The ESEA Rewrites in the Works

Posted on June 18, 2013 by coreeducation

Originally signed into law by President George W. Bush on January 8, 2002, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) technically expired in 2007. On several occasions over the last few years, various attempts have been made by both political parties in Congress to rewrite the law, but they ultimately fell short. Since 2012, President Obama has granted waivers to thirty-seven states and the District of Columbia from some of NCLB’s requirements, including the one requiring that 100 percent of students be proficient in reading and math by 2014. Although Republicans and Democrats alike have expressed concerns about the waivers, they have been unable to pass legislation to replace them.

As this blog has posted about before, many education professionals are concerned about the fact that ESEA waivers give the Education Department unprecedented powers in lieu of any formal Congressional update to ESEA, of which NCLB is the most recent iteration.

During a May 7 U.S. House of Representatives Education and the Workforce Committee hearing titled, “Raising the Bar: Exploring State and Local Efforts to Improve Accountability,” both Chairman John Kline (R-MN) and Representative George Miller (D-CA), the Committee’s top Democrat, gave a glimmer of hope to education advocates hoping for an NCLB rewrite when they expressed a willingness to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, currently known as NCLB.

Since that time, the effort has gotten off the ground. In the Senate, Iowa Senator Tom Harkin, a Democrat and chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, who also will be retiring at the end of the current term, introduced a 1,150 page bill at the beginning of June known as the “Strengthening America’s Schools Act of 2013.”

For more information on the initiation of the bill, please visit this website: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/04/no-child-left-behind-harkin-bill_n_3381875.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003&ir=Education

Essentially, the bill tones down some of the more extreme punitive measures of NCLB and continues a focus on “continuous improvement” and “college and career academic content.” States who have received NCLB waivers would be allowed to continue under those conditions, provided that states adopt a provision that imposes consequences on schools with students in poverty that didn’t improve. Other components of the bill include a requirement that states implement teacher and principal evaluations that rely in part on student achievement, as defined by states. According to a bill summary, it aims to “ensur[e] … disadvantaged students get the supports they need to succeed” and establishes a more balanced state-federal partnership to make sure that happens. States would also each identify their lowest-performing 5 percent of schools with poor students as “priority schools,” and “focus schools” would consist of the 10 percent of schools with poor students and the largest achievement gaps.

The “Strengthening America’s Schools Act of 2013″ has been rejected by the Republican members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, led by Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander. The Senate Republican rejection of the proposed law follows the expected partisan divide over education. The Republicans see the new bill merely as an extension of NCLB. “Sen. Harkin’s bill is No Child Left Behind on steroids,” said Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C. “This is absolutely the wrong direction.” Despite this ill-feeling toward the bill, there were not enough Republicans on the Senate Education Committee to prevent its being passed on a party-line vote. For more on the bill’s passage of committee, please visit: http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2013/06/senate_committee_passes_democr.html?qs=harkin

For more on the partisan wrangling that will continue beyond the committee passing of the bill, please visit this website: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2013/06/11/617218usnochildleftbehind_ap.html?qs=harkin

There is also a House Republican ESEA re-write currently underway, which differs from the Senate Democratic Bill along the partisan divide mentioned above: Democrats want more accountability from the federal government as a means by which to measure progress for underprivileged students, while Republicans want to give more control back to the states.

For more information, including a side-by-side breakdown of the differences among the three plans currently being discussed, please visit this website: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2013/06/12/35esea.h32.html?qs=harkin

In conclusion, while some feel that the wide differences between the Democratic and Republican visions of ESEA reform indicate a low likelihood of any law being passed this year (as happened in 2011), others feel that the arguments are now on the table and will allow for fruitful debate towards a mutually acceptable plan. There is at least agreement from both Republicans and Democrats that a reauthorization bill needs to be completed.

For an analysis of where things stand right now, please visit: http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2013/06/five_questions_as_nclb_reautho.html?qs=harkin

Choosing the Right Battles: Secretary Duncan’s speech at AERA

Posted on June 9, 2013 by coreeducation

Education Secretary Arne Duncan recently gave a speech to the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting in San Francisco, California. His remarks addressed the issue of testing, specifically with Common Core implementation becoming ever more imminent.

Here are some excerpts from the speech:

Introduction:

With federal support, 44 states plus DC are part of two large state consortia that are designing a new generation of assessments to better measure the higher-order thinking skills so vital to success in a knowledge-based, global economy.

A sea-change is underway in the state of assessment in the U.S. that few predicted in 2009. As Linda Darling-Hammond noted recently, “The question for policymakers has shifted from, ‘Can we afford assessments of deeper learning?’ to, ‘Can the United States afford not to have such high-quality assessments?’”

On Standardized Tests:

I think we can generally agree that standardized tests don’t have a good reputation today—and that some of the criticism is merited. Policymakers and researchers have to listen very carefully—and take very seriously the concerns of educators, parents, and students about assessment.

Many current state assessments tend to focus on easy-to-measure concepts and fill-in-the-bubble answers. Results come back months later, usually after the end of the school year, when their instructional usefulness has expired.

And today’s assessments certainly don’t measures qualities of great teaching that we know make a difference—things like classroom management, teamwork, collaboration, and individualized instruction. They don’t measure the invaluable ability to inspire a love of learning.

Schools today give lots of tests, sometimes too many. It’s a serious problem if students’ formative experiences and precious time are spent on assessments that aren’t supporting their journey to authentic college- and career-readiness.

In short, I agree with much of the critique of today’s tests. Now, the essential question is where do we go from here?

Despite the flaws of today’s tests, we can’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. I don’t believe that the problems of assessing student growth are so unsolvable that we should take a pass on measuring growth—or bar the consideration of student progress in learning from teacher evaluation.

Standardized assessments are still a needed tool for transparency and accountability across the entire education system. We should never, ever return to the days of concealing achievement gaps with school averages, no-stakes tests, and low standards.

The fact is that no one is more damaged by weak accountability measures than our most vulnerable students. We must reliably measure student learning, growth, and gain.

On Teacher Evaluations:

I have said repeatedly and consistently that teacher evaluation should never, ever be based only on test scores. Just as Campbell urged, it should always include multiple, albeit imperfect measures, like principal observation or peer review, performance-based assessments, student work, student surveys, and parent feedback.

I’m not just giving lip service to using multiple measures for accountability. I’ve always been convinced it is the best way to go.

All 35 states we have approved for waivers to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act are required to use multiple measures to evaluate teachers, and 33 of the states are including individual student growth.

States with waivers are also including multiple indicators for school accountability. Twenty-seven states are using their flexibility to include measures that go far beyond the reading, math, and graduation rates required under No Child Left Behind in their accountability systems.

On the U.S. in comparison to global benchmark testing:

The U.S. should never adopt the practice of high-performers who use high-stake tests to track students. I absolutely reject that mindset. But we can learn a great deal about how to do assessment from our high-performing competitors.

Whether it is Singapore’s PSLE and GCE assessments, China’s GaoKao college entrance exam, the French “bac,” South Korea’s CSAT, Germany’s Abitur, or the British A-levels, assessments linked to high standards propel good instruction and higher-order learning around the world.

In virtually all of these high-flying systems, teachers and students spend lots of time preparing and studying for these gateway assessments. In fact, rigorous assessments actually take more time to complete than today’s bubble tests, many of which just measure basic skills.

Yet test preparation for assessments in these nations is not so much time out from learning but rather part of the learning process itself. It provides valuable learning opportunities and feedback for instruction.

High-performing countries tend to have assessments that are worth teaching to—and that is a core aim of the Race to the Top Assessment competition.

On Testing for Common Core:

The next generation of assessment systems includes diagnostic or formative assessments, not just end-of-the-year summative assessments. The two state consortia must assess student achievement of standards, student growth, and whether students are on-track to being college and career-ready. And the new assessment systems must be effective, valid, and instructionally useful.

As I listen and meet with teachers across the country, I never hear them say that they want to get rid of assessments—or give up on assessing student growth in their classrooms.

In fact, the overwhelming majority of teachers hunger for good assessments that ask students to demonstrate what they have learned—whether it is writing a persuasive essay, solving complex problems, or working collaboratively.

The new assessments from the consortia will be a vast improvement on assessment as it is done today.

The PARCC consortium, for example, will evaluate students’ ability to read complex texts, complete research projects, excel at classroom speaking and listening assignments, and work with digital media.

The Smarter Balanced consortium will assess students using computer adaptive technology that will ask students questions pitched to their skill level, based on their previous answers. And a series of optional interim evaluations during the school year will inform students, parents, and teachers about whether students are on track.

The use of smarter technology in assessments will also change instruction in ways that teachers welcome.

Technology makes it possible to assess students by asking them to design products or experiments, to manipulate parameters, run tests, and record data. Problems can be situated in real-world environments, where students perform tasks or include multi-stage scenarios and extended essays.

I have no doubt that Assessment 2.0 will help educators drive the development of a richer curriculum at the state, district, and local level, differentiated instruction tailored to individual student needs, and multiple opportunities during the school year to assess student learning.

As I have said before, I believe this new generation of assessments—combined with the adoption of internationally-benchmarked, college and career-ready standards—is an absolute game-changer for American education.

When the two consortia roll out their new assessments in the 2014-15 school year, they will be a work in progress. I’m sure not everything will go according to schedule. There will be glitches. There will be mistakes. But we cannot let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

Assessment 2.0 will need lots of work to get to version 2.1 and 2.2. I expect that states and districts will improve implementation as they learn from pilots and field tests. And teachers will play an absolutely critical role in telling us what works and what doesn’t work.

In conclusion, I think policymakers, school leaders, educators, and researchers must remain open and committed to dramatically improving assessment.

Conclusion:

And we must also remain open to what our best research shows about high-quality assessment—even when the results are unexpected.

In the long run, I believe that Assessment 3.0 will include assessments that do even more to personalize learning, and will accelerate the shift from seat-based learning to competency-based learning.

For the full text of the speech, please visit:

http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/choosing-right-battles-remarks-and-conversation

Reflecting on NCLB: Are States playing by the same rules?

Posted on June 2, 2013 by coreeducation

A new report from four researchers associated with Columbia University suggests that arcane rules, not any sort of objective and standardized measure of AYP (adequate yearly progress), drive outcomes under NCLB.

Matt Di Carlo at the Shanker Blog posted recently about this important new report: “Fifty Ways to Leave a Child Behind: Idiosyncrasies and Discrepancies in States’ Implementation of NCLB”, which was written by Elizabeth Davidson, Randall Reback, Jonah Rockoff, and Heather L. Schwartz.

Di Carlo briefly describes the five key factors responsible for widely varying AYP results across states (in 2003, the first year of results, 32% of U.S. schools failed to make AYP, but the proportion ranged from 1% in Iowa to over 80% in Florida):

Deviation from NCLB rules. During the early years of NCLB, a few states didn’t quite follow the law. (Note that this is the only one of the five factors that has been largely rectified.) In at least one case, such failure was due to simple human error – Iowa’s one percent AYP rate in 2003 seems partially to have been a result of a leave of absence taken by the staff member responsible for the data, who suffered an injury. In other cases, states bent the guidelines set forth in the legislation. Texas, for instance, petitioned the U.S. Department of Education for flexibility on a rule that permitted a maximum of one percent of a school’s special education students to use alternative assessments. Their petition was turned down, but they went ahead with the plan anyway and, as a result, 22 percent of Texas schools that would have failed to make AYP in the first year actually made it.
“Generosity” of confidence intervals. As is fairly well known, if just one of a school’s “accountable subgroups” (e.g., low-income, students with disabilities, etc.) fail to meet proficiency targets (or “safe harbor”), that entire school does not make AYP. In order to account for the inevitable fact that, in some schools, these subgroups would consist of very few tested students, NCLB allowed states to apply “confidence intervals.” Basically, these adjustments meant that smaller subgroups (i.e., those consisting of fewer tested students in a given school) would be required to meet lower targets. However, states were given flexibility in how much “leeway” they granted via these confidence intervals, and a few specified none at all. Florida, for example, did not use them, and thus a fairly large group of schools that would have made AYP had this rule been applied did not do so.
Different targets across grade levels. States had the option of either setting the same proficiency targets for all grades or letting their targets vary by grade (and subject). Using the former system – the same targets for all grades – basically meant that schools serving particular grade configurations would have an advantage in making AYP (if their starting rates were higher) whereas others would have a disadvantage (if their starting rates were lower). For example, Pennsylvania set uniform targets, but their high schools’ starting rates were much lower, on average, than those of elementary schools. The end result was that 27 percent of the state’s high schools failed to make AYP in 2004, compared with just 7 percent of elementary schools.
Number of “accountable subgroups” and minimum sample size. As mentioned above, NCLB required schools to be held accountable for the performance of student subgroups. But states were given flexibility not only in how many subgroups they chose (and which ones), but also in setting minimum sample sizes for these subgroups to be “included” in AYP calculations. For example, schools with only a handful of students with disabilities in a given year could be exempted from having this subgroup count at all. As a rule, states that chose to include fewer subgroups in AYP, or set higher sample size requirements for their inclusion, tended to have lower failure rates, all else being equal. Once again, states varied in the choices they made, and this influenced their results.
Definition of “continuous enrollment.” Finally, states had to specify the rules by which mobile students (e.g., transfers) were or were not counted toward schools’ AYP calculations. Some states set more stringent enrollment requirements than others, which meant that they excluded more students from being counted in their testing results. For instance, Wisconsin’s rules excluded students who were not enrolled in late September of 2003 (the tests were administered in November 2003). Thus, fairly large proportions of students who took the test were not counted. To the degree excluded students’ performance was different from their “continuously enrolled” peers, these choices affected failure rates.

What is essential to remember in addition to each of these five factors is that states may have been stricter with one of these five while looser with another. In other words, each state combined each of these five factors differently, resulting in “many state-level NCLB configurations . . . being complex, sometimes inconsistent webs of rules that reflected varying incentives and priorities. Making things worse, the ESEA waivers that most states have submitted will only result in more heterogeneity.”

Given that there has been more than a decade since the initiation of NCLB, educators may be inclined to think that the results of this important federal education reform would be clear, but even with the detailed analysis of this report, it is still very difficult to garner clear conclusions. If nothing else, the confusion surrounding the multiplicity of AYP measurement techniques along with the convoluted ways in which they interact with each other suggests that any reforms to teacher evaluations and testing for the Common Core must be carried out extremely carefully and implemented with a meticulous focus on detail.

For more information, please visit the following website: http://shankerblog.org/?p=8191

Following is the link to the original paper: http://www.columbia.edu/~ekd2110/Fifty_Ways_4_5_2013.pdf

Federal Education Budget Update

Posted on May 29, 2013 by coreeducation

New America’s education experts have deciphered the 2013 and 2014 budget actions, with a particular view to how they affect education. In the report, “Federal Education Budget Update: Fiscal Year 2013 Recap and Fiscal Year 2014 Early Analysis,” Jason Delisle and Clare McCann explore congressional budget actions over the past year and describe the effects on federal education programs.

Congress is operating within a new budgeting regime, created by the Budget Control Act of 2011, that included across-the-board spending cuts mid-2013 and that, absent legislative action, imposes lower spending limits next year. Now is an opportune time to assess how federal education programs have been, and likely will be, affected by these developments.

This report includes:

An explanation of the Budget Control Act of 2011 and its implications for education programs
Details on key 2013 budget developments, including the “fiscal cliff” and sequestration
An examination of the president’s 2014 education budget request and a comparison between the president’s request and the House and Senate budget resolutions
A preliminary analysis of budget issues in 2014 and the years ahead, including student loan interest rate reform

As the fiscal year 2014 budget process advances, it is essential that education policymakers, advocates, researchers, and others understand the broader budget picture and how it may affect key education programs. This report provides a simple, comprehensive resource for such stakeholders.

Following is the conclusion to the report:

The fiscal year 2014 budget process is shaping up to be contentious and unpredictable. Although the process will not be interrupted by sequestration this year, further reduced spending caps set forth in the Budget Control Act of 2011 will likely influence both budget negotiations and the final outcome. The biggest issue before lawmakers with respect to the fiscal year 2014 appropriations process thus far is whether to follow the limits in place under the Budget Control Act or roll back those spending reductions, either completely or in part. That decision will likely be the first of many that significantly influence funding for education programs.

For more information, including the link to the full report, please visit:

http://education.newamerica.net/publications/policy/federal_education_budget_update_fiscal_year_2013_recap_and_fiscal_year_2014_earl

Education Spending Data from FY 2010

Posted on May 28, 2013 by coreeducation

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) recently released a detailed report outlining revenues and expenditures for public elementary and secondary school districts for School Year 2009-10 (FY 10).

In addition to providing data with breakdowns by students, states, and districts as well as breakdowns adjusted for median income and inflation, the report revealed the following highlights:

For regular school districts, the national median current expenditures per pupil was $9,989 in FY 10, an increase of 1.0 percent from FY 09.

In FY 10, current expenditures per pupil in the 100 largest public school districts ranged from a low of $5,528 in Alpine School District, Utah to a high of $19,184 in New York City School District, NY. Expenditures per pupil were next highest in Boston City Schools, MA ($19,169); Montgomery County Schools, MD ($15,582); Atlanta Public Schools, GA ($15,043); Baltimore City Schools, MD ($14,711); and Howard County Schools, MD ($14,704).

In FY 10, local education agencies received $75.3 billion from the federal government for public elementary and secondary education, which represents an increase of 32.7 percent from FY 09.

The First Look report provides finance data for all local education agencies (LEAs) that provide free public elementary and secondary (PK-12) education in the United States for school year 2009-10. State education agencies in the 50 states and the District of Columbia provide the data to the National Center for Education Statistics.

To view the full report, please visit:

http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2013307

Following is the direct link to the pdf: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2013/2013307.pdf

Threats to the Common Core

Posted on May 22, 2013 by coreeducation

Anne Hyslop at the New America Foundation has pointed out the new partisan tone of debate that has emerged around the Common Core Standards. Hyslop makes clear that the Common Core state initiative is just that—a state led initiative. While the Obama Administration has indeed supported Common Core and has tied its Race to the Top Grant money to college- and career-ready standards in states, Hyslop believes this is hardly enough to justify right-wing attacks on Common Core.

While many of the attacks have come from the usual suspects of conservative media, some of the critiques have come from more publicly recognized sources. The Republican National Committee recently adopted an anti-Common Core resolution, and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Ia) is calling for the federal government to eliminate all Department of Education funding that supports or prioritizes the Common Core.

Hyslop does not buy these arguments; however, she does admit that a possible upcoming law might add more credence to conservative arguments against Common Core:

The problem may be about to get worse. As noted in our Key Questions on the Obama Administration’s 2014 Education Budget Request, federal funding for the assessment consortia is set to expire before the tests are fully launched. To provide continued support, President Obama’s latest budget includes a $9 million competitive grant initiative that could finance some of their ongoing work. The other $380 million of the “Assessing Achievement” program would provide states with formula grants for their current assessment programs, although leftover funds could go toward Common Core implementation.

However, a significant change would occur in fiscal year 2015: Assessing Achievement formula funding would be available “only to States that have adopted college- and career-ready standards that are common to a significant number of States” (emphasis added). While Race to the Top included a similar requirement, that program was a competition, where states could opt-out. NCLB waivers also require states to adopt college- and career-ready standards, but they do not have to be common ones. The Assessing Achievement program would mark the first time federal formula funding – typically available to all states – required adoption of common standards. If enacted, this requirement will undoubtedly add fuel to the “Obamacore” fire.

Hyslop concludes:

The important difference between the practical (those… who are concerned about successful Common Core implementation) and political (conservatives who see Common Core as a big-government move) critiques is that states deciding to use the ACT system are not necessarily backing away from their commitment to the Common Core altogether. Yes, the assessment consortia should do as much as possible to allay the concerns of wavering states. And yes, policymakers and stakeholders should closely monitor all of the emerging for-profit and non-profit ventures to ensure their assessments, curricula, textbooks, and other resources accurately reflect the new standards. But in the end, any damage done to the Common Core from these pragmatic objections to the consortia is far less severe than what would happen in the unlikely, but not out of the question, case that “Obamacore” goes mainstream. Common Core supporters would do well to distinguish between the two.

For more information, please visit these websites:

http://edmoney.newamerica.net/blogposts/2013/college_ready_wars_assessing_threats_to_the_common_core-82595

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/04/24/is-the-common-core-standards-initiative-in-trouble/

Will the Common Core assessment consortia wither away?

Posted on May 21, 2013 by coreeducation

Chester E. Finn, Jr. of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute believes that Smarter Balanced and PARCC, the two federally-backed Common Core assessment consortia, will lose their place over the next few years to the comprehensive testing apparatus of College Board/ETS and ACT/Pearson.

In a new opinion piece for the Fordham Institute’s education blog, the Flypaper, Finn admits he may of course be wrong in his prediction, but feels that there have been enough indicators recently that he feels “obligated” to make his prediction known.

Essentially, he argues that the process of implementing testing on such a wide scale as will be demanded by the Common Core will be a very difficult one. Currently, Smarter Balanced and PARCC are “struggling with organizational structures, governance, post-federal financing, test-development agonies, uncertain costs, conflicting views of ‘cut scores,’ and all manner of other puzzles.” Since College Board/ETS and ACT/Pearson are already so well placed in terms of “infrastructure, relationships, and durability” in the testing game across the nation, Finn believes that they will have a much better chance in the long run of being the ones to manage Common Core testing.

He does not speculate on whether these two testing services will be a part of creating computerized testing that truly institutes “ ‘next-generation’ tests that probe deeper understanding and more sophisticated (‘higher-order’) skills in more revealing ways.” He also does not suggest that Smarter Balanced and PARCC will vanish from the scene; he instead offers the possibility that they would become advisory boards that work with College Board/ETS and ACT/Pearson to implement and interpret Common Core tests.

He concludes as follows:

If I’m right that ACT and College Board scarf up much state business, there won’t be a lot left for the consortia—and they may founder. That would, of course, represent a considerable waste of federal dollars. On the other hand, it would remove from the Common Core debate (at least until NCLB-reauthorization time, if that day ever comes) the specter of Arne Duncan and Barack Obama clutching those standards to the federal bosom.

For more information, please visit:

http://www.edexcellence.net/commentary/education-gadfly-weekly/2013/april-18/will-the-assessment-consortia-wither-away.html

California: Hot Seat for Contentious Education Issues

Posted on May 7, 2013 by coreeducation

Last month, the Democratic Party in California held a three day convention. The convention, at which the California Teachers Association was prominently represented, sparked a wave of rhetoric that reveals at least a temporary rift among some members and former members of the Democratic Party in California. The rift concerns how much school choice and student testing as part of teacher evaluations should be part of the Democratic platform for education reform.

On one side, those who disagree with both of these movements, stand the younger leaders of the Democratic Party in California, such as Atty. Gen. Kamala D. Harris, and the California Teachers Association. On the other side, those who favor school choice and teacher evaluations that include student test scores, stand prominent education groups StudentsFirst and Democrats for Education Reform.

The first group, which had the chance to make its views known at the recent California Democratic Party Convention, charges the latter two education groups with being fronts for Republican and corporate interests because of their agenda which supposedly jeopardizes public schools and its teachers.

The second group, represented most prominently by Michelle Rhee, charges the first group with not being true to their Democratic ideals because they seek to obstruct measures that focus on helping students, especially minority students, have access to better education.

Below are some selected sections from a Los Angeles Times article about the debate:

“People can call themselves Democrats for Education Reform – it’s a free country – but if your agenda is to shut teachers and school employees out of the political process and not lift a finger to prevent cuts in education, in my book you’re not a reformer, you’re not helping education, and you’re sure not much of a Democrat,” said state Supt. of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson, a registered Democrat whose office is nonpartisan.

California Teachers Assn. President Dean Vogel argued that the organizations are working to eliminate workers’ rights and “hellbent on turning students into test-taking machines. I’ll tell you right now, they want to do that, they have to come through us,” Vogel said. ”Let’s be perfectly clear,” he added. “These organizations are backed by moneyed interests, Republican operatives and out-of-state Wall Street billionaires dedicated to school privatization and trampling on teacher and worker rights.”

Gloria Romero, a former Democratic majority leader in the state Senate who leads the California chapter of Democrats for Education Reform, called the Sunday resolution “stupid.” ”They drank some Kool-Aid that has been fresh squeezed for them by the most powerful political interest in California, the California Teachers Assn.,” she said, adding that improving schools for minorities and the poor should be a priority for the party. ”They beat their chest,” she continued, “they get some money into their campaign coffers, but they walk away having abandoned the call for quality education for children of color.”

The clash over education had been building throughout the three-day convention, underscoring a larger debate taking place in education circles. A spokeswoman for StudentsFirst said the party failed over the weekend to discuss any concrete steps to improve education.

“The heated rhetoric … is especially disappointing because it reveals an abject refusal to tackle the most important issue: ensuring that every California student goes to a great school and has a great teacher,” said the spokeswoman, Jessica Ng.

StudentsFirst, founded by former Washington, D.C., schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee, has spent nearly $1.5 million since 2012 on efforts to elect Democrats. Rhee is married to Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson. An early hint of the convention controversy came when party officials, who had initially approved Johnson’s request that his advocacy group have a booth at the convention, reversed course and said no.

A spokesman for the party said the decision not to provide space for the Democratic mayor of the host city had nothing to do with his group’s message. ”We simply experienced a higher demand for exhibitor booths than initially anticipated,” Tenoch Flores said.

For more information, please visit:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-democrats-20130415,0,2919125.story?utm_source=feedly

RESPECT: The Obama Administration’s new Blueprint for Teaching

Posted on May 6, 2013 by coreeducation

Two years ago, active classroom teachers working temporarily at the U.S. Department of Education launched a national dialogue with their classroom colleagues to talk openly and honestly about the challenges and aspirations of America’s teachers. The Education Department engaged more than 5,700 educators nationwide to develop and refine a vision of teaching and leading that will help both teachers and students to meet new, 21st century demands.

The Blueprint for RESPECT (Recognizing Educational Success, Professional Excellence, and Collaborative Teaching) began as a national conversation on the teaching profession; the President has committed to support the development of a new, comprehensive teacher policy.

Recently, the Department of Education released the result of this unprecedented national dialogue in a bold and visionary blueprint for reforming the teaching profession.

“Our nation’s educators are entrusted with a responsibility that’s impossible to overstate – which is nothing less than to prepare their students, and our children, for the future,” said U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. “We heard from thousands of teachers from across the country who contributed their time and creative ideas to help the RESPECT blueprint reflect their own vision for the teaching profession. With this blueprint, together we can work to elevate the profession through competitive salaries, transforming professional development and career opportunities, and relying on the expertise of teachers to advance educational practice and improve outcomes for students.”

The RESPECT Blueprint embraces seven critical components of a transformed teaching profession jointly identified last spring by ED and seven other national organizations, including American Federation of Teachers (AFT), Association of School Administrators (AASA), Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), Council of the Great City Schools (CGCS), Federal Mediation and Conciliation Services (FMCS), National Education Association (NEA), and National School Board Association (NSBA). It further identifies ways that this work will continue to be integrated into the Department’s existing policies and calls the field to take action to work toward the RESPECT vision.

President Obama is continuing to ask for a $5 billion investment from Congress to support a RESPECT grant program outlined in the RESPECT blueprint, including salaries for the teaching profession competitive with professions like architecture, medicine and law, more support for novice teachers, and more career opportunities for accomplished teachers.

In tandem with the release of the blueprint, the Department has re-launched ED’s educator homepage to include new information about the RESPECT initiative, including the blueprint document (both PDF and e-book formats), a description of how educators provided input, and video of teachers describing their connection with the RESPECT vision. The site also includes resources to help stakeholders take action, including a self-inventory to assess one’s own school or district on the seven critical components of RESPECT.

For more information, please visit the following websites. Watch educators discuss what excites them about the RESPECT vision, how teacher voice played a key role in shaping it, and why we must begin implementing it today:

http://www.ed.gov/teaching

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=lIQaRXua9OY

Standardized Exam Cheating Confirmed in 37 States and DC

Posted on April 25, 2013 by coreeducation

FairTest, an organization that “advances quality education and equal opportunity by promoting fair, open, valid and educationally beneficial evaluations of students, teachers and schools”, has prepared a report on confirmed incidences of schools cheating on standardized tests in recent years. The report includes discussion of multiple means through which schools manipulate results of standardized tests.

As an Atlanta grand jury indicts former top school officials in a test cheating scandal and the annual wave of high-stakes standardized exams begins across the nation, a new survey reports confirmed cases of test score manipulation in at least 37 states and Washington, D.C. in the past four academic years. The analysis by the National Center for Fair & Open Testing (FairTest) documents more than 50 ways schools improperly inflated their scores during that period.

“Across the U.S., strategies that boost scores without improving learning — including outright cheating, narrow teaching to the test and pushing out low-scoring students — are widespread,” said FairTest Public Education Director Bob Schaeffer. “These corrupt practices are inevitable consequences of the politically mandated overuse and misuse of high-stakes exams.”

Among the ways FairTest found test scores have been manipulated in communities such as Atlanta, Baltimore, Cincinnati, Detroit, El Paso, Houston, Los Angeles, Newark, New York City, Philadelphia and the District of Columbia:

Encourage teachers to view upcoming test forms before they are administered.
Exclude likely low-scorers from enrolling in school.
Drill students on actual upcoming test items.
Use thumbs-up/thumbs-down signals to indicate right and wrong responses.
Erase erroneous responses and insert correct ones.
Report low-scorers as having been absent on testing day.

Schaeffer continued, “The solution to the school test cheating problem is not simply stepped up enforcement. Instead, testing misuses must end because they cheat the public out of accurate data about public school quality at the same time they cheat many students out of a high-quality education.”

“The cheating explosion is one of the many reasons resistance to high-stakes testing is sweeping the nation,” Schaeffer concluded.

For more information, including lists of schools involved in cheating scandals and more discussion on ways in which schools cheat, please visit:

http://www.fairtest.org/2013-Cheating-Report-PressRelease

The "Core" of Education

Category Archives: Politics & Policy