8.26.13 - Alabama Real-Time News
Funding cuts impacting implementation of Common Core standards at Department of Defense schools
By <http://connect.al.com/staff/LeadaGore/posts.html> Leada Gore | email@example.com al.com
on August 26, 2013 at 11:39 AM, updated August 26, 2013 at 12:00 PM
Excerpts from this article:
<http://ads.al.com/RealMedia/ads/click_lx.ads/blog.al.com/montgomery/2013/08 /citing_funding_cuts_department.html/560135199/StoryAd/ALABAMALIVE/default/e mpty.gif/474b4b475556496279586b414338625a> http://ads.al.com/RealMedia/ads/adstream_lx.ads/blog.al.com/montgomery/2013/ 08/citing_funding_cuts_department.html/560135199/StoryAd/ALABAMALIVE/default /empty.gif/474b4b475556496279586b414338625a?bt=6162&bt=6158&bt=9002&bt=6164
Sequestration cuts have prompted schools that serve military children to delay the full implementation of Common Core Standards.
Department of Defense Education Activity originally adopted Common Core in May 2012 and the schedule called for the new standards to be in place as schools opened their doors this year. The standards, which have <http://blog.al.com/wire/2013/04/senate_committee_approves_comm.html> prompted a firestorm of controversy in Alabama, are currently used in 46 states and the District of Columbia.
"We've prolonged (Common Core) for a year," Marilee Fitzgerald, director of the Department of Defense Education Activity, <http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=120671> told American Forces Press Service. "This year, we're going to do all the work that should have been done last year. We're doing a gap analysis. We're doing a lot of our financial planning and putting together a professional development program."
DODEA operates schools at Fort Rucker and Maxwell Air Force Base. Fort Rucker Primary and Elementary Schools have a combined 729 students. Maxwell's Elementary and Middle School serves as some 395 students in grades Pre-K through eighth. The activity serves more than 84,000 students at nearly 200 schools in seven states, Cuba, Guam, Puerto Rico and 12 countries...
The Ties That Binds Common Core and CSCOPE and HOW IT IMPACTS Home Schooling And Private Schools Also. Hear Donna Garner Break Down The Future States Will Choose--Learning vs Indoctrination. Facts Are Out and Parents and Teachers Need To Know
10.6.11 -- “The Roadmap to Winning a NCLB Waiver” – Donna Garner’s response to this article:
Bottomline: The Obama administration will pick the “judges” and “set the definitions.” Whoever has that kind of control will determine the outcomes. In other words, the Obama administration will be able to decide beforehand which states get the NCLB waivers and which ones won’t. Those states that dance to the Obama administration’s tune (meaning the adoption of Common Core Standards and its accompanying national standards, national curriculum, national assessments, teachers’ salaries tied to students’ test scores, teachers teaching to the test each and every day, national indoctrination of our public school children, national database with student/educator/family-identifiable data) will get the NCLB waivers. AND all of this will be done right under the noses of Congress without their ever having taken a single vote.
I beg of you to contact your Congressmen. (I have posted various Congressional e-mail addresses at the bottom of this page.) All they have to do is to cut the funding for Common Core Standards/Race to the Top RIGHT NOW, and the whole Obama scheme would come falling down in ashes.
States and locals can work together to write their own standards that are explicit, grade-level-specific, knowledge-based, academic, and measurable. Then these standards can be tested with a majority of objective (instead of subjective), right-or-wrong answers so that the resulting student scores can be trusted.
In May 2008 Texas began redoing its curriculum standards and is in the process of redoing its testing and accountability system. Other states could do the same. The Texas Education Agency has even offered to help other states to develop their own state-specific process.
Roadmap to Winning an NCLB Waiver
By Michele McNeil on September 29, 2011 6:01 AM
Although Education Secretary Arne Duncan holds the ultimate power in choosing which states get a No Child Left Behind waiver and which don't, a group of outside judges will wield a tremendous amount of influence in deciding states' fates.
And now, the very important peer review guidebook is out from the department, which issues instructions to the judges as they evaluate each state's waiver plan. This document outlines (almost) exactly what states have to do to win the judges over and get coveted flexibility under NCLB.
The judges have not been selected yet, and it's unclear how many will be needed and if their names will be made public before the judging starts. (If you'll remember, in Race to the Top, their identities were kept secret until after the winners were announced by the department, they said, to prevent undue influence.)
In the guidance, there are a lot of clear-cut, yes or no questions that will be easy for the judges to answer: Is the state part of the Common Core or has its university system certified that its standards are college- and career-ready? Does a state's school turnaround strategy include a provision for additional student learning time? Did a state attach its guidelines for its teacher and principal evaluation systems?
But then come the more complicated, nuanced, and even controversial decisions and judgments peer reviewers will have to make.
Overall, peer reviewers for the waiver package will be deciding whether a plan is "high-quality," and "comprehensive and coherent." They will also be looking for whether the plan will increase the quality of instruction and improve student achievement.
The judges also will examine whether the state "meaningfully" engaged and solicited input from teachers and their representatives. More importantly, the judges will be told to ask: Will implementation be successful because of the input and "commitment" of teachers and their representatives? Commitment seems like a pretty strong word, and seems akin to the buy-in the department stressed as part of Race to the Top.
Then, the peer reviewers will drill down and focus on the three main commitments states have to make to get more freedom under NCLB.
On adopting college and career ready standards
Judges will ask: Is there a plan to provide professional development to teachers and principals? Will the state disseminate high-quality instructional materials to accompany the new standards? Is the state planning to increase access to college-level courses, dual-enrollment courses, and other accelerated learning opportunities? Is the state going to work with colleges of education to better prepare teachers for the new standards?
On creating a differentiated accountability system
Are the state's new proficiency targets ambitious but achievable given the state's existing proficiency rates? In identifying rewards for successful schools, has the state made the case that the rewards will actually be meaningful and worthwhile to schools? For the "focus schools" (those that aren't in the bottom 5 percent, but are within another 10 percent of the state's most-troubled schools), has the state justified that the interventions selected will actually increase student achievement? Has the state outlined a rigorous review process for outside providers who will help with school turnaround work?
On adopting guidelines to improve teacher and principal effectiveness
Is student growth a significant enough part of the new evaluation system to differentiate among teachers who have made "significantly different contributions" (emphasis added) to student growth or closing achievement gaps? Will evaluations be frequent enough? Is there a plan for differentiated professional development based on evaluations? Will the state's plan ensure that local school districts will actually be able to put these new evaluation systems into place by 2013-14 (as a pilot), and 2014-15 (full implementation)?
What's missing? The guidance offers zero help to peer reviewers (or states) as to what it means for a state to have to use its new evaluation system to "inform personnel decisions." So, what does that mean? Can you give the poorly performing teachers lunch duty, and does that count? Will you need to hire and fire based on the evaluations? This is a huge question mark.
The Politics K-12 initial takeaway: The extensive number of questions in the Common Core section makes it clear that the department sees implementing standards as a huge challenge. There seems to be a lot of room for interpretation, especially in the teacher evaluation section, and in deciding whether state-designed interventions in low-performing schools are appropriate. If it wasn't clear before, it is now: The people chosen to be peer reviewers—their backgrounds, their ideologies, their employers—will matter greatly.
Senators -- E-Mail Addresses
Senate -- Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee
Senator Tom Harkin Committee Chairman (D-IA) Democrat
Senator Michael Enzi (R-WY)
Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Senator Richard Burr (R-NC)
Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
Senator Rand Paul (R-KY)
Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Senator John McCain (R-AZ)
Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL)
Senators -- Other
Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Congressmen -- E-Mail Addresses
Congressmen -- Education & the Workforce Committee
Congressman John Kline Chairman (R-MN)
Congressman Tom Petri (R-WI)
Congressman Buck McKeon (R-CA)
Congresswoman Judy Biggert (R-IL)
Congressman Todd Platts (R-PA)
Congressman Joe Wilson (R-SC)
Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA)
Congressman David Roe (R-TN)
Congressman Glenn Thompson (R-PA)
Congressmen -- Other
Congressman Eric Cantor Majority Leader (R-VA)
Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) Chm. -- House Budget Comm.
Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA) Comm. on Oversight, Comm. on Judiciary
Congressman Mike Pence (R-IN) 2008 -- Chm. House Repub. Conf.
We’ve always thought Massachusetts should stay out of national curriculum standards in math and English because our standards were better, but the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education signed up anyway. We did say national standards were bound to be an improvement for many states. Now we’re no longer so sure.
An influential body has proposed new science curriculum standards (“frameworks” in education jargon). The state board plans to align the Massachusetts standards with whatever national ones emerge. Both the board and the national organizations sponsoring the “Common Core” project should reject this bewildering effort from the National Academy of Sciences.
We were alerted to this by Ze’ev Wurman, a software expert who helped develop California’s standards and who commented critically on the new Massachusetts standards. In his blog comment on the Academy’s proposal he said: “The framework does not expect students to use any kind of analytical mathematics while studying science.”
The document only expects students by grade 12 to be competent in recognizing this and expressing that, and in using “simple mathematical expressions’” to see if something “makes sense,” Wurman wrote.
Wurman could find only one equation in all 280 pages of the proposal. A careful reading of the 29 pages of the physical sciences section, where equations would be most important, found none at all.
This is baffling. Mathematics, to which the authors devoted much praise, is the language of science. Wurman’s conclusion, which we share: The document “simply teaches our students science appreciation.”
The size of the document is a disqualifier, too. Teachers and principals need a concise document that will tell them what students need to know and how to learn it, not endless streams of sludgy prose.