Education officials consider financial sanctions over high rate of opt-outs - City & Region - The Buffalo News

Education officials consider financial sanctions over high rate of opt-outs - City & Region - The Buffalo News:

Education officials consider financial sanctions over high rate of opt-outs

High rate of refusing tests catches U.S., state off guard

 ALBANY – Federal education officials are hinting that New York public schools with high opt-out rates during this week’s standardized tests could face financial sanctions.

But the state’s top education official dismissed the possible loss of any funding as imprudent.

“I would say to everyone who wants to punish the school districts: hold them to standards, set high expectations, hold them accountable, but punishing them? Really, are you kidding me?” said Board of Regents Chancellor Meryl Tisch.

“I am totally opposed to penalizing our students for a fight that the grown-ups are having,” Tisch said in an interview with The Buffalo News on Wednesday, a day after tens of thousands of parents across New York kept their children from participating in English and language arts standardized tests in the third through eighth grades.

For now, the threats coming from Washington are vague, at least publicly.

But one thing is certain: Washington and Albany were clearly caught off guard by the high levels of students not taking the tests – up to 70 percent or more in some districts.

The anti-Common Core message sent by parents and teachers was met Wednesday with a press release, and no answers to specific questions, from the U.S. Department of Education. The agency noted that states are required to conduct the annual standardized assessments to determine the level at which students are, or are not, learning. Officials provided letters recently dispatched to Alaska and New Jersey reminding officials there of the sanctions that the states could either face themselves or should possibly impose on local schools for high testing opt-out rates.

“The department has not had to withhold money – yet – over this requirement because states have either complied or have appropriately sanctioned schools or districts that assessed less than 95 percent of students,” said Dorie Nolt, spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Education.

The federal government requires that at least 95 percent of a district’s students participate in the annual assessments. On Tuesday, some individual schools in New York had as many as 90 percent of students not taking the exams. The West Seneca district, with 70 percent of students opting out, had the highest figure reported in Western New York.

Jonathan Berman, a state Education Department spokesman, said the federal government has “made clear” to states that education agencies are expected to “consider” sanctions against districts that fail to meet the 95 percent threshold.

But Tisch said New York has been imploring Washington to make changes to the Common Core standards that would, for instance, give the state leeway in how testing is done for students with disabilities and those who are English-language learners. Federal officials have ignored the requests for two years, she said.

“Quite frankly, the federal government could have helped us. I am deeply disappointed they have let New York down,” she said.

The federal government’s support for public education in New York is a small piece of the pie. About 40 percent of the average school district’s support comes from Albany, 56 percent comes from local taxpayers and 4 percent from Washington.

But some federal aid, such as the Title I program, is essential to many lower-income school districts to help their students, and any cuts – or mandates on how funding is spent as a sanction for high opt-out rates – would be met with sharp push-backs by districts. Buffalo, for instance, this year is getting at least $25 million in federal Title I money, according to state education statistics.

In a recent legal notice sent to school board members across the state, the New York State School Boards Association warned about Washington’s 95 percent rule for the annual assessments, and that those failing to attain that level “can subject states and school districts to sanctions,” including loss of Title I money and funding for programs such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

Bob Lowry, deputy executive director at the New York State Council of School Superintendents, said New York is in uncertain waters given the unexpected high opt-out rates being seen this week.

“It’s not like there’s a hard-and-fast rule … It’s not like if X happens then Y is the penalty. We just don’t know,” Lowry said .“I think the U.S. Department of Education is still groping with this and there’s an appreciation that you don’t want to hurt kids.”

Officials in many school districts are worried the opt-out movement, led by parents and the state teachers union, could be costly. But they also are looking to last year, when 60,000 children opted out of the tests and there were no financial sanctions from Washington or Education officials consider financial sanctions over high rate of opt-outs - City & Region - The Buffalo News:

Common Core: What's right for special education students? - CBS News

Common Core: What's right for special education students? - CBS News:

Common Core: What's right for special education students?

NEW YORK - Nothing lights up 10 year-old Billy Flood's face brighter than when you talk to him about music. The pint-size Beatles fan loves writing his own songs, and playing the keyboard and bass. However, when getting on the topic of Common Core and end-of-the-year testing that light dims a little.

"It was kind of a nerve-wracking experience," said Billy, a fifth-grader at a public school in Brooklyn, New York. "I think I was pretty nervous taking the test."

Billy Flood

 CBS NEWS

Billy, who is on the autism spectrum, is one of more than 180,000 special education students in New York state learning the Common Core state standards and who took the state test at the end of last year.

More than 40 states have implemented theCommon Core State Standards Initiative setting specific achievement targets in math and English language arts.

Since Common Core was launched in 2009 - New York adopted it in 2010 - there has been a divisive national debate on these standards.

Within that debate, there are also questions as to whether special education students should be measured by the same standards and taking the same tests as general education students.

"He's come home saying things like 'I don't know anything. I can't do anything.' This is based on the two prior years of him taking the test - third and fourth grade," said Lynda Flood, Billy's mother. "It rips my heart out because I know how smart he is; I know how intelligent he is; I know what he can do. Those tests, they don't prove at all what my child is capable of doing."

Special education students in the United States have what is called an Individualized Education Program (IEP). It provides support and services for each student depending on their learning needs. Some of that support comes in the form of accommodations during test-taking like getting extra time, having some questions read out loud (depending on the test), and being in a different testing location.

However, even with these accommodations, special education teacher Julie Cavanagh doesn't think that's enough with regard to the Common Core. She firmly believes that the new standards have made learning more difficult across the board, especially for special educations students.

Julie Cavanagh (Left)

 CBS NEWS

Cavanagh, who teaches third and fifth grade at PS 15 Patrick F. Daly in Red Hook, Brooklyn, said the new standards represent a "developmentally inappropriate curriculum" for special education students and has had the additional effect of "taking away from schools' and educators' ability to really focus on differentiated and individualized sort of goals for those students."

Cavanagh specifically teaches students who take alternate assessments, which means they don't take the same standardized tests as everyone else. These special education students also have IEPs but might receive more accommodations and modifications than other special education students because their learning disabilities are more significant.

Alternate assessment allows Cavanagh to write her own version of the end-of-the year state tests - still based on the Common Core, but modified for her students.

However, some special education teachers think the basic accommodations for their students - the IEPs - are enough to help them succeed within the Common Core framework.

"I believe that given the opportunity, special education or not, the standards should be set high because once we're out of school, the standard is set high. So there is no real benefit for the child to set the standard low in their early life so that when they get out of school they are now not functioning as well as they could have," said Dan Blackburn, who teaches special education for kindergarten through fifth grade at Amber Charter School in Manhattan.

Dan Blackburn at Amber Charter in Manhattan

 CBS NEWS

Blackburn's school doesn't have alternate assessment and students have to take the standardized test at the end of the year. He agrees with raising the standards and having them applied consistently across the United States. While Blackburn acknowledges there are some difficulties that come with Common Core, he believes "with the right persistence and the right attitude that it's going to help our students learn to be productive global thinkers."

Imelda Vazquez's daughter Crystal is in Blackburn's fifth-grade class. Crystal has a learning disability and English isn't her first language, but Vazquez said she is happy her daughter is held to the same high standards as the general education students.

"If she leaves [graduates] without being well prepared, it won't serve her. So it [Common Core] has to be helping her a lot," said Vazquez.

Even Cavanagh agrees there shouldn't be a two-tiered system where children who have IEP's are working toward one set of standards and children who don't have IEP's are working toward another, but feels the Common Core's "over-emphasis" on testing "really undermines the work of that individualized, differentiated experience" that has become the hallmark of special education.

Cavanagh also says the focus on teacher accountability can be counterproductive. In New York, 20 percent of an educator's evaluation is based on students' standardized test scores. Cavanagh said this puts an immense amount of pressure on the teachers as well as the students.

"I think where we run into a problem is expecting that children with or without an IEP are going to be able to demonstrate proficiency on those skills at the exact moment that the state or some [policymaker] has decided that they should be doing that."

This year, Billy's mother, Lynda, has decided her son won't take the state test, though schools with less than a 95 percent participation rate in the assessments risk losing "significant federal funding," according New York State Board of Regents Chancellor Merryl Tisch.

As for Billy, he's just trying to stay positive.

"My mom always tries to push me into confidence, no negativity. ... It works actually. ... The confidence works."Common Core: What's right for special education students? - CBS News:

Federal Authorities Investigating Chicago Public Schools Contract

Federal Authorities Investigating Chicago Public Schools Contract:

Federal Authorities Investigating Chicago Public Schools Contract

Federal authorities are investigating whether Chicago Public Schools improperly awarded a contract to a training academy that formerly employed the head of the school system, Catalyst Chicago reported on Wednesday.

The investigation focuses on a $20.5 million no-bid contract awarded to a development academy for principals and other school officials by CPS in 2013. CPS CEO Barbara Byrd-Bennett, whom the Chicago Tribune reported has not been accused of wrongdoing, worked at the academy before being hired by CPS in 2012.

Catalyst Chicago noted that the no-bid contract raised questions in 2013 because of its size.

"No-bid contracts should be reserved for extraordinary circumstances that demand highly specific skills in a short time frame,” Andy Shaw, president and CEO of the Better Government Association, told Catalyst Chicago in 2013. “It's too early to say if this one qualifies. But Catalyst has raised enough other questions to merit a review by the CPS inspector general."

The CPS inspector general did in fact open an investigation into the contract, but declined to comment to Catalyst on whether that investigation was still ongoing.

The Tribune reported that CPS is considering appointing an interim CPS CEO while the investigation was ongoing.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel said during a press conference on Wednesday that he was not sure exactly what the focus of the investigation was. When asked whether he still had confidence in Byrd-Bennett, whom he appointed in 2012, Emanuel said that he couldn't comment until he had more information on the investigation, according to the Tribune.Federal Authorities Investigating Chicago Public Schools Contract:

Report: School vouchers don't benefit students or taxpayers - TheIndyChannel.com

Report: School vouchers don't benefit students or taxpayers - TheIndyChannel.com:

Report: School vouchers don't benefit students or taxpayers

 INDIANAPOLIS -- A new study released at the Statehouse Thursday revealed that school vouchers aren't beneficial to Indiana taxpayers and students.

More than 30,000 Indiana students are enrolled in the School Choice voucher program that makes it possible for thousands of kids to attend private and charter schools.

State Sen. Vaneta Becker (R-Evansville) said an independent research firm was commissioned to conduct the study, but not by the state or with taxpayer dollars. 

"The study originated because Illinois has a one school-choice option which is an individual tax credit. As in other states, Illinois legislators received requests to consider expanding the use of school vouchers. Because Indiana is adjacent to a state with a large voucher program, Indiana is among several voucher programs studied by an independent firm," Becker said. 

According to the report released by the Center for Tax and Budget Accountability, the study found "no compelling reason to subsidize Indiana school vouchers with public taxpayer dollars."

CTBA Executive Director Ralph Martire said the program isn't beneficial to students' academic progress. 

"Vouchers don't promote student achievement," he said. "When you are taking public dollars and using them to subsidize decision making, you want those public dollars to generate a public good. Even supporters of the voucher system have come to the realization that vouchers don't support student achievement."

Matire also said the report compared Indiana's program with three of the nation's longest-running and most well-known voucher programs -- Milwaukee, Cleveland and Washington, D.C. -- and found no statistical evidence proving that students who use vouchers perform better than their public school counterparts. 

Sen. Earline Rogers (D-Gary) said she was glad the report showed evidence to support possible changes to the voucher program. 

"The data supports some of the things we have been saying as legislators. If vouchers don't enhance student achievement, why are we going to continue funding them? We need to take a look at that. I taught for 34 years before I came on the legislature and I've watched education reform evolve. We care about students and we want to see them achieve," Rogers said. 

RTV6's Eric Cox reported that CTBA claims to be bipartisan research group. Report: School vouchers don't benefit students or taxpayers - TheIndyChannel.com:

MORE | 14 Ind. schools to receive more than $1M in Choice Scholarship vouchers 

Partisanship and Public Opinion on the Common Core | Brookings Institution

Partisanship and Public Opinion on the Common Core | Brookings Institution:

Partisanship and Public Opinion on the Common Core

 Over the past year, the Common Core State Standards have risen from a topic of interest mainly to educators and school reformers to a top-tier issue in national politics. With likely Republican presidential candidates already staking out divergent positions, the standards and the federal government’s role in promoting them show strong signs of emerging as a key point of contention in the Republican primaries. How might this growing salience shape public opinion on the standards? A comparison of polls we’ve conducted nationally and in the state of Louisiana is instructive—and discouraging.

Several states have endured political battles over the Common Core State Standards, but none has matched the drama and intensity of Louisiana’s. Like most states, Louisiana adopted Common Core in 2010 without fanfare or controversy. The state began introducing the standards the following year with an eye toward full implementation this school year. At the time, the standards had the full-throated support of Republican Governor Bobby Jindal. Since then, Governor Jindal has positioned himself against the Common Core and his former ally, State Superintendent John White. In last year’s legislative session, Governor Jindal pushed bills to pull Louisiana out of the Common Core. When those efforts failed, largely due to the state’s powerful business lobby, the governor issued an executive order to pull the state out of a consortium of states using a Common Core-aligned test. After Superintendent White balked, arguing the governor lacked the legal authority to withdraw the state, Jindalsued his own appointee. The fray has been marked with recriminations and personal attacks befitting the political traditions of the Pelican State. Although a state court recently dismissedhis lawsuit, Governor Jindal has announced plans to go after Common Core again in this year’s session.

Louisiana’s flare-up over Common Core is set upon a broader, national kindling of rising public discontent.  Last summer’s Education Next Poll of a representative sample of American adults showed that although a majority of the public supported the standards, that support had seriously eroded. In 2013, 65 percent of the general public favored the standards, but that portion fell to 53 percent in 2014 (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Percent Supporting the Common Core State Standards, Overall and by Party, 2013 and 2014

Note. The question read as follows: As you may know, in the last few years states have been deciding whether or not to use the Common Core, which are standards for reading and math that are the same across states. In the states that have these standards, they will be used to hold public schools accountable for their performance. Do you support or oppose the use of the Common Core in your state?

The Education Next poll revealed partisan polarization and widespread misperception, as well.  In the 2013 Education Next Poll, Common Core gathered backers from across the political spectrum. By 2014, support among Republicans fell from 57 percent to 43 percent, even as support among Democrats remained nearly unchanged (64 percent in 2013 and 63 percent in 2014). That year, the majority of respondents were misinformed on several important elements of the Common Core State Standards Initiative. Barely more than one third said it was false that the federal government requires all states to use the Common Core standards (it does not), just 15 percent said it was false that the federal government will receive detailed data on the test performance of individual students in participating states (it will not), and fewer than half said it was true that states and local school districts can decide which textbooks to use under Common Core (they can). 

How does public opinion and understanding change when Common Core becomes a highly visible focal point—as has been the case in Louisiana? The extra attention given to the issue by political leaders and the press does not appear to resolve debates into consensus or clear up public confusion. If anything, it is quite the opposite. 

To examine how the heated rhetoric now attached to Common Core influences opinion, the2015 Louisiana Survey, an annual survey of the state’s adult residents sponsored by Louisiana State University’s Reilly Center for Media and Public Affairs, used an experiment featuring two versions of a question assessing support for common educational standards.

• One version of the question refers to the program by name: “As you may know, in the last few years states have been deciding whether or not to use the Common Core, which are standards for reading and math that are the same across the states. In the states that have these standards, they will be used to hold public schools accountable for their performance. Do you support or oppose the use of the Common Core in Louisiana?”

• The alternate version drops the program’s name: “As you may know, in the last few years states have been deciding whether or not to use standards for reading and math that are the same across the states.  In the states that have these standards, they will be used to hold public schools accountable for their performance.   Do you favor or oppose the use of these standards in Louisiana?”

When the Common Core label is dropped from the question, support for the concept leaps from 39 percent to 67 percent. With the label, a majority of the public (51 percent) opposes Common Core, but without the label a majority (67 percent) supports common math and reading standards (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. Percent Supporting the “Common Core” and “standards that are the same,” Louisiana (2015) and National Public (2014)

The “Common Core” label also evokes significant partisan polarization in Louisiana. There is no difference in support of Democrats and Republicans when the program is not labeled as “Common Core,” 72 percent and 71 percent respectively. However, when the phrase is used, a majority of Democrats (57 percent) support while a majority of Republicans (62 percent) oppose it. Only 22 percent of Republicans support the standards with the label.

This labeling effect occurs despite the fact that people in Louisiana claim to be more informed about Common Core. In 2014 nearly half of the public (49 percent) described themselves as “very familiar” or “somewhat familiar” with Common Core. This year, 62 percent of Louisiana residents say they are “very familiar” or “somewhat familiar.” (By way of comparison, just 43 percent of Americans surveyed by Education Next in 2014 had even heard of Common Core; among those who had, a majority said they were “not very knowledgeable about it.”)

An examination of Louisianans’ perceptions about Common Core reveals continued confusion. For example, some respondents were asked whether the following statement is true or false: “Under the Common Core, the state of Louisiana and its local school districts decide which textbooks and educational materials to use in their schools.” One fifth said this statement is false, and 43 percent said it is true. However, another set of respondents were asked whether the opposite statement is true or false: “Under the Common Core, the federal government decides which textbooks and educational materials to use in schools.” If 43 percent believe it is true that states and local districts retain this authority, then it is reasonable to expect that at least as many would say the statement about federal authority is false. However, that was not the case. Just 12 percent said the second statement is false. Indeed, 59 percent said that it is true that the federal government makes these decisions. When differences in how a question is phrased produce significant inconsistencies—as they do here—that suggests many responses may be based on little more than guesswork. 

The toxic effect of the “Common Core” name is not a Louisiana phenomenon. The survey experiment in the Louisiana Survey is based upon a similar experiment in the 2014Education Next Poll. When the “Common Core” label was dropped from the question in the national survey, support for the concept among the general public rose from 53 percent to 68 percent (see Figure 2). Additionally, the pronounced partisan polarization evoked by the label “Common Core” disappeared when the question did not include those seemingly toxic words. In other words, a broad consensus remains with respect to common standards, despite the fact that public debate over Common Core polarizes the public.

Could the choice of the name “Common Core” specifically explain these patterns? Conservative columnist Peggy Noonan wrote that it “sounds common—except for the part that sounds soviet.” It is possible that Republicans share her sensitivities. But we suspect that something deeper is at work. A similar dynamic was evident in public opinion on No Child Left Behind in the waning years of the George W. Bush administration. Support for the law dropped markedly in questions that referred to it by name, as compared to questions that used otherwise identical language to describe its key provisions. These effects were observed mainly among Democrats, suggesting that the law, despite its bipartisan roots, had come to be closely associated in the public mind with the Republican president. The consistency of patterns highlights a key tension facing education advocates seeking to use federal policy to advance their goals: Any benefits from federal involvement may come at the cost of heightened partisan polarization.

The Education Next and Louisiana Survey polls differ in timing, target population, and mode. Nevertheless, the pairing is suggestive. In Louisiana, where the fight over Common Core has been particularly salient, the effect of the “Common Core” label was even more negative than in the American public as whole, and the impact on polarization was greater. As the conflict heats up nationwide, the American public may move further from a latent consensus about common standards toward ever more confused divisions over “Common Core.”Partisanship and Public Opinion on the Common Core | Brookings Institution:

Charter Schools Threaten a Cornerstone of American Democracy - US News

Charter Schools Threaten a Cornerstone of American Democracy - US News:

Public Schools Are a Public Good

The rapid growth of market-driven charter schools erodes a cornerstone of American democracy.

Many involved in K-12 education seem to be growing weary of the charter school versus public school debate. Mark Gleason, head of a private advocacy organization in Philadelphia that has invested morethan $20 million in charter schools, publicly declared: “I just would like to encourage all of us to get beyond this district versus charter concept.” And Michelle Rhee, founder of the pro-charter advocacy organization StudentsFirst, while sparring on Twitter with Julian Vasquez Heilig, voiced the opinion, “the arguments btwn charter and traditional are tired. We shld celebrate great schools regardless ofsector ... focus on quality of schl instead of sector.” These exhortations are appealing in their simplicity and attempt to move us toward a common vision, but we must not let charter proponents divert our attention from the difference between charter school and traditional public schools. Traditional public schools are a fundamental cornerstone of American democracy that is being jack-hammered away. And if we look away from their destruction, we abrogate our duty to preserve them for future generations.

Charter schools have been expanding rapidly since the first charter school opened in Minnesota in 1992. Over the course of the last decade, the number of charter schools has grown exponentially, with the number of students enrolled in these schools topping 2.9 million this year. During the current school year alone, the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools reports that 500 new charter schools have opened, serving an additional 348,000 students. In New Orleans and Detroit more than half of the students are now enrolled in charter schools. Increasingly charter management organizations, like Green Dot, KIPP and Mastery, are dominating the scene, opening new franchises in promising markets.

In many urban centers where charter schools have expanded, traditional public schools have seen their enrollments shrink. Faced with the financial strain of operating under-enrolled schools, districts have sometimes made the choice to close certain under-utilized schools and send the displaced students to other schools operating below capacity. Research has emerged to show us that these decisions are not good for students, and they do not help stabilize district finances. A study by Pew finds that shuttered schools typically sell for considerably less than the asking price. They may languish on the market, contributing to urban blight. Or, as is often the case, they may be sold to new charter school providers, encouraging further enrollment shifts. The strain on traditional public schools does not let up. In fact, it only worsens.

There are some who may be glad to see traditional public schools close, to see charter schools opening in their place. But their educational visions are short-sighted and myopic. They overlook a fundamental irreconcilable philosophical difference between traditional public schools and the charter school sector and its implications for American democracy.

Charter schools are based on the logic of markets. Traditional public schools, by contrast, are based on the logic of the polis.

[READ: Teachers Can't Be Preachers]

The market model assumes that people are rational agents, who make fully informed decisions to maximize their own (or their children’s) self-interest. In an unfettered market, popular products will be replicated to keep up with demand, while unpopular products should be discontinued. The market vaunts competition over collaboration; it prefers deregulation to oversight; and, it prizes the bottom line over any other possible value proposition. Consumer choice is the animating force of markets.

In the polis model, people’s motivations are understood as complex, but not exclusively self-interested. People can and will act out of shared values and a sense of mutual responsibility. Nonetheless, government has a role to play, too, serving as a counterbalance to market pressures that might lead to “the tragedy of the commons,” when individuals acting out of self-interest deplete a common or shared resource. Governmental oversight and involvement can also help guard against corruption, cronyism and other market machinations and combat the marginalization of citizens who lack the capital (economic or otherwise) to make markets work for them. The driving forces of the polis model are protecting the interests of the most vulnerable, while safeguarding the democratic rights of all citizens.

[READ: Education Reformers Have a Big Blind Spot]

In the market model, schools are a commodity. The credential they provide is a vehicle for social mobility and economic security. In the polis model, schools are a public good. The education they provide is a means of promoting a robust democracy, with knowledgeable, critically engaged citizens.

When a consumer pursues the market model of education, she opts out of the polis model, and in so doing, turns her back on any shared responsibility for the education of other people’s children. The exit of the more politically savvy, invested, active and well-connected parents from the traditional public schools erodes the public foundation of public education. It depletes the traditional public school not only of social capital (the opportunity to connect with and learn from and alongside those who differ from us), but also of economic capital because when their children enroll in a charter school, they take their share of publicly invested tax dollars with them. And when these families exit, they leave behind the students who do not have parents; the students whose parents do not have the means or wherewithal to navigate the charter school application process; the students who are actively discouraged from applying to the charter schools by charter school operators, and the students who are expelled from or counseled out of charter schools. A recent study of charter school enrollments in New Jersey found that charter schools enroll disproportionately fewer low-income students, English-language learners and students with special needs, particularly those with costly moderate or severe disabilities, than their host districts. It may be easy to turn our backs on these students, but it shouldn’t be.

There are many reasons why charter school proponents may be tiring of defending their sector. But until they can mount a robust argument about how their sector fulfills the democratic imperative of public education, let us refuse to allow them to shift our gaze away from those students left behind.Charter Schools Threaten a Cornerstone of American Democracy - US News:

New Illinois education chief is a Broadie Clone - News - The State Journal-Register - Springfield, IL

New Illinois education chief is urban school reform leader - News - The State Journal-Register - Springfield, IL:

New Illinois education chief is urban school reform leader

The Illinois State Board of Education moved unanimously Wednesday afternoon to make a leadership change, replacing one of the nation's longest-serving school superintendents with a former professional football player who spent recent years at the helm of a high-poverty urban district in California that faced a multimillion-dollar deficit.

The selection of Anthony "Tony" Smith — Gov. Bruce Rauner's recommendation to the board — sends a message about the new Republican's governor's priorities for the state's 860 school districts and its outdated school funding formula during an ongoing financial crisis.

Rauner spokeswoman Catherine Kelly said in a prepared statement that Smith is "a transformational leader and has a proven track record of increasing student achievement, while successfully addressing fiscal and structural issues at the local district level."

Smith is scheduled to begin the role May 1 at a salary of $225,000 annually, a slight bump from the $222,468 his outgoing predecessor, Christopher Koch, earns per year. The board also approved an $89,000 severance package for Koch, who has continued to serve in recent weeks after his long-term contract expired.

Koch, who began his tenure in 2006, has been the state's longest-serving superintendent in nearly five decades, according to state board spokesman Matt Vanover. The unassuming former special education teacher has received wide praise for his oversight of changes to state testing and teacher evaluations, but Rauner recently told the Chicago Tribune editorial board that Koch was "a good person" but "not transformational."

Smith, a 48-year old father of two, is director of the W. Clement Stone and Jessie V. Stone Foundation in Oak Park, a nonprofit focused on early childhood education. The Ounce of Prevention Fund of which first lady Diana Rauner serves as president, lists the group as of one of its funding sources. Smith was a member of the new governor's transition team following the November election.

A California native, Smith played briefly with the Green Bay Packers and San Francisco 49ers, though not in any regular season games, after graduating with an English degree from the University of California, Berkeley, where he later earned master's and doctoral degrees from the graduate school of education.

A deputy superintendent of the San Francisco school district and a superintendent of a two-school district in the bay area, Smith in 2009 was named superintendent for Oakland schools, a district that was emerging from state control and faced a $40 million structural deficit. It had a balanced budget when he left the district four years later.

By statewide measures of academic progress, Oakland became the most improved school district in California during Smith's tenure, though he drew accolades and fierce criticism alike for the decisions he made along the way.

Smith is a proponent of "full-service community school" that aim to combat poverty and bring families and communities into the school improvement effort. He has advocated for charters and the privatization of Oakland public schools during his time. Smith also clashed with the district's teachers union over contract issues.New Illinois education chief is urban school reform leader - News - The State Journal-Register - Springfield, IL:

Oakland Unified superintendent Tony Smith resigns to be with family in Chicago - ContraCostaTimes.com http://bayareane.ws/1OHvFie


Former Oakland Unified  Superintendent Dr. Tony Smith Testifies That California’s Education Laws Protect Adults at the Expense of Children http://bit.ly/1OHvNy6


Tony Smith leaves Oakland . . . in shambles | CLASSROOM STRUGGLE http://bit.ly/1OHwI1A


OUSD Superintendent Tony Smith announces resignation | Oakland North http://bit.ly/1OHwRSB


Students Matter’s Advisory Board - Students Matter http://bit.ly/1OHxFXK

To test or not to test: The saga of Common Core | New York Amsterdam News: The new Black view

To test or not to test: The saga of Common Core | New York Amsterdam News: The new Black view:

To test or not to test: The saga of Common Core

 Once again, New York teachers, parents and legislators are at each others’ throats over how to educate public school kids. And no one is talking to the kids.

Tuesday marked the beginning of Common Core testing for many elementary and middle school students across New York, but the arrival of Common Core hasn’t come without its detractors. Thousands of parents have chosen to opt their kids out of taking these tests, with educational activists leading the charge.

But advocates of Common Core aren’t too worried, calling the situation a blip on their radar because the majority of children are going to be tested.

Michel Mulgrew, president of the United Federation of Teachers, has led the battle in New York City over the rushed implantation of Common Core by public schools in the five boroughs. During testimony in front of the state Senate in November of 2013, Mulgrew said that he supported Common Core, but wished that teachers were properly trained first before adding it to their responsibilities.

And the rallies against Common Core haven’t stopped since.

Several groups of educational activists have started to engage in mass opt-outs. The New York State Allies of Public Education have gone so far as to devote a page on their website detailing how to opt out, offering easily downloadable letters and forms for parents to sign. In certain districts in Westchester, 25 to 50 percent of students have already opted out of Common Core testing. Late last week, educational activist Diane Ravitch wrote a letter on her blog that went viral among supporters and detractors alike that asked for parents to opt their kids out of Common Core testing.

“The information provided by the tests is worthless,” wrote Ravitch. “It is a score. It offers no information about how to help students improve. It gives a score and a ranking compared to others in the state.

“There is nothing individual in each student’s report. The teacher can’t see what the student got right or wrong. The teacher and parent learn nothing except the student’s score.”

Ravitch also said that the belief among Common Core’s advocates that the tests will affirmatively show how children are progressing academically and that teachers will use that information to tailor lessons to the needs of children is false. However, individuals such as State University of New York Chancellor Nancy Zimpher are simply lamenting how the debate has become a tug-of-war, with the kids stuck in the middle.

“When it comes to whether students should opt out of standardized testing, no one is actually talking about what’s best for our kid,” said Zimpher in a post on SUNY’s blog. “Standardized tests have become a pawn in political debates about teacher evaluations, and we have lost sight of what they are: a way to measure what students know so we can help them improve. For too long, our education system has failed to track students’ progress toward college and career readiness.

“Parents, educators and policymakers have an obligation to use standardized assessments to shine a light on how best to support students,” Zimpher said.

According to Zimpher, less than 40 percent of New York students are considered college-ready when they graduate high school, and community colleges in the SUNY system spend more than $70 million on remediation. That’s 20 percent— or $93 million—of financial aid being awarded to community college students going toward remedial classes and $163 million taxpayer and tuition dollars annually going to high school graduates who aren’t yet ready for college.

But the real fear for some is that relying so heavily on test scores will result in corruption among teachers and administrators, if only to keep their jobs. In Georgia, almost a dozen Atlanta public school administrators were sentenced to prison for widespread cheating on exams taken by students. Bernice King, CEO of the King Center and daughter of the late Martin Luther King Jr., said in a statement that harsh prison sentences won’t solve the problem.

“While I agree that conspiring to change test scores is unethical and our laws clearly express that it is a crime, I don’t believe that 15- to 25-year prison sentences align with the crimes that were committed by the ‘APS 11,’” said King. “There are people who have committed far more egregious offenses that have severely harmed humanity who have not served such lengthy prison sentences.

“Further, these educators were themselves the victims of a corrupt education system,” King continued. “The systemic issues that have plagued APS and other educational entities should be considered when weighing sentencing. Teachers are under tremendous pressure to meet standards and ensure that students pass tests, even to the extent that their jobs, their livelihoods may be threatened.”To test or not to test: The saga of Common Core | New York Amsterdam News: The new Black view:

L.A. Schools to Drop Pearson Products Under Ambitious Technology Plan - WSJ

L.A. Schools to Drop Pearson Products Under Ambitious Technology Plan - WSJ:

L.A. Schools to Drop Pearson Products Under Ambitious Technology Plan

District asks for meeting to discuss refund for some products that were deemed unusable

 LOS ANGELES—The country’s second-largest school district is taking another step to back away from an ambitious school technology project, ending its use of content produced by Pearson PLC that was planned for the district’s personal devices.

The effort, which was known as the Common Core Technology Project and projected to cost at least $1.3 billion, aimed to outfit every student in the school district with an iPad or laptop computer using voter-approved bonds. Apple Inc. provided iPads to the district and provided curriculum through subcontractor Pearson.

In a letter to Apple dated April 13, the Los Angeles Unified School District spelled out its aims to halt new deliveries of Pearson Education Inc. curriculum and to stop the use of Pearson products by June 30. The letter also asks for a meeting this month to discuss a refund for some products that were deemed unusable.

EARLIER

• FBI Seizes Los Angeles School District iPad Documents (Dec. 2, 2014)
• Los Angeles School Superintendent Resigns (Oct. 16, 2014)
• L.A. Slows Push to Provide iPads to Students, a Setback for Apple (Aug. 26, 2014)

The district hasn’t said how much money they are asking for, and it is unclear whether Pearson or Apple would pay, according to a district spokeswoman. The district has spent about $103 million on the project so far.

“Pearson is proud of our long history working with LAUSD and our significant investment in this groundbreaking initiative to transform instructional practices and raise expectations for all students,” said Pearson’s Stacy Skelly, vice president of corporate affairs. “This was a large-scale implementation of new technologies and there have been challenges with the initial adoption, but we stand by the quality of our performance.”

Apple didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Former Superintendent John Deasy pushed the program, which blends online instruction with brick-and-mortar schools, and hailed it as a modern way to improve equity in schooling. Tablets were first distributed in the summer of 2013, and various controversies have cropped up since then, including an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation that began last year.

Students removed security measures in the devices, allowing greater access to the Internet, teachers initially reported confusion about teaching with the technology and a school board committee investigation raised questions about its implementation.

“LAUSD is extremely dissatisfied with the work of Pearson,” said the letter, which was L.A. Schools to Drop Pearson Products Under Ambitious Technology Plan - WSJ: