Mike Klonsky's SmallTalk Blog: Duncan big on accountability. But not his own.

Mike Klonsky's SmallTalk Blog: Duncan big on accountability. But not his own.:

Duncan big on accountability. But not his own.

Arne Duncan is the great educational know-nothing. As a result, he loads his speeches up with empty clichés and meaningless phases in place of solid dialog about teaching and learning.



In a speech Monday at the University of Maryland Baltimore County, Duncan tells his faithful,

"When students enroll in college, he said, the chances of a successful outcome — getting a degree — amount to “a coin toss.”

“The challenge we face is easy to articulate, if not to solve.” There is, he said, “a lot of heavy lifting and culture change ahead.”

 "This is not a free lunch for higher education by any stretch."

He goes on to decry the "lack of accountability" (not his own) in public ed. He blames it all on "politics" and "bureaucracy". This coming from Pres. Obama's chief political appointee to the top of the one of the world biggest bureaucracies.



It all reminds me of when Duncan was Mayor Daley's patronage pick to run Chicago's schools back in 2001. He had been the protege of investment banker and Daley pal Jonathan Rogers, who Duncan claims, taught him "the business of education."



When I proposed putting a new small public school inside of shuttered Austin High School, Duncan said he would get the board to okay it, but warned that it had to be charter school. When I asked why, he explained that otherwise, "the Mike Klonsky's SmallTalk Blog: Duncan big on accountability. But not his own.:

Four unintended consequences of using student test scores to evaluate teachers - The Washington Post

Four unintended consequences of using student test scores to evaluate teachers - The Washington Post:

Four unintended consequences of using student test scores to evaluate teachers

As any even semi-regular reader of this blog knows, the practice of using student standardized test scores to evaluate teachers is riddled with problems. I’ve written before about some of the more ridiculous consequences, such as teachers being evaluated by students they don’t have and/or by subjects they don’t teach. (See here and here.) There are other consequences as well, some of them likely unintended. Here’s a post on the subject by Susan Moore Johnson, Jerome T. Murphy Research Professor in Education at Harvard Graduate School of Education. Johnson directs the Project on the Next Generation of Teachers, which examines how best to recruit, develop, and retain a strong teaching force. This appeared on the theShanker Blog, the voice of the Albert Shanker Institute,  a nonprofit organization established in 1998 to honor the life and legacy of the late president of the American Federation of Teachers.

[How students with top test scores actually hurt a teacher’s evaluation]

By Susan Moore Johnson

Academic scholars are often dismayed when policymakers pass laws that disregard or misinterpret their research findings. The use of value-added methods (VAMS) in education policy is a case in point.

About a decade ago, some researchers reported that teachers are the most important school-level factor in students’ learning, and that that their effectiveness varies widely within schools (McCaffrey, Koretz, Lockwood, & Hamilton 2004; Rivkin, Hanushek, & Kain 2005; Rockoff 2004). Many policymakers interpreted these findings to mean that teacher quality rests with the individual rather than the school and that, because some teachers are more effective than others, schools should concentrate on increasing their number of effective teachers.

Based on these assumptions, proponents of VAMS began to argue that schools could be improved substantially if they would only dismiss teachers with low VAMS ratings and replace them with teachers who have average or higher ratings (Hanushek 2009). Although panels of scholars warned against using VAMS to make high-stakes decisions because of their statistical limitations (American Statistical Association, 2014; National Research Council & National Academy of Education, 2010), policymakers in many states and districts moved quickly to do just that, requiring that VAMS scores be used as a substantial component in teacher evaluation.

While researchers continue to analyze and improve VAMS models, it is Four unintended consequences of using student test scores to evaluate teachers - The Washington Post: 

2015’s States with the Best and Worst School Systems | WalletHub®

2015’s States with the Best and Worst School Systems | WalletHub®:

2015’s States with the Best and Worst School Systems

Source: WalletHub

Unless one is destined for the ranks of wildly successful college dropouts like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, education remains the traditional route to professional and financial success for many Americans. Consider themedian incomes for workers aged 25 and older in 2014. Those with a bachelor’s degree earned 65 percent more than those with only a high school diploma, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The data reveal that income potential grows — and chances of unemployment shrink — as one’s educational attainment improves.

And with school resuming session, many parents will be seeking the best school districts to secure their children’s academic success. When comparing their options, however, parents should recognize that the amount of available public funding is by no means a determinant of a school system’s quality, as our findings demonstrate, though money is certainly helpful.

In addition, states that invest more dollars in education benefit not only their residents but also their economies. The Economic Policy Institute reported that income is higher in states where the workforce is well educated and thus more productive. With better earnings, workers in turn can contribute more taxes to beef up state budgets over the long run.

In light of back-to-school season, WalletHub compared the quality of education in the 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia by analyzing 13 key metrics that range from student-teacher ratios to standardized-test scores to dropout rates. By shining the spotlight on top-performing school systems, we aim to encourage parents to help their children realize their maximum potential and to call the attention of lawmakers on the work that remains to be done to improve America’s schools.

1Main Findings2Ask the Experts

3Methodology

Overall Rank	State	“School-System Quality” Rank	“Safety” Rank
1	Massachusetts	2	1
2	Colorado	1	47
3	New Jersey	5	9
4	Wisconsin	4	14
5	Kentucky	10	4
6	Vermont	6	12
7	North Dakota	3	46
8	Minnesota	9	16
9	Connecticut	7	28
10	Illinois	8	32
11	Virginia	11	14
12	Kansas	14	22
13	Iowa	12	39
14	Utah	16	17
15	New Hampshire	15	29
16	Maryland	19	17
17	Nebraska	17	26
18	Wyoming	13	41
19	Maine	20	13
20	Montana	18	32
21	North Carolina	24	6
22	Ohio	23	29
23	Florida	26	20
24	Indiana	22	50
25	Arkansas	21	42
26	Tennessee	28	29
27	Texas	31	19
28	Missouri	27	38
29	Pennsylvania	29	43
30	South Dakota	25	47
31	Washington	32	11
32	Michigan	30	37
33	Oklahoma	34	2
34	New York	33	27
35	Rhode Island	38	10
36	Georgia	35	20
37	Hawaii	36	5
38	Delaware	40	7
39	Alabama	39	36
40	Mississippi	45	8
41	Idaho	42	34
42	New Mexico	44	3
43	California	37	49
44	West Virginia	46	22
45	South Carolina	47	24
46	Oregon	41	45
47	Louisiana	43	44
48	Arizona	48	40
49	Nevada	50	25
50	District of Columbia	49	51
51	Alaska	51	35

2015’s States with the Best and Worst School Systems | WalletHub®:

If Congress Finally Overhauls NCLB, Are States Ready?

If Congress Finally Overhauls NCLB, Are States Ready?:

If Congress Finally Overhauls NCLB, Are States Ready?

For the first time in more than a decade, the House and Senate have passed bills to rewrite the No Child Left Behind law and give states more freedom in education.

Congress is closer than it's been in years to rewriting the nation's signature education law. Both the House and the Senate passed bills this month that would give more flexibility to states to set their own policies. If they come up with a package that President Obama approves, it would be the first major federal education overhaul since President George W. Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act into law in 2002.

"At this point, I'm the most optimistic I've ever been," said Mary Kusler, director of government relations for the National Education Association, the country's largest teachers union.

But most observers say the chances that the law will actually change are limited. The House just barely passed a bill on a 218-213 vote that would go much further than the Senate's version in reducing the federal role in education. The House bill would let states use the federal money designated for low-income populations to be used as vouchers for students to attend public schools of their choice -- an idea that Democrats oppose. It would also cap spending at current levels for six years.

RELATED

• Washington’s Education Stalemate
• No Child Left Behind State Waivers Map
• What Will Happen to Washington State as it Returns to NCLB?
• Feds Restore Oklahoma’s No Child Left Behind Waiver

"It could still happen, but it's complicated and requires a whole lot of compromise that nobody wants to make," said Andrew Rotherham, cofounder of Bellwether Education Partners, a consulting firm. "Any bill that satisfies House conservatives can't get through the Senate, and vice versa."

Still, there are many broad similarities between the bills. Annual testing for many grades would remain in place, but both chambers want schools to cut down on the number of standardized tests. Both bills would also give states more freedom to innovate and let them change the ways in which they evaluate teachers. The current federal method of evaluating schools,known as adequate yearly progress, will almost certainly go away in any final legislation that is passed.

"The contours of a deal that could pass both chambers and the president can sign are there," said Michael Petrilli, president of the Fordham Institute, an education think tank.

If the feds really are ready to let go of the ropes a bit, states will again become "islands of innovation," predicts Doug Christensen, Nebraska's former education commissioner.

But assuming the law does change, experts don't expect most states to change everything. Instead, there would be heated debates between legislators, education officials and other policymakers about how best to proceed.

"You will see few, if any, dramatic changes immediately, but over time you would start to see changes as states take directions that are no longer heavily shaped by federal policy," said Frederick Hess, who directs education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.

What might such changes look like? There are some clues. The original law expired in 2007 but Congress has failed to overhaul it, despite repeated attempts. Instead, since 2011, the Obama administration has granted waivers to more than 40 states, letting them test policies and programs that deviate from certain requirements of the law and allowing them to avoid some of NCLB's most serious penalties.

One experiment that's frequently cited is New Hampshire's competency-based assessment program, under which schools schools administer fewer standardized tests and also evaluate student learning by assessing projects and presentations. The program is being tried out in just a handful of districts but has garnered widespread support. The Council of Chief State School Officers encouraged Congress to approve a similar program, and Education Week described it as the "test case" for Education Secretary Arne Duncan's favored changes in accountability.

"We are intent on broadening the expectations of learning from the simple recitation of knowledge and facts ... while fostering work-study practices such as persistence and creativity," said Paul Leather, the deputy commissioner of education in New Hampshire, during a U.S. Senate hearing.

Other states are also changing education accountability measurements. In 2012, California limited the use of test scores in student and school evaluation and began tracking additional factors such as graduation rates. In Texas, a consortium of a If Congress Finally Overhauls NCLB, Are States Ready?:

Fun, Outrage, and Truth: Corporate Education Reform on Mock Trial | Education Town Hall Forum

Fun, Outrage, and Truth: Corporate Education Reform on Mock Trial | Education Town Hall Forum: Archives, Announcements, & Extended Discussion on Weekly Broadcasts...:

Fun, Outrage, and Truth: Corporate Education Reform on Mock Trial

The recent education Mock Trial had everything from court outbursts, gavel smashes, to witness badgering. The trial was a lot of fun but still had an underlying seriousness due to the subject matter. Conducted just a few yards away from the U.S. Department of Education, the event was organized by Save Our Schools March in conjunction with the BadAss Teachers Congress on July 24.

The case put Eli Broad, Arne Duncan, Rahm Emanuel, and Campbell Brown on trial for crimes that the prosecution believed were in violation of the 14th amendment and were also considered hate crimes. The case was authentic: there were witnesses, a prosecutor, a defense lawyer, and even a judge (played by our very own Thomas Byrd). The trial was mostly lighthearted but still focused on major issues.

The Mock Trial, along with all of the week’s educational advocacy activities, brought together people from all over the country that felt strongly about the issues being presented.

Kathleen Jeskey, an Oregon 6th grade teacher, believed that the Mock Trial could bring attention to the problems that teachers are facing. “People aren’t aware,” she went on state that, “we have a national problem.”

Larry Proffitt also spoke on the magnitude of the trial. Hailing from Nashville, Tennessee, Proffitt, the 7th grade science teacher and witness in the trial, said that teachers now are “filling the gap between knowledge and legislation.”

Michelle Ramey, a 2nd and 3rd grade teacher, came all the way from Seattle, Washington to attend the BAT weekend. When asked why she wanted to participate she replied, “educators have sat back,” while the law makers have “steamrolled students.”

Proffitt though, was optimistic about the trial. He confronted the common misconception of protesters by saying, “we don’t just complain. You’ll see plans of resolution.”

For the Prosecution: Teachers

Ceresta Smith, the first witness and a teacher in Miami-Dade County, Florida, was asked many questions pertaining to the crimes committed by the accused. Smith responded to questions focused on the greed accompanying the defendants; she compared the accused to “vampires” and “bloodsuckers.” She went on to talk in detail on how a lot of money is being poured into education, but a lot of it is not reaching the teachers, “they’re trying to starve teachers out of their homes.”

The second witness, Rosalie Friend, a teacher in Brooklyn, New York, was asked similar questions, including what was at stake if the accused do not receive punishment. Her answer did not lack any honesty, and it brought a large dose of reality, “unfortunately a lot of children are losing the opportunity to learn to use their minds.”

Larry Proffitt was asked to take the stand and answer questions about tenure and how it contributes to the failing of public schools. “Number one, public schools are not failing,” he testified. “our government is what’s failing, not our schools.” Proffitt went on to offer an explanation of tenure, accusing Campbell Brown of having an agenda against the protection of teachers, which is steadily being “eroded.”

The fourth witness, Marla Kilfoyle, is the General Manager of BAT but was speaking on the behalf of parents. She was Fun, Outrage, and Truth: Corporate Education Reform on Mock Trial | Education Town Hall Forum: Archives, Announcements, & Extended Discussion on Weekly Broadcasts...: