SACRAMENTO—State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson today called on U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan to provide state schools with immediate relief from the flawed policies of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act.
“Relief is needed immediately before more schools suffer for another school year under inappropriate labels and ineffective interventions,” Torlakson wrote in a letter to Duncan.
The letter warns that many schools with rising student achievement will be mislabeled as failing under the “one-size-fits-all” approach required under NCLB. In addition, the letter notes that NCLB restrictions on how districts can use funding will further burden schools already hit hard by budget cuts.
Torlakson proposed that California be allowed to freeze the imposition of sanctions and mandatory identifications for the coming school year at last year’s levels.
Torlakson noted in the letter that he is working with the state Legislature to put in place the next generation of accountability systems to evaluate schools more appropriately and effectively, and urged the Administration to support state-determined accountability systems.
In addition, Torlakson’s letter states that the current federal waiver proposal “presents problems for California” by asking states to commit to new policies that are beyond the scope of NCLB.
“The appropriate forum for consideration of any new federal mandates is through the Congressional reauthorization process, which by its nature requires greater transparency and broader democratic debate,” Torlakson said in the letter.
[bold added]
------------------------------------------
August 23, 2011
Arne Duncan, Secretary of Education
U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20202
Dear Secretary Duncan:
When No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 was first signed into law in 2001, it marked an important change in the way schools, districts, and states were held accountable for the performance of each and every student. However, the NCLB accountability model has not kept pace with the next generation of school and teacher accountability systems that many states, including California, are working hard to develop. Now four years overdue for Congressional reauthorization, flexibility from the flawed NCLB policy is urgent and necessary. Relief is needed immediately before more schools suffer for another school year under inappropriate labels and ineffective interventions.
One of the widely recognized problems with NCLB is the “one-size-fits-all” approach to labeling schools that fail Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), regardless of the reasons for the failure or whether the school fell short by a little or by a lot. We project that a significant number of California’s schools, approximately 4,600, or nearly 80 percent of our schools that receive federal Title I funds, will be in improvement status for the 2011–12 school year. Even more are expected to fail AYP over the next few years as targets rise, and as such, the federally-imposed labels cease to provide any meaningful information to stakeholders who deserve a more comprehensive understanding of a school’s performance.
NCLB’s mandatory identification also places restrictions on how districts can use funding to meet the unique needs of its schools. Such funding restrictions impose huge burdens on the schools of California, which have already experienced $18 billion in cuts in state and local funding over the last four years and face looming triggered cuts for the upcoming year. The economic crisis has hit California harder than nearly any other state. We do not have the luxury of dedicating scarce resources to meeting the rigid requirements of an outdated and ineffective federal law.
Additionally, NCLB’s flawed accountability system places undue stress on the districts’ and the state’s capacity to meet the needs of increasing numbers of identified schools. School districts, as well as the California Department of Education (CDE), are forced to dilute resources and attention to the point of being potentially ineffective in those schools that most urgently need district and state support. Capacity is stretched to the limit in trying to meet the needs of increasing numbers of identified schools.
Because of these shortcomings of the NCLB accountability system, I believe flexibility is appropriate, warranted, and urgently needed. California schools require immediate relief from the escalating sanctions imposed on schools that fail to make AYP. Thus, for the 2011–12 school year, I propose that California be permitted to freeze sanctions and mandatory identification required under NCLB Section 1116 at the 2010–11 level. Schools that have not made AYP would not be subject to initial identification nor to escalating sanctions, but rather, would remain in their current status of school improvement, corrective action, or restructuring, giving the district and state additional time to provide positive supports. This approach will give California schools additional time to implement current interventions without forcing them into a new, short-term model while the state moves forward in developing our next generation accountability system.
In the absence of Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) reauthorization beyond this year, I urge you to support individual state-determined accountability initiatives already in place in many areas of the country. In California, we have a strong history of focusing on local school accountability, including through our Public School Accountability Act. I am now working with our state Legislature on the next generation of school accountability systems in order to evaluate schools more appropriately and effectively. Moreover, we are moving toward a more robust teacher and principal evaluation system that considers numerous researched-based elements, including student outcomes, multiple observations, and the California Standards for the Teaching Profession. California is ready and willing to hold our schools and systems accountable to the high standards set by our state, and I hope to work with the Administration in partnership toward this goal.
Finally, the conditional nature of the waivers presents problems for California. I understand that waivers may be granted only if a state commits to certain policy priorities of the Administration, including adopting college- and career-ready standards, imposing a differentiated accountability system, and adopting a teacher/ principal evaluation system that incorporates student test results. These policy priorities would mark dramatic deviations from the existing policies required under NCLB. States would be asked to make commitments beyond NCLB with no commensurate funding to provide the state capacity to implement such requirements. The appropriate forum for consideration of any new legal mandates is through the reauthorization process involving transparency and Congressional democratic debate.
If the Administration is unable to support robust state-determined accountability systems prior to ESEA reauthorization, I urge you to ensure that states are not held hostage to new and under-funded policy requirements in order to receive necessary relief from the unrelenting march toward mislabeling hard-working and effective schools for improvement, corrective action, and restructuring.
I appreciate your leadership in recognizing states’ need for immediate flexibility from an outdated and ineffective federal law. I hear daily from superintendents and educational leaders across the state about the urgent need for swift action on this issue. I trust you will take this proposal into consideration before finalizing requirements for waivers. My staff, California State Board of Education staff, and I, welcome the opportunity to meet with you and your staff to begin a dialogue concerning flexibility options available to California, and would be pleased to host your team to discuss California’s vision for a relevant and effective accountability system.
If you have any questions regarding this subject, please do not hesitate to contact me, or have your staff contact Cathy McBride, Federal Policy Liaison, Office of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, by phone at 916-319-0650.
I appreciate your support and assistance, as we work to find the best ways to benefit our students.
Sincerely,
Tom Torlakson
Showing posts with label Arne Duncan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Arne Duncan. Show all posts
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Secretary Duncan to Hold #AskArne Twitter Town Hall
The Department of Education announced today that Secretary Arne Duncan will participate in the first-ever #AskArne Twitter Town Hall on August 24, 2011 at 1:30 p.m. EDT. Veteran education journalist John Merrow will moderate the town hall that will also be broadcast live on ED’s ustream channel.
Beginning today, Twitter users can submit questions to the Secretary using the hashtag #AskArne.
Read more here.
It's not going to be quite so easy to ask meaningful questions with Twitter character limitations, but I've got a few:
1) How much is the total cost down to the local level to implement the new generation of assessments?
2) Where is the money going to come from to fund this initiative?
3) Will sub-group comparisons still be required?
4) Why is it necessary to implement excessive standardized testing?
5) What recommendations do you have to confront the high turnover of teachers at charter schools?
6) What is the rationale for a database from birth to first year of college?
7) Given the rash of security breaches and hacking into secure sites, why should any parent or community have confidence FERPA Privacy protections will be maintained?
8) Why should parents be excluded from any access to their student's information?
Then, I might Twitter: "I am a NUT. No Unnecessary Testing."
What questions will you pose?
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Parents Across America Reject Conditional Waivers
Among the growing number of groups, Parents Across America issued the following press release indicating their rejection of Secretary of Education Duncan's plan to offer states conditional waivers from NCLB regulations.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 10, 2011
Contacts:
Natalie Beyer, (919) 382-2823
Pamela Grundy, (704) 806-0410
Leonie Haimson, (917) 435-9329
Karran Harper Royal, (504) 722-8174
Rita Solnet, (561) 289-7333
National organization Parents Across America rejects Duncan’s “waiver” proposal and calls for complete overhaul of No Child Left Behind
The national organization Parents Across America opposes the proposal by U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan to offer “waivers” to states, exempting them from provisions of the law known as No Child Left Behind if they adopt education policies favored by Duncan.
While Parents Across America (PAA) agrees that No Child Left Behind is an unrealistic, rigid and punitive law, the waivers that Duncan has now proposed are likely to be equally bad, if not worse. The Department of Education could force more states to adopt the Common Core Curriculum thus continuing to ignore the fact that it is illegal for the federal government to impose a national curriculum. The proposal is also likely to expand the destructive agenda of over-testing, school closings, and privatization, despite the fact that these policies have no scientific evidence to support them and are causing tremendous distress in communities across the nation.
Natalie Beyer, school board member in Durham NC, says: “Parents agree that American students are spending too much class time on standardized testing, but these new proposals would do nothing to help. Instead, proposed waivers would further extend federal control over local school issues. We request a study from the General Accounting Office of how much No Child Left Behind has already cost states and local districts and the estimated costs of implementing Common Core Standards under Race to the Top. We implore Congress to include parents, teachers and students in an immediate thorough overhaul of NCLB before going any further down this dangerous road.”
Adds Leonie Haimson, Executive Director of Class Size Matters, “Duncan’s heavy-handed and prescriptive approach would only continue the trend of spending billions to build up the bureaucracy and provide excessive profits to testing companies and consultants, while teachers are being laid off and class sizes are growing throughout the country. Whether the system of rewards and punishments will be based on value-added test scores instead of absolute goals, the result is the same for our schools and our children: more money and time spent on testing and test prep instead of real learning.”
Says Karran Harper Royal of the Pyramid Community Parent Resource Center in New Orleans, where more than 70% of students now attend charter schools, “Race to the Top has been far worse than NCLB and has done little to help our most academically needy students. Yet what Arne Duncan is now proposing through these “waivers” could produce even worse outcomes for our children.”
Rita Solnet of Palm Beach County School District Curriculum Council agrees: “Numerous studies conclude that incentives linked to high stakes tests do not increase learning. In fact, long term studies conclude this leads to a climate of cheating and gaming the system to survive. Every month we read of another major cheating scandal created by high-stakes testing. Stop wasting taxpayer money on failed policies. I am pleased Secretary Duncan acknowledged the destructive flaws within NCLB. NCLB is a train wreck. Let’s not replace it with another one. Let’s do this the right way so every child, regardless of disability, ELL status, family income level can be assured a high quality public education delivered by respected professionals.”
Pamela Grundy of Mecklenburg Area Coming Together in Charlotte, NC concludes, “We need real reforms based on evidence, and partnerships with parents, teachers and communities, not a unilateral and autocratic agenda imposed from above. As parents watching our children’s education suffer, we are saying, “Enough.”
Monday, August 8, 2011
NCLB Waivers with fine print: Legal and fundable?
Plenty of reporting today on the White House direction to Secretary of Education Arne Duncan to give states relief from NCLB requirements, which is an unquestionable regulatory power. However, the waivers come with fine print yet to be revealed. In order to get the waiver, states must agree to implement the following:
Generally, it sounds like adopting the Common Core standards, Common Core Assessments, and participation in the national student longitudinal database initiative. California Governor Jerry Brown recently announced that the state will not participate in the national database initiative and will return the federal dollars. Brown says the state and districts already have a sufficient data collection mechanism. Montana Schools Superintendent Denise Juneau had already informed the federal Department of Education that it would not comply with NCLB mandates, but welcomed this new development:
The details on the conditional waivers will be announced in September.
These conditional requirements are familiar, included in the Race to the Top competitive grants and provided implementation dollars. With state and local budgets already slashed deeply, how will states that did not get RT3 funds implement new mandates?
Chester Finn of Fordham University is one among many voices calling into question the authority and legality of the waiver plan:
So far there are two major problems: legality and funding.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/us-to-grant-waivers-for-no-child-left-behind/2011/08/05/gIQA52ra1I_story.html
http://www.thegrio.com/education-1/ed-secretary-states-to-get-school-test-waivers.php
"Administration officials said they will grant waivers to states that adopt standards designed to prepare high school graduates for college and careers, use a “flexible and targeted” accountability system for educators based on student growth and make “robust use of data,” among other things".
Generally, it sounds like adopting the Common Core standards, Common Core Assessments, and participation in the national student longitudinal database initiative. California Governor Jerry Brown recently announced that the state will not participate in the national database initiative and will return the federal dollars. Brown says the state and districts already have a sufficient data collection mechanism. Montana Schools Superintendent Denise Juneau had already informed the federal Department of Education that it would not comply with NCLB mandates, but welcomed this new development:
"Montana Schools Superintendent Denise Juneau said she welcomed the waiver proposal, as long as it offers relief from the 2014 deadline. She said her state isn't afraid of high standards and education reform but needs enough time to reach those standards and freedom to institute change in a way that works for Montana.
Montana decided to skip a planned increase in its testing goals this past school year.
"I don't mind the goals and we're certainly not afraid of accountability. They can set the bar wherever they want. They just have to let us have the flexibility to get there," Juneau said. "We can definitely meet any bar they throw at us."
The details on the conditional waivers will be announced in September.
These conditional requirements are familiar, included in the Race to the Top competitive grants and provided implementation dollars. With state and local budgets already slashed deeply, how will states that did not get RT3 funds implement new mandates?
Chester Finn of Fordham University is one among many voices calling into question the authority and legality of the waiver plan:
“Even if one agrees with [Duncan] on the merits, as I do, the law doesn’t say he can unilaterally impose new conditions that aren’t in the law,” said Finn, a Republican. “There’s a separation of powers issue involved here. To what extent does the executive branch get to decide what’s in the law?”
So far there are two major problems: legality and funding.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/us-to-grant-waivers-for-no-child-left-behind/2011/08/05/gIQA52ra1I_story.html
http://www.thegrio.com/education-1/ed-secretary-states-to-get-school-test-waivers.php
Sunday, July 31, 2011
NUT Report: SOS rally and march just the beginning
There is little reporting on the SOS March on D.C. held yesterday consistent with mainstream media's ignoring of current education reform initiatives. The public remains in the dark and uninformed. Bloggers are filling in the gaps. I have located some reporting:
National Park Service estimated 8,000 attended the SOS March on D.C. rally and march "to protest the standardized testing mania that is at the heart of the Obama administration’s school reform policies" according to Washington Post blogger Valerie Strauss.
Education Week reporter Nirvi Shah covered events here. Marchers reported that CNN was there too.
The Christian Science Monitor, the most recognizable media outlet, reported the event here. The article titled "Save Our Schools March: a teacher revolt against Obama education reform" describes the event as part of a "nationwide push" agains the President's policies.
Hess goes on to say these efforts have the potential for positive effects:
There is common unity across ideologies over the direction of current education reform initiatives. The public and taxpayers are not getting sufficient information on the rationale for expensive, increased standardized assessment regimes, starting at preschool ages with data collected in national student longitudinal databases. In these times of severe economic distress, how are such initiatives justified and what is their impact on students? During Senate education hearings last week, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan asked for more money, 13.3 percent budget increase over 2011, which would bring the department's spending one fifth higher than 2010 levels.
There are simply too many questions regarding the benefits and cost-effectiveness of increased federal intrusion into education. Will Congress look deeper and respond to growing concerns?
National Park Service estimated 8,000 attended the SOS March on D.C. rally and march "to protest the standardized testing mania that is at the heart of the Obama administration’s school reform policies" according to Washington Post blogger Valerie Strauss.
Education Week reporter Nirvi Shah covered events here. Marchers reported that CNN was there too.
The Christian Science Monitor, the most recognizable media outlet, reported the event here. The article titled "Save Our Schools March: a teacher revolt against Obama education reform" describes the event as part of a "nationwide push" agains the President's policies.
"This is impassioned educators pushing back for good or bad," says Frederick Hess, director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) in Washington, who is generally an advocate of standards-based reforms. "I think it's clear that this isn't union power tactics."
Hess goes on to say these efforts have the potential for positive effects:
"There is a simple-mindedness, an arrogance, and a reflexiveness with which the reformers are pushing their agenda, particularly from Washington, and I think they've wound up giving classroom educators serious and fair cause for concern about how things like value-added evaluations or merit pay are taking shape," says Mr. Hess of AEI. "This pushback both helps call attention to the need to do this smarter and offers an opportunity to slow down and pursue these things with the deliberation and thoughtfulness they require."
There is common unity across ideologies over the direction of current education reform initiatives. The public and taxpayers are not getting sufficient information on the rationale for expensive, increased standardized assessment regimes, starting at preschool ages with data collected in national student longitudinal databases. In these times of severe economic distress, how are such initiatives justified and what is their impact on students? During Senate education hearings last week, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan asked for more money, 13.3 percent budget increase over 2011, which would bring the department's spending one fifth higher than 2010 levels.
"As every family is doing more with less, so should we," Duncan said. "[But] you can't sacrifice the future to pay for the present." He said the increase in spending would allow the department to fund the increased demand for Pell grants as well as reform early learning initiatives and the Race to the Top program."
There are simply too many questions regarding the benefits and cost-effectiveness of increased federal intrusion into education. Will Congress look deeper and respond to growing concerns?
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Secretary Duncan on the defensive
Secretary of Education Arne Duncan found himself in the hot seat this week. At yesterday's Senate Education Appropriations Committee meeting, Senator Richard Shelby stated that the "Race to the Top" program extends the reach of the federal government too far into states' public schools. Senator Jack Reed also had some tough questions for Duncan on priorities and the loss of programs that worked in favor of experimentation. The video was posted in This Week in Education.
The hearing was covered in the Huffington Post and repeated in Scathing Purple Musings.
The Washington Post reports that Secretary Duncan met with some protesters associated with the SOS March on Washington D.C. Facebook postings report Duncan indicated there is common ground and agreement; however participants remain unconvinced. The meeting is the first acknowledgement by the administration of widespread national public concern over federal mandates and excessive testing initiatives. The March is scheduled for Saturday.
UPDATE: SOS March Executive Committee declines White House invitation to meet today and requests a Sunday meeting or a date after the March. The committee invited the White House to attend the Saturday rally and listen first hand to concerns.
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2011/07/save_our_schools_leaders_decli.html#.TjKPEMfipQV.facebook
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/obama-administration-reaches-out-to-education-activists-before-march/2011/07/28/gIQAp39zeI_blog.html
The hearing was covered in the Huffington Post and repeated in Scathing Purple Musings.
The Washington Post reports that Secretary Duncan met with some protesters associated with the SOS March on Washington D.C. Facebook postings report Duncan indicated there is common ground and agreement; however participants remain unconvinced. The meeting is the first acknowledgement by the administration of widespread national public concern over federal mandates and excessive testing initiatives. The March is scheduled for Saturday.
UPDATE: SOS March Executive Committee declines White House invitation to meet today and requests a Sunday meeting or a date after the March. The committee invited the White House to attend the Saturday rally and listen first hand to concerns.
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2011/07/save_our_schools_leaders_decli.html#.TjKPEMfipQV.facebook
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/obama-administration-reaches-out-to-education-activists-before-march/2011/07/28/gIQAp39zeI_blog.html
Monday, July 11, 2011
Race to the Top for Tots: Don't measure the temperature of the fire – put it out!
Last week I posted information about the new federal initiative to generate tests for preschoolers here. In these most difficult economic times, or frankly, in my view at any other time, there is no rhyme or reason for pouring millions into test development and particularly for under 5 year olds. The costs of implementing these tests will ultimately fall on local taxpayers and further impact school budgets.
Stephen Krashen writes that this new and expensive testing will only tell us what we already know. His views are reprinted with permission. Your views?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The federal government plans to establish detailed standards and assessments to see if children of poverty are ready for kindergarten and are safe and healthy (The "Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge," termed the "Race to the Top for Tots," by the New Brunswick Patch.)
We already know that millions of children suffer from the effects of poverty: They are children from low-income families who are behind in academics, suffer from food deprivation and lack health care. Please see the careful and complete reviews of research by David Berliner and Richard Rothstein among others.
We also know which children are in need and we know what to do about it.
We don't need more precise data. The house is on fire: The US Department of Education's plans are like spending money on determining the exact temperature in each room, rather than rushing to put out the fire immediately.
Instead of spending money dealing with the problems of poverty, we are giving it to testing companies who are eager spend billions of tax dollars creating expensive new tests and measures that will only tell us what we already know.
See the details for yourself: http://www.ed.gov/early-learning/elc-draft-summary.
Other sources:
Berliner, D. 2009. Poverty and Potential: Out-of-School Factors and School Success. Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. http://epicpolicy.org/publication/poverty-and- potential;
Rothstein, R. 2010. How to fix our schools. Economic Policy Institute, Issue Brief #286. http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/ib286
Stephen Krashen writes that this new and expensive testing will only tell us what we already know. His views are reprinted with permission. Your views?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The federal government plans to establish detailed standards and assessments to see if children of poverty are ready for kindergarten and are safe and healthy (The "Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge," termed the "Race to the Top for Tots," by the New Brunswick Patch.)
We already know that millions of children suffer from the effects of poverty: They are children from low-income families who are behind in academics, suffer from food deprivation and lack health care. Please see the careful and complete reviews of research by David Berliner and Richard Rothstein among others.
We also know which children are in need and we know what to do about it.
We don't need more precise data. The house is on fire: The US Department of Education's plans are like spending money on determining the exact temperature in each room, rather than rushing to put out the fire immediately.
Instead of spending money dealing with the problems of poverty, we are giving it to testing companies who are eager spend billions of tax dollars creating expensive new tests and measures that will only tell us what we already know.
See the details for yourself: http://www.ed.gov/early-learning/elc-draft-summary.
Other sources:
Berliner, D. 2009. Poverty and Potential: Out-of-School Factors and School Success. Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. http://epicpolicy.org/publication/poverty-and- potential;
Rothstein, R. 2010. How to fix our schools. Economic Policy Institute, Issue Brief #286. http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/ib286
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Rep. Kline on Arne Duncan: "He's Not the Nation's Superintendent."
When the U.S. Congress did not meet the administration's deadline for reauthorization and changes to the regulations under No Child Left Behind, Duncan decided to have Plan B. The Secretary would give States waivers in meeting those regulations IF they agreed to adopt the Common Core Standards. He was within his regulatory power to grant waivers, but seems to have crossed the line into legislative powers. Now U.S. Representative John Kline, the Chair of the House Education committee took notice:
States are not running to the waiver offer. Idaho Superintendent of Education, Tom Luna, decided not to follow the NCLB and is not asking permission, apparently not interested in Duncan's waiver. Read the details at Missouri Education Watchdog.
“Unquestionably, Congress gave the secretary way too much authority in the stimulus bill when it said, ‘Here’s $5 billion, go do good things for education,’ ” Mr. Kline said.
States are not running to the waiver offer. Idaho Superintendent of Education, Tom Luna, decided not to follow the NCLB and is not asking permission, apparently not interested in Duncan's waiver. Read the details at Missouri Education Watchdog.
Monday, June 13, 2011
Did Duncan Overstep?
In response to the stalled Congressional progress on reauthorizing NCLB and failure to meet the President's deadline to do so, Secretary of Education Duncan announced he will give waivers to States so they need not comply with NCLB legislative requirements. He will authorize the waivers under two conditions:
1) States agree to adopt Common Core standards
2) Link student performance to 50% of teacher evaluation
Richard Hess of the American Enterprise Institute writes that journalist Michele McNeil reported the condition this way:
In his own analysis, Hess wondered about the decision-making process and consideration of "statutory or Congressional complexities" :
The Common Core initiatives are becoming a "hot button" and Hess notes that Mitt Romney has joined some of the critics.
Missouri Education Watch commented this way:
State and national educational policymakers once again illustrate how out of touch they are with taxpayers, parents, teachers and administrators when it comes to crafting more onerous mandates. Instead of education reform, the plans from DESE and the Department of Education will add to the bureaucratic nightmare of public education, creating more harm than true reform. (more...)
I am not a lawyer, a Constitutional scholar, nor an expert on the mysteries of the Congressional process, but Duncan is getting a pounding from all across the political spectrum. As a member of the American public, I wonder if we can expect an explanation for removing the democratic process of State decision-making, the citizen's right to engage in the process, and how this overreach has anything to do with benefiting kids.
Updates on who likes the waivers and who doesn't, what the Congressional committee members think and what they are doing, can be found here.
1) States agree to adopt Common Core standards
2) Link student performance to 50% of teacher evaluation
Richard Hess of the American Enterprise Institute writes that journalist Michele McNeil reported the condition this way:
"Justin Hamilton, a spokesman for Mr. Duncan, said that unlike the Race to the Top, which allowed states to devise their own education improvement plans, the department would present states with a basket of strategies they would have to adopt in exchange for relief."
In his own analysis, Hess wondered about the decision-making process and consideration of "statutory or Congressional complexities" :
"I'm curious whether any of the lawyers at ED tried to explain to Duncan that he's not permitted to remake federal law on the fly, just because he and the President think it's a good idea, or whether they're cheerfully along for the ride."
The Common Core initiatives are becoming a "hot button" and Hess notes that Mitt Romney has joined some of the critics.
Missouri Education Watch commented this way:
State and national educational policymakers once again illustrate how out of touch they are with taxpayers, parents, teachers and administrators when it comes to crafting more onerous mandates. Instead of education reform, the plans from DESE and the Department of Education will add to the bureaucratic nightmare of public education, creating more harm than true reform. (more...)
I am not a lawyer, a Constitutional scholar, nor an expert on the mysteries of the Congressional process, but Duncan is getting a pounding from all across the political spectrum. As a member of the American public, I wonder if we can expect an explanation for removing the democratic process of State decision-making, the citizen's right to engage in the process, and how this overreach has anything to do with benefiting kids.
Updates on who likes the waivers and who doesn't, what the Congressional committee members think and what they are doing, can be found here.
Friday, May 20, 2011
Education Reform and Privacy Concerns Collide
In February, Grumpy Educators covered U.S. Office of Education initiatives to build and develop longitudinal data systems for education here and here. The requirement for data systems that track student data from preschool through high school and beyond is part of current education reform policy on data-driven decision-making. The data, to be accessed by researchers, auditors and other agencies, may reveal what reforms, methods or textbooks work or do not work so well.
A spokesperson from the Data Quality Campaign, a non-profit founded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, praises the proposed changes:
However, accessing the data requires changes in current privacy protection laws or the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Protection Act of 1974 (FERPA).
The expansion of state student-record systems is central to President Obama's accountability agenda, which seeks to improve education through the better use of data. In a statement issued on Thursday, the U.S. secretary of education, Arne Duncan, said the proposed new rules would "strengthen privacy protections and allow for meaningful uses of data."
According to the Chronicle, the proposed changes would allow sharing of student-level data with researchers, auditors, and other agencies without violating FERPA. The article further notes that Congress prevented the Education Department from creating a "national 'unit record' data system in 2008, but has also funded states to develop these systems.
There are many serious concerns and unanswered question about these proposed changes that affect that rights of parent consent and the collection and use of vast amounts of data on the nation's children. How long will this data remain available? How will it be stored? When will it be erased? Will it be erased? Will parents and the children themselves when adults know how the information is used?
According to a Missouri Education Watchdog alert, public input and objections to the proposed rules changes is available until Monday, May 23. Background information, examples of specific objections to the rules, and the website location for registering objections is offered.
If privacy concerns matter and the lack of interest by Congressional oversight on this matter matter to you, review the Missouri Education Watchdog blog here and consider writing an objection.
http://chronicle.com/article/New-Rules-Would-Allow-for/127047/
http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127461/
A spokesperson from the Data Quality Campaign, a non-profit founded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, praises the proposed changes:
"We can't afford not to use this information if we want to meet our big policy goal of graduating students ready for college and career."
However, accessing the data requires changes in current privacy protection laws or the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Protection Act of 1974 (FERPA).
The expansion of state student-record systems is central to President Obama's accountability agenda, which seeks to improve education through the better use of data. In a statement issued on Thursday, the U.S. secretary of education, Arne Duncan, said the proposed new rules would "strengthen privacy protections and allow for meaningful uses of data."
According to the Chronicle, the proposed changes would allow sharing of student-level data with researchers, auditors, and other agencies without violating FERPA. The article further notes that Congress prevented the Education Department from creating a "national 'unit record' data system in 2008, but has also funded states to develop these systems.
There are many serious concerns and unanswered question about these proposed changes that affect that rights of parent consent and the collection and use of vast amounts of data on the nation's children. How long will this data remain available? How will it be stored? When will it be erased? Will it be erased? Will parents and the children themselves when adults know how the information is used?
According to a Missouri Education Watchdog alert, public input and objections to the proposed rules changes is available until Monday, May 23. Background information, examples of specific objections to the rules, and the website location for registering objections is offered.
If privacy concerns matter and the lack of interest by Congressional oversight on this matter matter to you, review the Missouri Education Watchdog blog here and consider writing an objection.
http://chronicle.com/article/New-Rules-Would-Allow-for/127047/
http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127461/
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Education Reform Hits Speed Bump in Delaware
Delaware's Cristina School Board found one process for improving performance at two underperforming schools may have not proceeded as they expected. The process in question related to what is called "reconstitution" or releasing the staff from the schools, have them reapply to that school if they choose or seek placement at a different school. No one gets fired, just shuffled around.
The first implementation of the process revealed some unexpected outcomes, the Cristina School Board deliberated, decided to reject the results, and seek process improvements for the next time around. Board President John Young spoke forcefully on the process and those words went viral. A few days later Delaware's Govenor Markell announced his intention to freeze $11 million Race to the Top funding that was earmarked to pay for all reform efforts in the district. Delaware's Secretary of Education supported the Governor's views.
Delaware's Department of Education, however, is giving the School Board 15 days "to show cause in writing why the Department of Education should not suspend any further payment to the Christina District of Race to the Top funds."
Pointing to the audio recording of the School Board meeting, Young defended the decision saying the intention was to correct and improve the process:
Stung by the "hyperbolic response" and obviously punitive, Young notes:
Remarkably, Secretary Arne Duncan joined in with public statements supported the freeze:
Personally, I find it unusual for the U.S. Secretary of Education to interject into a matter that State and local level staff should work out. Another look at the process would either validate the Board's decision or not. Reform efforts are disruptive and conducted without much history and practice. Under these circumstances why did Duncan fail to encourage a careful examination of the process for the sake of improvement; otherwise, those charged with implementation are required to do nothing more than follow orders, head down, mouth shut.
What kind of reform is this?
http://transparentchristina.wordpress.com/
The first implementation of the process revealed some unexpected outcomes, the Cristina School Board deliberated, decided to reject the results, and seek process improvements for the next time around. Board President John Young spoke forcefully on the process and those words went viral. A few days later Delaware's Govenor Markell announced his intention to freeze $11 million Race to the Top funding that was earmarked to pay for all reform efforts in the district. Delaware's Secretary of Education supported the Governor's views.
Delaware's Department of Education, however, is giving the School Board 15 days "to show cause in writing why the Department of Education should not suspend any further payment to the Christina District of Race to the Top funds."
Pointing to the audio recording of the School Board meeting, Young defended the decision saying the intention was to correct and improve the process:
"We got a very small part of this wrong, let's get it right."
Stung by the "hyperbolic response" and obviously punitive, Young notes:
The political reactions of paid elected and appointed stewards of the public trust should not be aligned with the goal of bullying local school boards.
When that happens, nobody wins.
Remarkably, Secretary Arne Duncan joined in with public statements supported the freeze:
"Districts, like Christina, which signed on to the Race to the Top plan, made a commitment to dramatically improve the lives of children. Because Christina has backtracked on that commitment, the state of Delaware has made the tough but courageous decision to withhold Race to The Top funding. I believe that is the right decision."
Personally, I find it unusual for the U.S. Secretary of Education to interject into a matter that State and local level staff should work out. Another look at the process would either validate the Board's decision or not. Reform efforts are disruptive and conducted without much history and practice. Under these circumstances why did Duncan fail to encourage a careful examination of the process for the sake of improvement; otherwise, those charged with implementation are required to do nothing more than follow orders, head down, mouth shut.
What kind of reform is this?
http://transparentchristina.wordpress.com/
Friday, April 22, 2011
The NUT Report: Florida Parents Raise the Roof
Parents, extended family members, and members of communities across the nation are on the same page: No Unnecessary Testing (NUT). The opposition to the classrooms as centers for test prep and testing rather than centers of learning continues to grow in numbers and in volume. Last night, U.S. Representative Ted Deutch and U.S. Department of Education representative Michael Yudin got an earful from "hundreds of angry parents and teachers from Palm Beach and Broward counties."
A report on the Parents Across America website describes a recent event at Princeton University where Secretary of Education Arne Duncan addressed U.S. education policies. A student asked about the risks and challenges of the national assessment effort. His response is included in the article:
According to the same report, he got frustrated and said "You're not listening to me."
Who is not listening?
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/schools/parents-teachers-rail-against-weight-given-to-students-1424196.html
A report on the Parents Across America website describes a recent event at Princeton University where Secretary of Education Arne Duncan addressed U.S. education policies. A student asked about the risks and challenges of the national assessment effort. His response is included in the article:
“...there are risks in everything” and “we shouldn’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.” There is a healthy “competition” between the two consortia developing these assessments; and states can opt out of one group and join another. Though there may be “a couple of choppy years till we get it right, and “mistakes” will be made, there is a “level of thoughtfulness” behind this effort that is extraordinary, and we must get “to this point as soon as possible” if we want to compete with other advanced nations. (Why? Has any other nation in the world adopted these highly expensive and complex computer-based performance assessments – and so quickly and on such a massive scale?).
According to the same report, he got frustrated and said "You're not listening to me."
Who is not listening?
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/schools/parents-teachers-rail-against-weight-given-to-students-1424196.html
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Arne Duncan is From the Government and He is Here to Help you
[Reprinted with permission from Missouri Education Watchdog.]
In its effort to clarify student data privacy rules for researchers and education officials alike, the U.S. Department of Education proposed several changes to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, or FERPA, on Thursday and named its first chief privacy officer.
"Data should only be shared with the right people for the right reasons," U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said in a statement on the proposals. "We need common-sense rules that strengthen privacy protections and allow for meaningful uses of data. The initiatives announced today will help us do just that."
There is a pesky problem standing in the way of sharing student data between states and Federal Agencies: present FERPA standards. If these standards are not altered, the data necessary to supply the workforce cannot be shared.
The DOE promises your student's data will be secure. Really? What's happened the last several weeks or years regarding cyber information?
•TJX, the parent company of T.J. Maxx, Marshalls, and other retailers, has not acknowledged how data on more than 45 million credit and debit card users who had shopped at the company's retail locations was stolen and sold to fraudsters. (May 9, 2007)
•A data breach involving online marketer Epsilon, whose clients are a Who’s Who of major banks and retailers, was only the latest in a string of hacking attacks aimed at getting email records for more thefts. Companies that have said they were exposed since then include banks Citigroup Inc and Capital One Financial Corp, and retailers Walgreen Co and Best Buy Co. (April 5, 2011)
•According to U.S. investigators, China has stolen terabytes of sensitive data -- from usernames and passwords for State Department computers to designs for multi-billion dollar weapons systems. And Chinese hackers show no signs of letting up. "The attacks coming out of China are not only continuing, they are accelerating," says Alan Paller, director of research at information-security training group SANS Institute in Washington, DC.
Secret U.S. State Department cables, obtained by WikiLeaks and made available to Reuters by a third party, trace systems breaches -- colorfully code-named "Byzantine Hades" by U.S. investigators -- to the Chinese military. An April 2009 cable even pinpoints the attacks to a specific unit of China's People's Liberation Army. (April 14, 2010).
The data sets from the National Data Education Model are set and ready to be used on your student. Don't worry if there is a cyber security attack on the Longitudinal Data Systems; information to be gleaned from an attack would only include some of the following:
•Base salary or wage
•Blood type
•Height and Weight
•Dwelling Arrangement
•Health Care History
•Health Care Plan
•Identification Results
•Immunization Status
•Insurance Coverage
•Overall Health Status
•Residence Block Number
•Social Security Number
•Voting Status
The United States Government cannot stop cyber attacks from China; why should taxpayers believe student privacy is secure because of a change in FERPA legislation?
If you believe this information is secure, you will also believe the following:
According to the No Child Left Behind Act, by 2014 every child is supposed to test on grade level in reading and math.
Not every child can test on grade level in reading and math. It's an admirable goal, but impossible to achieve. That's not going to happen. The goal for data systems is to beef up privacy protections. Like the NCLB goal, it sounds great, but if the government cannot stop foreign countries from hacking into military computers, do you believe the DOE can safeguard student data from hackers?
Read this sentence in the second paragraph again: We need common-sense rules that strengthen privacy protections and allow for meaningful uses of data. The problem with that sentence? Strengthening privacy protections don't safeguard the privacy and the "meaningful uses of data" should raise questions for anyone concerned about the constitutional right to individual privacy that your government is determined to document and share.
In its effort to clarify student data privacy rules for researchers and education officials alike, the U.S. Department of Education proposed several changes to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, or FERPA, on Thursday and named its first chief privacy officer.
"Data should only be shared with the right people for the right reasons," U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said in a statement on the proposals. "We need common-sense rules that strengthen privacy protections and allow for meaningful uses of data. The initiatives announced today will help us do just that."
There is a pesky problem standing in the way of sharing student data between states and Federal Agencies: present FERPA standards. If these standards are not altered, the data necessary to supply the workforce cannot be shared.
The DOE promises your student's data will be secure. Really? What's happened the last several weeks or years regarding cyber information?
•TJX, the parent company of T.J. Maxx, Marshalls, and other retailers, has not acknowledged how data on more than 45 million credit and debit card users who had shopped at the company's retail locations was stolen and sold to fraudsters. (May 9, 2007)
•A data breach involving online marketer Epsilon, whose clients are a Who’s Who of major banks and retailers, was only the latest in a string of hacking attacks aimed at getting email records for more thefts. Companies that have said they were exposed since then include banks Citigroup Inc and Capital One Financial Corp, and retailers Walgreen Co and Best Buy Co. (April 5, 2011)
•According to U.S. investigators, China has stolen terabytes of sensitive data -- from usernames and passwords for State Department computers to designs for multi-billion dollar weapons systems. And Chinese hackers show no signs of letting up. "The attacks coming out of China are not only continuing, they are accelerating," says Alan Paller, director of research at information-security training group SANS Institute in Washington, DC.
Secret U.S. State Department cables, obtained by WikiLeaks and made available to Reuters by a third party, trace systems breaches -- colorfully code-named "Byzantine Hades" by U.S. investigators -- to the Chinese military. An April 2009 cable even pinpoints the attacks to a specific unit of China's People's Liberation Army. (April 14, 2010).
The data sets from the National Data Education Model are set and ready to be used on your student. Don't worry if there is a cyber security attack on the Longitudinal Data Systems; information to be gleaned from an attack would only include some of the following:
•Base salary or wage
•Blood type
•Height and Weight
•Dwelling Arrangement
•Health Care History
•Health Care Plan
•Identification Results
•Immunization Status
•Insurance Coverage
•Overall Health Status
•Residence Block Number
•Social Security Number
•Voting Status
The United States Government cannot stop cyber attacks from China; why should taxpayers believe student privacy is secure because of a change in FERPA legislation?
If you believe this information is secure, you will also believe the following:
According to the No Child Left Behind Act, by 2014 every child is supposed to test on grade level in reading and math.
Not every child can test on grade level in reading and math. It's an admirable goal, but impossible to achieve. That's not going to happen. The goal for data systems is to beef up privacy protections. Like the NCLB goal, it sounds great, but if the government cannot stop foreign countries from hacking into military computers, do you believe the DOE can safeguard student data from hackers?
Read this sentence in the second paragraph again: We need common-sense rules that strengthen privacy protections and allow for meaningful uses of data. The problem with that sentence? Strengthening privacy protections don't safeguard the privacy and the "meaningful uses of data" should raise questions for anyone concerned about the constitutional right to individual privacy that your government is determined to document and share.
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Education Reform: A Basketful of Rotten Tomatoes
March was not a good month for Michele Rhee, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, nor President Obama.
Rhee has stopped talking for the moment as investigations into testing irregularities on D.C. standardized tests move forward. President Obama's speeches last week on his vision for the improvement quality and quantity of standardized tests left many confused. Much was written regarding the disconnect between the President's views and those of the Department of Education. Oddly, Justin Hamilton, Deputy Press Secretary at the Department of Education, requested that one blogger make corrections to his blog since the facts had been misrepresented. Instead, Education Week blogger, Anthony Cody, requested that the government explain how the positions align. Hamilton's plan isn't working out too well. The supplied Department of Education clarifications make it fairly clear that more money is being dumped into redundant test development. Read Cody's original blog, Department of Education responses, and follow up at Living in Dialogue. Parents are resisting the spike in testing and taxpayers are not getting the necessary level of accountability on these efforts.
In September 2010, the new federal testing initiative was announced in a speech delivered by Duncan. I missed that piece of information until this week when the North Carolina Superintendent rolled out 52 new tests saying they were in preparation for the national testing to be rolled out in 2014.
The next blog or two will cover national testing and how the President and Congress intend to modify NCLB, which is up for reauthorization. It is a complicated story. For now, Katie Couric is a good place to begin. Sorry, no embed code was permitted. Please watch it here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqNL3CDoppc
Rhee has stopped talking for the moment as investigations into testing irregularities on D.C. standardized tests move forward. President Obama's speeches last week on his vision for the improvement quality and quantity of standardized tests left many confused. Much was written regarding the disconnect between the President's views and those of the Department of Education. Oddly, Justin Hamilton, Deputy Press Secretary at the Department of Education, requested that one blogger make corrections to his blog since the facts had been misrepresented. Instead, Education Week blogger, Anthony Cody, requested that the government explain how the positions align. Hamilton's plan isn't working out too well. The supplied Department of Education clarifications make it fairly clear that more money is being dumped into redundant test development. Read Cody's original blog, Department of Education responses, and follow up at Living in Dialogue. Parents are resisting the spike in testing and taxpayers are not getting the necessary level of accountability on these efforts.
In September 2010, the new federal testing initiative was announced in a speech delivered by Duncan. I missed that piece of information until this week when the North Carolina Superintendent rolled out 52 new tests saying they were in preparation for the national testing to be rolled out in 2014.
The next blog or two will cover national testing and how the President and Congress intend to modify NCLB, which is up for reauthorization. It is a complicated story. For now, Katie Couric is a good place to begin. Sorry, no embed code was permitted. Please watch it here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqNL3CDoppc
Thursday, March 31, 2011
North Carolina Parents Lead Resistance Against New Tests
Parents with children in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School (CMS) District are fighting mad over the sudden announcement of 52 new tests to be rolled out next week. The purpose of these tests is to measure teacher effectiveness. Parents want the school district to find other ways to evaluate staff that does not require excessive testing on their children. Parents are requesting to be pulled out of the testing. The school board will not permit opting-out; however, parents are saying they keep their kids home if they have to.
While North Carolina legislators attempt to reduce the level of required testing, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School District announced it will trial 52 new tests. The school district has paid $1.9 million to design new year-end tests in reading, math, science, and social studies for grades K-8 and end-of-course exams for all high school classes. Kindergarten through second grade students will be tested one-on-one in four subjects - reading, math, science, and social studies. The test lasts one hour; for a class of 22 students, that is 44 hours of time spent on testing. An adult reads the question and the student replies or circles an answer. There must be another adult present during the testing to ensure teachers do not cheat. Schools are asking parents to volunteer to cover classroom instruction while the teacher conducts the testing.
While the CMS school district faces a shortfall of $100 million, anticipates layoffs of 560 school personnel including 400 teachers, and the closing of 10 schools, it used $1.9 million from its 09-10 budget for test development and projects ongoing costs of $300,000. CMS Superintendent explained that this testing initiative prepared for the new national exams being prepared by the federal government. National exams? That piece of information is creeping out.
Secretary of Education Arne Duncan is a "big fan" of CMS Superintendent Gorman. Duncan said that like CMS, the vast majority of school districts across the nation are being forced to do more with less.
If there are even more new tests coming down the pike, how is this test development and example of using money wisely under such budgetary constriction?
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/03/31/2184241/gorman-defends-cms-testing-as.html
http://www.thecharlottepost.com/index.php?src=news&srctype=detail&category=News&refno=2975
While North Carolina legislators attempt to reduce the level of required testing, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School District announced it will trial 52 new tests. The school district has paid $1.9 million to design new year-end tests in reading, math, science, and social studies for grades K-8 and end-of-course exams for all high school classes. Kindergarten through second grade students will be tested one-on-one in four subjects - reading, math, science, and social studies. The test lasts one hour; for a class of 22 students, that is 44 hours of time spent on testing. An adult reads the question and the student replies or circles an answer. There must be another adult present during the testing to ensure teachers do not cheat. Schools are asking parents to volunteer to cover classroom instruction while the teacher conducts the testing.
While the CMS school district faces a shortfall of $100 million, anticipates layoffs of 560 school personnel including 400 teachers, and the closing of 10 schools, it used $1.9 million from its 09-10 budget for test development and projects ongoing costs of $300,000. CMS Superintendent explained that this testing initiative prepared for the new national exams being prepared by the federal government. National exams? That piece of information is creeping out.
Secretary of Education Arne Duncan is a "big fan" of CMS Superintendent Gorman. Duncan said that like CMS, the vast majority of school districts across the nation are being forced to do more with less.
“These are just tough times… There are no easy answers. That’s reality, and it’s not going to change anytime soon. We can either cry about it or we can figure out how to use every single dollar wisely and how we can create innovative partnerships and bring in the philanthropic community, the business community, and how we engage parents in different ways,” he said.
If there are even more new tests coming down the pike, how is this test development and example of using money wisely under such budgetary constriction?
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/03/31/2184241/gorman-defends-cms-testing-as.html
http://www.thecharlottepost.com/index.php?src=news&srctype=detail&category=News&refno=2975
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Education Reform: Parent Action Spreads
The highlights indicate the States where parent organizing against teaching to the test are in action. All indications suggest this is a growing grassroots movement. President Obama's recently announced proposals for changing No Child Left Behind (NCLB) are likely to fuel more action. Here are some highlights from the President's education reform plan with regard to testing:
NCLB Status Quo: Rely on unsophisticated bubble tests to grade students and schools.
The Obama Plan: Support better tests. The Obama Administration has invested $350 million to support states in their efforts to create more sophisticated assessment systems that measure problem solving and other 21st century skills and that will provide teachers will timely information to help them improve instruction.
NCLB Status Quo: A narrow curriculum focused only reading and math.
The Obama Plan: Invest in state and local efforts to develop a well-rounded curriculum and allow states to include subjects beyond reading and math in their accountability system.
SB736 mirrors the goals the Obama Administration has in mind as educational reform. So, if you are a supporter and proponent of SB736, then you will be cheering. On the other hand, if you were concerned about the lack of details, lack of cost analysis, and continuing an obsession with tests, then things are not looking so good.
Read the President's education plan here.
UPDATE: EDWEEK reports that U.S. Department of Education spokesman Justin Hamilton "clarified" Obama's statement about too much testing, by countering it:
"While we're open to how we can best assess student progress in subject areas like history and science, we believe annual measures in reading and math are needed to assess progress toward college- and career-readiness. More must be done to improve the quality of those assessments, so that they're a more meaningful measure of student learning..."That certainly clears things up now....clear as mud. The President prefers less, the U.S Office of Education prefers the more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)