Lisa Nielsen attended the recent Education Nation conference and reported on the last panel, consisting of students. She reported on the students' perspective in the blog 20 Things Students Want the Nation to Know About Education. In response, a teacher and blogger wrote 20 Things A Teacher Wants the Nation to Know About Education.
So I decided I'd better write one to reflect the important part of the whole discussion - parents, community members and taxpayers. I listed 15 things leaving the last five for input from readers. Here's my list:
1. End the expensive, ineffective, and punitive high stakes assessment.
2. End classrooms environments that have been converted into test prep and testing centers.
3. Use the savings from #1 and 2 to return interesting and valuable electives - drama, art, home economics, computer skills, physical education, and vocational education courses.
4. Use the savings from #1 and 2 to maintain manageable class sizes so that teachers are able to meet individual needs.
5. Stop sending large sums of dollars to Pearson, McGraw-Hill and other companies for the purpose of implementing unfunded and unfundable compliance and data-driven mandates.
6. Use the savings in #5, to restore reasonable class size for core classes, vocational education, and electives.
7. Hold Pearson, McGraw-Hill, and these other companies accountable to the same degree as schools are being held accountable.
8. Apply greater transparency regarding deals and paid for "junkets" made with Pearson, McGraw-Hill and other companies jumping into the profitable education sector. Unsure on the "junkets"? Read about 10 state commissioners of education who traveled around the world on Pearson's tab, "When Free Trips Overlap With Commercial Purposes."
9.Ensure meaningful school-based accountability that meets the NUT principle (No Unnecessary Testing).
10. Use existing measures, such as NAEP, to give a snapshot of student achievement and to report on sub-group accountability.
11. Support local control via publicly elected School Board members.
12. Ditch the preschool through college longitudinal database and maintain parent rights guaranteed under FERPA, requiring consent for sharing of student data.
13. Ensure parent rights to opt out of any and all assessments, punitive-free.
14. Leave it to local control to implement teacher evaluation systems that are not dependent on students taking high stakes assessment.
15. Support communities and families so that all students are fed, housed, and receive medical care versus supporting runaway testing initiatives.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
What did I miss?
UPDATE: Responding to a private comment on the importance of these views. Ed reformers, who share Chester Finn's view on local control, will no doubt find any list and input from parents, community members, and taxpayers disruptive to their plans. If parents and the public are excluded from decision-making in their communities and over the lives of their children, what is it that we have exactly?
Showing posts with label education reform debate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label education reform debate. Show all posts
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Thursday, August 25, 2011
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
“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
Friday, August 12, 2011
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:
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.
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.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
On the Recommended List
Grumpy Educators celebrates 100 blogs today. Here are some reports that are worthy of your time.
Scathing Purple Musings posted Why Conservatives and Tea Party Followers Ought to be Appalled by No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top:
"And in what ought to trouble conservatives and tea party followers, but really doesn’t (not yet anyway) “…developing effective teachers and leaders,” speaks to reformers “accountability” mantras. This is school reform code-speak for more tax dollars going for corporate standardized tests, elaborate software or training seminars. Or what Steve Wise cleverly described last February as “infrastructure,” on the floor of the Florida Senate."
Missouri Education Watchdog posted information about providing public input by August 15 regarding Common Core initiatives in Register Your Written Opposition to Common Core Standards. Note an expanded call to action in an earlier post here.
According to the Tampa Bay Gradebook, a new study published by the RAND Corporation indicates that merit pay based on student achievement on standardized tests does not work:
"A New York City program designed to improve student performance through school-based financial incentives for teachers did not improve student achievement, most likely because it did not change teacher behavior and the conditions needed to motivate staff were not achieved, according to a RAND Corporation study issued today."How many more studies does it take before meaningful accountability is formulated? There is no evidence of value-added measurement working anywhere, as currently designed. There is plenty of evidence that excessive testing is occurring.
Recently, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) revealed results of geography achievement by U.S. students. Yes, that is another test administered selectively throughout the nation, roughly 30,000 of the 52 million attending school. The detail of those results were covered by Valerie Strauss in the Washington Post here.
"NAEP, administered to nationally representative samples of students by the National Center for Education Statistics of the U.S. Department of Education, is sometimes referred to as the nation’s report card because it is the only K-12 assessment system given across the country. The 2010 assessment in geography was given to 7,000 fourth graders, 9,500 eighth graders and 10,000 twelfth graders."
Before you go to the article, see what you think the answer to this geography question is:
Which of the following is an accurate statement about the American Southwest?
a) Alternating areas of dense shrubbery and sand dunes often make travel difficult.
b) Arid conditions make access to water an important public issue.
c) Generally fair weather means that most people rely on solar energy in their homes and businesses.
d) Easy access to Mexico has led to a strong manufacturing sector.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Education Reform: Let the Debates Begin
Education reformers have thus far controlled the narrative, with national media outlets by and large cooperating. Those interested in education are covering the developments in education-oriented news sites and in the blogosphere; however, wider coverage is missing and the general public underinformed. This state of affairs may be changing.
Diane Ravitch is the most visible voice questioning current educational reform initiatives. While she is not the only voice, she has emerged as a favorite for personal attack versus healthy debate on the facts of the matter. One outcome of journalist Jonathan Alter's recent Bloomberg article asking the public to "believe" in education reform, is an online debate:
Diane Ravitch will debate Jonathan Alter on David Sirota's Denver radio show, at 7 am Denver time, 9 am Eastern time, on the morning of Wednesday, June 8.
Live online here, select Listen Live!, and later by podcast here.
Ravitch has several debates scheduled this summer including one with Michelle Rhee, which will get C-SPAN coverage. Grumpy Educators will post reminders as these debates come up.
Many are questioning and uncomfortable with the role the Gates Foundation is playing in molding American education. Many see the Gates Foundation dominated the process and the public narrative. NPR reporter Wendy Kaufman asked Jeff Raikes, Gates Foundation CEO to respond to Ravitch's views that opposing voices are drowned-out:
NPR is partially funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
The Foundation recently announced a new initiative called Teach First. The plan includes the Foundations intention to ensure “frequent placement ... in local media coverage of issues related to teacher effectiveness and equitable distribution of effective teachers” in accordance with the Gates approach, "to build “strong ties to local journalists, opinion elites, and local/state policymakers and their staffs.” The plan includes "campaigns to reach out to parents, teachers, students, business and civic and religious leaders."
With Gates money and powerful connections, I wonder who exactly is underestimating what. Tune in tomorrow morning or listen to the podcast when convenient. Get informed.
Diane Ravitch is the most visible voice questioning current educational reform initiatives. While she is not the only voice, she has emerged as a favorite for personal attack versus healthy debate on the facts of the matter. One outcome of journalist Jonathan Alter's recent Bloomberg article asking the public to "believe" in education reform, is an online debate:
Diane Ravitch will debate Jonathan Alter on David Sirota's Denver radio show, at 7 am Denver time, 9 am Eastern time, on the morning of Wednesday, June 8.
Live online here, select Listen Live!, and later by podcast here.
Ravitch has several debates scheduled this summer including one with Michelle Rhee, which will get C-SPAN coverage. Grumpy Educators will post reminders as these debates come up.
Many are questioning and uncomfortable with the role the Gates Foundation is playing in molding American education. Many see the Gates Foundation dominated the process and the public narrative. NPR reporter Wendy Kaufman asked Jeff Raikes, Gates Foundation CEO to respond to Ravitch's views that opposing voices are drowned-out:
I think Diane is really underestimating the number of voices that are out there, including her own," says Jeff Raikes, CEO of the Gates Foundation.
He dismisses Ravitch's contention that the foundation has commandeered the education debate. At the same time he makes no apologies for the organization's doggedness in trying to achieve its objectives.
NPR is partially funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
The Foundation recently announced a new initiative called Teach First. The plan includes the Foundations intention to ensure “frequent placement ... in local media coverage of issues related to teacher effectiveness and equitable distribution of effective teachers” in accordance with the Gates approach, "to build “strong ties to local journalists, opinion elites, and local/state policymakers and their staffs.” The plan includes "campaigns to reach out to parents, teachers, students, business and civic and religious leaders."
With Gates money and powerful connections, I wonder who exactly is underestimating what. Tune in tomorrow morning or listen to the podcast when convenient. Get informed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)