Posts Tagged ‘U.S. Department of Education’

More School Aid

Wednesday, December 7th, 2011

In education magazines this week could be found articles on the eleven states who have currently applied to the U.S. Department of Education for waivers. California has not applied yet. It may in February but no decision has been made.

In addition to the report offered by the Think Long Committee under the auspices of the Nicolas Berggruen Institute, analyzed in this blog last week, another report titled “A Blueprint for Great Schools” authorized by Mr. Torlakson, the new California Superintendent of Instruction, and funded by various California foundations, has appeared. It came out in August 2011, but a summary seems to be available to teachers only in the November 2011 issue of California Educator magazine. Its purpose is “the development of a new mission and planning framework for the California Department of Education (CDE). [It provides] innovative and strategic advice to ensure that the state provides a world-class education to all students, preparing them to live, work and thrive in a highly connected world.” Sound familiar?

Knowing how the California Department of Education is entwined with the state legislature’s struggle with funds, this blog has been most interested in how all those pages of goals and objectives in any of the reports that have surfaced are going to be paid for.

The report in last week’s post has offered an initiative for funding at the November 2012 election-one of many.  This report offers to

Create a weighted student formula approach to funding, with most K-12 funding streams consolidated into core formula funding, supplemented by a small number of block grants to ensure that students who are at risk or high cost would receive the services they need.

Establish a flexibility/accountability task force to identify strategies and metrics to determine whether districts are using their funds in ways that support successful outcomes for all students.

Seek new revenue sources for schools: At the state level, explore taxes on selected sales and services; at the federal level, initiate efforts to recapture more of the imbalance in funds between California and the federal government.

Seek legislation to allow districts to pass parcel taxes with a 55 percent majority vote.

Right now (December 2011) in the California education world, school districts are deciding how to economize their resources and adjust the school year to allow five more furlough days in order to absorb the deficits that have shown up in the state budget adopted in June 2011. According to Dan Walters, columnist for the Sacramento Bee, the California budget that governs school aid in California is crazy. In June 2011 as part of balancing the state budget, if revenue did not accrue, the legislature agreed that school districts would be responsible for revenue reduction by automatic spending cuts. That’s currently $1.8 (about ¾ of the current $2.5) billion not being generated.

How many years will pass before the goals outlined above actually become law? Let’s hope the taxpayers suddenly find money, one of the many initiatives pass, or the legislature is willing to stand up.  Everyone wrings their hands about schools, but can’t put out the dough.

For report see www.cde.ca.gov/eo/in/bp.

To Fix NCLB or Not

Wednesday, November 2nd, 2011

Teachers sit in the middle of the muddle strewed around by California and Congress and the U.S. Department of Education.

November 1 means a rush of teaching in the school days before Thanksgiving and then three weeks of instruction before winter holiday vacation. What units can be completed in that timeframe?  Very few teachers have a moment to consider the legislation passed in the state, much less the fixes that the Senate has supposedly made to the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) or the conditions of the waivers offered by the U.S. Department of Education.

To many in the education world, the waiver and its conditions seem to be a program worth attending to. It asks for growth data, requires goals to take the place of the lock-step NCLB yearly progress; and encourages data-driven accountability systems for both students and teacher evaluation.

The main problem is using the standardized or criterion-referenced tests to measure growth during the year. There are too many qualifiers as related in the San Francisco Chronicle, November 1, 2011, article “Test scores a poor measure” by David B. Cohen of Accomplished California Teachers. Assessing the improvement of students or teachers depends on more than one test a year.

On the other hand, the revisions approved by the Congressional Senate Education Committee have gone too far in relaxing accountability for schools. The language leads many disparate groups to worry about the most under-served kids. It’s a bill with deregulation at its core that allows state departments of education to set their own rules, that is, back to the old ways.

The state of California, with a legislature ever ready to stick its fingers in every small muddle, has come up with seven pieces of education legislation to fuss over in the Senate and Assembly-only two of which come even close to addressing the problems with student and teacher accountability. Concerns about head and neck injuries in sports and rules about administering emergency medical assistance to students with epilepsy are important, but guaranteed to cause unforeseen consequences.

The two bills that actually address instructional and learning issues concern the Common Core Standards (CCS) that the state’s Department of Education has approved. Align the English Learning Development curriculum to the CCS (AB 124) and approve additional instructional materials to go with the changed standards (AB 140)–a money issue.

Finally, the California Teachers Association (CTA) stand against an “unfunded top-down approach” by the U.S. Department of Education seems intractable. The CTA is leery of any premise that includes accountability by testing only.  A detailed report on evaluation for teachers has been written by the Accomplished California Teachers called A Quality Teacher in Every Classroom: An Evaluation System that Works for California (2010). A clue-the report advocates teacher input in an evaluation system.

Not a Gap-It’s a Chasm

Wednesday, September 2nd, 2009

In California education talk, the most important words are “achievement gap.”  Next most important are the tangle called “school finance reform.”

The two problem/solutions are as thorny as the briar patch at the edge of the moat surrounding Sleeping Beauty’s castle.

As if more money in itself is going to solve the multitude of education needs to close the achievement gap, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is calling a special session in the Fall to design legislation ensuring the state’s ability to compete for Race to the Top (RTTT) federal funds.

Actually, the education world should be relieved that the real issues may finally come to the fore.

Federal Department of Education guidelines for any state plan expect measures to turn around struggling schools.  This blog has outlined one of many proposals and its recommendations (post 6/30/09).

Lawmakers’ first argument will be about repealing California’s charter school cap, a no-no for the National Education Association (NEA).  Their argument is that school governance by charter schools is only one of many options to improve the chances for low-income, at-risk students to achieve, while in the federal RTTT guidelines charter schools are being treated as the one best way to achieve student progress.

California students will benefit from the guidelines’ focus on the 5% of consistently under-performing schools.  It will, however, require money to provide consistent staff development for on-site assessment and analysis tools that help students; train, recruit, and retain highly-qualified teachers; and supply resources to keep those schools running smoothly.

Which highlights the section in the governor’s proposal to retain highly-qualified teachers and administrators.  For a long time, education articles have argued for pay arrangements to accommodate the difficulties for teachers in the most under-performing schools.  In truth, coaches or advisors to support the teacher’s best practices and counseling services for students and parents would do as much if not more to create incentives for achievement.

The last two pieces of the federal Department of Education guidelines to be debated in the legislature’s special session will leave lawmakers teetering on the edge of the chasm.  Improving accountability and linking student achievement to teacher performance are the most prickly of issues.

First, think about accountability.  How the state uses the data from one summative exam a year to designate successful and unsuccessful schools does little good.  How each school analyzes all the data collected from formative tests and uses it to diagnose what to teach next has been proven, for the few staffs trained in the techniques, to help students improve.  How will schools improve student performance with no funds to train teachers how to analyze the data?

Next, as the NEA in its letter to the U.S. Department of Education says, “It is inappropriate to require that states be able to link data on student achievement to individual teachers for the purpose of teacher and principal evaluation.”  Governor Schwarzenegger’s press release notes linked data may provide transparency, but numerous sources give reasons why it’s difficult for a single test’s data to inform anyone  how one teacher assures that an under-performing school closes the achievement gap.

It will take a lot of compromise to fairly make choices about evaluation of highly-qualified teachers and a process to ensure proficient student achievement.

Have your eyes caught the words “money” and “funds?”  In California (post 8/19) the tallest thorny vines surround the abysmal school finance system that hides the chasm, delicately referred to as the “achievement gap.”

No matter the bite from the $4.3 billion RTTT funds California might get if the legislature manages to rewrite education policies, one sure way to seal the achievement gap is to reform how state money is allocated to school districts.