Archive for the ‘Arne Duncan’ Category

Waiver to NCLB Goals?

Wednesday, August 10th, 2011

Vacation is over and our weekly posts resume just in time to comment on the waivers proposed by Department of Education Secretary Arne Duncan to No Child Left Behind legislation that states 100% of United States students be proficient in reading and math by 2014.

Not long after 2002 when the law took effect, most teachers shook their heads as it became apparent that the goal was laudatory, but not gonna happen.

So four years after the legislation was up for revision and Congress still failed to amend the law, the Department of Education has overridden the requirement and set up a plan for waivers.

Did you hear sighs of relief even in states with high numbers of proficient students? Chiefs For Change, a bipartisan group of heads of state Departments of Education relaxed their pinched shoulders. They are all for setting high standards but allowing states to adjust for the needs of the students in their states. Last year, 2010, about 38,000 of the nation’s 100,000 public schools didn’t make the grade. As the benchmarks rise, more schools will “fail.”

On the other hand, the National Education Association (NEA) noted that now was the time to look at teacher-led and student-focused comprehensive reform. NEA wants to turn away from one-size fits all standardized testing. A good point that comes up the minute any state begins to adjust proficiency levels.

Waivers for flexibility in benchmark goals for reading and math will be offered under strict conditions, but even “plans in progress” will be taken into account, according to Duncan.

How about diverse California, where school starts next week in order to account for furlough days because of scarce money and to provide enough teaching days before state criterion-referenced tests are given in May? Will the state apply for a waiver immediately since it has pockets of proficient students among an abundance of students who are teetering on, if not already fallen below, the California proficiency level for 2010.

The state has not finished re-organizing its learning standards to agree with the Common Core Standards needed for various federal grants, nor completed a revised teacher evaluation and school accountability system. For certain, the state hopes it has sufficient “plans in progress.”

To top off these issues, on Wednesday, August 10, the news came out that the state has not gained enough revenues to keep its budget balanced. If revenues don’t increase, drastic cuts will affect schools and other social services. That’s what the state legislature agreed to in June 2011. Aside from flexibility waivers to achieve reform for California schools, will there be money available?

Who in California’s legislature will blink first?

Common Core Standards Quandary

Wednesday, July 20th, 2011

Arne Duncan, Superintendent of the U. S. Department of Education, spoke on the radio program “Talk of the Nation,” Monday, June 13, 2011. His word is that the public schools do well when they demonstrate a ‘high bar’ of accountability, engaged teachers, engaged students, and analysis of good data. He noted the compilation of Common Core Standards which can make the data collected comparable nation-wide.

The standards present a quandary: who’s the head of public school education? Local school districts, the state, or the federal government?  In 2010, Colorado’s adoption of the Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI)  became a Medusa-like controversy.

The State Board of Education voted August 2, 2010 to accept Common Core Standards on a contentious 4-3 vote.  The vote broke along party lines, with the exception of Vice Chair Randy DeHoff (R-South Denver metro), who supported adoption.

Arguments against standards did not address the benchmarks themselves.  Opponent Peggy Littleton (R-Colorado Springs) argued that CCSSI is a “takeover” of education by the federal government.  DeHoff and other board supporters said the standards address the challenge of educating Colorado students to compete for jobs across the nation and the world.

Standards created independently of the federal government

The standards were not developed by the federal government.  They were written under the auspices of The National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers. Other education groups, including the National Association of State Boards of Education, joined in.  Teachers added input and direction.  (Myths and Facts about CCSSI)

DeHoff said that standards opponents in Colorado have not directly attacked the benchmarks themselves because they are closely aligned to current state guidelines.  The CCSSI project allows states to adjust up to 15 percent of the standards to accommodate local needs.  (See standards k-12 by subject)

Local school districts will implement the standards based on the State Board of Education’s vote.  But according to the Colorado constitution, education is the responsibility of local school boards, not the state or the federal government.

Money has strings

With funding resources so low at the local and state level, however, local school boards are relying on federal dollars to backfill missing state dollars. The 2010 federal allocation of $10 billion to help local schools stay staffed up is critical to Colorado school district budgets.  Without that money, additional cuts over $200 million across all Colorado school districts would have occurred.

Once an entity above the local puts money into the education pot, that entity wants some say over the use of the money.  Colorado helps local school districts at about a 60/40 ratio.  Since the state started massive contributions to local schools in the 90’s, it’s demanded more and more authority over school districts.

The bottom line is that money talks.  School districts in Colorado lost absolute control of local education when the state moved in with funding and added many requirements for that funding.  The federal government added more requirements when it contributed its funding.

These issues obscure whether the standards are any good.  Funding public education has taken on the quality of putting together a billion piece puzzle without a picture as a guide.  The puzzle box is titled “Who heads public education?”  As it turns out, the picture is of Medusa with all those snakes still writhing one year later.

Testing and Teacher Appreciation

Wednesday, May 4th, 2011

Who would have noticed that the yearly summative California Standards Test (CST) would bump into Teacher Appreciation Week?

My high-achieving fourth graders spent 2 ½ mornings last week taking the practice exam and the English/Language Arts tests. The sections cover vocabulary, grammar, spelling rules, reading comprehension passages, and choosing correctly written passages. They often combine all of the separate skills in the questions for a reading passage. Enough to give anyone a headache, but my class gamely pushed through the sections.

At the end, the majority claimed “it was easy.” I looked at some of the passages, and for most of these students it was easy. I already know they are all proficient at reading books with lexiles (reading levels) established at 4th grade level. In fact, many read books that I didn’t care for until middle school. On the other hand, I know that some teachers in my Master’s classes are teaching students with far different backgrounds. For those students, the test is grueling.

This week we’ll spend two days traversing the mathematics sections of the yearly exam. For most of my students, many of whom are from Asian backgrounds whose parents value strong math skills, they will easily perform at a proficient or advanced level.

Still, I was confounded last week when we did find time for math: how to figure out surface area for a three-dimensional object. Something about looking at all those sides disturbed the students’ understanding of the question. It’s really easy to find the area of a surface, but finding the areas of multiple surfaces and adding up the sums was difficult for some. They just couldn’t see in their heads what a visual of the figure told them, especially if all sides weren’t visible.

By the fourth day of review, most finally had the concept, but a few continued to ask what to do. I never say ‘just do this;’ I ask the student to think back and tell me what to do. It was hard to believe that some looked at me with dismay. Just shows that not all students grasp ideas at the same rate. Like me as a student; I was a terrible speller until one day in middle school I suddenly knew the rules.

Now, other than intense effort to complete the tests, the week during lunch and after school will be a joy. Parents bring wonderful breakfast and lunch buffets. Students bring little handmade cards and gifts. The community loves us and doesn’t want anything to happen to the benefits for their children. I know we’re lucky, but in most communities, parents are protective of their schools.

I read a teacher appreciation letter from Arne Duncan, Secretary of the U. S. Department of Education, in Edweek, my on-line resource for what’s going on outside of my classroom. He wrote what the parents in my school feel, I think. “You rightfully believe that responsibility for educational quality should be shared by administrators, community, parents, and even students themselves.”

Completely different from the articles in newspapers and on blogs where teachers are blamed for everything. Duncan also said we “are frustrated when teachers alone are blamed for educational failures that have roots in broken families, unsafe communities, misguided reforms, and underfunded school systems.”

It certainly frustrates me that legislators conclude ‘collective bargaining’ or ‘benefits’ explains why states are short of money.  Our district is in the middle of a special election to extend the parcel tax used to keep the schools going. This is no frivolous venture. It will be a teacher appreciation gift if the parcel tax bill passes. Maybe we’ll keep our jobs.

Take on a New View

Wednesday, January 20th, 2010

Teachers spend a lot of time thinking about the children they teach, in fact, all the time that they are not actually imparting a lesson on igneous rocks, say, or quadratic equations or the history of civil rights in the 1960’s when Martin Luther King, Jr. held Lyndon Johnson to the promise of legislation.

Who, though, is thinking about the legislation just passed in California and many other states so that real in-school change in education practice takes place?

Let’s start with one issue that brings a frown to every teacher in the country: teacher evaluation.  The federal Department of Education, ready to revise the Elementary Secondary Education Act (ESEA), is thinking about this aspect of school reform.

Whether you like the bill or not, the 8 year old NCLB legislation calling for highly-qualified teachers has shown the disparities from state to state in teacher preparation, professional development, and evaluation procedures.  If you look carefully at the new priorities, evaluation is for everyone involved in the education of public school students, not only the teacher in the classroom.

Even California has passed legislation to conform with new priorities, in spite of the teacher’s union (CTA) long-standing argument about unintended consequences of using student testing scores to evaluate teachers.  AFT’s current president gave a recent speech advocating for basic professional teacher standards, defining what a highly-qualified teacher should know and be able to do; and for serious analysis of well-designed tests to determine yearly growth that shows where to improve the program.

The old view.

Albert Shanker, the long-time AFT president, once noted schools have been seen as factories with teachers on the assembly line popping students out after 13 years.  In fact, many school reform solutions have elaborated on business models that increase productivity, thus cutting personnel, revising pay, adjusting the day, and so on, all to save money.  Teacher evaluation?  To be blunt, it was “pay for play.”

Now, in the effort to “make teaching the revered profession it should be,” (Arne Duncan, “Elevating the Teaching Profession” neatoday), money must be provided, this blog’s often-used comment.  However, in a poor economy, budget deficits, and legislator’s recalcitrance, it is difficult to see any dollar signs at the end of the tunnel.

So what’s new?

If you had looked at an economic model devised in the 1960’s by William J. Baumol and William G. Bowen from New York University, you would find that some institution’s costs can only be refined down.  They will still rise, but not recklessly.  Teacher evaluation in a public school is one such institution.

Here are examples.

Highly-qualified teachers should have access to technology to save costs.  For instance, some schools use a computer-generated test to determine reading improvement.  Many students can use the same equipment, the computer spits out the score and the tested items, saving time, so teachers can analyze for the next teaching steps.  Still a teacher must boot up the program, supervise students, and keep the equipment, not cheap, in shape.  Outcomes are improved, a teacher evaluation goal, but independent of cost.

In addition, professional development is essential to support excellent teachers and there are good technologically sound training DVD’s, for example, that can be used on-site, over and over, with large groups or small, therefore an efficient and effective staff development tool.*  Still, teachers need to be paid, the computers must be maintained–all costs that remain the same, though the benefits rise.

Many schools, to insure student and program improvement, use a business model called “cycle of inquiry” to set goals, examine how the plan is working, make adjustments, decide on next steps, all an efficient, effective, analytical way to assess progress.  Of course, labor costs aren’t saved by using this procedure in the school, even though good teachers will use these decisions for the student’s benefit.

The point is that schools must find ways to improve the infrastructure, the pay schedule, the way time is spent in schools, teacher evaluation, but the costs won’t go down.  Over time, they will rise less rapidly, but there are a fairly consistent number of students and highly-qualified teachers needed to teach them in a safe facility which will need money.

Think about it.  When calculating costs and benefits of their teachers,  state legislatures would do well to look at this view of the education world.

(*Take Care! is an example, found on the website for this blog.)

What It Takes

Wednesday, November 25th, 2009

With hoopla about grants for Race To the Top, in an effort to turn around high schools in dire need of help; gung-ho proposals about grants for elementary schools; and constant brouhaha over teacher’s union opposition to change, it’s just plain great to see an article about a school that has actually succeeded.

Not only succeeded, it’s in a low-income pocket of my neighborhood on the San Francisco peninsula, known for high-flying salaries and mega-homes and students who expect to go to Stanford, UC Berkeley, or an Ivy League university.  Leroy Anderson Elementary reached the goal of every elementary school with “at risk” students-an Academic Performance Index (API) 800+.

Reading the article “Learning to Teach to Bridge the Achievement Gap” by Phil Yost, New York Times, November 20, 2009, the qualities of a successful school filled the page.  The article covered highly-qualified teachers willing to pursue the achievement goal, dedicated administrators, curriculum changes shown to improve the capabilities of low-performing students, known successful teaching techniques, regular consistent assessment and analysis, and parent inclusion.

Why can’t all elementary schools with low test scores do what Anderson Elementary did, even in California, the land of no money for schools?

Certain requirements are only inferred in Yost’s article which must be present or developed in the effort to close the achievement gap in a school.

First and foremost, a cadre of teachers, who know the goal and stand by it, must agree to stay at the school.  They understand the difficulties to overcome and will not back away or obstruct.  The teachers are expected to be leaders, listened to by the administrators and asked to research and help organize the curriculum changes that will be needed.

Second, the school needs administrators who are determined to see the change through.  They must be partners with the teaching staff in developing and/or preparing for the reading/language arts and math models.  They must not give up when students don’t improve right away.  They must hold off district personnel who want to try the next big thing.  They must be relentless in the consistency of the program, but watch constantly to improve what isn’t effective.

Third, in spite of what one reads about improvement possible even when the funding picture is bleak, it helps to have a district office on the side of the school.  To turn around a school, it’s good to be a small school in a small district, easier for district personnel to keep in mind the issues the school faces.  (Moreland School District has 5 elementary schools and 1 middle school with about 4000 students total.)

When parents at the school need a program, as at Anderson, to learn English and parenting skills to support their children, the district must have helped find the money.  When teachers say they will tutor students after school, the district will find the money.  When the school principal wants professional development time set aside to analyze test data that drives the curriculum, the district doesn’t put her off, but finds the money.

Finally, when Charles Weis, Santa Clara County Superintendent of Schools (where Anderson Elementary is found), makes general statements about knowing which schools need help and how to help them, it’s not good enough.  If he’s on the side of school reform in low-performing, “at risk” schools, is he working with the district superintendents, the teacher’s unions, and school boards to set a time table for change and not back down?

Jonathan Alter in “Teddy’s Rightful Heir” Newsweek, November 9, 2009, suggests that is happening at the federal Department of Education.  “He (President Obama) and Arne Duncan are showing some Chicago muscle….”

Do what it takes.