Goodloe-Johnson Conflict of Interest in $370,000 Contract

Josh: A couple of questions: First, does the Seattle School District have a written conflict of interest poicy for staff? If so, was that policy followed in this case? Second, board members of nonprofits are typically unpaid. Is that the case here?

Per Bryan, I'd like to know more about what board members get. Non-profits cannot issue stock, and board members may be typically reimbursed for travel costs but receive only nominal payments to cover their time (which some people then donate back to the non-profit).

It's possible Goodloe-Johnson was viewing her work on the board as a way to improve a program that she wanted to use, and without compensation being an issue, she didn't have a giant blinking light that she was someone self-dealing.

If she's being compensated beyond a very small amount to cover time and expenses, she needs to resign the board, the MAP program needs to be rebid, and she needs to return any fees she received.

Good questions you guys, and I had SPS on the phone, but they had to cut the call short. Still playing phone tag.

But, Glenn, I think the story here is not so much the Goodloe-Johnson profited, it's that there's an appearance that NWEA, her group, profited by its big in @ SPS. Public contracts are not supposed to be awarded that way.

It would be great if Josh had actually asked people who know this district well. She had not just one but two conflicts of interest. The other one is her seat on a Broad Foundation Board. (She went through their Superintendent Academy AND the district has taken on two Broad Residents to work for two years, pay half-salary and likely be hired afterwards.) We knew about both these things at Save Seattle Schools blog.

No, she doesn't get compensated at either but again, is she helping a group where SPS is doing business at? Yes, she is. The Board has its own policy for conflict of interest but I don't know about staff (but probably). The point is the SHE did not disclose either connection until members of the community, speaking during the speakers part of the Board meeting, told the Board and forced the issue.

She has a big agenda, kids. Don't kid yourselves. We're just a waystation on her way to the top. Ambition isn't a bad thing; I don't fault her for that. But we're just a district with a checklist of resume items for her to get through. That's it. And she's going to use whatever connections she has to get there.

Melissa,

I agree the issue isn't her compensation. It's the Superintendent's insider status in letting contracts that's questionable. How does the public know the $370,000 went to the best bidder? It's an issue of public trust and credibility really.

Re: Your sorta snarky comment wondering why I didn't talk to people who know the district well, please cool your jets. I interviewed several people for this post, all of whom know the district well. The Broad Foundation Board came up in those interviews, but I was doing a story on the NWEA contract.

Meanwhile, did you guys @ Save Seattle Schools blog post about the NWEA stuff. I'd love to see your reports on it. Foward the link. I'm surprised this hasn't gotten more attention—which is why I posted about it.

Thanks for covering this Josh. Some educational “non-profits” stretch that definition to the breaking point. They might not have shareholders to pay, but one non-profit school operator in New York earns almost 400k per year presiding over only about 1000 kids. Not exactly non-proft in my mind. Plus, as you say, the relationships and “hooking up” of buddys and pals is the issue. Is that going on? Maybe. Who knows when no sunlight is shined upon it? Should we just take their word for it? Heck no. If it compromises a person's objectivity and clouds their thinking the tiniest bit, it should be avoided. Period.

Yeah, but I would draw a bright line between an uncompensated director pushing a nonprofit that delivers precisely what wants in a program for SPS, and a compensated director at a for-profit company that will personally be rewarded in stock, compensation, and future employment. (Assuming she gets just expenses and no substantive compensation.)

“Profited” is a tricky word here. How does a nonprofit “profit” from the contract if their mission as a nonprofit is to disseminate a particular standard of testing that schools want to be able to afford?

I agree that Goodloe-Johnson should have disclosed and recused herself. However, if she's not making any substantive fees, this isn't a case of self-enrichment.

The issue hasn't gotten much attention because journalists in this town don't do their jobs. No nuance, just sound bites.

And, Josh, back at you. I'm not doing your job. Want to know what we over Save Seattle Schools know on this issue? Go read about it yourself – it's not my job to post links for you.

Isn't this what the WASL is supposed to do? Why is the Seattle School District spending this kind of money on a redundant test? $370K is about five teachers. I suspect the teachers would do a hell of a lot more good than the test. That's the real issue here—flagrant waste.

Josh, Thursday November 19th, recapping the school board meeting of the night before. Honestly, just go to the Saveseattleschools blog and look at the tags. MAP is a tag, the post with this info is right there. If you wanted to see the actual school board meeting and see for your self how this was daylighted (was it due to a public testimony?) then that's doable as well. I bet you can find the proper internet site that allows you to watch the school board meeting archives.

Cool. Thanks, bourbaki. Will do.

The Seattle School Board couldn't recognize ethics if slapped in the face.

You can view the organization's tax return online. Every nonprofit files an annual Form 990, which lists, among other things, the salaries of the top employees and board directors' compensation. Dr. G-J received no compensation in 2008 for her service according to the file I found here:

http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990_pdf_archive…

I was interested to see how well paid the employees are though! The President makes $337K, for example, and 10 other employees are listed that make between $125K to $197K. Not too shabby for working at a nonprofit whose customers are basically the taxpayers.

Lori

Hey Josh,
I'm glad you picked this up. I don't have numbers at the moment- maybe another reader does?- BUT, $370,00 looks like the tip of the iceberg on MAP. The BTA levy passed this week dedicates a substantial amount (4.3 mil?) to assessment/tracking/student “data” by way of the MAP.

Whether it's a good investment- given the reliance on tech, lack of subtlety in responding to student error, poor reporting record to parents and staff… issues with the test itself, ability to accurately gauge a student's ability/performance, is one issue. Conflict of interest is another. Lack of transparency or adherence to an ethical code of conduct are of paramount concern.

Dig a little, our concerns locally are amplified on the national scene.

WASL is for 4th, 7th and 10th grades only, and there's a big lag between the time the test is taken and the results being available. No teacher can find out how to help their students based on that test's results.

Hey Josh,
Thanks for following this story. It does raise a number of questions and red flags.

Yes some of us have discussed the Superintendent's conflict of interest with regard to NWEA (and Broad, and possibly NTN and the new STEM plan at Cleveland) on the Save Seattle Schools blog, beginning last fall.

For ex.

gavroche said…
(…)

And yes, Superintendent Goodloe-Johnson is indeed on the board of directors of Northwest Evaluation Association which makes and sells their trademarked MAP tests. (http://www.nwea.org/about-nwea/our-leadership)

She joined this board in Sept. 2008. (http://www.seattleschools.org/area/news/sbnews/…) How long after that did the school district under her leadership purchase MAP tests from NWEA? Or was she given this honor AFTER she committed to purchasing their product?

Clearly this is a conflict of interest.
11/16/09 11:56 PM

gavroche said…
Thanks, Melissa.
ZB — here's a brief description from http://seattle-ed.blogspot.com/:

[MAP are] the new computerized, standardized tests the district is administering this year to all students, from as young as kindergarten to grade 9.

MAP stands for “Measures of Academic Progress™” (yes, it is a trademarked product) and will be administered to the kids three times during the schoolyear. The test can take as much as two hours each session, according to the district's official announcement letter (see: http://bryantschool.org/index.php?option=com_co….

Here are all my questions on the subject:

I'd like to know who decided to buy the MAP(tm) test for SPS, when and why. Was there any public input on this district choice and expenditure? How much did it cost? Was this the best use of district money when there are so many other more immediate needs? Are standardized, computerized tests appropriate for kids as young as 5 in kindergarten who aren't even reading yet? Have some kids indeed figured out how to outsmart the adjustable mechanism of the tests, thus skewing the results? Do we really want precious class time spent on even more testing? What are the tests really going to be used for — to evaluate kids or to evaluate teachers? What have the first round of tests shown so far? I heard from one teacher that no one seems to know how to make sense of the results. Is that true district-wide? I and others would also like to know, why in Sept. 2008 did Supt. Goodloe-Johnson join the board of directors of the Northwest Evaluation Association which manufactures and sells the MAP(tm) test? Was this before or after the district decided to buy NWEA's product? Were any other companies or products considered? Did the Superintendent's position on the NWEA board influence the school district's decision to purchase that company's product? Does Supt. Goodloe-Johnson stand to profit financially from this association? Isn't this a conflict of interest?

(see:
http://www.nwea.org/about-nwea/our-leadership

http://www.nwea.org/about-nwea/faq
/General%20Information#faq-1043

http://www.seattleschools.org/area/news/sbnews/…
11/9/09 11:40 AM

gavroche said…
JvA–

Despite DeBell's ethical nonchalance, here's where the conflict of interest really matters: How likely is it that SPS will ever objectively and fairly evaluate this expenditure as long as its superintendent is connected to the company that sells the district the test?
2/12/10 6:19 PM

I do not think the question of a conflict of interest should be viewed only from only a financial vantage point. MGJ is on the board of NWEA and a director of the “Broad Foundation”.

Decisions made that favor the “Broad Foundation's” agenda probably do not bring her any immediate financial gain but may advance her career, when the broad foundation looks to find her her next job.

How did Dr. Goodloe-Johnson land in Seattle to begin with?

Try to ask the question as to whether the MAP is an achievement test, aptitude test, of intelligence test. You will not get an answer. Those of us who have seen the students taking this exam (looking over their shoulders) note with much consternation that the exam throws some seriously above grade level questions at the test takers. This has been explained by the District Reps. as testing “what the students may be ready for.” That's not achievement, it's aptitude. But the District calls it a formative test. That would be achievement. And, why are the test questions kept secret. Teachers have been requesting them since Sept., but we have been handed the excuse that they are not available for individual test takers. That's not true, because each question has a code number that can be read on screen during the test.

This whole thing is beginning to stink real bad…

People land on boards of directors through their friends' recommendations. Once there, board members like to help out the friends who recommended them. It may not be quid pro quo but it's not innocent either, and it matters not how good the test is; this was an ethical misstep even if it wasn't illegal.

Josh — Here's another resource for you. Lots more info on Supt. G-J, SPS and national “ed reform” related issues, drawing on research by a group of concerned SPS parents, can be found here:

Seattle Education 2010
http://seattle-ed.blogspot.com/
http://seattle-ed2010.blogspot.com/ (new posts specifically)

Remember, when MGJ was given a lavish going away affair in Charleston by her corporate patrons there, local citizens protested the influential role of such donors in public education.

She was quoted at the time calling such objections “tacky”.

Although we are certain she “does'nt lose any sleep” over anything taxpayers object to, we should be really careful not to be “tacky” in her royal eyes now.

Oh, and although certain to have undergone heavy re-write over the last 48 hours or so, the District also has a written “Ethics” policy which is supposed to apply to all employees.

However, as was said at the other Animal Farm: “some are more equal than others”.

Josh, I'm glad you posted this. Your initial coverage really cries out for more, and as a regular reader of Melissa’s posts, I can highly recommend her blog as a reliable source for what’s going on with Maria Goodloe-Johnson and Seattle Schools under her leadership.

If you sit on a board, paid or not, and steer contracts and internships to the district you lead, you’re involved in a conflict of interest. Leaving the NWEA board, as one commenter suggests, won't begin to fix the conflicts MG-J brings to her management, or mismanagement, of SPS funds.

Michael DeBell thinks nothing of it? Look at his voting record as board president, along with the recent court decision on math materials. This curriculum was approved by DeBell’s board, promoted by MG-J and staff.

Historically, the SPS board has offered little or no over sight, so his reaction isn’t surprising. This should lead you to even more questions about the nature of how curricula are now marketed and adopted. Who really benefits?

A decade of test scores and drop out stats will tell you that the ephemeral achievement gap is growing wider. Meanwhile, a circus train of consultants is well employed by MG-J and other superintendent’s like her. She says she’s accountable, but your brief post highlights the fact that the school board doesn’t hold her to account.

She’s not returning your call? That’s not surprising.
that?

The whole point of the MAP is to document actual progress, which necessitates below- and above-level questions being available (as not all students are achieving right within a narrow grade level). That's not a bug, it's a feature. I'm still not sure whether it's a great test in itself, but I really, really like the way it's meant to work.

The conditions here are the reasons this area was perfect for her. A largely sleepy local media mostly interested in entertainment and human interest stories and a pliant board mostly bought and sold by the business community and wealth, with little interest in oversight.

Someone should look into how much NWEA and its affiliated individuals put into local school board races over the last few years. Local citizens and parents of PUBLIC school children can hardly compete with the corporate funds the incumbents have raised.

And now that corporations are “people” with “free speech” rights in eyes of the Supreme Court, the problem will get worse. For-profit, non-profit, both have employees that stand to gain when they can convince the voters that they have the best “product” by spending tens, no hundreds of thousands of dollars…Now the “product” is education, and as has been noted, Board directors are funded in their campaigns by corporations…Welcome to another round of privatization.
First it was the armed forces: Let's let Blackwater “secure” Iraq! Now it's public education. Somebody finally noticed that there are big bucks to be made. After the students are boxed into little standardized categories, after the public is convinced by PR around these standardized numbers that public schools are just horrible, after the right people are voted onto the boards, after the right people are placed in high places in admin, it's a cinch to get 4.3 million (plus 370 thousand) steered into your “non-profit” so the CEO can get a nice fat check. A check from the taxpayers.
sweet deal if you can get it.

My attention was drawn to the MAP testing when I understood that kindergarten students would be tested on computers twice, maybe three times a year, to evaluate their academic progress, an idea that I find ludicrous at best.

The MAP test is to be used to determine a student's progress grades K through 9 and it is my concern that this narrow measure of academic achievement will be used in short order to evaluate a teacher's performance which would be tied into the concept of merit pay. I have read Directors Sundquist and De Bell‟s remarks in the press about how the superintendent‟s raise is an example of what they would like to see follow in terms of merit pay for all teachers and by that I am greatly alarmed.

Not only is this test simply a snapshot of one day in the life of a student, a day that might be fraught with hunger, fear or general malaise, it is at this point a false representation of a student‟s level of understanding of various subjects.

I have read and heard that the students already know how to manipulate the test so that they get easier questions and can finish the test more quickly. These students have learned that if a series of questions appears to be too difficult for a student, the questions become easier. So the students deliberately provide wrong answers for the test to become easier for them and faster to complete so that they can go play. This was to be a hallmark of this test, the ability for the software to adjust to the level of a student's understanding of the subject matter. This information now challenges the validity of the test scores.

A teacher recently told me that her kindergarten students don't understand the test and that there is an elephant sound that is made on one of the question/answers. The students like the animal sound so much that they keep clicking it, no matter what the question is. Some young students just keep clicking answers so that they can finish the test and go outside to play.

Does the superintendent truly believe that this test provides accurate results or is she simply speaking in her own best interest?

This, as with any test, is not an accurate measure of a student‟s ability and yet I could see it being proposed as a basis for the evaluation of a teacher‟s performance as is happening in many parts of the country under the guise of determining “teacher quality” and instituting “performance pay” and “merit pay” as a way to reward teachers on how well their students can take a test on a narrow set of academic parameters.

With the MAP test used as well as the WASL, which many teachers already teach to narrowing their scope of academic understanding by the students of the subject, the idea of testing appears to be redundant and a waste of time and money.

The Gates' Foundation provided SPS with the initial $9M for testing students to evaluate the MAP test and now administer it to our students. That money would have been better spent on decreasing the size of classes or providing additional enrichment programs for our students or keeping some of our schools open or our teachers in place last spring. I am not comfortable with the idea that the Gates Foundation provided this money because their emphasis is on student assessment testing and linking the results of those tests to merit pay for teachers. That is well documented and again information regarding that can be found at http://seattle-ed.blogspot.com/ .

As Herb Kohl states in his letter to Arne Duncan, “We have come far from that time in the '60s. Now the mantra is high expectations and high standards. Yet, with all that zeal to produce measurable learning outcomes we have lost sight of the essential motivations to learn that
students what they were learning about and the reactions were consistently, “We are learning how to do good on the tests”. They did not say they were learning to read. It is hard for me to understand how educators can claim that they are creating high standards when the substance and content of learning is reduced to the mechanical task of getting a correct answer on a manufactured test.”

Dan,

DGJ landed in Seattle by way of a Broad employee who is basically a scout and their responsibility is placing these Broad trained superintendents.

As per the Broad's statement on their website, once they train their superintendents, they place them and then support them. In the case of our superintendent, it meant adding more Broad residents as support staff and getting Gates involved with funding for his never ending quest to have every child in public school tested, retested and then tested again.

Then comes merit pay based on student test assessments, in an attempt to break the back of the union, and then charter schools, Eli Broad's goal for all 50 states by way of Arne Duncan, one of Broad's disciples and former board member. The charter schools, by the way, do not hire union teachers, require that they work longer days including Saturdays and get paid basically Wal Mart wages.

I think that just the appearance of a conflict of interest is reason enough to step down from a board particularly if you are a public official paid by public funds.

3rd, 5th, 6th, and 8th have the WASL, too–some combination of reading, writing, science, and math.

I'm a building-level coordinator for the MAP in my district. My perspective:

So the students deliberately provide wrong answers for the test to become easier for them and faster to complete so that they can go play.

If any teacher, school, or principal is structuring the testing environment in such a way that the test is a gateway to recess, those people are stupid.

A teacher recently told me that her kindergarten students don't understand the test and that there is an elephant sound that is made on one of the question/answers. The students like the animal sound so much that they keep clicking it, no matter what the question is.

I've sat in on probably 50+ kindergarten testing sessions. I've never seen that happen. There is a dog that appears at the very end of the test–he barks–but I don't think that's what you're describing.

I've had kids show up to their MAP testing session who obviously haven't had their meds. No problem–I can reschedule the test for a different time. I've had kids absolutely bomb the test and try to rush through, as was described–not a problem, because I can retest them at a different time one-on-one and ensure maximum focus. I can't do either of these things with the WASL, and that's why the MAP is a far superior test.

I wish we'd adopt it as our state level assessment.

The point is that the students figured out on their own how to manipulate the test thus making the results invalid. That's just the way it is.

In terms of the elephant, I stand by my word. The teacher told me it was an elephant noise. If it was another noise, I stand corrected. The point is, exactly what information do you think you are going to get from a five year old? Most of them don't know how to use a computer and would find a test like this boring. I would just click around the screen myself.

This same teacher said that the parents have been receiving the result so of this test don't know what to make of them and neither do the teachers or staff.

Do you?

gavroche
Thank you for all the links. I spent several hours last night reading them and going on to the links that they lead to. Anyone concerned about the education of their children, or in my case grandchildren in the SPS, should read through those links.
M G-J's relationship with NWEA is clearly a conflict of interest. But that is just money, albeit money we don't have. The greater concern is MAP and the institutionalization of a “reform” agenda without a thorough airing at the School Board and buy in by the public. Does the School Board even comprehend what is going on?
The Broad Foundation relationship is even more disconcerting than NWEA. That is a subject for another discussion, but I would urge anyone interested in the public schools of this City to read gavroche's links and follow onto the discussion of Broad. Broad is pushing an agenda, part of which has been rejected repeatedly by Washington voters, and the rest of which has never been broached to Seattle parents or voters. M G-J is burrowing this agenda into the BTA levy moneys.

The board members who were seated before the last election are aware of the Broad. In fact, they have read books recommended by the Broad. Harium has stated this on his blog.

Theses same board members are now well aware of the Broad residents as several parents have pointed that out to them.

The Alliance for Education that has received the Broad and Gates money sponsored a retreat for the board members. It's my guess that some of that money was spent on the retreat. The Broad likes to sponsor retreats for school board members.

Harium was in DC and met Arne Duncan and his people within the last month. I can assure you that charter schools and all of the other elements of the RTTT funding were discussed.

Many of us are frustrated that the board, even though we have made these connections for them, have done nothing or said anything about it. Their stance is that yes, we are aware of the information but it doesn't sway the decisions that we make. Unfortunately, they don't see how they are being manipulated in many subtle, and sometimes in not so subtle, ways. For example the closures, the rif's and MAP testing and how that fits within the supe's agenda of bringing onto the union table merit pay next month based on student assessments.

Several of us met with Harium last summer to discuss our concerns and he said that he would ask the superintendent to provide a white paper stating her relationship to the Broad. That paper has yet to appear. I am assuming that Harium did request it.

And yes, I agree with you. Everyone who is at all concerned about our public school system in Seattle needs to inform themselves about what is going on. That is why several of us set up http://seattle-ed.blogspot.com/ , to provide the information to make an informed decision about the issues that are affecting us now.

I'm no cheerleader for the district, but I don't think that MAP is inherently evil. I actually find it very interesting and hope that it lives up to its promise.

My first grader seems to enjoy the testing; it's something “different” from the usual daily grind and it really doesn't take up that much time in the scheme of things. As a parent, I used the lexile score to identify books appropriate to her reading level. We also identified topics that she is interested in but not yet learning in school. She was asked division questions on MAP in September, which of course she couldn't answer having just turned 6, but she decided she wanted to start learning multiplication and division on her own so she'd get those questions right next time! So we've been teaching her. I never would have known she was interested in more in-depth math at this point in her life without that information. It's very cool that I have a little girl who thinks math is fun (when taught at home; she hates EDM)

Remember too, this is the first year trying MAP so not everyone knows what to do with the information yet. That's okay; with time, they will have data about each child and each classroom as a whole. The September results were establishing a baseline; no one knew what to do with them really because there was no history, nothing to compare them to. Moving forward, our principal has told us that the teacher can access a wealth of data about each student. So although parents get a summary report and overall score for math and reading, the teacher can drill down and identify specific areas within each subject where the child either excels or needs assistance. Supposedly, the teacher will use this information to differentiate within the classroom and provide more individualized learning opportunities. Our principal fully recognizes that, yes, the test is just a snapshot of one day, and some kids will get inaccurate results because they were ill that day or tired or hungy. She urges us parents not to rely too heavily on the numbers and even to expect fluctuations over time, meaning the January score might be lower than the September score, and it doesn't indicate that anything is wrong. I like everything she said about the test and her goals for how to use the information in the future. Of course, it will be a challenge to realize any of those goals with huge class sizes, RIFs, and everything else being thrown at us these days.

But bottom line, I don't think anyone can truly say whether MAP is “worth it” or not until we've used it long enough to accrue real data and determined whether or not it facilitates individualized learning as intended.

Don't you think that your child's teacher could have given you the same “data” in terms of potential subjects of interests or your child's capabilities?

The concern that many of us have with the MAP test is that it will be used to determine the “success” and “effectiveness” of our teachers. Those test scores would then be used to determine a teacher's income and that is what is called “merit pay based on a student's performance”. That is what we don't want to happen.

Bill Gates has spent millions of dollars around the country setting into place different tests in school districts that are used to determine a teacher's merit. We don't want that to happen here.

See:

The Big Tests: What Ends Do They Serve?
by Gerald Bracey

http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational_le…

Turning schools into Registry of Motor Vehicles

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opi…

MAP testing hasn't helped my daughter! Our second grader had a precipitous drop between her fall and winter exam. I asked to see the MAP test questions and my daughter's answers. Guess what- this information is unavailable to parents, teachers or principals! This is a missed opportunity for me to help my daughter! So go ahead SPS with the 4.3 million dollar investment to NWEA. The benefit…clearly, atleast to me, is nwea's financial gain.

I’ve helped out in the computer lab with MAPS testing – there is a screen where cats meow when you click/move them. Some kids just like moving the cats around to make them meow – then click past the page when they get tired of it – and wherever the cats were last is their answer for a question they haven’t even paid attention to.

And when you’re daughter gets a great score on her next MAP math test, her teacher will look like she did a great job. And the teacher with kids whose parents aren’t coaching them, or who just click the “next” button to get done with the “stupid test” will look like a bad teacher – This is why test scores in disadvantaged schools are not as high – not bad teachers.
By the way – the MAPS tests are not aligned with the EDM (Seattle’s math curriculum) – that is, MAP tests some things that are not taught in the curriculum, or posed in unfamiliar ways. But teachers are forced to teach EDM. And they are forced to keep up with EDM’s pacing (keep going on to the next lesson, whether the kids understand or not, you need to be here by the end of the month….).
It’s not that the test itself is a bad thing – it’s purpose should be just what you used it for – seeing where a kid is at, and helping inform the decision on what the child might be ready for – not evaluating teachers.

And when you’re daughter gets a great score on her next MAP math test, her teacher will look like she did a great job. And the teacher with kids whose parents aren’t coaching them, or who just click the “next” button to get done with the “stupid test” will look like a bad teacher – This is why test scores in disadvantaged schools are not as high – not bad teachers.
By the way – the MAPS tests are not aligned with the EDM (Seattle’s math curriculum) – that is, MAP tests some things that are not taught in the curriculum, or posed in unfamiliar ways. But teachers are forced to teach EDM. And they are forced to keep up with EDM’s pacing (keep going on to the next lesson, whether the kids understand or not, you need to be here by the end of the month….).
It’s not that the test itself is a bad thing – it’s purpose should be just what you used it for – seeing where a kid is at, and helping inform the decision on what the child might be ready for – not evaluating teachers.