Centro usb driver, Crack office 200 in spanish 6 35 pistols, Audio conversion wizard code crack, Adapter network windows ar5005gs 7 atheros wireless driver, Ibm j9 6.1.1 download, Fifa 15 crack xp passwords, Believe s01e08 720p, Super mario world on crack, Free organ trail computer download
Apr 072013

Education Committee Makes Changes to Education Funding in Governor’s Proposed Budget 

The Education Committee approved a substitute for H.B. 6357 (“An Act Implementing the Budget Recommendations of the Governor Concerning Education”) on March 28, 2013. The bill makes changes to a number of provisions in the original proposal. The following are some key changes.

  • Modifies the proposed ECS formula
  • Changes the weighting in the wealth calculation to weigh property wealth more heavily than income wealth
  • Reduces the proposed foundation amount from $11,754 to $11,525
  • Shifts some funding to the 10 lowest-performing districts
  • Eliminates the PILOT: State-Owned Property grant from the ECS account. This would be the first step in restoring the PILOT program to its current state.
  • Restores the public school transportation grant

Attached are updated town-by-town estimates of the ECS grant based on the Education Committee bill. The bill has been referred to the Appropriations Committee, which has a deadline of April 23.

13-34 Ed Comm Changes to HB 6357

Feb 032013

Another Meaning of Accountability and the NPS Budget By Lisa Thomson

Do we ask the right questions when reconciling public spending with student achievement? Do we know what we spend on the 3Rs? Do we understand per pupil expenditures at the elementary, middle or high school levels when parents get pitted against one another other over which positions or programs to cut, add or restore?  Do we know how much is spent on Special Ed and whether it’s effective? Finally, do we know what we spend on a per pupil basis for sports, music or other extra-curricular activities, when we talk about Pay to Play? 

I would argue we don’t.

What we do know is that parents’ want a quality and consistent K-12 experience for their children and taxpayers want a school district that reflects student achievement and that maintains a town’s reputation and property values.

But what’s going to happen in the future, for example in Norwalk, when next year’s salary freeze is lifted for teachers? What about the double digit increases in health care premiums? What about the debate regarding which side of the ledger some employee post benefits and pensions sit? How will these increasing costs impact the way we educate students, compensate school staff, or bill taxpayers?

The proposed $164 Million budget for 2013-14 reflects an average cost of $15,000 per student, based upon projected enrollment figures of 10,962. The chart below represents my simplified summary, taken from the Superintendents Operating Budget Book.

My concerns over the budget, stem from wanting to understand how much is spent on core academics versus other shared services and how it ties back to student achievement?  At the moment, it’s tough to quantify.  Just for fun, I examined the regular classroom teacher line item of $63.3M and equally divided it by 5 subjects (i.e. math, science, language arts, social studies and electives) and then further divided that figure by the number of students in the district. I came up with only $1154 spent per child on individual academic subjects. When contrasted against other costs, it was alarming!

In 2010, Marguerite Rosa wrote, Educational Economics, offering explanations why education funding has become so convoluted.  Chapters entitled Fuzzy Math, Who’s Really in Charge of Education?, When Political Agendas Collide, Driving Blind, What Does All This Mean For Schools, A Wicked Problem, A Multi- Dimensional Solution gives you a sense of the complexity.  If you read this book, you’ll see that I’m not just picking on Norwalk. Our budget is symptomatic of a state crisis, better still, a national crisis, when elected officials, willing to kick the demographic financial can down the road are complicit with the educational establishment’s historical budget creation process, based upon past practices and nominal alignment to student achievement. This approach, coupled with the inverted baby-boomer pyramid of expenses is smacking up against the next generation’s ability to get an education, close the achievement gap, prepare for college or get a job. It’s not just visible on the balance sheet, but in our neighborhoods, if one drives past former schools turned nursing-retirement homes dotted along Broad River, Strawberry Hill and Gregory Blvd. and Allen Road.

But demographics aside, when examining the budget from a core academic standpoint, it illustrates as a nation, how we’ve strayed from spending money on the nitty-gritty fundamentals of reading and writing and our nation’s test scores reflect it. Until districts more directly link budgets to student achievement, whereby staff, training, qualifications, technology and other resources are tied back to the basics, students will under-perform and educators and politicians will bear the wrath of parents and taxpayers.

Connecticut’s reputation for being the state of steady habits has left us with 169 school districts that carry the burden of 169 different contracts for health insurance, transportation, technology and a host of other  expenses that are killing local municipalities and cannibalizing the classroom.  We need to unravel the costs that make up the school budget and determine how to get back on track with the core objective of preparing students for the global economy without destroying the economy in the process!

Data Extrapolated from the 2013-2014 Proposed Superintendent’s Budget

Note: Allocated line Items numbers have been rounded up or down for illustrative purposes.

Code Items Total  Allocated %  Of Budget Per Student Allocation
800 Professional dues, Associations $ 108K <1% $ 9
700 Instructional equipment and software $ 315K <1% $ 28
600 Supplies ( oil, electricity, gasoline, oil, books, postage, other) $ 5.8M 4% $ 625
500 Other  (Special Ed Tuition &  Bus Transportation) $ 13.2M 8% $ 1,204
400 Property Services (Building Equipment &  Maintenance $ 2.6M 2% $ 237
300 Professional & Technical Services (legal fees, etc.) $ 3.6M 2% $ 328
200 Benefits (health & life ins., social security, retirement, longevity, etc. $ 36.5M 22% $ 3,329
100 Staff Salaries      
Common Core Implementation, Salaries Workshops $ 470K <1% $ 42
All Substitutes  $ 1.7M 1% $ 155
Superintendent’s Office & Super Admin Team $ 880K   $ 80
Principals & Asst. Principals and Housemasters $5.4M 3% $493
Supervisors and Asst. Supervisors (Instructional Specialists,  Special Education Support, Expulsion Hearings) $1.1M <1% $100
Secretaries, Aides and Clerks $ 10.7M 7% $ 976
Custodians & Maintenance $ 5.2M 3% $ 474
Security $ 97K <1% $ 8
Nurses & Physical Therapist $ 1.4M <1% $127
Overtime $ 378K <1% $34
Extra- Curricular Stipends $ 130K <1% $11
Degree Changes $ 375K <1% $34
Other Certified Staff (Social Workers, Psychologists, Speech therapists, guidance counselors, instructional aides, HS Librarians) $ 7.7M 5% $702
Non Affiliated  Staff (IT, Audio Visual Techs, Payroll, Facilities directors, executive support) $ 1.4 <1% $127
Other Non- Certified (security staff, monitors, testing coordinators, mailroom personnel) $ 909K 1% $82
Classroom Teachers   $ 63.3M 38% $5774
TOTAL * $163.3M ~ 100% $14,979 ~




Dec 122012

The PTOC is pleased to present results from the recent PTOC  budget survey completed by parents.   As Norwalk Schools enters into its school budget process, the PTOC encourages everyone to get involved. The attached file contains survey data less blank pages created in file conversion, and deletion of survey participant information.

Norwalk PTO Budget Survey Summary_12082012

Please join the PTOC at its December 17th meeting to hear State Representative Gail Lavielle present an update on Connecticut education including ECS, the current state budget, and other education news from Hartford. Representative Lavielle sits on the Education Committee.

Monday, December 17th, 7:00-9:00pm
Norwalk City Hall Community Room

Oct 212012

Arbitration hearings were held last weekend, Friday October 12th- Sunday October 14th between the Board of Education and Norwalk Federation of Teachers at City Hall.

Attached  is a  report prepared by Tom Hamilton, Director of Finance regarding  City’s Financial Capability Relative to Collective Bargaining Agreements.

Our school budget is likely to be further constrained going forward.  Additionally, any shift in taxes, resulting from the forthcoming revaluation may well exacerbate the City’s budget.  All this points to the need for a strong Superintendent and  much better supervision of the public school system by the Board of Education.

2012 Ability to Pay – binding arbitration testimony

Oct 082012

It was revealed at the Board of Education (BoE) meeting  last week and reported in The Hour 10/4/12, that the Norwalk BoE was going to go on a retreat,  in and effort to discuss their mission and objectives, improve teamwork and help with the superintendent search process. The board would also conduct a self-evaluation.  A new budget process schedule was announced as well.

See the  retreat proposal, self evaluation form and budget schedule for 2013-14 outlined in the BoE  Information and Reports for October 2, 2012.

BoE Info 10-2-12 1


Jul 152012

One of the weaknesses of the reform legislation passed this spring in Hartford was that nothing was done to move educator quality forward by getting rid of the Last In First Out Policy (LIFO) and the forced placement and  bumping that takes place in the event of a reduction in force.  The poor economy is forcing municipalities across the U.S. to  lay off teachers, administration and support staff.  But in lean times, are the best performers being let go?  What is in the best interests of the children?  Norwalk will be handing out pink slips in the next week or so whereby nearly 90 staff will be let go.  Between the layoffs and bumping procedures, every school will be impacted.

Hopefully, in the next legislative session, the State of Connecticut will introduce other factors for consideration, besides the date of hire, in the event that the economy does not improve the tax base or that Norwalk receives its fair share of ECS revenues and more forced reductions  are required.

We have published the seniority lists of the NPS administration and teachers for parents of the different schools to view, so as to better understand the impact of the LIFO process versus performance.  We will be publishing the support staff seniority list shortly.   We have also included an op-ed from the former chancellor of the Washington D.C. school district.

Copy of administrators seniority512

Copy of teachers72012

NFEP Groups 1_2_4_5_6_7_8

Below is an editorial written by Michelle Rhee is the former chancellor of Washington, D.C., public schools and the CEO and founder of StudentsFirst.org, which advocates teacher evaluations and eliminating tenure and making policy decisions based on students’ needs.

End ‘last in, first out’ teacher layoffs  By Michelle Rhee, Special to CNNFebruary 23, 2011 5:47 p.m. EST

(CNN) — State leaders across the country are confronting some of the toughest decisions they have ever had to make in order to balance their budgets amid a massive financial crisis. As a parent who has worked in education for almost 20 years, knowing that budget cuts will soon hit education is far from my ideal.

A wave of layoffs will likely happen this summer, and my group, StudentsFirst.org, calculates that at least 160,000 teachers are at risk of losing their jobs. What makes this even tougher on kids is that the majority of the country’s states and school districts conduct layoffs using an antiquated policy referred to as “last in, first out.” The policy mandates that the last teachers hired are the first teachers fired, regardless of how good they are. As it stands now, teachers’ impact on students plays absolutely no role in these decisions.

When we fold “last in, first out” policies into the budget crisis, our children stand to lose some of the best teachers in the country unless states work very quickly to erase the policies from the books. Most people know by now that international tests show our kids perform behind other developed countries, and far too many American students are graduating without the skills and knowledge necessary to compete for high-skilled jobs.

One thing is clear: We will not reverse this trajectory or regain our global standing without the powerful work of America’s great teachers. Especially now, the status quo won’t do. We have to be more competitive than ever, not less. Yet in almost every state across the country, the last in, first out policy is softening America’s competitive edge.

In difficult times like this, it may be easier to turn a blind eye to the compelling connection between teachers and our future long-term prosperity. We cannot do this to our kids. If we want to come out on the other side of this crisis with public education stronger, we have to do everything possible to keep our best teachers in the classroom. Last in, first out policies actively work against this goal. Here’s why:

First, research indicates that when districts conduct seniority-based layoffs, we end up firing some of our most highly effective educators. These are the inspiring and powerful teachers that students remember for the rest of their lives, and our nation will lose more of them with every such layoff.

Second, last in, first out policies increase the number of teachers that districts have to lay off. Because junior teachers make less money, schools will lose more teachers and more jobs as long as these policies are permitted by law.

And finally, last in, first out disproportionately hurts the highest-need schools. These schools have larger numbers of new teachers, who are the first to lose their jobs in a layoff. High-income areas have more stable systems and fewer new teachers, and they are less impacted by budget cuts. Students who live in these poor areas can’t afford to lose their best teachers on top of those cuts. Yet last in, first out will drain the school systems of their best educators in the neighborhoods that need them the most.

We cannot afford to ignore the effect that such a policy has on kids. It’s time to act.

The bottom line is layoffs should be based on teacher performance and effectiveness, not seniority — regardless of whether the teacher is new or been in the system for a while. Achievement varies from student to student, and so I support a “value-added” growth model that effectively measures a teacher’s impact on student progress.

In early December, I launched StudentsFirst, a national movement to defend the rights of children in public education. Our first major initiative is the national Save Great Teachers campaign, in which we’re urging states to make policy changes ridding the nation’s public schools of harmful last in, first out polices. Those who want legislators to revise state policies should visit StudentsFirst.org to find out what they can do to help.

Together, we can save great teachers by working to hold districts, boards of education and state legislators accountable. Let’s eliminate outdated policies and give our children the quality education they deserve.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Michelle Rhee.


Jul 102012

This exerpt  was taken from the Digital Learning Now  website.

Technology has changed the way we live, work, shop and play. We can bank, shop and donate securely from anywhere we can access the Internet. We can to communicate across oceans and continents in seconds. We can work from anywhere, increasing efficiency and productivity. Yet, American education has yet to embrace the power of technology to customize education and give students the ability to gain knowledge anywhere, anytime.

Digital learning is any type of learning that gives students some element of control over time, place, path and/or pace. It allows students to learn in their own way, on their own timetable, wherever they are, whenever they can.  Students are using digital learning everywhere – except school. They are gaming, texting and posting on the Internet.

Imagine if we channel those digital skills into learning? Student achievement would skyrocket!


Consider some of the following information taken from their website: www.digitallearningnow.com

The 7 Transformational Metrics:

In developing their plans, states should adopt a sense of urgency around certain policy areas:

  1. establishing a competency-based education that requires students to demonstrate mastery of the material,
  2. providing a robust offering of high quality courses from multiple providers,
  3. ending the archaic practice of seat-time,
  4. funding education based on achievement instead of attendance,
  5. funding the student instead of the system,
  6. eliminating the all-too-common practice by school districts of prohibiting students from enrolling with approved providers, either by withholding funding or credit, and
  7. breaking down the barriers, such as teacher-student ratios and class size limits, to effective, high quality instruction.

Ultimately, data provides the empirical basis for lawmakers and policymakers to develop sound policy.

Numbers below represent metrics from the Nuts & Bolts Policies

Create a 21st Century College and Career Ready High School Diploma
• Require Online Courses to Earn a Diploma (8)
• Adopt Competency-Based Promotion (31, 32)
• Fund Digital Learning in the Formula (14, 15, 16)

Empower Students to Customize Education for Individual Student Success
• Empower Students and Parents with Decisions (15, 16, 55)
• Provide a Robust Offering of High Quality Choices (35-36, 42-53)
• End Barriers to Access (3, 4, 12, 13, 17, 18)
• Foster Blending Learning (22-28)
• Fund Digital Learning in the Formula (14, 15, 16)

End the Achievement Gap
• Adopt Test-Based Promotion (31, 32)
• End Seat-Time (34)
• Adopt Performance-Based Funding (63)
• Fund Digital Learning in the Formula (14, 15, 16)

Support High Achievers
• Foster Acceleration for Middle School Students (23, 29, 30)
• Foster Acceleration for High School Students (29, 30, 33)
• End Seat-Time (34)
• Fund Digital Learning in the Formula (14, 15, 16)

Extend the Reach and Results of Great Teachers
• Recruit and Retrain Effective Educators (37, 38, 39, 62)
• Provide Teachers with Ability Support for Digital Learning (40, 41, 68, 69)
• Replace Class-Size Limits with Workload Guidelines (9, 10, 11)

Modernize Infrastructure
• Administer Tests Digitally (56, 57)
• Provide Content Digitally (64, 67)
• Provide Internet Access Devices (68, 70)

Ensure a Quality Education for All Students
• Provide a Robust Offering of High Quality Choices (35-36, 42-50, 53)
• Demand Accountability for Student Learning (58-61)

Check out where Connecticut Stands legislatively with respect to digital learning.

Connecticut Status on Digital Learning

Check out what the State of Colorado and the Jefferson County Public School District is doing with regard to On-Line Learning. Can Norwalk learn anything?




Jun 302012

Red Apples received the following letter from BoE Chairman Jack Chiramonte and we were asked to publish it.  Red Apples will publish signed letters expressing  different or opposing points of view, so long as they are polite, civil and stay on point.     


Once again, I look at the editorials in the Hour and am amazed at the misinformation that is in our community concerning the Board of Education Budget.  I offer this editorial to the community to which I serve.  While the thoughts are mine, and may be shared by other board members, the facts are just that – Facts.

After several meetings of the BOE, the Common Council, the BET and the Joint Services Committee, I still hear about the 4 million dollars shortfall in the insurance reserve fund as being mysterious, conspiracist, sneaky etc.   Apparently people like Peter Berman can’t grasp the facts, since they can’t report it correctly and prefer to witch hunt for their own political reasons.

Each year, the BOE allocates what it’s told is needed to cover a variety of accounts in our budget.  If we are told $25 million is required for health benefits & insurance, then we budget just that amount into that account.  However, there are accounts that are very fluid.  In other words, we have to guess-timate what we think will be enough for that year for that particular account.  It’s very much like the City trying to budget for snow removal.  If we get a light winter, then that account is left with a surplus, if it is average, we may have just enough.  If we get a heavy season of snowfalls, then the City finds itself short.  That is exactly how it is for Special Education for the BOE. For example, if a special needs child moves into our City, we are required by law to educate that child.  That might entail sending that child to a program in a different district that we have to pay for.  We also have to pick the fees for transportation, nurses, doctors, therapists, etc. for that child.  Obviously, it is very easy for this account to go into a shortfall.  Apparently, when this special education account, and other accounts, went into a shortfall, monies were taken from the $25 million insurance account to pay off those shortfalls. Then when the money was needed to payback this account, it was drawn from this insurance reserve fund.  Apparently, this has been the practice for many years.

The BOE is audited every year.  Both the City’s Finance officer Tom Hamilton and the BOE’s, Elio Longo have stated that an audit would NOT of found this problem.  It was Elio Longo that found this problem and has been praised by all for his diligent work.  Every dollar was accounted and spent for proper bills.  No money was missing or misappropriated!  The drawing of monies from the insurance reserve was done for several years before Mr. Elio Longo’s arrival to this district by people who are no longer with the district.   It was Mr. Longo who found it, reported it and took measures to make sure it will not happen again.

It turned out that we weren’t really short $4 million for this account as first reported.  There were other funds that had not yet been accounted and added back to this fund.  It actually was a 2.6 million deficit to the insurance reserve account, not 4 million.  However, we also had a shortfall of 1.4 million in our Special Education account, which when added in, gave us a 4 million shortfall.

Now, some ask “Why didn’t we allocate more money for Special Ed?  As I said, we have to guess-timate this account.  We allocated very conservatively because if we had budgeted more, we would of cut last years budget of staff & programs by that same amount.  If we added 2 million to the Special Ed account last year, then we would of had to cut that 2 million in staff & programs on top of what we cut last year.  And you remember, we had already had steep cuts to personnel and programs.

What’s the answer?

If it takes $8 to $10 million each year, just to keep what we had in the schools the year before to the new year, how can we possibly keep up?   We CAN’T!   Over 85% of our budget is payroll, benefits and pensions, which rise year after year, needing more money then we get. If it takes $8 to $10 million additional dollars each year to keep what we have, and all we get is increases of $2, $3 or $4 million a year (one year we even got a ZERO,) how can anyone expect to keep our heads above water?

Eventually  WE CAN’T.

When I first got on the board 5 years ago, we started to cut the fat in then Superintendent Sal Corda’s inflated budgets, and we have been cutting  ever since.  We have gotten to the point where there is no more fat to cut.  We are now hitting the meat and bone of our educational system.  As I have stated countless times, WE ARE SEVERLY UNDERFUNDED BY THE STATE IN ECS (EDUCATIONAL COST SHARING) FUNDS.  Hartford thinks we are all rich in Fairfield county.  The ECS formula is antiquated (over 25 years old) and was never fair to us from the beginning.  While we only receive $956 dollars per students, the other districts in our group of “like districts” get  4, 5 and over 6 thousand plus per student!   Danbury which is as close a carbon copy of Norwalk with student size, economics and household income, receives over 25 million per year, while we only receive over 10 million per year!  I ask you, would we even be arguing if we had 15 million more right now for our schools?

NOW THIS IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT:   The ECS committee will be in Bridgeport, July 12th for a public hearing.  We need everyone we can get to go to that meeting and tell that committee how unfairly Norwalk is treated by the ECS formula.   We need to ask them to come visit Norwalk!  This committee will give its final report this October.  I will be in touch with all PTO’s.  Please check with your  PTO for more information.  While this gives us hope for next years ECS funding, we still have this years budget to deal with on our own.

Now I have said this from the very beginning, “If we all shoulder the burden of these cuts together and if everybody contributes something, then we’ll all get through this together.  Well everybody has given….everybody EXCEPT the teachers union (NFT).

Quite frankly, I’m sick & tired of hearing the words  “Union Bashing” and “Anti-Teacher” if we ask the Teachers Union (NFT) to take a pay freeze for one year.  We know the wonderful job our teachers do and we very much appreciate them, but asking them to shoulder the burden along with everyone else is NOT being anti-teacher. We have all suffered in some financial way in this cruel economy.  Every other union in the City, BOE, and everywhere in the country has been asked to take a freeze and our teachers can take one too, and save their fellow teachers jobs.  Norwalk’s teachers have the second highest pay in the state and still would have one of the highest even if they took a freeze for one year.  I would think the NFT would want to poll its teachers over this crisis on how they feel about it.  I cant understand, If the NFT polls it’s teachers over which school calendar they prefer, then why wouldn’t it on an issue of such importance?

We all need to stand together as a community and ALL need to contribute to solving our problems.    Jack Chiramonte


Jun 232012

The 2012-13 education budget reconciliation process was extremely painful this year, as city officials and BoE grapple with doing more with less.  With employee and retiree insurance benefits and special education costs continuing to rise, the real cost of delivering a K-12 education has more than doubled over the last 40 years.   Student performance in the US lags significantly behind the rest of the world.  These trends show little sign of abating  ( at least for the time being.)  With that in mind, parents, teachers, administration, taxpayers and public officials need to get more efficient and effective about how K-12 educational services are delivered, preparing students for the world in which they will compete.

Educational Economics: Where Do School Funds Go?  By Margaurite Odden

Imagine if a school were to spend more per pupil on ceramics electives than core science classes. What if a district were to push more funding to wealthy neighborhoods than to impoverished ones? Such policies would provoke outrage. Yet these schools and districts are real.Today’s taxpayers spend almost $9,000 per pupil, roughly double what they spent 30 years ago, and educational achievement doesn’t seem to be improving. With the movement toward holding schools and districts accountable for student outcomes, we might think that officials can precisely track how much they are spending per student, per program, per school. But considering the patchwork that is school finance—federal block funding, foundation grants, earmarks, set-asides, and union mandates—funds can easily be diverted from where they are most needed.Educational Economics: Where Do School Funds Go? examines education finance from the school’s vantage point, explaining how the varied funding streams can prevent schools from delivering academic services that mesh with their stated priorities. As government budgets shrink, linking expenditures to student outcomes will be imperative. Educational Economics offers concrete prescriptions for reform.Educational Economics: Where Do School Funds Go? by Marguerite Roza, is available from the Urban Institute Press (ISBN 978-0-87766-764-3, paperback, 128 pages, $26.50)Reminder about six ideas from Odden book.Idea #1:  Most Advanced Placement (AP) programs are now available online at modest cost.  If money is tight offer AP courses in an online format.  This is not all that different from the idea of learning packets, originally developed for adult education and now used for high school students missing a few credits to graduate.Idea #2:  Rather than academically and artistically programs of questionable value based on the evidence, provide a $25 per pupil allocation to provide extra strategies for gifted and talented students.

Idea #3:  Research supports class-size reduction but only for Grades K-3.  The findings were clear.  The small class sizes — but not the regular classes with an instructional aide—did positively impact student achievement for all students and about twice that for students from low-income and minority backgrounds.  There is no similar research on class-size reduction in upper elementary, middle and high schools. 

Idea #4 The public also pressures schools to offer many elective courses; fun classes; student activities including sports; and so on.  To respond schools (including Norwalk High and Brien McMahon) often expand to seven or eight periods a day, an option that increases costs by 20-40% compared to a six-period day.  Further, because many elective classes are small and often taught by senior teachers, the cost per pupil can be four to five times the per pupil spending on core classes. Second to class size the mix of core and elective classes is the next largest draw on the education dollar. 

Idea #5:  Use effectiveness indicators to make tenure decisions about teachers and principals; take every action possible to make sure that only effective teachers and principals are given tenure from this point on.  If possible, push out tenure decision to a teacher’s fourth, fifth or sixth year in teaching, so more and more stable evidence is available for making that important decision.

Idea #6:  Instructional aides are endangered staff positions in this book as randomized trial research —the gold standard of research—shows they do not add value to student achievement.