Last week the Education department released the blueprint for revision of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA); the replacement for NCLB. Secretary Duncan identified three goals for the revision.
· Setting a high bar for students and schools.
· Rewarding excellence and success.
· Maintaining local control and flexibility.
Reports that I read are generally favorable for the following reasons.
· The 2014 date for all students being at standard in reading and math is replaced with all students being prepared for career and college success by 2020.
· AYP would disappear and be replaced by a growth model for individual students instead of the multiple cohorts currently used to measure progress.
· The flexibility for states to determine how to intervene and support struggling schools instead of the tiered system currently in place. This is true for all but the lowest 5% that would continue to select one of the four intervention models mandated at the federal level to receive funding.
· The mandatory school choice and supplemental educational services options are removed which some applaud and others view as a loss of choice for parents and students.
The guidelines are not viewed by all as favorable with some seeing it as placing the burden on teachers as evidenced by these words in Education Week.
· Setting a high bar for students and schools.
· Rewarding excellence and success.
· Maintaining local control and flexibility.
Reports that I read are generally favorable for the following reasons.
· The 2014 date for all students being at standard in reading and math is replaced with all students being prepared for career and college success by 2020.
· AYP would disappear and be replaced by a growth model for individual students instead of the multiple cohorts currently used to measure progress.
· The flexibility for states to determine how to intervene and support struggling schools instead of the tiered system currently in place. This is true for all but the lowest 5% that would continue to select one of the four intervention models mandated at the federal level to receive funding.
· The mandatory school choice and supplemental educational services options are removed which some applaud and others view as a loss of choice for parents and students.
The guidelines are not viewed by all as favorable with some seeing it as placing the burden on teachers as evidenced by these words in Education Week.
Randi Weingarten, the president of the 1.4 million-member American Federation of Teachers, said that judging from her initial discussions with department officials, it appears the blueprint places “100 percent of responsibility on teachers for school success and gives them zero percent authority.”
Jay Mathews at the Washington Post sees a flaw in using the achievement gap to measure progress.
Also, I see a problem in the president using the achievement gap as a measure of schools in his suggested revisions. This could mean that a wonderfully diverse school like T.C. Williams High in Alexandria, a recent subject on this blog, would be motivated to ignore its best students, who want to get even better, and focus all its money and time on those at the bottom of the achievement scale so they can narrow the gap. That is not a good idea, and I hope the president will get it out of his proposal.
Mike Petrilli over at Flypaper calls it a proposal largely faithful to reform realism meaning it is possible to do and could have positive impact. It will be good for schools to get out from under the “failing school” label and focus on initiatives to increase achievement without fear of labels. Once again this is true for all but the lowest 5% of schools in each state.
I am still concerned that districts like ours who are doing well will be left out of the windfall of revenue that will go to rewarding high performing schools and supporting struggling schools. I don’t know what the rewards will be for high performing schools or how they will be identified and I don’t believe that we will have schools in the bottom 5%. Given this, however, I like many of the changes and believe that they do provide more flexibility at the state level. On the other hand, we still have the federal government controlling the distribution of much needed revenue with parameters such as adopting Common Core Standards necessary to qualify to even compete for the funds. There must be a better way.
Here is an interesting exchange between Duncan and our own Senator Murray concerned with funding during the Secretary’s presentation to a Senate panel. This same article gives some sense of the mixed response the blueprint is receiving, but still more positives than negatives.
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said she had "serious concerns" about a proposal to shift emphasis toward competitive grants for teacher quality programs. She said formulas were the best way to ensure money is spread evenly, and she criticized the notion that there would winners and losers for important federal aid programs.
Also, I see a problem in the president using the achievement gap as a measure of schools in his suggested revisions. This could mean that a wonderfully diverse school like T.C. Williams High in Alexandria, a recent subject on this blog, would be motivated to ignore its best students, who want to get even better, and focus all its money and time on those at the bottom of the achievement scale so they can narrow the gap. That is not a good idea, and I hope the president will get it out of his proposal.
Mike Petrilli over at Flypaper calls it a proposal largely faithful to reform realism meaning it is possible to do and could have positive impact. It will be good for schools to get out from under the “failing school” label and focus on initiatives to increase achievement without fear of labels. Once again this is true for all but the lowest 5% of schools in each state.
I am still concerned that districts like ours who are doing well will be left out of the windfall of revenue that will go to rewarding high performing schools and supporting struggling schools. I don’t know what the rewards will be for high performing schools or how they will be identified and I don’t believe that we will have schools in the bottom 5%. Given this, however, I like many of the changes and believe that they do provide more flexibility at the state level. On the other hand, we still have the federal government controlling the distribution of much needed revenue with parameters such as adopting Common Core Standards necessary to qualify to even compete for the funds. There must be a better way.
Here is an interesting exchange between Duncan and our own Senator Murray concerned with funding during the Secretary’s presentation to a Senate panel. This same article gives some sense of the mixed response the blueprint is receiving, but still more positives than negatives.
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said she had "serious concerns" about a proposal to shift emphasis toward competitive grants for teacher quality programs. She said formulas were the best way to ensure money is spread evenly, and she criticized the notion that there would winners and losers for important federal aid programs.
Duncan replied: "Honestly, what we don't want to do is fund the status quo."
See this Education Week article for a more recent response from representatives of education organizations and the national teacher unions to the blueprint.
No comments:
Post a Comment