Home › Blogs › No Issues Left Behind
« Ray Cruz - Candidate for SVUSD Board | Main | Uh yeah, I think you fire the Sup »
September 27, 2006
NCLB is awful, a travesty, except we really like it
It seems the dems are wavering on the NCLB bashing as they look to take control of Congress. Even Teddy K. the original champion of NCLB is looking to keep all of the same accountability requirements in the law, and just wants more money.
We all know that more money for schools is good right? Heck, Washington D. C. spends $10,000 per student!
So those who expected standardized testing and NCLB to go away with Democratic leadership are in for a rude awakening.
Could it be because NCLB and other accountability measures are actually, uh, keeping schools accountable?
Read the article, from Education Week:
Published in Education Week: September 27, 2006
Political Shift Could Temper NCLB Resolve
If Democrats Take House or Senate, Uncertainty Ahead
By Alyson Klein
The two top Democratic lawmakers on education policy have signaled that if their party regains control of one or both houses of Congress in November, they will seek to retain the core accountability features of the federal No Child Left Behind Act.
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Rep. George Miller of California would likely support more funding for the law, while seeking to keep its requirements that schools test students annually and be held accountable for the results.
The two, who were among the architects of the bipartisan law five years ago, have continued to champion its central provisions in the face of vocal opposition. A big question is whether rank-and-file Democrats, as well as some senior members who would likely assume other key education posts in a Democratic takeover, share Sen. Kennedy’s and Rep. Miller’s commitment to keeping the law largely intact.
“The bloom has come off the rose for many Democrats and Republicans since the law was signed” by President Bush in January 2002, said Michael D. Casserly, the executive director of the Council of the Great City Schools, a Washington group representing more than 60 large urban school districts. “Support for the legislation in Congress appears to be not as great as it was when the initial votes were taken.”
Party’s Prospects
Political analysts suggest that the 2006 midterm elections offer Democrats their best chance in years of retaking one or both chambers of Congress. If the Democrats assume control of the House of Representatives or the Senate, these members are poised to take on leadership roles on education policy over the next two years.
Political analysts give the Democrats their best chance in years for retaking one or both chambers in this fall’s midterm elections. The party needs a net gain of 15 seats to retake the House. In the Senate, they would need to pick up six seats. Republicans have dominated Congress for most of the time since their dramatic takeover in the 1994 elections.
At a panel discussion in Washington last week, Rep. Miller said that he and other Democratic leaders would continue to work in a bipartisan way to maintain the “core concepts” of the No Child Left Behind law, which was championed by President Bush.
“I don’t see there’s any likelihood that Congress goes back on them,” said Rep. Miller, who as the ranking Democrat on the House Education and the Workforce Committee is in line to become its chairman if his party wins a majority.
A Kennedy Fine-Tune
Sen. Kennedy, who was the chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee when the law passed in late 2001 as a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, says that if he reclaims that position, he will push for changes that would help foundering schools meet the goals of the law.
“Schools need better solutions to respond to the challenges identified by the No Child Left Behind Act,” Sen. Kennedy said on Sept. 19 in comments provided to Education Week.
“We also need to fine-tune the act to make it more effective in assisting struggling schools by providing new federal funds for advisers and teacher coaches who are experienced in turning low student achievement around, and by creating new partnerships between high-performing and lower-performing schools,” the senator said.
Under the law, states must test students annually in reading and math in grades 3-8 and once in high school. Students and districts must meet annual performance targets for their entire student populations, as well as for subgroups of students, such as those who are learning to speak English, in order to make adequate yearly progress, or AYP. Schools and districts receiving federal Title I money that fail to make AYP for two years or more face increasingly serious consequences.
Additionally, the law requires schools to employ highly qualified teachers, defined as those with state certification and knowledge of the subject they teach.
The law is due for reauthorization in 2007, although many observers doubt that Congress will meet that target.
Stronger Oversight?
Sen. Kennedy says he would seek to channel resources to helping states design better assessments and data systems. He may consider trying to add NCLB provisions to improve high schools, such as dropout-prevention measures, and work to provide schools with parent-outreach coordinators.
He and Rep. Miller have also co-sponsored a bill that would authorize money to boost the salaries of educators who work as mentor or master teachers, or in high-needs districts. The measure would give schools resources to develop a “transition year” for new teachers and overhaul state certification process, among other provisions.
For the past two years, Republicans have provided level funding for the Title I compensatory education program for poor children—a major part of the ESEA in its various versions—and grants to states for students in special education, under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Democrats are more disposed to boost spending levels for those programs.
They are also more likely to spare, or even boost, K-12 programs perennially slated for elimination under President Bush’s budget proposals, such as the Upward Bound program, which prepares disadvantaged high school students for college.
“Congress has walked away from its obligation for funding the law,” Rep. Miller said last week at the discussion on the No Child Left Behind law sponsored by the Business Roundtable.
Democrats say they would keep a closer eye than the Republicans have on how the Department of Education is implementing parts of the law, including the management of the teacher-quality provisions as well as the testing of children with limited English skills and students in special education.
Because the law has been a centerpiece of President Bush’s domestic-policy agenda, the administration and current congressional leaders have a disincentive to identify school districts “that are not performing very well, but are putting forth good statistics,” Rep. Robert E. Andrews, D-N.J., a member of the House education committee, said in an interview. “We would be much more clinical about this and find districts that are gaming the system.”
Though Sen. Kennedy and Rep. Miller may not be eager to change much in the No Child Left Behind law, other members of their party, including high-ranking lawmakers on both the House and the Senate education committees, appear poised to push for more substantial revisions.
Attempts to change the direction of the law could be bolstered by Democrats—and Republicans—on Capitol Hill who have fielded complaints about the law from teachers, administrators, and parents in their constituencies. Dissatisfaction has centered on such provisions as the law’s reliance on standardized tests to measure progress and requirements for teachers to become highly qualified.
Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn., whose home state is suing the federal Education Department over what Connecticut contends is inadequate funding for the law, would be in line to chair the Senate Education and Early Childhood Development Subcommittee, which oversees K-12 policy.
Last year, Sen. Dodd introduced a bill that would make changes to the way states calculate AYP under the federal law, among other provisions.
Under Sen. Dodd’s legislation, schools and states would be able to get credit for showing improvement on measures other than standardized tests, such as dropout rates, the number of students who take Advanced Placement courses, and individual student improvement over time. The measure has not advanced very far.
In the House, Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., would be in line to chair the key Education Reform Subcommittee after a Democratic victory. She said in an interview this month that, while she supports the concept of the No Child Left Behind law, she has reservations about some of its major provisions, including its reliance on “narrowly focused standardized tests.”
She said the law should give credit for educating “the whole child. … There’s a lot that’s being left out,” Rep. Woolsey said, citing some schools’ lack of emphasis on subjects like art, music, and geography.
At least two Democrats on the House education committee, Reps. Betty McCollum of Minnesota and David Wu of Oregon, have put forth their own proposals for reauthorizing the law, both of which focus on providing more flexibility to the states, partly by allowing them to get credit for improving individual student performance through different types of growth models.
Rep. Miller said he would support including additional measures for determining whether schools and districts make adequate yearly progress under the law. Currently, schools must meet achievement levels on state tests and attendance goals. High schools also must meet targets for graduation rates.
But Rep. Miller said any new measures must be valid and academically challenging.
“It can’t be pass-fail, have a portfolio, do some art work, and tell us the history of your life,” Mr. Miller said at the Business Roundtable forum.
Miller the Maverick?
Whether any significant changes to the No Child Left Behind Act make their way into a reauthorization may depend on the leanings of not-yet-elected Democrats who would take the place of GOP lawmakers next year, said Jack Jennings, the president of the Center on Education Policy, a Washington-based research and advocacy organization.
Those members would likely be in the House of Representatives, which political analysts suggest is more likely to change hands than the Senate, said Mr. Jennings, who was an aide to Democrats on the House education committee from 1967 to 1994.
Freshman House Democrats could come from swing districts, where they would need the support of the 2.8 million-member National Education Association to get re-elected two years from now, Mr. Jennings said. The NEA has criticized many aspects of the federal education law and mounted a lawsuit over its funding provisions.
In maintaining strong support for the federal school improvement law, Rep. Miller has bucked key Democratic constituencies, such as the NEA, said Michael J. Petrilli, the vice president for national programs and policy at the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, a research and advocacy group in Washington, and a former Education Department official under President Bush.
“It might be easier for [Rep. Miller] to continue to play the maverick role as a ranking member than as chairman,” Mr. Petrilli said. In the event of a Democratic takeover of the House, he said, “Miller will be expected to come and write NCLB version 2.0, and he’s going to have to decide how bold he’s willing to be. There’s going to be a real war within the Democratic Party.”
If new members or rank-and-file Democrats hear concerns from their constituents about the No Child Left Behind law, they could press for changes, appealing to Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who will likely become the speaker of the House if the Democrats retake the chamber. But Rep. Pelosi and Rep. Miller have a close working relationship, Mr. Jennings said.
“I find it hard to believe she would propose something much different from what he would want, unless she has newly minted members of Congress who want change,” Mr. Jennings said.
Some observers do not expect a groundswell of opposition to the school law to materialize in Congress.
“There’s not going to be tremendous pressure to gut this law,” said Ross Wiener, the policy director of Education Trust, a Washington-based organization that supports the law for its emphasis on raising the achievement of all students.
“The critics are obviously the most vocal, but there really is a silent majority in the middle,” he said, who feel the law is the right direction for K-12 education.
---the article states the following democrats would have prominent roles in Congressional education funding and policy:
SENATE
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts
In line to become: Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee
Would replace: Sen. Michael B. Enzi, R-Wyo.
Priorities: A key architect of the No Child Left Behind Act, Sen. Kennedy wants to bolster resources for schools in need of improvement under the law and improve tests used to measure students’ progress. He would also like to make it easier for graduates working in public-service fields to repay their student loans.
Sen. Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut
In line to become: Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Education and Early Childhood Development
Would replace: Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.
Priorities: Sen. Dodd has introduced a bill that would change the way adequate yearly progress is calculated under the No Child Left Behind law, giving schools credit for meeting benchmarks other than simply bringing students to proficiency on mathematics and reading tests. He is also interested in boosting Pell Grants for college students.
HOUSE
Rep. George Miller of California
In line to become: Chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee
Would replace: Rep. Howard P. “Buck” McKeon, R-Calif.
Priorities: Rep. Miller, along with Sen. Kennedy, has introduced a bill, called the Teach Act, aimed at improving teacher quality and encouraging effective teachers to work in high-need schools. He would like to cut interest rates on student loans in half.
Rep. Lynn Woolsey of California
In line to become: Chairwoman of the House Subcommittee on Education Reform
Would replace: Rep. Michael N. Castle, R-Del.
Priorities: Rep. Woolsey would like to see the No Child Left Behind law become more flexible, possibly by using measurements other than tests to determine a school’s progress. She would like to see the law encourage schools to educate “the whole child,” in part by bolstering classes in subjects such as art and music.
SOURCE: Education Week
Comments
Marc,
If it's such a conservative smoke and mirrors show, why are such democratic groups like the NAACP, as well as leaders such as Kennedy in favor of keeping it's major provisions? Ted Kennedy sponsored the legislation in congress, and his ONLY argument against it since has been lack of funding, not what it says.
So while I appreciate your anti-conservative passion, I don't so much see it as a conservative problem, but rather a question of whether the people of the United States believe it's in our best interest to fund education at a national level, and what return on investment we should see for the dollars.
So I will ask the question to my readers - do we, and what should we expect?
Now, I am a business person, and I don't claim to be an expert on education - but I am willing to discuss it which is why the blog is here.
I welcome your input and comments.
Posted by: Tim Keaney at September 27, 2006 07:43 PMIf you read the history of NCLB act and the way it was cobbled together, Ted Kennedy admits that if he had all the evidence at hand, he woould not have voted for it.
The NAACP has also opted for vouchers, as has the rest of Bush and company and the latest report from the Dept. of Education ranks charter schools and vouchers at the perigee of the educational achievement ladder.
And while business deals with objects that can be qunatified, sliced and diced , education deals with the most complex and loved people in the world- our children.
And our children are priceless- and thus business and their Republican allies cannot apply the "go-for- the- jugular" business model that has ruined our environment, caused too many years to enumerate and worships at the altar of individual Mammon rather than commonweal manna.
Posted by: MArc Rogers at September 29, 2006 11:41 PMUm, thanks for clearing that up Marc.
So you are saying essentially, that Ted Kennedy, who actually introduced the legislation in the senate, was working from faulty or innaccurate intelligence? Ted made a decision based on the best information he had at the time?
Why isn't he being called a liar?
And the NAACP on vouchers. What does that tell you Marc? It tells me that the NAACP, (if it's true they are supportive of vouchers) doesn't feel like having their kids stuck in mediocre of failing state schools is in the kid's best interests.
I've never been able to figure that one out, in two years of blogging, why people like Marc support leaving kids in failing schools.
I'd welcome your input on how you would change or eliminate NCLB
Posted by: Tim Keaney at September 30, 2006 07:11 AMI have never figured out why business men and women think they know ALL the answers to educating our youth.
The public schools are not failing. In the last data collected by the federal gov't, and validated by non-partisan think tanks, public schools exceeded private schools and charter schools in reading, writing and math.
So much for the vaunted business model of charter schools and vouchers.
CA , when it paid teachers commensurately, before the Prop. 13 debacle, had a K-12 system that was #1 in the country.
Now tht CA pays at the bottom tier of the scale, they are tied for 47th with Missisippi.
Your denigration of all things Democrat lets me know that Bush's NCLB has as much validity as his FEMA, Medicaid plan and his paying cronies ( conservative columnists) to publish false data about NCLB's efficacy.
Posted by: Marc Rogers at October 1, 2006 01:39 AMWell, we can either have a debate on the merits of NCLB, or we can continue to listen to you whine I am a business person. We don't really know your qualifications either Marc, but at least mine are posted.
So if the schools aren't failing, are you saying we don't need the Elementary & Secondary Education act (NCLB) as currently constituted? If not, what would you replace it with, and what do you think, specifically (try, no buzz words) what is wrong with it?
Lastly, CA is 47th in funding in the nation is a fine stat, but where do you get the stat? Name a source? And if it's 47th in the nation in funding, that has NOTHING to do with NCLB (in fact, NCLB HELPS in that situation) but that seems more like a California problem.
What would you do to increase the funding which you claim to be the problem?
You may be new to this blog, but I actually like to debate facts.
Posted by: Tim Keaney at October 2, 2006 05:29 AMI do not whine about business- I bitch, grouse and detest the business model being deployed to education and every business person with 2.3 kids knowing what is best for the rest of the community.
My qualifications: I have a Ph.D. in Educational Psychology from Texas A&M University, two master degrees from Brooklyn College in School and Educational Psychology and a BA in Psychology from Brooklyn College. And that is just the beginning.
I have taught at Texas A&M University and Kingsborough JC< worked 22 years in public and private school systems, grades K-12 in TX, NY and SO CA. I have published numerous articles about education, worked and started social service programs in 2 HS's and have a private practice in child and adolescent psychology for the last five years. In addition, I have worked in rural mental health clinics, hospital emergency rooms and university counseling services.
IS THAT ENOUGH CREDENTIALS TO GET YOUR ATTENTION? IF NOT, I HAVE MORE CREDENTIALS AND CLINICAL EXPERIENCES!
I know education from inside out and outside in, and I have had more experience in schools that you and your Republican cohorts will ever have.
If you go to the Dept of Education website and ask for state ratings according to educational indices and attainments, you will see CA and Mississippi running neck and neck.
I only bluff in poker and you picked on the wrong man with your conservative and entrepreneurial invective. Unlike your corporate brethren who have been in court since the advent of the Bush monarchy and all the prevarications and dissembling that your conservative miscreants and malefactors have foisted on the country, I speak passionately AND factually.
The NCLB in theory, had possibilities. It is horrifically underfunded( only 42%), it allows states to determine how they meet federal eligiblity levels in the 3R's ( and, of course, most states devise their own tests to garner those federal lucre)and its feigned increase in credentialed teachers can be achieved by so many different courses and in so many modalities, thAT school districts are more confused than ever about who and who is not eligible for certificATION.
The tutorial part of the NCLB as well as tranferring to another school is fine in print but to to local politics, racism and inequitable funding, is an accident that has already happened.
Funding, as you say, is a CA problem and if the legislature made decisions, rather than incessant referundums and propositions, than fundind could be honestly discussed.
You claim to be the ARBITRATOR of facts but you are not really looking for facts nor offering viable solutions.
You emails are infused and suffused with references to Democrats and how the " educational sky will fall if they are elected."
I resent your supercilious attitude ( but have come to expect that from conservative Republican businessman, and if you have some workable suggestions thaT will operate in the classroom( and not in your place of work) then we are all listening.
I do not have to be new to your blog to spot a bloviator masking as a concerned citizen.
I know you find that last statement offensive- at least as offensive as I found your foundless email.
With that job history, it sounds like the man (Dr Marc) can't hold a job for very long. Other than that, I guess he's qualified to be as angry as he is...
Posted by: Not a PhD at October 3, 2006 03:11 PMOh, I didn't know I was debating an AGGIE! That explains it.
Marc:
1. I don't claim to be an arbitrator, nor to I intend to be one. I would say I facilitate discussion - nothing more, nothing less.
2. I have never sent you an e-mail. If I have, feel free to post it.
3. I have never said (and you used quote marks): " educational sky will fall if they are elected." - It would be impossible for you to find any reference to such a thing. Now I OFTEN copy and paste others' stories to start a discussion, and that may be where you saw that, but I always attribute the article to the source.
4. I am not a republican, so get over it.
5. I couldn't agree with you more on the California legislature... Talk about the sky falling!
6. I wasn't bluffing, I actually got you to say something about what we were talking about. That's not bluffing, that's facilitating!
7. ALL CAPS are bad things - means your yelling.
8. Careful about the "B" word - I left it in because you posted it, but we have lots of kids who read the blog and then discuss it in school.
9. NCLB is underfunded, but that is not the same things as not funded. Funds from the FEDS for education are up dramatically, but we're at War Marc. What would you cut to better fund NCLB. I had this very debate on this blog a long time ago and you know what the answer was? No one wanted to cut anything to better fund NCLB, but they sure wanted to yell about it.
10. I am absolutely, positively a bloviating loudmouth about the state of America's schools, lack of preparedness of the next generation, lack of global competitiveness, wasted funds, incompetence and everything else that plagues our schools. Yep, guilty as charged.
Thanks for sharing your credentials and your thoughts on California's schools.
Posted by: Tim Keaney at October 3, 2006 06:55 PMTo the myopic wonder who queried my job history: I held so many positions becuase I wanted to learn about education from each level: preschool through college.
Each position was for a period of two to three years till I mastered the intricacies of each stage of public edcuation: preschool; k-5; 6-8; 9-12; junior college and four year college. In addition, I wanted as much experience in as many settings as possible so that when I went into private practice and became a consultant, I would have the necessary expertise to do my job well.
So the emailer who wrote that assumption should not throw rocks at the glass house that he lives in.
Tim:
I wholeheartedly laughed and laughed at the Aggie comment- you have no idea how accurate that assessment is. I had to operate and live amongst them for 6 years, and the only ones that they detest more than a Yankee from the East is a SO CA person.
I apologize for the upper case letters- one does not need to yell if one's facts are correct and they can speak for themselves.
I can appreciate that your passion for a quality and long-lasting education is as intense as mine and I view your efforts through that illuminating prism.
I used quotes to emphasize my point- and for no other reason.
What bothers me most about NCLB, and by definition in education in general, is the emphasis upon pedantic learning that eclipses learning that involves, if not emphasizes, a pragmatic learning that evolves into a life-long love of learning.
I noticed that when a child enters kindergarten, their smile pushes back their eyes and they are so eager to learn that the teacher cannot teach fast enough.
Conversely, upon leaving HS, their smile has become an artifact, a creased series of frowns line their foreheads and learning has all the vitality of a dessicated piece of fruit.
The most natural high in the world comes from prose that sends your thoughts soaring, verse that pulls at your heart strings and accomplishment that sends your self- esteem into the stratosphere.
I would like the NCLB and education to kindle the Promethean spark while simultaneously giving the students the knowledge and skills to create their own achievements,
I have some suggestions to finance this levathian undertaking but they will be posted in a few days, as the siren call of the sleep god, Morpheus, is calling.
Thank you Tim for your forbearance and I welcome your efforts to make this world a better place than you found it.
Posted by: Marc Rogers at October 3, 2006 11:47 PMHmmmmm. I seem to remember something about Mr. Bush getting into trouble for paying a radio show host about a million bucks to spread propaganda about how good NCLB is. If it is so good why did they have to use taxpayer funds to make up good stuff about it?
Posted by: Doc at October 6, 2006 06:58 PMCathy Carlson from TO here: Tim, maybe we should get back to the topic. Here is info I received about the NCLB reauthorization hearings in California. My friend, Monique Dollone from Ventura, was invited to testify last week in Washington, DC before Congress. She has become an expert in NCLB and has witnessed how West Ventura County schools have abused the system and misused the funds. She was personally responsible for transferring out more than 20 students from her failing school, Montalvo. The principal, Michele Dean, resented Monique's investigations and had her falsely arrested on trespassing charges which were dropped by the judge in 10 seconds. I was in court with her.
Please read Jack O'Connell's questions. (FYI, the AYP for California is only 49% of our API, or 590 points. Not a very tough target.) Please write your support or criticisms of NCLB to the following:
*******************************************
Diane Levin, Administrator
California Department of Education
School & District Accountability
Division
NCLB Implementation & Coordination Office
1430 N Street, Suite 6208
Sacramento, CA 95814-5901
916-319-0557 (phone)
916-322-5092 (FAX)
************************************************
>>> from: Jack O'Connell 10/2/2006 4:23 PM >>>
"The California Department of Education will hold public meetings
regarding the No Child Left Behind Act reauthorization Monday, October
16 through Wednesday, October 18.
I encourage you to attend and submit oral and/or written comments.
Please see the attached invitation and information about the topics we
hope to address during these public meetings."
***********************************************
ACCOUNTABILITY
Background
NCLB continues the requirement initiated under the Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994 for State standards in reading/language arts and mathematics and assessments aligned to those standards. A new addition to the statute requires States to develop science standards by the 2005-2006 school year and science assessments by 2007-08 school year. In addition, NCLB requires States to develop and implement annual assessments of all students in grades 3 through 8 and once in grades 10-12 in math and reading by the 2005-06 school year. These annual assessments must be aligned with State content standards and meet additional quality requirements. Funds are authorized to develop these assessments and a program to improve assessment quality.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is a State-developed measure of progress for all districts and schools in the State. After the passage of NCLB, States had to define AYP in a manner that requires progress by disadvantaged subgroups of students, as well as the overall student population with the express purpose of narrowing of the achievement gap. States must define AYP so that all students are expected to improve, and that by 2014, all students will achieve at the State-defined “proficient” level on State reading and math academic assessments. In addition, in order for a school to make AYP, 95% of each subgroup must participate in the assessments. When NCLB was passed, states set the starting point, or initial goal, to reach 100 percent proficiency. States were required to set the initial goal for all students based upon the lowest-achieving demographic subgroup, or the lowest achieving schools in the State, whichever was higher. Once the initial goal was established, NCLB required the States to gradually increase the threshold of the percentage of students who must obtain proficiency in equal increments. The thresholds must be raised at least once every three years.
Prompts for Testimony
1. In what ways can the federal government ensure that achievement and/or content standards from state to state are roughly comparable? Or if they are not comparable, what can be done to ensure they are not compared?
2. In your experience, what aspects of the assessment and/or accountability system have proven to be the least effective in improving student achievement?
3. Response to Intervention (RtI), a provision of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) as amended in 2004, has an early intervention prevention focus for students “at risk” for academic and behavior difficulties. How could/should this process be more clearly articulated in the reauthorization of NCLB?
4. NCLB requires states to include only currently designated as Students with Disabilities (SWD) in that subgroup. What are the advantages and disadvantages of including all students ever designated as SWD as part of that student subgroup for accountability purposes?
5. Do you believe NCLB and IDEA clearly articulate the priorities for
working with students with disabilities? Does NCLB detract or contrast
with the requirements of IDEA in any way?
6. Many have been critical of the expectation that 100% of students will be achieving at the proficient level by 2013-14. Do you believe that is a realistic goal? If not, what would you consider a rigorous yet realistic goal.
7. Do you think it is reasonable for a school to fail AYP if one subgroup misses the 95% participation requirement for the assessment? Have you had any experience where this happened due to circumstances that were entirely beyond the control of the school, such as large parental opt out?
8. In your experience, do you feel that it is useful to compare one year of students to another year of students (i.e., 2006 4th graders to 2005 4th graders) or do you think there is a more useful way to compare student progress?
9. Should the federal government recognize and give credit toward
moving students from Far Below Basic, to Below Basic and to Basic? If so
how should this be accomplished?
10. Mobility rates in alternative education programs are very high. How
should the federal government reform NCLB to address this fact so that
Alternative Ed. programs are given credit for the work they do with
students who may be in their setting for limited amounts of time?
11. Should the 95 participation rate trigger a district or school into
PI or should there be another sanction or requirement?
12. Should California implement an individual student growth model or
"value added" model over time?
13. If California could use the API for AYP, what do you believe we need to
do to modify the API?
TEACHER QUALITY
Background
NCLB requires each State to have a plan ensuring that all teachers are highly qualified by the end of the 2005-06 school year (now extended to June 30, 2007). Such a plan is required to include annual reporting of progress toward all teachers being highly qualified. Highly qualified is defined as having a bachelor’s degree or higher, full State certification or licensure, and demonstrated subject matter competency by way of a licensure exam or completion of an academic major in the subject taught. States are required to set achievement objectives for local educational agencies (LEAs) regarding the number of highly qualified teachers and the quality of professional development.
Prompts for Testimony
1. What has prevented California and the rest of the nation from remediating the shortage of teachers in subject areas where chronic shortages have persisted for decades (i.e., science, mathematics, special education)? How can the federal government help to alleviate these shortages?
2. What incentives would be effective in recruiting highly qualified teachers to serve in subject areas such as special education, science, and mathematics in the lowest-performing schools?
3. What additional flexibility, alternatives, or options should be established for LEAs to promote an equitable distribution of NCLB-compliant teachers?
4. In what ways do you think the federal government could help facilitate an increase in the overall supply of new teachers who are highly qualified?
5. As you increase your effort to monitor the HQT requirements and improve teacher quality, do you find that you have the necessary infrastructure, tools, and resources? What, in your experience, would facilitate this process?
6. Should there be a different model of defining "highly qualified" for
special education teachers in self contained classrooms and alternative
education teachers teaching in self contained classrooms?
7. What effective ways could California spend the state share of Title
II and other resources to offer opportunities for professional
development for teachers to become "highly qualified" especially special
education and alternative education teachers?
8. Should the state use some of its Title II funds to help defray the
costs of teacher candidates taking the CSET or single subject exams that
ensure they are "highly qualified?"
INTERVENTIONS AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
Background
NCLB requires states to annually assess student performance in meeting academic standards for reading and mathematics in grades three through eight and in grade ten. In order to make AYP, schools must demonstrate that all students, including disadvantaged and minority students, are achieving at the state-defined “proficient” level of achievement. Schools and districts that fail to meet their AYP goals are determined to be “in need of improvement.” Once this determination is made, a series of escalating interventions and eventually sanctions are imposed to enable the school or district to meet AYP.
Specifically, students in schools that fail to make AYP for two consecutive years are given the opportunity to transfer to another public school. If a school fails to meet AYP for a third year, certain students are given the option of receiving free tutoring (supplemental educational services) from state-approved providers which can include school districts, non-profit organizations, and for-profit companies.
For schools that continue to struggle, these interventions are followed by requirements to develop and implement school restructuring plans. Such plans include actions ranging from implementing a new curriculum to replacing all or most of school academic staff; entering into a contract with an outside organization to operate the school; re-opening the school as a charter school; restructuring the school’s governance and other actions.
Prompts for Testimony
1. The U.S. Secretary of Education is conducting a pilot for Program Improvement schools in certain states that will allow PI schools to offer Supplemental Educational Services the first year of identification. Is this an option that you believe would benefit students?
2. With regard to NCLB’s public school choice option, questions have arisen about district implementation struggles that have resulted in low participation rates among eligible children. What do you believe to be the most significant barrier to effective implementation of public school choice?
3. How might the stages of progression for school and district Program Improvement – and the criteria for advancement – be modified to allow states greater flexibility to target the most needy schools and districts with fiscal resources and technical assistance?
4. What additional options, alternatives, or remedies could be effective as local corrective actions for schools?
5. NCLB and California Education Code have some potentially severe sanctions for districts identified for Program Improvement and, ultimately, state corrective action. Some of these include: removing schools from the jurisdiction of the district; appointing a state trustee; restructuring or abolishing the district; authorizing students to transfer from a school operated by the district to a higher-performing school; instituting and fully implementing a new curriculum; deferring programmatic funds. As an alternative to these sanctions, what would you suggest that could genuinely help a school or district to “turn around”?
6. Schools not making AYP and identified for Program Improvement have at least 6 years before they need to plan for more severe changes through restructuring, yet districts not making AYP fall under state corrective action after only 4 years of failing AYP. What considerations are important when considering the length of time for districts to move along the accountability path?
7. How can NCLB be reshaped to ensure SES quality?
8. What should the state do to assist and support districts and county
offices in Program Improvement and what should the state do to assist
districts and county offices with large numbers of PI schools?
Posted by: Cathy Carlson at October 7, 2006 07:33 PM
Cathy C here again: Tim, Marc Rogers is a brand-new sponsored blogger with the Star. Guess he discovered us by accident when he went to the Star link. He doesn't understand that your blog is the courteous one, and Brian Dennert's is the vicious political blog site. Maybe he would be more comfortable there. Here is his bio from his new blog site.
"Politically and ideologically, I am a LIBERAL Democrat and I say that with much pride( not hubris) and conviction. I am, however, open to the entreaties of a conservative Republican if they are predicated on "prima-facie" research and evidence and not just " ad hominem" polemics. As a member of the Jewish faith, I imbibe at the trough that is labelled Tikkun Olam- the obligation to make the world a better place than I found it. And I view that obligation as my life's work."
I see there are no comments on his ramblings. I wonder how much longer the Star will sponsor him. They contacted me 3 weeks ago to see if I was interested. I said I would be, but I'm not holding my breath. I bet editor Marianne Ratcliff will veto me and they will drop the invitation. I see they also have recently sponsored Scott Harris, a republican/democrat switch hitter who has been submitting quasi-conservative guest columns to the Star. I don't see eye to eye with Harris, and I'm always suspicious about people who have converted.
Speaking of conversions, Tim, did you hear that Supt Chuck Weis has changed his political party? Unbelievable. He is now a republican!! Remember, he is the one who got a 3 year waiver from Jack O'Connell for 2 Ventura County schools last February for the stupid "Promise Initiative" which is 100% Spanish in K and then 50/50 six years later when they hit 5th grade. Republican, my foot! He is doing this so he can win votes when he runs for State Supt of Schools in 4 years when Jack O is termed out!
Posted by: Cathy Carlson at October 7, 2006 08:02 PMDear Cathy:
My so- called politcal rantings have been excoriated by many, such as yourself, but refuted by none.
Anything that I write is factually based and people need only ask for the corroborating sources.
Unlike you, the Star has seen fit to host a multiplicity of views and does not demand, by fiat, as appears to be your wont, to censure free speech.
I would like to know what problem or problems that you have with my bio- is it the profusion of ethics? That I do not genuflect at your trough of preconceived and prejudged notions?
Does it bother you that I practice , both personally and professionally, my followed( not stated) religious beliefs?
I would welcome your blog, so you can put your tendentious observations for publis consumption.
And you should never denigrate Marianne Ratcliff, as I have not found an editor who is more open, to more opinions, than she is.
By the way, what would be your biographical statement? I am sure that certitude and inerrancy are sure to be two of your most salient and stalwart qualities.
Posted by: Marc Rogers at October 7, 2006 11:04 PMCathy, I have always read and given room for your point of view.
To say that mine is the vicious blog in the same posting where you attack a guy that just started out by wondering aloud if the Star will pull the plug on him is pretty vicious.
Maybe my blog seems vicious because the people that scream the loudest get the most attention, as it is in most arguements. That doesn't mean they are making the best points.
I think if you read my school board race entries and the questions answered you might feel a bit different.
Keep enjoying Tim's blog, as I like to read all sorts of points of view like you do. I am interested mostly when Tim starts an entry and shares his thoughts.
My only hope is that Tim would share more of his opinions. For example, Tim do you agree that Mike Dunn has done a fine job? I am sure Cathy would be interested in your opinions about Conejo schools.
Posted by: Brian at October 8, 2006 02:46 PMIf either of you guys want help with html or movable type send me an e-mail.
I know Marc Rogers has had comments ( I left one) but the website doesn't reflect them. I can help fix that so Cathy can be more supportive.
Tim, I think it would be great if Cathy sent you videos of the stuff she talks about. Then you could post them with your thoughts.
Posted by: Brian at October 8, 2006 03:00 PMThe textbook doesn't have pictures of same sex couples or something like that. it just says a partnership between to people. Who disagrees with that?
Mr. Keaney would you have voted with Mike Dunn or with the other side if you were on The Conejo board?
Posted by: Critic 4 Cathy at October 8, 2006 06:27 PMShould read " between two people".
Posted by: Critic 4 Cathy at October 8, 2006 06:28 PMCathy Carlson and Mike Dunn. A match made in heaven! They deserve each other!
Posted by: Doc at October 9, 2006 10:36 AMCathy Carlson and Mike Dunn. A match made in heaven! They deserve each other!
Posted by: Doc at October 9, 2006 10:36 AMSomehow we have lost the NCLB thread. My observations after 4 years is the NCLB is a good thing, but probably not for the reasons that the Republicans thought. It appears the NCLB was designed to label schools bad so that concerned parents could move their children. That is unfortunately not what happens.
Schools are labeled failing because the kids are failing, and that's because they are not motivated enough. That is not simply a teacher/school problem. The parents of those students that are failing are not involved - they cannot or will not help the teachers. It is not our top or even average performing students that are being left behind. Look at who is failing the CAHSEE.
The solution is not just to offer remedial help, but to force the kids to attend. I suggested that we need to enforce attendance at the added help sessions and was told we couldn't. I'm not sure that's really true, it's just that it takes a lot more work to do that and we are not set up for that kind of enforcement. If education is truly mandatory, then we should start arresting parents who won't make their kids attend the added help sessions. Maybe a few nights in the county slammer will adjust their priorities.
Posted by: Greg Stratton at October 9, 2006 12:08 PM
Cathy C here: Brian, don't take my remark about yur blog site to reflect on you. You are not a vicious person. However, I have read really mean things from your bloggers, and that's what I meant. But why do you call me vicious for wondering how long the Star will sponsor a blogger that doesn't get any blogs? I think it's OK to wonder, especially since they invited me to be a blogger. I'm wondering what the ground rules are for sponsored bloggers. And if the Star is sponsoring Marc Rogers, shouldn't THEY be helping him? I'm not a techie, so if the Star doesn't provide IT support, then I guess I wouldn't be a good blog host. I just don't have the time to manage a site. (Brian and Tim, I'd really like to hear someday how you got your blogs started.)
And Marc Rogers needs a class in critical reading. I made no comment--positive or negative--about his bio. I merely posted it, word for word. And also I made no personal attack on Marianne Ratcliff, but merely stated that I believe she would probably veto a blog site by me. Marc, what are you smoking that makes you so paranoid? You imagine criticisms that are not there! And I never said you were ranting--I wrote that you are rambling.
Now, back to the thread. Why hasn't anyone commented on the infor for the California NCLB hearings that I posted? Aren't any of you going to send your 2 cents in to Jack O'Connell?
Gregg, I agree that the parents are the root of the problem, and that poor attendance makes for poor academics. But sending them to jail?? Don't you know that in parts of West Ventura County there are so many illegals who take their kids out for 2 or 3 months at a time that the teachers practically give up on getting those kids back on track when they finally show up. Do you really think the schools will call the cops on those parents? No, because LULAC doesn't want the teachers' union to mess with their workers. But does the Conejo call in someone from the DA's office for a bogus SARB hearing and deny the mom a witness that I provided, which is the law? Yes, because the CVUSD is heavy handed when it feels threatened by parents who ask too many questions. (That SARB hearing was dismissed as moot, just as the mom had explained to the School Board. It was strictly initimidation and now they are in independent study in Oak Park, after this traumatic experience.)
Some schools are under great pressure from their Boards to get higher API's in order to meet the AYP goal of 590, or to make at least their 5% mercy rule improvement goal. Conejo School has the lowest API in the CVUSD, but it is not on PI, since it always improves at least 5%. But it gets a lot of attention from the district and was the recepient of private $50,000 gift this year. Foolishly, it was given to the Conejo Schools Foundation which wasted it in a pre -K summer program for a few dozen kids. That could have bought a lot of dictionaries, or something more permanent. Most of it went for salaries. What a waste. They THINK it will make a difference in the API in the long run. This was poor, poor judgment. I felt sorry for the family that gave this donation and trusted the district to use it wisely. It was used politically instead. This is another example of how districts are not understanding NCLB and how they are making acadamic and financial decisions based on a perceived threat from NCLB.
Posted by: Cathy Carlson at October 9, 2006 09:48 PMCathy, your rantings were inferred before but now they are visible.
You " inferred" Marianne Ratcliff would not support your blog. I know she will- do you have the temerity to post a blog instead of hiding behind Tim's blog and your "inferences?"
Why would you post my bio only? And why are you afraid to post your own bio? And you never answered the questions that I raised about my bio.
You are scared to put your derriere on the line and instead, in classic projection( a psychological defense mechanism to project one's fears and shortcomings onto others)fashion, infer that you will not be sponsored for a blog.
You love dishing it out- but your inability to refut my queries and concerns leaves me wondering about your ulterior ( and self- aggrandizing)motives.
Do not worry- I will only address my future comments to Tim.
He is not afraid to raise issues and he welcomes dissenting views- and does not decide, like you, who gets to blog and who does not.
I cannot wait for you bio and blog to go online. So far, to use the kid's nomenclature, you talk the talk but not walk the walk!
Posted by: Marc Rogers at October 10, 2006 09:52 PMMarc,
Are you going to debate her on NCLB?
Tim
Posted by: Tim Keaney at October 11, 2006 11:34 AMIt illegal to not send your child to school. Even home-schooled kids have a 'school' that they use to ensure that they are legal. So shouldn't that hold true if the kids need extra help?
As far as the missing school problem we have some of that. There is a relunctance to persue those people. Teachers are too nice and think they can solve the problem with just a little more effort. The carrot is just not valued by some of these kids - you need the stick.
Posted by: Greg Stratton at October 14, 2006 07:38 PM
The NCLB Act is another Republican smoke- and- mirror show, complete with conservative clowns and theological creationists and intelligent designers.
One prime example: states can meet the NCLB's standards by devising tests of their own that meet those standards. And surprise, surprise, all states almost achieve that goal.
NCLB has all the hallmarks of the Republican fisaco in Iraq: myopic and blind optimism, no real plan in or plan out, wasted millions to Republican and conservative cronies who print false releases for public duplicity, and the list is endless.
I have always found it fascinating how every business person know and is an expert on education!
Posted by: Marc Rogers at September 27, 2006 11:20 AM