Lamar Alexander Educational Plans Then (1989) and Now (2013). Same or Different?

Lamar Alexander's thoughts on revamping No Child Left Behind, 2013 from The Foundry and  No Child Left Behind: Alexander Unveils Rewrite:

Senator Lamar Alexander (R–TN), ranking member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, has just introduced a proposal to “fix” No Child Left Behind (NCLB).

While restoring excellence in education will require more than a fix to the bureaucratic law—states should be allowed to opt-out of NCLB entirely—Alexander’s Every Child Ready for College or Career Act would improve upon existing statute in several ways.

Notably, it would allow states to make their Title I dollars portable, giving children the option to use funds at any public school of choice. Title I portability is a good goal, but it should also include the option for children to use their share of funding at a private school of choice as well.

Other improvements to Title I include the elimination of “Adequate Yearly Progress,” the well-intentioned but inappropriate federal goal of universal student proficiency in math and English by the 2014–2015 school year. The proposal maintains the requirement for states to set challenging content and achievement standards (defining levels of content mastery at basic, proficient, and advanced) and retains the requirement for states to test students annually in grades 3–8 and again in high school in math and reading. And it still requires states to make that information available on public report cards.

The proposal also eliminates the Highly Qualified Teacher (HQT) provision, which placed significant emphasis on credentialing, despite little evidence that credentialing improves teacher effectiveness. Under existing statute, the HQT provision mandated that any teacher of a core academic subject be state-certified and hold a bachelor’s degree. In its place, school districts would be encouraged to develop teacher and principal evaluation systems that take student achievement outcomes into account.

Read more here.  Upon cursory reading, it sounds good (although the title "Every Child Ready for College or Career Act"  should raise warning bells) and a relief from the centralization of education we are currently facing.  But as you read it again, it's more of the federal government setting mandates for how schools should use curriculum and funding,  and more mandates on teacher certification and testing.  Is Alexander just using different words for the same policies?  Agreeing if this is good policy or not requires having historical knowledge on politicians and educational movements.

Revisit a MEW article on Lamar Alexander and his words from 1989.  From Are Arne Duncan's Educational Reform Plans from a Republican Playbook?:

Lamar Alexander lays out the plan to restructure education at the 11-2-1989 Governors Conference on Education in Wichita, Kansas. The Conference title was "Schools, Goals and the 1990s". As George Bush, Sr's Secretary of Education, he implemented education restructuring as America 2000 that specified creation of the New American Schools Development Corporation. He is currently senior Senator from Tennessee and Conference Chair of the Republican Party.

Transcript of Speech

1989 Governors Conference-Lamar Alexander


.... As far as I know, this is the first state summit following the President's summit, and I think that's a great credit to your governor of the State of Kansas, to be doing that. At least your timing is good!

I would suggest three things:

Number 1: Find out what's really going on because I don't think most people know---- what's going on in schools, how children are growing up, what's really going on in the world.

Number 2: I want to suggest that you create, in Kansas, a brand New American School. Brand New American School.

Number 3: I want to suggest that when you do that, you help that new school develop some new goals and new report cards for itself.

I would go down to the maternity ward of the local hospital, or whatever you call the part of the hospital where the nurses are who are there when the babies are born. Find out how many babies are born out of wedlock, how many babies are born with single parents. Just so you know that!

I would think the Brand New American School would be year-round, open from 6:00 to 6:00.

A second characteristic might be that these schools will serve children from age 3 months old to age 18. That may be a shocking thought to you; but, if you were to do an inventory of every baby in your community and think about what the needs of those babies were for the next four or five years, you might see that those needs might not be served any other way. They have to be served in some way and maybe around the school. Or, if you study a little more, you might go back and think the school might have to serve the pregnant mother of the baby in terms of prenatal healthcare....

...teams of teachers. Albert Shanker suggested that maybe there ought to be a team of teachers attached to a child from the day that child arrives in the school to stay with that child all the way to the 8th grade.

All this would mean there would have to be a very professional corps of teachers, wouldn't it? They'd have to be very, very good because they would have to be dealing with lots of volunteers. We have a big national service feeling in America today. Why aren't those people working in schools? Well, one reason is it's hard to handle volunteers!

So, this team of highly trained principals and teachers would have to have career ladders. They would have to be master teachers. They would be paid $50,000-$60,000-$70,000 a year to create a Brand New American School in every state capital.

The great advantage of that is there wouldn't be all these arguments of whether to do this program, or that program, or which one to do first. You wouldn't do any of them! You would create just one school and you'd give the responsibility to one person who would form one team. You give them one year or so, and if they succeeded, then all the rest of us would want to be in that school, too! Wouldn't we?

Senator Alexander advocated for:

• Tracking students from birth
• Community schools providing various services other than academics
• School open year round
• 12-hour school days

These ideas from 1989  have been incorporated into Arne Duncan's Race to the Top mandates. Later postings will provide information on how educational policies presented at this 1989 Governor's Conference foreshadowed the elitist takeover of education we currently find ourselves.  

You can thank George Bush Sr. for arranging this conference.

So exactly what is Lamar Alexander's underlying belief of educational direction? Is is 2013 or 1989 vintage?  Or is the same, just repackaged?

What is going on with special education?

Something is happening with special education. Seemingly random reports are coming in, from parents with children who receive special services from school, showing that those services are changing. Is this part of a bigger picture? 

In one district they are consolidating IEP's for third and fourth graders because they are switching to a "standardized" IEP report. Even teachers are unclear where this "standardized" report form is coming from.

In another district a mother was told her special needs child no longer qualified for the summer program at school, one that he had attended every year previously without the parent even having to request it. The mother might have been content to accept the school's determination that her child no longer showed signs of skill loss following a break, but then she talked to other special needs parents.  It turned out all fifteen children who had been approved for this program before were suddenly "advanced" to no longer needing it. 

A mother in North Carolina petitioned her public school to opt her autistic child out of standardized testing.  She believed the frustration of not being able to pass the test would spur her child into self-harming behavior.  Through the entire chain of authority, all the way up to the superintendent, her request was denied citing federal mandates in No Child Left Behind. Her child would have to take the test, one that he would assuredly fail. That's an interesting requirement in a climate where children's test scores have consequences well beyond the child's academic assessment.

Below is a post from Blue Hat Movement with a video of this particular mom.  From Update and Video: NC Mother of Autistic Child Fights EOG’s:

"What is particularly onerous about her situation is that the school, School Board and Superintendent are going so far out of their way to force her Autistic son to take this test.  No offense meant, but Michelle has guaranteed me that her son cannot pass any version of a state EOG.  They are essentially forcing her son to take a test that he will fail.  This is in light of the fact that his school year has been filled with success.  Michelle went to some lengths to describe to me how many victories there have been for her son this year.  She describes many of them in the video.  I am sharing this video for two reasons.  Michelle personally asked me to do what I could to expose what is happening.  Secondly, this situation truly calls into the light and exaggerates just how misguided testing has become under NCLB and CCS.  Standardized Testing hurts teachers. It reduces the hard work and efforts of your child’s teacher into an assessment designed by people who will NEVER meet either your child or their teacher.  All the amazing things that happened in that classroom…like they have for Michelle’s son, deserve credit.  But with a standardized test, there is none.  The way the Common Core is set up, all that good stuff gets thrown under the school bus.  Testing is all that seems to count.  This is a slap in the face of how hard teachers work.

In fact, under CCS, standardized tests that are scored low, actually count against teachers.  Under Standard 6, teachers are being tested and given a grade based upon how their student’s performed."

It appears, from this video, that this district's interpretation of the requirements of NCLB differ from other districts. Who is right? I'd like to think that these administrators would be more reasonable and exempt this child if they felt the decision was entirely up to them. Where does a parent go to fight a local district's interpretation/implementation of a federal mandate? What would be the incentive to measure the degree to which a special needs child's performance is below that of his/her peers? It is times like these when the words of Linda Darling Hammond and Arne Duncan haunt me: Educational Equity, Redistribution of Resources, Reducing the Performance Gap. What is on the horizon for parents of special needs children?

The Chesterfield City Hall Common Core Panel Has Opened the Door for Public Common Core Discussion

Common Core has become a hot topic of discussion in Missouri.  Linked below is an article from the Eureka-Wildwood Patch about the recent panel presentation centering on CCSS adoption, implementation, ramifications, data retrieval and legislative update on SB210 and HB616.

Unfortunately the reporter did not attend the meeting so he cannot report on what actually was said by the panelists.  However, his article has created a slew of  reader comments on the facts vs the talking points of the standards.  These comments also address the alleged intent/financial backing/political leanings of those who do not support the adoption and implementation process of CCSS.

Feel free to make your own comments on Senator Nieves Speaking Out Against National Education Standards.

I'd like to see the research and data on how Common Core is best practice as intimated by a teacher in the Kirkwood School District:

As a teacher in the Kirkwood School District I can assure you that many educators (you know...the people actually doing the work) welcome Common Core. All this other "stuff" is just personal political agendas. Do you seriously think that a high performing district such as Kirkwood would welcome Common Core standards if it thought it wouldn't be great for all students? Do you seriously think that the Kirkwood School District would dummy down curricula to meet the standards? I'm sorry. I am going to trust the people that do the actual work-day in and day out. The people that have spent their lives educating themselves on best practices for kids. Where were you people when Bush implemented No Child Left Behind....which has been extremely unsuccessful?

Didn't No Child Left Behind also have Ted Kennedy's prints all over it?  The Democrats might as well share the blame of a terrible educational reform policy. 



 

Educational Expectations Based on Race/Ethnicity in Florida

Check your school district's figures for student proficiency based on subgroups

Educational writers have been stunned the last couple of weeks about what's going on in Florida in regard to the State Board of Education setting varying degrees of proficiency standards for public education students based on race.  Here's a brief recap on the decision of the Florida State School Board from bet.news:

Florida’s State Board of Education recently passed a set of controversial reading and math standards for students based entirely upon race.

Under the new guidelines, the schools are aiming to achieve reading proficiency levels of 90 percent for Asian students, 88 percent for white students, 81 percent for Latino students and 74 percent for Black students by 2018.

All subgroups are upset.  Some are indignant about the low expectations for their children and others are concerned about a higher bar for their children.  In this age of alleged acceptance and tolerance, why would the Florida State Board of Education pass such a blatant set of standards based on a student's race?


The Sun-Sentinel interviewed two spokespersons with concerns of the standards being racially discriminatory:

“All children should be held to high standards and for them to say that for African-Americans the goal is below other students is unacceptable,” Patrick Franklin, president and CEO of the Urban League of Palm Beach County, told the Sun-Sentinel.

 The Sentinel also noted that Winnie Tang, the president of the Asian American Federation of Florida, found the new goals detrimental to Asian students too.  We still have a lot of students who are average and below average. Being [perceived as] a higher achiever really hurts a lot of students,” she said.

Education Reformer and former Governor Jeb Bush didn't like the guidelines in another area of the country.  From The Daily Caller:

The District of Columbia introduced a similar plan for different standards for racial and ethnic groups last month. At the time, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush penned an op-ed lamenting the lowering of standards for minority students, advocating that “schools’ expectations should be colorblind.” 

“As a nation, we have rejected police use of racial profiling on the streets,” he wrote. “By what rationale do we now accept it from educators in the classroom?”

In the same op-ed Bush praised Florida schools — prior to the introduction of the new standards — for narrowing the achievement gap between black, Hispanic and white students.

“Over the past decade, Florida has had the largest achievement gains for students with disabilities, the third-largest for low-income students and the fourth-largest in the country for African-Americans,” he wrote. “The U.S. Department of Education identified Florida as one of only three states substantially closing the achievement gap between black and white elementary students in both reading and math. Florida’s 4th grade Hispanic students now read as well as or better than the average student in 21 other states.”

Apparently the State Board of Education decided it was taking too long to decrease the achievement gap based on the former plan, so it implemented a plan based on racial subgroup performance. Did the State Board lower the expectations for student achievement and the state now might just get what it needs for federal money?  Is this what is behind this move or could it be a plan by the state to rid itself of racially driven data in education once and for all?

The state of Florida, by issuing these guidelines, is stating certain ethnic/racial groups are performing more poorly or better than other ethnic/racial groups.  Expectations are defined for students based on the color of their skin, not on the content of their character or innate abilities.  (Good Lord, Martin Luther King must be turning over in his grave). 

Certain groups file will probably file suit over these new rating methods and the court may determine the State Board did act in a discriminatory manner and the court will then throw out all measures of student expectation based on ethnicity/race.  Or perhaps the court will establish its own mandate for public schools to determine what goals are attainable for each subgroup.  

Will the court rule the state practiced discrimination setting goals based on a student's racial/ethnic group designation and Florida must reinstate standards of achievement not based on subgroup data?  Or will the court order the state to make a different determination of appropriate goals of subgroup performance?  Will a student be graded on his/her individual performance without mention of race or will racial/ethnic group testing percentages be upheld and modified?

Is Florida's change in educational standards change a discriminatory practice or is it a move to end subgroup testing and test on individual achievement, not subgroup achievement? When can race be taken into consideration for academic achievement and when does it become discriminatory in educational expectations?

Here's an article from the University of Chicago Undergraduate Law Review on the unintended consequences of NCLB.  It raises some of the issues the Florida State Board of Education is facing with disparate AYP scores:

NCLB was the federal government’s first attempt to impose a sweeping series of regulations on the US public education system. Unfortunately, the implementation of these regulations was hampered by a lack of federal funding, the unrealistic mandate that all the subgroups of each of a state’s public schools meet identical AYP benchmarks, and a poorly thought out series of consequences for schools consistently failing to make AYP. A more effective policy would have provided more federal funding; given the federal government the responsibility of creating standardized tests; created multiple proficiency benchmarks associated with different post secondary educational tracks; created a formula that set AMOs for specific schools, and individual subgroups within those schools, relative to the past performance of those schools and subgroups; mandated standardized tests include additional subjects such as social studies, arts, and music; and devised a more effective set of consequences for schools failing to make AYP. Without such changes to NCLB’s requirements, it will continue to be regarded as more of a failure than a success,” has been inserted. Until these reforms are implemented, NCLB’s shortcomings will continue to hamper the US public education system.

If it is an unrealistic mandate that all subgroups meet identical standards, then a state must either lower the standards for all subgroups, establish different standards for each group or eliminate the standards all together.

Why does the Post Dispatch Want More Funding for Education?

Where is education funding going?  To schools or bureaucrats?

There is an editorial in the St. Louis Post Dispatch this morning bemoaning the lack of money for education.  Here is an excerpt:

When St. Louis businessman Dave Spence, the Republican candidate for governor, visited the Post-Dispatch editorial board last month, he clearly had done his homework in one key area.

For months, this page has been arguing that Missouri's incredibly low rankings in terms of education funding are at the root of many of the state's ills, not the least of which is a moribund economy.

The numbers tell the story. Various rankings put the state among the lowest in the nation, somewhere between 45 and 47 in higher education funding. And while K-12 funding continues to slowly rise from year to year, it's not keeping pace either. National studies of education funding always put Missouri in the lowest third of states in the nation.

Mr. Spence agreed with us. But he offered not a single solution to the problem.

We asked, in as many ways as we could think of, how he would increase education funding, or even whether he definitely would commit to doing it. He said he'd find some efficiencies. Maybe. That's it.

The Post Dispatch consistently argues that the state needs more money for good education.  I ask in forums, on this blog and in conversations with others...why is that the STL city schools receive $16,000 per student and my district spends $12,000 per student, yet my district consistently scores much higher than the STL city school district?  Is the first response to educational reform and an increase in test scores answered by throwing more money at the current educational system?

I don't think it is and I suspect Mr. Spence doesn't think it is either.  Let's look at how much money has been spent on federal programs for education.  From Lindsey Burke of the Heritage Foundation in "Reducing the Federal Footprint on Education and Empowering State and Local Leaders":

In fiscal year (FY) 2011, the federal government will spend nearly $25 billion on the more than 60 competitive grant programs and some 20 formula grant programs that currently fall under NCLB.[1] This wide range of programs strains school-level management as states and school districts must spend their time completing applications, monitoring federal program notices, and complying with federal reporting requirements.[2]

 

Demonstrating compliance with the numerous programs through which federal education funding flows has required significant work by state and local education agencies over the decades. According to a 1994 report by the General Accounting Office (GAO), the burden on states to comply with federal regulations caused states to hire 13,400 employees to oversee these programs. The GAO noted that in 1994, while just 7 percent of education funding was provided by the federal government, 41 percent of the paperwork burden imposed on states was due to compliance with federal regulation.[3]

 

No Child Left Behind, the eighth ESEA reauthorization, compounded this federal-compliance burden and further entrenched the role of Washington in education policy. Estimates from 2006 found that the new guidelines and regulations created by NCLB increased state and local education agencies’ annual paperwork burden by 6.7 million hours, at a cost of $141 million.[4] According to Representative John Kline (R–MN), chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, the federal burden has continued to grow since that time. “States and school districts work 7.8 million hours each year collecting and disseminating information required under Title I of federal education law. Those hours cost more than $235 million. The burden is tremendous, and this is just one of many federal laws weighing down our schools.”[5]

One Virginia school district reported that “the cost of setting aside a single day to train the roughly 14,000 teachers in the division on the [NCLB’s] complex requirements is equivalent to the cost of hiring 72 additional teachers.”[6]

Representative Duncan Hunter (R–CA), chairman of the Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education Subcommittee, made similar observations:

Currently, the paperwork burden imposed by the Department of Education is larger than that of the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of the Interior, and the Department of Justice. From 2002 to 2009, the Department of Education’s paperwork burden increased by an estimated 65 percent—an astounding number that continues to grow.

In addition to program compliance, states and school districts must monitor the numerous program regulations handed down from Washington. The U.S. Department of Education has issued guidance on K–12 education programs in more than 100 separate instances since NCLB was authorized in 2002.[7]

 

Washington’s ever-expanding role in education—evident most recently in No Child Left Behind—has been paralleled by a significant growth in non-teaching staff at the school level. Since the 1950s, the number of teachers as a percentage of school staff has declined from 70 percent to approximately 51 percent. Over the same time, administrative support staff increased from 23.8 percent to 30 percent.[8] In the mid-20th century, public schools employed 2.36 teachers for every non-teacher on their rolls; today, the ratio is closer to one-to-one.[9]

Moreover, the federal government is an inefficient provider of education funding; it filters taxpayer money from the states through the Department of Education, back down to state education agencies, and, ultimately, to local schools. Each step along the way diminishes the funds that are available to serve the needs of students. A 1998 estimate suggested that just 65 cents to 70 cents of every education dollar leaving Washington makes it into the classroom.[10]

Burke details how funding could be cut to many of the 150 federal education programs creating mandates for state agencies and local districts, control handed back to the states (although I didn't see a mention of the elimination of common core which is a concern) and how education could become more effective in terms of dollars and test scores.   She puts forth recommendations on education reform (read the article for the specifics on the A-Plus program):

Recommendations for National Policymakers

• Allow states to opt out of federal K–12 programs authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and direct funding to the programs of their choice. Congress should give states more freedom in how federal education dollars are spent so that state and local leaders can use those resources in a way that will best serve student needs. The A-PLUS approach would create direct accountability to parents and taxpayers, aligning the incentives of states with the needs of families, not compliance with Washington. By allowing states to opt out of ESEA and consolidate the many federal programs operated under the law, state leaders would be able to direct funding to the most pressing education needs. It would also reduce federal red tape, limit the bureaucratic compliance burden and associated man hours and paperwork, ensure transparency, and provide direct accountability to parents and taxpayers.
• Reduce the federal footprint in education by eliminating and consolidating programs. In conjunction with measures such as A-PLUS, federal policymakers should streamline the many programs operated through the Department of Education. Instead of funneling money to the states through more than 100 competitive and formula grant programs operated by the Education Department, federal policymakers should scale back the number of programs and consolidate funding among many others. The vast majority of competitive grant programs operated within the Department of Education should be eliminated,[25] and formula grant programs that are similarly structured should be subsumed under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. In addition to the numerous competitive grant programs, there are also a handful of miscellaneous programs that should be eliminated entirely: the National Writing Project, Advanced Certification of Teachers, and Reading is Fundamental are a few examples of the miscellaneous ESEA programs that should be cut. These programs should not be under the purview of the federal government.
• Simplify Title I and consolidate formula funding programs to better target funding to needy students. The Title I funding formula should be simplified using a set per-pupil allocation to ensure maximum funding reaches poor children, rather than diluting it due to formula complexity and administrative requirements. Many existing formula grant programs should be consolidated to more efficiently target funding to needy students. Eleven of 18 formula grant programs base funding on the number of low-income children in a state, similar to how Title I dollars are allocated. Following program elimination called for by the Obama Administration, these programs should be consolidated with Title I, and the formula should be simplified to ensure maximum funding reaches poor children.[26]
  
  Instead of requiring states to complete numerous applications for these federal funding streams, program consolidation would simplify state application to Washington for funding for disadvantaged student populations, reducing the paperwork burden. It could also mean a reduction in reporting requirements, further reducing the time local schools must devote to bureaucratic compliance, which could instead be spent on classroom instruction or time with students.

Congress should also permit states to make Title I funding portable, allowing funding to follow a child to the school of his parents’ choice—public, private, virtual, or otherwise.

Whether or not you agree with Burke's opinions, she makes a strong case that the Federal Government is mandating programs creating massive state debt.  Four decades of federal intervention hasn't moved test scores (they are stagnant) but it sure has decimated state budgets and created a bloated administrative bureaucratic level that is financially unsustainable.

If the Post Dispatch would get past the tired old mantra of "more money, more money, more money for education" and ask "why do we need more more money to pay for programs that don't work?" a serious and substantive  discussion could ensue and the start of real education reform could begin.

The Post writes:

We asked, in as many ways as we could think of, how he would increase education funding, or even whether he definitely would commit to doing it. He said he'd find some efficiencies. Maybe. That's it.

Maybe Mr. Spence could articulate some of the efficiencies noted in Ms. Burke's article.   I don't know why Missouri wants to spend more money for mandates voters never get to vote for while it's obvious the Federal government's educational mandated programs aren't working.

. 

EAGnews Buys into the "Bad Teacher" Argument

There are many factors in a failing school.  Why just blame "ineffective" teachers...and just how are there "ineffective" teachers measured?

This morning we posted how the Missouri Riverview Gardens school district scores were not better even as the state took over the district's educational delivery for the last two years.  We questioned if Missouri DESE's Chris Nicastro should be fired as an "ineffective"  administrator.  According to a letter to the editor and a former Riverview Gardens teacher who was fired, the reasons a school fails could possibly be for additional reasons, not just that "ineffective" teachers cause low student achievement.

EAGnews.org had this article on its site today:

Augsut 23, 2012

Pennsylvania teachers told no more raises until they demonstrate their value

School board should be commended for demanding higher standards

From staff reports

EAGnews.org

     BROWNSVILLE, Pa. – The truth hurts.
     That’s a lesson teachers at the Brownsville Area School District learned this week when school board members explained their reasoning for rejecting a proposed contract with the local teachers union.
     In a public meeting, school board Director Nena Kaminsky said she couldn’t vote in favor of the contract because “we have the highest paid teachers in Fayette County and we have the worst test scores in the state,” the Herald Standard reports.
     In other words, the community isn’t getting its money’s worth and the board will not settle for that.

     The comments sent the teachers union into a tizzy.

     The Brownsville Education Association held rallies at two local elementary schools where dozens of teachers held signs reading, “We deserve respect.” The rallies, union officials said, were prompted by Kaminsky’s comments, not the rejected contract.

     “Yes, we do have some schools that are struggling, but we are working toward trying to improve the test scores,” union president Barbara Gera told the newspaper. “We don’t have the worst test scores in the state. We are very upset with the school board’s perception of teachers.”

     “We are not outraged or disappointed; we are just hurt,” said high school teacher Brian Nicholson, a union negotiator.

     Sometimes the truth hurts. Whether the district’s student test scores are technically the worst in the state, or close to it, is beside the point. It’s clear that students aren’t learning as well as they could and the school board should be commended for demanding higher standards.

     Too often, school boards adopt a go-along-to-get-along mentality that does nothing to improve student instruction. In Brownsville, school officials made it clear that classroom performance matters.

     The BEA would be wise to take the criticism to heart, work with the district to improve teaching techniques, and implement new methods to help students achieve their potential. Then, with student test scores on the rise, they’ll be in a much better position to negotiate for the amount of money they believe they’re worth. But first, they will have to demonstrate their value.

     That’s the way it should be in every school district in the nation.

I'm stunned by this myopic vision of what makes a school an "effective" school and what makes an "effective" teacher.  Kids may not test well:

• If the standards and assessments are faulty or unproven/untested (common core standards)
• If students are not able to learn the material
• If students don't make the effort to learn
• If parents don't/can't/won't support their child's learning
• If the material is not appropriate for a child's' individual learning style 

EAGnews should be ashamed.  The Riverview Gardens experiment with Teach for America and firing "ineffective teachers" is just one example of how teachers are just one part of the equation in successful or non-successful schools.  EAG is blaming teachers for all the woes of education.

Why are they wrong?  Here's a tweet I received after the first article appeared this morning:

Hmm, what's worse, teaching what shouldn't be taught('what color is math', 'we are a Democracy')ineffectively or effectively?

What is most important?  An "effective" teacher or "effective" standards, assessments and curriculum?  Oh, that's right.  That idea of  standards, assessments and curriculum upon which "effectiveness" is based is now decided by the CCSSO, the NGA, and other private special interests unaccountable to taxpayers.  How this "effectiveness" is measured is mandated by the DOEd, not local districts.   Should we be celebrating that we can now measure teachers based on national standards that may or may not be appropriate in content, learning style and the fact that local communities have no voice in their crafting? 

Does EAGnews realize or care that teachers must "demonstrate their value" by teaching unproven, untested and unfunded mandates?  NCLB was a failure and common core is already raising much concern on its effectiveness.   Does this organization really believe "That’s the way it should be in every school district in the nation"?

 

Resistance to Common Core State Standards Gaining Steam

Utah leads the effort to push back against Common Core Standards and all of their associated regulations and requirements. Their state school board has already voted to withdraw from SBAC, the consortium developing the assessments. The fight continues however, as this vote was only step one in divesting themselves of CCSS.

Predictably the USDoE is not going to make backing out of the consortia easy. They are the third and final hurdle a state must get over to actually back out. Now that the state has taken step one, the USDoE is coming in to push back.  Listen to this discussion at the Education Committee hearing in Utah. Jim Stergios from the Pioneer Institute, and Ted Rebarber CEO of AccountabilityWorks, testified on issues with Common Core.

Jaykell Sullivan developed a great infographic, which is included in the information packet shared at the Education Committee hearing, which demonstrates how Common Core is not a departure from NLCB (which it supposedly was in the beginning), but is in fact NCLB on steroids.

 

Utah is leading the way, but Missouri doesn't have to be left behind. We already have the support of the Republican Party in the state's platform which rejects Common Core. Let us know if you would be willing to join a state coalition to educate our legislature on Common Core and get them to support pulling our state out of CCSS, the longitudinal database, excessive assessments and decisions about the education system in our state that come from Washington.

 

Create your free online surveys with SurveyMonkey, the world's leading questionnaire tool.

National School Board Association Concerned about Unfunded Federal Mandates. Common Core Unplugged?

Common Core MANDATES: Unproven, Untested, Unconstitutional and UNDERFUNDED.  Unless you live in Missouri.  Missouri taxpayers are special.  Our common core implementation will have no additional cost.

 

Are the local school districts going to refuse to implement the Common Core mandate because of cost?  Forget that they are unproven, untested and unconstitutional...they are also severely underfunded and will cause tax increases to school districts.  The National School Board Association writes how unfunded mandates impact local districts and how this lack of funding will mean unsuccessful implementation of federal laws:

The National School Board Association’s (NSBA) President C. Ed Massey, a member of the Boone County, Ky., school board, spoke to his local Rotary Club about the need to relieve local school systems from inflexible federal laws that do not come with enough funding to successfully implement.

Massey explained the need for local school board members and other education advocates to become involved in lobbying their members of Congress in a presentation to members of the Florence, Ky. Rotary Club last week.

“A lot of congressional members just get snippets of information,” he said in a story published at the Cincinnati Enquirer’s community website. “Because they are not educators, they don’t understand the issues in depth.”

The Boone County school board and members of the Kentucky School Boards Association have recently worked with Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on issues related to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization.

This doesn't coincide with the information published in Missouri last year about the cost of mandates.  From "FAQ-CCSS-2-10-2011", produced by Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 2.11.11 and now pulled off the Internet.  (Contact the Commissioner's office at comedu@dese.mo.gov to receive a copy of the entire FAQ pdf).

Q. What about cost? 

As stated earlier, the Department has not requested additional or new funding for the implementation or professional development associated with revised standards and assessments. Though the Department’s staff has been reduced significantly in the past few ears, the efficient use of technology, including webinars, teleconferences, and other tools is allowing us to communicate with stakeholders and provide support. Districts also should not have additional costs over and above their current investments in ongoing curriculum and professional development. These costs are built into current budgets and devoted to current activities related to instructional improvement. In addition, districts will be able to use the new tools and resources available to them—model curriculum, learning activities, interim and benchmark assessments—which many districts have to spend time and resources developing, or pay a vendor for now.

 Maybe the president of the NSBA remembered history and accessed the 2005 Department of Education in Virginia's study on the cost to districts to implement previous federal mandates in NCLB.  From its report on the cost of fullfilling the requirements of NCLB Act for School and the Congressional testimony provided  on the cost:

Even the federal funds that reach school districts are not immune from the administrative compliance burden. Reports from school districts provide real-life examples of the administrative burden felt from heavy-handed federal regulations. A Fairfax County, Virginia, school district, for example, noted:

―The school division lengthened the standard teacher contract from 194 days to 195 just to allow for extra [NCLB] training time. The cost of setting aside a single day to train the roughly 14,000 teachers in the division on the law‘s complex requirements is equivalent to the cost of hiring 72 additional teachers. The law also affects paraprofessionals: an extra day‘s training equates to the cost of hiring about ten additional instructional assistants. There are roughly 1,000 administrators who require training as well. A day‘s training represents the cost for four additional assistant principals. Thus, each day out of the year that is set aside to explain the law results in a missed opportunity to assign 86 instructional personnel year-round to interface directly with the community‘s children and work directly to address their academic needs.

and

In 2006, the Office of Management and Budget found that No Child Left Behind cost states an additional 7 million hours in paperwork at a cost of $141 million.


There is no difference between the training needed for NCLB and Common Core....the teachers and administrators must be taught the new standards and assessments...just like they had to when NCLB started. It is stunning to see the costs associated with NCLB in 2005 and it is even more stunning that DESE states it will cost nothing in 2012 to implement Common Core standards and the waiver just granted in Missouri. Many of these new reforms have been labelled "NCLB on steroids" and it is indefensible for bureaucrats to tell legislators, taxpayers and school districts these reforms will not cost money.

You can access the Pioneer Institute white paper detailing costs to states here.


School districts could in the past decide what assessments they wanted to use for testing and teacher evaluations. Now they have no choice. They will have to have the computers or hand held devices (provided by the school districts) for student assessments (those assessments will account for 50% of teachers' accountability calculations) because that is what is mandated.   Assessments can be done every 3 weeks. The high stakes testing will be an endless cycle.  The cost of the MAP testing was about $1.80 per student. These new assessments are projected to cost about $19.00 per student in Missouri. That's a cost to the districts.

It's time for the school boards and districts to push back and refuse to implement or even partially fund these federal mandates that will not reform education. These reforms and mandates will bankrupt districts. Look how well NCLB worked for education reform (states begged to get out of the mandates) and cost. Now the same districts are having to pay for even more onerous and costly mandates via RTTT and Common Core standards. Don't repeat the same Federal experiment twice. It won't work.

Sunday Education Reform Comic Strip that Isn't Funny...and The Sunday Education Weekly Reader 07.15.12..

Featuring a Sunday comic that isn't funny or "for the kids".

Welcome to the Sunday Education Weekly Reader for 07.15.2012.

We are highlighting a cartoon from archcomix.com highlighting education reform issues.  I picked it up from GF Brandenberg's blog:

Instead of attempting to reproduce the entire cartoon here, let me give you the URL so you can look at it.

The art isn't perfect, but it does lay out the issues behind NCLB, RTTT, charter schools, TFA, and so on.

Click here to see it.

It does address most issues but omits probably the worst "reform" to come out of these plans: the longitudinal data system and the tracking of student/family data so that human "capital" can be groomed to supply workforce needs.

For a good basic discussion about most of the reforms, it's a good read and delves beneath the veneer of school "choice" touted by both liberal and conservative politicians.  Whether or not you agree with all the contentions, the comic hopefully will raise awareness of citizens on who is behind the reforms and why.  The reforms go way beyond "it's for the kids".  An educated citizen should understand where his/her taxpayers dollars are being spent, who is controlling those dollars and who is benefiting from those expenditures.  It might surprise you that tax dollars are headed to "public" education controlled by private corporations unaccountable to those same taxpayers funding the educational reforms.

 It goes beyond just the desire for private corporations to make money in charter schools, however.  Think data capture.  That will yield much more money in the long run than charter schools.

You can access the entire comic here.

Education Reform: The Federal Government just "Can't Stop"

Parker Brothers Game Board or Federal Government's Involvement in Education?

The Jefferson City News Tribune published a thought provoking editorial questioning the federal involvement in education and it elicited a spirited discussion in the comment section:

******************************************************************

Why are people in public life so reluctant to admit a mistake?

The question resurfaces with the federal government’s insistence on reauthorizing a sweeping education law that 26 states, so far, have abandoned.

The question also is largely rhetorical. Elected officials fear admitting errors will scuttle re-election. So, instead, they strive to appear perfect, a pretense not consistent with being human.

With regard to the “No Child Left Behind” federal education law — championed by former President George W. Bush — the Obama administration’s reauthoritization effort appears inconsistent.

It is inconsistent with granting waivers to states and with Obama’s across-the-board insistence on blaming Bush.

No Child Left Behind poses two important issues: Is education a federal responsibility and are federal standards the best way to improve academic performance?

The answer to the first question — from a constitutional standpoint — clearly is no. The U.S. Constitution largely is silent on education, in contrast to the Missouri Constitution’s emphasis on providing and funding public education.

As a practical matter, however, Americans have raised concerns about statistics indicating U.S. students are academically inferior to their peers in other countries.

Public concerns attract candidates’ platforms and promises. And — for good or ill — education has been characterized as a national problem in need of federal mandates.

But Obama’s waiver option has been sought by and granted to more than half of the states, with another 10 applications pending.

Now, we get this confusing, convoluted statement from Education Secretary Arne Duncan: “A strong, bipartisan reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act remains the best path forward in education reform, but as 26 states have now demonstrated, our kids can’t wait any longer for Congress to act.”

But our kids haven’t been waiting; the federal law has been in effect for 10 years. And many states want out.

Failure to push for reauthorization, however, might be construed as an admission that the federal government is imperfect.

And we mustn’t have that. 

*************************************************************

Following the editorial are comments questioning the Federal government's involvement in education and the amount of control it wields in directing state/local educational policy and state/local school district budgets. One of the last  comments caught my attention and I  believe demonstrates a lack of understanding of the egregious effects of this current education "reform":

Clayton 19 hours, 16 minutes ago

Now, we get this confusing, convoluted opinion from the News Trib. Has every federal responsibility been listed in the constitution? The answer to this question clearly is no.

The only valuable idea in this piece is the second issue mentioned: "are federal standards the best way to improve academic performance?" Then the author proceeds to ignore his/her own question. So what's the point of this opinion peace? A. To complain that politicians don't admit mistakes? (really?) B. To all but claim that NCLB was unconstitutional? (seriously?) C. To add a few sparks to the tinderbox and get readers debating tired issues in the comments thread? (bingo)

A more well written piece would push us to think about solving the core issue, rather than arguing about the constitution.

And we mustn't have that. 

************************************************

My thoughts?

Clayton writes:  

So what's the point of this opinion peace? .......C. To add a few sparks to the tinderbox and get readers debating tired issues in the comments thread? (bingo)   

If "tired issues" mean:

• the privatization of public education with no taxpayer accountability, 
• the lack of power of states to now set their own educational directives, 
• federal mandates create an establishment of a national longitudinal data base to track children from birth so they can be assessed for workforce needs.....

...then it's not "Bingo".  It's the Parker Brother's federal government version game of Can't Stop.  More onerous mandates coming at states and school districts won't "reform" education in the least. It just feeds the power hungry federal agencies, creates a huge crony capitalist "edreform" market that will bankrupt states and local school districts, violates citizens' right to privacy, keeps federal bureaucrats employed and doesn't educate students.

Clayton continues: 

A more well written piece would push us to think about solving the core issue, rather than arguing about the constitution.

Clayton may have missed the point the editorial was making: the core issue DOES stem from Constitutional discussions.  The states were to educate their citizens, not the Federal government.  When education became a federal entitlement program (one size fits all)  instead of a state's responsibility to its unique citizenry, what you see is the deterioration of serving students.  The autonomy of the state and local districts has been reduced to becoming facilitators of federal policy. 

The core issue is taxpayers can't make decisions for their schools or their children because of  federal mandates that should have never been foisted on states and school districts.  When personal, local, and state decisions are taken away, what do you think is going to happen?  When "educational opportunity" becomes "educational equity" and the goal is "equal outcome", the solution is obvious: have serious discussions on why the DOEd is involved in education in the first place and reduce the federal involvement in education.

From Understanding Gender Difference to Promote Gender Equity:

Freeman(1990) defines gender equity as the set of behaviors and knowledge that permits educators to recognize inequality in educational opportunities, to carry out specific interventions that constitute equal treatment, and to ensure equal educational outcomes.

 

Is this the "Bingo" moment?  Is this the core issue?  Shouldn't we be debating the Federal Government's insistence  and continued spending on a mandate (equal outcome) that can never be realized?  Shouldn't we be questioning, as does the News Tribune: Is education a federal responsibility and are federal standards the best way to improve academic performance?

Education Political Correctness, Education Elites and the Sunday Education Weekly Reader 05.20.12

YOU are ultimately responsible for your education and life choices.

Welcome to the Sunday Education Weekly Reader 05.20.12.  From the twitter world this week:

• Political correctness gone amok or valid concerns over unfair commentary?  Does it make a difference to know she is married to an African-American man and has bi-racial children?.....Naomi Riley, Chronicle Of Higher Education Blogger, Fired For Calling Black Studies 'Clap. http://huff.to/JbMfsK

•  This is truly amazing piece.  This progressive writer believes the educational reform is from the conservatives.  He makes the argument that conservatives hate critical thinking.  So why are the educational reforms also coming from Arne Duncan and Obama, Michelle Rhee and David Coleman?  I didn't think they considered themselves conservatives....How the Conservative Worldview Quashes Critical Thinking -- and ... http://bit.ly/JWGb3S  The point is: the American public has been sold out by all those in power.

•  No link here, just an interesting tweet: :Obama is NO Better than Christie, Romney, Booker, Tepper, Broad, Gates, Walton...; IMO they R all =ly pimpin education 4 $$ & NMTC  Looks like other tweeters are cutting through the political labels and calling it like it is.

• Jeez. Sounds like your human capital is just that...capital.  Groomed for the workforce...What should students learn in the 21st century? – #Education - http://bit.ly/MwoVWO

*******************************************************************

This week's history lesson on twitter:  Remember, NCLB was the hood ornament of the Bush adm. It was done as a Fed mandate. It has not been undone because Arne Duncan supports it.  

A bit of additional information: Senator Edward Kennedy was a proponent as well.  This was a bi-partisan descent into chaos.