Individualized Education Plan For Students with Disabilities:

Let the real experts determine how to assess students with disabilities

May 4, 2015 by Lily

Categories: General, I just had to say this

Tags: IEPs, individualized education plans, standardized test

Last year, I had the privilege of meeting Andrea Rediske. Andrea’s late son, Ethan, was born with brain damage. He had cerebral palsy and was blind. Not only was he forced to take Florida’s standardized test (which, by the way, required him to visually identify objects—impossible for a blind boy) but the district was pressuring the family to make Ethan take that exam on his death bed so they could make their 95% No Child Left Untested mandated quota of kids taking the test.

Last winter, I posted a video of Andrea telling her son’s story. If you haven’t seen it, it will break your heart.

Ethan’s story is maddening and heartbreaking and absurd. But here’s the really absurd part: it is the law. It’s the freaking law. Your child was born without a complete brain—too bad. Who decides who takes the test? People who have never met your child, but who nonetheless have the power to enforce the one-size-fits-all testing mandate.

These people—the test bureaucrats—are NOT in the classroom working with our students every day. Parents and teams of educators—the real experts—work hard to develop IEPs (Individualized Education Plans) for students who cannot follow the standard curriculum in the standard way.

These IEPs take time and use care. They are developed by the people who work most closely with students: the student’s parents and their team of educators. These IEPs are not standardized. They are the opposite of that—they are individualized.

So does it make sense for a student with an Individualized Education Plan to take a standardized test that has nothing to do with their learning goals? It doesn’t. Let me be very clear: decisions about how to assess students with disabilities ought to be made at the school level by the dedicated team of educators who work with that student and their parents. Not by some bureaucrat who has never met the child.

I am not against tests—I’m against tests that make no sense. I’m against tests that don’t help students. It is clear to me that if a student has an IEP, then professional educators should be able to use their professional judgment to consider whether it’s appropriate to assess that student with a grade-level standardized test.

So here is my call to action: NEA urges the Department of Education to provide IEP teams the flexibility and decision-making capacity to do their jobs on behalf of their students. The Department of Education must allow schools to use whatever assessment process or method is most appropriate for each individual student based on their needs as indicated in their IEP.

That’s all.

Let the real experts determine how to assess students.

Related information on Individualized Education Plans here.

 Individualized Education Plan For Students with Disabilities:

NYC Public School Parents: John Oliver features the Pineapple on his takedown of standardized testing

NYC Public School Parents: John Oliver features the Pineapple on his takedown of standardized testing:

John Oliver features the Pineapple on his takedown of standardized testing

Check out last night's hilarious take-down of the insanity of standardized testing in this country by John Oliver; including the infamous
"Hare and the Pineapple" passage, which was  part of the NY 8th grade ELA exam in 2012.  This passage was exposed first on this blog the day after the exam was given and quicklywent viral. 

But the real scandal is that before that, this  absurd passage and its associated ridiculous questions had been used by Pearson in their standardized exams in Florida, Illinois, Delaware, New Mexico, Arkansas, Alabama and other states for at least seven years before the New York media picked up on the story. Every time, students had been confused, teachers and parents complained, and yet Pearson kept recycling the questions, over and over again.


Below is the video from last night's how; to the right is a screenshot of our blog.NYC Public School Parents: John Oliver features the Pineapple on his takedown of standardized testing:

Schools Matter: California Parent Shares Excellent Opt Out Information

Schools Matter: California Parent Shares Excellent Opt Out Information:

California Parent Shares Excellent Opt Out Information

Link

Liberty is the freedom to exercise our constitutional rights and not be bullied. State assessments are voluntary. In California, the right to opt out of standardized testing is a parental right guaranteed by Ed. Code 60615 which says, “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a parent’s or guardian’s written request to school officials to excuse his or her child from any or all part of the assessments administered pursuant to this chapter shall be granted.” State tests are mandatory for districts to administer but optional for students to take (with a parent opt-out).

Why opt-out? Assessment scores do not affect class grade, help or hinder grade level progression or graduation. Data, some personally identifiable, is kept for the student’s life, and data mining results are shared with government agencies and private companies. According to Tony Dolz, standardized assessments are “an uncompensated market research initiative by the education establishment in collaboration with private company partners.” Every dollar used for standardized testing drains funds from our classrooms. 

“Bullying” against the right to opt out has gone on in our schools for years. Time and again parents, teachers, and students are “bullied” into compliance and students are forced to submit to these extensive batteries of unproven standardized tests. Consider Phillip Brown’s story:

Our family has been opting out of these types of tests since the beginning. At first, we were met with little to no resistance from the schools. However, during the 2006-07 school year, my son passed out “Just Say No to STAR Testing” forms at Rodriquez High in Fairfield and was constantly threatened with suspension and other punishments from the school’s administration. 

I am a 35 year ACLU member and past board member. I contacted the ACLU attorneys in San Francisco and they intervened on our behalf and under threat of legal action allowed my son to pass out the flyers. Although FSUSD relented to his 1st amendment rights of free speech, the school’s officials were not happy. They were so unhappy that they watched his every move and looked for any reason to punish him. He was harassed by teachers and administrators who spoke publicly against him and to other students during class. 

A school vice principal actually told us that our son should go to another school should he wish to graduate. At which point he changed schools and we filed a civil rights lawsuit in Solano County against FSUSD. (FCS031361 - Brown, Phillip K. etal vs. FF-SS Unified School) FSUSD made an undisclosed cash settlement.

The right to opt out applies to every parent regardless of their reasons. Should any child or parent encounter resistance from any school district, I would be happy to provide contacts that we used to enforce parental rights.

Recent developments in the opt-out movement include more bullying from the federal government and more parents standing up and opting out. In Chicago, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan recently said wide spread student boycotts of standardized tests are not acceptable, and if state governments don’t stop them, the federal government will intervene. Why is he concerned? In New York so far, more than 185,000 students have refused to take the state’s English tests. In Seattle not a single 11th grade student showed up to take the SBAC test at Nathan Hale High School. Parents are waking up across the country and are choosing to opt out of standardized testing. Join them. 

Download “opt-out” forms and instructions. http://www.pacificjustice.org/california-common-core-data-opt-out-form.html 

Colleen Britton, Vacaville

Schools Matter: California Parent Shares Excellent Opt Out Information:

Veteran teachers calling it a career | The Columbus Dispatch

Veteran teachers calling it a career | The Columbus Dispatch:

Veteran teachers calling it a career

Changing pension, testing requirements discourage educators from continuing in classroom

 Ohio teachers have been heading to the exits in large numbers in recent years, propelled by changes in the state’s teacher-pension program.

Leaders of the State Teachers Retirement System anticipate another uptick in teacher retirements this year with new rules taking effect in August. But several teachers offer another explanation for their departure: a changing education climate that relies on more testing.

“I don’t know if I was ready to leave in some ways,” said Jack Minot, a science teacher at Bexley High School who is retiring after 33 years. “But I do feel affected by the new rules of testing. I feel like that’s become the dominant priority. I don’t feel like it’s something I’m willing to accept as a dominant priority.”

Ohio schools started administering new state assessments this year that are tougher and take longer to complete than the tests the state previously used. That’s in addition to other exams that educators give, such as district tests that identify student skills and help teachers better focus their instruction. Many also have to administer assessments that measure student growth, as part of their teacher evaluations.

“I just don’t have the energy to do the good teaching the way it needs to be done and jump through the increasing number of hoops the state government and the district administration are requiring,” said Ellie Wiseman, an English teacher at Pickerington Central High School who is retiring after 43 years in the classroom.

STRS doesn’t track the reasons that educators are retiring, but 2015 looks to be a year when a lot of them will wrap up their careers, spokesman Nick Treneff said.

According to STRS, fiscal years 2012 and 2013 were peak years, with 7,613 retirements and 7,658 retirements, respectively. Fiscal year 2014 dropped to a more typical pace of 5,875 retirements.

Workers are waiting for retirement applications for June and July but note that, so far, fiscal year 2015 is tracking closer to the 2013 pace.

Teachers have been able to retire at any age and get full benefits if they have worked for 30 years. But the age and years-of-service requirements rise in August under changes in the STRS pension-reform plan approved in 2012. Teachers who want to retire early would take a bigger hit financially if they do so after the changes take effect.

As a result, districts were bracing for a retirement flood. In some places, such as Hilliard, Gahanna-Jefferson and Worthington, it wasn’t quite as big as administrators expected.

“We were anticipating a large number,” said Roy Walker, director of human resources at Hilliard schools. Walker expected the teacher retirement numbers to reach 50 this year; so far, 36 have announced their plans. There were 39 retirements last year.

Some teachers who were eligible to retire said they couldn’t afford it and needed to work a few more years before calling it a career, Walker said.

Columbus, however, is facing 217 retirements — the most in the past five years. Spokesman Jeff Warner attributes that to the changes in teacher pensions.

School leaders in Bexley, Pickerington and Whitehall also have noticed an uptick in the number of retirees this year.

Several retiring teachers offered their reasons for heading to the exits.

Phil Peters, who taught social studies in Gahanna-Jefferson for 35 years, is retiring because he has hit a “sweet spot” with STRS. (Also, he wants to do some hiking while his legs still work.)

Tim Jones, a special-needs teacher at Groveport Madison South Middle School, still plans to stay in education after 30 years of teaching. He recently published a book, The Caring Teacher: Using Compassion To Connect With Kids, and hopes to provide professional development to educators.

Carolyn Dougherty, a social-studies teacher at Hilliard Tharp Sixth Grade School, knew it was time to stop.

“I did not want to be one of those teachers that kept on teaching because I can,” said Dougherty, who has taught for 36 years. “The demands that are being made on teachers today are extremely difficult, and the amount of time that we spend on testing is ridiculous.”Veteran teachers calling it a career | The Columbus Dispatch:

cboss@dispatch.com

At NYSUT convention, members blame Cuomo | Capital New York

At NYSUT convention, members blame Cuomo | Capital New York:

At NYSUT convention, members blame Cuomo

BUFFALO—During her annual “state of the union” speech, New York State United Teachers president Karen Magee saluted an instigator who motivated the organization’s 600,000 members over the last year.

“Of course, we had some unexpected help in mobilizing members,” Magee said on Friday night, addressing 2,000 local union delegates gathered for the group’s annual convention, held this year in downtown Buffalo. “I would be remiss if I did not pause for a moment to acknowledge the greatest union organizer in modern New York state history: Governor Andrew Cuomo.”

The crowd first laughed and cheered, then quickly turned to booing. Some attendees hissed. One screamed, “Loser!”

“You didn’t think I’d forget him, right?” Magee said.

That wasn’t the first or last time teachers disparaged Cuomo at NYSUT’s convention this weekend. The governor was the target of virtually every criticism, the butt of every joke, the villain in every anecdote.

Magee and other speakers offered little criticism of the state Board of Regents and education department, as the union has in the past. The governor, after his recent push for stricter teacher evaluations and more charter schools, among other reforms, is it.

The position of the union's No. 1 enemy was, arguably, held previously by former state education commissioner John King.

King is no longer the commissioner; he left the role at the end of 2014 for a federal post. But there was no mention of his deputies, who have carried on the implementation of his agenda throughout the search for his replacement. And there were few, if any, mentions of Board of Regents chancellor Merryl Tisch, who, with King, has become a lightning rod in the controversy over the implementation of the Common Core standards, related testing and teacher evaluations based on students’ scores.

Rather, Magee and other leaders celebrated the election of new regents to the powerful education policymaking panel and pledged to work collaboratively with them to improve the evaluation system. The recent state budget gave Tisch and her colleagues some power in developing the ratings.

Union leaders mentioned King a few times, but their mocking lacked the energy of previous years. They apparently credit themselves with his decision to leave.

“One of our first actions a year ago was to deliver this body’s unprecedented vote of no confidence to [King],” Magee said during her speech. “He was ultimately ‘inspired,’ brothers and sisters,” she said, using air quotes, “to relocate to Washington, D.C.”

The crowd laughed.

American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten, who addressed the crowd on Saturday afternoon, thanked NYSUT members “very much for sending him down to D.C.”

Their few mentions of Tisch’s powerful education policymaking panel revolved around the union’s intention to work with the board to mitigate the harm of Cuomo’s evaluation system on teachers.

“Now consider this: in no small part because of our advocacy, today, New York state has four new regents—every single one of them with actual experience as educators in New York public schools,” Magee said during her speech. “Imagine that.”

Catalina Fortino, NYSUT vice president, who works most closely with the regents on education policy, said the union would “bring the state to the table for a new accountability system."

“A new system that includes authentic and multiple measures, one that rejects junk science and one that advances professional growth for quality teaching and learning,” she said during a Saturday afternoon speech. “So as we push forward in our collective work, we know that we will be on the right side of history.”

At one point during the convention, when organizers held a drive to raise voluntary donations from members to support the union’s political activism, a NYSUT leader sold a life-size cardboard cut-out picture of Cuomo to a member who pledged $100.

When discussing a resolution regarding how to address bullying teachers might experience from their supervisors in schools, a member rose to argue that Cuomo has been the ultimate bully.

And at a Friday afternoon outdoor rally that kicked off the convention, the president of a group representing SUNY professors wore a black T-shirt displaying a picture of Cuomo’s face and one word: “Wrong.”

“That’s why we are here today—to tell Andrew Cuomo and all of his wealthy friends that he is wrong,” Fred Kowal, United University Professions president, said while showing off his apparel to a crowd of mostly teachers but also auto and steel workers who gathered steps from Buffalo’s city hall for the sunny protest.

If the union continues their fight, “not only will Andrew Cuomo be wrong,” Kowal At NYSUT convention, members blame Cuomo | Capital New York:

Outside Influence: Despite big spending, vouchers remain banned in Tennessee - The Commercial Appeal

Outside Influence: Despite big spending, vouchers remain banned in Tennessee - The Commercial Appeal:

Outside Influence: Despite big spending, vouchers remain banned in Tennessee

 After years of lobbying, millions of dollars from in-state and out-of-state advocacy groups and the support of the governor and other legislative leaders, school vouchers are still banned in Tennessee.

Republican lawmakers and conservative groups are more likely to support what they call “opportunity scholarships,” public funds to offset the cost of private school education for some students. And with the GOP supermajority at the General Assembly, many issues backed by conservative groups have become law.

But not always in education. Apart from a limited program to allow vouchers for special-needs students passed this year, there have been just enough Republican lawmakers to join with Democrats in beating back vouchers. The bill to let parents choose to transform their school into a charter school — known as the parent trigger bill — also failed.

“Unfortunately, (the voucher) bill was stalled for a number of reasons. Lobbying groups representing district school boards, for instance, claimed budgetary concerns while groups like ours pointed to school choice having a positive educational impact for students,” said Ted Boyatt, spokesman for an organization calledStudentsFirst.

Outside spending

California-based StudentsFirst was created by former Washington, D.C., school chief Michelle Rhee, the former wife of polarizing Tennessee education head Kevin Huffman. The organization also goes locally by the name Tennessee Parents/Teachers Putting Students First, and has advocated for vouchers since the end of 2012.

It spent as much as $213,907 on lobbying in 2014, with its political action committee spending $573,917 during the two years leading up to the 2014 election, according to state finance records.

Washington, D.C.-based Tennessee Federation for Children, the state chapter of the American Federation for Children, spent as much as $150,000 on lobbying in 2014 and $606,345 during the 2014 campaign cycle, according to campaign finance records.

It didn’t work. One Democrat, former Rep. Gloria Johnson, was ousted, but other Democrat targets — including Nashville Reps.Darren Jernigan and Jason Powell — survived campaign onslaughts from outside groups.

Although Tommy Schultz, a spokesman for the Tennessee Federation for Children, argued the money helped elect “school choice” candidates, the voucher bill continues to die in a House finance subcommittee.

“Our public education system is the bedrock of our communities and their success and it is not for sale,” said Lyn Hoyt, a spokeswoman for Tennesseans Reclaiming Educational Excellence, a group advocating against vouchers. “Citizens see through a lot of this paid PR agenda to sway public opinion if they are experiencing the changes in the system. The changes have been so swift and painful, Outside Influence: Despite big spending, vouchers remain banned in Tennessee - The Commercial Appeal:

Play of the Day: Barack Obama Wants At Least One Child Left Behind - Oversight - GovExec.com

Play of the Day: Barack Obama Wants At Least One Child Left Behind - Oversight - GovExec.com:

Play of the Day: Barack Obama Wants At Least One Child Left Behind

 Late-night television hosts were still processing Vermont Senator Bernie Sandersentrance into the 2016 race over the weekend. Real Time's Bill Maher joked about Sanders' socialist affiliation and his unique biography, while The Tonight Show's Jimmy Fallon showed video of a particularly uplifting speech.

Last Week Tonight's main story Sunday covered the practice of standardized testing in American schools. Host John Oliver looked at the federal mandates placed on schools by George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind plan, including comparing the program's name to loving a puppy.

Speaking of education, President Barack Obama visited a DC school last week and was interviewed by a student. The student cut the president off, promoting both Saturday Night Live and Fallon to joke about the kid's educational prospects after insulting the American leader.

Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association: Justice Alito’s Invitation Accepted | ACS

Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association: Justice Alito’s Invitation Accepted | ACS:

Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association: Justice Alito’s Invitation Accepted

More Legal Attacks on Teachers

by Ann C. Hodges, Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law

In a blog post following the Supreme Court’s decision last term in Harris v. Quinn, I predicted that the constitutionality of union fair share fees would soon be back at the Court. It took little prescience to make such a prediction and indeed, the plaintiffs in Friederichs v. California Teachers’ Association worked mightily to get the case on the Court’s docket as quickly as possible. The Court will decide whether to grant cert in the near future.

Although this issue will no doubt return repeatedly to the Court, it should decline to hear the case. The 1977 decision of the Court in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education correctly concluded that fair share fees are constitutional, and the decision should not be disturbed.Abood allows the union to charge for its mandated representational duties, but not for political expenditures. In this context, the objectors’ first amendment interests are reduced and the interests of the government employer that has entered into an agreement with the union enhanced. Justice Alito suggested in Harris, however, that all union activity in the government sector implicates the highest first amendment interests. This is at odds with the Court’s cases on the first amendment interests of public employees following Abood.

In recent years, the Court has held that the government has stronger interests in restraining speech when it acts as an employer. Accordingly, when employees speak pursuant to their job duties, their speech is unprotected. Additionally, when an employee’s speech is about an internal workplace grievance, it is similarly unprotected by the first amendment. It is precisely these grievances that the union is obliged to handle for all employees regardless of membership.  If speaking about the grievance is unprotected, why is compelling the unwilling employee to pay for this otherwise unprotected speech an interference with first amendment rights?  Further, Justice Alito’s Harris opinion suggests that when one employee asks for a raise, the speech is unprotected but when the union asks for a raise on behalf of all employees, it is high order political speech which the employee cannot be compelled to support.  As Justice Kagan pointed out in the Harris dissent, the fact that it takes more money to pay multiple employees does not transform the character of the speech when the substance, asking for a raise, is the same.

There are many other reasons for the Court to deny cert. Abood has been settled law for almost 40 years, Justice Alito’s efforts notwithstanding. As Justice Kagan ably pointed out inHarris, principles of stare decisis, including the reliance interests of thousands of employers and unions and millions of employees, counsel restraint. Moreover, as I have argued in earlier posts, fair share agreements are an essential pillar of the system of labor relations that has served our country well for 80 years.  And finally, as pointed out in the opposition to cert, the record in this case has not been developed, as the plaintiffs rushed to accept Justice Alito’s invitation for an opportunity to overrule Abood.

When one takes a step back from the details of the cases and looks at the big picture, it is clear that the issue of fair share fees is about power and politics. While some may philosophically object to the requirement to pay fees despite the union’s legal obligation to represent all employees, many are looking for a way to reduce union resources.

Whether the ultimate desire is to reduce the size of government, to elect more Republicans, or to implement more conservative policies, limiting the power of unions is one route to success.  And today, the more powerful unions are government unions, which represent more than one third of the government workforce, as compared to private sector unions with less than 7 percent representation. Despite the high representation rate in the public sector, however, the power of the unions is dwarfed by the opposition. 

The cases challenging union fees are not financed by employees, but by powerful conservative interest groups. In an ironic twist on the theme of attacking the fair share fee requirement, fee payers, represented by a powerful law firm that typically advocates for employers, recently filed a different kind of first amendment challenge. These plaintiffs complain that their speech rights are violated because they cannot obtain the benefits of union membership without paying full dues, which subsidize activities objectionable to them. The goal of all these challenges is not to enhance speech, but to reduce it.  Individual voices are far less powerful alone than when exercised collectively. If the vehicle for collective voice is silenced or diminished, the power of opposition groups is increased.

Despite efforts to portray the union fee cases as involving the special interests of powerful unions, those who value speech should be deeply concerned. Those who fear the consolidation of corporate power should be concerned as well.  We may be heartened by the Court’s failure to overrule Abood in Harris v. Quinn. It is clear that Justice Alito and others are itching to send Abood to the dustbin, but apparently did not have sufficient votes inHarris.  One hopes that the better part of wisdom will prevail and that it was not merely the vehicle that led to the result. The relentless attacks on union fees will continue to return to the Court, however, because of the powerful interests pushing them. Those concerned about preserving multiple voices in our society must be vigilant.

Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association

 Pending petition

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
14-915	9th Cir.	TBD	TBD	TBD	TBD	TBD

Issue: (1) Whether Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed. should be overruled and public-sector “agency shop” arrangements invalidated under the First Amendment; and (2) whether it violates the First Amendment to require that public employees affirmatively object to subsidizing nonchargeable speech by public-sector unions, rather than requiring that employees affirmatively consent to subsidizing such speech.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

• Petition of the day

Date	Proceedings and Orders
Jan 26 2015	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 2, 2015)
Feb 19 2015	Order extending time to file response to petition to and including April 1, 2015, for all respondents.
Feb 24 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Pacific Legal Foundation filed.
Feb 27 2015	Brief amicus curiae of National Right to Work Legal Defense Fund filed.
Feb 27 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Mackinac Center for Public Policy filed.
Feb 27 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Goldwater Institute filed.
Feb 27 2015	Brief amici curiae of Consitutional Law Professors, et al. filed.
Feb 27 2015	Waiver of right of respondent Elliott Duchon to respond filed.
Mar 2 2015	Brief amici curiae of Former California Governor Pete Wilson, et al. filed.
Mar 2 2015	Brief amici curiae of Kaneland, Illinois Unified School District #302 Administrative Support Staff filed.
Mar 2 2015	Brief amicus curiae of The Cato Institute filed.
Mar 2 2015	Brief amici curiae of Michigan and Eight Other States filed.
Mar 30 2015	Waiver of right of respondent Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General of California to respond filed.
Apr 1 2015	Brief of respondents California Teachers Association, et al. in opposition filed.
Apr 14 2015	Reply of petitioners Rebecca Friedrichs, et al. filed.
Apr 15 2015	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 1, 2015.
Apr 27 2015	Response Requested . (Due May 27, 2015)

Update The Buzz on Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Standardized Testing (HBO)

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Standardized Testing (HBO)

American students face a ridiculous amount of testing. John Oliver explains how standardized tests impact school funding, the achievement gap, how often kids are expected to throw up.

John Oliver Explains Why Standardized Tests Are Bullsh*t http://uproxx.it/1bWAkhM

John Oliver Rips Education Process Every Student Experiences: ‘Fastest Way to Terrorize Any Child’ http://bit.ly/1bWxTvF

Watch John Oliver Give Failing Marks to Standardized Testing | TIME http://ti.me/1bWy8H7

John Oliver Explains Everything That's Wrong With Standardized Testing http://huff.to/1GVbFI6

John Oliver Rips Standardized Testing With Help From a Dancing Monkey on ‘Last Week Tonight’ - Speakeasy - WSJ http://on.wsj.com/1bWyIEG

John Oliver perfectly sums up everything that’s wrong with standardized testing - Salon.com http://bit.ly/1bWzcL7

Palm Beach County student’s words send John Oliver on testing rant | Extra Credit http://pbpo.st/1bWziCy

John Oliver Puts Standardized Testing To The Test On 'Last Week Tonight' And It Fails Miserably : T-Lounge : Tech T... http://bit.ly/1bWzrG7

John Oliver Rips Education Process Every Student Experiences: ‘Fastest Way to Terrorize Any Child’ http://bit.ly/1bWxTvF

Let John Oliver Explain How Standardized Testing Makes Kids Anxious and Vomit Under Pressure | Mother Jones http://bit.ly/1bWAaXL

John Oliver jumps in the fight against standardized-testing mania http://bit.ly/1bWAsxH