|
Post by lilly on Mar 9, 2009 7:38:31 GMT -5
US Ed did not arbitrarily use a "different method". The inconsistencies in state grad rates have been a topic of interest in the education trade press long before US Ed did anything about it. It was a long term issue that NCLB finally gave US Ed permission to do something about.
What does NCLB have to do with Wantagh? Transparency, checks & balances along the way in a child's education career, and taxpayer value. There was a quote in a political campaign a few years ago 'It's the value stupid' and that is what this about. Opting out isn't an option bc federal funding would be jeopardized (CT case and I think another state tried too). And trying to opt out or expressing the desire to opt out of NCLB well, seems suspect - seriously.
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Mar 9, 2009 11:21:21 GMT -5
"What does NCLB have to do with Wantagh? Transparency, checks & balances along the way in a child's education career, and taxpayer value." Take a ride on any NYC subway, and you will see advertising placards all over the cars congratulating NY City Schools on improving their graduation rate by 20%. They don't bother to tell anyone...20% from X% to Y%, as that would either be laughable (to suburban commuters) or disastrous (to parents of City school children). Therein lies the big danger in relying upon the federal government to effectively utilize the NCLB to make improvements in graduation rates...without providing any funding toward accomplishing the main objective. With NYC and other Big City and even small suburban "minority" districts having done such a lousy job educating their children (for WHATEVER REASONS), NCLB (without providing any of the money) is driving NY State money, meaning your State Tax Dollars, toward "FIXING" those abominable city schools graduation rates, and AWAY FROM WANTAGH and fixing our abominable tax burden. There is significant and well-founded doubt about whether throwing money at city schools can "FIX" their graduation rates; but there is NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER that if an equivalent per capita share of that same State Tax money were funneled to Wantagh it certainly would alleviate OUR TAX PROBLEMS! Repeal the NCLB! Chris Wendt
|
|
|
Post by lilly on Mar 10, 2009 10:33:31 GMT -5
Therein lies the big danger in relying upon the federal government to effectively utilize the NCLB to make improvements in graduation rates...without providing any funding toward accomplishing the main objective. Chris, the funny thing is the feds haven't specified anything in terms of graduation rates - so far they just told the states to be consistent in their reporting and to make their own goals. The state ed's have been left to their own devices in establishing goals so where is the big brother federalism going on? And watching the states fail miserably has gotten unfortunately comical at this point. I think that's the point. Money has been thrown at NYC (and probably other low performing states and districts for years) before the current incarnation known as NCLB, yet no improvement. Why? Are there funding problems all over the country, absolutely - e.g., a public school speech language pathologist that I know who is a single mother trying to live in a SF suburb making $60k at the top of the CA pay scale, no pension with a caseload that exceeds human capacity and state guidelines. Note suburban SF real estate is even more expensive than on LI. Crumbling unsafe schools in southern states. FL's horrible teacher credential requirements - by comparison NY has the Cadillac of teacher requirements. While sometimes more hard cash is needed, it isn't always the automatic solution, it's the way things are done. Man, you get heated about this. In Wantagh, it's way too easy to let people think NCLB is the tail wagging the dog for a mere $200k in testing. I would think Wantagh would want to update curriculums and keep standards high, NCLB or not. NCLB should be a mere blip, non-issue in terms of demonstrating proof of performance. A bit of 'me think thou dost protest too much' maybe?
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Mar 10, 2009 12:41:49 GMT -5
”Chris, the funny thing is the feds haven't specified anything in terms of graduation rates - so far they just told the states to be consistent in their reporting and to make their own goals. The state ed's have been left to their own devices in establishing goals… And watching the states fail miserably has gotten unfortunately comical at this point.” NCLB = No Child LEFT BEHIND So, if the purpose of NCLB is NOT to get them through GRADUATION, but instead, just to make sure that they all are reading ON GRADE LEVEL in fifth grade, then what the heck good is THAT?? ”…Money has been thrown at NYC (and probably other low performing states and districts for years) before the current incarnation known as NCLB, yet no improvement.” (a) In some places, notably Mississippi, there have been great improvements achieved by focusing state leadership, state money and state resources on making specific improvements to education results…starting well before NCLB. We cannot accurately say “No improvement” categorically. (b) NYC is precisely the best example, outside of Roosevelt, why NCLB is a non-event. State and City (and federal) money and other resources notwithstanding, NYC will improve only as much as it will improve, with or without NCLB. Ditto for Roosevelt. Why? The Facts of Life is the best way I can phrase my answer. ”Are there funding problems all over the country, absolutely…” STOP THE PRESSES! Education is still and all at State function, right and responsibility. It is also a local responsibility. If there are ANY funding problems, they are NOT the result of Uncle Sam not providing Federal funding for state and local education responsibilities. ALL funding problems, repeat ALL funding problems are the result of misplaced priorities, either or both for funding and for spending at the State and local school district level. States and school districts cannot say they want excellent education, but then NOT FUND their educational programs for excellent results. NY State and the Wantagh School District cannot strive for educational excellence, but then spend most of their hard-won local property tax dollars and state aid money on Administrative costs and a host of other nice-to-have items and expenditure categories that do not directly contribute to the attainment of educational excellence, including overly rich salary and benefit programs. ”While sometimes more hard cash is needed, it isn't always the automatic solution, it's the way things are done. Correct, except that cash is generally never a real solution for anything except making parents of 7th graders happy with extra sports teams in times of real, seriouos financial crisis. And yes, it’s the way things WERE done…up until this year. ”Man, you get heated about this.” Do you think? ” In Wantagh, it's way too easy to let people think NCLB is the tail wagging the dog for a mere $200k in testing. I would think Wantagh would want to update curriculums and keep standards high, NCLB or not. NCLB should be a mere blip, non-issue in terms of demonstrating proof of performance….” Yes! Wantagh never did and still does NOT need NCLB to be as good as Wantagh schools are! And, true, NCLB might have been only a blip…except for that “ mere $200K” cost to our taxpayers! ”A bit of 'me think thou dost protest too much' maybe?” Nah…I’m just trying to hold a little fun contest here for people to suggest new names for that infamous failed federal brand: NCLB. Best regards, Chris Wendt
|
|
|
Post by lilly on Mar 11, 2009 9:33:42 GMT -5
Well apparently, strong academic skills along the way and graduation rates are now both important in NCLB. Check out Obama's first big speech on education yesterday - he steered clear away from using the term NCLB although he will be big on education and educational reform. It just blows my mind that $200k which is .3% of $65m (note, not 3%, that's point 3%) is a "hardship". Like in my household budget, if I had $100 with $75 designated to pay the mortgage (aka salary & benefits), 30 cents designated for mandated mortgage insurance (aka NCLB) since I overbought vs. my income, that would be "the" problem? OK, that's probably not the best example, but to me it's about putting things in proper perspective. ”Man, you get heated about this.” Do you think? ”A bit of 'me think thou dost protest too much' maybe?” Nah…I’m just trying to hold a little fun contest here for people to suggest new names for that infamous failed federal brand: NCLB. Fun? OK, sure... ;D
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Mar 13, 2009 12:14:23 GMT -5
"Well apparently, strong academic skills along the way and graduation rates are now both important in NCLB. Check out Obama's first big speech on education yesterday - he steered clear away from using the term NCLB although he will be big on education and educational reform." I think Obama was keeping away from "N.C.L.B". not so much because of the fact that NCLB is a "failed brand", but mostly because NCLB is associated with President Bush; it was the centerpiece of the Bush ""Education"" ""Policy"", and, given the November mandate for change, it just would not do for America to think that the ""Education"" ""Policy"" of the new President is the same as the old President...that would smack of "SAME" and seemingly be a violation of "CHANGE"...for the sake of change. I think if you check back, you would discover that every President since Truman has considered himself "THE EDUCATION PRESIDENT". Whenever I have heard that expression down through the years, my reaction has been perfectly consistent: If you wanted to be the "Education President" then you should have run for your local school board instead of the White House!"It just blows my mind that $200k which is .3% of $65m (note, not 3%, that's point 3%) is a "hardship". Like in my household budget, if I had $100 with $75 designated to pay the mortgage (aka salary & benefits), 30 cents designated for mandated mortgage insurance (aka NCLB) since I overbought vs. my income, that would be "the" problem? OK, that's probably not the best example, but to me it's about putting things in proper perspective." As with any expenditure, the cost/benefit of NCLB cannot be determined in a vacuum. And the prioritization must be relative to all other expenditures and priorities. NCLB has the advantage of being one, huge, unfunded expenditure MANDATE, so local buy-in and proper prioritizing are not possible. As a little suburban school district at the bottom of the funding food chain, we (Wantagh) just have to shut up and do what we are told, vis-a-vis NCLB. Now, IF NCLB were left up to local adoption and local funding authorization on an OPTIONAL basis ("Hey, Superintendents, if YOUR School District is IN TROUBLE with ACADEMIC OUTCOMES, then have we got a solution, called 'NCLB', for YOU to consider utilizing!"), then Wantagh could stack-up NCLB against the Varsity Golf Team and all 7th Grade Sports, and the BOCES Summer Arts Program, and stuff like new computers, and let's see if it would "FLY!"I believe we can all recall that famous maxim: "If the ride is mo' fly...you must buy!" No? (Too long to replace "NCLB", but I think about as relevant to education in Wantagh!) Regards, Chris Wendt
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Mar 14, 2009 7:44:04 GMT -5
""IF NCLB were left up to local adoption and local funding authorization on an OPTIONAL basis ("Hey, Superintendents, if YOUR School District is IN TROUBLE with ACADEMIC OUTCOMES, then have we got a solution, called 'NCLB', for YOU to consider utilizing!"), then Wantagh could stack-up NCLB against the Varsity Golf Team and all 7th Grade Sports, and the BOCES Summer Arts Program, and stuff like new computers, and let's see if it would "FLY!"
Thinking about this, it would work better as: IF NCLB were left up to local adoption and local funding authorization on an OPTIONAL basis... "Hey, Superintendents, Billy Mays here! If YOUR School District is IN TROUBLE with ACADEMIC OUTCOMES, then have we got THE solution for YOU! It's 'NCLB' and it can work MIRACLES with even the most stubborn, rubbed-in kids and in just ONE YEAR! But wait! There's MORE! If you act RIGHT NOW, I'll not only send you our MIRACLE FORMULA NCLB, I'll DOUBLE YOUR ORDER and INCLUDE N PLB, our MIRACLE SOLUTION for getting those irritating, pesky parents out of your office! So for just 13 EASY PAYMENTS of $200,000 each year, we'll send you a generous supply of BOTH MIRACLE PRODUCTS-- NCLB and NCPB...all you have to do is pay separate shipping and handling charges! Don't forget, ACT NOW! Operators are standing by!"
|
|
|
Post by lilly on May 6, 2009 7:55:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on May 6, 2009 10:52:45 GMT -5
Yes, I read this recently.
Setting aside, for the moment, my feelings about the Federal Government meddling in the state function of education, the federal government has built a real framework for focusing resources on at-risk children to improve their outcomes. So, change the name, change the testing game, or whatever else Obama feels he wants to do to take NCLB away from the G.W.Bush legacy and co-opt it for himself...
...the essential thing necessary to make the (NCLB) promise a reality is to fully fund whatever it is they want to call it!
I could lead the cheer for Obama doing that.
Chris Wendt
|
|
|
Post by lilly on May 7, 2009 7:39:35 GMT -5
I am still wary of Arne Duncan's track record so will be watching this closely. It's always a sticky situation when politicians are involved in education laws.
In terms of funding at least for IDEA which has implications for NCLB, Obama put special ed $ in this latest stimulus $. There was lots of wrangling behind the scenes, a delay of about 2 days to pass it, in order to successfully put a condition on the special ed stimulus $. That is a condition was written that sped stimulus $ must not be given to states with them sliding sped aid into general ed spending (which btw, districts tend to do including Wantagh). I think they wrangled a cap (10%?) on the amount that can be transferred to general. The politicians wanted to pass it with no cap, meaning all sped stimulus $ could be transferred to general ed.
I also think that there may be an accountability thing written in to the stimulus sped $, that it has to be something to improve the programs, not just add to any old sped staff (I may have this wrong or not saying it right) in order to get the $. In other words, Obama put his $ where his mouth is and they've moved closer to funding IDEA regs. However, they want districts & states to investment spend in IDEA to really figure it out what works e.g., reading programs or whatever - not sure if that's a condition or what the sped lobbyists were suggesting. After all, it's a short term window of opp'y that goes away in 2 years.
That's a good question for the budget hearing. Did Wantagh provide for sped investment spending to take advantage of and receive stimulus sped aid $ or were our priorities in areas outside of the classroom. And that's a loaded question given this BOE's response to increasing sped legal costs.
If they haven't taken advantage of it to its fullest, that means less credence to Wantagh claims about the insufficient aid thing as a reason our taxes increase so much every year and the "unfunded mandates" rallying cry.
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on May 7, 2009 10:56:41 GMT -5
Okay, Lilly:
"That's a good question for the budget hearing. Did Wantagh provide for sped investment spending to take advantage of and receive stimulus sped aid $..." That's a good question for the budget hearing. Did Wantagh provide for sped investment spending to take advantage of and receive stimulus sped aid $.... But let's not pre-suppose their answer, or, pre-judge anyone's performance in this area. It's only a matter of a few hours. Regards, Chris Wendt
|
|
|
Post by lilly on Jun 3, 2009 8:53:36 GMT -5
Chris, I'll just drop this here for you. Texas, Alaska, Missouri and South Carolina are the only ones that have not signed on. When this eventually gets off the ground, lack of a common method to gauge results and to hold schools accountable will be problematic. But something like this bodes well for it to happen since it is coming from the governors up. ___________________ www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/31/AR2009053102339.html?wpisrc=newsletter46 States, D.C. Plan to Draft Common Education StandardsBy Maria Glod Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, June 1, 2009 Forty-six states and the District of Columbia today will announce an effort to craft a single vision for what children should learn each year from kindergarten through high school graduation, an unprecedented step toward a uniform definition of success in American schools. The push for common reading and math standards marks a turning point in a movement to judge U.S. children using one yardstick that reflects expectations set for students in countries around the world at a time of global competition. Today, each state decides what to teach in third-grade reading, fifth-grade math and every other class. Critics think some set a bar so that students can pass tests but, ultimately, are ill-prepared. Led by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers, the states, including Maryland and Virginia, are aiming to define a framework of content and skills that meet an overarching goal. When students get their high school diplomas, the coalition says, they should be ready to tackle college or a job. The benchmarks would be "internationally competitive." Once the organizers of the effort agree to a proposal, each state would decide individually whether to adopt it. ad_icon The nearly complete support of governors for the effort -- leaders in Texas, Alaska, Missouri and South Carolina are the only ones that have not signed on -- is key. Many Republicans oppose nationally mandated standards, saying schools should not be controlled by Washington. But there is broad support for a voluntary effort that bubbles up from the states. "This is the beginning of a new day for education in our country," U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan said. "A lot of hard work is ahead of us. But this is a huge step in a direction that would have been unimaginable just a year or two ago." Duncan has said that today's patchwork system amounts to "lying to children and their parents, because states have dumbed down their standards." He and other critics say that disparity becomes clear in places where students earn high marks on state tests but fall short on national exams. In Mississippi, for instance, 90 percent of fourth-graders passed the state reading exam in 2007, according to U.S. Department of Education data. But only 51 percent had at least "basic" or "partial mastery" on the test known as the Nation's Report Card. In Maryland, 86 percent of fourth-graders passed the reading test, while 69 percent earned a basic score or better on the national test, according to federal data. And in Virginia, about 87 percent of fourth-graders passed the state test, while 74 percent reached at least a basic score on the national exam. Gene Wilhoit, executive director of the Council of Chief State School Officers, said the new expectations would be "higher, clearer and fewer." There would be political pressure for states to show their children aren't at the bottom of the pack. But Wilhoit said the shift also would help improve schools. Companies and researchers could more easily create textbooks and professional training that meshed with the curriculum coast to coast. States under financial strain could pitch in scarce resources. Margaret Spellings, who was education secretary under President George W. Bush, said in a recent interview that she supports states coming together to raise the bar for students. But she worries that the effort could distract attention from students who are failing today. "We have a speedometer, and it says we're going too slow," Spellings said. "Should we get a more precise speedometer? Sure. But the most important thing is speeding up." The governors and schools chiefs have set an ambitious agenda. By July, groups of experts already at work are expected to unveil "readiness standards" for high school graduates in reading and math, Wilhoit said. Then, with each grade considered a steppingstone toward that goal, they will set out the skills students must master each year to stay on track. There will be no prescription for how teachers get there, avoiding nettlesome discussions about whether phonics or whole language is a better method of teaching reading; whether students should be drilled in math facts; or whether eighth-graders should read "The Great Gatsby" or "To Kill a Mockingbird." Education experts say there will still be plenty to argue about. "All the groups, the math educators and the English professors and the liberals and the conservatives will want to weigh in," said Michael J. Petrilli, vice president for national programs and policy at the nonprofit Thomas B. Fordham Institution. "There are fundamental disagreements in our society about what kids should learn." For now, the organizers are keeping secret the names of experts who are combing education research and putting together the standards, to protect them from being bombarded by reporters and interest groups. Later, a separate national "validation" panel, made of up of experts nominated by the states, will review the proposal. Even if the project sails through with few fights, students wouldn't see the results immediately, because states would have to determine whether to adopt the standards. Duncan and others also said that even the highest goals lose their punch if there's not an accurate way to gauge whether students measure up. That means revamping state tests -- a cumbersome and expensive process. So far, the states have committed only to working to develop the standards. "If you agree to common standards but you don't agree to tests, it's like buying a car without a motor," said Jack Jennings, president of the D.C.-based Center on Education Policy. "It's buying the outside without getting the thing to work." ________________________________
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Jun 5, 2009 12:54:53 GMT -5
Lilly noted: "Texas, Alaska, Missouri and South Carolina are the only ones that have not signed on. " Amazing! This is tantamount to amending the United States Constitution without benefit the States ratifying the amendment...worse, without anyone ever actually writing the amendment! What you are reporting is that 46 states have "signed-on" to surrender their state's right to control education. I am sorry, but there is no constitutional process called "signing-on" to suspend the constitution without going through all the steps to craft, debate, pass through Congress, and then vote upon an amendment all across this great land. There just is no such process. Likewise, it should be (and probably would be) un-constitutional for the federal government to penalize, financially, those four states which did not do this "signing-on" bit. Where will Wantagh's future Ivy League alumni come from without this? Same place as they always have. Will this nationalization of state and local education improve the stature or status of American schools and the achievements of American students among the rest of the world? No, the opposite will likely result, through massive, further dumbing-down of academic content to palatable national standards. Will all of this signing-on nonsense allow NY City schools to bootstrap their graduation rates and post-graduation success rates...another 20 percent? No, because the same things that are preventing that now will not be changed by signing-on to national standards...because lack of national standards is not the problem, there, now. This is very irritating to me. Chris Wendt
|
|
|
Post by lilly on Jun 8, 2009 9:15:40 GMT -5
I don't think they're signing away anything. They're agreeing to participate in national standards. And I don't think those states could be financially penalized. They just might not get additional $ if the feds construct aid around it.
The whole mess gives me a headache.
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Jun 8, 2009 10:58:56 GMT -5
Not getting new money because you didn't "sign-on" is being penalized financially.
Please do not mistake this for anything other than a federal power grab, with some non-elected state officials willingly being led like lambs to the slaughter, eager to please the feds, who have the power to penalize--or reward--them, financially, depending upon whether they 'play ball' or not.
Imagine 'New York State' deciding that our vaunted Board of Regents and State Education Department have crafted an entire K-12 state syllabus that is INFERIOR in some way, in any way, to the curricula being used in Mississippi or Louisiana or Arizona?
The big, real-and-present danger in all of this is to the kids of tomorrow. If they are all learning the same ultra-dumbed-down nationally standardized curriculum, then who (what school system in what state) could possibly ever lead other school systems in other states to ever higher standards?
What...and risk losing federal aid for being so bold?
Answer: no one, no school system, no trail-blazing school district!
Look at the Full Moon tonight! Remind yourself what a good thing it was that we've 'been there...done that' already!
Discouraging.
Chris Wendt
|
|