The Echo

The following post is from:
Education and Community News from Home Town Delaware
A Billboard for information about Lower Delaware Education issues.
http://viewsfromlowerdel.wordpress.com/

About...

Gary M. Wolfe is the president of the Milford Board of Education and an advocate for Public Education.


No new taxes says Markell January 29, 2010


Posted by Wolfe Gary in Delaware, Delaware Politics, Education.

When he finished delivering his State of the State Mr Markell made it known he did not introduce any new taxes. What he failed to tell you is the Dover does not want to have that on their necks, but the local school boards can have that on theirs! There was a line in his budget that read:

• Reduce funding for public school transportation to reflect reduction in fuel costs and projected new routes – $3,334.9

What is actually means is that the cost of transporting students to and from schools which was funded 100% from your state taxes will now be funded 75/25. That 25% districts will need to pickup can only be funded by most districts by raising local taxes! So the funds the state still will collect out of your taxes will pay for something besides student transportation, and now we will have to raise local taxes to cover buses! The worst part about this whole thing is that because of Equalization issues in the state poorer districts and communities will foot the biggest part of the bill again. Mr. Markell explain to the law abiding tax payers of this state why we pay higher taxes while those in our prison system get better health care then folks on the outside, and they eat free food while we work hard to put food on the table everyday?

Something a little different today, an excellent piece of prose by Francis Storrs:

(Click anywhere on the piece to link back to the full article.)

Searching for Salinger, Finding Something More

BOSTON (Jan. 29) -- The obituaries that have followed the death of J.D. Salinger invariably mention the author's infamous reclusiveness. More than a few also discuss the legions of fans who over the years have traveled to his home in Cornish, N.H., skulking around the edges of his 90-acre compound in the hope of spotting their literary hero. The place is surprisingly easy to find, but such was Salinger's legend, and legendary wrath, that the final few yards to his door presented another kind of obstacle. At least, that's how it went for me.

In 1953, two years after "The Catcher in the Rye" had made him famous, Salinger fled Manhattan for the tiny town, which is the kind of place where everyone knows the neighbors and yet tries to avoid speaking with them. Soon thereafter, he insisted that his photograph be removed from his books. He began declining interviews. Then, in 1965, at the age of 46, Salinger stopped sharing his writing altogether. "There is a marvelous peace in not publishing," he told a reporter a decade later, one of the last times he would speak publicly...

Your Guide To Restraint And Seclusion


By Michelle Diament, http://www.disabilityscoop.com/2010/01/19/restraint-seclusion-guide/6690/

A scathing report released one year ago brought unprecedented attention to the use of restraint and seclusion tactics in schools, documenting rampant examples of abusive and even deadly practices primarily involving special education students.

Now Congress is set to consider legislation this year to institute the first-ever federal oversight regulating these tactics. Meanwhile, a handful of states have made changes in an effort to promote student safety. (Read all of Disability Scoop’s coverage of restraint and seclusion >>)

Yet, for students who enter classrooms everyday, the battle is far more personal. Relatively few protections are in place in most states and consideration of the pending federal legislation will take time. That means parents and students themselves must be on the watch, says Curt Decker, executive director of the National Disability Rights Network, which issued the initial report last January and is currently preparing a follow up report.

Don’t condone it

Most importantly, Decker says, don’t give schools a free pass.

“The IEP should not contain any sanction of seclusion and restraint,” he says. “It’s not proper programming when you have to accept a restraint or a seclusion methodology in order to keep your kid in an integrated classroom."

Rather, it is the purpose of the IEP meeting to establish appropriate programming and positive behavior supports designed to avoid severe behavior problems, Decker says.

If a child’s IEP currently includes provisions for restraint or seclusion, now is the time to request that such tactics be stripped from the plan. Should the federal legislation pass as it’s currently proposed, such measures will not be allowed in IEP plans anyway.

Watch for the signs

In most cases, parents have no idea that their child is experiencing restraint or seclusion at school. So, even if your child’s IEP doesn’t mention the techniques, that doesn’t mean school staff aren’t employing them.

Keep a keen eye for signs of disciplinary measures gone wrong, especially if you’re dealing with a child who can’t tell you what’s going on at school. Pay attention if a child is nervous about school, refuses to go or is acting out in any way.

“A lot of parents realize that their child was restrained or secluded 85 times before they even found out about it,” Decker says. “If the parents walk into the classroom and the kid is tied to a chair, then yeah, that’s pretty obvious, but too many parents just don’t even know this is happening."

http://www.disabilityscoop.com/2010/01/19/restraint-seclusion-guide/6690/

All Text from the Delaware Race to the Top Application
Note:  Nearly every paragraph is a snippet from a different part of the application.  I have organized them in most chronological order I can provide in order for flow of reading.  I have highlighted some sections in bold for emphasis.

Happy Reading:

While DSTP is rigorous when compared to NAEP and other state assessments, it could be more comprehensive, cover a wider range of subject areas, and include multiple formative assessments to help teachers hit progress goals. For this reason, in 2009 the Delaware General Assembly mandated the implementation of a new computer-adaptive test (the Delaware Comprehensive Assessment System – DCAS), including formative and summative assessments, by the 2010-11 school year. Delaware is on track to meet this mandate, with a signed contract with an assessment vendor in hand.


Since Delaware’s new assessment will align with the common core standards (pending review and adoption), address college-readiness requirements, and be operational a full five ears before a common assessment is expected, the State intends to make its assessment available to the multi-state consortium as a model for the common assessment. When the common assessment is ready, Delaware will transition from DCAS to the new assessment.

DCAS: Delaware Comprehensive Assessment System. Delaware’s new statewide test of student achievement, which will be computer-adaptive and include multiple formative assessments. For every student, DCAS will provide up to three computer-adaptive formative assessments and one summative assessment per year, including end-of-course exams in high school, making Delaware one of the few states able to measure student growth in a valid and reliable way. DCAS will be fully implemented in the 2010-11 school year including benchmark and summative assessments for grades 2-10 in English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies and end-of-course exams for high school courses (e.g. Algebra II)



To measure learning against these standards, Delaware is dedicating nearly $13 million in local, state and federal funding to develop the Delaware Comprehensive Assessment System (DCAS) – a series of new computer adaptive, flexible formative assessments that will be used to inform instruction and measure ongoing student learning. This investment, which shifts funding from an older summative testing system to one that is flexible and aligned with reform, includes $5.0 million of LEA funds, $4.1 million of State funds, and $3.6 million of federal No Child Left Behind funds.


Data from DCAS will flow into Delaware’s existing longitudinal data system, which already allows the State to know how every LEA, every school, every teacher, and every student is performing and improving.


As a computer-adaptive system, DCAS will improve testing by allowing all test takers, including students with disabilities, to take the same exam and have testing items adjusted to their level of knowledge. In this way, this single assessment will focus questions at the upper limit of a student’s knowledge, providing a nuanced assessment of aptitude and content knowledge.

Assessments:
In December 2009, the State signed a contract with an assessments vendor to develop DCAS (described in section (B)(2)), a set of statewide formative and summative assessments that will align with the common core standards. The vendor will make the DCAS tests for English language arts, mathematics, social studies and science available by August 2010, and the test will launch in the 2010-11 school year.

DCAS will be piloted during the spring semester of the 2009-10 school year. During the development of DCAS, the State will host a DCAS standard-setting event involving K-12 educators, higher education content experts and assessment experts to ensure that DCAS performance level cut scores represent college- and career-ready status for Delaware high schools. Once the development of DCAS is complete, the State will submit its revised State Accountability Workbook for USDOE peer review and approval.

In August 2010, the DCAS vendor will provide initial training for teachers and administrators on the new assessment. The State will augment this training with a manual and webinars to ensure that all teachers understand the importance of formative and benchmark assessments in improving instruction. Finally, in June 2010, the State will compete, as part of a consortium of states, for federal common assessments grants.


(B)(2)(i) Developing the Delaware Comprehensive Assessment System. DCAS, Delaware’s own computer-adaptive assessment system, will be used to administer up to three formative and summative assessments per year per student in core subjects, and will include formative and end-of-course exams in most other subject areas. In developing DCAS, Delaware will use a combination of local expertise, outside vendors, and participation in consortia that will develop and share testing items (see above) to gain access to high-quality testing items at the best possible value. As a computer-adaptive system, DCAS will improve testing by allowing all test takers, including students with disabilities, to take the same exam and have testing items adjusted to their level of knowledge. In this way, this single assessment will focus questions at the upper limit of a student’s knowledge, providing a nuanced assessment of aptitude and content knowledge.
DCAS will also be able to synchronize with the State’s data system, yielding immediate results that a teacher will use to improve instruction. For educators, DCAS will provide a more accurate measure of student growth and more timely and detailed information that will be used for planning and improving educational programs at the school, LEA and state levels. The State will provide data coaches to aid in the use of assessment data to improve instruction (see section (C)(3) for more information on using data to inform instruction). In addition, DCAS will provide multiple opportunities for students to demonstrate proficiency and will provide academic achievement information to students and parents, including a measure of fall-to-spring and year-to-year individual student growth. The robust student data created from this assessment system will form the foundation for a data driven approach to education and evaluation that will affect all of education in Delaware.

Finally, as prescribed by the Delaware General Assembly, DCAS is to be developed in a cost-effective manner and, to the fullest extent possible, developed in collaboration with other states.

Delaware’s goal is to adopt new standards by June 2010 and to train the approximately 7000 teachers affected by the new standards by the start of the 2010-11 school year. The State expects the curriculum refinement process to be 50% complete by the end of the 2010-11 school year, and 100% complete by the end of the 2011-12 school year. By the end of the 2010-11 school year, the State expects that 100% of DCAS tests will be in place, which will include at least three formative assessments. To support college-readiness, the State expects that 100% of students will be taking the SAT by the end of the 2010-11 school year.

145th General Assembly


House Resolution # 33

Primary Sponsor: Barbieri

CoSponsors: { NONE...}

Introduced on : 01/26/2010

Long Title: REQUESTING THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION BEGIN DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARDIZED STUDENT CODE OF CONDUCT POLICIES FOR ALL OF DELAWARE'S PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS.

Synopsis: This resolution implements a recommendation of the School Discipline Task Force which requests the Department of Education begin developing standardized school code of conduct policies with input from the relevant stakeholders.



Current Status: House Passed On 01/26/2010



Full text of Legislation:


Voting Reports:

House Voice vote: Passed 1/26/2010 4:52:40 PM------->

Actions History: Jan 26, 2010 - Passed in House by Voice Vote

Jan 26, 2010 - Introduced in House

GOVERNOR MARKELL'S SCHEDULE


WEEK AHEAD: Governor Markell to Unveil Budget, Launch Tool to Find Fugitives, Test Drive the New XH150 Hybrid, and Celebrate Innovative Research and Education

Tuesday, Jan. 26, 9:00 a.m.: Governor Markell will attend the signing of the Collaborative Research and Development Agreement (CRDA) between the University of Delaware and the US Army at Aberdeen Proving Ground. The event will take place at the Roselle Center for the Arts, University of Delaware, Orchard Road, Newark.

Tuesday, Jan. 26, 10:45 a.m.: The Governor will help announce a new tool for law enforcement to help locate wanted fugitives and spread the word about emergencies, recruitment and PSAs. The event will take place just north of Rt 896 on I-95 northbound. We can provide more detailed directions on Monday afternoon.

Tuesday, Jan. 26, 1:30 p.m.: Gov. Markell will test drive the new XH150 electric hybrid car from AFS Trinity near Haslet Armory in Dover. More information to come on Monday.

Wednesday, Jan. 27, 10:30 a.m.: The Governor will discuss efforts to make government more efficient through better real estate practices. The location will be announced next week.

Thursday, Jan. 28, 2:00 p.m.: Gov. Markell and Sec. Visalli will unveil the proposed 2011 budget at the Tatnall Building, 3rd Floor, William Penn Street, Dover.

Friday, Jan. 29, 2:00 p.m.: Gov. Markell will help cut the ribbon for Junior Achievement of Delaware's Innovation Hub, located at 522 South Walnut Street, Wilmington.

Friday, Jan. 29, 3:30 p.m.: Gov. Markell and Secretary Lillian Lowery will present the Title I Distinguished School Award to Maclary Elementary School, 200 St. Regis Drive, Newark.

Update:

I was out of the loop.  Here's the low-down on the Delaware SEED Scholarship:

What is the SEED Scholarship?


The Delaware SEED (Student Excellence Equals Degree) scholarship program provides tuition for full time students enrolled in an associate's degree program at Delaware Technical & Community College (DTCC) or the Associate of Arts program at the University Of Delaware (UD). The program is for Delaware students who stay in school, work hard, and stay out of trouble.

Who is eligible?

Students graduating from Delaware high schools beginning in 2006 who have a GPA of 2.5 or higher and no felony convictions are eligible. More details on these eligibility requirements are available at the eligibility page.

More Here


Wow! I must be seriously out of the loop!

Who knew?  Parents? Did you know that your child with a 2.5 GPA is guaranteed admittance to an associate's degree program and a full scholarship for their first year?  In my defense, I am a parent of elementary age students, one of which may never see a diploma, due to Delaware's interpretation of NCLB.  Wonder if a student with a Certificate of Performance can gain entry into an Associate's Program?

From Delaware's Race to the Top Application:

A(A)(3)(i) The State demonstrated significant achievement over the past several years in each of the four education reform areas

Under Standards and Assessments

A student that is on track with state assessments and standards is guaranteed access to a college education in Delaware. State high school graduation requirements are directly aligned with college entry standards at all public universities in Delaware. This ensures that every high school graduate has the skills and abilities necessary to succeed in college. Successful students are not only prepared for college, they are given the logistical and financial support to make college a reality. To support successful students, the State guarantees students with at least a 2.5 GPA admittance to a public university associates degree and a full scholarship for the first year of their higher education.

From Delaware's Race to the Top Application:

(A)(2)(i)(e) Using the fiscal, political, and human capital resources of the State to continue after the period of funding has ended


In order to continue providing fiscal support to the reforms initiated through the Race to the Top application, the State will pursue a tiered strategy, including:


1. Continuing the overarching Statewide commitment to reform as outlined above
2. Implementing a consolidated purchasing program among LEAs for select categories of goods and services – this may include a central bidding process for instructional materials
3. Coordinating with the General Assembly to realign existing funding in the Public Education budget for reform efforts
4. Providing greater flexibility to LEAs in the administration of their state funding in order to promote autonomy, innovation and reform. This effort began in the last Delaware General Assembly, specifically with House Bill 119.

Combined, these activities will support reform and promote autonomy, efficiency and innovation in education spending throughout the State. Continued funding coordination and repurposing will involve fiscal responsibility and political will as the DDOE works with the General Assembly to ensure that State and federal education funding is distributed fairly and effectively.


Human capital resources dedicated to reform will also continue after the period of the grant. The Project Management Office and the 9 positions therein will remain in place following the period of the grant. The PMO represents a fundamental reorganization and reorientation of the DDOE to create a culture focused on performance and results. Initially these positions will be funded by Race to the Top, jump-started in the “New DDOE,” but over time the DDOE will reallocate fiscal and human resources from unnecessary current positions to these new offices on a permanent basis. The existing resources of the DDOE will be repurposed to support reform without growing the overall size of the Delaware DOE in the long term.

My biggest objection to Race to the Top, aside from the fact that the reform models are not proven, was the committment required by LEAs to continue funding for successful reforms after the seed money has been depleted. 

This section of the grant application begins to address these post-mortem requirements.  DDOE has committed to "Coordinating with the General Assembly to realign existing funding in the Public Education budget for reform efforts." Well it's about time!  (sarcasm) Shame it took the incentive of $75 Million to get everyone on the same page. 

"The Project Management Office and the 9 positions therein will remain in place following the period of the grant. "  Oh, so much for smaller class sizes, more teachers, and text books ...  We're going to use RttT to create a New DDOE  and eliminate "unnecessary current positions."  Well, let me say it -- IF WE HAVE UNNECESSARY CURRENT POSITIONS IN DDOE, THEY NEED TO BE ELIMINATED NOW!  Why are we wasting money paying for unnecessary human capital?  To ensure that the body count stays the same in Dover?  To prevent the attrition of a position to the Consolidation of State Government? Come on!  I have waivers to permit my schools to operate outside the maximum class size regulations, and DOE has unnecessary current positions.  Down-size now and send me a teacher!

The existing resources of the DDOE will be repurposed to support reform without growing the overall size of the Delaware DOE in the long term.  Oh, I get it, now!  We are going to use RttT to re-train the same people who have stood by while our public school system floundered and failed. It would be my guess, based upon the Delaware Way, that DDOE has a tank of employees who have filled their positions for decades and are within arms reach of retirement and pension.  Let's keep them in place long enough to get them to their full pension because that is certainly the smartest and best way to use our education dollars.

Since taking this unpaid job, I find myself slamming my head into the wall more and more.  What's broken in our schools didn't start in our schools.  It started in the beauracracy crafted around our schools.  RttT leads me to believe that the state thinks we need millions of dollars to undo that before we can begin reaching our failing students.  We have to stop investing in the latest reform, trend, and curriculum and get back to the basics.  Education needs to be about our children, not the adults.  And right now, the conversation really seems to be about the adults. 

From Delaware's Race to the Top Grant Application:

Delaware’s newly-defined regulatory framework for school turnaround gives the State the authority to intervene directly in failing schools and requires schools to demonstrate results by achieving AYP within two years. It also requires both strict adherence to the school intervention models defined in the Race to the Top guidance, and negotiation of collective bargaining agreement carve outs to secure the staffing and operational flexibility necessary for successful implementation. In cases where negotiations fail, the State has the authority to break a stalemate. This collaborative, yet robust approach will be complemented with central supports from the State and will allow the DDOE to affect change at the local level.

Beyond these strengths, Delaware brings another advantage to its reform – its size. With just 126,800 students, 19 districts, and 18 charters, Delaware is small enough to make true statewide reform achievable. In Delaware, reform will be managed face-to-face, not via a remote bureaucracy, allowing the State to act quickly in response to challenges and opportunities. By proving that reform is possible with the same complex conditions that other states face (e.g. diverse stakeholders, limited funding, complex governance), and doing it quickly, Delaware will become a laboratory for reform for the nation.

My Take:
1) Delaware's students will be expected to make AYP in 2 years.  Statistically speaking, this requirement fails to take into consideration the divserse learning styles and curve of each child.  

2) The Reform will be managed face-to-face?  Between who?  School Boards, nor Delaware's School Board Association, were not brought into a collaborative relationship to assist in creation of the State's Application.  We have been repeatedly marginalized.  In scanning the Application, there are multiple instances of the reiteration of stakeholders and school boards are repeatedly left off that list.  DOE did not reach out to school boards until the deadline was imminent and they needed a signature, at which time we were told that DOE's reforms would happen anyway and if we wanted any money, it was sign or be left behind.  Hands Tied.  Period. 

District Seeks Suggested Changes to the Student Code of Conduct

The Christina School District is seeking proposed changes to the current Student Code of Conduct. The deadline to submit changes is January 27. Please submit your recommended changes in writing (email or email attachment is acceptable) to Dr. Sharon Denney, Supervisor of School Climate and Discipline, by Wednesday, January 27.
Please cite the page number in the current Code of Conduct, and provide a detailed description of suggested changes. The Code of Conduct is available online at the following link: www.christina.k12.de.us/CodeOfConduct/0910/pdf/EN.pdf.

If you cannot access the document online, please call 552-2670 and request a printed copy. Suggested changes may be sent to denneys@christina.k12.de.us or by regular mail: Christina School District, 600 North Lombard Street, Wilmington, DE 19801, Attention Dr. Sharon Denney. By fax: 302-429-5857.

The Code of Conduct Review Committee will meet on Wednesday, February 3 to review suggested revisions to the current Student Code of Conduct. Click here for more information about the Code of Conduct Review Committee.

Next Meeting:

Code of Conduct Review Committee

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Sarah Pyle Academy, 5:30-7:30 pm

http://governor.delaware.gov/information/racetothetop.shtml

I am pleased to report that I received the following response from Dr. Lowery regarding my email:

We are working on uploading asap. We are coordinating with the Governor’s staff to post on State and DOE website. Ron Gough, our PIO, will send out a notice when the documents have been uploaded.

Lillian M. Lowery, Ed. D.

Several States have made their application's public by uploading them to the internet. 

Today, at 10:56 a.m., I sent a request to Secretary of Education, Dr. Lillian Lowery, that Delaware follow suit.

Comments:
1 comments:


john said...
It is up to 23 states now, NYC and their uber-secretive way of doing things is the largest RTTT grant application being held:

List of states that have made RTTT grant app available: http://scholasticadministrator.typepad.com/thisweekineducation/2010/01/rttt-half-of-states-post-applications-online.html

Reasons why NYC may not be upfront: http://gothamschools.org/2010/01/20/new-york-wont-publish-its-race-to-the-top-application/comment-page-1/#comment-252449

January 21, 2010 10:36 AM

Obama Calls For $1.35 Billion For Race To The Top Education Program - Update


(RTTNews) - Speaking in Falls Church, Virginia, on Tuesday, President Barack Obama asked Congress for $1.35 billion in the 2011 budget for his Race to the Top education program.


If given the funds, the White House said the program would expand to recognize school districts that are prepared to embark on system-wide improvement of their educational policies and practices, enabling them to compete directly for a grant under the program...

http://www.rttnews.com/Content/PoliticalNews.aspx?Node=B1&Id=1183462

Markell: Finance Dept. to stay

Governor reverses July order
By GINGER GIBSON • The News Journal • January 19, 2010

Six months ago, Gov. Jack Markell seemed to think it was a very good idea to eliminate Delaware's Department of Finance.
"We'll be nailing down the details in the next couple months, but I'm confident we'll see savings," Markell said at the time.
Things look a bit different today, in the wake of an unannounced decision to keep the 303-person department after all...

Click the text above for a link back to the News Journal story in full.
 
My Questions:  Historically, Delaware's Governor presents his recommended budget for the next fiscal year in early January.  Am I off, or is Gov. Markell late in its release?

According to Wednesday's News Journal, Gov. Markell will host his "State of the State Address" today and present his proposed budget next week.

I'll be watching ...

Will he make New York's mistake and assume that the Race to the Top dollars are in the bag.  Duncun has cautioned against it ...

By SAM DILLON



Published: January 18, 2010


The Obama administration’s main school improvement initiative has spurred education policy changes in states across the nation, but it is meeting with some last-minute resistance as the first deadline for applications arrives Tuesday.

Thousands of school districts in California, Ohio and other states have declined to participate, and teachers’ unions in Michigan, Minnesota and Florida have recommended that their local units not sign on to their states’ applications. Several rural states, including Montana, have said they will not apply, at least for now, partly because of the emphasis on charter schools, which would draw resources from small country schools.

And Gov. Rick Perry of Texas said last week that his state would not compete for the $700 million that the biggest states are eligible to win in the $4 billion program, known as Race to the Top, calling it an intrusion on states’ rights.

Still, about 40 states were rushing to complete applications for the Tuesday deadline, the first in the two-stage competition. The last-minute opposition is unlikely to derail efforts by most of those states to win some of the federal money.

President Obama and his aides have been so delighted by the response by states that he will seek to extend the competition into a third round next year and will request an additional $1.3 billion from Congress to do so, senior administration officials said Monday.

Since it got under way last summer, with Secretary of Education Arne Duncan bluntly criticizing school policies in many states, legislatures and officials from Rhode Island to California have reworked laws or policies in ways that have advanced President Obama’s vision: more charter schools, better-qualified teachers and a national effort to overhaul failing schools.

Many critics of the administration acknowledge that the competition has produced important results.

“The administration hasn’t spent a dollar yet, and they’ve already gotten a lot of states to make important legislative changes that are a positive for school reform,” said Grover J. Whitehurst, who directed the Department of Education’s research division under President George W. Bush and is now at the Brookings Institution.

The administration’s initiatives have produced some of the sharpest debates since the forced busing controversies of the 1970s. In an October speech before the National Association of State Boards of Education, which he devoted to the proper federal role in education, Secretary Duncan said Washington should not merely provide money to educate poor children and the disabled, but should shake up schools coast to coast.

“Some say we’re being too forceful in pushing reform, but I say we need to be aggressive,” Mr. Duncan said. That posture is provoking opposition, but most states and districts are going along.

Nevada’s school superintendent, Keith W. Rheault, said in an interview that some Nevada educators had initially grumbled about the federal program but had fallen silent as the state’s tax revenues plummeted last year.

“When you’re starving and somebody puts food in your mouth, it’s amazing what states will do,” Mr. Rheault said.

Several states last week worked to carry out last-minute legislative tweaks that could strengthen their proposals. Gov. Pat Quinn of Illinois, for instance, signed a law overhauling the state’s educator evaluation system on Friday — just in time for inclusion in the state’s proposal.

Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers, announced last week that her union would back development of a new model for how teachers should be evaluated, promoted and removed.

“The big picture is that Race to the Top has focused the nation on the big questions in public education in a way that we rarely have been,” said Timothy Daly, president of the New Teacher Project, which advocates for improved educator evaluation systems. “We haven’t focused much before on having good evaluations. Now a lot of states are saying, ‘We’re going to do that.’ And that’s huge.”

The last-minute legislative efforts by states seeking to strengthen their proposals came after a wave of states changed education laws last year, in response to administration prodding. Lawmakers in Illinois, Louisiana, Tennessee and elsewhere raised caps on the numbers of charter schools or expanded the pool of students eligible to attend them. (Charter schools are publicly financed, but managed by groups separate from school districts and are largely free from traditional school work rules.)

In Indiana, lawmakers beat back an effort to impose a moratorium on new charters and, after Mr. Duncan warned that states prohibiting the use of test data in teacher evaluations would be ineligible for awards, revoked such a prohibition.

In California, Wisconsin and California, legislators repealed similar laws that had banned linking student achievement data to teachers; Wisconsin’s action came one day after Mr. Obama went to Madison to deliver a speech encouraging them to do so.

California also passed two laws, one reworking the state’s educator evaluation systems and the other allowing parents to move children out of low-performing districts.

About 40 states have told the Education Department that they will apply for the grant competition by Tuesday. Officials in seven more — Alaska, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, Nevada, Vermont and Washington — said in interviews that they would file second-stage applications later this year. Montana and North Dakota officials said they were still considering their options.

Florida persuaded more than 60 of its 67 school districts to support its proposal. In California, 804 of the state’s 1,729 school districts and charter schools, or less than half, signed on. In Ohio, about 250 of the state’s 613 school districts agreed to participate. In Colorado, 135 of 178 districts signed on.

Louisiana’s proposal includes plans to intervene in hundreds of failing schools, Paul Pastorek, the state superintendent of education, said in an interview. Those ambitious plans alarmed many local school officials, he said, and only 28 of the state’s 70 districts signed on to support the state proposal.

“A lot of people and districts were drawn to Race to the Top initially because of the prospect of money in tough times,” Mr. Pastorek said, “but we tried to separate those who were just interested in money from those who want reform.”

Some officials in districts who did not sign on criticized the competition as micromanagement of their school systems, Mr. Pastorek said.

“They don’t want the state to tell them what to do,” he said, “and they don’t want the federal government to do it either.”

New York Gov. David Paterson has called an emergency session of the state Legislature tonight as the state competes for federal education stimulus money.

Applications for the federal government’s “Race to the Top” education stimulus program are due the afternoon of Jan. 19. Paterson has set a special session for 8 p.m. Monday so legislators can enact changes to state law that will boost the odds New York will receive as much as $700 million of stimulus money.

The session is being held the evening before Paterson releases his budget proposal for the state’s 2010-11 fiscal year...  More HERE.

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2009/08/26/01letter-2.h29.html
Published Online: August 24, 2009

Published in Print: August 26, 2009
Letter

Optimistic 'Turnaround' Signs, Despite a Lean Research Base

To the Editor:
As the authors of the 2007 report “The Turnaround Challenge,” we were pleased to see it discussed in your recent article on the emerging field of school turnaround ("Research Doesn't Offer Much Guidance on Turnarounds," Aug. 12, 2009).

When the report was released, it was unclear how education practitioners and policymakers would respond. Two years later, more than 150,000 copies have been downloaded, and the ideas in the report have proved influential. Elements of the framework are being implemented by several states, urban districts, and turnaround partner organizations.

Your article correctly points out that because school turnaround is a new field, there are too few longitudinal  “research-tested” recommendations. But the headline suggests a more pessimistic outlook than our research supports. There is a wealth of evidence about what hasn’t worked, a small but growing base of research on individual high-performing high-poverty schools, and promising approaches from a group of entrepreneurial urban districts.

With support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, our organization has formulated a set of strategies to guide turnaround and a framework for delivering these strategies at scale, as well as integrated tools to help education leaders make this framework operational. Two recent reports, “Partnership Zones” and “A New Partnership Paradigm,” are available on our Web site (www.massinsight.org). The site also includes case studies on Philadelphia’s Delaplaine McDaniel Elementary School and Pickett Charter Middle School (both mentioned in the article), and on the Academy for Urban School Leadership and Green Dot Public Schools (two organizations influencing turnaround strategies being promoted by the U.S. Department of Education).

With the backing of the Carnegie Corporation of New York, we will soon launch pilot “partnership zones” in a number of states and districts; the effort will include comprehensive evaluation to assess the efficacy of this approach. We see this as a particularly promising framework for turning around chronically low-performing schools, but we hope that other frameworks will emerge as well.



William H. Guenther
Founder and President
Mass Insight Education and Research Institute
Boston, Mass.

From:http://www.massinsight.org/turnaround/rc_zonepilots.aspx
Partnership Zone Initiative to Implement Turnaround Challenge Framework


Please see our blog for additional updates on the Partnership Zone Initiative.

Supported by the Carnegie Corporation of New York, and a partial match from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Mass Insight is creating Partnership Zone “proof points” to pilot the framework from The Turnaround Challenge.

Over the past year, the STSG launched the State Development Group – a network of approximately twelve states — to analyze the current educational environment, draft policy changes, share lessons learned and promising practices from across the country, and examine the feasibility of establishing strong Zones that feature the right set of operating conditions, supports, and resources in each state. A handful of states from that group will be selected to move forward in Zone planning based on:

· Their commitment to the Partnership Zone framework set forth in 2007 report, The Turnaround Challenge;

· Their commitment to investing the additional resources necessary for successful turnaround; and,

· The alignment and support of state and district leadership.

Staff from STSG, along with a handful of national strategic consultants, will continue to work with these selected states, with the goal of launching Partnership Zones for the 2010-11 school year. Mass Insight will continue to work with the states in the broader State Development Group network, as well any of the selected states that fail to meet a series of process milestones required for a 2010-2011 school year launch.

The commitments and types of milestones needed to create a Partnership Zone include:

Committing to target funds to Partnership Zones (Title I including 1003(g), other federal funds) in the range of $750,000 per school per year for the first three years for up to 8-10 schools. While a large portion of the funding will come from new federal and state funds, some of the funding should also come from district re-allocations and budget flexibilities. After three years, some of the start-up costs associated with creating the Zones will be reduced.

Committing to the creation of Partnership Zones with altered operating conditions in order to achieve:

· Funding and regulatory flexibility

· Extended school day

· Flexibility in hiring and program decisions

Committing to work with a non-profit Strategic Partner on the state level who will support the initiative; act as a fiscal agent for private funding, provide policy support, build leadership coalitions at the state and district levels and provide support for the growth of Lead Partner organizations;

Committing to building local capacity by supporting a marketplace of Lead Partners which sign performance contracts with districts for school accountability;

Committing to the expansion and scalability of Partnership Zones beyond the original cluster, adding additional clusters of schools each year;

Committing to align the state’s Race to the Top application with Mass Insight’s school turnaround framework of Zones and Lead Partners.

To access additional tools, reports and strategies, see the Turnaround Challenge Resource Center.

Fund Small Class Sizes and Let Teachers Teach?

From Class Size and Students At Risk: What is Known?...What is Next? - April 1998

The issue persists because of the tension between the research findings and the cost of implementation. A great deal of empirical data have been collected. However, they have so far been less than convincing and not consistent enough to justify the expense of the additional classrooms and teachers that would be required. Targeted remedial programs are generally less costly and easier to deploy. They tend to be adopted for a portion of the school day to address learning problems in one or a small number of subject areas. In contrast, maintaining small classes throughout a grade level or school requires pervasive organizational changes. Of course, proponents would argue that the benefits are also pervasive--being realized throughout the school day and affecting the entire range of school subjects--unlike the band-aid approach of experimenting with one targeted program after another.

With the sun setting on the Pennylvania Empowerment Law (June 30, 2010), Harrisburg's Model of Mayoral Control has come under close scrutiny and with it the State Appointed Board of Control governing the Chester-Upland School District.  Both have failed to spur any major improvements in the districts they govern, the same charge against the elected the school boards they replaced.  After 10 years, Harrisburg's newly-elected mayor has signaled her preference for the district to return to local elected control, but the legislative debate will decide the ultimate fate of the students in these districts. 

The following story ran in the Patriot News (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania), Friday, October 30 2009. You can read the article in its entirity at:  http://www.allbusiness.com/government/government-bodies-offices-regional/13380756-1.html

It was an experiment, the first of its kind in Pennsylvania.

Piccola, R-Dauphin County, saw it as the tough love needed to repair what he and others saw as a broken educational system. At the time, 89 percent of city students were scoring below grade level. Today, 68 percent of Harrisburg's students are below grade level.

That's an improvement, but not as much as Piccola and state Education Secretary Gerald Zahorchak would like. The school district rivals Chester-Upland School District in Delaware County as the state's worst performer.

The state's empowerment law (granting mayoral control of city schools) expires on June 30, 2010.

In Harrisburg, if the law is not renewed, the city schools would revert to the control of the nine-member elected school board.

However, Piccola doesn't favor that situation and said he doesn't see how the district can avoid moving control to a state-appointed board of control, which would not report to the mayor.

"I don't see how you get a district that would just remain in place and go back to the existing school board," he said. "... You need immediate intervention. The district is clearly not on the right track."

However, state Rep. Ron Buxton, D-Harrisburg, points out that a state-appointed board of control has been governing Chester-Upland for the past 10 years and that has not resulted in an instantaneous academic turnaround there. He seems inclined to allow the Harrisburg district to revert back to the elected school board.

"I think that the citizens of the city have focused on this transition occurring, particularly since the current governance situation has not produced better test scores," Buxton said. "And from what I'm hearing in the community, they appear to be prepared to govern the Harrisburg School District again."

Neither Buxton nor Piccola endorses continuing with the mayoral control.

The 2000 Education Empowerment Act placed the empowerment label on a district if it had 50 percent or more of its students scoring in the bottom or "below basic," category on the math and reading Pennsylvania System of School Assessments in the most recent two school years. That resulted in new powers and extra money to help raise test scores.

Then, in 2001, the federal No Child Left Behind Act came along. It introduced "adequate yearly progress," or AYP, as a measuring stick to determine districts' progress toward a goal of 100 percent math and reading proficiency.

Piccola suggests AYP should be the basis in the new law for determining which districts should be labeled as empowerment districts.

"We would take appropriate actions depending upon how far below AYP they have fallen," he said. "Chester-Upland and Harrisburg appear to be the ones that have just failed miserably." ...

Harrisburg schools Superintendent Gerald Kohn also believes the district is ready to be handed back to the elected board.

When he arrived in the district, he said, "I was surprised at how much needed to be done, but in the past 8 1/2 years, we accomplished more than I thought possible."

This past year, more than three-quarters of students demonstrated more than a year's growth based on state test scores, Kohn said. In addition, college acceptances of graduates is up and two initiatives that are part of the reforms he ushered in -- SciTech High and the district's preschool program -- are gaining national attention...

Zahorchak and the legislators note Harrisburg has achieved some successes under Mayor Stephen R. Reed -- it has upgraded its buildings and athletic facilities, opened a model science and technology high school, and expanded its early childhood education offerings.

But still looming is the large percentage of students scoring in the bottom performance category, or "below basic," on the state math and reading tests. Fewer than half of the students, or 47 percent, taking the state math and reading tests fell in this category in 2008-09. That is far better than the 68 percent 10 years before, but not good enough, they say.

In 2000, Buxton voted against taking control of Harrisburg schools away from the elected board. He said one of the main problems with mayoral control since then has been "the inability of a superintendent to have to report to the general public regarding the activities of the school district, but rather he had one superior" -- the mayor.

Piccola said the experiment was a failure "not in terms of concept, but in terms of execution."

From the New Castle County Department of Election's Facebook website:\
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Wilmington-DE/DOE-NCC/176372681244

(Yes, elections is on Facebook.)


The Following candidates have filed to run for the Christina School District Board of District:

Nominating District A
Eric M. Anderson
George E. Evans

(okay, that question may land me in hot water, but it's no secret that there are many in Wilmington who believe that their schools should be run locally, not by the Red Clay, Colonial, or the Christina School Districts.  Therefore, I believe, it deserves to be asked.)

Rochester, NY
Rochester, NY, Mayor Bob Duffy wants control of his cities schools, joining a growing cohort of urban leaders vying for education reform through mayoral control.  In Duffy's view, public safety, economic development and public education would all be better served under a consolidated government.  Though he appears to be gaining the support of both the NY Legislature and Governor Patterson,  the move is not without controversy and opponents, including the education union and some school board members who are mounting a fight.  (The School Board would cease to exist if the state's third largest district falls under Duffy's control.)

According to the http://www.democratandchronicle.com/, Duffy says, "This is about aligning systems that are critically important for the future health of our city and our children," He envisions a district that would integrate social service and nonprofit organizations to provide a comprehensive "kids zone."

By law, the city of Rochester pays $119 million to the school district annually. Savings would come through combining departments, while educational quality would improve in part through a more comprehensive social service net, Duffy said.

Mayoral Control
Arne Duncun has gone so far as to say, he would consider his time as education secretary a "failure" if more mayors didn't take over control of their city schools by the end of his tenure. 

Rochester isn't alone. as reported by Dakarai Aarons efforts "are under way in Detroit and Milwaukee to institute mayoral control, spurred by frustration over sometimes glacial academic progress.

"Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett (who is running to replace Doyle) have been unsuccessful so far in their attempts to get the state legislature to pass a mayoral control bill, most recently in a special session two weeks ago. Barrett is still pushing forward, and the state senate's education committee is holding a hearing on the issue Jan. 5.

"In Detroit, Emergency Financial Manager Robert C. Bobb recently asked for academic control of the schools. He and others have expressed support for Mayor Dave Bing having a say in how the schools are run. The Michigan House will take up the issue in a series of hearings starting Jan. 14."

In October, reporter Lesli A. Maxwell produced an examination of Mayoral Control as education reform for the Wallace Foundation's, Leading for Learning Report.  Maxwell cites 18 cities who have explored the change in education leadership.  There are the heavy-hitters -- New York City, Washington D.C. and Chicago -- as well as efforts in smaller cities like Harrisburg, PA; Yonkers, NY; Providence, R.I.; Trenton, NJ; and Hartford, Conn.

Even our neighbor, Philadelphia, developed a model of control in 2001when the school district reverted to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Currently, the Mayor appoints two members of the School Reform Commission and the Governor appoints three others. 

What mayoral control does present is a direct line of accountibility for school performance to one person, the mayor.  If voters don't like the direction of their public education, they have the ability to change leadership every four years.  When Mayor Bloomberg ran last fall in NYC, his education record was a central issue in the election.

"No mayor has exercised such unlimited power over the public schools as Mr. Bloomberg," Diane Ravitch, a professor of education at NYU, former assistant secretary of education and frequent critic of Bloomberg, has written.

In the eyes of some critics, this is simply going too far. "We still think there are reasons to keep mayoral control," United Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten said in her introduction to the union's report on school governance. But she continued,"The experience of the last seven years points strongly to a need for a governance system that is more democratic, more accountable and more transparent."

In New Mexico,

The push for mayoral control reflects rising frustration and desperation over poor student achievement, crumbling buildings, bureaucratic wrangling among school officials and revolving-door superintendents.



The districts have standardized their curriculums, ended "social promotion" of kids who fall too far behind, opened new schools to give students more choice and brought in millions of dollars in corporate donations.


But education specialists continue to debate whether kids really get a better education under such arrangements, whether any academic gains will be permanent, and how much credit mayors should get for the successes.

Kenneth Wong, a Brown University education professor, examined test scores of the 100 largest school districts from 1999 to 2003. He found that students in mayor-controlled school systems often perform better than those in other urban systems. Test scores in mayor-run districts are rising "significantly," he says.


However, Wong says in his study that "there is still a long way to go before (mayor-controlled) districts achieve acceptable levels of achievement."

Delaware school boards by contrast are slow moving machines that levy power among seven unpaid individuals with rotating elections of one or two seats per year.  It takes a minimum of five years to replace a board in Delaware and often longer. 

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not trying to advocate my way out of a seat on the CSD BOE.  School Boards provide local accountibility representative of all parts of a district.  Candidates must reside in defined geographic nominating districts and are elected by all voters who choose to hit the polls on election day.  They are both accountible and accessible in ways that a mayor may not be.

In an April article for Edweek.com, former executive director for the New York Commission on School Governence, Joseph P. Viteritti found that:

Mayoral Control produces a mixed bag of results.  Mayoral control of public schools, now found in more than a dozen localities across the nation, has become part of the landscape of American urban education, even as the idea has played out differently from city to city.

Boston and Chicago are prototypes. In Boston, where the governance change was carried out in 1992, the mayor has worked closely with school professionals to implement new programs. In Chicago, where it was enacted in 1995, the mayor, at least initially, worked around school people. Detroit is a case study of mayoral control undone: The plan there went down in a 2005 referendum after six rocky years characterized by racial, partisan, and regional antagonism. The District of Columbia is a recent convert (2007); Los Angeles came close, but never quite got there. And talk about a move to mayoral control has been heard in such diverse places as Albuquerque, N.M.; Dallas; Memphis, Tenn.; Milwaukee; Minneapolis; Newark, N.J.; Rochester, N.Y.; and Seattle.

Veteritti further writes:

In New York City, our Commission on School Governance recommended that responsibility for the analysis and dissemination of performance data be turned over to the Independent Budget Office, which does not report to the mayor or rely on him for funding. Putting city hall in control of the schools increases the risk of politicizing education and the assessment of school performance. If a city is seriously considering mayoral control, education presumably is already a high political priority, so achievement data can be an irresistible temptation around election time.

So, returning to my question of mayoral control and the role it could play in the City of Wilmington:  The Jury is out on whether it works, though it is a favored model U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncun.  However, even in Duncun's home town, Chicago, longitudinal data seems to indicate that his own changes to education failed to spurr sustainable progress. 

I certainly don't have the answer.  But, it's a question worth asking ... and especially in light of regulation changes coming from DOE that could open the door for the elimination of local control in schools failing to make AYP.  You can check out those changes in detail at http://transparentchristina.wordpress.com/2010/01/14/delaware-regulation-changes-and-their-potential-impact/ thanks to a fellow blogger who's made that information easily accessible.

Time will tell.

groupthink
group·think [ groop thìngk ]
noun
Definition:  unquestioning conformity: conformity in thought and behavior among the members of a group, especially an unthinking acceptance of majority opinions

Groupthink is a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. Individual creativity, uniqueness, and independent thinking are lost in the pursuit of group cohesiveness, as are the advantages of reasonable balance in choice and thought that might normally be obtained by making decisions as a group.[1] During groupthink, members of the group avoid promoting viewpoints outside the comfort zone of consensus thinking. A variety of motives for this may exist such as a desire to avoid being seen as foolish, or a desire to avoid embarrassing or angering other members of the group. Groupthink may cause groups to make hasty, irrational decisions, where individual doubts are set aside, for fear of upsetting the group’s balance. The term is frequently used pejoratively, with hindsight.

Symptoms of groupthink
To make groupthink testable, Irving Janis devised eight symptoms indicative of groupthink (1977).
1.Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.
2.Rationalizing warnings that might challenge the group's assumptions.
3.Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.
4.Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, disfigured, impotent, or stupid.
5.Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of "disloyalty".
6.Self censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
7.Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.
8.Mind guards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.

Groupthink, resulting from the symptoms listed above, results in defective decision making. That is, consensus-driven decisions are the result of the following practices of groupthinking[5]
1.Incomplete survey of alternatives
2.Incomplete survey of objectives
3.Failure to examine risks of preferred choice
4.Failure to reevaluate previously rejected alternatives
5.Poor information search
6.Selection bias in collecting information
7.Failure to work out contingency plans.

From CRM Learning:  Preview their Groupthink Video based on the NASA's disasterous Challenger Mission.  http://www.crmlearning.com/groupthink-2nd-edition
Click the following passage from http://pirate.shu.edu/~mckenndo/pdfs/The%20Space%20Shuttle%20Challenger%20Disaster.pdf to view the resulting research paper on Groupthink.

The Space Shuttle Challenger, with school teacher Christa McAuliffe aboard, exploded in flames on live television on January 28, 1986. Because of the intense public interest in the explosion and the fiery death of the astronauts, the Challenger case has been fully publicized.
The direct cause of the Challenger explosion was technical - faulty O-rings. But the Challenger also presented a case study in organizational communication and ethics, including the ethics of organizational structure and culture as it promotes or discourages necessary communication, the ethics of whistle blowing, and an excellent study of group think.   

Education is a marathon, not the sprint that proponents of Race to the Top would have you think.

Christina voted to sign the MOU last night with two dissenting votes.  While I sincerely hope that the RttT grant will lead our children to great success, my vote reflected a greater concern:

We are mortgaging the futures of our students.  At the end of the four year grant program, Federal Guidelines require districts to not only continue funding programs created under RttT, but to assume the state's share of that funding as well.  

As two board members admitted last night, Christina's financial infrastructure is fragile and failing: 

Thanks to WDEL 1150 AM for posting their video of the debate at http://www.wdel.com/video/?v=race2top.wmv  Pertinent Text Below:

"From a fiscal responsibility and looking at the district and the changes that we need to do; I look at what status quo is currently.  No current operating referendum.  We're looking at the budget and fewer and fewer dollars next year to sustain even what we are currently doing and yet still failing miserably and debating whether we have five, six, ten, or twenty schools on aparticular list, we know where the hell we stand."

And

"We are not in a good place now and I think this points us to a better place.  The four years and done spend down doesn't have me that worried ... four years is a long, long time ... our current model will completely collapse in less than four years financially anyway.  So as as John Maynard Keynes says, 'It doesn't pay to look too far into the future because in the long term we are all dead.'"

As the parent of a young child in our district with another getting there, it is prerequisite that I have my eye on this district's long-term financial picture.  If we are headed to "financial collapse" within the next four years, how are we to plan to support more expenses when those four years are over?  And in four years, my children and our many elementary age children now and to come will not be dead.  They will; however, be struggling to attain a world class education in a system that is likely to be completely broken.

It is with that concern and my refusal to subscribe to short sidedness, that I cast my no vote last night.  I believe that it is better to build a realistic strategic plan, to enact true and proven best practices, not unfounded ones, and engage in thoughtful financial planning.  Instead, it is my opinion, that our board chose to engage in an open-ended and ill-defined BINDING agreement. 

Finally, it is not a character failing to "vote your conscience" when the futures of 17,000 children weigh upon you.  Rather, I believe it is your obligation. 

A vote against an unproven reform and for sounder financial decisions cannot be equated to a vote for the failure of that reform.  I pray it works. It is now all we have.

What if someone came along and said they were going push you off?  Would you jump of your own free will?  Or would you wait to be pushed?

Last Wednesday, Dr. Lowery noted that the DOE has recently engaged with Mass Insight to assist in some of the many reforms that Delaware is undertaking, regardless of whether we receive RttT funding or not.

In referring to Markell's Blueprint for Education, published while he was still candidate Markell and not the Gov., Dr. Lowery stated, "if we don't get RttT, this is going to fall apart, but we are doing this" as she stood before a large screen projection of "Exhibit 1" of the State's application.

Then, tonight, I'm trolling Mass Insight's website and stumble upon this little nugget of information:

STG's (SCHOOL TURNAROUND GROUP)continued work produces organizational strategies, work plans, and manuals for states, large urban districts, and outside funding partners to turn around low-performing schools through a new system of turnaround zones with improved operating conditions, Lead Partners, and other supports. The "Partnership Zone Initiative," which has received startup funding from the Carnegie Corporation of New York, with matching support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, will establish turnaround zones”in up to three states in 2009-2013 to serve as proof-points for these school turnaround and district redesign strategies.

And I can't help but ask, "Why am I spending time looking for the peer-reviewed model, when it appears that is the role that Delaware will play for the nation?"

Which would be fine and dandy, if there was proof that it worked.  And if we knew for certain that any district could opt-out of the MOU at any point without penalty?  Right now, the Fed language is "mutually agreeable."  And if DEDOE would put it in writing that if a district fails to succeed in meeting AYP or mutually opts-out that said district would only have to return the unspent portions of the sum and will not be responsible for repaying spent funds.

And I did ask for that in writing last Wednesday? You bet, but it was laughed off.  Only, I must have a longer memory than most b/c not too long ago we were settling lawsuits out of court that we incurred b/c we didn't have to funds to pay for the contract we engaged upon ...

And the moral of the yet-unwritten story is this:  If Delaware is the MODEL, DOE will never mutually agree for a district to opt-out nor will any be permitted to fail and thus, we could in fact see local control thoroughly eroded ...

Mass Insight couldn't be better positioned for Race to the Top than if they had written the grant themselves...

I have to admit that I haven't thoroughly digested their website, but I've taken Dr. Lowery's suggestion to research the work of this company to heart so that I may better understand the science of turnaround schools... Only so far, I'm still in the research and have yet to find the results ...

Directly from the Mass Insight Education website, http://www.massinsight.org/turnaround/index.aspx

The imperative of turnaround

Too many of our children are languishing in low-performing schools that have consistently and shamefully failed their students, families, and communities. School turnaround is an attempt to remedy this failure.

The Turnaround Challenge

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation awarded the Mass Insight Education & Research Institute a grant late in 2005 to produce a framework for states and districts seeking a flexible, systemic approach for swift, significant improvement in schools that have clearly failed their mission, producing track records of under-achievement that are indefensibly poor. The Turnaround Challenge and corollary resources released in 2007, were the result of that grant.

A follow-up grant from the Gates Foundation supported a Mass Insight-led effort to inform national and state leaders around the issue of school turnaround, and to carry out a research and development process to create tools and reports that would help school, district, and state leaders implement the report’s turnaround framework. The resulting resources from this initiative, Meeting the Turnaround Challenge, are available in our Turnaround Challenge Resource Center, and are now being used to design and implement policies in a variety of states.

Turning research into practice

The Turnaround Challenge has gained tremendous attention and praise in the world of education reform, including being downloaded over 175,000 times since its release. With the benefit of both national momentum and turnaround expertise, we decided to take our work to the next level and implement the framework we have espoused. We are now in the process of launching an intensive initiative to transform the The Turnaround Challenge framework into practice.

Mass Insight has been awarded a 2-year, $1.5M grant, from the Carnegie Corporation of New York, to selectively work with a selective group of states, and districts within those states, that have the capacity, leadership consensus, and readiness to reinvent the district model by transforming clusters of turnaround schools through the creation of Partnership Zones.

In addition to the work of this Partnership Zone Initiative, we continue to lead the creation of practice-based tools and reports on school turnaround, advocate at the national and state level for optimal policies and conditions, and support a broader network of states and districts through proprietary consulting work.

Following last Wednesday night's Race to the Top workshop, I forwarded additional questions to Dr. Lowery for consideration.  Questions and responses are below.  Dr. Lowery's responses are in red and direct quotes from our email.

1) The plan is currently to continue with the DAPA II. Could you please help me understand how the DAPA II is a formative assessment? And if it is summerative, should the DAPA II due date be moved from January to April or May?

The beauty of DAPA II is that it documents children’s work throughout the year and then demonstrates cumulative growth at the end of the year. The formative side is made manifest as teachers and staff work with students throughout the year, making necessary modifications as needed to ensure student success. The summative side is the end result of yearlong interventions.

2) Involved LEAs: Addendum 2, issued December 18, 2009, states on page 6:

Alternatively, such an LEA could be included in the State's plan as an involved LE, in which case it would not be subject to the requirements regarding participating LEAS (and neither would it count towards the State's score under criteria (A)(1)(ii) and (A)(1)(iii), nor will toward its performance targets that are defined in terms of participating LEAs. In this case, the State may denote funding on line 11 of the State Budget table (Funding for Involved LEAs).

Did I understand you clearly that Delaware will not request funding for nor add any LEA as an "involved LEA?"

We are only funding “participating” districts.

3) There was little conversation regarding the turnaround models or the Partnership Zone. Pulaski comes to mind as perhaps the most concerning school in the CSD. However, our principal in Pulaski is only in her second year and Christina reconstituted many of its schools last year as a result finally coming into compliance with the neighborhood schools law. Will these circumstances be taken into consideration when the DOE is selecting schools for the Zone and its Turnaround models? (Per the Proposed Code Changes, 103 Accountability for Schools, Districts, and the State, and identified in section 7.6) It has long been considered that any substantial change that a new principal endeavors takes 4-5 years to produce visible results. Additionally, Christina has a history of moving principals frequently. All of the models in the above noted section indicate that the principals in such schools must be replaced. Would taking such an action be prudent?

Schools for the Partnership Zone will be selected as prescribed by USDOE guidelines, trend data. Then we will only work with those districts that we trust to have the capacity –political will and leadership- to engage in substantive, meaningful progress for students and staff. The conversation that we have with districts will determine who will be awarded additional dollars to do really good work. DDOE will consider leadership abilities and PZ school selection will depend on leadership at the district and school level. Each district has to figure out the best means to address concerns like those that you have raised and present a plan of action for success.

4) Does DOE has a preferential order of models for the districts to engage?

DOE does not have a preferential order of models in which the districts may engage.

5) Where do you suggest a board member look to study successful examples of the four potential turnaround models? I'd like to see proven results before engaging any of Christina's schools in the MOU.

Please visit the USDOE or Mass Insight, Inc. websites.

6) You indicated that schools would have two years to show AYP under turnaround plans. That two year window does not seem to take in account the natural learning curve/rate of the students. Could you elaborate?

The two-year timeline is a federal requirement under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (aka “No Child Left Behind”), if a school is to move from under improvement to proficient or “turnaround.” Some schools, like Gauger-Cobbs, may make AYP for one year which positions them to come from under improvement, but a second successive year is mandated to determine progress successfully.

Wolfe Gary is a member of the Milford Board of Education and an advocate for Public Education.  He publishes his own blog, Education and Community News from Home Town Delaware.  His most recent entry bears repeating:

January 10, 2010


Posted by Wolfe Gary in Delaware Politics, Education

I have been away for awhile but not absent as I’ve been reading all that I can on “Race to the Top” our wonderful governors latest insight. I caught a post from http://transparentchristina.wordpress.com/2010/01/09/newsflash-baton-rouge-state-school-board-association-unanimously-rejects-race-to-the-top-by-a-vote-of-17-0/ which was about a school board from Baton Rouge that felt the cost was too high for the benefit. That is my biggest concern as the boards prepare to meet and sign the MOU that is required by Jan 11th. I have asked other board members who I know from around the state what are their concerns as well, and when I read the section I’ve quoted from the article I know why I am having second thoughts. The quote is, “A key consideration is the requirement that local school boards must continue to fund programs initiated with R2T grants once the four-year term of the grant expires. State and federal budgetary forecasts, board members concluded, likely will not yield new appropriations and local school board members would be required to ask for tax increases.” I actually had to go back and re-read the executive summary again to see if this was in there and sure enough it is!
So as local board members meet to review and possibly sign the MOU I still can’t see how Jack Markell can ask the boards to sign when we all know what our lovely state budget is looking like! How do we continue programs when we don’t even know if the state will have funds when the 4 years of RTTT ends?

C&E 1st offers its sincerest condolences to the Biden family in their time of loss.

Here's your opportunity to influence it:

Thursday, January 7 ~ 7:00 pm, Keene Elementary School
2010-2011 Student Code of Conduct Review Committee Meeting
Parent and Community volunteers are invited to attend and become involved in the
annual review process for the District's 2010-2011 Student Code of Conduct.

Update:
I've published  two comments submitted by Anonymous.  Though I personally find the comments offensive, I believe it would be counter to the purpose of this blog to reject them.  They are, in my opinion, in bad taste, but I suspect they were meant in sarcasm and express a true desire to see this document thoroughly revised.  I sincerely hope that the writer attended last night's meeting at Keene.

http://www.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/faq-addendum-2.pdf

If Race to the Top does nothing more for my family, it has taught my three-year-old a new dialect -- RttT, Mou, Governor's Zone, Mayoral Control, Collaboration, Rigor, Turnaround Schools..."  He peels off acronyms and buzzwords like a pro.

He's barely in preschool six hours a week and USDOE has usurped his academic innocence.  Thanks a lot.

And with two weeks 'til State Apps are due, thanks for finally issuing a "Guidance" Document that may actually help the "local control" understand the magnitude of their decisions.  Perhaps, your answers to the burning questions in many school board members' minds might be deemed "collaboration?"

Let me ask my three-year-old and get back to you.

From the News Journal:  http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20100106/NEWS03/1060332

Two Delaware teachers and a University of Delaware professor will be honored today by President Barack Obama for excellence in mathematics and science teaching and mentoring.


Karen Fredricks, a fourth grade teacher at Christina School District's Marshall Elementary, and Jo Anne Deshon, a first grade teacher at Christina's Downes Elementary, both received the presidential teaching award in July.

HERE for the rest of the story

http://www.newarkpostonline.com/articles/2010/01/04/news/doc4b42b47f8e54f988059211.txt
Computer training schools shut down


Published: Monday, January 4, 2010 9:49 PM CST

A computer training school was shut down, with a bank being blamed for the action.

According to a notice on its website, ComputerTraining.edu was shut down by BB&T bank and forced to close all schools and corporate offices with no notice to students, creditors, employees, management or shareholders. ComputerTraining.edu operates a campus in Newark.

After seventeen years in business, on Christmas Eve December 24th, 2009 ComputerTraining.edu was sent an email notifying them that their primary financier, BB&T bank, had frozen their line of credit, bank accounts and was seizing all assets immediately, according to the posting. They also instructed Computertraining.edu to lock down all locations and not allow employees access to collect personal belongings. This request stunned the ComputerTraining.edu management team who refused to comply. All employees were allowed access and terminations were made face to face, the posting reported.

Regardless of the fact that there were sufficient funds to do so, BB&T decided not to pay ComputerTraining.edu employees or keep training centers open to allow enrolled students to complete their schooling. Several attempts have been made by ComputerTraining.edu management to remedy the situation without success.

Current students should contact their state's board of education as soon as possible to work through refunds and remedies. ComputerTraining.edu has posted surety bonds and restricted cash deposits with the states which will be used to help students transfer to another school or obtain refunds.

ComputerTraining.edu is working together with Sallie Mae and all State Agencies to ensure that BB&T does the right thing and teaches out the classes and/or guarantees all refunds, the posting claimed.

The Sumner County Education Association (SCEA) is A TEA/NEA Affiliate.

SCEA has posted a guidance document for their teachers.  The following excerpts are from the document, which can be viewed in its entirety here: http://sceassn.org/files/rttt_faq.pdf

5. Does an LEA have to participate in the state’s RTTT plan? If so, how much?

No. The LEA may choose not to participate, or it may decide only to participate in certain parts of the state’s reform agenda. However, the extent to which LEAs participate significantly or totally in the state’s plan will be evaluated in the application. LEAs may also choose only to be “involved” (i.e., not “participate” by signing an MOU but instead agreeing at a later time to comply with some or all statewide reform efforts). “Involved” LEAs would not receive their share of the RTTT money as a “participating LEA” would, but they may receive some money to implement the reform efforts they become associated with.

8. What “red flag” areas of the state’s application might I watch out for?

• Bypassing or excluding some eligible local affiliates in the state’s MOU for participating LEAs (Note: an LEA does not have to have an existing collective bargaining agreement with the local for that local to be eligible to “sign off” on the MOU)
• Skewing teacher evaluations toward student test scores only, not on student “growth” or multiple measures as required
• Does the charter school policy include ways to monitor charter school authorization, performance and student population as encouraged by the application?
• Applications that minimize “transformation” strategies in favor of the other intervention models for struggling schools
• Lack of stakeholder (including teacher and ESP) input into decisionmaking regarding struggling schools
• Teacher evaluation systems not developed with teacher input
• Teacher evaluations automatically leading to decisions on compensation, retention, removal etc., not “informing them” along with other procedures
• Not enough emphasis on the positive “Great Teachers and Leaders” Criterion, especially professional development and educator input as part of all 4 reform areas

9. How does RTTT relate to other ARRA programs?


a) State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) . The state must receive approval over its Phases I and II SFSF application prior to receiving a RTTT award. These requirements are significant and impact schools. The Phase II SFSF application is due on January 11, 2010. All states receive between $22 million and $1.1 billion in extra education funding upon approval of its Phase II application.

b) Investing in Innovation (i3). This is the $650 million pot of money with similar goals to RTTT except it is available to LEA and nonprofit (in partnership with schools or LEAs) applicants directly. The final requirements and application procedures for i3 will be released shortly.

c) Title I School Improvement Grants (SIG) . This is a separate $3.5 billion program for persistently low‐achieving schools. The final SIG requirements for this program were released on December 3. The deadline for the state to apply for SIG funds is February 8, 2010. UNION INVOLVEMENT: Note that, unlike RTTT, for SIG the SEA(State) must consult with a "Committee of Practitioners" under ESEA Section 1903(b) prior to submitting its application for SIG funds. This committee includes "teachers, including vocational educators" but not necessarily unions. Other stakeholders may be consulted as well: "The Department recommends that the SEA also consult with other stakeholders such as potential external providers, teachers’ unions, and business, civil rights, and community leaders that have an interest in its application." This language is concerning the SIG application only, not possible union involvement prior to implementation of intervention models at the local level.