May 2008: Education Updates
printer friendly >
Political Landscape Archives >
Political Landscape section is a collection of news items, updates, and essays on policy issues, state and federal legislation, academic standards, testing issues, the politics of funding, and other issues.
The PO offers these excerpts from the Education Updates provided by Joan Platz of The League of Women Voters for principals who want to stay on the cutting edge of the “larger political, social, and economic context in Ohio.”
Contents:
- Governor Ted Strickland on Ohio Schooling
- Children’s State Book and Author
- The Arts
- Update on Early Childhood Education Initiatives
- Trends in Infancy/Early Childhood and Middle Childhood Well-Being, 1994-2006
- National Symposium on Early Childhood Science and Policy
- Youth Voices Project to Improve Ohio Schools
- Democracy at Risk: The Need for a New Federal Role in Education Policy
- Summary of Proposed NCLB Rule Changes
Governor Ted Strickland on Ohio Schooling
The vision, goal, and guiding principles that form the framework for a more personalized system of education for Ohio students was outlined by Governor Ted Strickland in his February 6, 2008 State of the State Address. Dr. John Stanford, education policy assistant for Governor Strickland, hosted this meeting, which included an overview by First Lady Frances Strickland about how and why this new framework was developed, the research that it is based upon, and how stakeholders and citizens will become involved in its refinement over the next few months.
Mrs. Strickland emphasized in the presentation that education reform efforts that focus on deficits and blame teachers, students, and parents need to be replaced by those that emphasize creativity, innovation, flexibility, and personalized learning, and inspire students, stakeholders, and the public to meet the social and economic challenges of the Ohio. The purpose of the vision, goals, and principles is to “spark the imagination of the people” so that a new education system can be implemented in Ohio, with the support of its citizens, to ensure that Ohio’s citizens are ready for the future. An Institute on Creativity and Innovation in Education Reform will take place in June 2008 to identify and explore ways to integrate creativity and innovation throughout Ohio”s education system.
Participants at this meeting generally agreed with the proposed vision, guiding principles, and goal outlined in the presentation, but also suggested ways to clarify and strengthen certain points. This is the first of several dialogues that have been planned to examine and discuss school reform in Ohio. The information gathered from these meetings and others will be used to develop a proposal that Governor Strickland will present to the people of Ohio and the General Assembly. Governor Strickland’s proposed vision, guiding principles, and goal for education are included below:
State of the State Address Education Vision and Guiding Principles
The vision for our schools: We must create learning environments that foster and nurture creativity, innovation, and global competency.
The core principles to guide our work to achieve that vision:
First, we must strengthen our commitment to public education to address today’s many educational challenges.
Second, a modern education system must be directly linked to economic prosperity and civic well-being. Ohio cannot thrive without understanding that world-class schools will produce a talented workforce and civic responsible citizens. A talented workforce will attract and create jobs.
Third, we excel internationally in our ability to foster creativity and innovation. These skills fuel a lifetime of success, especially in an evolving global economy. Our schools must teach students to think past the limits of what’s been done, and imagine what could be done.
Fourth, our best teachers can show us what works best in the classroom. We need to consult them and follow their lead.
Fifth, we must strive to develop a specific, personalized education program that identifies how each individual student learns, and use the teaching methods appropriate to that student’s needs and abilities.
Sixth, testing and assessment will continue to answer accountability questions. But their most important role will be to guide personalized and individualized education through understanding a student’s capabilities, weaknesses, and potential growth in the education process.
The goal: Schools ranked among the best in the world and that meet the needs of every Ohio child
back to Contents
Children’s State Book and Author
HB548 (Combs) adopts children’s book Lentil as official children’s book of the state, and designates its author, Robert McCloskey, as the official children’s book author of the state.
The Arts
Speak Up for the Arts! CET (Cincinnati Education Television) and the Ohio Alliance for Arts Education have developed a DVD called “Speak Up for the Arts.” This advocacy tool for arts education includes two videos: “Speak Up for the Arts,” which provides information about the impact of the arts on students and schools, and “Advocate for the Arts,” which provides practical information for arts education advocates to use to establish relationships with policy and law makers in Ohio to promote arts education. This DVD was developed with financial support from the Wohlgemuth Herschede Foundation, the Ladislas and Vilma Segoe Family Foundation, the Fine Arts Fund, and the BJ Connective Concepts, and is available at http://www.cetconnect.org/. The CET website also includes other information to support arts education.
back to Contents
Update on Early Childhood Education Initiatives
The National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, John Thomasian director, announced last week that Ohio will receive a $10,000 Early Childhood Center Grant to support its Early Childhood Advisory Council. Twelve states were awarded this grant to assist states in meeting the provisions of the Improving the Head Start Act of 2007 to better coordinate early care, education, and health services and improve outcomes for young children in the state so that they are better prepared for elementary schools.
Trends in Infancy/Early Childhood and Middle Childhood Well-Being, 1994-2006
The Foundation for Child Development (FCD) released on April 25, 2008 a new report called 2008 Special Focus Report: Trends in Infancy/Early Childhood and Middle Childhood Well-Being, 1994-2006, Kenneth C. Land, Project Coordinator. This report presents an overview of the status of children ages birth through 11 in the U.S. based on the FCD’s Child Well-Being Index. The index includes 25 key national indicators across six quality-of-life domains: Health, Economic Well-being, Educational Attainment, Safety and Behavioral Concerns, Social Relationships, and Community Connectedness.
National Symposium on Early Childhood Science and Policy
The Partnership for Early Childhood Science and Policy and representatives from 14 states will hold a symposium on state policies to support science-based policies that enhance children’s learning, behavior, and health called the National Symposium on Early Childhood Science and Policy. The Partnership for Early Childhood Education includes the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center), Harvard University’s Center on the Developing Child, and the National Conference of State Legislatures. The symposium will be held on June 26-27, 2008 at Harvard University. Representatives from Ohio, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and Washington will send teams composed of legislators, policy advisors, business and civic leaders to learn about the latest advances in early childhood research and practices. The Partnership has also created a Working Group on Early Childhood Science and Policy, and is convening an Issues Policy Group related to early childhood education. Website >
back to Contents
Youth Voices Project to Improve Ohio Schools
The Ohio Youth Agenda includes the following eight components for Ohio’s education system:
- Full curriculum, including high-level academic courses, the arts, career education, multicultural economy, financial literacy, technology, citizen engagement, job shadowing, internships, and access to high-speed computers
- Knowledgeable, flexible, and thoughtful teachers, including capping classroom size at 25 students per teacher
- Preparing for and affording college
- Youth leadership to prevent violence, including peer mediation, school counselors, youth centers in the community, and efforts to prevent the spread of weapons to youth
- Realistic Ohio Graduation Test, including additional ways to assess student progress
- Peer leadership and personal attention to prevent dropouts
- Active support, education, and attention while young people are in jail
- A constitutional state funding system, based on the actual cost of providing opportunities for students
To learn more about Youth Voices, visit the Ohio Fair Schools Campaign. To receive updates about Youth Voices, contact Daniel Ortiz (e-mail).
Democracy at Risk: The Need for a New Federal Role in Education Policy
The Athens, Ohio based Forum for Education and Democracy, George Wood executive director, released on April 23, 2008 a new report called Democracy at Risk: The Need for a New Federal Role in Education Policy. The report finds that federal education policy is “"inconsistent and shortsighted,” and public education is more “at risk” now than 25 years ago when the National Commission on Excellence in Education released A Nation At Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform (April 26, 1983).
According to a summary of the report, the federal government should “strengthen our public schools and take up the challenge of preparing all children, regardless of circumstance, for productive citizenship in the 21st century.” The Forum recommends the following actions be taken by the federal government:
- Pay off the Education Debt: Meet the federal obligation to fund programs for high-need students, link funding to state progress toward equitable opportunities to learn, and invest in out-of-school learning supports.
- Invest in a New “Marshall Plan” for Teachers and School Leaders: Create incentives for recruiting teachers to high-need fields and locations; strengthen teacher preparation; create sustained, practice-based collegial learning opportunities for teachers; develop teaching careers that reward, develop, and share expertise; and mount a major initiative to prepare and support expert school leaders.
- Support Educational Research and Innovation: Document and disseminate promising practices; invest in the development of higher-quality standards and assessments for genuine accountability; and develop data systems, tools, and measures.
- Engage and Educate Local Communities: Foster family engagement in school life and school improvement, provide for genuine community involvement in school improvement processes, and place schools at the center of community education.
According to the conclusion of the report: “The challenge is clear: Improving education and improving democracy go hand in hand. We must ensure that our students acquire the knowledge, the employment and health skills, the appreciation of the arts, and the understanding of human rights and responsibilities that make a truly free citizen. Indeed, if we can think of education in these ways, we will create a stronger fabric of ‘We, the people’ by the next, and much better, generation” (p. 48).
The Forum for Education and Democracy is an education think tank dedicated to renewing America’s commitment to strong public schools at the national, state, and local levels. This report was prepared by conveners Linda Darling-Hammond and George Wood with contributions from Policy and Outreach Director Beth Glenn and from conveners Carl Glickman, Wendy D. Puriefoy, Sharon Robinson, Judith Browne-Dianis, John Goodlad, Gloria Ladson-Billings, Deborah Meier, Larry Myatt, Pedro Noguera, Nancy Sizer, Ted Sizer, and Angela Valenzuela. The report is available online >
back to Contents
Summary of Proposed NCLB Rule Changes
Assessments and Multiple Measures
Background: There is a misunderstanding among some in the field that accountability under Title I must be based on a single measure or form of assessment.
Proposal: The proposed regulations clarify that measures of student academic achievement may include multiple question formats (e.g., multiple choice, extended response) that range in difficulty within a single assessment, as well as multiple assessments within a subject area (e.g., reading and writing assessments to measure reading/language arts).
Strengthening State Assessment and Accountability Systems
Background: Regular access to a group of experts with knowledge in the fields of education standards, assessments, accountability systems, statistics, and psychometrics would help ensure that state standards and assessments are of the highest technical quality.
Proposal: The proposed regulations require the creation of a National Technical Advisory Council (National TAC) to advise the secretary on key technical issues related to state standards, assessments and accountability systems.
Minimum Subgroup Size and Inclusion of Students in Accountability
Background: Currently, there are many students and subgroups of students whose achievement data are excluded from adequate yearly progress (AYP) determinations at the school level. Data are excluded when states establish large minimum subgroup sizes and add other components (e.g., confidence intervals; definitions of “full academic year”) to their AYP definitions.
Proposal: The proposed regulations require states to explain in their state accountability workbooks how the minimum subgroup size and other components of their AYP definitions (e.g., confidence intervals, indexes, definitions of “ full academic year”) combine to provide statistically reliable information. States also would be required to ensure that the maximum number of students and subgroups are included in AYP determinations. Additionally, states would be required to include the number and percentage of students and subgroups excluded from school-level accountability determinations in their accountability workbooks.
Inclusion of NAEP Data on State and Local Report Cards
Background: More information about how students in a state are performing on state assessments as compared to how those students are performing on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) would provide greater transparency about state standards and assessments. This information also would provide parents with another tool to assess the education systems in their states.
Proposal: The proposed regulations require states and districts to report the most recent available results from the state NAEP reading and mathematics assessments on the same public report card that they use to report the results of state assessments.
Uniform Definition of “Graduation Rate”
Background: Current regulations give states latitude in determining how public high school graduation rates are calculated. A uniform and accurate method of calculating graduation rates is needed to raise expectations and to hold schools, districts, and states accountable for increasing the number of students who graduate on time with a regular high school diploma.
Proposal: The proposed regulations establish a uniform definition of the graduation rate that is consistent with the definition agreed to by the National Governors Association (NGA). The graduation rate would be defined as the number of students who graduate in a given year within the standard number of years with a regular high school diploma divided by the number of students who entered high school four years earlier (adjusting for transfers in and out). The standard number of years to earn a high school diploma would be four years. States would be able to propose, for approval by the secretary, an alternate definition of “standard number of years” for limited categories of students who, under certain conditions, may take longer to graduate than the standard 4 years. A state that does not have a system to accurately track students who transfer to another educational program that culminates in the award of a regular high school diploma, which is needed to calculate the NGA graduation rate, would use the averaged freshman graduation rate (AFGR) on a transitional basis. By 2012-13, all states would have to use the more rigorous NGA definition of graduation rate.
Graduation Rates and AYP
Background: Under current regulations, in order to make AYP, most states require schools to make only a small amount of improvement from one year to the next or to meet very low graduation rate goals (e.g., 50 percent). Permitting schools and districts with extremely low graduation rates or minimal levels of improvement to make AYP does not provide sufficient accountability for ensuring that students graduate on time.
Proposal: States would be required to (1) set a graduation rate goal (e.g., 90 percent) that represents the rate they expect all high schools to meet; and (2) define how schools and districts may demonstrate continuous and substantial improvement from the prior year. To make AYP, a school or district would have to meet the graduation rate goal or demonstrate continuous and substantial improvement from the prior year.
Disaggregation of Graduation Rates
Background: Current regulations do not require disaggregated graduation rate data (i.e., data broken down by student subgroups) to be included in AYP determinations. Data show large disparities in the graduation rates of different subgroups. Simply requiring disaggregated data to be reported has not been sufficient to ensure that graduation rates improve for all students.
Proposal: The proposed regulations require disaggregated graduation rates to be taken into account in AYP determinations. No later than the 2012-13 academic year (when all states must use the NGA rate), states would be required to disaggregate the data by subgroup at the school and district levels to determine and report AYP. Prior to the 2012-13 school year, states would have to disaggregate the data at the school, LEA, and state levels for reporting purposes, but only at the LEA and state levels for determining AYP.
Including Individual Student Growth in AYP
Background: There is general consensus among teachers, administrators, researchers, and advocates that states should be permitted to include measures of individual student growth (i.e., growth models) when determining AYP. By allowing states to include measures of individual student progress in AYP calculations, schools will continue to be held accountable for the achievement of all students. At the same time, states will have the flexibility to use more sophisticated methods of determining AYP.
Proposal: The proposed regulations set the criteria that states must meet in order to incorporate individual student academic progress into their definitions of AYP. The proposed regulations build on criteria that are part of the current “growth model” pilot program.
Same Subject-Same Subgroup Identification for Improvement
Background: Limiting the identification of schools and districts that are “in need of improvement”" to those that do not meet the annual measurable objective (AMO) in the same subject for the same subgroup over consecutive years is inconsistent with the law’s accountability provisions. The law requires that every subgroup meet the state's AMO in each subject, each year.
Proposal: The proposed regulations codify current Department policy that a district may base improvement status on whether a school missed AYP because it did not meet the AMO in the same subject (or meet the same academic indicator) for two consecutive years. A district may not, however, limit identification for improvement to those schools that missed AYP only because they did not meet the AMO in the same subject (or meet the same academic indicator) for the same subgroup for two consecutive years.
Restructuring
Background: Based on available data, the Department is concerned that the restructuring requirements are not being implemented effectively, and in some cases, not at all.
Proposal: The proposed regulations require the following: (1) interventions implemented as part of a school’s restructuring plan must be significantly more rigorous and comprehensive than the corrective action plan that the school implemented after it was identified as in need of improvement; (2) districts must implement interventions that address the reasons why a school is in the restructuring phase; and (3) in replacing all or most of the school staff, a district may include replacing the principal; however, replacing the principal alone would not be sufficient to constitute restructuring.
Supplemental Educational Services (SES) and Public School Choice
Timely and Clear Notification to Parents
Background: Too often, parents whose children attend Title I schools that are identified as in need of improvement are not notified until after the start of the school year that they may send their children to better-performing public schools in their districts. Additionally, parents may be unaware of their children’s eligibility for SES because the eligibility notice is not clearly distinguishable from the information that districts provide when a school is in improvement status.
Proposal: The proposed regulations require timely notification to parents regarding public school choice and SES. Districts must (1) notify parents of eligible children that they may elect to participate in public school choice and detail their available options as far in advance as possible, but no later than 14 days before the start of the school year. This requirement will give parents adequate time to exercise their choice option before the school year begins. With more time for parents to evaluate their choice options, the level of public school choice participation across the country should increase. (2) notify parents of eligible children of the availability of SES and highlight the benefits of SES. This notice must be clear and concise, as well as clearly distinguishable from the other information sent to parents notifying them that their child’s school is in improvement status.
Access to Information on District Implementation of Public School Choice and SES
Background: Districts currently are not required to make information on public school choice and SES eligibility available to the public. Doing so would make districts’ implementation more transparent and make it easier for parents to obtain the information they need.
Proposal: The proposed regulations require districts to include on their websites the following information: (1) tThe number of students who were eligible for and who participated in SES and public school choice during prior school years; (2) a list of SES providers approved to serve the district, as well as the locations where services are provided for the current school year; and (3) a list of available schools to which students eligible for public school choice may transfer for the current school year.
State Monitoring of Districts’ Implementation of SES
Background: Although states have always had to monitor their districts to ensure that the SES requirements were being met, states have not been required to make their monitoring procedures public.
Proposal: The proposed regulations require states to develop, implement, and publicly report the standards and techniques they use to monitor how districts implement the SES requirements.
SES Provider Approval Process
Background: The law currently sets forth the minimum criteria that states must consider in approving SES providers. However, more can be done to ensure that states approve only those providers with programs having evidence of contributing to increased student achievement.
Proposal: In approving an SES provider, the regulations require states to consider, at a minimum:
- Evidence from the provider that the instruction it would provide and the content it would use are research based and aligned with state academic content and student achievement standards
- Information from the provider on whether it has been removed from any state’s approved provider list
- Parent recommendations or results from parent surveys, if available, regarding the success of the provider’s instructional program in increasing student achievement
- Any evaluation results demonstrating that the instructional program has improved student achievement
State Monitoring of SES Provider Effectiveness
Background: States are required to evaluate whether providers have contributed to increased student achievement for 2 consecutive years. However, the law does not specify the evidence a state must consider in making determinations about renewing approval of providers or withdrawing them from the state’s approved list.
Proposal: To inform the renewal or withdrawal of approval for a provider, the proposed regulations require a state to examine, at a minimum, evidence that the provider’s instructional program:
- is consistent with the instruction provided and content used by the district and state
- addresses students’ needs as described in their SES plans
- has contributed to increasing students’ academic proficiency
- is aligned with state academic content and student academic achievement standards
Additionally, states would have to consider, if available, parent recommendations, results from parent surveys or other evaluation results regarding the success of the provider's program in increasing student achievement.
Costs for Parent Outreach
Background: Districts must provide parents with the information they need to make the best, most informed decisions regarding their children’s education. Currently, districts are not allowed to count the costs of this outreach toward their obligation to spend an amount equal to 20 percent of their Title I, Part A funding on public school choice and SES.
Proposal: The proposed regulations permit a district to count the costs associated with providing parent outreach and assistance toward meeting its 20 percent obligation for SES and transportation for public school choice. The amount that could be counted as such would be capped at 0.2 percent of the district’s Title I, Part A allocation. A district still would be allowed to spend more than that amount on parental outreach activities.
Use of Funds for Public School Choice and SES
Background: Currently, the law does not require that districts meet certain requirements before reallocating funds for public school choice and SES to other purposes.
Proposal: The proposed regulations require a district, before reallocating unused funds from choice-related transportation and SES to other purposes, to provide satisfactory evidence to the state that it has demonstrated success in
- partnering with community-based organizations to inform students and parents of SES and public school choice options
- ensuring that students and their parents have had a genuine opportunity to sign up to transfer to a better-performing school or obtain SES by providing timely, accurate notice to parents
- ensuring that sign-up forms are made widely available and accessible and that they have been distributed directly to all eligible students and their parents
- allowing eligible students to sign up to receive SES throughout the academic year ensuring that SES providers are given access to school facilities on the same terms as are available to other groups that seek to use school facilities
Highly Qualified Special Education Teachers
Background: Current Title I regulations do not include all of the requirements for highly qualified special education teachers that are in the more recent Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) regulations.
Proposal: The proposed regulations add a cross-reference to the definition of “highly qualified special education teachers” in the IDEA regulations. This is a technical change.
back to Contents
