Latest News and Comment from Education

Saturday, April 18, 2015

School districts, parents at odds over breakfast in class - Yahoo News

School districts, parents at odds over breakfast in class - Yahoo News:

School districts, parents at odds over breakfast in class





 LOS ANGELES (AP) — The number of breakfasts served in the nation's schools has doubled in the last two decades, a surge driven largely by a change in how districts deliver the food.

Instead of providing low-income students free or reduced-price meals in the cafeteria, they're increasingly serving all children in the classroom. Food policy advocates say the change increases equity, however, it's fueled a backlash from parents and teachers. They contend that it takes up class time that should be devoted to learning and wastes food by serving it to kids who don't want or need it.
Lilian Ramos, a mother of two elementary school children in a working-class Los Angeles neighborhood, said she takes offense at the district's assumption that she hasn't fed her children: She serves them a traditional Mexican breakfast each day.
"They say if kids don't eat they won't learn," Ramos said. "The truth is that many of our kids come to school already having eaten. They come here to study."
The Los Angeles Unified School District, the nation's second-largest with about 650,000 K-12 students, has been aggressively expanding its program, and by the end of the school year, will be serving breakfast in class at nearly every school. That growth mirrors an increase nationwide. Since 1994, the number of breakfasts served has climbed from about 1 billion annually to 2.3 billion, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Across the country, 51 percent of children are considered low-income, up from 32 percent in 1989, according to the Southern Education Foundation. In a number of school districts, the vast majority of those children qualify for a free or reduced-price meal. In Los Angeles and Detroit, about 80 percent are eligible.
Proponents believe shifting breakfast from the cafeteria to the classroom is the most effective way to make sure all children are ready to learn. Students who come to school hungry, they argue, are likely to have a harder time paying attention.
There's also a financial incentive for districts to expand breakfast. The federal government reimburses schools for each meal served. At LA Unified, the number of participating children has grown from 29 percent to 81 percent in three years, generating an additional $16 million, according to Laura Benavidez, the district's deputy director of food services.
At Stanley Mosk Elementary, regarded as having a model breakfast program, teachers help distribute the meal, check off which students are eating and show a video to incorporate a nutrition lesson, all in 10 minutes. On a recent morning, students were given apples, cereal and a small, packaged breakfast sandwich. At the end of breakfast, there was a large cooler filled with uneaten breakfast sandwiches.
"I think it's a good way for students to eat here because sometimes at home they're in such a rush," said Fatima Nassar, 10. "Sometimes I see students throw it away."
In Los Angeles, parents from wealthier schools organized against it, winning a concession permitting 32 schools with less than 20 percent of children who fall below the poverty threshold to opt out.
Parents at UCLA Community School, where Ramos' children attend, also organized. They said the initiative took away instructional time from low-income and English-learner students, a group that scores persistently lower in reading and math. They also worried about unsanitary classrooms. The district temporarily delayed implementation but plans to soon start breakfast in the classroom at the school.
LA Unified board member Monica Garcia, who sponsored the breakfast resolution, acknowledged a one-size breakfast solution probably doesn't fit all.
"Does it help the majority of kids? I think it does," Garcia said. "Do we still need to figure out what to do when people want to opt out? Probably."
About a decade ago, school and food policy advocates began drawing attention to the low participation in the nation's school breakfast program. Some districts didn't offer it, while others provided it before class, forcing students to arrive early.
"Breakfast in the classroom evolved as a smart response," said Jim Weill, president of the nonprofit Food Research and Action Center.
A 2013-14 survey by Weill's organization found 52 of 62 districts nationwide offered free meals to everyone, regardless of income, at some or all schools. Fifty had breakfast in classrooms.
Not everyone has embraced it. In New York City, former Mayor Michael Bloomberg opposed serving breakfast in class over concerns that children would eat twice. Current Mayor Bill de Blasio has expressed support, but it has only been implemented in 301 schools of about 1,600 districtwide.
At the UCLA Community School, parents plan to continue fighting the decision.
"We want them to serve it in the cafeteria," Raquel Martinez, a mother of three, said. "That's what the cafeteria is for."

There's a parenting trend that's taken over the US, and it's changing children everywhere - Yahoo Finance

There's a parenting trend that's taken over the US, and it's changing children everywhere - Yahoo Finance:

There's a parenting trend that's taken over the US, and it's changing children everywhere



What's happening here?
The Economist reports that in the US, wealthy parents have a tendency toward becoming "helicopters," constantly buzzing about their children, ferrying them from one extracurricular activity to another, and never letting them escape from sight.
It's become so normalized that when kids are spotted without an adult, it's seen as a crime, as in the case of a Maryland family that's been under police investigation for letting their kids walk home from parks alone. Child Protective Services charged the parents with "unsubstantiated child neglect" in March, The Washington Post reports.
Boston College psychologist and "Free to Learn" author Peter Gray tells Public Radio International that the helicoptering can smother a child's development.
"My historical research on this question suggests that there’s never really been a time or place in history, aside from times of slavery and intense child labor, when children have been less free than they are today in our society," Gray tells PRI. "This is a very, very serious issue."
Decades of research into what allows children to become successful and stable has revealed thatautonomy is a defining factor. A young human needs to feel a degree of free agency in the way they navigate the world, otherwise they won't have the opportunity to become self-reliant or to develop the "grit" that's so closely associated with achievement.
What's worse is that children's declining autonomy is not a necessary response to a more dangerous world. That's a common misconception. Jennifer Senior of New York Magazine collected startling statistics showing how much safer things have gotten for kids in the US:
• The physical abuse of children fell by 55% from 1992 to 2011.
• Sexual abuse fell by 64% from 1992 to 2011.
• Abductions by strangers fell by 51% 1997 to 2012.
• Motor vehicle deaths for children under 13 years old fell by 43% in the past decade.
And as we've noted, America has become a much safer place for everyone since the 1990s — adults and kids both. But it's not just the last decade.
As The Washington Post reports, "there's never been a safer time to be a kid in America."
• In 1935, there were just under 450 deaths for every 100,000 kids between ages 1 and 4. Now there are 30 deaths per 100,000 kids in that age range.
• More than 800 child pedestrians were killed from being hit by a car in 1993. There were fewer than 250 such deaths in 2013.
• Reports on missing persons under age 18 have gone down 40% from 1997 to 2014.
Senior, the author of the best-selling "All Joy and No Fun: The Paradox of Modern Parenthood,"says that the helicoptering isn't simply the result of parents being fearful for their children — it's a way of showing off their parental virtues to everybody else.
"It's become our new plumage, how we parent, peacockishly displayed on Facebook and in playgrounds and at birthday parties," she writes. "The result is a culture of surveillance and judgment rather than compassion and collaboration, and frankly, it’s exhausting — nor is it doing anyone one lick of good."
More From Business Insider 

There's a parenting trend that's taken over the US, and it's changing children everywhere - Yahoo Finance:

School vouchers in Milwaukee, religious freedom and discrimination

School vouchers in Milwaukee, religious freedom and discrimination:

School vouchers in Milwaukee, religious freedom and discrimination




As the recent Indiana controversy has made clear, anti-gay bigotry is no longer publicly acceptable even when cloaked with rhetoric of religious freedom.
It's a lesson that, sooner or later, Wisconsin will have to confront. But not because the state has a law similar to Indiana's. Unfortunately, Wisconsin permits an even more disturbing practice. It not only allows respect for religious freedom to be used as a cover for discrimination, but also forces the taxpayer to pay for that discrimination.
Wisconsin's taxpayer-funded bigotry, which includes but goes beyond homophobia, has been cleverly disguised as "school choice." It's complicated, so a bit of history is necessary.
In 1990, the Wisconsin legislature established a voucher program in Milwaukee under which public dollars paid the tuition at private schools. The program was billed as an experiment to improve academic achievement and was limited to a handful of schools. In order to be considered truly "private," schools could have no more than 49% of students receiving a voucher. Religious schools were not allowed.
Over time, conservatives eliminated such restrictions as part of their vision of replacing public education with universal vouchers. Today, more than 26,000 Milwaukee students receive vouchers and 112 schools take part; it is the country's largest and oldest urban voucher program. Test scores are no better than in public schools, so "school choice" has become the defining rationale.
Significantly, limits have been lifted on the percentage of voucher students in a school. As a result, every single student in a Milwaukee voucher school can receive a publicly funded voucher, yet the school is still defined as "private." Last year, most of the schools enrolled predominantly voucher students; 27 schools were 100% voucher students.
With the growth of charter schools, the voucher program almost exclusively benefits religious schools, and some 89% of voucher students in the Milwaukee program attend a religious school. Wisconsin also has a two-year-old statewide voucher program that only includes religious schools, and a four-year-old program in Racine where all but one school is religious-based.
Religion is a highly personal matter, and this country's long-standing defense of religious liberty is a hallmark of our democracy. But the voucher program has distorted this all-important concept of religious freedom.
The problem is most clear when one looks at Wisconsin law that prohibits discrimination against students in public schools — a law that voucher schools can ignore.
Wisconsin has a long history of protecting students' rights, in line with the 1848 state constitution that called for free public schools for children of all races and religious beliefs. Over time, rights have expanded and Wisconsin now prohibits discrimination in a range of areas, including disabilities, pregnancy, marital status, parental status, sex and sexual orientation.
In 1998, when religious schools were allowed to take part in Milwaukee's voucher program, a controversy erupted. As part of the application to become a voucher school, the state Department of Public Instruction included a letter outlining students' rights that were to be respected. The rights included not only nondiscrimination measures, but also constitutional protections of due process, equal protection and freedom of speech.
The religious schools vehemently disagreed with the DPI. They argued that as private institutions, they were exempt from such mandates.
The state Legislature forced DPI to agree that voucher schools merely had to sign a letter acknowledging that they had received a letter outlining the students' rights. The letter specifically noted that such an School vouchers in Milwaukee, religious freedom and discrimination:

Teachers' union, student group fights Newark's designation of 9 struggling schools | NJ.com

Teachers' union, student group fights Newark's designation of 9 struggling schools | NJ.com:

Teachers' union, student group fights Newark's designation of 9 struggling schools





 

NEWARK — Newark Public Schools announced this week that nine schools will become "turnaround schools" during the next school year in an effort to curb struggling performance.
The designation will mean that teachers will be asked to sign election-to-work agreements, which may require them to work for a longer school day, go through two additional weeks of professional development in the summer and work on multiple Saturdays, assistant superintendent Brad Haggerty said.
"Our belief in order to turn around schools that are either struggling or even consistently failing we have to go beyond bounds of what the traditional contract provides," Haggerty said
Under the contract, teachers are paid an additional stipend of $3,000 a year for the extra time.
The schools include East Side High School, Weequahic High School, Ivy Hill Elementary School, Mckinley Elementary School, Hawthorne Elementary School, George Washington Carver Elementary School, Elliot Elementary School, Miller Elementary School and Lincoln Elementary School.

The nine schools will join more than 20 other schools that have already been designated for turnaround including some that have are part of the district's controversial renew school program, Haggerty said.
Under the renew program, teachers not only work a longer school day but are asked to reapply for their jobs.
The turnaround designation is likely to prompt a fight with the Newark Teachers Union just as the teacher's contract expires on June 30, 2015.

The union argues that some of the schools that have been designated for turnaround are either improving or are performing well compared to other schools with similar demographics.
John Abeigon, director of operations for the Newark Teachers Union, said the union conducted a survey about two months ago of teachers who are working under election-to-work agreements in renew and turnaround schools.
Of the 262 responding teachers who signed those agreements during the 2014-2015 school year, almost 44 percent said they did not plan to sign up again next year, according to Abeigon.
"Cami is going to have a little bit of chaos next year," he said referring to superintendent Cami Anderson.
More than 70 students walked out of East Side High School on Friday in protest of the school's turnaround designation, according to Roberto Cabanas, a lead organizer for New Jersey Communities United, who helps the Newark Students Union.
Newark Public Schools spokeswoman Brittany Parmley said in a statement that the district met with the students and then they boarded busses provided by the district to take them back to school.
"Following a protest this afternoon, we met with student representatives from East Side High School to discuss concerns raised around the District's implementation of the Turnaround program, which has helped improve Newark schools and close the achievement gap," she said.
"We appreciate the student's passion, as well as the opportunity to engage in a productive dialogue where real questions could be answered and both sides could be heard."
This story has been updated to reflect additional information.Teachers' union, student group fights Newark's designation of 9 struggling schools | NJ.com:
More Newark Schools

Senator Murray: 'No Child Left Behind' Might Get Left Behind | KPLU News for Seattle and the Northwest

Senator Murray: 'No Child Left Behind' Might Get Left Behind | KPLU News for Seattle and the Northwest:

Senator Murray: 'No Child Left Behind' Might Get Left Behind



U.S. Senator Patty Murray, D-Wash., smiles at a press conference at Franklin High School in Seattle on April 17, 2015.
U.S. Senator Patty Murray, D-Wash., smiles at a press conference at Franklin High School in Seattle on April 17, 2015.
KYLE STOKES KPLU


A U.S. Senate committee advanced a bill to re-write the federal No Child Left Behind Act this week, raising hopes that Congress may finally take action to officially scrap the law's tough, but outdated systems for holding schools across the nation accountable for students' success.
The proposed "Every Child Achieves Act" shifts a lot of federal powers to education officials at the state level. Though national mandates to give students standardized tests every year would remain in place, states could decide for themselves how to use test results to rate schools and determine whether students are on-track for success in college or a career.
Co-sponsor Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said Friday this legislation could be a turning point in Congress' efforts to re-write No Child Left Behind, which have been fruitless since the original law expired in 2007.
'Fix This So Our Country Can Move On'
Republicans on a House committee passed their own NCLB fix in February without Democratic support. The Obama Administration said the President would veto that proposal.
But Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., who chairs the Senate's education panel, worked with Murray to arrive at a "bipartisan agreement" — and Murray said that keeps the end-goal in mind: come up with a bill President Obama can sign.
"I predict that if we can pass a strong bipartisan bill out of the Senate, it will force the House to take this up for the same reason Lamar agreed to work with me," Murray said during a news conference outside Seattle's Franklin High School on Friday.
The U.S. House "can sit and say this is awful, horrible, no good, bad policy and keep it that way for another three, four, five years by voting no," Murray added. "Or you can work with us to get a bill passed that this president will sign into law and fix this so our country can move on."
As Bill Moves To Floor, A Delicate Balancing Act
The fragile compromise will have to survive a tug-of-war over the federal government's role in education, including from Republicans who would likely wish to see that role scaled back even further.
The Every Child Achieves Act would require state education officials to submit their own plans for holding schools accountable to the U.S. Department of Education — plans that set annual goals for a mix of measures, such as test scores or graduation rates.
But the president of the Alliance for Education, a D.C.-based advocacy organization, said the bill doesn't do enough to ensure states intervene when schools underperform.
"It does not actually require states to act," said Bob Wise in a statement. "Instead, it permits states to decide when, if and where to intervene. That's like equipping a fire department with new tools and alarms, then letting it choose which fires to put out."
Teachers unions have given their own tentative approval to the compromise. But National Education Association say the proposal could do more to reduce "excessive testing of students." They're also concerned with the bill's stances on linking teacher pay with performance and charter schools.
"The bill largely preserves the status quo of an aggressive federal push to expand the charter sector without adequate accountability and transparency requirements," wrote NEA director of government relations Mary Kusler in a letter to members of a Senate committee.
Murray said the bill strikes an appropriate level of compromise.
"We have federal guardrails in this to make sure states have to meet those," Murray said, "but without the prescriptive requirements that currently exist that really aren't working."Senator Murray: 'No Child Left Behind' Might Get Left Behind | KPLU News for Seattle and the Northwest:


Earl Nissen: A nightmare of school reform in New Mexico - Silver City Sun-News

Earl Nissen: A nightmare of school reform in New Mexico - Silver City Sun-News:

Earl Nissen: A nightmare of school reform in New Mexico



I just had the worst nightmare and needed to write about it.
It is February 1, 2017. President Jeb Bush just appointed Andy Nunez as secretary of interior because of his strong statement on making wolves extinct. Susana Martinez was made secretary of state because of her background as a gun-toting DA and believing in making all people not equal but the same.
Hannah Skandera became governor and appointed Stan Rounds as education secretary.
The Koch Brothers were given a non-competitive contract to build a learning cubicle for children called the Freedom Accelerator of Knowledge Environment. New Mexico was now a Right to Work state so the Kochs built a plant in Hatch (now wolf free) for making the FAKE where they could hire a lot of undocumented and pay them minimum wage. They would not sell the cubicles but only lease them to school districts.
Charlie was born August 29, 2012 making him eligible to start kindergarten on September 1, 2017. He would be one of the youngest in his class. His parents were well meaning people but both had to work minimum-wage jobs. Charlie spent a lot of time in day care and before he could take the Kindergarten Entrance Exam, Pearson/Skandera, he had to take the Children, Youth & Families Department Pearson Transition to Kindergarten from Day Care Inventory. On his CYFDDPTKDCI, Charlie scored low in keyboarding, etch-a sketch and the war game called Catch a Democrat. This flagged him as a potential learning problem.
Then he took the KEEPS, based on the CORE, which showed that he, at 5, could only count to 1,000, do two-digit adding, could only read the first two words of the Star Spangled Banner and that his favorite animal was the frog. All this information was sent online to his parents, who did not have a computer, and to the Pearson programmer.
On the first day of kindergarten, Charlie was shown his 4x4x4 cubicle with his name on it and was seated in front of the computer screen. His password was GOP2035 (year he can vote). Punched this in and his name lit up and a frog appeared and announced through the headset "I am your teacher. Give me a name." Charlie only knew how to spell his favorite aunt's name, Jill. Typed in Jill and she said, "Now I will dance every time you get something right but will be angry when Earl Nissen: A nightmare of school reform in New Mexico - Silver City Sun-News:

We’re teaching our kids wrong: Steve Jobs and Bill Gates do not have the answers - Salon.com

We’re teaching our kids wrong: Steve Jobs and Bill Gates do not have the answers - Salon.com:

We’re teaching our kids wrong: Steve Jobs and Bill Gates do not have the answers

Our kids worship wealth and celebrities. We've lost track of school's real purpose -- exciting the mind



We're teaching our kids wrong: Steve Jobs and Bill Gates do not have the answers
Bill Gates, Steve Jobs (Credit: AP/Bebeto Matthews/Dima Gavrysh)


 Excerpted from "The End of the Rainbow: How Educating for Happiness (Not Money) Would Transform Our Schools"

Between 1848, when Andrew Carnegie arrived in Pennsylvania, and 1983, when “A Nation at Risk” was published, schools had made a 180-degree turn. No longer a privilege and a respite from work, formal education had become a necessity, considered essential to individual success. What had once been a luxury for those who could afford enlightenment was, by the second half of the twentieth century, a requirement for anyone who hoped to get a job and earn a decent wage. Schools were no longer a path to cultivation and a life of the mind; they were a path to a job. And that was just in terms of the individual. Along the way, as schools became a training ground for corps of workers, they also became a means of furthering national interests. The debate about schools had become part of the debate about national power. Which brings us to the twenty-first century.
When George W. Bush announced No Child Left Behind (NCLB), his purported intention was to encourage a set of practices and institute a set of assessments that would ensure every child got the same good start at school. Implicit in that formulation was the now familiar premise that it was up to schools to close the income gap between the rich and the poor. In its most beneficent form, it could have made a powerful difference in the lives of many children. If NCLB had ensured that all kids would learn how to read and that no child would become disenchanted enough to drop out, it might have been wonderful. But that’s not how NCLB played out.
Within just a few years, teachers were rushing to make sure that each child got a higher score on the standardized tests than he or she had gotten the year before. School superintendents also felt compelled to see to it that their schools got higher scores every year. What had been promoted as a means of ensuring that all children received the fruits of our educational system became a relentless push toward improved test scores. With each year, more and more focus was on the scores themselves and less on the education the scores were intended to measure. At the national level, politicians threatened that if we didn’t educate everyone, once again our country might fall behind. The conversation was less about giving everyone access to reading, thoughtful engagement in civic life, or the pleasures of ideas, and much more about seeing to it that everyone could earn a decent wage.


Nor did that focus change much when Bush finally left office. In 2008 Barack Obama replaced George Bush in the White House and named Arne Duncan secretary of education. Many people interested in schools assumed that Obama and Duncan would shrink or dissolve NCLB, which seemed to cause only problems for parents, teachers and administrators, not to mention for children. But it has not been as simple as that. Once again money, albeit in a slightly disguised form, has shaped the conversation about what children should learn and why they should learn it.
The first thing Duncan did as secretary of education was to announce a new name for our educational agenda. Instead of leaving no child behind, we would now be in a race to the top. This meant, of course, that the United States would be racing to beat out other nations. It also meant that each child would be racing to overcome other students, getting to the finish line first. These twin motives are now embedded in almost all of the public discussion of education. When national averages of test scores are reported, they are typically presented as a table or graph in which our scores are compared to the scores of other nations. In 2009 we ranked lower on the Program for International Student Assessment than, say, China (represented by Shanghai), Finland and Estonia but higher than Latvia, Thailand and Panama. Yet, other than feeling this is a competition, it’s quite hard to know what, if anything to make of such comparisons. In the end they tell us next to nothing about the children we are trying to educate or how our educational system is (or is not) shaping them.
But the national race is only one piece of the story. Take a moment to think about what it means to frame education as a race to the top. At the simplest level, it means that someone is going to have to be at the bottom. A quick look at the way assessments are currently done in this country shows the very real consequences this has for the lives of children. Children don’t simply show that they can read, add, solve word problems, or interpret data. They must do better than other children, and better than they did the year before. Teachers, too, are rated in terms of this seemingly endless competition. Some have argued that it is good for everyone to see that education is a process, that there is always more to be learned, explored, or mastered. All of that sounds nice. But it’s not the way children (or teachers) experience the race to the top. They experience it, for the most part, as a daunting and relentless grind. It pushes children to believe that success comes only when they can outperform others and their own previous performance. An ironic symptom of this orientation is that teachers commonly talk of aiming for low scores one year so that they can show improvement in the next. The implicit belief that education rests on doing better than someone else is just one more way that a money mindset has come to shape our thoughts about schooling.
When it comes to material goods, economists have a term for this worldview: they call it positional wealth. Just as you might expect, it means that you base your sense of how rich you are on whether you are better off than the guy next door. An example will show how ubiquitous such a view has become. I spend August in the village of Sagaponack, New York, where I grew up. Though once a farm community, it is now notorious as a summer playground of the rich and famous. When I was a little girl, the men I knew drove pickup trucks and the women drove station wagons. One notable summer resident drove a green Jaguar; everyone talked about it. As the summer population rose over the years, so did the standard of cars you’d see on the road. By the time my children were born, the summer residents had taken over the island. Now Audis and Jeeps were everywhere, at least in July and August. By the time my children were teenagers, the roads were lined with Porsches and souped-up Land Rovers. Every decade brought a new level of car We’re teaching our kids wrong: Steve Jobs and Bill Gates do not have the answers - Salon.com:

Welcome to the Matrix: The New York State Board of Regents Begins to Create Yet Another New Teacher Evaluation Plan – By June 30th. | Ed In The Apple

Welcome to the Matrix: The New York State Board of Regents Begins to Create Yet Another New Teacher Evaluation Plan – By June 30th. | Ed In The Apple:



Welcome to the Matrix: The New York State Board of Regents Begins to Create Yet Another New Teacher Evaluation Plan – By June 30th.

On Monday, April 13th the members of the Board of Regents and a packed audience listened to a lengthy description of the “enacted budget,” the education provisions of the fiscal year 15-16 state budget.
The 18-slide Power Point, “A Review of Education Policy in the Enacted 2015-16 State Budget” lays out the Commissioner’s view of the new law. The key question was asked by a new member, Regent Johnson, how much authority do we have under the law in designing a teacher evaluation plan?
The answer is unclear.
APPR Field Guidance, all 100-plus pages, spells out the intricate details of the current plan (Read here)
The growth formula on pages 10-11 was used in NYC in 2010 and has been “refined” for the NYS 2011. (Read here)
The members of the legislature told the Regents, you’re in charge.
Over the next month or so the actual authority of the Regents to craft the new regulations will emerge
The purpose of required grades 3-8 testing under No Child Left Behind is to assess student progress based on standardized tests and identify low performing schools, called “focus,” “priority” and “persistently lowest achieving,” aka “out of time” schools, and, under Race to the Top, create a teacher performance metric based on multiple measures including student test scores.
Over 700 schools in New York State are either “focus” or “priority” and in New York City 94 low achieving schools are in a Renewal category; show progress or face redesign or closure.
The adoption of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) changed the playing field. As I have written before I did not read the standards more dramatically different than previous standards, the dramatic difference is that the standards are no longer aspirational goals. State tests were curriculum-based within the framework of standards, the CCSS tests are now standard-based tests, and curriculum is superfluous.
Some school districts, school districts with resources, purchased new materials and began to intensively train staffs, other school districts, school districts that stumble to meet day-to-day costs lagged. The enormous difference in district to district funding once again determines testing outcomes, the rich get richer at the expense of the poor.
For reasons that still elude me Commissioner King followed the “push off the end of the diving board” approach to phasing in the new, far more complex and difficult tests – the state moved from two-thirds passing to two-thirds failing. Teachers suddenly forgot how to teach and students forgot how to learn.
The Race to the Top application required a teacher evaluation plan: negotiations took months and the final plan required a numerical rating for each teacher on a 0 – 100% scale. The scale is divided in three sections, 20% based on student test scores, 20% based on a locally negotiated metric and 60% based on supervisory observations; however,the law requires that if a teacher received an ineffective grade on either student test scores or locally negotiated metric the teacher must be rated ineffective regardless of their composite score.
When the dust settled, in year one 51% of teachers were rated highly effective and 40% effective, only 1% received an ineffective rating. The numerical grades were confusing. The scores are “unstable,” wide swings from year one to year two, and, neither teachers nor principals have any idea how the scores were determined.
The student performance score section is a growth score: the incredibly dense formula matches teachers teaching similar students. If a teacher of very low Welcome to the Matrix: The New York State Board of Regents Begins to Create Yet Another New Teacher Evaluation Plan – By June 30th. | Ed In The Apple:

Friday, April 17, 2015

VP Jesse Sharkey on leave of absence taken by CPS CEO Barbara Byrd-Bennett

Chicago Teachers Union | VP Jesse Sharkey on leave of absence taken by CPS CEO Barbara Byrd-Bennett:

VP Jesse Sharkey on leave of absence taken by CPS CEO Barbara Byrd-Bennett

BY CTU COMMUNICATION  |  04/17/2015



CHICAGO—Chicago Teachers Union Vice President Jesse Sharkey released the following statement today regarding the leave of absence taken by Chicago Public Schools CEO Barbara Byrd-Bennett in the wake of a federal investigation into no-bid $20.5 million contract granted in 2013 to SUPES Academy:
“What Barbara is being singled out for is sadly just one incident among widespread practices by the mayor’s Board of Education appointees, and the turmoil caused by yet another top-down leadership scandal is a grave concern for all of us as the district faces a crippling financial deficit. As I said yesterday, there is a culture of conflict of interest that is severely disruptive to the lives of both educators and the parents and students they serve, and it does nothing but create a climate of pervasive mistrust.
“Barbara will be most remembered as the person who was brought in to sell the mayor’s school closing plan. While it is our understanding that she is taking a leave of absence due to her potential inability to lead the district during the investigation into her connection to SUPES, she is not the only individual who may be at fault for any wrongdoing. Board president David Vitale was the architect of a financial deal that has cost the district hundreds of millions of dollars, and no one has asked for him to take a leave of absence. Board member Deborah Quazzo has received millions in profits from her private investments in companies with CPS contracts, and no one has asked for her to take a leave of absence either.
“These are the types of relationships that we’ve been sounding the alarm about for years—those in which there are personal connections between Board members and the banks and companies that profit from relationships with CPS. In a school district that seems to be all about privatization, private entities continue to play a major role in its operations, and if Barbara is the first to fall, then perhaps there are many others who should follow.”