The Supreme Court is to hear a case later this week about the state's responsibility in paying for the private education of children with special needs which cannot be properly accommodated in the public school system.
Excerpts form the Washington Post Article: Court Weighs Funding for Special Education
"The Supreme Court will consider a question this week that has riled parents, cost local school boards here and across the country hundreds of millions of dollars, and vexed the justices themselves: When must public school officials pay for private schooling for children with special needs?
The issue has emerged as one of the fastest-growing components of local education budgets, threatening to "seriously deplete public education funds," which would then detract from the care of students with disabilities who remain in the system, according to a brief filed by the nation's urban school districts.
...
Congress and the court have made it clear that every child with disabilities has a right to a "free appropriate public education." If the school system can't provide one for a child with a disability, it must reimburse parents for private school costs.
But the question for the court now is whether schools must be given a first chance to provide those services before placing the child in a private school. Some parents say that could force students, especially poor ones, to spend time in an undesirable situation before getting the help they really need...."
for full article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/26/AR2009042602249.html?hpid=topnews
The Obama Administration told the courts that any decision but giving the students rights would be absurd.
Just because someone has not received previous help does not mean that they don't need help now. Through providing public education, it must be accessible to all so that no children suffer form the system. This seems to be constantly applying to kids with special needs, fighting to get what they need.
But what about all of the kids who never get diagnosed or get help? If the school is constantly trying to get itself out of paying for private school costs, than what about all of those kids that don't have a parent advocating for them? If the schools are not pro-active in helping kids with special needs, then who will be?
Monday, April 27, 2009
Charter Schools
Demand for Charter Schools Is High, Seats Are Few
Obama Wants to Expand the Alternative Program, but Laws, Labor Unions Will Make That Hard to Achieve
By ROBERT TOMSHO
BOSTON -- The waiting lists for charter schools, already notoriously long, look like they are about to get longer.
President Barack Obama and Arne Duncan, his new education secretary, are trying to entice states into opening more of the alternative schools. But despite brisk enrollment growth and long waiting lines for many existing charter schools, states appear to be in no hurry to oblige.
With 1.4 million students in 4,600 schools, charters are by far the most significant achievement of the "choice" movement that strives to promote educational gains through school competition. Enrollment in charter schools has more than doubled in the last six years.
Charters are publicly funded schools that have more freedom than traditional schools to vary their learning approaches. Sponsored by a variety of entities, including state school boards and local school districts, they are oftened governed day-to-day by autonomous boards. A public-school student is free to transfer to a charter school, space permitting.
View Full Image
Robert Tomsho/The Wall Street Journal
Unless you are a kindergartner, chances of getting into Boston's Edward Brooke Charter School are very low. Teacher Colin Scott, left, helps his second graders understand a mathematics problem while first-grade teacher Alice Meyer helps Jermaine Robinson and Ashley Nwadike with subtraction.
But obstacles loom to accommodating more charter-school students. The recession has intensified school districts' concerns about competing for public funds with charter schools. Some charter-school supporters say such schools need more oversight. But unions are using any missteps at charter schools, which typically aren't unionized, to oppose their expansion.
The Ohio Education Association, a teachers union that has been among the most outspoken critics of charter schools, has testified against them in the state legislature and supported litigation aimed at toughening oversight. In New York, Boston and other cities, unions have ramped up their efforts to organize charter school teachers.
There is virtually no sign of the kind of expansion of charter schools that President Obama might be hoping for. In North Carolina, Democratic Gov. Beverly Perdue supports her state's 100-school cap on charters, and believes closing low-performing charters will make enough room for new ones. Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, also a Democrat, has proposed cutting state spending on charter schools by 20%.
Ten states don't permit charter schools. Twenty-six others, along with the District of Columbia, restrict their growth with caps on the number of charters allowed, enrollment restrictions and funding limits.
Faced with such barriers, an estimated 365,000 students are on waiting lists to get into charter schools, which many parents see as their only alternative to failing traditional schools. That includes 1,000 in line for the Edward Brooke Charter School, a few miles south of downtown Boston. Its scores on state tests are among the city's highest, and hundreds of parents -- mostly low-income African-Americans and Latinos -- vie to enroll their children through a lottery every year.
Among those on the waiting list is Ethan Clark, the son of Brooke executive director Jon Clark, who founded the school seven years ago. Mr. Clark supports Mr. Obama's efforts to expand charters to make way for more students. "I'm tired of having conversations with emotional parents," says Mr. Clark, a former teacher. "Realistically, they don't have a chance of getting in here, and there is nothing I can tell them but 'sorry.'"
Money for charter schools might be tempting for states. Mr. Duncan, who favors tighter oversight of charters, has said the administration will favor states that let them expand while doling out more than $100 billion in stimulus funds in the coming months. He also will use part of a separate $5 billion "innovation" pool to fund charters.
But questions remain about whether even those financial incentives can convince states already grappling with a deep recession to overhaul troubled charter authorizing systems, push aside political opposition and shift funds away from traditional public schools.
Much of the research suggests such shifting of funds can be worth it. Mr. Duncan points to the Chicago Public Schools, which he ran before taking his job in the administration. There, about 73% of charter school seniors graduated in 2008, compared with 68% of seniors in traditional high schools. Meanwhile, about 87% of charter schools had 60% or more of their students meet or exceed state standards on achievement tests; only about 65% of regular district schools reached that threshold.
A recent study of charter schools in eight states by Rand Corp., a think tank, also found they had higher graduation and college-going rates than traditional public schools, but that test scores were roughly the same. A 2006 study by the Department of Education found that charter school fourth graders had lower scores in reading and math on the National Assessment of Education Progress, a federal achievement test, than their counterparts in regular public schools.
Collapses and alleged improprieties by charter-school operators continue to raise questions about oversight. The Center for Education Reform, a pro-charter group, estimates that 657, or 12.5%, of the 5,250 charter schools opened since 1992 have been closed, mostly for financial and mismanagement reasons. The group's president, Jeanne Allen, says that is an indicator of accountability, not a black mark.
In Minnesota, concerns about improper financial ties between charter schools and their governing boards have led the state legislature to consider tougher restrictions. Pennsylvania charter schools recently adopted a tighter ethics code amid an investigation into alleged nepotism and financial improprieties involving several Philadelphia charters. In Ohio, where about two-thirds of charter high schools fail to graduate at least half of their seniors, the state auditor says the financial records of 17 charter schools are so bad as to be "unauditable."
Even some charter school advocates say charter sponsors, or "authorizers," aren't doing enough to oversee existing charters and weed out bad operators. "There are too many lousy charters out there," says Todd Ziebarth, a vice president of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, a pro-charter group.
When authorizers try to crack down, parents frequently rally to their charter's defense, often preferring the personal attention many charters provide. In 2007, supportive parents turned out in droves after state inspectors issued a scathing critique of Boston's Uphams Corner Charter School. Despite high teacher turnover and failing test scores, the state board of education backed off. But scores continued to fall and, earlier this year, the board revoked the school's license.
Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, a strong ally of Mr. Obama, is seeking a small increase in state funding for new charter schools. Many mayors, schools superintendents and union officials say his proposal couldn't come at a worse time given the state of the economy.
Like a handful of other states, Massachusetts provides school districts with transition funds to make up for the money they lose when a student transfers to a charter school.
"I think charter schools are a great idea," says state Sen. Robert O'Leary, a Democrat who chairs the state senate's education committee. "The problem is, they tend to be a more expensive idea."
Back at the Edward Brooke Charter School, administrators aren't confident they will be able to expand anytime soon. Kimberly Steadman, principal of the lower grades, tells inquiring parents that, unless they are applying for the new kindergarten class, which took in about 60 students this year, there is almost no chance of their child being admitted. "It's easier to get into an Ivy League school," she says.
Since an older daughter loved her time at the school, Dasheka Tate decided to give it a go anyway for Jada, her 9-year-old, who is now a near-hopeless 197th on the waiting list. "It's very frustrating, because I know firsthand how Edward Brooke operates," the registered nurse says. "I wanted her there."
from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124044271936945479.html
This article talks about all of the resistance to charter schools. If charter schools send more kids to college, do the other things really matter? Clearly, they're not having a negative effect on education.
Obama Wants to Expand the Alternative Program, but Laws, Labor Unions Will Make That Hard to Achieve
By ROBERT TOMSHO
BOSTON -- The waiting lists for charter schools, already notoriously long, look like they are about to get longer.
President Barack Obama and Arne Duncan, his new education secretary, are trying to entice states into opening more of the alternative schools. But despite brisk enrollment growth and long waiting lines for many existing charter schools, states appear to be in no hurry to oblige.
With 1.4 million students in 4,600 schools, charters are by far the most significant achievement of the "choice" movement that strives to promote educational gains through school competition. Enrollment in charter schools has more than doubled in the last six years.
Charters are publicly funded schools that have more freedom than traditional schools to vary their learning approaches. Sponsored by a variety of entities, including state school boards and local school districts, they are oftened governed day-to-day by autonomous boards. A public-school student is free to transfer to a charter school, space permitting.
View Full Image
Robert Tomsho/The Wall Street Journal
Unless you are a kindergartner, chances of getting into Boston's Edward Brooke Charter School are very low. Teacher Colin Scott, left, helps his second graders understand a mathematics problem while first-grade teacher Alice Meyer helps Jermaine Robinson and Ashley Nwadike with subtraction.
But obstacles loom to accommodating more charter-school students. The recession has intensified school districts' concerns about competing for public funds with charter schools. Some charter-school supporters say such schools need more oversight. But unions are using any missteps at charter schools, which typically aren't unionized, to oppose their expansion.
The Ohio Education Association, a teachers union that has been among the most outspoken critics of charter schools, has testified against them in the state legislature and supported litigation aimed at toughening oversight. In New York, Boston and other cities, unions have ramped up their efforts to organize charter school teachers.
There is virtually no sign of the kind of expansion of charter schools that President Obama might be hoping for. In North Carolina, Democratic Gov. Beverly Perdue supports her state's 100-school cap on charters, and believes closing low-performing charters will make enough room for new ones. Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, also a Democrat, has proposed cutting state spending on charter schools by 20%.
Ten states don't permit charter schools. Twenty-six others, along with the District of Columbia, restrict their growth with caps on the number of charters allowed, enrollment restrictions and funding limits.
Faced with such barriers, an estimated 365,000 students are on waiting lists to get into charter schools, which many parents see as their only alternative to failing traditional schools. That includes 1,000 in line for the Edward Brooke Charter School, a few miles south of downtown Boston. Its scores on state tests are among the city's highest, and hundreds of parents -- mostly low-income African-Americans and Latinos -- vie to enroll their children through a lottery every year.
Among those on the waiting list is Ethan Clark, the son of Brooke executive director Jon Clark, who founded the school seven years ago. Mr. Clark supports Mr. Obama's efforts to expand charters to make way for more students. "I'm tired of having conversations with emotional parents," says Mr. Clark, a former teacher. "Realistically, they don't have a chance of getting in here, and there is nothing I can tell them but 'sorry.'"
Money for charter schools might be tempting for states. Mr. Duncan, who favors tighter oversight of charters, has said the administration will favor states that let them expand while doling out more than $100 billion in stimulus funds in the coming months. He also will use part of a separate $5 billion "innovation" pool to fund charters.
But questions remain about whether even those financial incentives can convince states already grappling with a deep recession to overhaul troubled charter authorizing systems, push aside political opposition and shift funds away from traditional public schools.
Much of the research suggests such shifting of funds can be worth it. Mr. Duncan points to the Chicago Public Schools, which he ran before taking his job in the administration. There, about 73% of charter school seniors graduated in 2008, compared with 68% of seniors in traditional high schools. Meanwhile, about 87% of charter schools had 60% or more of their students meet or exceed state standards on achievement tests; only about 65% of regular district schools reached that threshold.
A recent study of charter schools in eight states by Rand Corp., a think tank, also found they had higher graduation and college-going rates than traditional public schools, but that test scores were roughly the same. A 2006 study by the Department of Education found that charter school fourth graders had lower scores in reading and math on the National Assessment of Education Progress, a federal achievement test, than their counterparts in regular public schools.
Collapses and alleged improprieties by charter-school operators continue to raise questions about oversight. The Center for Education Reform, a pro-charter group, estimates that 657, or 12.5%, of the 5,250 charter schools opened since 1992 have been closed, mostly for financial and mismanagement reasons. The group's president, Jeanne Allen, says that is an indicator of accountability, not a black mark.
In Minnesota, concerns about improper financial ties between charter schools and their governing boards have led the state legislature to consider tougher restrictions. Pennsylvania charter schools recently adopted a tighter ethics code amid an investigation into alleged nepotism and financial improprieties involving several Philadelphia charters. In Ohio, where about two-thirds of charter high schools fail to graduate at least half of their seniors, the state auditor says the financial records of 17 charter schools are so bad as to be "unauditable."
Even some charter school advocates say charter sponsors, or "authorizers," aren't doing enough to oversee existing charters and weed out bad operators. "There are too many lousy charters out there," says Todd Ziebarth, a vice president of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, a pro-charter group.
When authorizers try to crack down, parents frequently rally to their charter's defense, often preferring the personal attention many charters provide. In 2007, supportive parents turned out in droves after state inspectors issued a scathing critique of Boston's Uphams Corner Charter School. Despite high teacher turnover and failing test scores, the state board of education backed off. But scores continued to fall and, earlier this year, the board revoked the school's license.
Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, a strong ally of Mr. Obama, is seeking a small increase in state funding for new charter schools. Many mayors, schools superintendents and union officials say his proposal couldn't come at a worse time given the state of the economy.
Like a handful of other states, Massachusetts provides school districts with transition funds to make up for the money they lose when a student transfers to a charter school.
"I think charter schools are a great idea," says state Sen. Robert O'Leary, a Democrat who chairs the state senate's education committee. "The problem is, they tend to be a more expensive idea."
Back at the Edward Brooke Charter School, administrators aren't confident they will be able to expand anytime soon. Kimberly Steadman, principal of the lower grades, tells inquiring parents that, unless they are applying for the new kindergarten class, which took in about 60 students this year, there is almost no chance of their child being admitted. "It's easier to get into an Ivy League school," she says.
Since an older daughter loved her time at the school, Dasheka Tate decided to give it a go anyway for Jada, her 9-year-old, who is now a near-hopeless 197th on the waiting list. "It's very frustrating, because I know firsthand how Edward Brooke operates," the registered nurse says. "I wanted her there."
from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124044271936945479.html
This article talks about all of the resistance to charter schools. If charter schools send more kids to college, do the other things really matter? Clearly, they're not having a negative effect on education.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Obama Speaks on the Cost of Higher Education
It's good to know that the Obama Administration is making a significant effort to make college more affordable:
Thursday, April 23, 2009
What obligations does the government have to teach English in schools?
The Supreme Court heard a case on Monday about the requirements for states funding programs to teach English language learners.
Article from Education Week:
Supreme Court Weighs ELL Funding
By Mary Ann Zehr
In the first case about services for English-language learners reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court since 1973, the justices seemed deeply divided today during oral arguments on whether a federal court had acted appropriately in ordering the Arizona legislature to provide sufficient funds for the state’s ELL programs.
Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and David Souter seemed to lean toward the parents’ side. And three others—Justices Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia, and Chief Justice John Roberts Jr.—appeared to be more sympathetic toward arguments made on behalf of state lawmakers who believe they have satisfied a court’s order to serve ELLs well. In his questioning, Justice Anthony Kennedy seemed to strike a middle ground while Justices John Paul Stevens and Clarence Thomas remained silent.
In Horne v. Flores, the petitioners argue that compliance with the No Child Left Behind Act is sufficient in providing "appropriate action" to help students overcome language barriers, as required by the Equal Educational Opportunity Act of 1974.
A U.S. District court had ruled that Arizona violated the EEOA because its funding system for ELLs was "arbitrary and capricious" and didn’t have a rational relationship to the cost of programs. Also at issue is whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco was correct in upholding the lower court’s decision that a law passed by the Arizona legislature in 2006 did not satisfy that lower court’s ruling to provide adequate funding for English-language learners.
Acceptable Progress?
Much of the debate today focused on what level of academic progress is acceptable for English-language learners, and whether it was appropriate for a federal district court to require a funding solution for an educational problem.
No one denied that ELLs were not being served well more than 16 years ago, in 1992, when the case was first filed. The case became known as Flores v. State of Arizona in 1996, after Miriam Flores and her daughter by the same name joined the class action. ( "Roots of Federal ELL Case Run Deep," April 8, 2009.)
"There had been a failure" by the Nogales Unified School District, which has 6,000 students, to educate English-language learners well, Kenneth W. Starr, the lawyer for the state, acknowledged in his opening statement. But the U.S. Court of Appeals was wrong not to recognize that "the circumstances dramatically changed" from 2000, the time that the court first ruled that the state didn’t provide adequate funding for ELLs, to 2008, when the appeals court upheld that ruling. By then, Mr. Starr, argued, "Nogales was doing great."
But Sri Srinivasan, the lawyer for the Flores side, said, "What the district court found is that the improvements today, though significant, failed to reach the [Nogales] high school, and they were fleeting."
In addition, Mr. Starr, who gained fame as U.S. independent counsel during the Whitewater investigation of former President Bill Clinton, argued throughout the hour of debate, that passage of the No Child Left Behind Act "is one of the changed circumstances" that the appeals court should have considered, because of how the federal law altered the state accountability landscape for ELLs.
Justice Breyer questioned if, in fact, Nogales was "doing great" in educating ELLs. He cited statistics from court documents that show ELL performance in the Nogales district lagging dramatically on standardized tests behind the state average for all students.
"The exam is in English," explained Mr. Starr, implying that ELLs would be expected to lag behind.
Isn’t it the point, said Justice Breyer, "to teach the children to learn English?"
Later in the discussion, after pointing out for a second time the achievement gap between ELLs and all students in the state, Justice Breyer said, "They’ve made progress. They’re not quite home yet." Mr. Starr answered that the central question is "What is home?"
He argued that all Arizona is required to do under the Equal Educational Opportunity Act of 1974 is make a "good-faith effort at compliance," which it has done.
But Justice Souter said he understood the case to be centered, rather, on two deficiencies in the 2006 state law that the legislature had hoped would satisfy the court mandate to provide adequate funding. Those deficiencies, he said, are that the law limits funding for ELLs to two years and that federal funds can be used to supplant state funding for ELLs.
State Expansion Questioned
Justice Scalia expressed his discontent that the attorney general for Arizona had ever agreed that the court case, which originated in the school district of Nogales, should be expanded to apply to all districts in Arizona.
Chief Justice Roberts also questioned the appropriateness of the attorney general’s move to expand the case to all of Arizona. He said it was a way for him to go to the legislature for funding and say, “You don’t have a choice.”
Mr. Starr contended that the "attorney general was essentially siding with the plaintiffs."
Justice Roberts wondered aloud if it would have been preferable for the district court to have told Arizona to fix the problem of educating ELLs rather than mandating a funding solution.
And Justice Alito questioned an argument made by the Flores side that the proportion of state funding for ELLs, compared with funding from other sources, was insufficient. “What difference does it make where the money comes from?” he asked.
In his concluding statement, Mr. Starr said, "The state funding remedy here is extraordinarily intrusive and overreaching."
Thirty-five years ago, the court ruled that English-language learners had the right to a "meaningful opportunity" to participate in public education in Lau v. Nichols.
The justices are expected to rule on the Horne v. Flores case by June.
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2009/04/20/30flores.h28.html?tkn=RZRFoaC2uSE4I9XijHopBjY6D6CiEz8LnV9L
Article from Education Week:
Supreme Court Weighs ELL Funding
By Mary Ann Zehr
In the first case about services for English-language learners reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court since 1973, the justices seemed deeply divided today during oral arguments on whether a federal court had acted appropriately in ordering the Arizona legislature to provide sufficient funds for the state’s ELL programs.
Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and David Souter seemed to lean toward the parents’ side. And three others—Justices Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia, and Chief Justice John Roberts Jr.—appeared to be more sympathetic toward arguments made on behalf of state lawmakers who believe they have satisfied a court’s order to serve ELLs well. In his questioning, Justice Anthony Kennedy seemed to strike a middle ground while Justices John Paul Stevens and Clarence Thomas remained silent.
In Horne v. Flores, the petitioners argue that compliance with the No Child Left Behind Act is sufficient in providing "appropriate action" to help students overcome language barriers, as required by the Equal Educational Opportunity Act of 1974.
A U.S. District court had ruled that Arizona violated the EEOA because its funding system for ELLs was "arbitrary and capricious" and didn’t have a rational relationship to the cost of programs. Also at issue is whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco was correct in upholding the lower court’s decision that a law passed by the Arizona legislature in 2006 did not satisfy that lower court’s ruling to provide adequate funding for English-language learners.
Acceptable Progress?
Much of the debate today focused on what level of academic progress is acceptable for English-language learners, and whether it was appropriate for a federal district court to require a funding solution for an educational problem.
No one denied that ELLs were not being served well more than 16 years ago, in 1992, when the case was first filed. The case became known as Flores v. State of Arizona in 1996, after Miriam Flores and her daughter by the same name joined the class action. ( "Roots of Federal ELL Case Run Deep," April 8, 2009.)
"There had been a failure" by the Nogales Unified School District, which has 6,000 students, to educate English-language learners well, Kenneth W. Starr, the lawyer for the state, acknowledged in his opening statement. But the U.S. Court of Appeals was wrong not to recognize that "the circumstances dramatically changed" from 2000, the time that the court first ruled that the state didn’t provide adequate funding for ELLs, to 2008, when the appeals court upheld that ruling. By then, Mr. Starr, argued, "Nogales was doing great."
But Sri Srinivasan, the lawyer for the Flores side, said, "What the district court found is that the improvements today, though significant, failed to reach the [Nogales] high school, and they were fleeting."
In addition, Mr. Starr, who gained fame as U.S. independent counsel during the Whitewater investigation of former President Bill Clinton, argued throughout the hour of debate, that passage of the No Child Left Behind Act "is one of the changed circumstances" that the appeals court should have considered, because of how the federal law altered the state accountability landscape for ELLs.
Justice Breyer questioned if, in fact, Nogales was "doing great" in educating ELLs. He cited statistics from court documents that show ELL performance in the Nogales district lagging dramatically on standardized tests behind the state average for all students.
"The exam is in English," explained Mr. Starr, implying that ELLs would be expected to lag behind.
Isn’t it the point, said Justice Breyer, "to teach the children to learn English?"
Later in the discussion, after pointing out for a second time the achievement gap between ELLs and all students in the state, Justice Breyer said, "They’ve made progress. They’re not quite home yet." Mr. Starr answered that the central question is "What is home?"
He argued that all Arizona is required to do under the Equal Educational Opportunity Act of 1974 is make a "good-faith effort at compliance," which it has done.
But Justice Souter said he understood the case to be centered, rather, on two deficiencies in the 2006 state law that the legislature had hoped would satisfy the court mandate to provide adequate funding. Those deficiencies, he said, are that the law limits funding for ELLs to two years and that federal funds can be used to supplant state funding for ELLs.
State Expansion Questioned
Justice Scalia expressed his discontent that the attorney general for Arizona had ever agreed that the court case, which originated in the school district of Nogales, should be expanded to apply to all districts in Arizona.
Chief Justice Roberts also questioned the appropriateness of the attorney general’s move to expand the case to all of Arizona. He said it was a way for him to go to the legislature for funding and say, “You don’t have a choice.”
Mr. Starr contended that the "attorney general was essentially siding with the plaintiffs."
Justice Roberts wondered aloud if it would have been preferable for the district court to have told Arizona to fix the problem of educating ELLs rather than mandating a funding solution.
And Justice Alito questioned an argument made by the Flores side that the proportion of state funding for ELLs, compared with funding from other sources, was insufficient. “What difference does it make where the money comes from?” he asked.
In his concluding statement, Mr. Starr said, "The state funding remedy here is extraordinarily intrusive and overreaching."
Thirty-five years ago, the court ruled that English-language learners had the right to a "meaningful opportunity" to participate in public education in Lau v. Nichols.
The justices are expected to rule on the Horne v. Flores case by June.
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2009/04/20/30flores.h28.html?tkn=RZRFoaC2uSE4I9XijHopBjY6D6CiEz8LnV9L
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
The Promise of Change? Not What We Were Expecting: No Child Left Behind to Stay
From the New York Times:
"Education Standards Likely to See Toughening
WASHINGTON — President Obama and his team have alternated praise for the goals of President George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind law with criticism of its weaknesses, all the while keeping their own plans for the law a bit of a mystery.
But clues are now emerging, and they suggest that the Obama administration will use a Congressional rewriting of the federal law later this year to toughen requirements on topics like teacher quality and academic standards and to intensify its focus on helping failing schools. The law’s testing requirements may evolve but will certainly not disappear. And the federal role in education policy, once a state and local matter, is likely to grow.
...
The clues emerge from the fine print of the economic stimulus law that Mr. Obama signed in February, which channels billions of dollars to public education. The key education provisions in the stimulus take the form of four “assurances” that governors must sign to receive billions in emergency education aid.
...
The stimulus requires governors to raise standards to a new benchmark: the point at which high school graduates can succeed — without remedial classes — in college, the workplace or the military. Mr. Duncan has gone further, saying he wants to be a catalyst for the development of national academic standards.
...
The teachers unions, which in 2007 fought a bare-knuckle lobbying battle that scuttled Congress’s last effort to rewrite the No Child Left Behind law, are voicing muted concern over a couple of provisions in the stimulus.
...
In one of the stimulus assurances, for instance, governors must pledge that their states are building sophisticated data systems. Among other functions, such systems would link teachers to students and test scores and thus, in theory, enable the authorities to distinguish between effective and ineffective teachers. In a March 10 speech, President Obama endorsed using such data systems “to tell us which students had which teachers so we can assess what’s working and what’s not.”
but is barred from speaking on the record about committee business..."
To read full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/15/education/15educ.html?ref=global-home
It seems like the only distinct difference between Obama's plan and Bush's is that Obama has attached money to his. There is actual money going to schools, giving them the potential to improve. The only problem is that the economic crisis has hurt states so much that schools will probably need large amounts, if not all of the money they are receiving from the stimulus to keep their teachers and staff, not necessarily to spend extra money on new programs.
The article from the New York Times states that Obama was endorsing new data storing systems which would allow test scores to be linked to teachers so that schools could see if teachers were performing up to standard.
There is a reason that many teachers hate No Child Left Behind: you cannot judge a teacher or students by test scores. In schools where students are underperforming, linking a teacher to a group of test scores will not help. The students are going to perform worse than students elsewhere regardless of the quality of the teacher. If Obama wants to raise the academic standards on tests, then these students now will just seem to be doing even worse. The system needs to change, not the details of the tests.
This plan completely contradicts what the agenda states at whitehouse.gov. It states, in relation to K-12 education, "Obama and Biden will reform NCLB, which starts by funding the law. Obama and Biden believe teachers should not be forced to spend the academic year preparing students to fill in bubbles on standardized tests. They will improve the assessments used to track student progress to measure readiness for college and the workplace and improve student learning in a timely, individualized manner."
In this statement, the Obama administration is saying that they are moving away from standardized tests and towards more individualized, effective assessments. The moves that they are currently making in regard to No Child Left Behind show that this is a lie.
"Education Standards Likely to See Toughening
WASHINGTON — President Obama and his team have alternated praise for the goals of President George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind law with criticism of its weaknesses, all the while keeping their own plans for the law a bit of a mystery.
But clues are now emerging, and they suggest that the Obama administration will use a Congressional rewriting of the federal law later this year to toughen requirements on topics like teacher quality and academic standards and to intensify its focus on helping failing schools. The law’s testing requirements may evolve but will certainly not disappear. And the federal role in education policy, once a state and local matter, is likely to grow.
...
The clues emerge from the fine print of the economic stimulus law that Mr. Obama signed in February, which channels billions of dollars to public education. The key education provisions in the stimulus take the form of four “assurances” that governors must sign to receive billions in emergency education aid.
...
The stimulus requires governors to raise standards to a new benchmark: the point at which high school graduates can succeed — without remedial classes — in college, the workplace or the military. Mr. Duncan has gone further, saying he wants to be a catalyst for the development of national academic standards.
...
The teachers unions, which in 2007 fought a bare-knuckle lobbying battle that scuttled Congress’s last effort to rewrite the No Child Left Behind law, are voicing muted concern over a couple of provisions in the stimulus.
...
In one of the stimulus assurances, for instance, governors must pledge that their states are building sophisticated data systems. Among other functions, such systems would link teachers to students and test scores and thus, in theory, enable the authorities to distinguish between effective and ineffective teachers. In a March 10 speech, President Obama endorsed using such data systems “to tell us which students had which teachers so we can assess what’s working and what’s not.”
but is barred from speaking on the record about committee business..."
To read full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/15/education/15educ.html?ref=global-home
It seems like the only distinct difference between Obama's plan and Bush's is that Obama has attached money to his. There is actual money going to schools, giving them the potential to improve. The only problem is that the economic crisis has hurt states so much that schools will probably need large amounts, if not all of the money they are receiving from the stimulus to keep their teachers and staff, not necessarily to spend extra money on new programs.
The article from the New York Times states that Obama was endorsing new data storing systems which would allow test scores to be linked to teachers so that schools could see if teachers were performing up to standard.
There is a reason that many teachers hate No Child Left Behind: you cannot judge a teacher or students by test scores. In schools where students are underperforming, linking a teacher to a group of test scores will not help. The students are going to perform worse than students elsewhere regardless of the quality of the teacher. If Obama wants to raise the academic standards on tests, then these students now will just seem to be doing even worse. The system needs to change, not the details of the tests.
This plan completely contradicts what the agenda states at whitehouse.gov. It states, in relation to K-12 education, "Obama and Biden will reform NCLB, which starts by funding the law. Obama and Biden believe teachers should not be forced to spend the academic year preparing students to fill in bubbles on standardized tests. They will improve the assessments used to track student progress to measure readiness for college and the workplace and improve student learning in a timely, individualized manner."
In this statement, the Obama administration is saying that they are moving away from standardized tests and towards more individualized, effective assessments. The moves that they are currently making in regard to No Child Left Behind show that this is a lie.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
School Strip Search Going to the Supreme Court
A case involving the strip search of a middle school student in Arizona is going to the Supreme Court next week after it was declared illegal by the U.S. Court of Appeals, in San Francisco, which is the intermediate court at a federal level.
Some passages from the article in Education Week:
"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, in San Francisco, ruled last July that school officials violated Ms. Redding’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, acting 'contrary to all reason and common sense.'
...
School Groups Split
A friend-of-the-court brief submitted by national groups representing school boards and administrators echoes this concern.
The 9th Circuit decision would “seriously undermine school districts’ efforts to address student drug abuse in an effective manner,” write lawyers for the National School Boards Association and the American Association of School Administrators, both based just outside Washington. The ruling “broadly [calls] into question the ability of school officials to make all practical searches—both minimally intrusive and more intrusive.”
However, the case has not united education groups. The 3.2 million-member National Education Association and the National Association of School Psychologists have weighed in on the other side, arguing that the strip-search was unconstitutional.
For its part, the federal government argues that the strip-search of Ms. Redding violated the Fourth Amendment.
“Strip-searches are impermissible in the public schools unless [school] officials reasonably suspect not only that the student possesses the contraband, but also that it is hidden in a place that such a search will reveal,” Acting U.S. Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler wrote in the March brief, also signed by lawyers from the U.S. Department of Education and the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.
The brief argues that while the decision to conduct “some form of search” was justified, the circumstances “did not justify extending the scope of the search to require [Ms. Redding] to disrobe to her bra and underwear and lift them off her body.”
At the same time, the federal lawyers argued that the school official who ordered the search was entitled to qualified immunity, because “the illegality of the search was not clearly established at the time they conducted it.”
Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine established by the Supreme Court under which government officials are personally immune from being sued unless they violated clearly established constitutional or statutory rights about which a reasonable person would have known.
...
A 'Reasonableness' Standard
The legal debate in the Redding case centers on a 1985 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in New Jersey v. T.L.O. It found that "the school setting requires some easing of the restrictions to which searches by public authorities are ordinarily subject."
The ruling spelled out a "reasonableness" standard for assessing the legality of searches of individual students conducted by school officials.
First, the ruling said, the search "must be justified at its inception." And second, it must be "reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place."
Lawyers involved in the Redding case suggest that it’s time for the Supreme Court to provide greater clarity on the reasonableness standard.
"Deciding the constitutional question in this case will also provide some desperately needed guidance to the lower courts and, more importantly, school officials," wrote lawyers for the Safford district."
New Jersey v. T.L.O. created the "reasonableness" standard for right to privacy in the school environment, saying that a warrant was unnecessary because of the need to maintain order within schools. But since students are required to go to school and the government, in essence, is in charge of the public school system, then shouldn't schools have a similar process as the adult world?
Assuming that the Supreme Court will refer to new Jersey v. T.L.O., the question is really how stringent to the requirements need to be for it to be reasonable to do a warrantless search at a school?
For the full article, go to: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2009/04/14/29search.h28.html?tkn=TLSFeSut1HydTTyhI72VyOsldFwW9z1Sw6Jk
Some passages from the article in Education Week:
"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, in San Francisco, ruled last July that school officials violated Ms. Redding’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, acting 'contrary to all reason and common sense.'
...
School Groups Split
A friend-of-the-court brief submitted by national groups representing school boards and administrators echoes this concern.
The 9th Circuit decision would “seriously undermine school districts’ efforts to address student drug abuse in an effective manner,” write lawyers for the National School Boards Association and the American Association of School Administrators, both based just outside Washington. The ruling “broadly [calls] into question the ability of school officials to make all practical searches—both minimally intrusive and more intrusive.”
However, the case has not united education groups. The 3.2 million-member National Education Association and the National Association of School Psychologists have weighed in on the other side, arguing that the strip-search was unconstitutional.
For its part, the federal government argues that the strip-search of Ms. Redding violated the Fourth Amendment.
“Strip-searches are impermissible in the public schools unless [school] officials reasonably suspect not only that the student possesses the contraband, but also that it is hidden in a place that such a search will reveal,” Acting U.S. Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler wrote in the March brief, also signed by lawyers from the U.S. Department of Education and the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.
The brief argues that while the decision to conduct “some form of search” was justified, the circumstances “did not justify extending the scope of the search to require [Ms. Redding] to disrobe to her bra and underwear and lift them off her body.”
At the same time, the federal lawyers argued that the school official who ordered the search was entitled to qualified immunity, because “the illegality of the search was not clearly established at the time they conducted it.”
Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine established by the Supreme Court under which government officials are personally immune from being sued unless they violated clearly established constitutional or statutory rights about which a reasonable person would have known.
...
A 'Reasonableness' Standard
The legal debate in the Redding case centers on a 1985 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in New Jersey v. T.L.O. It found that "the school setting requires some easing of the restrictions to which searches by public authorities are ordinarily subject."
The ruling spelled out a "reasonableness" standard for assessing the legality of searches of individual students conducted by school officials.
First, the ruling said, the search "must be justified at its inception." And second, it must be "reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place."
Lawyers involved in the Redding case suggest that it’s time for the Supreme Court to provide greater clarity on the reasonableness standard.
"Deciding the constitutional question in this case will also provide some desperately needed guidance to the lower courts and, more importantly, school officials," wrote lawyers for the Safford district."
New Jersey v. T.L.O. created the "reasonableness" standard for right to privacy in the school environment, saying that a warrant was unnecessary because of the need to maintain order within schools. But since students are required to go to school and the government, in essence, is in charge of the public school system, then shouldn't schools have a similar process as the adult world?
Assuming that the Supreme Court will refer to new Jersey v. T.L.O., the question is really how stringent to the requirements need to be for it to be reasonable to do a warrantless search at a school?
For the full article, go to: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2009/04/14/29search.h28.html?tkn=TLSFeSut1HydTTyhI72VyOsldFwW9z1Sw6Jk
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Stimulus Money Goes to States for Schools
And it's happening: Arne Duncan, Secretary of Education, announced on Wednesday that $44 billion is going to states and school districts. Approximately $32 billion of that money is dedicated to "state stabilization," of which $26 billion goes to Pre-K-12th grade. The video is below:
Strings are attached, though, as the Salt Lake Tribune explains:
"In order to get stabilization money, states will have to commit to meeting a number of goals, Duncan said. They will have to work toward improving teacher effectiveness and ensuring all schools have highly qualified teachers; making progress toward college and career-readiness; improving achievement in low-performing schools; and improving data systems."
(http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_12049977)
So, as money is to be used to be able to help to maintain current programs and employment, which may not even be completely possible in all states, states are still expected to reform. It really comes down to effectiveness in how well the money is used so that states will be able to receive additional aid.
Strings are attached, though, as the Salt Lake Tribune explains:
"In order to get stabilization money, states will have to commit to meeting a number of goals, Duncan said. They will have to work toward improving teacher effectiveness and ensuring all schools have highly qualified teachers; making progress toward college and career-readiness; improving achievement in low-performing schools; and improving data systems."
(http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_12049977)
So, as money is to be used to be able to help to maintain current programs and employment, which may not even be completely possible in all states, states are still expected to reform. It really comes down to effectiveness in how well the money is used so that states will be able to receive additional aid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)