Archive for the ‘Elementary and Secondary Education Act’ Category

Preschool to High School and Tests to Finish

Wednesday, November 3rd, 2010

Presentations on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) for Girls; radio and TV programs on pre-school as a support to improve student chances to finish high school and go to college; local measures to vote for and reports on the financial needs of community colleges have hit the ears of those interested in education over the past two weeks.

Look at pre-school.

The term pre-school which can address any child from 0-5, generally refers to 4 and 5 year olds when attached to fiscal budget talk.  The programs include well-known names such as private schools Waldorf or Montessori and also federally funded Head Start.

It seems confusing when studies conclude that Head Start (a model with the same goals as most private programs) loses influence after primary grades.  So why continue funding it?  Still, pre-school is touted as a characteristic of students concluding community college and students doing well on standardized tests.  See the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) for more information.  In addition, several states are including legislation for universal pre-school this election year.

This election year, at least in California and Colorado, numerous propositions and measures address community colleges, the latest savior of public higher education.  These schools would be super if funded adequately.  In this blogger’s view, the public seems to think such schools are free entitlements.  Community colleges in California depend on parcel taxes which need to be approved by 2/3 of the voters.  Very difficult to accomplish in a conservative area, despite the fact that one of the most renowned community colleges is situated in the area with students who transfer to Stanford, UC Berkeley, and UC Santa Cruz.  See the Los Altos Town Crier November 3, 2010, article by Bruce Barton, “Community College Parcel Tax Headed for Defeat.”

Last, there is a continuous stream of articles about testing, telling us that our children need to attend pre-school and find the support services in elementary, middle, and high school to graduate.  All of these services are available even in the poorest areas, but a good test is the key for accountability of a student’s achievement, of a teacher’s value.

Referring to the latest article “Correct answer is rigorous, new exams,” by Miki Litmanovitz of Teach for America, San Francisco Chronicle, Sunday, October 31, 2010, refers to standardized tests.  What does she mean?  In California, for example, the yearly exam is a criterion-referenced test, supposedly better because it addresses the standards taught by teachers in the state, not some norm-referenced test which standardized tests are.

Her second big issue seems to be ‘teaching to the test’.  Without going into the details of that issue, most educators hope to teach strategies for reading and math as Ms. Litmanovitz concludes, so that no matter the level of test, the student will over time use those strategies to do well.  One can work on test-taking strategies, used by all SAT preparation to raise scores, and learn the kinds of questions likely to be asked on a criterion-referenced or norm-referenced exam.

Still the mid-term elections, November 2, have played a role in the educator’s visions.  As part of Elementary and Secondary Education ACT (ESEA), will tests be changed to evaluate how students have learned to read and do math?  Will students graduate and have a community college to attend?  Will pre-school be available to all?

Recent History of the Yearly Test

Wednesday, October 20th, 2010

It is difficult for people to move forward.  They prefer to stand still, jogging from one foot to the other, step back and finally turn forward again.

In schools, a million excuses are made.  Whether accountability, reform, transform, high-achiever vs. low-performer, second language learner, charter, private, parochial, public, and etc., the list attached contains all the reasons to stick with that justification, telling why it is wrong or why it will solve all educational problems.

This week the word is “test.”  How well a student performs on a test has been a criterion for success K-12 since Sputnik soared into the heavens.  You may laugh because you know someone who didn’t do well on tests, but who has done very well in the market place.  You may smirk because someone did well on tests, but not in the work place.  And everything in between.  And you were surprised as a high school high-achieving senior when the counselor said “don’t worry about it.”

Nowadays, however, no matter what kind of school, the students, teachers, administrators worry about success and the test is how the public knows.  It sounded good in 2002 when No Child Left Behind (NCLB), a revision of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), was instituted, even though teacher’s unions were warning against testing requirements and benchmarks even then.

The education world was in the middle of facing the research that showed a number of schools in each large district were stumbling, not graduating students with ambition to go to college, in fact not graduating enough students overall, leaving African-American and Hispanic students in the dust and making them repeat a grade or subject if they didn’t drop out in disgust.

Testing became the way to assess how schools were doing.  Anyone in charge of supervising the testing knew that it didn’t matter how relentless you were in helping students improve.  In several years the benchmarks were going to overtake the schools, even if most groups attained the minimum proficiency except one, eg. special education.  Most educators would say it is because the NCLB legislation treated students as robots, all were going to do well and improve as long as the “test” was given.  And if they didn’t it was the teacher’s fault.

Opposition from two well-respected organizations, National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) and the International Reading Association (IRA), as well as other groups at the state level have shown that transformation doesn’t occur by looking at scores on standardized tests, not even on criterion-referenced tests as is touted in California.  In addition, major publishers of school texts make money from interim tests that are supposed to show the teacher how well students have learned so far.  No studies have been made to show that those tests help, not even as practice for the kinds of questions asked on yearly exams.

Adults love tests.  Good students don’t mind taking them, confident that they will pass well.  Some high school students cavalierly fill in bubbles, no longer impressed by tests.  Students who don’t read English, and are still required to take the exams, fill in the bubbles and close the booklet.

Tests need to be revised now that Common Core Standards have been instituted.  Let’s hope the tests are short, ask competent questions, and are used only as one source of information to guide a school and district to transform a low-performing into a high-achieving school, to make sure those students graduate with the skills to attend a college or other post-secondary school.

Summertime

Wednesday, July 7th, 2010

When the days are long and fruit and flowers bloom, an abundance of articles about various school issues pop up in the newspapers and on websites.

USA Today (6/7/10) had a brief synopsis of reports saying that black students have moved to suburban schools in the Dallas, Texas, area.  Hispanic students have filled their places in the Dallas school district.  Another example of families who have become knowledgeable and made decisions to help their children.  Such a demographic move has happened many times all over the country and stands for one reason it is difficult to stick to the same old program forever.

The New York Times (7-3-10 “World Focus Is Gaining Favor in High Schools” by Tamar Lewin) described the International Baccalaureate (IB) program favored in several high schools as an alternative to the more common Advanced Placement (AP) programs.  The IB is a rigorous model to capture the attention of students who may want a balanced curriculum in a small group setting that also impresses college admission officers.  The emphasis is on philosophies worldwide, not separate academic subjects like AP courses.  Interesting that the article did not describe the variety of high schools across the nation that have instituted the IB model for many years, like California’s San Jose High School with many Hispanic students and some Denver schools with an IB program from upper elementary to high school.

The Nation (6-14-10) brought out its education issue “A new vision for school reform” with fact and opinion by a number of well-known education writers.  For this blog writer, the most unsettling conclusion came from Linda Darling-Hammond, Stanford University, who, in her view of the legislation in the revised Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) emphasizes “competition and sanctions as the primary drivers of reform rather than capacity building and strategic investments.”

Perhaps the despair of the teachers unions, both AFT and NEA, is the outcome of the quote above.  At their recent combined convention in New Orleans both union presidents seemed vexed about charter schools, teacher evaluation, and anti-union comment mainly made by conservative legislators.  The vote in the House of Representatives to commit $10 billion more dollars to reduce teacher lay-offs and other delays in school budgets, but the US Department of Education’s unhappiness in taking money from Race to the Top funds to pay for it, infuriated the unions.  See The New York Times “New Tension in Obama’s Ties to Teachers” by Sam Dillon, 7-5-10.

Closer to home, San Francisco is in the process of closing a middle school and overhauling 9 other schools, all hit by California’s determination to transform its low-performing schools-the good thing about the federal reform effort.  If only the school transformations will emphasize Darling-Hammond’s “capacity building and strategic investments.”  See San Francisco Chronicle “S.F. to shut school, overhaul 9 others” by Jill Tucker (7-3-10).

Now what about the litigation sent to court by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in Los Angeles in February and by the California School Boards Association et al (CSBA) in May, also known as Robles-Wang vs. California?  The ACLU suit was to hold off Los Angeles teacher lay-offs in low-performing schools, and the CSBA suit was written to force the California legislature to restructure school funding to finance the requirements of education legislation.

Nothing has happened since the May 13, 2010, injunction in Los Angeles (see 6-2-10 post).  The California Assembly is proposing a California Jobs Budget which will stave off shortages in school funding for a year and still make up the $19 billion state budget shortfall.  We’ll see how long it takes to pass this year.

Back to the Old Name for NCLB

Wednesday, February 17th, 2010

When the U. S. Department of Education began to address the revisions to No Child Left Behind legislation (up to now put off several times), the first thing changed was the name.  NCLB (often pronounced Nickel B) has become toxic to most educators, governors, and state education departments.

We’re back to Elementary and Secondary Education Act aka ESEA, the original title of the legislation, in an effort to abandon the stigma attached to the NCLB revisions in 2001.

Heading the list of disliked provisions was distaste for “top down” mandates.  Seen as an especially noxious feature of NCLB legislation were mandates required by Congress with no money attached.  Even now, as word gets out about negotiations on ESEA revisions, the fear is for more top down requirements with no $$ attached.  As most states are currently in the middle of terrible fiscal times, all eyes are on m-o-n-e-y.

Looking at current deficits, states can’t bear to rewrite state tests, put new evaluation procedures in place, provide colleges adequate funds to train teachers, much less support school districts to turn around failing schools-even though, in the long term, all those revisions must occur to close the achievement gap among student groups, the top of the top priorities for ESEA revision.

On the other hand, states might as well face the facts.  The Obama administration has insisted on accountability, but no longer with a NCLB type of yearly test geared to state standards that are set to increase levels of proficiency to 100% by 2014.

As before, each state will set its own standards and choose its own test, but everyone in the education world knows how that worked under NCLB.  Lowered standards and simplified tests made the state look like it was making its benchmarks.

The overview of the ESEA legislation revisions have stressed the U. S. Department of Education’s insistence on data to show student growth and school progress over time with the plan to reward gains in closing the achievement gap among the students left behind in the ordinary school setting.

So now the focus is on the National Governor’s Association and Council of Chief State School Officers to design common standards that become the core of each state’s plan for accountability.  This blog’s bet is that researchers at, for example, Education Trust will be comparing each state’s standards and tests so that low-performing schools are not left to fail.

As most school districts are just trying to get by for another year, such a big change in thought and structure for school reform requires investment.  Like flowers from a magician’s hat, the Race to the Top competition energized 48 states to think about change for high schools, and Title I School Improvement Grant competition sets those states to structure elementary education reform.

Get over it.  Whether a group of charter schools or a public high school district or a tiny rural public school district, someone is at the top.  Here’s the question: is the figure at the top looking ahead or keeping his/her head lowered?  Those are the stakes for legislative reform in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Where do you stand?  Paralyzed?  Or willing to grab this formidable bull of reform by the horns and wrestle it down?