Defunding Common Core Standards--NCLB Waivers And Why Urgent Attention From Parents Needed
Thursday, October 6, 2011 at 07:41PM
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
(2.10.11)
Senate -- Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee
Senator Tom Harkin Committee Chairman (D-IA) Democrat
E-mail Address(es):
harkinintern8_help@help.senate.gov
Senator Michael Enzi (R-WY)
E-mail Address(es):
(Delete contact)
Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
E-mail Address(es):
brandon_ball@alexander.senate.gov
Senator Richard Burr (R-NC)
E-mail Address(es):
eric_leath@burr.senate.gov
Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
E-mail Address(es):
glee_smith@isakson.senate.gov
Senator Rand Paul (R-KY)
E-mail Address(es):
seana_cranston@paul.senate.gov
Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
E-mail Address(es):
juliann_andreen@hatch.senate.gov
Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
E-mail Address(es):
senatorhatch@hatch.senate.gov
Senator John McCain (R-AZ)
E-mail Address(es):
christopher_bowlin@mccain.senate.gov
Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS)
E-mail Address(es):
joshua_yurek@roberts.senate.gov
Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
E-mail Address(es):
karen_mccarthy@murkowski.senate.gov
Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL)
E-mail Address(es):
jeannette_windon@kirk.senate.gov
Senators -- Other
Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK)
E-mail Address(es):
jenny_clem@coburn.senate.gov
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Congressmen -- E-Mail Addresses
(2.10.11)
Congressmen -- Education & the Workforce Committee
http://edworkforce.house.gov/Committee/SubcommitteesJurisdictions.htm
Congressman John Kline Chairman (R-MN)
E-mail Address(es):
brian.melnyk@mail.house.gov
Congressman Tom Petri (R-WI)
E-mail Address(es):
(Contact deleted)
Congressman Buck McKeon (R-CA)
E-mail Address(es):
chris.perry@mail.house.gov
Congresswoman Judy Biggert (R-IL)
E-mail Address(es):
brian.looser@mail.house.gov
Congressman Todd Platts (R-PA)
E-mail Address(es):
mollie.vanlieu@mail.house.gov
Congressman Joe Wilson (R-SC)
E-mail Address(es):
melissa.chandler@mail.house.gov
Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA)
E-mail Address(es):
allison.sadoian@mail.house.gov
Congressman David Roe (R-TN)
E-mail Address(es):
amanda.little@mail.house.gov
Congressman Glenn Thompson (R-PA)
E-mail Address(es):
matthew.brennan@mail.house.gov
Congressmen -- Other
Congressman Eric Cantor Majority Leader (R-VA)
E-mail Address(es):
liz.keith@mail.house.gov
Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) Chm. -- House Budget Comm.
E-mail Address(es):
allison.steil@mail.house.gov
Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA) Comm. on Oversight, Comm. on Judiciary
E-mail Address(es):
kelsey.kerr@mail.house.gov
Congressman Mike Pence (R-IN) 2008 -- Chm. House Repub. Conf.
E-mail Address(es):
lindsey.craig@mail.house.gov
Donna Garner
Wgarner1@hot.rr.com