Home › Blogs › No Issues Left Behind

« January 2006 | Main | March 2006 »

February 28, 2006

Whither North Park?

Moorpark Voters look like they are rejecting the North Park Nature Reserve tonight in Moorpark. On Absentees alone, "NO" is crushing "yes".

Did Moorpark voters just send $70 million for Moorpark schools packing?

What say you?

Tim

Posted by Tim Keaney at 08:30 PM

Comments (1)

February 27, 2006

$10,000???

According to the Daily News, the project to build a web site for the Simi C4 Oversight Committee has been going on for a year, with little to show for it (sounds like the rest of the bond projects)... But the Daily News WAS kind enough to post a link to the web site in progress. I think it will be fun watching this come to fruition - sort of like watching the grass grow!

Daily News Story and the link to the new web site is here

Your tax dollars at work Simi Valley....

Tim

Posted by Tim Keaney at 04:35 PM

Comments (6)

What is proficient?

Basic Instincts

By CHESTER E. FINN JR. and DIANE RAVITCH
February 27, 2006; WSJ Page A14

U.S. students lag behind their peers in other modern nations -- and the gap widens dramatically as their grade levels rise. Our high school pupils (and graduates) are miles from where they need to be to assure them and our country a secure future in the highly competitive global economy. Hence, any serious effort at education reform hinges on our setting world-class standards, then candidly tracking performance in relation to those standards. Even when gains are slender and results disappointing, we need the plain truth. Which is why recent attempts by federal and state governments to sugarcoat the performance of students is so alarming.

Our most rigorous standards are those of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a federally funded testing program that began in 1969. At a time when many states, responding to the accountability prods of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, are embracing low performance norms for their students -- and pumping out misleading information about how many youngsters are "proficient" and how many schools are making "adequate yearly progress" -- NAEP functions as an indispensable external benchmark. It unblinkingly reported that only 29% of eighth grade public school pupils were "proficient" in math and reading in 2005. It also showed starkly that the results reported by many states are far too rosy. Observe (in the adjacent chart) the contrasts between what states claimed and what NAEP found.

Not surprisingly, NAEP's role as honest auditor makes state officials squirm. Since NCLB expects each state to set its own academic norms and choose its own tests, the temptation to dumb them down is irresistible; NAEP is the main antidote. Congress knew that in 2001 when, as part of No Child Left Behind, it required all states to take part in NAEP reading and math tests in grades four and eight. (Previously, state participation was voluntary.) Since 1988, NAEP's standards and policies have been set by the independent, bipartisan National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB). In 1990, that body promulgated three achievement levels for reporting NAEP results. These it labeled "basic," "proficient" and "advanced."

"Basic" denoted "partial mastery of knowledge and skills." "Advanced" signified "superior performance beyond grade-level mastery." "Proficient," though, was the key. NAGB termed it "the central level," representing "solid academic performance for each grade tested" and "a consensus that students reaching this level have demonstrated competency over challenging subject matter and are well prepared for the next level of schooling." NAGB intended that "proficient" would represent the skills that every student ought to possess -- even if many were not there yet. On NAEP tests since 1990, this level of performance has usually been reached by about three kids in 10. Everyone knows that's unsatisfactory. But it's also reality, an accurate gauge of the gap between U.S. pupils' prowess and what they need to match world standards.

From the outset, some educators protested that NAGB's "proficient" was too ambitious, but the board stuck to its guns. For the past 15 years, both NAGB and the Department of Education, which manages NAEP, have resisted pressure from politicians and educators to back away from, or dumb down, the "proficient" standard. With NCLB, however, that's begun to change. More voices are demanding that NAEP focus attention on the much-lower "basic" standard. Explains a spokesman for the Tennessee Department of Education: "NAEP's basic is comparable to our proficient." Federal officials should push back, insisting on NAGB's "proficient" as the gold standard. They should continue to highlight -- and deplore -- any gaps between it and state test results. But the White House and Education Department now crave proof that NCLB is succeeding and seek to accommodate state pleas for "flexibility" and pacify governors threatening to withdraw from NCLB.

Hence they, too, are subtly substituting "basic" for "proficient" when they report NAEP results -- and downplaying standards altogether in favor of simple up-and-down trend lines. In releasing the 2005 scores, the Education Department for the first time published comparison tables showing state-specific progress only in relation to "basic." And even NAGB members now highlight "basic" rather than "proficient." In October, chairman Darvin M. Winick, a long-time Texas associate of Education Secretary Margaret Spellings and President Bush, spoke only of gains at the basic level. His "reporting and dissemination" committee acknowledged that "We're trying to draw attention to basic as an achievement level with some value."

Last month, when releasing 2005 NAEP results for 11 big cities, Mr. Winick's statement focused entirely on trend lines, not standards. (He and his colleagues also suggested that students should be compared with others of the same race rather than in relation to standards.) Staffers guiding journalists and other statistical amateurs through these complex data cited "studies" asserting that NAEP's "basic" is closer to states' "proficient" norms -- which is certainly true but should be interpreted as proof that NAEP must maintain its high standards, not succumb to states' lesser aspirations.

Is No Child Left Behind corrupting NAEP? It's too soon to be sure. But it's clear that, for those in the Bush administration and on Capitol Hill whose own reputations hinge on the perceived success of NCLB, NAEP results now carry consequences, just as they do for states.

Just how demanding is "proficient" anyway? Here's how NAGB defined it for fourth grade math: "Fourth graders performing at the proficient level should be able to use whole numbers to estimate, compute, and determine whether results are reasonable. They should have a conceptual understanding of fractions and decimals; be able to solve real-world problems in all NAEP content areas; and use four-function calculators, rulers and geometric shapes appropriately." Is this too much to expect? Hardly. America's great education problem is that for years we settled for "basic skills" rather than true proficiency. The Bush administration does a disservice to the nation if it tells educators and state officials that "basic" is acceptable. You can be sure that our competitors aren't doing any such thing.

Mr. Finn served on the NAGB from 1988 to 1996, including two years as chairman, and Ms. Ravitch served on it from 1998 to 2004. Both are senior fellows at Stanford's Hoover Institution.

Posted by Tim Keaney at 11:31 AM

Comments (18)

February 24, 2006

Inner City Kids catch a break

From the Wall Street Journal...

A School Choice Victory
February 24, 2006; Page A12

After three previous vetoes, Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle finally did right by inner-city school kids last week and signed on to a bipartisan compromise that would expand Milwaukee's successful school voucher program.

The 16-year-old Parental Choice Program, which provides vouchers for low-income children to attend private schools, is the nation's largest. But under current law enrollment is capped at about 15,000 students, or 15% of Milwaukee's public school enrollment. The deal being hashed out by Governor Doyle, a Democrat, and State Assembly Speaker John Gard, a Republican, would lift that cap by 50% to accommodate some 22,500 students.

This fix may seem like a no-brainer. After all, the program's success is apparent not only by its popularity but by study after study showing that vouchers have increased graduation rates and raised education standards. But until now, Governor Doyle has cared less about building on this success and more about placating a teachers union that's opposed to the competition.

Ultimately, a sustained grass-roots campaign led by choice proponents -- along with flagging poll numbers among Mr. Doyle's pro-voucher black base in an election year -- forced the Governor's hand. A particularly effective television spot by the Alliance for Choices in Education featured a black father telling the camera, "If school choice is good enough for the Governor's family, I ought to be able to have it, too." Governor Doyle's son attended a private school. Sometimes it helps to point out the hypocrisy of public officials who exercise the very freedoms they deny others.

Voucher advocates, who want the enrollment cap removed altogether, didn't get everything they wanted, but they did get the better of the Governor. And with some extra breathing room, they're hoping focus can return to student achievement, where it should be.

Posted by Tim Keaney at 08:17 AM

Comments (9)

February 23, 2006

Is "My Space" in your place?

Every once in a while, something comes along that tempts kids into acting inappropriately, and their parents haven't a clue as to what it's about.

myspace.com is just one of these things. Many parents, if they know their kids use it, think the kids are just using it to post pictures, share information and chat with friends. Much of this is true, and probably a majority of myspace.com users use it this innocently.

At the same time, myspace has become a place where teenagers reveal a LOT about themselves:

Age
Location
Sexual Preferences
Pictures of themselves in risque' poses and clothes

And while yes, friends can visit each other's myspace pages, so can anybody else. Which is where the problem is. See, child molesters and serial rapists, also, unfortunately have access to the Internet - Just yesterday there was a sting netting quite a few of them, all having found their prospective victims on myspace - from the Los Angeles Times:

"The men are accused of contacting adults posing as 12- or 13-year-olds through popular websites such as MySpace.com. Members of a citizens group called perverted-justice.com, which has worked with law officers nationwide to catch would-be child molesters, chatted with the men and alerted Laguna Beach police, authorities said, whenever a man suggested a sexual rendezvous."

Folks - log into myspace.com and see what kids are posting. I have, and it is quite disturbing as a parent.

I welcome your comments.

Tim Keaney
NILB

Posted by Tim Keaney at 07:42 AM

Comments (4)

February 19, 2006

Forget C4 (maybe we can do C2?)

Higher costs could force school bond project cuts
By Angie Valencia-Martinez, Daily News Staff Writer

SIMI VALLEY - School officials are considering scaling back bond-related projects because of soaring construction costs that have put plans as much as $60 million over budget, school officials said.

Voters approved a $145 million school bond measure in 2004, but because of cost overruns officials now estimate that the price tag to complete the laundry list of proposed projects is about $243 million.

From the Daily News...

Higher costs could force school bond project cuts
By Angie Valencia-Martinez, Staff Writer

SIMI VALLEY - School officials are considering scaling back bond-related projects because of soaring construction costs that have put plans as much as $60 million over budget, school officials said.
Voters approved a $145 million school bond measure in 2004, but because of cost overruns officials now estimate that the price tag to complete the laundry list of proposed projects is about $243 million.

"About 80 percent of the projects should be done," said Lowell Schultze, associate superintendent of business and facilities.

To limit rising costs, construction will be compressed from a 10-year schedule to six, with completion by 2010. To be on the safe side, officials are now using an annual inflation rate of 14 percent, up from 4 percent.

The projects planned at each of the district's 29 campuses were estimated to cost $186 million before the bond measure was approved, and the district relied on receiving an additional $41 million from the state. Since then, the cost has skyrocketed.

"We need to prioritize," school board member Greg Stratton said. "Changes have to be looked at unless we can cough up more money. ... The board has to get to the nitty-gritty of what needs to be done at every school."

To make up the difference, school officials are considering selling off surplus property, although some support the idea more than others. Last year, the district requested appraisals on three parcels: the Wood Ranch conference center, an equestrian center south of Long Canyon and Walnut Grove Elementary School.

The combined value is more than $10 million, with the closed campus alone worth about $6 million, Schultze said.

Last week, the school board agreed only to pursue the idea of possibly selling the equestrian center and Wood Ranch conference center. Before anything can happen, an advisory committee must be formed to declare the assets as surplus.

With the available funds, officials will first concentrate on priority projects, including fire safety, electrical and technology upgrades, as well as making sure all buildings are handicapped accessible, Schultze said. Other projects likely will have to be dropped from the

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advertisement

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

construction list.

"Whatever funding is left, we will work with the schools themselves to set up a priority list," he said. "We'll get a good handle on that as we go along."

So far, the district has spent about $17 million of the $145 million bond authorized by voters. Much of the work performed has been design-related. Modernization of Royal and Simi Valley high schools is now complete, and the expansion at Atherwood Elementary School will continue, including a new administration building, library and classrooms.

Among the issues the district now faces is the Simi Valley High School stadium project. An all-weather track and artificial turf should be in place by September, but there isn't enough money for more seats and a press box, as originally planned.

Also, plans for Santa Susana High School have come in $1 million over budget; they include modernization of the campus, a multipurpose auditorium and more library space.

School board member Carla Kurachi, who has been pushing for the sale of unused property, said now is the time to get rid of some of the district's holdings.

"We're not in the real estate business," she said. "Our job is to educate today's children, and hanging on to property that costs us a bit of money every year is not very prudent."

Mike McCaffrey, chairman of the district's bond oversight committee, said the group will continue to monitor how the money is spent.

"We want to aid the district in stretching the dollars as far as we can," he said. "The best way we can do that is to make sure they are spent in the most efficient manner possible."

Posted by Tim Keaney at 08:32 PM

Comments (3)

February 17, 2006

NCLB forces local schools to improve

According to the VCSS Office "Focus on Education" (sorry Ann)...:

73% of high schools, 52% of middle schools and 62% of elementary schools in Ventura County met all Federal AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) goals and exceeded overall state performance. Ventura County had a 5% gain in the number of schools that met all AYP targets, with High Schools leading the way with a 34% gain.

9 out of the 20 districts in the County did not meet their AYP goals. Fortunately, the NCLB act allows for additional funding, tutoring and resources to flow to these districts to help non-english learners and socio-economically disadvantaged students get a leg up and get ahead. More of these resources poured into these non-performing districts will help them towards meeting their obligation to students.

If any of you are in the following districts, I would ask your district leaders what they are doing to bring in grants, tutors and the additional resources required to help their students learn:

Fillmore
Hueneme
Ocean View
Ojai
Oxnard Elementary
Rio
Santa Paula
Somis
Ventura

I think when we consider the districts not meeting their targets, one is left to think that some of these kids are going to be left behind. As a side not, please read the following articles how the NAACP is helping the Federal Education Department in seeing NCLB be fully implemented in Connecticut:

From Education Sector

From the Washington Post

And finally, here is a blog on NCLB, sponsored by the American Federation of Teachers.

Congratulations to those districts performing well on API scores and under NCLB. Now, let's hope leaders work towards making sure these non-performing districts get the help they need to help their kids learn.

Tim Keaney

Posted by Tim Keaney at 04:29 PM

Comments (2)

February 16, 2006

Is this the best we can do?

In California, we have an extremely competitive and robust higher education system. All across the country (and in many cases the world), students clamor to go to UCLA, Berkeley and other California Higher Education schools.

Too bad the same can't be said for California Students.

Students in California are not only being prepared for life after school, they are not even being prepared for moving on to California's own colleges and universities. Graduation requirements and the amount of students taking UC/CSU required classes PALE in comparison to what's required to get into these institutions of higher learning.

The Ventura County School Office published in the Star this week, a newsletter entitled "Focus on Education". I cannot find it on the Star web site, but it is posted (in a huge PDF form) on the County Schools Office site.

This will be the first of many blog entries on this report, but here is the first startling report:

The UC & CSU systems require graduates to complete a rigorous sequence of courses to become elegible for admission into their schools. This study covers the 2003-2004 school year:

Fewer graduates of Ventura County Schools are meeting the UC/CSU requirements compared to the statewide average, with just 32.9% vs. 33.7% statewide. Here is a guide of how your school district faired which includes the number of grads and the percentage of grads with required UC/CSU courses:

Conejo 1461 50.1%
Fillmore 236 41.9%
Moorpark 565 32.7%
Oak Park 272 69.1%
Ojai 276 48.6%
Oxnard 2558 29.6%
Santa Paula 341 13.5%
Simi Valley 1271 20.5%
Ventura 1046 26.9%

Again, the statewide average of kids graduating with the UC/CSU requirements is 33.7%. I believe that this means that we are not preparing enough kids to go on to College. Now, before you tell me "well, not every kid is going to go to college", I will say I couldn't agree more. But are we comfortable with the notion that 66.3% of kids graduating in California don't even have the classes to go to CSUCI, or CSUN?

Are we comfortable that 79.5% of High School Grads in Simi Valley don't have the classes to go to CSUN? 79.5%? when over HALF in Conejo do indeed have the requirements?

Are we ready to accept this as a community? Combine this with the 31.85% of graduating high school seniors in Ventura County in the same period that even took the SAT - and you begin to see a troubling recipe.

I welcome your comments - All statistics are from "Focus on Education" a publication of the Ventura County Office of Education.

Tim Keaney

Posted by Tim Keaney at 10:13 AM

Comments (15)

February 13, 2006

Are ya runnin'?

It's an election year. All over the state, candidates are getting their papers ready to file. There's the candidate statement, the declaration of candidacy - and of course, entering their name, reasons for running and qualifications on the BLOG!

So - If you are running for school board in Ventura County this fall:

Who are you?

What District are you running in?

Why are you running?

Are you an incumbent? Challenger?

Why should you keep your seat, or why should someone else lose theirs?

What have you done in your community, particularly in education circles?

What are the major issues facing your district?

Why are you reading a blog when you should be designing signs and walk-pieces! (Kidding.... I think)

I welcome your comments and declarations of candidacy!