برچسب: test

  • State Board criticized for soft-pedaling reporting on low student test scores

    State Board criticized for soft-pedaling reporting on low student test scores


    Students exchange ideas in a science classroom.

    Credit: Allison Shelley / EDUimages

    Clarity matters when explaining to parents how their children did on standardized tests. An imprecise characterization of a complicated score can mislead parents into assuming their kids performed better than they did.

    That issue is at the heart of the opposition to draft revisions to descriptions of students’ scores on the Smarter Balanced assessments that are sent home to parents. While the degree of difficulty of the tests and their scoring wouldn’t change, the characterization of the results would, like replacing the term “standard not met” with “inconsistent” for the lowest scores.

    Parent focus groups this week

    The California Department of Education is scheduling three online focus groups to gather thoughts, questions and concerns on proposed changes to how scores on the Smarter Balanced statewide assessments will be reported publicly. The meetings are for parents, teachers and students. 

    Tuesday, Dec. 3, 6 to 7 p,m.: Session 1, in English 

    Wednesday, Dec. 4, 7 to 8 p.m. Session 2, in English for students only

    Thursday, Dec. 5, 6 to 7 p.m. Session 3, in Spanish

    Go here to register and complete this interest form to participate.

    The State Board of Education delayed its adoption at its November meeting because of criticism that the revised wording may compound, not solve, current unclear language.

    Board members listened to children’s advocacy groups who chided state officials for not first consulting with teachers and parents before taking any action — which state officials acknowledged they hadn’t done.

    In a letter to the state board about the proposed changes, particularly the labeling of low test scores, nine student advocacy groups — the Alliance for Students — argued that the revised language “will only serve to obfuscate the data and make it even more challenging for families and advocates to lift the needs of our most underserved students.” Signers of the letter include Teach Plus, Children Now, and Innovate Public Schools.

    Getting the terms right is important for the assessment scores to be useful to parents and teachers, Sarah Lillis, executive director of Teach Plus California, told EdSource. “We want to make sure the signals sent by the descriptors foster dialogue” and encourage parents to ask the right questions. 

    “We echo the concerns of our colleagues,” testified Lindsay Tornatore, representing the California County Superintendents at the board’s Nov. 13 meeting. “Outreach to parents, families and the community should have been prioritized to engage in multiple opportunities prior to the changes being made.”

    In response, the California Department of Education hastily scheduled online presentations this week for parents and teachers, with the expectation that they will consider any recommendations at their next meeting in January.

    How scores are reported

    A student’s scores on the Smarter Balanced tests in English language arts and math and on the California Science Test fall within one of four achievement levels that provide context on how the student performed. Level 4, with the highest attainable scores, is also labeled “Standard Exceeded.” Level 3 is labeled Standard Met; Level 2 is Standard Nearly Met, and Level 1 is Standard Not Met. Many of the dozen states and territories that give Smarter Balanced use the same definitions. 

    The target is to score at least Level 3, which indicates a student is working at grade level. In the 2023-24 results, fewer than half of students achieved Levels 3 or 4: 53% scored at levels 1 or 2 in English language arts, and 64.5% scored at Levels 1 or 2 in math.  The tests are given to students in grades three through eight and grade 11.

    Statewide scores were worse in science, which is given to students in grades five, eight, and once in high school, 69.3% failed to meet Level 3 — the grade-level standard — in 2023-24.

    In response to criticism that the existing labels are vague, imprecise and confusing, Smarter Balanced representatives decided to create a new set of labels and brief descriptions, which states have the option to use. This is particularly so for Level 2 — the “Standard Nearly Met” label. Many parents don’t understand what nearly meeting grade-level standards in particular means. 

    Under the Smarter Balanced draft for the scoring bands, Level 4 would become “Advanced,” Level 3 would be “Proficient,” Level 2 would be “Foundational,” and Level 1 would be “Inconsistent.”

    A draft description for Level 2 in language arts for third to fifth grade would read, “The student demonstrates foundational grade-level skills and shows a basic understanding of and ability to apply the knowledge and skills in English language arts/literacy needed for likely success in future coursework.”

    In letters and in remarks at the board meeting, critics indicated they’re fine with “Advanced” and “Proficient” but are unhappy with the labels Foundational and Inconsistent for Levels 1 and 2.

    “The language is confusing and not engaging for families with the first two levels,” said Joanna French, director of research and policy strategies for Innovate Public Schools. “If a student is not at grade level, be direct about that. You cannot address a problem you cannot see.”

    Tonya Craft-Perry, a 15-year teacher who is active in the Black Parent Network of Innovate Public Schools, said that “’Foundational’ could lead parents to believe their children are doing better than they are. It makes the district and teachers look better, but if a low score requires intervention, a parent needs to know that,” she said.

    Several board members indicated that one easy remedy would be to include language in the revision’s current descriptions. The wording makes clear that a student scoring in Level 2 “may require further development” to demonstrate the knowledge and skills to succeed in future grades or, for older students, in college courses after high school. Students scoring in Level 1 “needs substantial improvement” to succeed.

    News media oversimplifies

    In a two-page explanation, Smarter Balanced blamed the news media for much of the misunderstanding over the current wording of the labels.

    “The media often incorrectly reports that students who aren’t proficient ‘can’t do math’ or ‘can’t read.’ This is not true. The Smarter Balanced assessments are aligned to grade-level content, and students who achieve Levels 2, 3, and 4 do, in fact, demonstrate a continuum of grade-level knowledge and skills,” it said.

    Students at all three of those levels are showing that they “understand core content,” said Linda Darling-Hammond, president of the California State Board of Education, at the board meeting.

    But as scores progress from one level to the next, students convey increasing accuracy and complexity in their knowledge and skills. Smarter Balanced said students demonstrate this in how they respond to more complex reading passages, concepts and advanced vocabulary, or in math, the number of elements in equations and difficult word problems.

    Rob Manwaring, a senior adviser to the advocacy group Children Now, said that the new labels would feed the “reality gap in the perceptions of parents that their kids are doing better than they are” in school. In an often-cited 2023 parent survey in communities nationwide, survey firm Gallup and the nonprofit parent advocacy organization Learning Heroes found that, based on their kids’ report cards, parents’ perceptions were out of whack with how their children did on assessments. In Sacramento County, where 28% of students were proficient in math tests, 85% of parents believed their children were proficient.

    “Now we are suggesting that students scoring below standard are foundational. Many parents will conclude, ‘My kid is doing fine,’” Manwaring said.





    Source link

  • How Compton Unified boosted its standardized test scores

    How Compton Unified boosted its standardized test scores


    A teacher leads fourth graders in a lesson at William Jefferson Clinton Elementary in Compton on Feb. 6, 2025.

    Credit: AP Photo/Eric Thayer

    Este artículo está disponible en Español. Léelo en español.

    Ask anyone what they know about Compton, California. 

    Many would bring up tennis legends Venus and Serena Williams, who learned to play on Compton’s public courts, or the election of Douglas Dollarhide, who, in 1969, became the first Black man to serve as a mayor of a metropolitan area in California.  

    The city shown in these two stories was about hardship, rampant crime, and certainly not about academic achievement. 

    According to the Los Angeles Times, the Compton Unified School district struggled financially also. In 1993, it had incurred $20 million in debt and was taken over by California’s Department of Education.

    About two decades later, in 2012, the district was once again on the brink of entering receivership for financial hardship. 

    Today, Compton’s story is very different, and the school district has been applauded across the state and nation for how far it has come in boosting students’ standardized test scores and performance.  

    As school districts throughout the state and the nation continue to recover from learning losses resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic, some districts have made especially noteworthy strides. 

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSlYdhTeWb0

    Compton Unified School District, now home to about 20,000 students who attend more than 40 campuses, is among those achieving districts, despite the vast majority of its students being socioeconomically disadvantaged, according to Ed-Data. Nearly 95% of the district’s students are considered “high-need” under the state’s local control funding formula.

    “Compton Unified School District’s achievements are truly inspiring,” Los Angeles County Superintendent of Schools Debra Duardo said in a statement to EdSource. “Their impressive graduation rate, coupled with significant academic growth and a strong focus on college and career readiness … demonstrate a deep commitment to student success.”

    Going Deeper

    The Associated Press analyzed data from the Education Recovery Scorecard, produced by Harvard’s Tom Kane and Stanford’s Sean Reardon, which uses state test score data to compare districts across states and regions on post-pandemic learning recovery. The AP provided data analysis and reporting for this story.

    After the Covid-19 pandemic set students across the country back, Compton Unified has managed to raise its scores significantly in both English language arts and mathematics, according to the Education Recovery Scorecard, released by the Center for Education Policy Research at Harvard University and The Educational Opportunity Project at Stanford University, and published by the Associated Press. 

    “The progress we’ve seen in Compton Unified is a testament to the hard work and dedication of the entire educational community — from the students and teachers to the administrators and families,” Duardo added. 

    The data from the universities’ Education Recovery Scorecard combines state standardized test results with scores from the Nation’s Report Card

    The district’s results in the state’s Smarter Balanced assessments show a similar, positive trend — with the number of students meeting or exceeding English and math standards in 2024 increasing by more than 2 percentage points from the previous year. 

    Compton Unified remains behind the statewide average on Smarter Balanced assessments in English Language Arts in 2024, nearly 35% of students met or exceeded math standards, in comparison to 30.7% statewide.  

    And based on the Education Recovery Scorecard, Compton still remains behind state and national averages in both math and reading for third through eighth grade students. 

    Darin Brawley, Superintendent of Compton Unified
    Credit: AP Photo/Eric Thayer

    Between 2022 and 2024, Compton Unified has seen a steady rise in students’ performance on standardized tests in math, and their reading scores saw a jump post pandemic — an improvement that doesn’t surprise district Superintendent Darin Brawley, who has been leading the district since 2012. 

    Brawley attributes the district’s growth to ongoing diagnostic assessments in both English language arts and math, allocating resources based on students’ performance and aligning district standards to the state’s dashboard. 

    According to Brawley, some of the district’s specific methods include:

    • Having principals write and submit action plans based on the previous year’s Smarter Balanced assessment results by June 
    • Holding superintendent’s data chats every six weeks, so principals can meet and discuss their school’s data as it relates to the state’s dashboard indicators 
    • Having district administrators go through “instructional rounds” and walk through classrooms at various school sites to help campuses learn from each other 
    • Conducting diagnostic assessments at the start of every school year in math and English language arts, and following them up with other benchmark assessments throughout the school year
    • Having students complete five questions each day, from Monday through Thursday, related to the standards being taught, and evaluating their learning on Friday through a five-question assessment
    • Having more than 250 tutors in both subjects to work with students in need of additional support  

    Brawley emphasized the importance of getting students to better understand the type of language that appears on tests, especially in a district with a high percentage of English learners. 

    “The secret to getting better is using assessments to guide your instruction, to develop your intervention groups, to identify the students that are doing well,” Brawley said. “Don’t be afraid to do what we know works.” 





    Source link

  • How to describe middling and poor test scores? State Board frets over the right words

    How to describe middling and poor test scores? State Board frets over the right words


    Students in a Fresno Unified classroom.

    Credit: Fresno Unified / Flickr

    Ending several months of uncertainty, the California State Board of Education on Wednesday chose new labels to describe how students perform on the four levels of achievement on its standardized tests.

    The decision was difficult. The 90 minutes of presentations and discussions offered lessons in the subtleties of language and the inferences of words.

    Board members said they were aware of the need to send the right messages to many parents, who had criticized the California Department of Education’s previous choices for labeling low test scores as vague euphemisms for bad news. 

    “Labels matter,” said board member Francisco Escobedo, executive director of the National Center for Urban Transformation at San Diego State. “Knowledge is a continuum, and how we describe students in different levels has a powerful impact.”’

    Researchers have warned that parents are getting confusing messages, with inflated grades on courses and declining scores on standardized tests of how well their children are doing in recovering from Covid setbacks in learning. The new labels will apply to scoring levels for the state science assessments and for the Smarter Balanced English language arts and math tests.

    Board members quickly agreed on “Advanced” for Level 4 and “Proficient” for Level 3 labels, the top two levels of scores. But their selection of “Developing” for Level 2 and “Minimal” for Level 1 differed from the consensus of parents, students and teachers who had been offered various options during focus groups in December and January.

    They had preferred “Basic” for Level 2 and “Below Basic” for Level 1.  The terms are clear, simple and familiar, a summary of the discussions said. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) classifies Basic as the lowest of its three levels, and California’s old state tests, which the state abandoned a decade ago to switch to Smarter Balanced, used Basic and Below Basic for scoring criteria as well.

    But for some veteran educators on the board, familiarity has bred contempt, or at least bad memories, of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the federal law under the administrations of Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush. Schools were under heavy pressure to increase their math and English language arts scores, or potentially face sanctions.

    “I had a visceral reaction to the word Basic,” said board member and veteran teacher Haydee Rodriguez. “I remember NCLB and how finite that felt for students.” The feedback should be encouraging, not a label that discourages growth, as Basic did under NCLB, she said.

    She and Kim Patillo Brownson, a parent of two teenagers who served as a policy director at the Advancement Project, a civil rights organization, also pointed out that “basic” has a different connotation for students in 2025. It’s slang for a boring and uninteresting person.  

    “Calling a student Basic is an absolute insult in 2025,” said Rodriguez. “It could shut a child down.”

    Board President Linda Darling-Hammond agreed. “If Basic is being used derogatorily, one can only imagine how Below Basic will be used. It is a real consideration; the meaning is different for adults.”

    Board members turned to other words that had been presented to the focus groups. They agreed the choices should be frank, not Pollyannaish or dispiriting.

    With Level 2, the purpose should be “trying to light a fire under parents to realize there is work to do,” said Patillo Brownson.

    Stating that “Below Basic” says a student is failing, Escobedo preferred “Developing” for Level 1 and “Emerging” for Level 2. These terms are consistent with labels used for scoring the progress of English learners.

    Patillo Brownson called Emerging “vague” and supported “Basic.”

    Board Vice President Cynthia Glover Woods, who was chief academic officer of the Riverside County Office of Education before her retirement, favored “Minimum” for Level 1 because “it is important we are clear for students and parents that students scoring at the level have a minimal understanding of grade-level knowledge.”

    Sharing the perspective of her peers, the student board member on the board, Julia Clauson, a senior at Bella Vista High School in Sacramento, recommended substituting “Approaching” for “Basic,” so as not to deter students from trying challenging courses. “Older students make academic decisions (based on what signals they get), so language matters,” she said.

    The County Superintendents association also endorsed “Approaching” for Level 2 and “Developing” or “Emerging” for Level 1.

    The board initiated what turned into a multi-month decision because of growing dissatisfaction with the labels that had been used since the first Smarter Balanced testing in 2015. They were Standard Not Met for Level 1, Standard Nearly Met for Level 2, Standard Met for Level 3 and Standard Exceeded for Level 4. Focus groups by the California Department of Education found that parents were confused about what “standard” meant. They found Standard Not Met as discouraging and Standard Nearly Met as unclear.

    But a coalition of student advocacy groups, including Teach Plus, Children Now and Innovate Public Schools, along with the County Superintendents association and the Association of California School Administrators, criticized the labels for Levels 1 and 2 that the California Department of Education recommended as their replacements as soft-pedaling euphemisms for poor scorers. The department had proposed Inconsistent for Level 1 and Foundational for Level 2.

    At its December meeting, the board told the department to try again with more focus groups.

    Changing the labels to Advanced, Proficient, Developing and Minimal won’t change how scores are determined; the individual scores within each achievement band have remained the same in all the 18 member states that take all or some of the Smarter Balanced tests, which are given to students in grades three through eight and once in high school, usually in 11th grade.

    However, additional work is needed to communicate the changes to parents and students. The department and its testing contractor, ETS, will spell out the differences between performing at the various levels in each subject and grade and the level of improvement needed to raise scores.

    Tony Alpert, executive director of Smarter Balanced, pointed out that performance differences are a continuum with students showing gaps in some grade-level skills but not others. A student scoring at Level 1 may have answered some questions showing knowledge at grade level. As scores progress from Levels 2 to 4, students demonstrate increasing accuracy and complexity in their knowledge and skills.

    Students who reach Level 3 have the knowledge to succeed in future coursework. Research has determined that for California high school students, Level 3 correlates with preparation for first-year courses at California State University.

    The state board hoped that the label changes and new explanations would be ready for this spring’s testing results. Instead, they will take effect in 2026.





    Source link

  • What does test prep look like for K-2?

    What does test prep look like for K-2?


    In the US, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) requires that students be tested in math once a year, starting in third grade. While there are no national laws that require testing before that point, many states and schools are choosing to test students in as young as kindergarten as well. In fact, the desire is so great that there are a number of national grants available for states that wish to implement testing at an earlier age. The reasoning is typically quite different–instead of measuring student progress or judging teacher success, tests for K-2 students are usually designed to identify students in need of special education services. Research has shown that the earlier students receive these extra services, the more effective they are. The idea isn’t to hold back students but to provide extra assistance wherever needed.

    As you might imagine, these assessments usually look quite different than the ones given to older students. Although they’re often computer-based, the questions rely more on visuals, assessments are shorter to match younger students’ shorter attention span, and testing is often more informal. However, one of the biggest problems with testing at such an early age is that these students often don’t have the computer skills necessary to demonstrate what they do and don’t know. Teachers have reported their kindergarteners attempting to swipe or tap a computer monitor and being baffled by the idea of a mouse since their primary technology use is based around tablets and phones. Other teachers report their young students accidentally skip questions or log themselves out of the program, requiring them to completely start the assessment over.

    Even with these difficulties, many teachers still believe the pros of early assessments outweigh the cons. By gathering data, they’re able to identify effective teaching strategies, what their students need more assistance with, and can implement special education services as soon as possible. In order to make sure this data is as accurate as possible, it’s clearly important to make sure students are comfortable using computers while providing fun math practice that keeps young students’ attention. This is the goal of our K-2 math practice in Wowzers, where students practice using math manipulatives and answering questions in short sessions. Although it doesn’t look like a typical test prep, it’s exactly what students need at that age: practice answering math questions on a computer while colorful games and an engaging story keeps their attention.



    Source link

  • Too much test prep? Inside Compton Unified’s frequent assessments 

    Too much test prep? Inside Compton Unified’s frequent assessments 


    A tutor helps students at Benjamin O. Davis Middle School in Compton last week.

    Credit: AP Photo/Eric Thayer

    On paper, the Compton Unified School District has soared in its academic performance in the last decade. 

    District Superintendent Darin Brawley has, in part, attributed the upswing to regular assessments and the use of standardized test scores to help determine academic strategies at individual school sites. 

    But some teachers question whether the improved scores should be celebrated — and have claimed that the scores are higher because the district puts all of its emphasis on preparing students for tests, rather than educating them completely, a tactic they claim impedes rather than helps students. 

    “We’re testing in September, October, November, December, January, February, March — like we’re testing every month, so that the district has the numbers,” said Kristen Luevanos, the president of the Compton Education Association, the district’s teacher’s union. 

    “But as a classroom teacher, you know how to assess your kids as you go. We don’t need these huge standardized tests once a month. And so we’re wasting precious instructional time.”

    According to the Nation’s Recovery Scorecard, the district’s performance in math has risen in the past decade from 2.54 grades below the national average to only -0.86 behind — a difference of 1.68. And in reading, Compton increased scrores by 1.37 to 1.04 grades below the national average. 

    Brawley maintains that assessing students’ progress is critical to the district’s progress.

    “Our testing is aligned to state standards that determine whether or not kids have mastered the information. And for a teacher or anyone, an administrator, a politician, to say that you are prepping kids for a test, I think it’s laughable,” Brawley said in an interview with EdSource. 

    “Because those same people: What did they do for the SAT? What did they do for the GRE? What did they do for the LSAT? What did they do for their driver’s test?”

    The role of test prep

    In a given semester, teachers in Compton Unified are expected to administer dozens of exams. 

    Credit: Kristen Luevanos

    “You’re going to look at these lists and go, ‘When does education happen?’ And that’s the exact question that teachers are having,” Luevanos, who said she recognizes the importance of some test preparation.

    “[The district will] say, we’re using it to teach,” she said. “Anyone who’s ever been in education and has taken courses knows that’s not how it works. You don’t use the end goal to help. You start with scaffolding. You start where the kids are at. You start with the basics. You start with the vocabulary. You work your way up.”

    Going Deeper

    On top of indicating students’ progress, assessments can be a critical tool for teachers to reflect on their own quality of instruction, according to Julie Slayton, a professor of clinical education at the University of Southern California. 

    “If a student didn’t perform on an assessment, or depending on how a student performed on an assessment, or a class performed on an assessment, we can use that information to ask ourselves: What did I do that set the kids up for the outcome that they experienced?” Slayton said. “That would be good. That would be what we would want.” 

    She added that assessment should also be used by students to help gauge their own progress, which would improve student learning — and by extension, student outcomes. 

    Drilling students on what an exam will assess, on the other hand, “is not meaningful in terms of actually acquiring the knowledge and skills,” she said. 

    Slayton said “having a test prep orientation is more the norm than it is exception” — and that it comes as a result of the federal No Child Left Behind Act, where more schools have incorporated more test preparation to boost performance and minimize punishments for failing to do so. 

    “If we start with what do we want a kid to learn within five months or two weeks, or whatever the time period is, and how does that align with what the teacher is doing, we have a nice relationship,” she said. “And testing would just be an extension of a regular, appropriate assessment process that was embedded in a learning process.” 

    Despite the hard work of staff and students alike, Luevanos said the standardized test results aren’t revealing students’ academic struggles — from fourth graders who are struggling to read to eighth graders who haven’t yet mastered their multiplication tables. 

    But Brawley believes that preparations for standardized tests are supposed to help students better understand the language they might encounter on the exams — and that there are also equity concerns involved. 

    “Every kid whose parents has the means, they participate in that, they have tutors, they have specialized courses that they take that preps them for the assessments to get into college and everything else,” Brawley said. “So, why is it bad for Black kids, Latino kids, English language learners, to learn the academic vocabulary that’s necessary for them to do well?”

    Kendra Hatchett, a literacy specialist at McKinley Elementary School in Compton, agreed that getting students used to the language that appears on exams is critical. 

    “I have been in the classroom and have refused to do test prep years ago as a brand-new first year teacher because I thought, ‘Oh, it’s against my philosophy. We shouldn’t do test prep.’ But then, the kids didn’t pass a test, and it wasn’t because they didn’t have the information,’” Hatchett said. 

    “I may have taught them that five plus 10 equals 15,” she said. “That’s straightforward. We’ve got it. We’ve nailed it. But I didn’t teach them: 15 minus happy face equals five. So, that threw them off. I had to rethink my strategy, and that’s when I decided I’ve got to find a way to weave in test prep while still doing hands-on activities.” 

    Broader impacts 

    Luevanos said pressures to do well on exams have led some teachers to stop teaching novels and prioritize excerpts and short stories, which are more likely to appear on tests instead. Novels also aren’t listed on pacing guides reviewed by EdSource for eighth or eleventh grade. 

    The district said in an email to EdSource that it has not issued any directives to limit the teaching of novels. 

    Teaching students novels “takes you on a journey,” Luevanos emphasized, noting that certain standards — whether indirect characterization or motivation — cannot be taught just through excerpts. 

    “The kids are amazing,” she said. “They deserve to be able to read novels. They deserve to be able to play math games. They deserve to be able to just struggle with the work and create.” 

    Luevanos said that because students are spending more time on test prep and less on regular materials, they are not as interested in what they’re learning — and she has noticed more challenges with student discipline over time. 

    “They’re not learning how to think critically, how to be rational, how to be lifelong learners,” Luevanos said. “They’re learning how to read and answer questions.” 

    She also said she has heard about instances of alleged cheating. 

    Helida Corona, a district parent, said she had approached one of her children’s schools every year to express concerns about them being behind, beginning in second grade. 

    She was surprised, years later, when her child received an award for her performance in mathematics in the sixth grade. Corona said she “found it kind of odd,” especially as her child still struggles with regular addition.  

    The next year, Corona’s child got the award again, yet the child still struggled with everyday math, such as accurately adding up the value of money using simple single digits.

    Suspecting that her child might have been involved in some cheating, Corona said she learned more when she spoke with her child about the multiple-choice test. 

    “‘Our teacher sometimes helps us,’” Corona’s child told her, explaining that students would first guess — and if wrong, be instructed to try again, until they landed on the right answer. 

    “It’s terrible because it does not help you. They use those tests [to] place you in a class that’s appropriate for you,” Corona said. “If you continue this way, you’re going to end up going to high school, and they’re going to put you in a higher level math class, and you’re going to go in there blindsided.”

    The district, however, said they do not have knowledge of instances where students have received assistance on standardized tests. 

    Although Hatchett now believes in the importance of preparing students for tests, she also believes in having a balance — and says that the district could be more balanced in its approach as a whole.  

    “I know everybody’s struggle is different, and their perspective of what that should look like is different,” Hatchett said. “Each person should try their best to try to mix it up. You can’t just be all or nothing, all one direction or the other direction.” 





    Source link