Posts Tagged ‘testing’

Educators speak out against testing

Friday, May 30th, 2014

Pencil - RedPerhaps Blaine principal Troy LaRiviere’s May 3 letter to the Chicago Sun-Times  emboldened other educators to speak out.

For example, the former head of assessment at CPS, Carole Perlman, wrote this letter to the Chicago Tribune criticizing the use of standardized tests to evaluate teachers. “Though superficially appealing, using test scores to evaluate teachers will create more problems than it will solve. Excellent teachers will be erroneously labeled as incompetent, while poor teachers may get a pass. Students will not benefit.”

And just a few days ago, I received this wonderful e-mail from former teacher Judy Tomera, who agreed that I could share her comments:

Dear Julie Woestehoff,                                May 26, 2014

I’m writing to tell you how much I enjoyed you presence on Dick Kay’s show a Saturday or two ago and am looking forward to your next appearance.  I think what you had to say about schools and testing, in particular, is spot on.  It is my opinion after spending about 40 years teaching elementary school (K – 5th grade in rural, urban, and suburban schools) that standardized testing is a waste of time and resources for many reasons, one of which is that they do not test what you want to know about a child.  Many of the questions are ridiculous, designed to lead children astray so the standard bell curve can be preserved.  And, as you well know, the tests are not directly linked to curriculum so they are not a valid indicator of what children have learned in school.

For example:

In first grade in the 80s children were asked to identify which animal lays eggs and fill in the circle below it. (California Achievement Test) The pictures were of an elephant, bunny, snake, and horse.  Enough 6 and 7 years olds were drawn to the bunny (think April and Easter when most testing is done) to elicit the required number of wrong answers to maintain the bell curve.

In third grade in the 2000s on a reading test 3rd graders were asked to find the word in the row that has the same vowel sounds as the first word.  The first word was BEAR and the other words in the list were BEEN, EARS,  HAIR, and HERE.  Many children marked EARS because it had the same vowels, not vowel sounds. That item was also included on purpose to draw children to a wrong answer. I doubt if the children that missed that item would have read the following sentence incorrectly:  The bear had brown ears. Semantics and syntax play an important part in reading correctly. What child who can read would read the sentence as The bear had brown airs, which is the correct response to the question if students had indeed understood the question correctly.

Other examples of deliberate insertion of misleading questions can be identified in most standardized tests. In order to maintain the bell curve, half of the test takers must score less than the 50th percentile in the control groups and half over. Therefore when developing the test items some questions must be more difficult (tricky) or in some cases easier to maintain the bell curve in score distribution of the sample groups.  Questions of recall test memory, not skill. Questions not linked to curriculum are not  useful.  Yes, you are right, testing is a mean trick to play on children.

If you ask most adults, they do not have fond memories of the week of achievement testing. Now in most states it isn’t just in the spring. More is better. It is like getting on the scale every day to see if you have lost weight. It has nothing whatever to do with that goal. Eating less and exercising are better ways of achieving the goal. Time in the classroom providing enriched learning environments and experiences are far better at achieving best student outcomes.

And if you want to know how a child reads, listen to him or her. Fluency, expression, even a few questions of inference or recall are good. And, by the way, it is okay to look back. What good reader doesn’t from time to time. Otherwise, here again, you are just testing memory.

Another practice during testing time is to read aloud test items in the math section to the children who are struggling readers. The logic is that you are not testing math skills if the student is required to comprehend the question by reading it themselves as reading skills are involved.  However, what I found in my classes is that my weaker readers scored higher on the math test than many of the children who in their daily lives demonstrated greater understanding of math concepts. Why not read the math questions to all the children. Oral inflection is a big aid to understanding the written word so students who were read the questions had a big advantage over those who didn’t. You know, level the playing field.

Before I moved to Chicagoland, where I taught in a private school as the public schools could hire two beginning teachers rather than one experienced one like me (but that s another issue), I taught in a public school in Oregon that was rated number 1 in the state.  We would hold workshops two or three times a year to share our program (multiage classrooms) and teaching strategies with teachers and districts throughout the state who would send staff to our school to spend the day with us and our children.  Soon after I moved to NW Indiana, the Oregon State Department of Education instituted standardized testing as means to evaluate effectiveness of schools. How much you improved from year to year was the basis for high evaluation. The more you improved from the previous year, the higher your rank. So my school went from being the best  school in the state to in the middle somewhere simply because our scores, still very high, were not significantly higher than the very high scores from the year before. Schools that had previously scored lower and struggling schools that gained a few points on the outcomes of the test results indeed showed more improvement, though their scores were not in the high range and they got the higher ratings and headlines in the newspaper.  And, as we all know, what is in the newspaper counts.  It is politics.  I felt for the staff, students and parents of my Oregon school for doing an excellent job and not being recognized for that.

Testing is a mirage.  An expensive one.  There are far better ways of showing individual student progress and many schools are using them to communicate with parents.  When parents understand the issues and can see the authentic growth in their children they are pleased.  When they can’t, they and teachers are at least pointed in the direction that encourages improvement.  Test scores, in themselves do not do that.  They are misleading and dishonest and suck the enthusiasm and confidence out of learners.

Thank you for being so articulate in highlighting one of the many problems schools face and leading the way to improvement.  I am in your parade.

Gated communities for already advantaged students

Monday, April 28th, 2014


Today’s story by Chicago Sun-Times Watchdog reporters Tim Novak and Chris Fusco exposes the imbalance of white students in Chicago’s four north side selective enrollment high schools, and the fact that the disproportionate number of white students has become even more lopsided since the courts ended the Desegregation Consent Decree in 2009.

Sun-Times figures show that white students made up an average of 41 percent of freshmen admitted to Jones, Whitney Young, Northside Prep, and Walter Payton over the past four years, compared to 29 percent in 2009. The overall enrollment of white students in CPS is about 9%.

I met with Novak and Fusco as they were preparing the story. I made the point (which did not specifically end up in their story…) that test scores unfairly act to keep low-income students out of selective enrollment high schools, since test scores are most closely aligned to economic status.

But their analysis showed that the system is even more insanely unfair. For 80% of the applicants, test scores are factored in with census tract data in a 4-tier system that actually forces students from households with an average income of $42,000 near 95th and Halsted to compete with the test scores of Gold Coast students whose families make over $300,000 per year.

How do you suppose that match-up usually turns out?

Back in 2009, we recommended that the selective enrollment high school process factor in actual family income, not community income, and that it use income level to offset test score advantages of white and higher-income students. Even cynical PURE didn’t suspect the extent to which CPS seems to have actually rigged the system.

Pander Prep

Mayor Emanuel’s proposal to locate a new Obama College Prep on the north side rather than the south side where the President worked and lived — and where the most under-resourced and least popular selective enrollment high schools are – is just one more example of the utter cluelessness of Chicago’s white power elite. One point of mine that did make it into print in the Sun-Times story is that the explosion of the most attractive selective enrollment “seats” on the north side didn’t happen until after race was removed as an criteria for acceptance.

Whose schools???

Testimony to the Senate Education Committee 4-25-14

Saturday, April 26th, 2014

Presented at the Illinois Senate Education Committee Subject Matter Hearing on Student Testing April 25, 2014

SB 2156 and SB 3460 (Cunningham)


Good afternoon. My name is Julie Woestehoff and I am the Executive Director of Parents United for Responsible Education, or PURE, a 26 year old parent-based public school advocacy organization. For more than 15 years, since the beginning of the high-stakes testing era, I have been working with parents to challenge the misuse and overuse of standardized testing in the Chicago Public Schools (CPS) and across the country.

There is nothing inherently wrong with standardized tests that are used properly, as designed and in a limited way, as just one of a set of true multiple measures taken over time with a variety of tools.

What is wrong – very wrong – is the misuse and overuse of standardized testing that has been growing at an alarming rate in recent years. It is critical that legislators, other public officials, and the general public understand that this is NOT the kind of testing that we – or even my grown children — experienced. When you hear what the parents and teachers who are here today tell you about what testing is like in our schools today, you will understand that the current misuse and overuse of testing is seriously harming our children and drastically interfering with their opportunity to receive a meaningful education.

I want to thank Senator Cunningham for introducing SB 2156 and SB 3460, which address some of the major problems created by today’s inappropriate use of standardized tests. My purpose in testifying here today is to share some facts in support of these bills and to offer some further recommendations to address the crisis of test misuse and overuse in our schools.


Too many tests – PURE supports SB 2156, NAEP model

PURE supports the annual limitation on the number of standardized academic achievement tests given to students as proposed in SB 2156. As illustrated in the attached chart created by the coalition More Than a Score, which PURE helps convene, the total number of standardized test “events” in CPS this year may run close to 300 for all students and all administrations (see Attachment 1 – More Than a Score chart, “The Reality Behind the ‘New, Reduced’ CPS Assessment Policy”).

This does not include the enormous amount of time given over to test preparation and review.

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), or the “Nation’s Report Card,” tests students only in the “critical juncture” years of 4th, 8th and 11th grades, and tests only a sampling of students in those grades, with no stakes attached for students. Using NAEP’s highly-respected testing schedule would help put the brakes on the massive expansion of testing that has hijacked our children’s education.

Recommendation: Any large-scale statewide standardized testing system should be limited to sample testing in three benchmark years only.


Testing misuse violates professional and ethical standards

Using any standardized achievement test for a purpose for which it was not designed violates nationally-accepted standards of the testing profession, of the state of Illinois and the U. S. Department of Education, and the guidelines of the test makers themselves (see Attachment 2 – PURE Fact Sheet: “Testing professionals oppose use of standardized test scores as sole or primary measures in high-stakes decisions”).

For example, according to the makers of the SAT-10, which CPS has been using to retain students:

Achievement test scores may certainly enter into a promotion or retention decision. However, they should be just one of the many factors considered and probably should receive less weight than factors such as teacher observation, day-to-day classroom performance, maturity level, and attitude.

But this has not stopped CPS from their inappropriate use of the Iowa test in the 1990’s, then the ISAT/SAT 10 in recent years and, this year, the NWEA MAP. CPS also uses these tests in other ways for which they were not designed including school closing and turnaround decisions as well as teacher and principal evaluation.

CPS will say that it does use multiple measures to make promotion and other high-stakes decisions, but that is simply not true. In fact, the CPS promotion policy sets up multiple barriers, not multiple measures. That is, any one measure by itself will trigger the decision to send a student to summer school, and any one measure by itself can cause a student to flunk summer school and be retained. Test scores also vastly outweigh any other measure in the CPS school accountability system.

Recommendation: State law should prohibit the use of state tests in making high-stakes decisions about students.


Standardized tests inappropriate for young children: PURE supports SB 3460

We support the ban on standardized testing for children in grades 2 and younger. Early childhood professionals urge “great caution” in the use of and interpretation of standardized tests of young children’s learning (see Attachment 3 – National Association for the Education of Young Children, “Assessment of Young Children” p. 10 and “Program Evaluation and Accountability” p. 14).

They raise concerns that standardized tests may not be based on knowledge of child development and are therefore not suited to the developmental abilities of young children. Tests often miss important objectives of early childhood like creativity, problem-solving, and social and emotional development, which can lead to teaching of skills in ways that are not effective or meaningful, to the narrowing of the curriculum, and to less time for play and hands-on learning experiences that are important foundations for later school success. In other words, focusing on testing in the early years may lead to less effective teaching and learning, not the other way around.

Recommendation: We support the language of SB 3460.

Test bias

There are significant racial and cultural biases in standardized tests that must be taken into consideration. I’m not just referring to the obvious bias of questions about yachts and tennis doubles, which “bias review” is supposed to be addressing. Research has shown that test questions that are answered correctly more often by black students than by white students have been rejected by test makers, apparently in an effort to assure that test results showing African-Americans scoring lower than whites are “consistent” from year to year (see Attachment 4 – PURE Fact Sheet, “Racial Bias in Standardized Tests” and Attachment 5 – Fair Test, “Racial Justice and Standardized Educational Testing”).

It is well-known that the best predictor of standardized test scores is economic level. It’s no coincidence that the schools in our poorest communities in Chicago have been labeled as failures based on test scores, and are the main targets for closure and privatization by charters or privately-run turnaround agencies.

Other recommendations

There are far better ways to assess children that support rather than take time and resources away from teaching and learning, and that do not harm children the way test misuse and overuse harms them. Over the years, PURE has proposed balanced assessment legislation to assure that students and schools are assessed using valid, appropriate, multiple measures. I attach a summary of our most recent proposal (see Attachment 6 – “PURE Proposal: Legislative Changes to Implement a Balanced State Assessment System for Illinois”).

Examples of successful use of such assessments include the New York Performance Standards Consortium (see Attachment 7 – Fair Test, “New York Performance Standards Consortium Fact Sheet” and Attachment 8 – FairTest, “A Better System for Evaluating Students and Schools”).

PURE has proposed the common sense notion of going back to using student report cards as the primary evaluation tool for student work. There may have been some validity to concern about grade inflation 15 years ago, but if report cards are still useless, it is the responsibility of the district to provide correctives. Report cards are far more meaningful to parents, who are not allowed to see any part of the tests that currently dictate major life decisions about their children. PURE’s proposal has also been endorsed by More Than a Score (see Attachment 9, PURE, Proposal for a Year-Long Student-Centered Elementary Promotion Policy for CPS”).

Finally, we recommend an explicit opt out right for parents in state law. Because districts have acted irresponsibly by violating standards and ethics of the assessment profession, parents must have the ability to advocate for and protect our children. When CPS parents opted out or tried to opt their children out of a meaningless administration of the ISAT last month, they were harassed, their children experienced retaliation, and investigators used pressure tactics to get students to report on possible teacher involvement. This is unacceptable.

Sample opt out language from California state statutes: “A parent or guardian may submit to the school a written request to excuse his or her child from any or all parts of any test provided under (testing statue reference). Notwithstanding any provisions of law, a parent’s or guardian’s written request to school officials to excuse his or her child from any or all parts of the assessments administered pursuant to this chapter shall be granted.”

Thoughts on preparing for the testing legislative hearing

Friday, April 25th, 2014



What’s behind the epidemic of inappropriate testing?

I once shared a very interesting bus ride to the airport with the president of Riverside Publishing, who write the Iowa Tests, back when Paul Vallas was using the test as a grade promotion barrier. Shortly after our visit, Riverside decided to stop providing CPS with grade-equivalent score labels which CPS used to make the political claim that flunked students were simply reading or doing math “below grade level.” Unfortunately, that did not stop CPS from continuing to misuse the test.

Certainly one reason tests are being misused and overused may be that there’s just too much money in testing for test publishers to want to police the use of their own tests. This is about to become an even more lucrative industry with the onset of the Common Core State Standards and CCSS tests.

Another reason may be the political pressure from well-funded groups that are out to privatize public education and undermine the teaching profession. This pressure forces otherwise well-meaning school officials to throw out what they know about teaching and learning and replace it with test prep.

A third reason may be that, as we move into the Common Core testing era, students are taking tests to test test questions for test publishers and to get data about how they might do on future tests. School officials sometimes use this information to identify the students who score closest to the all-important “meets” cut-off point, and focus extra school resources on those “bubble” kids.

It’s important to note that these reasons have everything to do with the best interests of adults, and nothing to do with what’s best for children.

Think of tests as steroids. Properly used in a limited manner by conscientious professionals, steroids can improve health. But when steroids are misused or overused, major health problems can ensue. Unfortunately, many school officials are like bad coaches, pushing steroids on the players because other schools are doing it, in a perverse effort to stay competitive.



April forums in full bloom

Tuesday, April 22nd, 2014

Tulips 05It’s April. inBloom may be kaput but testing and related education forums are in full bloom! Fortunately they are all indoors so we won’t freeze!

Wednesday, April 23, 7 – 8 pm: Good Morning Mission Hill film screening at Francis Parker School, 330 W Webster, followed by a panel discussion on democratic education.

Thursday April 24, 6 – 9 pm: DePaul School of Education Spring Forum, DePaul Student Center, Room 120, 2250 N Sheffield. Imagine a public school with a portfolio-based constructivist approach to teaching and learn, staff based decision-making and governance, modeled on democratic and progressive education principles, fostering active and engaged learning, with a broad and rich curriculum.

Saturday, April 26, 10 am to noon, Chopin Theater, 1543 W. Division St.:
A Quality Education for Every Child, a Talk with Pasi Sahlberg
Raise Your Hand is sponsoring a talk by Pasi Sahlberg, the author of Finnish Lessons: What Can the World Learn from Educational Change in Finland

Tuesday, April 29 at 6 pm at Union Park, 1500 W Randolph. Of course, the More Than a Score testing forum, Changing the Stakes on Testing. More here!

PSAT for 4-22-14: Speak out on testing!

Tuesday, April 22nd, 2014

psat_logoThe date and time have been finalized for the subject matter hearing on testing sponsored by the Illinois Senate Education Committee, and you are invited!

The hearing will take place this Friday, April 25, at 2:30 pm at the Bilandic Building, 160 N LaSalle Street in Chicago, Room 600.

This is our chance to share our concerns about testing with our state legislators. If you want to speak, fill out a witness slip here (be sure to check that you are FOR or a proponent of both bills).

The specific bills under consideration at this hearing are sponsored by Sen. Bill Cunningham, who represents communities in the far southwest side of Chicago and southwest suburbs:

  • SB 2156 (Chicago only) allows no more than four tests per year – two state standardized tests, and two tests to “comply with the Evaluation of Teachers” statute.
  • SB 3460 would prohibit the administration of tests to children enrolled in kindergarten through the second grade “for any reason other than diagnostic purposes.”

Our friend Jim Broadway, of State School News Service, says that these bills “faltered, missed their deadlines and have been sent back to the Committee on Assignments, which is the graveyard for Senate bills that never advance out of the Senate.” However, bills are never really dead in Springfield, and you can bring up any other testing issues as well. Let’s not let this opportunity pass by without a strong showing from Chicago parents!

University educators support CPS teachers refusing to test

Monday, March 10th, 2014

Apple 34UPDATE: Number of endorsers is up to 210


February 28, 2014




As university faculty whose responsibilities include preparing future educators, we support the action of teachers at the Saucedo and Drummond elementary schools in Chicago who are refusing to administer the Illinois Standard Achievement Test (ISAT). Over a decade of research shows that an over emphasis on high-stakes standardized tests narrows curriculum, creates social and emotional stress for students and families, drives committed teachers out of the profession, and turns schools into test-prep factories with principals forced to comply as overseers—especially in low-scoring schools. We understand assessment as the process of gathering evidence about learning, from multiple sources, so that teachers can better support student learning. The ISAT, in contrast, contributes virtually nothing. CPS no longer uses the ISAT for promotion, graduation, or eligibility for selective-enrollment schools and is phasing it out after this year. It is not aligned with Common Core State Standards—which, regardless of how one sees them, Illinois has already adopted—and does not help teachers improve student learning. The pre-service teachers with whom we work are demoralized about a future of teaching in such a test-driven atmosphere. We teach our students—future educators—to stand up for their students, families and communities, and to take principled stands for social justice. That’s what the Saucedo and Drummond teachers are doing. We applaud them and stand with them.

(To add your name to this list, email with your name, university affiliation, and department)


  1. Pauline Lipman, University of Illinois at Chicago, College of Education
  2. Rico Gutstein, University of Illinois at Chicago, College of Education
  3. Asif Wilson, University of Illinois at Chicago, College of Education
  4. Daniel Morales-Doyle, University of Illinois at Chicago, College of Education
  5. Eleni Katsarou, University of Illinois at Chicago, College of Education
  6. Arthi Rao, University of Illinois at Chicago, College of Education
  7. Joshua Radinsky, University of Illinois at Chicago, College of Education
  8. Irma Olmedo, University of Illinois at Chicago, College of Education
  9. David Schaafsma, University of Illinois at Chicago, English Department
  10. Kenneth Saltman, DePaul University, College of Education
  11. Joel Amidon, University of Mississippi, School of Education
  12. Nicole Marroquin, School of the Art Institute of Chicago, Department of Art Education
  13. Wayne Au University of Washington—Bothel, Education Program; Rethinking Schools
  14. Bill Schubert, University of Illinois at Chicago, College of Education
  15. Federico Waitoller, University of Illinois at Chicago, College of Education
  16. David Stovall, University of Illinois at Chicago, College of Education
  17. Danny Martin, University of Illinois at Chicago, College of Education
  18. Ann Aviles de Bradley, Northeastern Illinois University, Department of Educational Inquiry and Curriculum Studies
  19. Eomailani Kukahiko, University of Hawai’i, College of Education
  20. David Stinson, Georgia State University, College of Education
  21. Minerva S. Chávez, California State University, Fullerton, Department of Secondary Education
  22. Katy Smith, Northeastern Illinois University, Educational Inquiry and Curriculum Studies
  23. Gail Tang, University of La Verne, Department of Mathematics
  24. Craig Howley, Ohio University, Patton College of Education
  25. Rodrigo Jorge Gutiérrez, University of Maryland, College of Education
  26. Erin Turner, University of Arizona, Department of Teaching, Learning and Sociocultural Studies
  27. Tom Pedroni, Wayne State University, College of Education
  28. Donna Vukelich Selva, Edgewood College, School of Education
  29. Michelle Fine, City University of New York, The Graduate Center
  30. Maria McKenna, University of Notre Dame, Department of Africana Studies
  31. E. Wayne Ross, University of British Columbia, Department of Curriculum and Pedagogy
  32. Noah De Lissovoy, The University of Texas at Austin, Dept. of Curriculum and Instruction
  33. Eugenia Vomvoridi-Ivanovic, University of South Florida, Department of Secondary Education
  34. Bree Picower, Montclair State University, College of Education and Human Development
  35. Beatriz S. D’Ambrosio, Miami University, Dept. of Mathematics
  36. Celia Oyler, Teachers College, Dept. of Curriculum and Teaching
  37. Jesse Senechal, Virginia Commonwealth University, Metropolitan Educational Research Consortium
  38. Ira Shor, City University of New York, The Graduate Center
  39. Thomas G. Edwards, Wayne State University, College of Education
  40. Christine Sleeter, California State University—Monterey
  41. Jessica Shiller, Towson University, Dept. of Instructional Leadership and Professional Development
  42. Deb Palmer, University of Texas at Austin, Department of Curriculum and Instruction
  43. Maren Aukerman, Stanford University, Graduate School of Education
  44. Christine Yeh, University of San Francisco, School of Education
  45. A. Lin Goodwin, Teachers College, Columbia University
  46. Stuart Chen-Hayes, Lehman College, School of Education
  47. Lee Bell, Barnard College, Program in Education
  48. Diane Horwitz, DePaul University, College of Education
  49. Gary Anderson, New York University, Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development
  50. Patrick Camangian, University of San Francisco, School of Education
  51. Antonia Darder, Loyola Marymount University, School of Education
  52. Lesley Bartlett, Columbia University, Teachers College
  53. Sandy Grande, Connecticut College, Education Department
  54. Michelle Gautreaux, University of British Columbia, Dept. of Curriculum Studies
  55. Kathryn Herr, Montclair State University
  56. Emily Klein, Montclair State University
  57. Craig Willey, IUPUI, Indiana University School of Education
  58. Swapna Mukhopadhyay, Portland State University, Graduate School of Education
  59. Kiersten Greene, State University of New York at New Paltz, School of Education
  60. Stuart Greene, University of Notre Dame, Department of English and Africana Studies
  61. Horace R. Hall, DePaul University, College of Education
  62. Lois Weiner, New Jersey City University, Dept. of Elementary and Secondary Education
  63. Gustavo E. Fischman, Arizona State University, Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College
  64. Amy Feiker Hollenbeck, DePaul University, College of Education
  65. Rebecca A. Goldstein, Montclair State University, College of Education and Human Services
  66. Enora Brown, DePaul University, College of Education
  67. Sangeeta Kamat, University of Massachusetts—Amherst, College of Education
  68. Stephanie Farmer, Roosevelt University, Dept. of Sociology
  69. Ron Glass, University of California, Santa Cruz, Center for Collaborative Research for an Equitable California
  70. Karen Monkman, DePaul University, College of Education
  71. Lisa Edstrom, Barnard College, Barnard Education Program
  72. Daniel S. Friedrich, Columbia University, Teachers College
  73. Marjorie Siegel, Columbia University, Teachers College
  74. Alan Singer, Hofstra University, Department of Teaching, Literacy and Leadership
  75. Barbara Winslow, Brooklyn College, Secondary Education
  76. Maria Hantzopoulos, Vassar College, Dept. of Education
  77. Sharon Whitton, Hofstra University, Department of Teaching, Literacy and Leadership
  78. Jim Brown, Wayne State University, College of Education
  79. Linda McSpadden McNeil, Rice University, Center for Education
  80. Matthew Weinstein, University of Washington-Tacoma, Secondary Science Program
  81. Victoria Trinder, University of Illinois at Chicago, College of Education
  82. Marie Ann Donovan, DePaul University, College of Education
  83. Rosalyn Baxandall, City University of New York, Labor School
  84. Amira Proweller, DePaul University, College of Education
  85. Judith S. Kaufman, Hofstra University, Department of Teaching, Literacy and Leadership
  86. Gregory Smith, Lewis & Clark College, Graduate School of Education
  87. David Forbes, Brooklyn College, School of Education
  88. Lois Weis, University at Buffalo, SUNY, Graduate School of Education
  89. Monica Taylor, Montclair State University, College of Education and Human Services
  90. Norma Lopez-Reyna, University of Illinois at Chicago, College of Education
  91. Gloria Alter, DePaul University, College of Education
  92. Miguel Zavala, California State University, Fullerton, Department of Secondary Education
  93. Barbara Madeloni, University of Massachusetts Amherst, School of Education
  94. Arnold Dodge, Long Island University/C.W.Post Campus, Department of Educational Leadership and Administration
  95. William Ayers, University of Illinois at Chicago, College of Education (retired)
  96. Peter Taubman, Brooklyn College, Dept. of Secondary Education
  97. Susan Gregson, University of Cincinnati, College of Education, Criminal Justice, and Human Services
  98. Jackie Wiggins, Oakland University, Department of Music, Theatre, and Dance
  99. Tema Okun, National Louis University, Dept. of Educational Leadership
  100. Bill Hoecker, DePaul University, College of Education
  101. Judith Gouwens, Roosevelt University, College of Education
  102. Carl B. Anderson, Penn State University, Dept. of English
  103. Mari Ann Roberts, Clayton State University, Dept. of Teacher Education
  104. Isabel Nuñez, Concordia University, Center for Policy Studies and Social Justice
  105. Renee A. Middleton, Ohio University, The Patton College of Education
  106. Regina Sievert, Salish Kootenai College, Division of Education
  107. Jennifer Alexander, Richard J. Daley College, Business Department
  108. Sunshine Campbell, The Evergreen State College
  109. Marvin Hoffman, University of Chicago, Urban Teacher Education Program
  110. Chris Brown, University of Texas at Austin, College of Education
  111. Nancy Lesko, Teachers College, Department of Curriculum and Teaching
  112. Florence R. Sullivan, University of Mass., Amherst, College of Education
  113. K. Wayne Yang, University of California, San Diego, Dept. of Ethnic Studies
  114. Elizabeth Meadows, Roosevelt University, College of Education
  115. Benay Blend, Central New Mexico Community College, Humanities Dept.
  116. Nekaiya Herring, University of North Dakota, Dept. of Social Work
  117. Karen Graves, Denison University, Department of Education
  118. Lilia Monzo, Chapman University, College of Educational Studies
  119. Karen Gourd, University of Washington, Bothell, Education Program
  120. Jeff Bloom, Northern Arizona University, College of Education
  121. Aisha El-Amin, University of Illinois at Chicago, College of Education
  122. Eric Toshalis, Lewis & Clark College, Graduate School of Education and Counseling
  123. Diane Levin, Wheelock College, Early Childhood Education
  124. Brian Horn, Illinois State University, College of Education
  125. Scott Ritchie, Kennesaw State University, Department of Elementary and Early Childhood Education
  126. Ann K. Schulte, California State University, Chico, School of Education
  127. William T. Trent, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Department of Educational Policy, Organization and Leadership
  128. Morna McDermott, Towson University, College of Education
  129. Susan Roberta Katz, University of San Francisco, School of Education
  130. Susan Wray, Montclair State University, Dept. of Early Childhood, Elementary and Literacy Education
  131. Sandra M. Gonzales, Wayne State University, College of Education
  132. Cindy Lutenbacher, Morehouse College, Dept. of English
  133. Mark Nagasawa, Erikson Institute
  134. Wendy Luttrell, City University of New York, The Graduate Center
  135. Mary Rapien, Bristol Community College, Division of Mathematics, Science and Engineering
  136. Carolyne J. White, Rutgers University, Department of Urban Education
  137. Isaura B. Pulido, Northeastern Illinois University, College of Education
  138. Bill Watkins, University of Illinois at Chicago, College of Education
  139. Michelle Parker-Katz, University of Illinois at Chicago, College of Education
  140. Barbara Morgan-Fleming, Texas Tech University, Curriculum & Instruction
  141. Emma Haydée Fuentes, University of San Francisco, School of Education
  142. Joel Westheimer, University of Ottawa, Faculty of Education
  143. Brian D. Schultz, Northeastern Illinois University, College of Education
  144. Sumi Cho, DePaul University, College of Law
  145. Therese Quinn, University of Illinois at Chicago, School of Art and Art History
  146. John Rogers, UCLA, Graduate School of Education and Information Studies
  147. Kathleen McInerney, Saint Xavier University, ESL/Bilingual Education Program
  148. Linda Christensen, Lewis and Clark College, Oregon Writing Project
  149. Elizabeth Skinner, Illinois State University, School of Teaching & Learning
  150. G. Sue Kasun, Utah State University, Teacher Education and Leadership
  151. Paul Gomberg, Chicago State University, Department of Criminal Justice, Philosophy, and Political Science
  152. Andrea S. White,  Kenyon College, Psychology Department
  153. Sandra Yarema, Wayne State University, College of Education
  154. Michelle Maher, Oregon State University, Teacher and Counselor Education Dept.
  155. Todd Alan Price, National Louis University, College of Education
  156. Sarah Robbins,TCU, English Department
  157. Eve Tuck, State University of New York at New Paltz, School of Education
  158. John Duffy, National Louis University, Teacher Education (retired)
  159. Suzanne Baker, Denison University, Department of Education
  160. Anneli Frelin, University of Gävle, Faculty of Education and Business Studies
  161. Mara Sapon-Shevin, Syracuse University, School of Education
  162. Ryan McCarthy, Wilbur Wright College, English Department
  163. Randi Ploszaj, Wilbur Wright College, English Department
  164. Bill Marsh, Wilbur Wright College, English Department
  165. Cydney Topping, Wilbur Wright College, English Department
Support PURE!
About the PURE Thoughts blogger
Julie Woestehoff is PURE's executive director. Julie's work has earned her a Ford Foundation award and recognition as one of the 100 Most Powerful Women in Chicago.