Posts Tagged ‘common core standards’

Newer Entries »

Common Core Standards create a Medusa controversy for public education

Wednesday, August 18th, 2010

Who’s the head of public school education: local school districts, the state, or the federal government?  Colorado’s adoption of the Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI) has become a Medusa-like controversy.

Colorado elementary school

Colorado elementary school

The State Board of Education voted August 2 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 (Colorado budget cuts to education). The recent 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 occur this year.

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 federal government at this point is much less invested in individual school districts.  But the federal government has given dollars now to help schools through the recession.

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.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Council of Chief State School Officers, National Governor's Association, public schools |
Be the first to leave a comment »

School Budgets in 2010-Squeezing California Oranges

Wednesday, August 11th, 2010

You might as well know what’s being done by California state and local education entities to find a drop at the bottom of the juice glass to keep schools open, much less buy art supplies or basket balls for a successful school.

Proposition 13 became California law in 1978 and, slowly but surely, funds for schools, school districts, county districts, community college districts, as well as the State Department of Education and teacher credentialing services have dried up.  The current sum makes one think of California raisins rather than golden oranges.  This reduction in funds doesn’t count the services for local municipalities that disappear as this post is written.

As the recession has gripped California, the last bit of money has been sucked from the orange rind.  Besides trying to revise sections of the Proposition 13 statute (see last week’s post 8-4-10), here are the changes the state has turned to in order to balance the state budget and also provide the least possible amount-the floor compelled by CA Proposition 98-to support public education.

First, the amounts that the state had contributed out of its revenue to equalize funding for each local education agency (LEA) has been reduced.  California schools provide education dollars at 30% per student below the national average.  The student/teacher ratio is 37% below the national average.  In fact, schools in California have 30% fewer teachers for 6+ million students.

Second, in order to stretch dollars the state has negotiated to make federal Title I monies and state monies assigned to programs like Quality Educational Investment Act (QEIA) more flexible.  Originally QEIA was designated by CA SB 1133 in 2006 to provide $3 billion over 7 years to support schools serving low-income families, special needs students, and English Language Learners.  Not any more.

Third, the state has scaled back the amount of yearly formal testing.  For example, some special needs students are not tested.

Fourth, the state has authorized school districts to shore up their budgets by digging into a higher percentage of its reserves.  In addition, furlough days have been negotiated with the teacher’s unions which decrease salaries, but also avoid lay-offs.

Fifth, the state has revised its rules for curriculum adoption.  Formerly, every seven years new textbooks were designated for schools.  In 2008 this provision of the education code was halted.  No new science or social studies books were chosen.  Even with the changes identified by the Common Core Standards adoption, textbook purchases will be on hold for an indefinite time.

Next, the deferred maintenance budgets for school district buildings have been revised and the monies can be redirected to support other needs.  In addition, surplus property rules for a district have been changed to bring in money.

Last on this list, a suggestion has been offered to have multiple districts create an education finance district in order to increase the chance of passing a parcel tax.  The complications are numerous, but be prepared to read about it in the newspapers if California’s budget problems aren’t resolved soon.

In 2008-2009, the state revised three times before a balanced budget, ripe for spoilage, was signed.  This past year 2009-2010 the budget was fought over until September.  By now funding deferrals that force borrowing by education entities leave a higher number of districts at risk of insolvency–oranges dropping to the ground.  What then?

A detailed report on the crisis in California school finance can be read in Edsource’s January 2010 report Budget Cataclysm and its Aftermath.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in California budget crisis, Edsource, public schools |
Be the first to leave a comment »

Core Standards-the Pro and Con

Wednesday, July 28th, 2010

Across the U.S., states adopt a set of common standards for academic success-a goal to make our students, rich or poor, literate citizens in this country.  At the same time…

What do we hear in the news?  Unnamed students and adults didn’t know that the colonists were fighting the British in the Revolutionary War.

A highly-esteemed 6th year principal in a Vermont school was replaced in hopes that a change would bring much needed Race to the Top money to the state.

The Washington, D.C. school superintendent has fired about 300 employees, including 241 teachers.  The news reached California July 24, 2010, but never fear, plenty of new teachers have already applied and been interviewed.

The DC superintendent is a graduate of the Teach for America program, the how-to model written about in Atlantic, New York Times, shown on PBS to prepare graduate students for teaching.  The new teachers receive lots of support and supervision to help them succeed in the short 2 years they pledge to teach at a low-performing school.  However, for any principal looking for long term success, teachers moving in and out of a school is the worst problem for an urban site.

Online in The Bay Citizen, July 23, 2010, “Emeryville Schools as a Model” by Gerry Shih described a plan to replicate a tiny school district’s successful improvement of reading and math scores on state tests in a moderately large, financially stressed, neighboring school district.  A strong superintendent with the ability to rally the families and businesses in a city with wide disparity in income and education may be able to improve reading and math abilities-a goal long out of reach for most students in Oakland.

In this blogger’s opinion, lost in the media’s latest news is the recent adoption of common core standards by 29 states as of July 27, 2010.  Right now in California, argument is going on about California’s highly-regarded rigorous standards, including introducing Algebra I in the 8th grade, compared to the core standards designed by the Common Core State Standards Initiative up for voluntary adoption by each state in the union.

Other than a refusal to adopt something new a la Alaska and Texas, criticism is useful to list.  Valerie Strauss‘ blog and Daniel Willingham, University of Virginia, remind everyone that Common Core Standards are not the magic dust that will make schools better.  First in any teacher’s mind is equitable resources needed to make the revised standards teachable.  Curriculum may need to be overhauled; teacher and administrator professional development needs to be provided; and time to revise lesson plans.  Not to forget that any state reform needs accurate data for rigorous comparisons of how the standards are implemented.  That means a lot of time spent on revising the assessments used by each state before any changes to teacher evaluation will be accepted.  Last, speed of improvement must be realistic-this blogger knows it takes years of determined collaboration to improve reading and math ability for a school full of students who enter unprepared for academic learning.

On the other hand, the advantages are worthwhile.  According to the Fordham Institute July 21, 2010, the English/Language Arts (ELA) standards are more clear and rigorous than 37 states’ current standards and more rigorous than 39 states’ math standards.  Higher Ed groups know that common standards will help college admissions, currently flailing at the mixture of applicants.

Rapid adoption of the standards means that the criticisms summarized above must be addressed just as rapidly.  Which means MONEY and while Race to the Top has been an unprecedented impetus to assert change, money will not be distributed equally among school districts that need the most help.

This sounds like wishful thinking, but one hopes over time a student entering a Los Angeles, California, school from another state will sit down and pick up what the fifth grade class is learning about the army George Washington and the colonial militias defeated.  No guessing, no “oh yeah, that’s what I meant,” every student’s hand shooting up, even the new child’s hand waving.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Race to Top, public schools |
1 Comment »

Standards We Can Believe In

Wednesday, May 26th, 2010

The entire education world stands behind consistent core content standards to use as benchmarks for student evaluation.  But, what about teacher evaluation?

another California elementary school

another California elementary school

At this moment most school districts in the country are frozen by the disarray in state budgets and taxpayer angst, preferring to blame teachers when students aren’t doing well just as the oil execs pointed fingers at everyone but themselves for the latest catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico.

So with the uncontained controversy over funds for schools-think about it, we’re talking about money to make sure students are educated.  What would it be like to live in the countries where children don’t go to school at all, aren’t educated, struggle through life with little to sustain them much less lift themselves out of their hard scrabble existence?

Here in the U.S. the latest way we value our students is to not approve school district budgets, vote not to pass parcel taxes, exact wage freezes and higher insurance premium concessions from teachers, and require furlough days–to name a few of the cutback options pervading not only urban districts but upscale suburban districts also.

On top of such turmoil, state legislatures are passing new education bills that feel to teachers like another slap.  Why?  Before common core standards for students are put in place, and no matter what the states say, teachers are being evaluated by one tool–analyzing the improvement in test scores for the teacher’s students.  For many states improvement in this area would mean SPENDING funds and time to make those test scores valid and available.

Here it is: the cart before the horse.

This is how academic standards for student achievement should affect the teacher evaluation goal.  Follow this path: consistent standards and benchmarks, preferably throughout regions of the country if not nationwide; then tests that actually assess those standards and for which proficiency is equivalent region-wide; after test analysis, provisions made for each school to support those students who need intervention; next yearly evaluation, non-threatening, designed collaboratively with teachers in a school, test scores being one aspect; yearly evaluation of the school as a whole and of the district as a whole, including the superintendent and school board; money set aside to provide professional development for aspects of academic achievement not met by teacher, principal, school, and district.  REPEAT EACH YEAR.

This process is not on the agenda.  Instead, teacher tenure, anathema for most lay people, drives the process, especially for those fixated on turning schools into businesses, which they aren’t and won’t be even if run for profit.  Why would anyone wish to make a profit on the backs of little kids just doing what their parents want and the state requires?

The tenure aspect of teacher evaluation ought to be seen as an outcome of consistent, agreed upon standards and benchmarks for student achievement.  The teacher’s standards must be clear, unequivocal, based on objective statements of good teaching.

In addition, an agreed upon framework is needed for how the school community works together to meet student achievement goals.  If one teacher can’t or won’t support that goal, then steps to lay off the teacher make sense.

If you are interested in details of national student core standards, part of the federal Common Core State Standards Initiative to make assessment and proficiency consistent and achievable across the country, you can go to the National Governor’s Association or the Council of Chief State School Officers.

Both groups have overseen the development of and recently set out a draft of national core standards K-12 from which the process outlined above would lead to results that teachers may feel adequate for successful evaluation.  Don’t forget the principal and school district administrators must be evaluated also.

You can go directly to look at the core standards and take a survey.  Do so.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Council of Chief State School Officers, National Governor's Association, low-performing schools, public schools, school accountability, school community, school reform |
Be the first to leave a comment »

Newer Entries »