, for English learners (who still have to take the ELA even if ELPA deems them not yet English proficient). And then there’s the Oregon Kindergarten Assessment …the list goes on and on. Teachers have reported to Oregon Save Our Schools that between 15% and 25% of their instructional time is now being taken up by standardized testing, depending on the tests required by the federal government, the state of Oregon, and their local school district at each grade level.

According to the Oregon Department of Education’s (ODE) own reports, ODE’s budget has increased by 76% since 2013 and 54% of the budget of the Office of Teaching and  Learning within the ODE is devoted to assessment. And of course now we have the data tracking system for “cradle to career”.  A lot of money is being spent for very little result.

Oregon Save Our Schools fully supports funding Oregon’s schools to at least the level of the Quality Education Model (QEM) but we do not support spending money on things that bring nothing of value to students.  Oregon Save Our Schools believes Oregon leaders should be following the lead of New Mexico’s governor and suspending the Smarter Balanced Assessment until the role of the statewide summative assessments in Oregon’s education system can be evaluated with input from  students, parents, and educators (SB 428 would do just that) and a more appropriate assessment system can be implemented.

We would suggest that the role of the Oregon Kindergarten Assessment also be thoroughly examined, along with current standards for Pre-K to grade 3. Many educators believe these standards have led to practices that are not developmentally appropriate for young children.  Indeed, the assessment itself may be an inappropriate practice.

We get nothing for the money spent on these assessments except data that does not advance the learning of individual children. We believe that education dollars could be better directed towards things children need rather than an assessment bureaucracy that not only doesn’t serve children but may in fact be harming many.

Legislators, we are calling on you to step up and be the heroes our students need. Let’s spend our children’s precious time engaged in learning and our money on providing the staff and resources necessary to deliver to them a well rounded educational program. Kids need counselors, PE, librarians, music, the arts, and recess time, not ever more and more testing.

Fund our schools and fund the right things.

Friday, March 8, 2019

Data Driven or Opt Out?

New school board members on the horizon – will they know enough to combat the testing mania? We haven’t heard from any of the present board members on testing, except Paul Anthony. Certainly there are huge, huge reasons to work against the Smarter Balanced testing which Oregon has each of its schools use. The largest of which is it actually harms some children, while not directly helping any child’s education.

A sensible response to this would be to de-emphasize the testing. Figure out ways to make it less intrusive, less damaging, less important. There are lots of things that could be done, small nuances of showing its underlying lack of importance. But instead of choosing what is most often best for children our administration and board have increased the testing’s importance by advocating for becoming a data driven district and sending out blatantly absurd missives which tell how important it is to score well and to combat things which might reduce our scores, like opting out.

One of the reasons for a district to take this tact is a misunderstanding of what opting out is working to accomplish – a more useful system of testing which gives a snapshot of how children and the district are doing without the mind numbing pressure, the zip code controlled failure, the anti-child curricular effects, the massive waste of time and resources.

Opting out is saying we can do better by our children, while our district is saying we don’t care, this is how the game is played, to hell with your child.

You choose, do they really think this, or are they just following along because it is simpler? If we are to be a data driven district then why aren’t we opting for something with good and useful data? We are all in this for children, right? Then why are we so willing to do things that harm them in the name of them?

We are destroying the village in order to save it.

Steve Buel

Tuesday, January 15, 2019

Can Children Be "Too Young To Test"?

For the first decade after the No Child Left Behind Act passed in 2001  --  putting into high gear the testing-based model of education  --  almost all standardized testing took place in grades 3-8 and 11.  Little children were the only ones spared being subjected to the data-driven “business model” approach to learning, with its fixed testing targets and its multitude of accompanying charts and graphs. 

Developmentally Inappropriate

No more.  Little children have now caught up with their older siblings in the testing derby, on track to join them in taking over 110 standardized tests by the end of high school. Yes, 110. Teachers in pre-kindergarten through grade two have now joined their teaching colleagues in the older grades in the pressure cooker to produce “accountability” data to match predetermined benchmarks.  Little children are now joining their older siblings in experiencing the sidelining of art, music, creative play and other non-tested curriculum.  They too are now spending more and more of their day in “seat time”, focused on tested subjects.  They too are now being repeatedly “tested, sorted and tracked”. 

Their teachers know this is developmentally inappropriate.  They know it is clearly wrong.  But they are not allowed to tell you that.  They are not allowed to tell you that most high-performing countries in the world test once in elementary, once in middle school and once in high school.  They are not allowed to tell you that teachers already know full well how to identify kids who are struggling with reading, writing and math.  Over the ages, teachers did not need multi-billion dollar testing corporations to tell them.  

Two Ways to Say “Enough!”

Oregonians have an opportunity to change things in a good way.  We have the chance to say “No” to the developmentally-inappropriate and harmful practice of testing-sorting-tracking little children.  We can say “No” to the drive to minimize their other important qualities, such as creativity, divergent thinking, and problem-solving. 

One way to change things is for all of us to tell our legislators to support the “Too Young to Test” bill, (HB 2318), that has been introduced by Representative John Lively (D- Springfield).  It would prohibit the state government and local districts from standardized testing little children from pre-kindergarten through grade two.  It is modeled on legislation in New York, New Jersey and Illinois.  It would allow teachers to make their own professional decisions about which assessments to administer.  

The second way is for parents to “Just Say No” to every form of standardized testing that they can.  This is where the ultimate power is:  If parents say, “No more” --  by opting their children out  --  the testing juggernaut will begin to collapse.  We could then join much of the rest of the world in giving a few, well-constructed, classroom-based assessments – and save our kids from harm, save our teachers and principals from dispirited burnout and save taxpayers tens of millions of dollars a year.

What Have We Got to Lose?

After all, what have Oregon parents, students and taxpayers gotten for the hundreds of millions of dollars we have spent on standardized testing for the past 20 years?  Is the dropout rate better?  Has the “achievement gap” among ethnic groups and economic classes improved?  Is teacher burn-out and turnover up or down?  Are students more engaged with their own learning? 

Is this really the best we can do for our children?

There is no ethical or curricular justification for repeatedly standardized testing very young children - or any of our children. Let young children experience the joy of learning and the thrill of making, doing, exploring, and play. They are indeed “Too Young to Test”.  Do two things for our little ones:  Support HB 2318 and encourage your friends to Opt-Out.

Roscoe Caron and Larry Lewin are retired Eugene School District middle school teachers and members of the Community Alliance for Public Educatin (CAPE).  Pat and Jan Eck are retired elementary educators and founders of Angry Grandparents Against High Stakes Testing (AGAHST).  All are members of the Oregon Public Education Network (OPEN), which defends public education. Check out their websites:  oregoncape.org. and orpublicednetwork.org  This article originally appeared in Eugene Weekly and was republished here with permission of the authors. 

Sunday, January 13, 2019

Beaverton Business Man, Parent Responds to Oregonian Editorial Board: "SBAC tests are neither good data nor useful data."

The Oregonian recently published an editorial suggesting that parents who opposed high stakes standardized tests are fighting against the community good. But I was disappointed by the editorial’s logic and lack of respect for the problem of relying on SBAC test data. 
For background, I’m a trained and experienced applied mathematician and have used data to manage human oriented programs for 25 years (advertising, marketing, etc). In my role, I’ve had to rely on data to deliver $1B in revenue for clients and my clients have included a large number of the Fortune 100 companies. 

The error is that the editorial presumes that SBAC tests are “good data”. There’s little evidence to support this. 

Standardized tests have become a focus because they are the ONLY data available in standardized ways - not because they are the data that’s needed.

Just a few brief points about the data SBAC produces:

Tests of this sort are able to evaluate (at most) only about half of what we need kids to learn in any subject area. Consider writing.
  • We need kids to learn to communicate effectively in writing.
    • While grammar, spelling, and word knowledge are important they are barely a start.
    • To write effectively they have to (a) know what they think, (b) be able to choose effective ways to communicate it and (c) be able to put that into understandable written form. 
    • Grammar, spelling and word knowledge are only part of the (c) - and only part of item (c).
  • While there have been claims that SBAC evaluates this, it doesn’t. 
  • To effectively evaluate how well our schools teach students to write would require:
    • Students be given a subject that interests them.
    • That they be given time to think and explore the topic to arrive at a point of view.
    • That they be given time to ponder that point of view and sort out how to communicate in writing about it.
    • That their writing be evaluated by a real human being who spends 20 to 30 minutes reading what they write in order to establish an effective grade.
    • Unfortunately, SBAC is primarily graded by machine. When it’s graded by a human the standard appears to be 2 minutes grading per answer and graders are given incentives to do that grading faster. 
  • In other words, SBAC doesn’t even come close to effectively grading writing. It’s a superficial test - which means it’s bad data - not good.

ALL subject areas (tested or not) are generally about half of what we need students to learn at school. 
  • It’s far more critical that they “learn to learn”, “learn to study”, “learn to explore issues”.
  • Even more critically, we need them to take issues and areas where there are NO answers known and be able to construct effective ways to explore those.
  • We need phys-ed, music, art, drama, business, etc.
The SBAC tested subjects only reflect about 25% of what we need schools to deliver. Given that only about 1/2 of the subject matter can be tests, this means:

SBAC tests evaluate about 12.5% (1/8th) of what we need schools to deliver.

SBAC tests are neither good data nor useful data. They are simply data and they fill vast computers in ways that allow silly little superficial reports to be sent home. Administrators probably love the data - because administrators don’t demand data be good - only that it be present (this observation is about every industry including, I expect, the newspaper business).

The role that your newspaper and the Oregon Department of Education give them in discussion misleads the public into believing they are highly meaningful.

My bottom line is we are in a position where society (and PPS administrators) WISH there was an objective way to rely on data to evaluate schools. There is not that opportunity. Unfortunately, PPS has chosen an Orwellian claim that bad data is good. 

There are other ways to evaluate schools. And parents, despite complaints you might hear, do know how well their kids are doing. But parenting is difficult because in middle school years, there’s no way to be certain that the hormone driven mess who is their child will turn out to be successful in life. 

What other ways? Grades and teacher evaluation of children. Many colleges, a constantly increasing number, have dropped any use of SAT or ACT in admissions and rely on grades. They have found that grades are a far better predictor of success than standardized tests. This is a REAL WORLD example and they have made this choice based on observing what happens.

Doug Garnett
Beaverton School District Parent and OSOS Member


From Flickr: "When my son takes standardized tests" 

Friday, January 11, 2019

Seven Years Later, a Former OEIB Member Catches Up. Let's hope she's finally catching on.

We at Oregon Save Our Schools were surprised yet pleased to see that former member of the Oregon Education Investment Board (OEIB) Whitney Grubbs has finally taken our advice from 2012 and decided to go take a look at education in Finland. Grubbs was also Deputy Education Policy Advisor to former governor John Kitzhaber, who helped usher in many corporate driven education "reform" policies here in Oregon. One of our OSOS members, Emily Crum, classroom teacher and former President of Reynolds Education Association, who is currently on sabbatical for study as a winner of the Fulbright Distinguished Award in Teaching, has also been to Finland. We asked Emily to write a response after reading Grubbs' recent opinion piece (written jointly with other authors) which appeared on Oregon Live a few weeks back. We thank Emily for taking the time out of her extremely busy schedule to do so. Her response has was submitted to The Oregonian. You can also read it below.

Yes, let’s put children at the center of how we make education policy and reform in Oregon. I am happy to welcome Whitney Grubbs, Kali Thorne Ladd, Matt Morton and Vanessa Wilkins to the Finland party on education. And would like to reiterate the final sentence from their recent opinion piece “Looking to Finland to improve Oregon’s Schools”

“Only with courage, shared responsibility and sacrifice can we transform our state into a place where all can meaningfully contribute and thrive, where disparities are eliminated and where children take their rightful place at the center.”

As an educator in the Reynolds School District for over 10 years, working with students in early childhood at our most underserved schools in the state, I feel like I have had my share, if not more than most, of “courage, responsibility, and sacrifice.” I also went to Finland in 2015 for a summer school course titled “Myths and Realities of the Finnish Educational System.” For three weeks in August I sat in a room with educators from around the world discussing not only the Finnish educational system, but education globally. We visited Finnish schools, read about current Finnish educational issues, and saw the benefits of much that is highlighted in the Oregonian’s recent opinion piece. Students are at the center and children overall are respected in Finland. Teachers are given a lot of autonomy and held in a respected light culturally. Health and well-being are definitely tied to academic success, but not just stopping there, they are considered important for success overall. 

One cannot ignore the fact that Finland is a country that provides universal health care, among many other social supports. I will never forget the moment in my class in Finland when I asked, “So how does Finland support students who are acting out in disruptive ways, like hitting or running away?”

The blank look on the professor’s face as he said, “That doesn’t happen here.” 

At that moment, in my mind I begin to ask, “Well what am I doing here?” Because that is what was and is happening where I work.

I think it is dangerous to try and adapt a model or educational system from one country to another. We are not identical in needs or services. I do think we can still learn from each other, but the take-aways must be student centered, focusing on who are our students and what are their specific needs. That was my biggest gain from Finland. Local needs must be identified, acknowledged and addressed in a problem-solving manner. But above all we must direct resources to serve those needs. 

I just recently returned home from three months of traveling. I visited friends, who I made during my course in Finland, in Egypt and Nepal. I went to their prospective schools and observed their classrooms. I believe and practice being a life-long learner. I set off this next week to New Zealand on a Distinguished Award in Teaching Fulbright Grant to study how New Zealand Schools implement whole-school restorative practices with long-term planning and professional development. An initiative that Portland Public Schools just reduced in their own budget. 

Early childhood art class in Egypt

At my friend’s school in Nepal, he shared with me his biggest take-away from Finland was to add more arts into his students’ day. All children at his school have art, music, and dance classes. They have a full time librarian and a library filled with English and Nepali books. The school is full of joy. Teachers are eager to learn and given the time to do so with co-teachers in every classroom. Leadership at his school allowed for growth and shifted resources to support the arts. Key word here: “resources.” Throughout my time in education in Oregon, from being a student in Portland Public Schools to a Restorative Justice Behavior Specialist in Reynolds Public Schools I have seen a decline in resources, and lack of funding where it truly matters.    

Early childhood dance class in Nepal

IF a child-centered classroom was what we REALLY wanted in Oregon, we would shift what we fund and why. We would have fully stocked classroom and school libraries, with actual librarians. We would fund arts: music, dance, theater and visual arts. We would encourage and provide professional development allowing for play-centered learning in early childhood. We would provide universal preschool. We would have funding for physical education and after school sports. We would fund needed counselors and support staff working with students. We would provide more professional development and support for culturally-relevant teaching practices.

On a side note, my paper for my course in Finland focused on the lack of culturally relevant classroom instruction. They may have a growing diversity of immigrants, but the homogeneity of the country and its population still dominate the classrooms and what is taught. Reynolds School District has 61 languages spoken by the students that walk through our doors. You cannot compare that reality with Finland’s. Our language demands and needs differ, our resources stretch too thin. We simply do not have the funds to provide one-on-one language classes to all our students who need it. We spend our resources instead on high stakes testing, which continues to plague our schools and students. We spend our money on curriculum adoptions that take place every few years and never allow for any constancy. We give tax breaks to our corporations so they don’t have to show “courage, shared responsibility, and sacrifice.” 

I remember the student-centered education of our public schools in Oregon in the eighties and nineties before No Child Left Behind. We know what would help our students. I don’t need to go to Finland or New Zealand to find that out. I spent the last 10 years filling a classroom with books I bought in order to have a culturally relevant library of high interest texts. I sought out my own group of early-childhood educators who support and understand the value of play. I wrote my own professional development centering on restorative practices for the Fulbright Grant in order to go and hopefully to see what long-term planning and professional development support does to change a school culture and community. That was my own teacher autonomy fighting to swim upstream everyday. The same autonomy that makes me a teacher who speaks up constantly for the students I know need various supports and are not receiving them.

Our system has to fit into percentages boxes. I have seen the deterioration of educators working together because of the push for whittling down students, educators, schools, and districts to scores and numbers, breaking away the communities that we used to create and thrive in here in Oregon. I fly to New Zealand next week because at the end of the day I know it is our relationships with our students, fellow educators, and each other in our community that will make any difference in ability to transform our schools. Restorative practices in its truest form is about such relationships. Relationships that I have only witnessed be torn apart in my professional lifetime as a teacher. Relationships I cling to keeping me in this profession. For me at the end of the day, it is always about that small child, whose hand I am holding, who says, “Ms. Emily I am….” “Ms. Emily I need….” “Ms. Emily I want…” and who I look in the eye and say back to them, “I hear you.” 

Emily Crum

*Opinions stated in this piece are mine, not in connection with any organization I am affiliated with.

Former Reynolds Education Association President
Current Distinguished Award in Teaching Fulbright Awardee

Classroom Educator 

Photo credits: Emily Crum

Monday, January 7, 2019

PPS to Principals: Continue the Beatings Until Morale (and Participation) Improve

Today we publish the final in a series of three letters that went out to the Portland Public Schools community. The first letter we published was the letter sent out to parents and the second was the letter sent out to staff. Today's letter was sent out to principals.

Deputy Superintendent Yvonne Curtis made it clear to in her letter to teachers that they are not to speak to parents about opting out. Curtis makes it clear in the letter below that it is the principals' responsibility to "ensure effective administration of all assessments" and states, "I look forward to measuring our improvement in the area of participation in these critical assessments."

In summary: Parents are being misinformed about the value and purpose of the assessments. Teachers are being told to keep quiet if they disagree with Curtis's message about the value and purpose of the assessments. Principals are being told it is their responsibility to make sure that participation is increased.

Curtis's insistence that these assessments are "critical" is laughable. They are a time, money, and energy drain on our school system. Fortunately, parents don't work for Portland Public Schools. Yvonne Curtis cannot fire parents or put a blotch on their employment files.

Parents, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OPT YOUR CHILDREN OUT OF THE SBAC ASSESSMENTS! Opt out to send the message that we want an assessment system that is a more effective, authentic way for students to demonstrate what they have learned. Standardization does not equal excellence and your children should not be subjected to a battery of assessments, beginning in third grade, that rivals the Oregon State Bar Exam in length.

Find the state Opt Out form here. And sign on to our Action Network letter, written in cooperation with Oregon BATs,  to the Oregon Department of Education, the Governor's office, and the Attorney General's office to tell these officials that  top down bullying and coercion tactics in our schools are not acceptable. Principals and teachers are professional educators whose opinions about the value of specific curricular and instructional activities, as well as how students are assessed, should be listened to and respected even when they do not agree with those of administration.

One really has to question the motive behind administration attempting to silence and demand complete conformity from professionals who actually spend their days with students.

Read the letter to principals below.

Dear PPS Principals,

I have prepared a letter to staff regarding their questions and our expectations about the MAP assessments. In this letter, I provide some information about our PPS Quality Assessment Framework. Please see the attached letter to make sure you understand what the questions have been and can assist with clarifying the answers to the questions and the district expectations regarding administration of the winter and fall administration of these assessments.

I will be sending the attached letters to staff and families regarding SBAC assessments. Through
all of these messages, my goal is to make expectations clear while providing accurate
information to staff and families regarding the value of assessments. There has been a great
deal of misinformation on this subject and I am asking for your assistance in making sure we are
delivering a consistent and accurate message.

The most important points we can share with families are around the value of data in decision
making and our intentional shift to be a data-driven organization. One of our best tools for
gathering data on student success is through our state assessments and I am stressing the
importance of participation to give our leaders access to critical information that can be used in
educational decisions and resource allocation.

I also have included information about opt-out and exemptions available to families. By state
law, this is a parent's right and we absolutely respect that right. I want our families to be well-informed before they make a decision about opt-out or exemptions and have provided links to
additional information. I also make it clear that I am encouraging participation because of the
value of receiving this kind of data.

I would like you to take this opportunity to inform your staff, families and students about how
you use the results from assessments. Please familiarize yourself with this information and pay
careful attention to the information that will be forthcoming from our assessment department.

I am placing the responsibility for ensuring effective administration of all assessments on
principals. It is my expectation that you will provide leadership as we take another significant
step forward in becoming a data-driven district.

If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Cuellar or me directly. I look forward to measuring
our improvement in the area of participation in these critical assessments. Thank you for your
dedication to our students.

Dr. Yvonne Curtis
Deputy Superintendent, Instruction and School Communities

Attachments: Letter to Families Letter to All Staff