ESSA update at the Board of Ed

Sagan: several board members have asked "what is it we need to do?" on ESSA
Chester: presentation on process and the Board's role in that process
Chester with some history on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) getting periodically reauthorized, from its start under LBJ

Questions/discussion on accountability and test results

Craven: data for the leveling of schools
data came out less than 24 hours ago; struggling to review online
"have been an advocate for assessment my whole life...staunch defender of exams"
personally disappointed by Latin School
interim headmaster at Latin: students took both MCAS and PARCC
school and district were under impression that MCAS was their assessment
"don't want to see an erosion"
that's a lot of testing "can see parents" making that choice
that's what caused Latin School to fall
"on precipice of a new test, a hybrid test"
"very concerned about the Latin School in particular...are there other districts, other schools seeing drops because of non-participation rates on exams"
"I wonder about this as a practical reality, as we roll out new tests and different tests"
if a district thought that MCAS mattered and it was PARCC, then what?

Chester: "I want to make sure we nail this, right?"

No Time to Lose: National Council of State Legislatures weighs in on the post-NCLB universe

The National Council of State Legislatures after 18 months of study today released a report on what successful school systems around the world are doing. Their interest is in influencing the post-NCLB, state-focused, U.S. education universe. The full report can be downloaded here.
NPR has a good summary of the first three points in their report:

1: More Help For The Youngest Learners In the U.S., poverty is a powerful drag on the youngest learners, with too many children showing up to kindergarten both hungry and lacking important cognitive and noncognitive skills. Research suggests that preschool, when done well, can have a profound impact on children's lives, but too often in the U.S. it's done badly or not at all...

2: Teachers Need To Be Better And, in this case, "better" is a big tent. The report's authors say it starts when future teachers are still students...Once these top-flight teachers enter the classroom, they also enter a very different professional reality — one that involves as much training as teaching. In some places, the report says, just "30 percent to 35 percent of a teacher's time is spent teaching students, while the rest is spent on activities such as working in teams with other teachers to develop and improve lessons, observing and critiquing classes, and working with struggling students." Too often in the U.S., teachers work in isolation, cut off from their fellow teachers. In contrast, Stephenson says, many high-performing countries have embraced a team-teaching model, where newer teachers are constantly observing veteran teachers and being observed, fine-tuning their skills in real time. Overseas, observation is about improvement — not just accountability. And then there's pay. Yes, other nations have higher standards for their teachers, but with those standards come increased respect and pay, on par with engineers and accountants. Imagine that. 

3: Fix Career And Technical Education (CTE) You know, the classes formerly known as "voc-ed" — auto repair, welding, carpentry, etc. The report suggests that, in the U.S., many schools have failed to adapt their CTE offerings to fit the needs of the modern economy, preparing students for jobs of the past instead of matching them with today's employers. It's strange given the mantra heard often from U.S. policymakers and educators, that today's schools should prepare students to be "college and career ready." In reality, Takumi, the Hawaii Democrat, says many schools "have kind of pushed career to the side." As a result, too often students need college in order to be career ready. To make matters worse, in the U.S. CTE also has a perception problem. Stephenson, the Utah Republican, says "it is considered a second tier for low-performing students. ... That is our tradition in America." . It's a chicken-or-egg problem. Whether that perception created the current reality or was created by it, both need to change.

The fourth item is "reforms that are connected and aligned as parts of a clearly planned and carefully designed comprehensive systems," which is not only difficult to summarize: it's also difficult to do.

It'll be interesting and informative to see which states do anything about any of this at all. 

NSBA Trainers conference on ESSA

I'm in Columbus, OH this week for the National School Boards Association Trainers conference. We're getting an update from the Ohio School Boards Association on the Every Child Succeeds Act. 

updating as we go...
Initial comment "This gives so much power back to the state...all that control...still needs to be developed" Important for school boards to stay involved as states develop their own plans under ESSA

NSBA Conference: ESSA update

updating as we go...
Zola runs policy and advocacy in DC for NSBA
all material is on the app
"we're only about 50% done; we have the law. Now we have to implement"
"be careful what you ask for"
got more local control; our responsibility to do right by this new law

U.S. Department of Ed puts Massachusetts on "high risk"

h/t to EdWeek for catching the federal government's reaction to the Mass Board of Ed's vote on testing last month: they're putting our Title I, Part A (that's the part that goes to the state, not districts) on "high risk" because we aren't doing a single test. EdWeek has the full letter here.
That isn't entirely a surprise, as you might recall that last year's waiver was only conditional on our adopting a single test for this coming spring...which we didn't do. The fed already wasn't happy that we hadn't made up our mind, already, for this past spring; no surprise their patience is out with a lack of a decision for this one.

Somewhat surprisingly, this did not come up at the Board of Ed meeting, either as part of the presentation, nor through Board member questions.
And, yes, waivers are still the operating principal until August, under ESSA's passage. 

The open question I saw circulating yesterday was: didn't the Commissioner check this with U.S. DoE prior to proposing it to the Board? And, was this all a ploy to make the federal government the bad guys and have everyone in the state take PARCC? The Globe has the beginnings of an answer to the second question this morning:

“I do not believe that the US Department of Education putting us on ‘high risk’ status is sufficient reason for us to change our plans to offer districts a choice between assessments in spring 2016 and to create a new, next-generation assessment for spring 2017,” he said in a statement.
 Chester said state education officials value their collaboration with the federal government, but “there are times when partners will disagree.”
 “When that happens, our first and foremost obligation is to do what is right for Massachusetts,” he said in the statement. “We will submit a request for reconsideration, but regardless of the outcome, we will implement the thoughtful plan on which our board voted.”

You can take our money, but you'll never take our...right. Maybe that's only round one, and someone starts yelling about the lack of DESE services if they lose that kind of money; we'll see.

Per Jackie Reis, DESE receives about $2.1 million a year through Title I, Part A.
I'll update if I hear more.

ESEA renewal: Senate votes today

The Senate votes today on the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, or ESEA renewal).
In Massachusetts news:

A little news for ya: @SenWarren will vote in favor of #ESEA today. Voted against before, but believes accountability issues are now met.

— David S. Bernstein (@dbernstein) December 8, 2015

What's in the Every Student Succeeds Act?

Okay, we're going to do this as the act itself actually reads; as always, h/t to EdWeek that keeps up with this all the time.Other than that, the below is entirely my work, page by page. 

Waivers: NCLB waivers expire August 1, 2016, however the plans dealing with lowest performing schools and subgroup achievement gaps are still in play until new plans are submitted for the 2017-18 school year. Those are "needs improvement, corrective action, or restructuring" schools and "priority or focus" schools.

Title I:  (for a numbers rundown, see this from the American Association of School Administrators) Most of the sections of Title I are level funded through FY20, with "the sense of Congress" being that this would revised if discretionary spending levels are adjusted. Note also that School Improvement Grants are no longer a separate program; they are folded into Title I, with the specification that the current 4% of Title I set aside for school improvement is increased to 7% of their Title I funding (of that, 95% of it needs to go to districts directly). As before, such funding may only supplement, not supplant, funding the district is otherwise receiving.

State plans: States are still required to submit plans to the U.S. DoE. There remains a peer review process, and states can appeal a rejection of their plan (but it's to the Secretary, so I'm not sure how that helps). As part of that, states must "provide assurance" that they have adopted "challenging academic achievement standards," but they are not required to submit those standards to the Secretary (this is how they're resolving the question of federal requirements and the Common Core). States must have state standards for "mathematics, reading or language arts, and science" and have English language proficiency standards; they may have standards in other subjects.

...and just in case we were unclear on the Secretary's authority:

FEDERAL CONTROL.—The Secretary shall not have the authority to mandate, direct, control, coerce, or exercise any direction or supervision over any of the challenging State academic standards adopted or implemented by a State.

Testing: In their plans, the states have to demonstrate that they have "in consultation with local educational agencies,...implemented a set of high-quality student academic assessments in mathematics, reading or language arts, and science." Emphasis there mine; has anyone been consulted? The tests must (and I'm pulling the language here, because I think this is going to come up):

(ii) be aligned with the challenging State academic standards, and provide coherent and timely information about student attainment of such standards and whether the student is performing at the student’s grade level; (iii) be used for purposes for which such assessments are valid and reliable, consistent with relevant, nationally recognized professional and technical testing standards, objectively measure academic achievement, knowledge, and skills, and be tests that do not evaluate or assess personal or family beliefs and attitudes, or publicly disclose personally identifiable information; (iv) be of adequate technical quality for each purpose required under this Act and consistent with the requirements of this section, the evidence of which shall be made public, including on the website of the State educational agency...

Students must be tested in math and ELA one a year in grades 3-8 and once in grades 9-11, and in science once in grades 3-5, once in grades 6-9, and once in grades 10-12. Schools still need to have a 95% participation rate in testing, but what happens to the schools that don't is up to the state.
The tests also must:

(vi) involve multiple up-to-date measures of student academic achievement, including measures that assess higher-order thinking skills and understanding, which may include measures of student academic growth and may be partially delivered in the form of portfolios, projects, or extended performance tasks; (viii) at the State’s discretion— ‘‘(I) be administered through a single summative assessment; or ‘‘(II) be administered through multiple statewide interim assessments during the course of the academic year that result in a single summative score that provides valid, reliable, and transparent information on student achievement or growth;

States are required to provide individual "interpretive, descriptive, and diagnostic" student reports with information that allows "parents, teachers, principals, and other school leaders to understand and address the specific academic needs of students" and they have to do so in a timely fashion. There are parallel reporting requirements for reporting out on subgroups (and no "supersubgroups" as in the waivers; each needs to be broken out, so long as it's of a statistically significant size).The test items are "(xiii) be developed, to the extent practicable, using the principles of universal design for learning."
All ELL students must be annually assessed in their English proficiency. The states have a few options on what to do with newly arrived students (in the U.S. for less than 12 months) on the other tests; they can have the student not take the tests, or they can exclude their results from accountability (but report them).
Local districts can choose a different "nationally-recognized high school academic assessment" with state approval. Regarding opting out:

Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as preempting a State or local law regarding the decision of a parent to not have the parent’s child participate in the academic assessments under this paragraph.

In other words, they kicked this one back to the states.

More on state plans: They have to include four indicators, of which three are state testing proficiency rates, ELL student proficiency, another subgroup proficiency and one more; high schools get five, adding graduation rate. The other options include student engagement, educator engagement, access to and completion of advanced coursework, post-secondary readiness, school climate/safety, or something else. For those working on other ways assessing schools, this is a crack in the door that should be pushed on! States are still required to identify lowest 5% of performing (how we get there is going to look a little different) plus high schools failing to graduate one-third or more of their students AND other schools at the state's discretion. What exactly they do with those schools is up to the states.

Interestingly, if a district has only had a student for less than half the year, the student's test score can't count against the school's accountability level. Likewise, a student who doesn't graduate counts for the high school that has had that student for the majority of high school.

Schools indentified as underperforming still need to submit school improvment plans, and the process looks fairly parallel to now (group of stakeholders analyzing local data, plan has to include "evidence-based interventions" and consider resources, and has to be approved locally and monitored by the state). The state has to establish exit criteria for this. The state is also to analyze resource allocation and provide technical assistance for any district having a significant number of schools falling into underperforming.

The bill is also speaks at length, forbidding the Secretary to specify quite a number of things, including the evaluation methods of teachers and other school professionals and forbidding data collection beyond what already happens in other sections of federal law.
States are also required to specify how they will assist local districts in increasing early childhood education; ensure that disadvantaged students are not served by inexperienced teachers, reduce bullying, reduce out-of-school suspension, reach all students, stabilize the education of students in foster care, and support homeless students. And if that sounds like a hodgepodge, that's because it is! Likewise, there are a list of assurances the states are required to submit (starts on page 109, if you're interested).
Both states and local districts must issue annual report cards.
Districts need to have annual school improvement plans as well (and what needs to be included starts on page 134). As part of that plan, districts:

shall notify the parents of each student attending any school receiving funds under this part that the parents may request, and the local educational agency will provide the parents on request (and in a timely manner), information regarding any State or local educational agency policy regarding student participation in any assessments mandated by section 1111(b)(2) and by the State or local educational agency, which shall include a policy, procedure, or parental right to opt the child out of such assessment, where applicable.

"where applicable"...hm...
Districts are also required to post on their website what assessments are used, where it comes from, how long it will take, what it will test, and when they'll have results available.
As they're still talking about "low income," the bill offers the following for how to measure that:

a local educational agency shall use the same measure of poverty, which measure shall be the number of children aged 5 through 17 in poverty counted in the most recent census data approved by the Secretary, the number of children eligible for a free or reduced price lunch under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, the number of children in families receiving assistance under the State program funded under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act, or the number of children eligible to receive medical assistance under the Medicaid Program, or a composite of such indicators, with respect to all school attendance areas in the local educational agency

Secondary school calculations may be based off estimates from the elementary schools.
Federal funds are still required to supplement not supplant local (and state) spending; it also retains the "hold harmless" provision on funding (page 199; note that it isn't entirely harmless), and the requirement of state's maintenance of effort (states have to keep funding education themselves in order to received federal funds).

Innovative assessments: As part of the Title I B assessment grants, the bill provides for "innovative assessments" in up to seven states for the first three years of the law. Those have to report out, and at the end of that time, the Secretary may extend that "demonstration authority" further.

There's a provision for local districts to enter an agreement with the Secretary for a local weighed per-pupil funding system, allowing for substantially more funding to go to their neediest student bodies. Districts can bundle their Title I, Title II, Title III, and parts of Title IV and V to do so.

Title IIA: (teacher development) There's a list of provisions for which these funds may be used starting on page 336. It does allow for pay-for-performance, but it also allows the funds to be used to reduce class size. Several mentions in this section of "human capital management"

21st Century Learning grants are in, but not for any substantial boost back up in funding.

Charter schools and magnet schools: For those who like to compare these things, the grant to expand charter schools is funded at a higher level that the grant to fund magnet schools ($270M rising to $300M versus $94M rising to $108M).

Promise Neighborhoods are in, but funding isn't specified; the same is true of community schools.

National readers note that there is a substantial section on Native American education, including a requirement that the Secretary of Education report on student suicides.

Federal impact aid is level funded until FY2020.

Speaking of definitions that might be useful, here's ESSA's definition of a "well-rounded education" (from Title VIII, page 807):

(52) WELL-ROUNDED EDUCATION.—The term ‘well-rounded education’ means courses, activities,and programming in subjects such as English, reading or language arts, writing, science, technology,engineering, mathematics, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, geography,computer science, music, career and technical education, health, physical education, and any other subject, as determined by the State or local educational agency, with the purpose of providing all students access to an enriched curriculum and educational experience.’’

Title VIII also requires the Secretary of Education to figure out how many federal employees worked on programs that no longer exist under this renewal and to cut the department by that many positions (page 813).

Waivers of federal provisions: Both schools and districts can request waivers of the provisions within the law (the schools request of the district, which turns to the state; the district requests of the state which turns to the federal department) (page 816 and following).

"Prohibition against federal mandates" speaks for itself:

IN GENERAL.—No officer or employee of the Federal Government shall, through grants, contracts, or other cooperative agreements, mandate, direct, or control a State, local educational agency, or school’s specific instructional content, academic standards and assessments,curricula, or program of instruction developed and implemented to meet the requirements of this Act (including any requirement, direction, or mandate to adopt the Common Core State Standards developed under the Common Core State Standards Initiative, any other academic standards common to a significant number of States, or any assessment, instructional content, or curriculum aligned to such standards), nor shall anything in this Act be construed to authorize such officer or employee to do so.

Likewise, the federal government can't require local or state funds be directed particular ways. Also nothing in the act shall:

require the distribution of scientifically or medically false or inaccurate materials or to prohibit the distribution of scientifically or medically true or accurate materials

Military recruiter opt-in: Districts are required to provide military recruiters with student information unless the parents specifically have directed the district to not provide it. Districts creating instead an "opt in" provision is not allowed. This came in as part of NCLB.

Free-range kids: The federal government can't make laws regarding parent-permitted school travel, but, then, they also can't limit the abilities of local or state authorities to do so.

Student privacy: There is a "sense of Congress" section requesting that the Secretary review all applicable provisions and ensure student data is protected. As I've seen pointed out elsewhere, there's no teeth in this; on the other hand, it isn't here by accident.

Regarding the First Amendment:

It is the sense of Congress that a student, teacher, school administrator, or other school employee of an elementary school or secondary school retains the individual’s rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States during the school day or while on the grounds of an elementary school or secondary school. 

Posthumous pardon for Jack Johnson (starts on page 914)

Reports: Congress is asking for reports on dropouts, subgroup sample size, access to digital learning resources, and the Title I formula (that's like FBRC federally!). 

Preschool development grants which are being administered through Health and Human Services (as Head Start is).

"Highly qualified" is over.

and, whew! That's it.

Grade 3-8, 10 testing is going to stay in

I realize that no one is going to thank me for pointing this out, but I feel honor-bound to.

I continue to see calls via social media for some sort of hold on the NCLB renewal (ESSA is the new abbreviation, for "Every Student Succeeds Act"*) with a push to drop the grades 3-8 and 10 testing requirement.

That isn't going to happen.

The issue of grade level testing was raised in the deliberation in both the House and the Senate. In the Senate, nothing quite as far as dropping that requirement was proposed; an amendment that would just allow parental opt-out and notification failed, though. There also was considerable concern on the Democratic side if the rollback of federal oversight around testing would lead to civil rights abuses (Massachusetts, you may remember that this is why Senator Warren voted against the bill).
In the House, with its Republican majority, an amendment that would allow states to opt out of federal accountability entirely failed as "too conservative," though the parental opt-out passed.
The testing requirements are in the conference committee bill because that is what a majority of both the House and the Senate support; it's also pretty clear that it would be required to get the President's signature.

I'd just as soon this weren't the case; in my own testimony regarding this, I urged otherwise. It is clear, though, that the successor to NCLB is going to have grade-level testing in it.


*and enjoy the possibilities of "it's a"

ESEA compromise bill coming out

EdWeek has the full rundown ('though the language isn't out yet). For those paywalled out, major points:

• testing grades 3-8 and once in high school, but what it counts for is up to states. Bottom 5% of schools, as well as those not closing achievement gap, need intervention, but how is up to states. Likewise, while 95% participation in testing is still required, what happens if it isn't met is up to states.
• while there's some block granting on the federal education grants, it doesn't look as major as it could have been (watch that one); something on the innovation bit, something on the wraparound bit as well.
• no Title I portability (money doesn't move with kids), though there's some sort of a pilot program (watch this one, too)
• also no changes to Title I calculations, though some changes to Title II calculations (Title II is teachers)

The projection is that this will be in conference next week, with a vote by Thanksgiving. 

We have a recommendation UPDATED

on Massachusetts state testing...well, sorta:  Door #3 and split down the middle. You can find Commissioner Chester's full recommendation to the Board of Ed here. Briefly:

• the state is looking to develop MCAS 2.0 for spring 2017. As the current MCAS contract is expiring, they'll be bidding it out, and "In order to expedite the development process and minimize costs, we will maximize the use of existing PARCC development, as well as MCAS test items, as appropriate." UPDATE: on the press call, Chester said that the test would contain more PARCC items than MCAS items. 
• as we aren't going to have any such test ready for this spring, districts can pick (again). Mostly. If you did PARCC, you'll do PARCC again. If you did MCAS, you can switch to PARCC.
• BUT if you stay with MCAS, you'll have some PARCC items
• AND if you're a first timer on PARCC, your accountability level will be held harmless
• All districts will be expected to be online for 2019.

There are some further recommendations about item reviewing and test questions.

A further note: as our NCLB waiver included a wrist slap for our "you pick" year, and DESE was sternly told that they had to pick this year, I'd say the waiver is back in play. UPDATE: And (h/t to Scott O'Connell for asking!) the Commissioner did not know how it would affect the waiver.

Good time for a moratorium! And to rewrite the waiver for authentic assessment!

"...let's...embrace the fact that you showed up at all..."*

On Saturday, President Obama in a video message commented that we had too much testing in our schools, and that it needed to be limited. This was followed up by official guidance from the federal Department of Education.
And then the internet flipped out.
If you're a long-time reader, you know that I've been outraged by President Obama's education policy since before he took office (That link goes to December 2008). That it has doubled-down on much that was wrong with No Child Left Behind to begin with, while adding extra measures of things that are also awful, has been a frequent theme for me (and it's why I voted against Race to the Top).

But there's two things that bother me about the chorus of negativity that met the President's announcement.
First, most of the scoffing (shading to outrage) comes from educators, in one way or another; from teachers to education policy makers and think tanks, many people in education reacted negatively to this announcement. I thought, though, that we in education didn't give up on people. I thought we were about explaining it again, changing how we tackled a subject, coming back to what students don't get. I thought we were about getting everyone there, no matter how long it takes.
Does that not apply to adults or to presidents? Or did we really not mean that at all?

The second thing that bothers me about the reaction is what's missed: we're in the middle of the renewal of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Congress has to pass it and the President has to sign it. Many in the Democratic party have been taking their signals from the President in education policy. That has meant that much of what we loathe--and much of that centered around testing--has been pretty non-negotiable. For him to say that there's too much testing and to lay out some clear parameters for testing opens the door for new levels of negotiation on what can be in ESEA (and get votes and gain his signature) than there were before. That absolutely matters.
And in the meantime, we're still living in the ESEA waiver universe, and the department handing out those waivers just changed the rules on how we're operating. I look forward to states submitting waiver applications publicly that take very, very seriously:

•  testing that is PART of classroom instruction
• testing and test prep that is NOT a separate item
• testing that is FULLY transparent to parents and to the public
• testing that is NOT the sole measure of anything

..and so forth (do please read the DoE fact sheet). I venture that very few, if any, current waivers include any of this. It's up to the states now to take DoE at their word and submit waivers--and be VERY public about them--that actually follow those rules.

And then we can see if the lesson has truly been learned. A test, if you will.
*Sam Seaborn to C.J. Cregg, "Mr. Willis of Ohio," The West Wing, Season 1, episode 6

ESEA is moving

I haven't done an update on the Elementary and Secondary Education update in some time; for awhile it seemed as if it were going nowhere. The House, however, narrowly passed a version of it during the first week of July, and the Senate will probably do so today. A few things of note:

• The House bill (which they called "the Student Success act") was unanimously opposed by Democrats and had significant opposition from some Republicans (27 voted against it). That was for different reasons, of course: in the case of the Democrats, much of the concern came around the perceived lessening of accountability provisions, particularly with regard to low income students and students of color (both of whom have not fared well in some states when such things are left entirely to the states). The conservative Republicans who opposed the bill in many cases did so due to concerns about federal overreach in general. Testing in every grade 3-8 and in grade 10 is still required, as is publicizing results as a body and for subgroups. The bill passed includes an amendment providing that students whose parents opt them out of mandated testing are not counted against the state; it also includes language that bars the federal government from requiring the Common Core be adopted (which it didn't. But...) It did not include an amendment that would change federal funding to block grants (which would have been a major headache for urban districts), but it caps federal spending, which is going to be a big issue, and it includes Title I "portability," meaning that the low income funding follows the child, even to a higher income district. More details on what was in it here and here.
• While the Senate bill is more bipartisan to begin with, Senator Murphy of Connecticut proposed an amendment which would add in requirements that schools intervene in the lowest 5% of schools and specified subgroup reporting; it failed. I saw some debate yesterday on Twitter on just what that will end up meaning. At this point, there's not a lot of bargaining points in the Senate version of the bill for when it goes to conference committee; this would have been one. Also, watch the Burr amendment today, which would change how Title I works. 
• At this point, the President has promised to veto both bills as proposed. While it may be possible to hammer out something that can make it through both houses (the Democrats don't seem to have the votes to block it in the Senate), it's not clear that they can come up with something he'll sign.

And an important point for those watching from Massachusetts: remember that "local control" when they say it in D.C. means the state. Whatever happens in Washington, we'll still be dealing with Malden. 

Duncan's most destructive legacy

Salon's response to the Washington Post piece on Arne Duncan goes in several different directions, but it hits the most important point last:

Congress, in its efforts to rewrite NCLB, has “moved to substantially scale back the federal government’s role in education.” The impetus for this scaling back is bipartisan and shared in both the House and the Senate. And should a new version of NCLB pass, it will limit the federal government’s role in our nation’s schools.

What’s particularly unfortunate about that policy direction is that the federal government historically has had a mostly positive influence in public schools. As the article reminds us, what we now call NCLB was “initially passed in 1965 as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act,” a law that “was originally designed to protect the nation’s neediest students, and that the federal government must play a significant enforcement role to ensure that poor students, racial minorities and students with disabilities all receive an equal education.”

Because of that act, millions upon millions of impoverished children have had resources funneled to their schools through programs like Title I. Students who do not speak English as their first language have had funds sent to their schools to pay for specialists. Students who have physical disabilities, social-emotional problems and trouble with their learning and intellectual development have had more access to education opportunities and better supports in their schools. More girls and young women have been provided opportunities to play sports and experience a full curriculum.

Sure, this federal mission has not always been fully funded or adequately implemented. But that was the goal, and it was the goal NCLB took our attention away from and the goal this blundering oaf of a secretary refused to take up as his primary job, even though everyone outside his inner circle clamored he do so.

So the biggest tragedy of Arne Duncan is not only the millions of students and families ill-served under his tenure but the millions that will likely be ill-served in the future because it looks like his self-righteous, narrow-minded zeal will leave the federal government’s role in education marginalized for the immediate and foreseeable future.

So about Title I

Way down towards the end of our budget session last night, I asked about ESEA reauthorization and Title I. In particular, I'd gotten some alerts yesterday about this amendment that Senator Burr of North Carolina filed, which would end of the "hold harmless" provision of Title I. The amendment was adopted.
As Gregg Bares noted from the floor, ESEA reauthorization is kind of a mess; what the Senate is considering is miles away from anything the House has, and it's not clear that anyone agrees with the President. In particular, the sticky issue of just how much accountability the federal government can or should demand and what that looks like, is very much in play, which is why we're seeing another round of editorials on this now.
Title I, though, is the big carrot on anything in ESEA; most of what the federal government can force states to do is through tying things to that (and other) funding. It's $10 million for the Worcester Public Schools, and, as was mentioned last night, it's what's funding a lot of what's going on with schools that have exited Level 4 status.
So if you wonder sometimes why I talk so much about what happens in Washington and Malden, this is why. It's real money and it's real impact on Worcester's kids.

ESEA waiver: changes in accountability system

ESEA: 50th year
Duncan waivers to allow states to have proposals other than what law calls for
operating under five level accountability system because of waiver
in renewal year now
without a waiver renewal, we'd revert back to NCLB
law could be renewed, but might not
three modifications:

• additional credit for ELLs who made major progress for students who made progress in English language proficiency 
• additional time for students to increase their proficiency in English before they participate in accountability system, but only on growth, not on overall score
• reduce number of students to consitute a cohort from 30 students to 20 students

Peyser: Q on credit on ELLs gaining on English abilities: how do you get credit
SGPA (Student Growth Percentiles on Access) Peyser comments that we needed another acronym
60 is very strong growth, a median that's high will provide a boost
Peyser: assume that this represents a floor rather than a ceiling? if we wanted to change it higher,we could? yes
Peyser would love to learn more about the pattern of students who are moving up the Access scale
Waiver carries unanimously

ESEA waiver renewal: board of ed

Chester: must apply in March
three year renewal of our waiver (had a one year renewal on our initial two year waiver)
uses five level accountability system
keeps us out of AYP
doesn't require use of Title I and IIA as fed requires (state's requirements instead)
"Congress is putting a LOT of energy" into ESEA renewal
"if that happens, this process could be moot"
reminder that 100% proficiency requirement under NCLB

presenter notes that Board does not need a PowerPoint "need to cut right to the point"
"want to keep a lot of that intact"
cutting proficiency gap in half "has been the work of our schools"
new requirements "things this agency had already been working on prior to submission"
measureable impact on student learning in teacher eval

Intend to bring back "enhancements" not radical changes, next month
with testing decision up in the air, and ESEA possibly being renewed, not wanting to do too much to change
presentation with vote on March 24; due to fed on March 31
Roach asks if they could just pass it
no presentation yet, so March
Peyser: "curious about enhancements...my impression is to do as little as we can to get as much flexibility as we can...why would we change that?"
answer: have learned a lot about accountability system, for example, how ELL students are figured in
Peyser: "a little concerned about getting the policy making ahead of the board, just to get the application in"
Chester: if you're saying let's not commit, nor ask permission for what we don't have to, we're on the same page
Peyser agrees

Weighing in with the state and the fed

I did something unusual (for School Committee) last night and submitted several items under suspension ("under suspension" means that we've suspended using our rules and going by the agenda). Submitting items under suspension without violating the Open Meeting Law requiring public posting 48 hours prior to the meeting can only be done if the item is time-senstive and could not "reasonably be anticipated by the chair."
In this case, everything I submitted happened early this week, mostly on Tuesday, so it couldn't be foreseen, and it all involves things that happen before our next meeting, so they're time-sensitive.

First, as you read here and here, Governor Baker published his FY14 budget cuts on Tuesday. That is THIS fiscal year. They are very tough on education, particularly in the cities. While we received a budget memo last night (which will be my next post!), we'll have more specifics coming, and I asked that we share those with our delegation as soon as we have them.

The state Board of Ed next meets on Tuesday, February 24 (we next meet on the 26th), and they'll be taking up the proposal for charter schools in Brockton and Fitchburg. We also have seen the ongoing saga of "will they or won't they" on the possible takeover of the Holyoke Public Schools. I asked therefore that we ask for support urban districts that are doing good work for their students, and urge the state to collaborate with, rather than takeover or impose measures on, urban districts. This passed, and I plan to testify to that at the Board of Ed meeting.

As was mentioned elsewhere today, we heard directly from Rep. Kline of his interest in fully funding IDEA. IDEA--the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act--was passed 40 years ago with the expressed intent of funding 40% of the avereage of special education cost per student in the country. It has never gotten to half of that, and currently stands at 16%. In Worcester, where we currently receive $7 million in federal IDEA aid, that would be an additional $10 million a year. We're thus sharing that infomration with our Congressional delegation.

Finally, and also as mentioned by Rep. Kline, the Elementary and Secondary Act seems to be moving in both the House and in the Senate ('though news on that today: Alexander's bill has been tossed out, and they're starting with something bipartisan). As such, we've got to weigh in on ESEA reauthorization now. I created the following principles that I thought were something the Worcester School Committee could agree on:

-that local control means state, not school district, control in Massachusetts.
-that creating block grants of federal funds would be harmful. 
-that freezing federal grants or subjecting them to sequestration would be harmful. 
-that charter and voucher expansion don't work to improve public education.
-that absolute protection of students' rights to a quality, equitable education need not mean overtesting or overregulation.
That passed, and will be sent to our delegation.

And thanks to my colleagues for their tolerance. We had a long meeting last night, and it was coming up on ten by the time we got to these. I'm glad we're going to get our voice in on these issues in February! 

John King, now at federal Doe, formerly New York Ed head

King: honor and a privilege to be here today
"always be a New Yorker...honored to work with Sec'ty Duncan"

Preparing for Capitol Hill Meetings

Zola, Gettsman, Rigsby all doing federal legislation and advocacy
Zola: "a little bit of a different time and place"
"Washington is Washington...one party running the Congress...they want to move ESEA to the floor either in February or early March"