The Echo

Survey Finds Limited Familiarity, Success With Turnarounds

By Dakarai Aarons on August 31, 2010 7:09 AM
A new survey released today finds that few school districts are familiar with the four federal models for turning around low-performing schools and even fewer have implemented them.

More than a third of school districts reported they had no familiarity with the models that are part of the federal School Improvement Grants heading to school districts this fall in a bid by the Obama administration to change the fortunes of the bottom five percent of America's schools, according to the report from the Washington-based Center on Education Policy. And fewer than 12 percent had implemented any of the models in their schools.

"This really is a grand experiment to take the 5,000 lowest-performing schools in the country, tell them they have to follow four specific models of reform and putting a lot of money behind the reform," said Jack Jennings, CEP's president, in an interview.

His group's survey was done this spring, when states and school districts were waiting on the federal government, which is not known for moving quickly, to pass along the money from the $3.5 billion Title 1 School Improvement Grants...

Read more here:  http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/District_Dossier/

Stubbs, Glasgow among the first four of the 10 promised in Delaware's RTTT application...

http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20100831/NEWS03/100831022/State-targets-four-struggling-schools

Okla. Virtual Academy Receives State Accreditation
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/08/26/372526okeducationboard_ap.html
By The Associated Press

Oklahoma City

An online learning program aimed at students whose parents prefer to opt out of traditional bricks-and-mortar schools was accredited Thursday by a sharply divided Oklahoma Board of Education, which also placed the program’s tiny school district on probation with strict requirements.

White Oak school district, located near Vinita in northeastern Oklahoma, has only about 50 students onsite, but its online learning program draws more than 1,000 students from across Oklahoma. The program is run through a private Virginia-based vendor called K12.

The board last month tabled consideration of accrediting White Oak until it learned more about the district's program, dubbed "The Oklahoma Virtual Academy." Because White Oak only goes through eighth grade, Wynona Public Schools in Osage County enrolls the academy's students for ninth and 10th grades.

White Oak Superintendent David Money said the program served 476 students last year and has an enrollment of 1,005 for this school year.

Parents choose online programs for several reasons including dissatisfaction with their current school, a desire to transition from home schooling to a standardized curriculum, and behavioral or medical issues, said Mary Gifford, a senior vice president for K12.

Gifford said K12, a for-profit company, provides services to more than 75,000 students in 25 states and the District of Columbia. She said the Oklahoma online academy has students in 58 of the state's 77 counties and in 125 towns. Four K12 administrators are located in an office in Vinita, while 16 regular education teachers, two special education teachers and a high school counselor work from home offices.
Students entering the online program first transfer to White Oak or Wynona, which receive state funding for those students. Most of that money is passed along to K12, which contracts with the districts.

Board member Tim Gilpin of Tulsa questioned K12's for-profit motives and wondered whether parents who enrolled their children in the program would be sincere in its implementation. Another board member, former state Sen. Herb Rozell of Tahlequah, wondered how the academy meets physical education requirements for students and asked Gifford if it "is just a new way for a voucher system for people who are not interested in the public school system."

Gifford said the online academy "is a lifestyle choice. This is not for everybody. It requires a lot of discipline and is highly structured."

After initially voting against accrediting White Oak, the board ultimately voted in favor of accrediting the district with probation and requiring district and K12 officials to provide monthly reports to the board. Board member Gayle Miles-Scott of Oklahoma City, who sided with the majority in the vote against accreditation, switched sides for the third vote, swinging the 4-3 margin in White Oak's favor.

"I think this is new and we need to educate board members, legislators (and) policy makers on online schooling and whether or not it's a right fit for kids," Gifford said after the third vote. "We need to demonstrate our success."

State Superintendent Sandy Garrett, who supported accreditation, told board members that "location and place" of schools are "no longer what they used to be" and noted that "these children that we're educating today, they're plugged in, whether we like it or not, for most of the day." She said state education officials and legislators are working to develop guidelines for online programs operating in Oklahoma schools.

"Our responsibility is to look after the taxpayer dollar," she said. "... We're trying to develop an oversight process that ... ensures to the taxpayers that their money is not going down a rathole for an educational opportunity that might or might not be credible."

While other states had to provide assurances that they would maintain a certain level of spending for 1 years, Texas is required to maintain that level for 3.  Is it right?  Or is it paybacks?  Are Dems coming after Repub. Perry for being so outspoken in his distaste for RTTT?  Just something to mull over...

Published Online: August 27, 2010


Texas will seek $830 million in fed education aid

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Texas will apply for about $830 million in education aid from Washington even though officials are expecting a legal fight over the money.

Gov. Rick Perry has said that to comply with a provision in the bill that put stiffer requirements on Texas would be a violation of the state constitution.

But Perry Chief of Staff Ray Sullivan told the Austin American-Statesman that they'll look for ways around the requirement that the Texas governor assure that the state would maintain a level of education spending for the next three years. Other states had to provide that assurance for only one year.

Texas education leaders were meeting with federal education officials Friday.

The money is intended to help school districts cope with the economic recession and avoid layoffs.

"FIRST", WHYY-TV 12 interviews DOE's Dan Cruce, Christina's Marcia Lyles, and others for the latest update on RTTT and Partnership Schools.  While it airs tonight at 5 pm, C&E 1st has it now:

Federal-Intrusion Talk on Common Standards: A Win-Win?

By Catherine Gewertz on August 24, 2010 12:13 PM
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2010/08/httpblogsedweekorgedweekcampai.html

If you've been following the common-standards initiative, you know that the "don't tread on me" spirit has proved to be one of the flashpoints in that work. And even now, with three-quarters of the states having already adopted the standards, we're still hearing states rattle their sabers at the feds over the common standards (headline version: "States to Feds: Stay the Hell Away From My Standards").

The federal-intrusion sentiment pre-existed Race to the Top, of course. That resentment was one of the ingredients in the implosion of earlier attempts at national standards. Keen awareness of that history shaped the name and rhetoric around this effort (think state, not national, standards). But Race to the Top incentives for common-standards adoption activated those Jungian federal-intrusion archetypes, creating, as Yogi Berra once said, that sense of deja vu all over again.

That put the leaders of the common-standards work in the position of having to disentangle the initiative from the Education Department's support of it. And having to do it politely enough that they didn't tick off the wrong people.

Making the rounds at conferences and such, the organizers made no secret of their view that the feds' messaging was complicating their own. They uttered the phrase "state-led" so often that I began to see it bannered, as if dragged by a shoreline advertising plane, in my dreams. They squirmed under the public perception that states were adopting the standards in a Race to the Trough driven by tough economic times, rather than for their own inherent merit.

But with 36 states and D.C. having adopted the common standards, it would seem that the feds' discomfiting embrace has paid off richly for the initiative. There was no mistaking the RTT-induced adoption pattern: Every single state that either won a grant or was still vying for one adopted the standards. Quite neatly, that allowed the common-standards organizers to keep highlighting the state-led nature of the work and keep shooting down the national-standards bugaboo, while also benefiting from the accelerated adoption schedule fueled by Race to the Top.

Only the most cynical among us would argue that this was the idea from the git-go. Others might argue that such a claim would presume a whole lot more hyper-organization and premeditation around rhetoric than this initiative actually had capacity for. But it is interesting to simply note that it seems to have worked out nicely for the common-standards organizers. Whether implementation of the standards will be affected by the question of states' deepest motives in adopting them is anyone's guess.

Today, a well-known educator shared her recent experience in Dover with two auditoriums of teachers. Here's her story:
At a RTTT meeting, Sec. of Ed. says:  Imagine a circle filled with bubbles.  These bubbles are your high achievers, the kids who always pass the test. (Pardon the Ruditmentary drawings, they are mine.)












Now imagine your circle surrounded by bubbles.  Look at the blue bubbles.  Think of these bubbles as the students who failed the test.

Teachers Against Texting!  Hard-rockin' '80s hair band Twisted Sister isn't the music that you'd usually associate with your teachers -- but that's about to change. A rowdy group of fed-up educators at Bloomingdale Senior High School in Valrico, Fla., made a lip dub to "We're Not Gonna Take It" with a special message for their students -- stop it with the gum chewing, texting and midriff-baring tees already!

The following email made its way to my inbox and I think it needs to be public.  So, I'm giving it over to the tax payers.

It seems that funds from the Federal Edujobs bill will not flow down to Delaware's school districts this year.  Ann Visalli of the OMB has sent an email to our legislators apprising them of a plan to hold onto the money until next fisal year.  Visalli cites Delaware's balanced budget for 10-11 and notes that much of the education budget was supplanted by earlier stimulus funds.  Remember, it was supplanted -- Gov. Markell recommended a number of cuts to the state education budget with plan to push down to local districts a number of previously state-funded initiatives.  In the year previous, he was successful in eliminating Minner Units in their entirity.  Most districts picked these reading and math specialists with their share of the stimulus funds for one year, but are starting this school year, 2010-11 without those units.  Some districts found ways to incorporate them into the traditional unit count.  Most eliminated the Reading Specialists.  In July DSTP scores were released and we all learned that a vast swath of Delaware's students can't read.  Off the bat, the Edujobs Bill would allow for districts to resurrect these reading specialists.  With this funding, districts could choose to go one step further and add more inteventionists. Or even commit to reducing targeted class sizes for two years (using the same Sept. 2012 carryover Visalli cites for the state's ability carry over all funds) a data-supported, research proven method for raising achievement scores.  It's also the most underfunded method.  Apparently, Delaware is too busy BOLDly leading an education reform of unproven proportions to consider trying methods that are data-driven.

While I agree that we must use this money responsibly, I cannot think of a more beneficial manner than to void our achaic method of unit funding and to target job retention and growth into those areas where our students are most deficit. 

The one things this memo implies to me is that our Gov. is again going to target education for funding cuts in the 2011-12 budget.  I can only hope our legislators are again prepared to send the Gov. a resounding NO.

Here it is folks, you be the judge:



From: Visalli Ann (OMB)

Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 5:49 PM
To: Visalli Ann (OMB)

Subject: Education Jobs Fund Program

Dear Members of the General Assembly,

As you may be aware, this past Tuesday Congress passed and the President signed a state aid package that included one-time funding for education jobs and an extension of the federal medical assistance percentage (“FMAP”). Under the Ed Jobs/FMAP bill, Delaware will receive $27.6 million that must be used by September 2012 to create or retain education jobs. In addition, the bill extends the enhanced federal match for Medicaid payments. The FMAP extension is estimated to bring in approximately $47.4 million in additional one-time reimbursement this year. While this additional one-time funding is good news for Delaware, we must ensure that we use it in the most responsible and beneficial manner.

Unlike some states, Delaware’s FY11 budget was balanced without relying on these additional federal dollars, since it was unclear at the time whether we would receive these funds or how much. Importantly, the budget passed by the General Assembly just five weeks ago provided full funding for current classroom teachers and also added an additional 111 teachers to keep up with increasing enrollment for the upcoming school year. The budget also restored the pay cut for teachers and other state employees, provided for teacher salary step increases and met our obligations to provide healthcare for those in need. In short, Delaware’s FY11 budget responsibly met our financial challenges, without requiring teacher layoffs and without removing Medicaid assistance from those hardest hit by the recession.

The fact is, Delaware will face significant challenges next year, as we are faced with a loss of more than $100 million in stimulus dollars, which have been dedicated to education and Medicaid. Given that, while some may urge us to spend this money now for new hires and/or new programs in FY 11, I believe that would be a mistake. With the significant reduction in stimulus dollars for next year and the other cost drivers, I believe we should not use these funds for additional spending commitments this year, which would simply increase the drop-off that we will have to address next year. To be clear, we will spend the Ed/Jobs money on education, but the full amount of the Ed Jobs/FMAP funding should be allocated to the FY 2012 budget to help offset the drop off of stimulus dollars, as well as other likely cost drivers. Doing so will reduce the impact of the coming significant challenges, while allowing time for us together to decide how best to allocate and use the funding.

In closing, given the attention this issue has drawn and the importance of maintaining fiscal responsibility, I thought it important to give you an update on this issue and hope you find this information helpful.

Thank you, and please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions. – Ann

Ann Shepard Visalli, Director
Delaware Office of Management and Budget
302-739-4204 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 302-739-4204

State Board of Education adopts national Common Core Standards
http://www.doe.k12.de.us/news/2010/0819b.shtml
(Dover, DE).─ In a bold move to continue strengthening Delaware’s education system, the Delaware State Board of Education today unanimously approved the adoption of national Common Core Standards for English Language Arts and Mathematics. This will mean more rigorous standards for students in Delaware classrooms. Common Core Standards (CCS) are clear standards for what should be learned in every public school in every state in the Union.

The adoption of the Common Core Standards compliments an array of reform efforts underway in Delaware schools aimed at better preparing students for college and career success.

Delaware’s Department of Education (DDOE) launched a comprehensive review of academic offerings in classrooms across the state and proposed the incorporation of the Common Core Standards from kindergarten through 12th grade. Adoption of CCS is the first step to strengthen the existing curriculum known as the DE Prioritized Curriculum. The DDOE is working with school districts to train teachers to incorporate the new standards into their lessons.

Some students will see changes resulting from implementation of Common Core Standards as early as the second semester of this school year. For instance, some math now taught at the middle school level will start being taught one year earlier at the elementary level. The 2011-2012 school year will reflect most Common Core Standard changes.

"Our children’s education is vital to their long term personal and economic success," Governor Jack Markell said. "A Delaware diploma should signal strength in any state in the country and any country in the world. It should say our students graduated ready for success in the global marketplace."

"English and Math are critical subjects that provide a foundation for all learning and can set children on a path to college readiness. These new standards will help all educators bolster the quality of classroom instruction and move us closer to the intensive reform needed in our schools," Education Secretary Lillian M. Lowery said.

Lowery recently announced major reforms of education in Delaware in the statewide effort to make significant academic gains under the "Race to the Top" program.

The research-based Common Core Standards were developed in coordination with education and business leaders, parents, and other experts across the nation. Governor Markell helped drive the common core standards effort and serves as co-chair of the Common Core Standards Initiative for the National Governor’s Association.
Delaware’s new curriculum standards:

•Build upon strengths and lessons of current state standards known as DE Prioritized Curriculum;

•Align with college and work expectations;

•Include rigorous content and application of knowledge through high-order skills;

•Are evidence and/or research-based;

•Are clear, understandable and consistent;

•Are informed by other top performing countries so that all students are prepared to succeed in our global economy.

The Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI) is a state-led effort coordinated by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). For additional information about the curriculum standards, please go to www.doe.k12.de.us and click on the Spotlight prompt to view the Common Core Standards links.

The Constitutionality of Common Core Standards
Let's dispel the Myths...

1) The Common Core State Standards Initiative is state-led.

In a previous post I stated that the Common Core State Standards Initiative was "cloaked in state-domain"  It is precariously removed from the federal government.  This was the intention of the US Sec. of Education, Arne Duncan, when the National Governors' Organization was charged with the development of national academic standards.  If the push for federal standards can be disguised as a state initiative, it immunes the federal government from violating the ESEA which clearly delineates what power regarding education belong to the states and what falls within the reach of the federal government.

In fact, the CCSSI is not the first time the federal government has tried to create national standards.  In the early 1990s, under then-president Clinton, the federal governement took on a campaign for national standards called Goals 2000. By 1996, the effort was abandoned by even the most well-meaning.  Goals 2000 was ultimately swept under the rug for NCLB.

2) The Common Core State Standards Initiative is voluntary.

There is little about these standards that is truly voluntary.  I've already taken to task the fact that the adoption of the standards became prerequisite for states applying for RTTT. 

"Last year, GM CEO Rick Wagoner “voluntarily” stepped aside when Washington took over his company. BP is “voluntarily” setting up a $20 billion escrow account. And now, states are being pushed to “voluntarily” adopt national education standards and tests....

But if the Obama administration has its way, states might not have a choice in the matter. The U.S. Education Department recently released a “blueprint” for reauthorizing No Child Left Behind. The blueprint language indicates the administration will try to tie $14.5 billion in money for low-income school districts to a state’s adoption of national standards.

While it was one thing for states such as Texas to eschew $4.35 billion in Race to the Top money, it will be nearly impossible for states to turn down their share of $14.5 billion in Title I funding. “Voluntary” once again rings hollow.  (Morning Bell: Time to Stand Up to National Standards Agenda, by Jennifer Marshall, June 21st, 2010)

"President Obama’s administration has offered both strong rhetorical and monetary support for adopting CCSSI standards. Well before there were publicly available drafts of the standards, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan suggested that states that adopt them would put themselves in a better position to get part of the $4.35 billion “Race to the Top Fund”—a chunk of the massive 2009 “stimulus” bill—that he controls. He also announced that up to $350 million of the fund would be used to develop assessments aligned with the standards.4 And this is to say nothing of how the standards would be integrated into reauthorization of NCLB—the core of federal K–12 policy—a process that is currently three years overdue..."  (Behind the Curtain Assessing the Case for National Curriculum Standards by Neal McCluskey), Feb. 2010)

Neal McCluskey is associate director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom and author of the book Feds in the Classroom: How Big Government Corrupts, Cripples, and Compromises American Education (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2007).

“This administration’s attempt to bait states into adopting national standards is an effort to undermine states’ authority to determine how their students are educated, and is clearly aimed at circumventing laws prohibiting national standards,” Gov. Perry said.   Press Release from the Office of Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Tuesday, June 01, 2010 • Austin, Texas

Federal and Involuntary


Many national standards advocates are quick to point out that the CCSSI—the leading national standards effort—involves states cooperatively determining standards and voluntarily adopting them, not federal control. As the CCSSI website explains: “Governors and state commissioners of education from across the country committed to joining a state-led process to develop a common core of state standards in English-language arts and mathematics for grades K–12.”65


There is a sound political reason for emphasizing state control: citizens and state officials are loath to have standards imposed on them by Washington, and previous efforts to create standards at the federal level failed miserably.66 Moreover, many people fear that having the federal government set standards and write tests would make it easy for specialinterest groups like teacher unions and administrator associations to keep standards low. They would essentially have “one-stop shopping,” a single power center on which to focus all of their energies. As Sandy Kress, a chief architect of the No Child Left Behind Act, has stated, “the process [of setting standards] will be hijacked by [interest] groups if the process is federal.”67


That said, despite national–standards supporters emphasizing that the CCSSI is state-led and that adoption of its standards is technically voluntary, adoption will almost certainly be de facto involuntary, and the standards themselves ultimately federal. Already, as previously noted, Secretary of Education Duncan has made clear that it would behoove states to sign on to the CCSSI if they wish to compete for a share of the $4.35 billion “Race-to-the-Top” fund. Duncan has also said that the federal government would furnish $350 million to develop tests tied to the standards. Finally, it would be very difficult to conceive of a reauthorized No Child Left Behind Act, especially in light of what Duncan is currently pushing, that would not mandate adoption of national standards and ultimately lead to federal control of those standards. Of course, states could “voluntarily” turn down the billions of federal dollars attached to NCLB, but even in that unlikely case there would still be absolute compulsion involved: state citizens would continue to have no choice about paying federal taxes.


Constitutionality
The federal government has only been heavily involved in education since 1965, when the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was passed, because for most of the nation’s history it was understood that federal involvement would be unconstitutional. The Constitution makes no mention of “education” or “schooling” among the specific, enumerated powers it gives to the federal government, and outside of controlling the District of Columbia and military educational activities, Washington has no authority to be involved in education.68 To justify its growing involvement, federal policymakers have typically argued that Washington does not force states and schools to do anything, but only attaches rules and regulations to federal money that states and districts may turn down. By essentially demanding that all states and districts adopt specific standards, however, Washington would be exceeding even the unconstitutional power it has accumulated under ESEA, violating a stipulation that has been in federal education law—including NCLB—since day one: “Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize an officer or employee of the Federal Government to mandate, direct, or control a State, local education agency, or school’s curriculum, program of instruction, or allocation of State or local resources.”69  (Behind the Curtain Assessing the Case for National Curriculum Standards by Neal McCluskey), Feb. 2010)

Congress to Investigate School Turnaround Companies

By Dakarai Aarons on August 18, 2010 12:57 PM

Questions have been raised about some of the companies chasing the $3.5 billion in Title I School Improvement Grants to target the bottom 5 percent of America's schools, and now Congress is jumping in the act.

As The New York Times pointed out in a recent story, some of the companies certified by states as school turnaround partners have no experience actually improving the fortunes of low-performing schools—or any school, for that matter...  http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2010/08/congress_to_investigate_school.html

Read the whole story here:  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/16/nyregion/16gap.html?_r=2

Triumph Fades on Racial Gap in City Schools
By SHARON OTTERMAN and ROBERT GEBELOFF

Published: August 15, 2010
 

"When results from the 2010 tests, which state officials said presented a more accurate portrayal of students’ abilities, were released last month, they came as a blow to the legacy of the mayor and the chancellor, as passing rates dropped by more than 25 percentage points on most tests. But the most painful part might well have been the evaporation of one of their signature accomplishments: the closing of the racial achievement gap...

“The claims were based on some bad information,” said Michael J. Petrilli, a vice president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a research group that studies education policy. “On achievement, the story in New York City is of some modest progress, but not the miracle that the mayor and the chancellor would like to claim...”

The State Education Department recalibrated the scoring of the tests this year, raising the number of correct answers needed to pass and saying that the previous standards were not accurate measures of what students needed to know at each grade level. When that happened, the passing rates of white and Asian students dropped a little, but those of black and Hispanic students plummeted.
Asian students have generally performed better than white students on state math tests in the city, and about the same on English tests. Those gaps have remained fairly consistent over the years.

Lessons—‘Goals 2000’ Scorecard: Failure Pitches a Shutout by Richard Rothstein
December 22, 1999 , These pieces originally appeared as a weekly column entitled "Lessons" in The New York Times between 1999 and 2003.

[ THIS ARTICLE FIRST APPEARED IN THE NEW YORK TIMES ON DECEMBER 22, 1999 ]

'Goals 2000' Scorecard: Failure Pitches a Shutout

By Richard Rothstein

In 1989, President George Bush and the nation's governors set six education goals for the year 2000. In 1994, with President Clinton's endorsement, Congress adopted them, adding two more.

We can now declare defeat, having flunked all eight goals we were to reach by the millennium. What went wrong?

Some "Goals 2000" were ridiculous in the first place. Others required substantial resources to accomplish, and these were not provided. Still others required far more than 11 years to achieve.
The very leaders who set these national goals now demand accountability from districts and schools: principals and teachers should suffer consequences for not meeting state targets that sprang from the nationwide goals. But when national leaders fall short of goals, why do they not face similar sanctions? Policy makers' lack of candor about the irresponsible way the goals were set can breed local educators' contempt for the entire standards movement.
The goals were these:

•By 2000, all children will start school ready to learn.

•Ninety percent will graduate from high school.

•All will demonstrate competency over challenging subject matter in English, math, science, foreign languages, civics, economics, the arts, history and geography.

•The United States will be first in the world in math and science.

•All adults will be literate.

•No school will have drugs, violence, firearms or alcohol.

•Teachers will have needed skills.

•All schools will get parents involved.

Faced with unmet goals, it's easy to maintain that sincere effort was all that mattered. That is the approach taken by the National Education Goals Panel, an agency run by governors, members of Congress, state legislators and federal education officials. Ducking accountability, the panel earlier this year proposed changing the name "Goals 2000" to "America's Education Goals," dropping any mention of deadlines. Then, in its 1999 report, it stated that its "bold venture" had worked, because the goals had "helped stimulate reforms."

Now, declaring victory may be O.K. for dieters who lose 5 pounds after aiming for 15, but defining success downward is dicier for national goals to improve education. If we're serious about making schools accountable, then the lack of consequence when we set national goals and fail to meet them sends educators the wrong message. Will we permit schools to claim that standards were met if they merely "stimulate reforms"?

Perhaps the most irresponsible goal was the one calling for the nation to be first in math and science. We shouldn't want first place even if we could have it. Koreans and Japanese score high not only with curriculum we might emulate but also by subjecting children to intense cramming and competitive test pressure. These days Japan's news media are agonizing over the murder of a 2-year-old by the jealous mother of another toddler, who had scored less well on preschool exams. If this is what "first in the world" entails, we don't want to go there.

Perhaps we should aim for fifth, not first. Or perhaps we should seek absolute standards and ignore international ranking. The glibness of "being first" is worrisome, because it invites districts and schools also to set glib goals. Can we expect them to be more responsible than presidents, governors and Congress?

A better goal, but one that was set without necessary resources, was that all children start school ready to learn. The goals panel says this meant that by 2000, all would "have access to high-quality and developmentally appropriate preschool." Yet the national political leaders who set this goal have also failed, since 1989, to finance such programs. France, on the other hand, finances quality preschool for all 3-to-5-year-olds. If we really want first-in-the-world status, here is a more worthy competition.

Universal adult literacy was another goal where lack of financing made a mockery of our ambition. To fulfill it would have required expanded community and public-library programs, evening schools and instruction based in the workplace. Financing these was never on goal-setters' agendas.

Academic proficiency is what most people want goals to inspire, but here we can't monitor national progress because while Congress set goals for achievement, it couldn't agree on national standards or tests to measure it. Thus, each state (except Iowa, which declines to participate) now sets its own standards. What is "competent" in one state is not in others, so we can't know how far we are from "all" students' demonstrating "competency over challenging subject matter."

Standards-setting is serious business, and carefully reasoned goals can spur achievement, entitling those meeting them to rewards. But goals we can't (or shouldn't) meet only promote cynicism. To reform the school reform movement, holding those accountable who so recklessly established "Goals 2000" might be a good place to start.

What will the Edujobs bill mean to Delaware?  Budget officials in Missouri are asking the same question in their state...

From Schools and the Stimulus Blog
Districts Left in Doubt Over Federal Funds

By Jessica Bock, St. Louis Post-Dispatch (MCT)

When President Barack Obama signed an emergency education spending bill this week, supporters said it would almost immediately send $10 billion to states—including more than $600 million in Missouri and Illinois—to spare thousands of teacher jobs.

Now some educators are puzzled over how and when the money will actually reach schools.

One top Missouri budget official is uncertain whether the state will even distribute all the new federal funds this year.

Meanwhile, leaders at many school districts—including several in suburban St. Louis—are assuming they will be left with little to none of the windfall.

For example, the $190 million headed to Missouri won't likely bring 35 teachers back to work at Lindbergh, the only St. Louis County school district forced to lay off a significant number due to the recession.

"It's not fun to be on the wrong end of irony," said Pat Lanane, Lindbergh's chief financial officer. "I have no expectation that we'll do any better this time."

That's because the rules for distributing the federal money wouldn't direct the funds to all school districts equally..."

Last I heard, Delaware still had not received its first RTTT payment.  Now, if I'm wrong and the money has quietly flowed into the state, please correct me and ignore the rest of this post :) And if I'm right, who knows where you'll end up?

The Common Core State Standards Initiative is a state-led effort coordinated by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). Delaware's own Governor, Jack Markell, is co-chair (with Gov. Sonny Perdue of Georgia) of the NGA Lead Governors on Common Core Standards Committee. Markell also chairs NGA's Education, Early Childhood and Workforce Committee.
So, to be fair, the Common Core Standards are cloaked in state-domain (and I have chosen my words carefully b/c I do believe there is a federal overstep being committed) and Delaware seems to have had  its share of influence in the process. (good ,if you support Jack's Blueprint for Education; bad, if you champion local control.) But, then, why is Delaware's official adoption of the standards so late in coming? School opens in just weeks and the DeDOE is only now, at its August meeting, bringing the standards to the State BOE for action.

"If you've been following the common-standards coverage in this blog, you know that Aug. 2 was a big-deal day, because states vying for Race to the Top money got maximum points if they had adopted the standards by then. When the RTT Round 2 finalists were announced, we noted that nearly all states that had won a grant (in Round 1) or were still in the running for one (Round 2) had adopted the standards.

Then it came down to one: Delaware was the only one of the RTT winners or contenders that had not yet adopted the common standards." (It won a grant in Round 1.) (Deadlines, Delaware, and the Common by Catherine Gewertz, Curriculum Matter Blog, August 10, 2010)

Veteran Education Week reporters Catherine Gewertz and Erik Robelen bring you news and analysis of issues at the core of classroom learning.

Yes, it's come down to Delaware, the last RTTT hangover when it comes to the standards. Gewertz did ferret out the reasons for our lateness (click the link above to read them in full) -- the unexpected, delayed release of the final standards product that threw off the timeline promised in our RTTT application (we cited June as the month that we would officially adopt). Furthermore, the feds and DeDOE have had a dialogue about the process developed to adopt them (it passes the litmus test.) As Gewertz blogs "So it seems that unforeseen events, good intentions, and a clear plan seem to have made the Aug. 2 date a bit more flexible for Delaware." Statisticians also believe that even without the 20 points automaticially awarded for adopting the standards, Delaware still would have won in the first round. Lucky Delaware, and a real shame for all the states that will not WIN Race funds and have aleady committed their states to fast-tracked standards.

But, it all raises a question in my mind, and without intending to, I think Gewertz gives us an answer: Why hasn't Delaware received the first of its Race to the Top winnings? Gewertz blogs:

"Spokesman Justin Hamilton said that Ed is keeping a close eye on how states are progressing with the plans they outlined in their Race to the Top applications. He noted that RTT money can only be drawn down by states in chunks, as they reach key milestones in that work.

"If we determine at any point along the way that a state is not holding to the commitment it made in its application, it could put its funding in jeopardy," he said."

Is Arne Duncan holding onto Delaware's funding until the State Board of Education formally adopts the Common Core Standards? Is he waiting for Delaware to reach that key milestone?  Time will tell...

Should Delaware adopt the Common Core Standards? 

Yes, we know, the State Board of Education WILL adopt them.  It goes without saying because DeDOE wrote it into the Race to the Top Application.  But, should they?  Now, that's a harder question. 

There is no doubt in my mind that Delaware needs to develop more rigorous standards.  We rank consistently low when our stardards are compared to those of states.  But, there's something a bit more insidious to this pending adoption.  It's an issue of state's rights, one long ago, acknowledged in D.C. when No Child Left Behind became the law of the land.

While NCLB mandated assessments, the same testing that has caused the pushdown of academic standards across the nation, it specifically did not legislate common academic standards.  Legislators in D.C. along with their USDOE designees struggled with defining where state's rights began and federal jurisdiction ended.  The question of overstep really had t do with what constituted "curriculum" because the choice of curriculum is clearly defined as a right of a state, district, or school.  It doesn't fall under federal domain, see this tidbit from the ESEA. Click the title to link back.

SEC. 9527. PROHIBITIONS ON FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS.

(a) GENERAL PROHIBITION- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize an officer or employee of the Federal Government to mandate, direct, or control a State, local educational agency, or school's curriculum, program of instruction, or allocation of State or local resources, or mandate a State or any subdivision thereof to spend any funds or incur any costs not paid for under this Act.

(b) PROHIBITION ON ENDORSEMENT OF CURRICULUM- Notwithstanding any other prohibition of Federal law, no funds provided to the Department under this Act may be used by the Department to endorse, approve, or sanction any curriculum designed to be used in an elementary school or secondary school.
(c) PROHIBITION ON REQUIRING FEDERAL APPROVAL OR CERTIFICATION OF STANDARDS-

(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal law, no State shall be required to have academic content or student academic achievement standards approved or certified by the Federal Government, in order to receive assistance under this Act.
(2) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to affect requirements under title I or part A of title VI

(d) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION ON BUILDING STANDARDS- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to mandate national school building standards for a State, local educational agency, or school.

It's starting to look a bit like Wilmington on a bad air day - smoggy.  While I can tell you that the preference given to states willing to adopt the Common Core Standard in their Race to the Top Application subverts the rights accorded to the states in the above referenced standard, something of that nature always sounds better coming from a someone with a Ph.D.  So, I found one (which wasn't very hard, because while opponents have been shunned by mainstream media, they are there and they do have a message for policymakers, parents, and teachers alike):

Since the federal government’s legal and political authority to mandate common national standards is contested, the administration has instead applauded and encouraged the work of the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) in developing proposed“common core” standards in reading and math (henceforth referred to as the NGA/CCSSO effort). The administration has also announced its intention to “require all states to adopt and certify that they have college- and career-ready standards in reading and mathematics, which may include common standards developed by a state-led consortium, as a condition for qualifying for Title I funding.”3 Likewise, the federal Race to the Top competition for funds gives an advantage to states that have a clear intention to adopt such standards.4 As the NGA/CCSSO effort is the only collaborative effort of this type and 48 states and the District of Columbia are listed as cooperating with the initiative, the NGA/CCSSO standards are poised to become the de facto national curriculum standards.

From the The "Common Core” Standards Initiative: An Effective Reform Tool?  by William J. Mathis, Ph.D, at the Univeristy of Colorado at Boulder, presented by The Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice in Lansing Michigan.  Full report can be found at http://greatlakescenter.org/docs/Policy_Briefs/Mathis_NationalStandards.pdf

What further muddies the water is that the Common Core Standards are on their way to becoming de facto national standards, but the development process was curiously short -- only one year in duration, and lacking the rich participation of many key partners. For instance, Mathis found in the course of his research that:

...the level of input from schoolbased practitioners appears to be minimal, the standards themselves have not been field tested, and it is unclear whether the tests used to measure the academic outcomes of common standards will have sufficient validity to justify the high-stakes consequences that will likely arise around their use. Accordingly, it seems improbable that the common core standards will have the positive effects on educational quality or equality being sought by proponents, particularly in light of the lack of essential capacity at the local, state and federal levels.

So let's talk about the Common Core Standards vacuum.  There's a bit of a timeline here that needs to be acknowledged.

1989 -- Mathis cites "President Bush called the first “education summit,” at which governors agreed to set national goals and pledged support for state-based reform initiatives. Educators were for the most part not represented in these two efforts. As a result, standards-making shifted from the professional sphere to a business influenced political domain."

1990 -- President Clinton signed Goals 2000, legislation based on the first education summit,  into law. "This legislation, provided states with grants to adopt content standards and established a national goals panel. Goals 2000 generated a conservative-
led backlash against the growing federal role in education as well as the specific content of some goals and standards. The tenor of the reaction can be seen in a 1995 Senate resolution, passed on a 99-1 vote, protesting the adoption of history standards, in large part because of a controversy about multiculturalism. Congress eliminated the national goals panel in 1996" (Mathis, p8)

In th ensuring years, Texas became the first state to adopt a common curriculum aligned to standards and assessments. President Bush 2, from Texas, incorporated these policies into his re-authorization of ESEA, or NCLB.  States responded by lowering their standards into order to escape the punitive elements of NCLB.

Which brings us to today -- Mathis has found that:

In April 2009, representatives from 41 states met with CCSSO and NGA representatives in Chicago and agreed to draft a set of common standards for education. Achieve, a corporation founded by the NGA following the 1996 demise of the national standards effort, was commissioned by NGA/CCSSO after the Chicago meeting to draft the new “common core” standards in reading and mathematics. The project was fast-tracked: Achieve was to have a draft by summer 2009 and grade-by-grade standards by the end of the year. Historically, the development of subject-matter standards had been the province of specialists in those subjects working in universities and in schools. By contrast, Achieve workgroups in private and the development work was conducted by persons who were not, with apparently only a single exception, K-12 educators. The work groups were staffed almost exclusively by employees of Achieve, testing companies (ACT and the College Board), and pro-accountability groups (e.g., America’s Choice, Student Achievement Partners, the Hoover Institute). Practitioners and subject matter experts complained that they were excluded from the development process. Project Director Dane Linn said this was because they were (as paraphrased by Education Week) “determined to draft standards based on the best available research about effective math and reading curricula, rather than the opinions of any single organization.”30 The internal review boards consisted predominately of college professors. Of the more than 65 people involved in the common core design and review, only one was a classroom teacher and no school administrator is listed as being a member of the groups.31 In addition to the financial support from the federal government, the Gates Foundation is a significant contributor to the common core standards effort.32 A number of confidential iterations of the standards took place between the developers and state departments of education. The first public release of a draft was on March 10, 2010.33

Bold and Red are mine to highlight areas where I see concern. 

The final standards were released June 2, 2010.  Subsequently, all states hoping to receive RTTT funds in Round 2 were required to adopt those standard by August 2, 2010.  Which brings around to my original question:  Should Delaware adopt the common core standards?

From the perspective of states' rights, I'd say that any adoption would be yielding federally-protected control to the federal government in direct defiance of the ESEA.  It's a gray area.  The Obama administration could have mandated the common core standards, if they had definitively differentiated "standard" from "curriculum."  But they didn't; likely because the ESEA doesn't grant such authority.  It would have been an overstep.  Therefore, Obama charged the task to the governors, like Delaware's own Jack Markell.  The question that remains to be answered is this:  is it legal to require a state to adopt the standards in order to attain RTTT funding? Already discussion have occurred as to whether the feds can tie Title 1 funds to the adoption of the Common Core.  Is this an opening of the door for more erosion on states' rights? 

What's a state to do?  What's a state with abyssmally low standards and falling standardized test scores to do?  Fortunately, I don't have a vote on this one.  It lays at the feet of our Delaware State Board of Education.  I just have to live with the results.

I'll leave you with recommendations that Mathis identified in his report:

• 
  

  
  

  The NGA/CCSSO common core standards initiative should be continued, but only as a low-stakes advisory and assistance tool for states and local districts for the purposes of curriculum improvement, articulation and professional development.

  The NGA/CCSSO common core standards should be subjected to extensive validation, trials and subsequent revisions before implementation. During this time, states should be encouraged to carefully examine and experiment with broad-based school-evaluation systems.

  Given the current strengths and weaknesses in testing and measurement, policymakers should not implement high-stakes accountability systems where the assessments are inadequate for such purposes

Should we choose to follow them, it may make the air a bit easier to breathe...

POSTING
The Christina Board of Education will meet in an Executive Session on Tuesday, August 10, 2010, at 6:00 at Downes Elementary School, 220 Casho Mill Road, Newark, DE, to discuss Personnel Matters. The Board will meet in Regular Session at 7:30 PM. Area residents are encouraged to attend. The agenda will include the following:

CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Pledge of Allegiance led by Downes Elementary School students Nolan Moss, 5th Grade,
Ian Moss, 2nd Grade and Amelia Moss, Kindergarten


APPROVAL OF MINUTES
July 6, 2010 – Executive Session
July 6, 2010 – Regular Session
July 20, 2010 – Executive Session
July 27, 2010 – Board of Education Workshop
July 27, 2010 – Executive Session

State Winner Elementary Environmentalist of the Year - Nolan Moss, Downes Elementary School
Perfect Score – Standards of Excellence Award – Gauger-Cobbs Middle School Student Council

Year In Review

ACTION ITEMS

• Membership In Delaware School Boards Association
• Election Of Representative to DSBA Board Of Directors And Alternate
• Election Of Representative to DSBA Legislative Committee And Alternate
• Election Of A Board Representative To East Side Community School Steering Committee
• Policy Statement On The Transportation of Students
• Proposed Board of Education Workshop Schedule – 2010-2011
• Designation Of The Board As A Whole As The Selection Committee For The Christina Budget Oversight Committee
• Administrative Personnel Recommendations
• Renewal Of Leases – Networks Program

CONSENT AGENDA

• Personnel Recommendations
• Monthly Financial Reports
• Choice Recommendation 2010-2011
• Choice Termination Recommendation 2010-2011
• Approval Of Contracts With State Approved Title I Supplemental Education Service (SES) Providers for FY11
• Change Orders:


• Change Order #2 District Wide Pothole Blacktop Repairs & Concrete Work
• Change Order #3 District Wide Pothole Blacktop Repairs & Concrete Work 

Resolutions on Upcoming Meetings:
Resolution On Executive Session Meeting, September 14, 2010, 6:00 PM, Bayard Middle School

Items Pulled From Consent Agenda

Other District/Community Meetings, Site Visits, Training Seminars, Conferences Attended

Information Requests


Time of Posting: 1:30 pm

Round Two RTT Finalists: Some Cliff Notes from DE

Paul Herdman guest blogs on Eduwonk with advice from Delaware to Round Two Race to the Top finalists. 
Can you figure out what's missing?

Since late spring, Mr. Look has been overseeing a dramatic shakeup at Shawnee that is meant to turn around years of anemic academic achievement at the school and help fulfill U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan’s $3.5 billion mandate to fix the nation’s most chronically underperforming schools over the next three years. If Mr. Look doesn’t produce improved academic results in the school year that commences Aug. 17, he will lose his job at Shawnee.

“Some days, I’m feeling like I need performance-enhancing drugs to make the kinds of changes that people say will take at least three years to do,” said Mr. Look, a Louisville native who has led Shawnee since August 2008. “Well, I have one year.”

Mr. Look’s superiors in the 98,000-student Jefferson County school district—which includes the city of Louisville—have similar misgivings about what, realistically, can be delivered, especially on such a compressed timeline and using what many educators argue are unproven strategies. Six of the city’s schools, including Shawnee, are undergoing the turnaround interventions.

“We don’t disagree that something has to happen in these schools and that we’ve got a great opportunity with more urgency, funding, and potentially more-focused support,” said Joseph C. Burks Jr., an assistant superintendent who oversees the 21 high schools in the district. He is Mr. Look’s boss.

“But why not give people more than a year to start?” Mr. Burks said. “Very few people, if any, know how to turn a school around dramatically in one year. We are in desperate need of good training on how to do this.”

The most disruptive change—replacing half of Shawnee’s teaching staff—took place last spring, though those teachers who aren’t returning to the school were not fired, and most transferred to another campus in the district. The turnover in faculty was required by the federal rules of the “turnaround” model that Shawnee is using as its method for school improvement. Mr. Look recruited nearly all of the 25 teachers who will be new to Shawnee this fall. Most of them are experienced instructors. He still has few openings left to fill, though, including an instructional assistant and someone to run the school’s ROTC program.

With the teaching team mostly assembled, Mr. Look planned a retreat for them late last month to lay out the school’s priorities for the next 10 months and get the teachers fired up for the high-stakes year that awaits them. But first, they have to learn one another’s names. The entire social studies department is new to Shawnee. Five of six English teachers are new.

Roderick Pack, 28, is Shawnee’s new chairman of the social studies department... “The amount of intensity in how all of us at Shawnee care about the students and what’s at stake is really amazing and has me very optimistic about the school’s prospects,” Mr. Pack said. “At the same time, we can’t just get caught up in the monitoring that will be going on and worrying constantly about what the test scores are. That won’t work. We’ve got to really teach these students and have expectations for them beyond a score on a state test.”

MORE HERE:  http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/08/04/37kyturnaround_ep.h29.html?tkn=RSWFfDulozUJnCIQKknmKX10UKBkA1x%2F3vhu&cmp=clp-edweek

Obama supports Pa. student's anti-bullying quest


PHILADELPHIA (AP) — Most kids who get bullied don't tell a soul. Far fewer may report the harassment to their parents or teachers.

When Ziainey Stokes was teased incessantly by a couple of bullies at her West Philadelphia Catholic school, she wrote a letter to the president of the United States.

And he replied.

Buoyed by this, the soft-spoken, precocious 11-year-old is now on a mission to end bullying by creating an organization that would help others find their voice and urge adults to pay attention — starting with President Obama.

"What I wrote about (in my letter) was that the kids at my school were being bullied and how it wasn't right," Ziainey said during a recent interview in her West Philadelphia home.

"I wanted President Obama, the vice president or someone to talk to the kids at my school that it don't matter what you look like, or the color of your skin, you can't treat people bad."

No one from the West Wing has been to her school to make that presentation since her father, Rodney Smith, mailed her handwritten opus to the White House in January.

But Ziainey's mother, Zina Stokes, said that hasn't stopped her daughter from recruiting friends to join her yet-to-be-named group or from researching other anti-bullying agencies.

"She's really taken an initiative," said Stokes, "and I stand by her."

Ziainey's idea came from years of experiencing constant teasing and name-calling at the hands of her classmates at the Belmont Academy Charter School, her mother said.

At first, the then-third-grader suffered in silence.

"She wasn't telling anyone that a girl was taking her lunch," Stokes said. "She would come home hungry, and we didn't know why."

To avoid further trouble, she was transferred to Our Mother of Sorrows, a parochial school on 48th Street near Wyalusing Avenue, where things seemed to improve.

But Stokes said that the taunts started up again. "They kept telling me I have a big forehead," Ziainey said. Then they began saying that a friend of hers is gay, which he isn't, she said.

The fifth-grader's grades began to slip, and she became despondent, her mother said.

This kind of reaction is typical of students who are being bullied, said Charles Williams, director of the Center for the Prevention of School-Aged Violence at Drexel University, which was scheduled to host a forum on Drexel's campus to discuss violence and bullying prevention.

It's an important topic, he said, because one in three students reports being bullied. That kind of merciless hounding can lead to depression, truancy or suicide, he said.

For Ziainey, the youngest of eight children in her family, her wake-up call came after reading about a teenage girl who killed herself because she was being bullied.

"It made me feel sad," Ziainey said of the girl. "She took her life because of other kids. She didn't get shot, or nothing like that, she killed herself because of other kids bullying her."

It was then she decided to write the letter. She mailed it off in January and waited. And waited.

Finally, on March 10, it came: Signed by President Obama, the letter on White House letterhead praised the youngster for being brave enough to share her story.

"Your letter demonstrates a desire to change the culture of your classroom as well as your community," it read.

Obama receives about 65,000 letters a week, reads 10 every day and personally responds to a handful, according to the White House Office of Presidential Correspondence Web site.

"The president feels it is important to hear directly from the American people about their ideas and concerns," said White House spokeswoman Moira Mack.

"Traveling outside Washington to visit communities across the country and receiving letters from people like (Ziainey) help the president and his team stay in touch with the nation."

"He showed how he cares," Zina Stokes said. "I think even before his four years are up, when he gets done with the oil spill, something will be done with bullying in school."

In the meantime, Ziainey — who stays up-to-date with current events by regularly reading newspapers, magazines and watching local and national newscasts — will take up the anti-bullying crusade, one school at a time, she said.

"I want to go to different schools and talk to kids about staying true to yourself and help those getting bullied," she said. "I want them not to be afraid. I want to talk to the parents and teachers and get them to help the kids."

Her ambition never ceases to amaze her mother.

"For an 11-year-old, with this ambition, to do the things she's doing, is great," her mom said. "She really wants to make a change."

The school's principal, Sister Owen Patricia Bonner, agrees.

"She had a cause, an opinion about it, and she took the time and energy to write about it," she said.

"What she's doing is what a lot of kids need to do," chimed in Ziainey's sister, Nakiyyah Everett, 22. "For her to be 11 years old, she has a good head on her shoulders. She has a lot to look forward to."

Information from: Philadelphia Daily News, http://www.philly.com