HELP Committee leaves out parents

Pearson lobbyist Sandy Krell was listed as a witness to the full Senate HELP committee hearing on the reauthorization of legislation affecting national education. The ESEA bill is to replace NCLB. (Correction: Kress was not on the final list published 11/8).

However, parents were excluded from the hearing. Not a single parent was allowed as a witness to express national concerns.

Here's a statement from Parents Across America on the lack of parent voices.

Today, Parents Across America sent a letter to the members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee after noting that panelists testifying this morning at a committee hearing on reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education law included no parent representatives.

PAA has reached out to the HELP committee repeatedly with our concern that parent voices are being left out of this critical discussion of the federal laws which will impact our children’s education for years to come.

Below is the text of the letter to the HELP committee, which includes PAA’s recommendations for an improved ESEA. A chart comparing PAA’s positions with the current Senate proposal is here.

***

November 8, 2011

Re: Reauthorization of ESEA

Dear Senator Harkin and members of the HELP Committee:

We applaud the fact that you included several teachers and other educators as witnesses in today’s important hearing on reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. However, we were disappointed to see no parent representatives on the panel. As the primary stakeholders of the public schools, parents have a deep-rooted understanding of the challenges facing our educational system. Our perspective would provide valuable information and ought to be included in your deliberations.

Had a representative from Parents Across America been asked to testify, here’s what we would have said:

PAA opposes the current version of ESEA because, while some important modifications have been made, too many of the ineffective, damaging elements of NCLB remain in the Senate reauthorization proposal, and it does not address more important, fundamental problems facing our nation’s schools and students.

Specifically, instead of the rigid menu imposed on high-poverty schools needing improvement, including punitive school closings, privatization, or other set policies imposed from above with no track record of success, solutions should be devised through stakeholder input from the ground up, including parents. In addition, options should include research-based improvements such as class size reduction, expansion of preschool programs, and more parent involvement in decision making at all levels. Right now, schools with the most at-risk children are being closed or forced to arbitrarily fire half their staff. Not only does this seriously disrupt children’s lives, but it also undermines communities and fatally weakens the effort to recruit and keep high-quality teachers in our neediest schools. Given the harsh school budget cuts being carried out across the U. S., this is simply not the time to throw more precious education funds away on more experimental programs or damaging policies. with little oversight and few meaningful results.

We also feel strongly that parents must have the right to have their children opt out of high-stakes testing, and that any accountability
system should include multiple measures of success, including parent and teacher surveys. Attached please find a summary of specific
recommendations from PAA for a better ESEA, and a chart displaying our position on the current Senate bill.

We would welcome the opportunity to testify at any upcoming hearings called on the topic of ESEA reauthorization, or meet with legislators or staff at any time.

Thank you so much for your time and attention, and for your service to our children.

Sincerely,

Julie Woestehoff, Legislative Chair, Parents Across America
JulieW@ParentsAcrossAmerica.org

NCLB Reauthorization: Who gets control?

The U.S. Congress is showing mixed results in addressing the reauthorization of NCLB legislation in spite of broad consensus that it requires urgent attention. According to the NY Times, the U.S. House education committee leadership wishes to proceed in a "piecemeal" fashion; however, few pieces have been forthcoming. The New York Times sees the House actions this way:

"The House leadership has appeared unwilling to move toward a full rewriting of the law, which could give Mr. Obama a domestic policy triumph going into an election year."

The U.S. Senate has filed a comprehensive bill. According to Senate education committee chair Senator Tom Harkin, this bill was developed in bipartisan fashion and returns some of the powers to the states that were taken away via NCLB legislation. Accountability remains in place.

"Mr. Harkin’s bill would keep the law’s requirements that states test students in reading and math every year in grades three through eight, and once in high school, and make the scores public.

But for about 9 of every 10 American schools, it would scrap the law’s federal system of accountability, under which schools must raise the proportion of students showing proficiency on the tests each year. That system has driven classroom teaching across the nation for a decade.

States would still face federal oversight for the worst-performing 5 percent of schools, as well as for the 5 percent of schools in each state with the widest achievement gap between minority and white students. Districts in charge of those schools could lose federal financing under the Harkin plan if they failed to raise their student achievement."

There are critics who maintain that local control is the problem.

“Harkin’s bill would return control to the state departments of education and the local school districts, and they’re the ones that got us into the mess that No Child was designed to fix,” said Grover J. Whitehurst, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who headed the Department of Education’s research wing under President Bush. “Districts and states have not been effective in delivering quality education to children from low socioeconomic backgrounds, so why should we think they’ll be effective this time around?”

Other groups advocating for minority and special education students fear that the relaxing of sub-group accountability turns back the clock for these students.

Ed Week provided more perspective on the Senate ESEA draft bill. Adequate yearly progress requirements will disappear and replaced by state identified continuous improvement and ability to use either a yearly test or interim measures that show progress. The comprehensive Senate bill proposes to:

• Codify the Race to Top, Investing in Innovation, and Promise Neighborhood programs, all top Obama administration reform initiatives.


• Require states to set college- and career-readiness standards, either with other states or alone.


• Largely keep the law's testing system in place, but eliminate the 2013-14 deadline for bringing all students to proficiency in math and reading.


• Require states to develop new teacher evaluation systems.

California seeks state-determined accountability system

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

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan: In His Own Words

Recorded Wednesday, August 24, John Merrow interviews Secretary of Education Arne Duncan at the first Twitter Town Hall. Merrow asks Duncan a variety of questions, beginning with the planned NCLB waivers.




http://ustre.am/:18Hlh

NUT Report: Second Republican Candidate Debate

According to Education Week, no mention of education policy came up in the first Republican candidate debate; however, it came up 5 minutes before the end in last night's debate with two candidates responding and no time for the rest.

Candidate Jon Huntsman said he would not "continue to enforce NCLB" and prefers more school choice and technology in the schools.

Candidate Herman Cain believes education is a local issue:

"The federal government should get out of the business of trying to micromanage the education of our children."

Texas Governor Rick Perry who has announced his candidacy for President, but was not in the debate has declared he is opposed to Obama's K-12 initiatives. We will have to wait and see what federal education policies, if any, he favors.

What do we know? In two debates, the national concern over the effects of federal education initiatives was ignored, consistent with the education reform narrative supported by mainstream media. Silence is the political establishment status quo.

Ravitch: Let's all push back as hard as we can

A few weeks ago, I sent a letter to Representative Posey asking about his position on the proposed FERPA regulations and his position on sidestepping parent consent on the sharing of student information. A reply came in the mail today thanking me for my question about Medicare and a two page letter on the Ryan Plan and what I didn't have to worry about. The letter came after sitting patiently for 70 minutes waiting to ask my question on a recent telephone townhall.

I find Diane Ravitch a brave voice and one that has spoken facts that the advocates for current and past education reform have not been able to shut out or ignore. She is not the only voice, but has been able to get attention in a sea of no reporting. The public can form no opinion, up or down, unless all the information is presented in a way that can be understood. Read her words:

A LETTER TO MY FRIENDS AND READERS

Many people have asked what they can do to try to change the conditions and misguided policies that I describe in my book. Wherever I go, the same question comes up: What can we do? How do we stop these bad policies and programs? Whether they are parents, teachers, administrators, school board members or citizens concerned about the future of our children and our society, they want ideas about how to persuade our elected officials to change course.

Education used to be a state and local function. Unfortunately, since the passage of No Child Left Behind in 2001–02, the levers of power now are in the hands of federal officials. With Republicans and Democrats both advocating policies that endanger the future of public education, the situation seems dire indeed. Unfortunately, many of our nation’s wealthiest philanthropies and individuals embrace the misuse of testing and accountability and the advance of privatization.

The odds against us seem overwhelming, but we cannot afford to do nothing. We must take action. At present, the Obama administration is embarked on a course of action that many find repugnant. The Race to the Top is built on the foundation of No Child Left Behind. It emphasizes high-stakes testing, judging teachers by their students’ test scores, closing low-performing schools instead of helping them improve, and promoting a huge increase in private management of public schools. These approaches will narrow the curriculum and promote teaching to the test, which will rob children of the opportunity for a good education. Furthermore, none of these strategies has a solid research base, none has been proven effective in practice, all have the potential to disrupt students’ education, demoralize teachers, and shatter communities. The burden of these policies will fall heavily on low-income, minority communities, but many other communities will be affected as well.

What we need to improve education in this country is a strong, highly respected education profession; a rich curriculum in the arts and sciences, available in every school for every child; assessments that gauge what students know and can do, instead of mindless test prepping for bubble tests. And a government that is prepared to change the economic and social conditions that interfere with children’s readiness to learn.

We cannot improve education by quick fixes. We will not fix education by turning public schools over to entrepreneurs. We will not improve it by driving out experienced professionals and replacing them with enthusiastic amateurs. We will not make our schools better by closing them and firing teachers and entire staffs. No high-performing nation in the world follows such strategies. We cannot be satisfied with the status quo, which is not good enough for our children, nor can we satisfied with the Bush-Obama-Duncan “reforms” that have never been proven to work anywhere.

This is what I suggest:

Join the Save Our Schools organization created by outstanding teachers. Their website is www.saveourschoolsmarch.org. Whether you are a teacher or a parent, join the march on Washington, D.C., from July 28 - 30, 2011. I will be there, supporting the dignity of the teaching profession and our public schools.

Join Parents Across America. Their website is www.parentsacrossamerica.org. This is a group of parents who want to work together to strengthen public education and restore common sense reforms.

Write your elected officials. Find out whether any Congressmen or Senators from your state are on the education committee in their House of Congress. Write the members of the education committees even if you don’t live in their state. Ask your colleagues to write letters to them. Write letters to the editor. Comment on education blogs. Call in to talk shows. Speak up at school and community meetings. Speak up, speak out.

As the great Southern writer Flannery O’Connor wrote in a letter to a friend, “You have to push as hard as the age that pushes against you.”

This age is pushing mighty hard against children, against educators, and against the very concept of good education.

Let’s all push back as hard as we can.


Diane Ravitch

http://www.dianeravitch.com/action.html

Diane Ravitch Keeps It Simple: No Desired Results From NCLB

Ravitch describes briefly, clearly, and concisely what is wrong with the federal mandates of NCLB in a way that non-educators can understand.




Ravitch is scheduled to appear in the following debates on education reform.

JUNE 29-30 Diane to Discuss/Debate with Founder of Teach for America, Wendy Kopp (to be aired on C-Span)

JULY 29-30 SAVE OUR SCHOOLS MARCH RALLY w/M DAMON ON 7/30;

AUG 18 Diane to debate Michelle Rhee on Achievement Gap on Martha's Vineyard - set up by Harvard Inst of African Amer Studies. (To be aired on C-Span)

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:

"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.