Advisory Commission on Special Education (ACSE) meeting Agenda August 2-3, 2017 (CA Dept of Education)

ACSE Agenda August 2-3, 2017 - Administration & Support (CA Dept of Education):

ACSE Agenda August 2-3, 2017

Advisory Commission on Special Education (ACSE) meeting agenda.

Agenda Times Are Approximate and Are Provided for Convenience Only

Items may be re-ordered to be heard on any day of the noticed meeting. The order of business may be changed without notice. Every effort will be made to Webcast this meeting in its entirety, but some portions may not be Webcast due to logistical constraints.

Advisory Commission on Special Education

Meeting Schedule	Meeting Location
Wednesday, August 2, 2017 10 a.m. - 5 p.m. Pacific Time ±	California Department of Education 1430 N Street, Room 1101  Sacramento, California 916-445-4602
Thursday, August 3, 2017 9 a.m. - 3 p.m. Pacific Time ±	California Department of Education 1430 N Street, Room 1101  Sacramento, California 916-445-4602

Advisory Commission on Special Education
Mental Health Subcommittee Ad Hoc Workgroup
(Due to logistical constraints, the Ad Hoc Workgroup will not be Webcast)

Meeting Schedule	Meeting Location
Wednesday, August 2, 2017 8 - 9:45 a.m. Pacific Time ±	California Department of Education 1430 N Street, Room 1103 Sacramento, California 916-445-4602

Please see the detailed agenda for more information about the items to be considered and acted upon. The public is welcome.

Advisory Commission on Special Education
Mental Health Subcommittee Ad-Hoc Workgroup
Wednesday, August 2, 2017, 8–9:45 a.m. Pacific Time
California Department of Education
1430 N Street, Room 1103
Sacramento, California

(Due to logistical constraints, the Ad-Hoc Workgroup will not be Webcast)

Members of the ACSE Mental Health Subcommittee Ad Hoc Workgroup will be meeting prior to the start of the ACSE meeting to discuss opportunities and challenges at the state level related to collaboration across systems to transform children's social, emotional, and behavioral health.

• Review of legislation
• Seneca proposal
• CDE data document 

Advisory Commission on Special Education
Wednesday, August 2, 2017, 10 a.m. Pacific Time
California Department of Education
1430 N Street, Room 1101 
Sacramento, California 

NOTE: Items not heard or completed on August 2, 2017, may be carried over to August 3, 2017.

10–10:15 a.m.

• Call to Order–Roll Call
• Salute to the Flag
• Communications and Announcements
• Review of Agenda

10:15–11 a.m.

Item 1

Subject: Success of trauma informed care and description of education challenges in the juvenile justice systems. Heather Bowlds, Deputy Director, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Juvenile Justice, Health Care Services.
Type of Action: Information, discussion, action

Background information:

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice Education Services Web page 

11–11:45 a.m.

Item 2

Subject: Overview of the California Department of Education (CDE) Dyslexia Guidelines and description of local educational agency (LEA) support. Theresa Costa Johansen, Education Administrator I, Special Education Division (SED), CDE.
Type of Action: Information, discussion, action

Background information:

CDE Dyslexia Guidelines Work Group Web page

11:45 a.m.–1:15 p.m. LUNCH

1:15–2 p.m.

Item 3

Subject: Update on continuum of care reform and System of Care 2.0. Richard Knecht, Integrated Services Advisor, California Department of Social Services.
Type of Action: Information, discussion, action

Background information:

California Department of Social Services Continuum of Care Reform Web page 
Child Welfare / Mental Health Learning Collaborative (Katie A.) Web site 
University of Maryland School of Social Work, The Institute for Innovation and Implementation Web site 

2–2:30 p.m.

Item 4

Subject: Legislation overview and discussion of Assembly Bill 254 (Thurmond) and Assembly Bill 834 (O’Donnell).
Type of Action: Information, discussion, action

Background information:

AB-254 Local Educational Agency Behavioral Health Integration Pilot Program  
AB-834 School-based health programs 

2:30–2:45 p.m.

Item 5

Subject: Student voice presentation addressing the issue of bullying in California schools. Leanne Libas, ACSE Student Commissioner.
Type of Action: Information, discussion

2:45–3 p.m.

Item 6

Subject: Mental Health Subcommittee report and discussion of the subcommittee’s activities, including potential outcomes or proposed action items from the meeting on August 2, 2017.
Type of Action: Information, discussion, action

3–3:15 p.m. BREAK

3:15–4 p.m.

Item 7

Subject: Update on the development of California’s Accountability system from the CDE Analysis, Measurement, and Accountability Reporting Division. Cindy Kazanis, Director. 
Type of Action: Information, discussion, action

Background information:

California State Board of Education, July 2017 Agenda, Item 01 (DOC)

4–4:15 p.m.

Item 8

Subject: General public comment and organizational input is invited on any matter, including items not on the agenda. The ACSE is precluded from discussing matters not on the agenda; however, questions may be asked by Commissioners for clarification purposes. Issues raised by the public may be referred to a future meeting agenda. Chair reserves the right to establish time limits on presentations. 
Type of Action: Information, discussion

4:15 p.m. ADJOURNMENT

Adjournment of day's session.

Advisory Commission on Special Education
Thursday, August 3, 2017, 9 a.m. Pacific Time
California Department of Education
1430 N Street, Room 1101 
Sacramento, California

9–9:15 a.m.

• Call to Order–Roll Call
• Salute to the Flag
• Communications and Announcements
• Review of Agenda

9:15–10 a.m.

Item 9

Subject: California Competitive Integrated Employment (CIE) Project overview including information on the CIE Blueprint five year plan, which outlines the creation of systems change through LEAs, Department of Rehabilitation (DOR) districts, and regional centers establishing Local Partnership Agreements (LPAs). Barbara Boyd, CDE; Michael Clay and Denyse Curtright, Department of Developmental Services; and Nina Presmont and Jessica Popjevalo, Department of Rehabilitation.
Type of Action: Information, discussion, action

Background information:

California Competitive Integrated Employment Blueprint  (DOCX) 
DRAFT Local Partnership Agreement Template  (DOCX)
Competitive Integrated Employment Web page 

10–10:15 a.m.

Item 10

Subject: Liaison updates from Niki Sandoval, California State Board of Education; and ACSE Commissioners. 
Type of Action: Information, discussion

10:15–11 a.m.

Item 11

Subject: Overview of the strategies used for building and maintaining an inclusive campus at Del Norte High School that has become an exemplary model. Megan Gross, California Teacher of the Year; and Jennifer Conlon, Special Education Coordinator, Poway Unified School District
Type of Action: Information, discussion

Background information:

CDE News Release: #16-73 State Schools Chief Tom Torlakson Announces California Teachers of the Year

11–11:15 a.m. BREAK

11:15 a.m.–Noon

Item 12

Subject: Voices from the Field including input from stakeholders and experts about current special education service delivery models. Participants include Parent Training Institutes, Family Empowerment Centers, California Teachers Association, California Charter Schools Association, California Association of Resource Specialists Plus, and Special Education Local Plan Areas.
Type of Action: Information, discussion

Noon–12:15 p.m.

Item 13

Subject: State Special Education Director’s Report. Kristin Wright, Director.
Type of Action: Information, discussion

12:15–1:30 p.m. LUNCH

1:30–2 p.m.

Item 14

Subject: Discussion of the 2017–18 Grazer Outstanding Achievement in Learning (GOAL) award process including, but not limited to, appointing committee members to review GOAL applications.
Type of Action: Information, discussion, action

2–2:15 p.m.

Item 15

Subject: State Special Schools Director’s Report. Scott Kerby, Director.
Type of Action: Information, discussion

2:15–2:30 p.m.

Item 16

Subject: General public comment and organizational input is invited on any matter, including items not on the agenda. The ACSE is precluded from discussing matters not on the agenda; however, questions may be asked by Commissioners for clarification purposes. Issues raised by the public may be referred to a future meeting agenda. Chair reserves the right to establish time limits on presentations.
Type of Action: Information, discussion

2:30–3 p.m.

Item 17

Subject: Discussion of potential agenda items for future ACSE meetings. 
Type of Action: Information, discussion, action

3 p.m. ADJOURNMENT

Adjournment of day's session.
Adjournment of meeting.

Questions: Venetia Davis | vdavis@cde.ca.gov | 916-323-9773 

ACSE Agenda August 2-3, 2017 - Administration & Support (CA Dept of Education):

CURMUDGUCATION: The "Real" Reformsters

CURMUDGUCATION: The "Real" Reformsters:

The "Real" Reformsters

The Center for Education Reform is a pro-privatization group that has, at least, the virtue of not pretending that it has any interest in building bridges or honoring any single part of public education. Where other reformsters may be thoughtful or interested in dialogue or evolving over time or staking out a rhetorical middle ground, CER is the Yosemite Sam of the reformster universe, leaping in with guns blazing and mouth flapping. Give them this much-- you don't have to wonder what they're really
thinking.

Take this classic piece from 2014-- "How To Spot a Real Education Reformer"-- in which some unnamed CER functionary combines a codification of privatizer creed with a straw man assault on the rest of us. It's an instructive piece because it does list the hard-core reformster talking points.

These days, everyone is “for” education reform. But when everyone claims to favor “reform,” how can you tell the real reformers (“the doers” who are focused on real results for students) from the rest (“the talkers” who are more concerned about maintaining the status quo)? 

Got that? Nobody actually opposes any reformster ideas-- those folks with reasoned arguments against this stuff just don't exist. But Nameless Functionary will now walk us through the tenets of reformsterdon, topic by topic.

Education in General

Real reformsters don't admit poverty as any sort of excuse. RR believe that the only accountability is CURMUDGUCATION: The "Real" Reformsters:

Jersey Jazzman: School "Choice": A Failure of Honesty and Will

Jersey Jazzman: School "Choice": A Failure of Honesty and Will:

School "Choice": A Failure of Honesty and Will

It's starting to feel like the Summer of School Choosiness.

Here's Nick Kristof, making the case that privatizing Liberia's schools is the only sensible way to ensure they are stocked with books.

Here's Gayle Tzemach Lemmon, telling her personal story of how her mother snuck her into a "better" school, which widened the "narrow funnel that leads to the nation’s elite institutions" for her.

Here's a story on Megan Kelly's new show (which, like the rest of America, you almost certainly missed) about a "successful" charter school in Philadelphia. Give reporter Craig Melvin credit: he does push back on the platitudes that are standard fare for such reports, even if he misses one of the biggest parts of the story (hang on...).

And of course we have the steady stream of laudatory essays about charters and school vouchers from outlets like The 74 and Education Post. Similar to the pieces above, they almost all revolve around stories of how students are being saved from "bad" schools because they are being given a "choice" to attend "good" schools.

The clever thing about this construction is that anyone who challenges the narrative is immediately put on the defensive: Why are you against helping people get a better education? Why don't you care about these children? It must be that you care about your own interests more than theirs...

And so on. It's a neat rhetorical trick, but it keeps us from asking and answering the Jersey Jazzman: School "Choice": A Failure of Honesty and Will:

CURMUDGUCATION: Did SAT Unmask Grade Inflation?

CURMUDGUCATION: Did SAT Unmask Grade Inflation?:

Did SAT Unmask Grade Inflation?

The story was carried by USA Today and rapidly picked up by much of the Kids These Days press-- the good people at the College Board have discovered rampant grade inflation as illuminated by the SAT, as witnessed by variations on this lede:

Recent findings show that the proportion of high school seniors graduating with an A average — that includes an A-minus or A-plus — has grown sharply over the past generation, even as average SAT scores have fallen.

Like many education stories, this puts some thins together that have nothing to do with each other. Let's pull apart the pieces, shall we?







SAT Score Dip

The span discussed is 1998 to 2016. During that span, the average SAT score (on the 1600 scale and without the worthless writing portion) dropped from 1,026 down to 1,002. So, just a few questions we need to answer to know how exciting this is.

First, is a 24 point dip significant? That's hard to track down. This source from the College Boardsuggest it would mean about 3 percentile points. But folks at Fairtest (who don't work for the College Board) peg the margin of error at 60-- so the "drop" would fall well within the margin of error.

Second, are the populations who took the test comparable? That's a no. Since 1998 the folks pushed to take the test have grown, especially in states like Illinois where every student must now take the test. So over the span we've added way more students who would not have taken the test in 1998, CURMUDGUCATION: Did SAT Unmask Grade Inflation?:

THE FOUNDING FATHERS ON TWITTER | DCGEducator: Doing The Right Thing

THE FOUNDING FATHERS ON TWITTER | DCGEducator: Doing The Right Thing:

THE FOUNDING FATHERS ON TWITTER

Fake News. Name-calling. Wild tweeting? Members of both major political parties attacking each other. Today’s world? Of course but it is not the first time in our history.

Any informed and well-read citizen could have easily either been excited or disgusted by what went on in the press and in letters during our first three Presidential administrations. Each side had it’s own newspapers that not only supported their own agendas but also threw bombshells at their opponents. The records are there and well recorded for all to see.

But for fun, just suppose, that our Founding Fathers, the men who wrote our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, set precedents for our great Republic, and created our earliest newspapers, had twitter accounts. Lets see how things might have gone. Each of the following “tweets” is an actual quote. However because of the wordiness of language in that era the tweets were not limited to 140 characters

CAST OF CHARACTERS:

George Washington @twash

Alexander Hamilton @aham

Thomas Jefferson @tjeff

John Adams @jadams

James Madison @jmad

Aaron Burr @aburr (Third VP of the U.S. and killer of Alexander Hamilton in their famous duel)

Oliver Wolcott, Jr. 2owalcott (Sec. of the Treasury following Hamilton’s resignation)

Senator William Plumer @senatorplumer (U.S. Senator from New Hampshire

Robert Troupe @rtroupe (friend of Alexander Hamilton)

Aristides @Aristides (probably Noah Webster. Yes, that Noah Webster.)

Philip Frenau @pfrenau (editor of the National Gazette while hired by Thomas Jefferson as a translator at the State Department for an annual salary of $250.)

The National Gazette @Natgaz (a partisan newspaper founded at the urging of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson – the leaders of the Democratic-THE FOUNDING FATHERS ON TWITTER | DCGEducator: Doing The Right Thing:

Teaching Students to Dislike Poetry: “What is the most boring subject/possible?” | radical eyes for equity

Teaching Students to Dislike Poetry: “What is the most boring subject/possible?” | radical eyes for equity:

Teaching Students to Dislike Poetry: “What is the most boring subject/possible?”

As an avid reader, teacher, and writer/poet, I read poetry nearly every day, especially now that I am prompted wonderfully through social media such as Twitter.

So Matthew Zapruder’s recent Understanding Poetry Is More Straightforward Than You Think spurred both my Teacher-Self and my Poet-Self with his lede:

Do you remember, as I do, how in the classroom poems were so often taught as if they were riddles? What is the poet really trying to say here? What is the theme or message of this poem? What does this word “purple” or “flower” or “grass” really mean? Like classical music, poetry has an unfortunate reputation for requiring special training and education to appreciate, which takes readers away from its true strangeness, and makes most of us feel as if we haven’t studied enough to read it.

Teaching and writing poetry for over three decades now, I have always swum against the “I dislike poetry” tide with equal parts evangelical zeal and soul-crushing disappointment. Poetry, I learned many years ago as a first-year college student, is beautiful; it is the orchestra of words best representing the human compulsion toward language and communicating with each other.

Recently, as I read Randall Mann’s “A Better Life,” I began to cry by the lines “Fear lives in the chest/like results.” That emotional response upon a first Teaching Students to Dislike Poetry: “What is the most boring subject/possible?” | radical eyes for equity:

SARB School Attendance Review Boards - Sample Policy & Administrative Regulation - (CA Dept of Education)

Sample Policy & Administrative Regulation - School Attendance Review Boards (CA Dept of Education):

Sample Policy & Administrative Regulation

Information about sample policy and administrative regulation developed by the State School Attendance Review Board (SARB).

The State School Attendance Review Board (SARB), an advisory panel to the State Superintendent of Public Instruction (SSPI), has developed a sample policy on attendance supervision that is consistent with state laws that became effective on January 1, 2017.

With the passage of Assembly Bill 2815 in 2016, the role of attendance supervisors has been expanded to include more effective practices to address chronic absenteeism and truancy. These changes are designed to help promote a culture of attendance and improve local systems to track student attendance by grade level and subgroup.

The new laws directly relate to the priorities districts must address in their Local Control and Accountability Plans (LCAP). Addressing chronic absence is included as a State Priority in the Pupil Engagement section of the LCAP template.

The State SARB has developed this sample policy to help districts comply with regulations in California Education Code(EC) sections 48240, 48290 and 48291(d) to develop a process for investigating school attendance problems. School districts may adapt these policies and administrative regulations to local needs.

Districts also may find it helpful to review the effective practices described in Assembly Bill 2815 when adopting policies regarding the duties of attendance supervisors and assistant attendance supervisors.

Sample Draft - Board Policy - BP 5113.11

Students

Attendance Supervision

Pursuant to EC Section 48200, every child from the age of six to eighteen in the district is required to attend school regularly in order to make a successful transition to the next grade level and to graduate with a high school diploma. All enrolled students, regardless of age, will be held to the same district school attendance rules.

The Governing Board recognizes that a vigilant supervision of attendance to improve attendance rates and graduation rates and to reduce truancy rates, chronic absenteeism rates, and dropout rates is vital to the learning and achievement of children on the margins of the educational system. Reducing chronic absenteeism rates and reducing the dropout rates while improving graduation rates are district priorities reflected in the district LCAP.

Because supervision of attendance is an essential component of an effective school attendance program, the Superintendent will designate a district employee to supervise attendance. The Supervisor of Attendance will be responsible for managing an attendance program that reaches every student, is conducted in collaboration with local resources, uses chronic absenteeism and dropout data by grade level and pupil subgroup to modify interventions, and shares outcomes with the County Superintendent; all SARB representatives; and the Governing Board.

Among other duties that may be required by the Board shall be those specific duties related to compulsory full-time education, truancy, work permits, compulsory continuation education, and opportunity schools; classes; and programs. (EC48240)

It is the intent of the Governing Board that the Supervisor of Attendance shall promote a culture of attendance and establish a system to accurately track pupil attendance in order to achieve all of the following:Sample Policy & Administrative Regulation - School Attendance Review Boards (CA Dept of Education): 

America’s public schools aren’t failing. It’s time to spread the word. - Trusted

America’s public schools aren’t failing. It’s time to spread the word. - Trusted:

America’s public schools aren’t failing. It’s time to spread the word

“America’s schools are failing.” “United States slips on latest world education rankings.” “American students less prepared than ever before.”

Listening to the national narrative on K-12 education might have you believe that learning no longer happens in America’s public schools, or that every school building is on the brink of collapse.

In recent years, school choice advocates have propped up this sentiment, framing for-profit charters and private schools as competent disruptors capable of reviving a failing system.

But ask the average parent what they think of their kid’s public school and you’re more likely to meet a different reaction.

As education professor and researcher Jack Schneider points out in a recent story for The Atlantic, when asked to apply standard letter grades to their children’s schools, the majority of public school parents hand out A’s and B’s, displaying a nearly across-the-board confidence in their district’s ability to engage and inspire young learners.

While parents tend to think the schools where they send their children do a good job, they often share a lower opinion of public schools overall, Schneider reports, handing down C’s and D’s to other America’s public schools aren’t failing. It’s time to spread the word. - Trusted:

Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer and Religious Charters - The Atlantic

Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer and Religious Charters - The Atlantic:

Will Churches Ever Be Allowed to Run Charter Schools?
Some legal scholars say Trinity Lutheran v. Comer could forge a path toward more charter schools overseen by religious groups.   

The reverend Michael Faulkner wanted to start a charter school through his church in Harlem. But there was a problem: New York law bars religious denominations from running charters, even if, as Faulkner promised, the school would teach a secular curriculum.

So Faulkner—a one-time NFL player who ran for Congress in 2010—and his church sued.

“The New York Charter Schools Act is nothing more than an attempt by the State to erect a barrier for those who express their religious beliefs from access to public resources that are generally available to all others,” read the 2007 complaint.

The suit was voluntarily dismissed in 2009, and Faulkner, now running for city comptroller, described it as “dormant.” But a recent Supreme Court decision might mean that suits like that one have a better chance of prevailing.

Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer invalidated a Missouri rule banning a religious school from participating in a public program, and experts immediately noted it could be used to eliminate legal barriers to private-school voucher programs. The implications for charter schools drew less attention.

But two legal scholars tell Chalkbeat, which published this story in partnership with The Atlantic, that the ruling might also pave the way for more charter schools operated by religious groups, including churches.

“Trinity Lutheran opens the door because it states simply that if a religious entity is otherwise qualified to take part in a public benefit program, then it cannot be prohibited solely on the basis of its religious affiliation,” said the University of Connecticut professor Preston Green.

Aaron Saiger, a law professor at Fordham University, agreed.

“I have no doubt that this case makes the door more open than it was a month Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer and Religious Charters - The Atlantic:

Fulton offered top teachers $20,000 to transfer to struggling schools. Did it work? | Get Schooled

Fulton offered top teachers $20,000 to transfer to struggling schools. Did it work? | Get Schooled:

Fulton offered top teachers $20,000 to transfer to struggling schools. Did it work?

My AJC colleague Marlon Walker had an interesting news story about the 1,400 teachers still needed to fill slots in metro Atlanta school districts.
He wrote:

Even amid a national teacher shortage of about 60,000 this time last year, and ongoing concerns with fewer people going to college to become educators, hiring teams have concentrated on aggressive hiring and a widened net for recruiting. School districts have worked to make the jobs more attractive to people, boosting starting salaries and offering signing and retention bonuses, as well as incentive pay for teachers who take assignments at problem schools.

But does incentive pay entice teachers to problem schools?

In 2014, Fulton County announced an ambitious plan to provide top teachers $20, 000 stipends to work in the system’s lowest-performing schools. At the time, the AJC reported:

No other system in Georgia offers such pay bumps tied to merit, which are aimed at awarding more money to teachers who elicit high achievement by their students. Fulton is part of a small but growing group of U.S. school systems bucking the long-standing educator pay system to put more focus on rewarding teachers based on standardized tests and other measures.

As part of the plan, Fulton would initially place up to 20 high-performing teachers in at least two elementary schools and one middle school that are under-performing. The teachers would be expected to stay at the school at least two years. To qualify, a teacher would be in the top 25 percent on Georgia’s new student growth measure, which is based on standardized test performance.

Fulton leaders say they’re modeling the plan off a recent study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education that looked at 10 districts in seven states that tried a similar program. The study found that with the teacher transfers to low-performing schools, test scores at the elementary level rose while those at the middle school level were mixed.

A year later, in 2015, the AJC checked on the progress of the Fulton pilot and found the district laboring to lure these highly qualified teachers to lower-performing schools.

The newspaper reported:

Although 375 were eligible to participate, only 32 applied, according to Eddie Breaux, a human resources staff director for Fulton schools. He said some of the teachers who did not apply said they believed teachers and principals would not support them. Many did not want to make longer commutes.
So what finally happened to the Fulton experiment? It faded away. The architects, former Fulton superintendent Robert Avossa and chief strategy Fulton offered top teachers $20,000 to transfer to struggling schools. Did it work? | Get Schooled:

Teacher Tests Test Teachers

Teacher Tests Test Teachers:

Teacher Tests Test Teachers
The practice of evaluating teachers by their students’ performance on standardized tests is coming under serious challenge.

The Houston teachers union scored a legal victory in May when a federal judge found that the Houston school district’s system of evaluating teachers could violate due process rights. The lawsuit centered on the system’s use of value-added modeling (VAM), a controversial statistical method aimed at isolating a teacher’s effectiveness based on their students’ standardized test scores.

United States Magistrate Judge Stephen Smith concluded that the metric's impenetrability could render it unconstitutional. If, he wrote, teachers have “no meaningful way to ensure” that their value-added ratings are accurate, they are “subject to mistaken deprivation of constitutionally protected property interests in their jobs.” More specifically, he continued, if the school district denies its teachers access to the computer algorithms and data that form the basis of each teacher’s VAM score, it “flunks the minimum procedural due process standard of providing the reason for termination ‘in sufficient detail to enable [the teacher] to show any error that may exist.’”

It’s unclear whether the Houston school district will now negotiate a settlement with the teachers union or end up back in court, but either way, the decision comes at a significant time for the test-based accountability movement, which has faced a number of legal and political challenges over the past several years. The outcomes of the court battles have so far been a mixed bag: Teachers challenging VAM have scored some wins, lost other big cases, and a few major suits are still pending. Outside the courtroom, states have begun implementing the new federal education law—the Every Student Succeeds Act—which imposes far less pressure on the states to use VAM or similar measures than what they faced during theTeacher Tests Test Teachers: