School at heart of grade-change flap drops to 'F' - SFGate

School at heart of grade-change flap drops to 'F' - SFGate:

School at heart of grade-change flap drops to 'F'

By TOM LoBIANCO, Associated Press

Updated 1:17 pm, Friday, December 20, 2013

1 of 4

VIEW: LARGER | HIDE

• 
  Indiana Schools Superintendent Glenda Ritz responds to a board members question during the monthly business meeting of the Indiana State Board of Education in Indianapolis, Friday, Dec. 20, 2013. The Christel House Academy, the Indianapolis charter school at the center of Indiana's grade-changing scandal, saw its grade drop from an "A'' to an "F'' in school grades approved by the the State Board of Education at its meeting. Photo: AJ Mast, AP

• 
• 
• 
• 

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — The Indianapolis charter school at the center of Indiana's grade-changing scandal dropped from an "A'' to an "F'' in school grades released Friday.

The Christel House Academy benefited last year from changes to the grading formula made by former schools Superintendent Tony Bennett. But grades released for the 2012-2013 school year showed a precipitous drop for the school founded by top GOP donorChristel DeHaan.

Christel House's ISTEP test scores fell sharply this year, which contributed to its lower grade.

This year's school grades also used a formula that took all the school's grade levels into account. Bennett's staff excluded the school's 9th and 10th grades from the calculations last year, which helped bump Christel House's grade from a "C'' to an "A''.

A spokesman for new Superintendent Glenda Ritz could not immediately say whether use of all the grade levels contributed to the sharp drop.

Christel House Principal Carey Dahncke on Friday blamed the school's troubles on the administration of Indiana's standardized test, the ISTEP. Thousands of students were
 

President Obama Honors Outstanding Math and Science Teachers | The White House

President Obama Honors Outstanding Math and Science Teachers | The White House:

President Obama Honors Outstanding Math and Science Teachers

WASHINGTON, DC -- President Obama today named 102 mathematics and science teachers as recipients of the prestigious Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching. This year’s awardees represent all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Department of Defense Education Activity. The educators will receive their awards at a Washington, DC, event in the coming year.

The Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching is awarded annually to outstanding K-12 science and mathematics teachers from across the country. The winners are selected by a panel of distinguished scientists, mathematicians, and educators following an initial selection process done at the state level. Each year the award alternates between teachers teaching kindergarten through 6th grade and those teaching 7th through 12th grades. The 2012 awardees named today teach kindergarten through 6th grade.

Winners of this Presidential honor receive a $10,000 award from the National Science Foundation to be used at their discretion. They also are invited to Washington, DC, for an awards ceremony and several days of educational and celebratory events, including visits with members of Congress and the Administration.

“These teachers are inspiring today’s young students to become the next generation of American scientists, mathematicians, and innovators,” President Obama said. “Through their passion and dedication, and by sharing their excitement about science, technology, engineering, and math, they are helping us build a promising future for all our children.”

Excellent math and science teachers, exemplified by these awardees, are critical to getting more students engaged in the increasingly important science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields. That’s why President Obama has committed to strengthening STEM education and has called for preparing 100,000 excellent science and mathematics teachers over the next decade—a goal that inspired the creation of “100kin10,” a coalition of leading corporations, philanthropies, universities, service organizations, and others working to train and retain STEM teachers across the Nation. The President has also proposed to further strengthen the STEM teaching profession by launching a new STEM Master Teacher Corps, leveraging the expertise of some of our nation’s best and brightest teachers in science and mathematics to elevate the teaching of these subjects nationwide. 

Nominations for the 2014 PAEMST are open through April 1, 2014. For more information about PAEMST, please visit www.paemst.org.
 
The recipients of the 2012 Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching are:

Alabama
Danielle Peterson, Hoover (Math)
Rita Schell, Homewood (Science)

Alaska
Rebecca Himschoot, Sitka (Science)
Amy Laufer, Anchorage (Math)

Arizona
Allison Davis, Chandler (Math)
Cindy Piano, Glendale (Science)

Arkansas
Jennifer Richardson, Greenbrier (Science)
Christi Snow, Springdale (Math)

California
Jamie Garner, Turlock (Math)
Alma Park, East Palo Alto (Science)

Colorado
Elizabeth Grabois, Denver (Science)
Joan Standefer, Boulder (Math)

Connecticut
Mary Servino, Bridgeport (Science)
Maren Sussman, Ellington (Math)

Delaware
Timothy Dalby, Wilmington (Science)
Jeanine Moore, Millsboro (Math)
 
Department of Defense Education Activity
Carol Fears (Math)
Marilyn Hawks (Science)

District of Columbia
Katrina Abdussalaam (Math)
Martha Estroff (Science)

Florida
Nancy Bourne, Jupiter (Math)
Barbara Wilcox, Cocoa (Science)

Georgia
Christy Garvin, Powder Springs (Science)
Jeanne Rast, Hapeville (Math)

Hawaii
Laura Fukumoto, Honolulu (Math)
Dave Morishige, Mililani (Science)

Idaho
Tauna Johnson, Genesse (Science)
Donna Wommack, Genesse (Math)

Illinois
Lisa Feltman, Algonquin (Math)
Bryan Lake, Urbana (Science)

Indiana
Teresa Gross, Greenwood (Science)
Jay Vahle, Carmel (Math)

Iowa
Josie Burg, Des Moines (Math)
Mason Kuhn, Shell Rock (Science)

Kansas
Lindsey Constance, Shawnee (Science)
Cathy Wilber, Wamego (Math)

Kentucky
Suzanne Farmer, Danville (Math)
Patricia Works, Lexington (Science)

Louisiana
Donna Lamonte, Baton Rouge (Math)
Amanda Warren, Mandeville (Science)

Maine
Karen Jagolinzer, Yarmouth (Math)
Elizabeth Heidemann, Cushing (Science)

Maryland
Timothy Emhoff, Indian Head (Science)
Kris Hanks, Glen Burnie (Math)

Massachusetts
Erin Dukeshire, Roxbury (Science)
Jessica Findlay, Douglas (Math)

Michigan
Brian Peterson, Rochester (Science)
Emily Theriault-Kimmey, Ann Arbor (Math)

Minnesota
Cathy Kindem, Apple Valley (Science)
Michael Wallus, Saint Paul (Math)

Mississippi
Catherine Tebo, Jackson (Math)

Missouri
Laura Parn, Wentzville (Math)
Ragan Webb, Columbia (Science)

Montana
Elizabeth Matthews, Gallatin Gateway (Science)
Melissa Romano, Helena (Math)

Nebraska
Alysia Augustus, Bellevue (Math)
Kimberly Humphrey, Kearney (Science)

Nevada
Ryan Doetch, Sparks (Math)
Traci Loftin, Reno (Science)

New Hampshire
Holly Doe, Pelham (Science)

New Jersey
Jennifer Basner, Berlin (Math)
Jeanette Scillieri, Leonia (Science)

New Mexico

Anna Suggs, Las Cruces (Science)

Vivian Valencia, Espanola (Math)

New York
Helen Rogosin, New York (Science)
Joshua Rosen, Dobbs Ferry (Math)

North Carolina
Teresa Cowan, Swannanoa (Science)
Tonya Kepley, China Grove (Math)

North Dakota
Kristine Brandt, Fargo (Math)
Kathleen Lentz, Valley City (Science)

Ohio
Natalie Harr, Mantua (Science)
Elizabeth Pitzer, Arcanum (Math)

Oklahoma
Carol Huett, Moore (Science)
Patricia Reece, Bokoshe (Science)

Oregon
Kerry Morton, Bend (Math)

Pennsylvania
Susan Bauer, Macungie (Science)
Michael Soskil, Newfoundland (Math)

Puerto Rico
Maria Cerra-Castaner, Rio Pierdras (Math)
 
Rhode Island
Regina Kilday, Exeter (Math)
Clare Ornburn, Ashaway (Science)

South Carolina
John Dearybury III, Spartanburg (Science)
Donald Sarazen, Columbia (Math)

South Dakota
Ann Anderson, Belle Fourche (Science)
Erin Marsh, Pierre (Math)

Tennessee
Margaret Hawkins, Lebanon (Science)
Amber Hodge, Knoxville (Math)

Texas
Wendy Hendry, Colleyville (Math)
Kent Page, San Antonio (Science)

Utah
Rebecca Elder, Murray (Math)
Julie Hammari, Spanish Fork (Science)

Vermont
Carol Joy Dobson, Weybridge (Math)
Mary Ellis, Enosburg Falls (Math)

Virginia
Stephanie Chlebus, Alexandria (Math)
Elizabeth Miller, Richmond (Science)

Washington
Pamela Nolan-Beasley, Waitsburg (Science)
Nancy Pfaff, Redmond (Math)

West Virginia
Barbara Black, Hurricane (Science)
Gabrielle Rhodes, Buckhannon (Science)

Wisconsin
Mary Fernan, Milton (Math)
Kathleen Hiteman, Middleton (Science)

Wyoming
Laurie Graves, Big Horn (Science)
Kathleen Kniss, Laramie (Math)

Jennifer Gonzalez Asks Teachers: What Makes a Principal Great? - Living in Dialogue - Education Week Teacher

Jennifer Gonzalez Asks Teachers: What Makes a Principal Great? - Living in Dialogue - Education Week Teacher:

Jennifer Gonzalez Asks Teachers: What Makes a Principal Great?

By Anthony Cody on December 20, 2013 5:40 PM

Guest post by Jennifer Gonzalez.

Two separate conversations are happening about education. The first I would call the "macro" conversation. I see it in places like this blog, where we debate reform, testing, and all the outside forces that impact the work teachers do. This is a crucial conversation to have and keep having.

But there's another one, the "micro" conversation, where individual teachers talk about their experiences in their specific schools. And though these teachers are discouraged and exhausted by the macro-level changes, those I talk to don't have much to say about Arne Duncan or the Gates Foundation. Most don't have time to keep up with that stuff. Way more often, they talk about their principals.

In every "micro" conversation I've had, the job satisfaction of the teacher is directly proportional to the effectiveness of their administrator. "She makes me despise my job," one teacher said about her principal. "She's a bully with everyone. She's insecure in her ability and then attacks if you question or offer advice." Another teacher says, "It's like he just can't get enough. I feel like all I ever do, at school and at home, is work. And it's never enough. My friends in other schools don't have it nearly this bad."

On the macro level, principals are rarely mentioned. I've read a few stories about brave principals who stood up for their teachers against harmful reforms, or some who have been ousted by radical parent groups, but I hear nothing about the day-to-day impact principals have on their teachers. It's as if there's a direct line that starts with reformers and government entities and ends with teachers. But along the way, in every district and every school, administrators bend that line, and the small, 

12-20-13 Jersey Jazzman

Jersey Jazzman:

Local Control Is a White People Thing: Ask Asbury Park

Is it wrong of me to feel a little embarrassed when someone catches something reformy going on in New Jersey that I completely missed? Luckily, some Facebook friends hipped me to this pick-up from the always excellent folks at Schools Matter, quoting the Asbury Park Press:ASBURY PARK — Where is the democracy?That’s the question several community members here are asking after the state monitor over

by Duke / 8min 

 

12-15-13 Jersey Jazzman

Jersey Jazzman: Will the Star-Ledger Editorial Board EVER Get Education Right?Once again, the Star-Ledger's editorial board can't get the basic facts about education correct; this time, it's the Newark teachers contract:Under the new system, 190 of the best teachers have received merit pay bonuses so far, in amounts ranging from $5,000 to $12,500. The greater bonuses went to those teaching hard-to

by mike simpson / 22h 

UPDATE: Common Core Unrest in 22 States | deutsch29

UPDATE: Common Core Unrest in 22 States | deutsch29:

UPDATE: Common Core Unrest in 22 States

December 20, 2013

On November 23, 2013, I wrote a post briefly detailing the 17 states in which officials (legislators, governors, state superintendents) have formally registered some anti-Common Core (CCSS) intention (e.g., legislation, resolution).

Today I will repost the original 17 states and add another 5, to yield now 22 states in which CCSS questioning might well lead to its restriction (as in the CCSS assessments’ being delayed or canceled) or its demise.

Some of the information listed happened prior to my previous posting. I only just became aware of two anti-CCSS resolutions passed this summer, so I included those in this post.

CCSS was not democratically vetted prior to 45 governors and state superintendents (and let us not forget the District of Columbia) signing to accept it.

No legislative vote was required for CCSS acceptance as far as President Obama and US Secretary of Education Duncan were concerned. Just two signatures sealed the deal for a state to agree to the inflexible (and at the time of signing, possiblyunfinished) CCSS as part of  Race to the Top (RTTT).

In order to coerce states into agreeing to this “state-led initiative,” the federal 

12-20-13 THE WHOLE CHILD BLOG In the Future, the Classroom Will Learn You — Whole Child Education

In the Future, the Classroom Will Learn You — Whole Child Education:

THE WHOLE CHILD BLOG

In the Future, the Classroom Will Learn You

December 20, 2013 by Klea Scharberg

This week IBM released its annual predictions of the five technology innovations that will change the way we live in the next five years: The 5 in 5. This year's predictions center around emerging computing systems that will learn, reason, and engage with us in a more personalized way.

Topping the five is the classroom of the future. IBM believes that "In five years, classrooms will learn about you, and personalize coursework accordingly. It's the end of the era of one-size-fits-all education, and the beginning of personalized learning."

After watching the video and reading the storymap below, do you agree with this prediction?

12-19-13 THE WHOLE CHILD BLOG Personalized Learning Starts with Personal Relationships — Whole Child Education

Personalized Learning Starts with Personal Relationships — Whole Child Education: Personalized Learning Starts with Personal RelationshipsDecember 19, 2013 by Whole Child PodcastDownload Podcast Now [Right-Click to Save]How do we help each student succeed? One promising way is to personalize learning and put each student at the center of her learning experience. Broader than individualized or diff

by mike simpson / 19h 

Don’t (further) integrate middle school science standards | EdSource Today

Don’t (further) integrate middle school science standards | EdSource Today:

Don’t (further) integrate middle school science standards

December 20th, 2013 | Add a Comment | 
By Paul Bruno / commentary

1

Paul Bruno

As California proceeds with implementation of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), a major point of contention is likely to be how to sequence science content in the middle-school grades.

Currently in California, the various middle school science topics are grouped together within grade levels roughly by discipline: earth science in 6^th grade, life science in 7^th grade, and physical science in 8^th grade. The newly-adopted NGSS only describe what topics are to be covered in “middle school”, leaving individual states to decide how to sequence content in grades 6-8.

The traditional, discipline-based approach is common across the country and has served California well under our previous science standards. However, the state Board of Education has also approved an alternative, “integrated” approach which would expose students to a combination of earth, life, and physical sciences at each grade level. Under guidelines adopted in November, districts will be able to choose between implementing a traditional or integrated model in their schools.

The Board of Education is to be commended for not imposing the integrated model – favored by many officials but opposed by many teachers – on the state’s schools. Such an integrated approach is intuitively appealing, but does not stand up to scrutiny. It would therefore be a mistake for California’s districts to abandon the advantages of the traditional, discipline-based content 

Choosing Democracy: The Paucity of Dan Walters' Commentary on School Issues

Choosing Democracy: The Paucity of Dan Walters' Commentary on School Issues:

The Paucity of Dan Walters' Commentary on School Issues

The column by Dan Walters in the Sacramento Bee entitled “California’s School Wars Heat Up” in the print edition for Dec.20, and “Powerful Factions Go to War Over Direction of California Schools,” http://www.sacbee.com/2013/12/20/6015661/dan-walters-powerful-factions.html in the on line version  seriously and deliberatively misinforms .  He frames the conflict between the School Establishment ( school administrators, elected officials, CTA]  vs. the “School Reformers”.   These are indeed two of the powerful factions, but not at all the complete story.

To understand the distortion lets see who these “reformers “  See the Democracy and Education Institute https://sites.google.com/site/democracyandeducationorg

The cadre Walters’ calls reformers  are not reformers. These are a corporate financed  advocates and  some well financed opportunists. In most cases they do not work in schools, rather they work in lobbyist offices financed by the Waltons, the Gates, and others.   See here https://sites.google.com/site/democracyandeducationorg/Home/corporate-funded-reform

There is at least one additional group who Walters ignores- the social justice equity oriented based school reformers who have been working in schools for decades to  improve school opportunities for low income and minority children.

There are numerous examples of this groups, here https://sites.google.com/site/chicanodigital/home/the-creation-and-demise-of-bilingual-education-at-csu-sacramento-2,  and here https://sites.google.com/site/democracyandeducationorg/and CABE, Ca-Name, Raza Educators,  and the movement within both CTA and CFT known as social justice unionism.  On the national level these approaches are well represented in the Broader, Bolder Approach,  Rethinking Schools, the Shanker Institute and others.  Diane Ravitch has been writing well about some of these efforts.

Walters’ essay reflects the  similar  narrowness in the media as it portrays the U.S. political struggles as only between the Democrats and the Republicans . This media  narrowness- created and funded significantly by corporate ownership of media functions to move the society in the direction of restricting democracy.  See, Democracy Inc. Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism by Sheldon Waldon, (2008) and Digital Disconnect; How Capitalism is Turning the Internet Against Democracy,  by Robert McChesney (2013) .

 Digital Disconnect readers benefit from McChesney’s long critical scholarly record of studying corporate journalism as an imbedded form of corporate capitalism and its challenge to democracy.  As he says, “capitalism imposed its logic” ( p.89).

Most  media,  as  illustrated by Dan Walters in today’s column with reporting and opining on “inside baseball’ at the state capitol, are not objective observers. Walters is in fact an integrated and important part of the campaign to turn public schools  (and other public institutions) over to even more corporate influence and corporate control. This narrow frame of media coverage corrupts our democratic system.

I have been fortunate to have  served to prepare over 600 new teachers and educational leaders who are currently working in Sacramento area schools and educating  children. Some are becoming administrators and college professors.  These teachers and educational leaders are not considered in the narrow framing of opinions presented by  Walters’, but they constitute a significant  cohort of persons immediate knowledge of the school reality and who are working for substantive  educational reform.

Duane Campbell is the Director of the Democracy and Education Institute. Sacramento.

UPDATE Governors and State Education Leaders Did Not Write the Common Core | Truth in American Education

Governors and State Education Leaders Did Not Write the Common Core | Truth in American Education:

Study Finds Large Gaps in Student Data Privacy Protection By Districts Using Cloud Services

A big tip of the hat goes to Anne Gassel of Missouri Education Watchdog for finding this and sending the info below to our band of happy #stopcommoncore warriors.  Fordham Law School released a report last week that shows there are large gaps in student data privacy protection by school districts that use cloud services.Here are the key findings:95% of districts rely on cloud services for a divers

23 by Shane Vander Hart / 8min 

Governors and State Education Leaders Did Not Write the Common Core

Filed in Common Core State Standards by Shane Vander Hart on December 20, 2013 • 0 Comments

I had to shake my head reading an article in The Washington Post.  It highlights Randi Weingarten’s schizophrenic approach to the Common Core State Standards – on one hand she says the implementation of the Common Core is more disastrous than Obamacare’s implementation, but she wants Governors to stand by it.

It’s amazing what a little Gates money will do.  But I digress.  What I really wanted to highlight is one paragraph that makes me want to jump out of my skin.

Written by a group of governors and state education officials, with endorsements from the federal government and funding from the Gates Foundation, the Common Core standards are designed to prepare students for an eventual career or college.

No the standards were essentially written by five people who did not even have classroom teaching experience and all but two I believe lacked experience writing standards.  In David Coleman’s own words they were a “collection of unqualified people who were involved in developing the common standards.”

Governors did not write these.  I would suspect most if not all Governors have not even read 

Walcott’s goodbye | JD2718

Walcott’s goodbye | JD2718:

Walcott’s goodbye

DECEMBER 20, 2013 PM31 3:11 PM

tags: Dennis Walcott, NYC School's Chancellor

Today every teacher in NYC received a goodbye message from Dennis Walcott (at the bottom of this post). That this is his last school day as Chancellor is something most of us would instinctively celebrate.

But was Walcott a bad chancellor? That question should be asked in context, and in comparison. Was he as bad as Joel Klein?  How will he compare to whoever comes next?

There is no question that Joel Klein was reviled by parents and teachers across New York City. If the question was “who was more hated?” then Klein wins walking away. Walcott was not personally offensive the way Klein had been. He wasn’t provocative, mocking. He wasn’t hated. But that’s not the question here. Was Walcott a bad chancellor?

Klein really was bad. His disruptive reorganizations took a mediocre system and made it a disaster. He vilified teachers. He engineered the ATR crisis (through budgeting legerdemain, combined with hoodwinking the UFT’s leadership). He screwed up special education. He closed and reopened schools, improving nothing, but damaging communities. He appointed anti-public education reformers to high posts, including many who had barely taught. He helped make teaching a far less attractive job.

As Joel Klein’s damage peaked, he was replaced, first by Cathy Black (tell me again why the UFT