TEA Violates Law; Refuses to Validate Assessments

Written by admin on . Posted in STAAR | EOC Testing, Testing Irregularity. 12 Comments

In a decision that surprises absolutely nobody, the Texas Education Agency has announced that it will ignore the recent changes to STAAR assessment imposed by the 84th Legislature.  In HB 743, the legislature required that assessments be shortened, that they occur only over the course of one day, and that they be independently validated.  This bill passed overwhelmingly and is in effect.  For this school year, all assessments must comply with the law.

However, the TEA has announced that it will not follow the law this year.  It has stated it will not administer shortened assessments until 2017 and that it will “decide” whether its current process of internal assessment review is an “independent” validation.  Clearly, if the legislature felt the assessment instruments were currently being validated, there would be no need for the law.  This is just wishful, if not willful, misconduct by the TEA.

For parents, however, there are significant ramifications. The TEA intends to subject your children to assessments that do not comply with the law and to permit schools to use these illegal assessments to promote or retain your children.  The clearest impact is in grades 3-5.  In our Forms and Documents section you will find a link to a new refusal letter based on the illegality of the assessments.  Please also consider signing the petition below!

Petition to Require TEA to Follow the Law

TPERN also urges all parents to contact their local state representative and senator and demand hearings regarding the TEA’s belief that it is above the law.  The irony of an agency that tells parents that the law requires them to take the STAAR (when it doesn’t) deciding it can ignore the law whenever it likes, is too outrageous for words.  The leadership of this rogue agency must be called to account.

Update: We have been asked about documentation of the TEA’s position.  This is derived from the TEA’s Legislative Briefing Book, contained on their website, and linked herein.  The discussion of HB 743 begins on numbered page 80.  Discussing the STAAR assessments for Grades 3-5 the TEA states “The grades 3-5 assessments in reading and mathematics cannot be revised in time for the spring 2016 administration. The first administration of the shortened assessments would occur in spring 2017.”  A similar statement exists for the writing assessments.  Discussing the possibility that they do not need to independently validate the assessment, the TEA states “Prior to the spring 2016 administration, the agency must determine whether the TTAC, or USDE peer review process to approve state achievement standards and assessment systems required under Title I, meets the requirements of (a-11). If not, an independent entity will need to be contracted with to perform the evaluation pending available funding.”  They also complain there is no appropriation for this, indicating that they may choose to ignore the requirement because funds were not EXPRESSLY appropriated for the purpose.

Update 2: It has been pointed out that the TEA apparently back-tracked on writing assessments and will limit them to one day.  However, the will not fit within the time parameters set by the  legislature, so they are still not in compliance. This information is found here.

Update 3:  TEA lies and refusal continue.  Under pressure from the legislature and parent groups, they have now announced they will remove the field test questions from the assessments this spring.  While that will shorten the assessments by five to eight questions, it will not get them under two hours for grades 3-5 as required by law.  This is not a “victory” as some parents are claiming and as the press is reporting.  It is continued violation of the law by the TEA.

TEA Announces Higher Passing Standards; TPERN Smells a Rat

Written by admin on . Posted in STAAR | EOC Testing, Testing Irregularity. Leave a Comment

TEA Commissioner Michael Williams announced that this year the STAAR “cut scores” will increase as a way of showing enhanced “rigor” in the demands placed on Texas students. Planned phased in increases in STAAR scoring had been delayed since the implementation of the system due to flat results in scores. This last spring we got more of the same: flat scores. In other words, now five years into STAAR, students do no better than they did when the assessment was rolled out as a new and unknown entity. In five years, we have become no better at preparing students for this assessment. So the answer is obvious: raise the passing standards. (/end sarcasm).

Raising standards against a backdrop of flat results leads to an inevitable conclusion: passing rates will be the worst ever this year. We should see every single grade level and subject drop significantly in its passing rate, right? Well here is my prediction: passing results will remain flat. Here is my second prediction: flat results against raised standards will be hailed as a success and as evidence that the assessment system is working.

Why do I see this happening? Simple. Because the TEA will manipulate data to achieve the outcome it seeks. I want to cite two specific examples.

December 2014 EOC retests and Spring 2015 Math STAAR.

In December 2014, students who had failed STAAR EOCs in high school retested in the final administration before the legislature met. Over 75,000 seniors were threatened with non-graduation at that time. In response, bills had already been filed at the legislature to permit those seniors to meet alternative graduation standards. STAAR supporters were irate that the Texas pass or go home standard was up for re-evaluation. Suddenly, with no explanation, almost half of those seniors passed. Pass rates for re-testers on the EOCs reached all time highs. The number of kids affected went way down. However, by the time spring EOCs rolled around, we returned right back to the traditional passage rates we had always seen.  But during the legislative session, the TEA got to beat its chest about these great results the students had achieved.

In the 2014-2015 school year, Texas introduced new math TEKS. Students struggled, parents screamed, teachers sweated. Students were asked to do work that previously had been taught a year or two later in their academic careers. Fourth graders predictably struggled with sixth grade math. The TEA took two steps. First, it pushed assessment later into the spring to give students more time to learn. Second, it decided not to use the STAAR Math for retention purposes in 5th or 8th grade. When the assessment came around, many parents reported that their students said it was easy, even though they had struggled in their math class all year. When the results came out, amazingly they mirrored the passage rates from previous years.

How can this be? In both instances where STAAR was under a huge spotlight, the results turned out way better than anyone predicted. Well, it isn’t rocket science. If you select easier questions for the assessment, then you can control the results. Having looked at EOC assessments from different years, I truly believe that is exactly what happened with the December 2014 English 2 EOC. Reports from parents would indicate a similar outcome with math. Based on past history, I have no doubt that the TEA will make sure that its contractors craft an assessment that will meet previous passing rates, even with higher cut scores. This will then be used to show that STAAR is working and the system is valid.

Let’s see what happens, but remember this prediction.

School Lawyers React to Home School Co-enrollment

Written by admin on . Posted in Constitutional, Homeschooling, STAAR | EOC Testing. Leave a Comment

Last year, TPERN introduced parents to the concept of home school co-enrollment as a means of complying with compulsory attendance laws while holding kids out of school during testing windows.  Two groups had a problem with it: school lawyers and some full time home schoolers.  While we respect the opinion of the full time home schoolers who teach their kids day in and day out, we strongly disagree that TPERN is encouraging parents to game the system or to somehow demean what full time home school parents do.  As to the school lawyers, we continue to be unimpressed with their willful misreading of law and statute in an indefensible effort to defeat parents’ rights to teach their kids at home.

Let’s boil down the school’s argument to its essence:  Parents do not have a right to provide instruction at home in academic subjects, religion, citizenship, arts or vocational education if they choose to enroll their kids in public school.  When stated on its face, stripped of erroneous citations, it is clear that no school will ever go to court and  attempt to defend that premise.  If there were ever a plainly unconstitutional argument made by schools, this would be it.  No school can deny a parent the right to enroll in both public schools and private educational settings, including home schooling.  Now, what can the schools do?  They can demand that you enroll as a full time student.  Public schools are not required to accept part time enrollees.  They may do so if they wish (it is not prohibited in any way), but they cannot be forced to do so.  They can record absences as unexcused for grading and credit purposes, if a student misses scheduled classes for home school instruction.  As mentioned in our initial article, however, we do believe the parents have a colorable argument that such absences cannot be used to show violations of the compulsory attendance law.

So if a school tells you that home school co-enrollment is not permitted, you should simply tell them (a) there is no law against it; (b) because my daughter is enrolling as a full time student in public school, you do not have the discretion to reject her; and (c) constitutionally, the school cannot prevent me from providing instruction to my child in our home on any matter that I, as a parent, see fit to teach.  Some school lawyers cite a TEA decision claiming it rejects dual enrollment.  However, that decision merely determined that a school district could not be compelled to accept a part time student for one class a day.  If the student had offered to enroll in the minimum number of classes required by the District, we believe the case would have been decided differently.

Let’s be honest.  Parents teach their kids at home all the time, whether they are enrolled in public schools or not.  This has always been legal and always will be legal.  It is outside the scope of the school to say what you can and can’t do in your own home.  The only thing that home school co-enrollment changes is the removal of the truancy threat against parents and kids.  It is this loss of control the schools fear.  That is what is behind all of their protestations.  They know they can’t stop you, but they will lie to try to get you to back down.

Stand up for yourselves and your kids.

Denton ISD Issues Void Summer School Order; TPERN Responds

Written by admin on . Posted in STAAR | EOC Testing. 7 Comments

Following in the footsteps of Houston ISD, which hastily admitted its error, the Denton Independent School District has started sending notices to parents of

Denton ISD Illegally Orders 5th Graders to Summer School
Denton ISD Illegally Orders 5th Graders to Summer School

children who did not pass the 5th grade STAAR reading informing those parents that their children will be required to attend summer school if they do not pass the second administration of STAAR.  This “determination” is illegal and void.  This notification is of no legal effect.  Simply put, under the Education Code,  the District lacks the authority to mandate summer school for any student based on STAAR results.

The Education Code is clear.  Accelerated instruction, which may be, but does not have to be in the form of summer school, is determined by a Grade Placement Committee composed of the school principal (or his/her designee), the subject area teacher, and the parent.  The school district has no power under the Education Code to determine anything.

Section 28.0211(c) of the Texas Education Code provides:

“After a student fails to perform satisfactorily on an assessment instrument a second time, a grade placement committee shall be established to prescribe the accelerated instructionthe district shall provide to the student before the student is administered the assessment instrument the third time.  The grade placement committee shall be composed of the principal or the principal’s designee, the student’s parent or guardian, and the teacher of the subject of an assessment instrument on which the student failed to perform satisfactorily.” (emphasis added).

In this case, the second administration has not occurred.  The GPC has not even been formed.  Yet, Mary Helen Martin, Denton ISD’s Director of Elementary Curriculum, has taken it upon herself to refuse to follow the law.  This decision lies in the hands of the local school employees together with the parents.  Ms. Martin doesn’t get a vote.  Moreover, the Texas Education Agency clearly dictates that Accelerated Instruction should not be a one size fits all “everyone goes to summer school” approach.  In the Student Success Initiative Manual, the TEA indicates that accelerated instruction should be individualized to the needs of the individual student.

“Neither the law nor the rules specify the amount of time to be provided for the accelerated instruction. To support the SSI grade-advancement requirements, the law and the commissioner’s rules provide districts and charter schools with flexibility to determine on an individual student basis the appropriate form, content, and timing of the accelerated instruction. The policy governing accelerated instruction is intended to allow districts flexibility to meet individual student needs.” (p. 33).

These types of blanker summer school orders go against everything accelerated instruction is intended to accomplish.  Texas Parents’ Education Rights Network calls on Ms. Martin and Denton ISD to issue a corrective letter to parents immediately.  These types of legally erroneous letters destroy trust between parents and schools.  They are intended to mislead parents into consenting to remediation plans that are not legally required.  They are designed to replace the cooperative relationship between parents and local school employees that the legislature envisioned with top down standardized decision making imposed by the district administration on its students.

TPERN attorneys believe that the summer school determination contained within Ms. Martin’s letter to Denton ISD is legally void as it was not prescribe in compliance with the Education Code.   Denton ISD must follow the legal process for determining accelerated instruction, which means each child’s parent must be an active partner and participant in the decision making process.

TPERN Responds to Houston ISD Warning Letter

Written by admin on . Posted in Other, STAAR | EOC Testing. 1 Comment

The Houston Chronicle recently published an article noting that Houston ISD had sent a warning letter to parents who opted out of STAAR assessment.  The letter was full of legal and factual errors, but was also notable for its blatant declaration that mandatory summer school awaits all kids who have opted out of STAAR.  This is contrary to law.  TPERN’s response is found below.  This response will be sent to Houston ISD, the Chronicle and Houston CVPE.

Regarding the recent article:  HISD letter warns parents against opting out of tests (4/24/15)

In the Chronicle’s coverage of the CVPE alternative learning event, the following quote correctly summarized the ability of parents to refuse standardized assessment for their children.

“”The fact is parents can request their child be removed from standardized testing,” said Elaina Polsen, executive director of communications with Clear Creek ISD”.

Unfortunately, Houston ISD apparently cannot comprehend that there is no method in statute to force assessment.  Parents cannot and will not be compelled to submit to standardized assessment of their children.  Instead, Houston ISD and Mr. Gohl have chosen the route of fear-mongering and intimidation to try to persuade parents to provide data on an assessment that has serious validity issues.  In so doing, however, Mr. Gohl has apparently announced that it is Houston ISD, and not the parents, that will refuse to follow the Education Code.  Such a posture is intolerable, and Mr. Gohl or those who formulated this illegal policy should be immediately terminated.  Lawless behavior should not be rewarded with a paycheck from the taxpayers.

I refer to the following line from Mr. Gohl’s letter to the parents of opt-out kids.  “[S]tudents will be required to attend summer school and will be reevaluated by the Grade Placement Committee prior to the end of summer school for a determination of promotion or retention.”  Mr. Gohl even bolded and underlined “attend summer school” so parents would know he is serious.  Mr. Gohl is not following the law.

Section 28.0211(c) of the Texas Education Code provides:

“After a student fails to perform satisfactorily on an assessment instrument a second time, a grade placement committee shall be established to prescribe the accelerated instruction the district shall provide to the student before the student is administered the assessment instrument the third time.  The grade placement committee shall be composed of the principal or the principal’s designee, the student’s parent or guardian, and the teacher of the subject of an assessment instrument on which the student failed to perform satisfactorily.” (emphasis added).

Now, the second administration has not occurred yet.  As a result, no Grade Placement Committees have been formed and no course of accelerated instruction can have been prescribed.  Indeed, the parent is a member of the committee and must be involved in developing the Accelerated Instruction plan.  Yet, Mr. Gohl seems to suggest that the decision has been made.  Summer school is required . . . for everyone.  If this is the case, Houston ISD is in plain violation of the law, and has not prescribed a valid accelerated instruction plan.  I would suggest that if Houston ISD is concerned about following the Education Code, it look at itself first.  Get rid of petty bureaucrats like Mr. Gohl who think that the law does not apply to them.

I would also note that a one size fits all summer school prescription goes against everything the concept of Accelerated Instruction is intended to address.  The TEA’s Student Success Initiative Manual is clear on this:

“Neither the law nor the rules specify the amount of time to be provided for the accelerated instruction. To support the SSI grade-advancement requirements, the law and the commissioner’s rules provide districts and charter schools with flexibility to determine on an individual student basis the appropriate form, content, and timing of the accelerated instruction. The policy governing accelerated instruction is intended to allow districts flexibility to meet individual student needs.” (p. 33).

The idea the summer school is required for STAAR failures is a myth.  The idea that schools can unilaterally impose it is a myth.  Mr. Gohl knows this, but he chooses to ignore the law and try to scare parents into submitting their kids for assessment.

This type of behavior by a public servant is intolerable and I call on the Houston ISD to repudiate it immediately.

Sincerely,

 

R. Scott Placek
Chairman
Texas Parents’ Educational Rights Network

Note: This response does not address numerous other legal errors contained in the letter from Houston ISD.

Update:  Houston ISD has admitted the letter to Opt Out parents contained errors regarding required summer school.  The blame this on an editing error.  Full article here.

Five Responses When The School Says 26.010 Means You Can’t Opt Out

Written by admin on . Posted in STAAR | EOC Testing. 7 Comments

It’s that time of year.  Schools are sending around copies of Tex. Ed. Code sec. 26.010, accusing Opt Out groups of misleading parents, and trying to coerce people into subjecting their kids to assessments.  Don’t be a sheep.  The TEA’s interpretation of Tex. Education Code sec. 26.010 has never been affirmed by any court.  This is just what they hope it means.  There are strong legal construction arguments which indicate that the TEA is wrong.  Here are five different responses to the 26.010 argument.  If the TEA or any school district lawyer can provide a case that says any of these are incorrect, let’s see it.

Five Responses When the School Cites 26.010 Saying It Prohibits Opt Out

1 – The STAAR is not a test; it is an assessment. STAAR is created by Chapter 39 of the Education Code which refers to it as an assessment over 450 times, while referring to other testing instruments as tests. The Legislature is presumed to intend the words that it chooses. By choosing to call STAAR an Assessment and not a Test, the Legislature precludes the school from relying on the “avoid a test” portion of 26.010.

2 – Chapter 26, taken as a whole, shows STAAR is not a test. Chapter 26 contains parental rights provisions, including the right to access various curricular material. It contains a separate section for access to assessments (26.005) and access to tests (26.006). Thus, in the same chapter as 26.010, the legislature clearly indicates that there is a difference between assessments and tests. You can’t conveniently conflate the two concepts when the legislature has purposely distinguished them.

3 – Access to STAAR is available to parents only through 26.005 and not 26.006. Apart from the definitional issue, the practical reality shows that STAAR is not a test. If STAAR were a test, schools would be required to provide parents access on school premises under 26.006. They do not and cannot. The only access is from the TEA under 26.005. If you get a 26.010 letter from the school try this response: “Dear School: If STAAR is a test, I demand access to it after my child takes it at the school under Texas Education Code 26.006. If you cannot provide me a date to examine the STAAR assessment at the school within 30 days, I will presume that you do not really believe it is a test.” (Update for 2019: Although this point is still technically true, with the addition of STAAR questions to the parent portal, the difference in access is much less stark.  For that reason I’d don’t suggest using this tactic, other than to note what is stated in the first sentence).

4 – My purpose is not to avoid a test. Section 26.010 is written in terms of purpose and not effect. A parent can’t invoke 26.010 to avoid tests. They can invoke 26.010 on the basis of their religious or moral beliefs, and that may result in a missed test. If the school’s interpretation were correct, parents could opt their child out of sex ed classes, but then be required to return to the class and view graphic anatomical charts on a test. That is not how 26.010 works and the schools know it. They are simply reading it that way to coerce parents into letting their kids be assessed.

5 – Subsection (b) does not limit opt out rights. Subsection (b) simply codifies the fact that parents who choose to opt out must still satisfy grade level or graduation requirements. Reading (b) as a limitation on (a) even though it contains no limiting language or exception language is sloppy lawyering.  It indicates a desire to reach an outcome, not analyze an issue.  Since substitute assessments and GPC processes exist to accomplish both promotion and graduation requirements, subsection (b) cannot be read as a limitation on the right to Opt Out of an assessment, even if that was the intent of the subsection! In fact, the better argument is that the existence of subsection (b) shows that parents can opt out but must still meet grade level or graduation requirements of the school.

Ten Common Mistakes Parents Make During the IEP Meeting

Written by admin on . Posted in Section 504 | Special Education. 2 Comments

. . . It is important that parents become informed and involved in their child’s education. There are many sources of information and support in your state. However, the more skills you have and the more information you learn, the better you can advocate for your child. Over the past few years we have found that parents tend to make some common mistakes during the Individual Education Program (IEP) meeting. The following is a list of the common mistakes and some suggestions for avoiding them: . . .

Full Article Here (Kids Together, Inc.)

Was Your Child Forcibly Tested?

Written by admin on . Posted in Constitutional, STAAR | EOC Testing, Testing Irregularity. 3 Comments

We have received a disturbing number of reports of students being forced to complete the makeup STAAR via lies and coercion.  We know that schools are required to offer the assessment to the child, but several reports have come in that the child refused the assessment and was told “you can’t write refused on it.”  Others were told “you have to complete it, it’s the law.”  At least one child was denied the opportunity to ask their mother if it was OK to take it.  Yet another report (second hand) claims that the school told the mother that if she did not tell the child to take the assessment the TEA had instructed them to forcibly take the child to the testing room and make her to the assessment.  It is reported the mother asked the TEA about this and no such instruction was ever given.  Opt out parents who return their children on makeup days are assisting the school by letting them count the refusal as a participation.  It’s wrong of the TEA to do that, but there is absolutely no excuse for certified educators to lie to children and parents just to make a kid give them data.  In almost every one of these instance the school is forcing, tricking or convincing the child to disobey their parents.  Such actions destroy any bond of trust between the parent and the school.

If your child is forcibly tested on make up days against your instructions, and the child attempted to refuse but was not permitted, please do the following:

1. Take a deep breath and relax, we need to focus.

2. Assemble all your e-mails and other communications with the school that preceded the STAAR.

3. Write down your recollection of what you were told verbally, including names, dates, and the precise words as best you recall them before the incident occurred. Then write down everything you remember about what happened and how you learned of this. Note who said what and their emotional state.

4. If your child is OK, have them write down what happened in their own handwriting, or audio or video record them giving their account. Do this as soon as the child is able. Please do not prompt or guide them. Before you start remind them to use names and the exact words people said, including the child. After you have done this, go over it with the child and make notes f any names the child left out or statements they were not clear about. Do not re-video the child and do not have them re-write their account.

5. File an Incident Report form with www.txedrights.net (it is on the website). Please provide all information requested. We will follow up with you after the report is reviewed. Please do not e-mail us video or documents until we request them.

Principal Issues Threats Contrary to Law

Written by admin on . Posted in STAAR | EOC Testing. 4 Comments

The hypocrisy of the schools in their campaign to intimidate parents into subjecting their kids to the STAAR assessment is truly remarkable.  Any outside observers would have to be left scratching their heads.  On the one hand, schools tell parents, sometimes in forceful, nasty letters, that the law does not let parents refuse the STAAR, and that parents and schools must follow the law.  On the other hand, when parents start to assert their rights to opt out and refuse assessment, the schools waste no time in making threats against the parent and child that are contrary to law.  We always recommend that when a parent is threatened with retention, summer school or truancy, that they ask the person making the threat to send an email with all that information so the parent “can fully understand the position of the district.”  Almost without exception, the schools refuse to put it in writing because they know the threats are hollow and that what they are saying they are going to do is refuse to follow the law themselves.  But sometimes they mess up.  Sometimes they leave tracks.

Just this morning, a principal (whose name we have deleted from the message) at an elementary school called a parent regarding her son’s absence from school due to parental refusal.  The mother didn’t answer the phone, but the principal wanted to make sure that the message was delivered.  So she left it on voice mail.  Oops.  In the span of 24 seconds, the principal threatened that if the child didn’t come to school and take the STAAR assessment, he would have to have tutorials, summer school, and repeat fifth grade.  That’s one threat every 8 seconds!  And two of them demonstrate an intention to not follow the law.  Let’s give it a listen:

The SSI manual published by TEA describes the process schools must follow when a 5th grader has failed to perform at satisfactory levels on the STAAR.  For the most part it tracks the Education Code, but provides much more detail and direction.  While the manual says a failure on the first administration requires accelerated instruction, it does not say that must be in the form of tutorials.  But we will give the principal the benefit of the doubt, because they have some discretion there.  We’ll call that a minor omission, but not a lie or a refusal to follow the law.  But the next two we can’t excuse as easily.

Summer school.  Summer school is a form of accelerated instruction that takes place after a second failure and before the third assessment date.  But, as we have discussed many times, summer school is not required by the Education Code, by the TEA regulations, or by the SSI manual.  In fact, the SSI manual clearly states on p. 33 that  “Neither the law nor the rules specify the amount of time to be provided for the accelerated instruction. To support the SSI grade-advancement requirements, the law and the commissioner’s rules provide districts and charter schools with flexibility to determine on an individual student basis the appropriate form, content, and timing of the accelerated instruction.”  Districts have flexibility.  AI could be a single class session; it could be an online tutorial done at home; it could be summer school.  So since summer school is a possibility, why is it so bad for the principal to threaten it?  Because she doesn’t get to make that decision!  Both the Education Code and the SSI manual clearly state that after a second failure, the accelerated instruction plan is to be created by the Grade Placement Committee and individualized to the student.  And who is on the Grade Placement Committee?  The principal, the subject teacher and the parent!  The parent has a vote on this.  The decision can only be made after a GPC is formed and the appropriate materials reviewed.  When the principal says that the student is going to summer school if they don’t take the STAAR, that communicates that a decision has been made and an AI plan formulated before the GPC ever meets.  This is illegal; any such “plan” is invalid; and the sole purpose of this threat is to coerce the parent.

The same goes for promotion or retention.  After the third administration, a student who has not passed the 5th grade STAAR reading will be reviewed by the GPC for the promotion or retention decision.  The factors that go into the promotion decision are a part of state law and can be found in the Education Code.  Willingness to take the STAAR is not a factor they can consider.  Rather they must look at grades in classes, teacher recommendations and STAAR scores to the extent applicable, which means if there are no scores it is not applicable at all!  Again, though this is a decision made by a committee.  When the principal states that if the student doesn’t take the STAAR he will have to be “in 5th grade again,” she is conveying that there is no way to be promoted without taking STAAR. This is untrue. She is also conveying that a decision to retain the student has been made prior to second or third administration, without the committee and without consideration of the statutory factors for promotion.

Why would a school do this?  There is one reason only: to bully and coerce the parents into subjecting their kids to assessment.  To achieve this goal, they make threats that are contrary to law and process.  Usually they don’t leave evidence of this.  Today, they slipped up.  On this 24 second voice mail, you have the problem in a nutshell.  It doesn’t matter how nice or concerned you sound.  If you are threatening not to follow the law and punish a student, you need to be corrected, and you need to take a hard look at why you are doing this.  Is a single piece of data for Pearson worth your integrity?

I’d suggest it is not.

© 2022 Texas Parents' Educational Rights Network