Teachers Union screws up an entire public school system; Washington loses its NCLB waiver for refusing to use test scores in teacher evaluations

Gov. Jay Inslee tried to get the legislature to pass a bill to save the waiver, but the lawmakers balked. (AP Photo/Rachel La Corte)

Democrats need to show a little spine and not let the teachers union harm children by protecting incompetent teachers. It's time for effective evaluations. Why shouldn't student test scores be one small part of the evaluation system?

Washington becomes first state to lose its waiver from No Child Left Behind
By Niraj Chokshi
Washington Post
April 24, 2014

Washington state lost its waiver from implementing certain parts of the No Child Left Behind education law, an action that could lead to layoffs and program cuts, Gov. Jay Inslee said in a statement Thursday.

In a letter to the state superintendent, Education Secretary Arne Duncan said that he would not renew the waiver because the state had failed to implement promised changes to how it evaluates teachers and principals. The state is the first to lose its waiver.

In February 2012, the state committed to making student learning growth a substantial factor in those reviews. Last August, it was placed on high-risk status for failing to implement that and other changes, giving the state until May 1 to produce a plan. Because that would require a legislative change and Washington’s legislature won’t reconvene until next January, Duncan said the state would be losing its waiver.

“Washington has not been able to keep all of its commitments,” he said in the letter. “Thus, although Washington has benefitted from ESEA flexibility, I regret that Washington’s flexibility will end with the 2013–2014 school year.”

Inslee criticized lawmakers in his statement on the loss of the waiver, saying it “could have been avoided if the state legislature had acted last session.”

As a result, districts will lose flexibility on how to use nearly $40 million in federal funds, he said: “Loss of that funding means those districts now face potential impacts that could include laying off some of Washington’s tremendous teachers or cutting back on programs that serve at-risk students.”

Forty-three states, including Washington, were approved for waivers, according to an Education Department page last modified Tuesday.

Arne Duncan Revokes Washington State's NCLB Waiver
By Alyson Klein
Education Week
April 24, 2014

UPDATED

U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan yanked Washington state's waiver Thursday, making the Evergreen State the first to lose the Obama administration's flexibility from many of the mandates of the outdated No Child Left Behind Act.

But, in an important twist, the state will not be returning to an accountability system that's exactly like the one it had under NCLB, particularly when it comes to intervening in low-performing schools. Specifically, like other waiver states, Washington will still single out "priority" and "focus" schools this spring, even as it largely reverts back to NCLB-style interventions, such as tutoring, sources say.

Sound complicated? Accountability experts think so too. "I think it's going to be really confusing for the public and for parents to understand this," said Anne Hyslop, a policy analyst at the New America Foundation. "There are going to be a lot of questions about how this affects local districts and schools."

The decision to pull the waiver comes as no surprise to Washington state officials, who have said for weeks that they fully expected to lose the flexibility. The issue? Washington state doesn't require state test scores to be integrated into teacher evaluations—instead districts can choose either state or local assessments.

How Will This Work?

The move means that, for starters, districts in Washington state will lose control over nearly $40 million in federal money. That's because schools will now have to begin setting aside that money for NCLB-prescribed remedies for low-performing schools, such as tutoring and school choice. The state will also have to return to the NCLB law's much-maligned yardstick, gauging schools based on "adequate yearly progress," or AYP.

In fact, in the fall, Washington state will need to make AYP determinations based on the goals for the 2014-15 school year. As anyone who has ever read the NCLB law knows, that means 100 percent of students are supposed to be proficient. From there it gets tricky. To decide where schools fall on the improvement timetable, the state will have to determine what the school's status would have been prior to the waiver. Under this retroactive labeling scheme, a school that would plan for "restructuring" (the most dramatic NCLB intervention) might have to implement those interventions next year, sources say.

And there's another very particular wrinkle here because of Washington's unique ex-waiver status. Like other waiver states, Washington will continue to identify schools that are foundering the most using a system that looks more like the waiver rules than NCLB. The Evergreen State is still choosing to pinpoint "priority" schools (the lowest performers) and "focus" schools (other struggling schools.) The result will be an accountability system that is a mishmash of NCLB and the state's waiver system, potentially resulting in some muddled messages for low-performing schools.

"I appreciate that transitioning back to NCLB is not desirable, and will not be simple," Duncan wrote in a letter explaining his decision.

The department also made it clear to Washington officials that the state could be eligible for a new waiver if it is able to make the necessary changes to its teacher evaluation system.

State Politics

But that may not be politically possible. The state's governor, Jay Inslee, a Democrat, and schools chief, Randy Dorn, had tried to save the waiver, but were unsuccessful. Despite heavy lobbying from both leaders, Washington state lawmakers were unable to pass a bill earlier this spring that might have appeased the Education Department by calling for state tests to be a factor in evaluations by the 2017-18 school year.

Inslee laid blame for the waiver's revocation at the legislature's feet, and warned that the loss of funding flexibility could lead to layoffs. "The loss of this waiver could have been avoided if the state legislature had acted last session," he said in a statement. "The waiver provided districts flexibility to use nearly $40 million in federal funds to support struggling students. Loss of that funding means those districts now face potential impacts that could include laying off some of Washington's tremendous teachers or cutting back on programs that serve at-risk students."

But it's uncertain if the fix would have even saved the waiver—the administration has required every other state to get its teacher-evaluation system fully in place by the 2016-17 school year, at the latest. (Notably, the Obama administration will leave office in the middle of that school year, and it's anyone's guess what will happen with the waiver scheme under a new administration.) And for its part, the Washington Education Association, an affiliate of the National Education Association, stands by its decision to lobby against the change.

"WEA believes the Washington Legislature did the right thing last session when it rejected Duncan's inflexible, and bureaucratic demands," the union's president, Kim Mead wrote in a statement. "Republicans and Democrats alike saw that Duncan's failed federal mandates would have done nothing to help Washington's kids or their teachers, but rather would impose broken federal law on our students."

Federal Politics

Although Washington state's waiver was the first to go, it may not be the last. The Education Department has awarded waivers to 43 states and the District of Columbia so far. And three other states have had their waivers put on "high risk" status: Arizona, Kansas, and Oregon. Like Washington, all three are hung up on the issue of teacher evaluation.

Last year, Duncan told the Council of Chief State School Officers that he was likely to "revoke a waiver or two or three." Washington state's new accountability regime could be a harbinger of what other high-risk states have in store, should they lose their waivers. And it could also have implications for any states that elect not to extend their waivers.

Kate Tromble, the director of government relations for the Education Trust, said revoking the waiver was the right thing to do.

"The department needed to set a bottom line" to make it clear to states that they are serious about waiver enforcement, she said. "It is unfortunate because Washington students are going to bear the burden of the failure of adults" in the state.

Tromble is worried, however, about what may happen when all students in the state take the rigorous Smarter Balanced Assessment next school year. The test may prove to be a lot tougher than Washington's current exam—and all schools may be labeled as "failing" to make progress.

"It's important that we hold schools accountable, but schools need to feel the system is legitimate," she said. The impetus is on Washington state leaders to find a way to work through this issue, she said.

So far, the department has thrown the hammer down on states that didn't follow through on their plans when it comes to teacher evaluation.

But it's been another story when it comes to another requirement for waiver states: using assessments aligned to college- and career-ready standards, Hyslop noted.

States, including Georgia, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Utah, said they planned to use participation in either PARCC or Smarter Balanced—the two consortia developing tests that align with the common-core standards—to fulfill that requirement. And then they ditched the consortia. The U.S. Department asked for their Plan B, but so far hasn't put any of those states on high-risk status.

Coming down hard on those states may carry more political risk than getting tough on teacher evaluation, Hyslop said, given the pushback around the country on the Obama administration's championship of common core.

"Teacher evaluation is a very politically charged issue, but common core is even more so," she said. "Stepping in and really getting tough on assessments I think would have a lot more political ramifications."

Will the waiver revocation prod Congress to actually act on renewing the NCLB law? Maybe. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., who may be next in line to head up the Senate education committee, said in a statement that the waiver's revocation points to the need to revise the ESEA law. "What's most important now is that we all do our part to rectify this situation," said Murray, who reportedly spoke to the department on her home state's behalf. "I have made clear time and again that I will work with anyone who is willing to reauthorize ESEA, but to date, making progress on updating this law has been an unnecessarily partisan fight."

An Open Letter From Arne Duncan to America's Teachers

"You want real feedback in a professional setting rather than drive-by visits from principals or a single score on a bubble test...I want to develop a system of evaluation that draws on meaningful observations and input from your peers, as well as a sophisticated assessment that measures individual student growth, creativity, and critical thinking. States, with the help of teachers, are now developing better assessments so you will have useful information to guide instruction and show the positive impact you are having on our children."

May 2, 2011
An Open Letter From Arne Duncan to America's Teachers
In Honor of Teacher Appreciation Week
By Arne Duncan
Education Week

I have worked in education for much of my life. I have met with thousands of teachers in great schools and struggling schools, in big cities and small towns, and I have a deep and genuine appreciation for the work you do. I know that most teachers did not enter the profession for the money. You became teachers to make a difference in the lives of children, and for the hard work you do each day, you deserve to be respected, valued, and supported.

I consider teaching an honorable and important profession, and it is my goal to see that you are treated with the dignity we award to other professionals in society. In too many communities, the profession has been devalued. Many of the teachers I have met object to the imposition of curriculum that reduces teaching to little more than a paint-by-numbers exercise. I agree.

Inside your classroom, you exercise a high degree of autonomy. You decide when to slow down to make sure all of your students fully understand a concept, or when a different instructional strategy is needed to meet the needs of a few who are struggling to keep up. You build relationships with students from a variety of backgrounds and with a diverse array of needs, and you find ways to motivate and engage them. I appreciate the challenge and skill involved in the work you do and applaud those of you who have dedicated your lives to teaching.

Many of you have told me you are willing to be held accountable for outcomes over which you have some control, but you also want school leaders held accountable for creating a positive and supportive learning environment. You want real feedback in a professional setting rather than drive-by visits from principals or a single score on a bubble test. And you want the time and opportunity to work with your colleagues and strengthen your craft.

You have told me you believe that the No Child Left Behind Act has prompted some schools—especially low-performing ones—to teach to the test, rather than focus on the educational needs of students. Because of the pressure to boost test scores, NCLB has narrowed the curriculum, and important subjects like history, science, the arts, foreign languages, and physical education have been de-emphasized. And you are frustrated when teachers alone are blamed for educational failures that have roots in broken families, unsafe communities, misguided reforms, and underfunded schools systems. You rightfully believe that responsibility for educational quality should be shared by administrators, community, parents, and even students themselves.

The teachers I have met are not afraid of hard work, and few jobs today are harder. Moreover, it’s gotten harder in recent years; the challenges kids bring into the classroom are greater and the expectations are higher. Not too long ago, it was acceptable for schools to have high dropout rates, and not all kids were expected to be proficient in every subject. In today’s economy, there is no acceptable dropout rate, and we rightly expect all children—English-language learners, students with disabilities, and children of poverty—to learn and succeed.

You and I are here to help America’s children. We understand that the surest way to do that is to make sure that the 3.2 million teachers in America’s classrooms are the very best they can be. The quality of our education system can only be as good as the quality of our teaching force.

So I want to work with you to change and improve federal law, to invest in teachers and strengthen the teaching profession. Together with you, I want to develop a system of evaluation that draws on meaningful observations and input from your peers, as well as a sophisticated assessment that measures individual student growth, creativity, and critical thinking. States, with the help of teachers, are now developing better assessments so you will have useful information to guide instruction and show the positive impact you are having on our children.

Working together, we can transform teaching from the factory model designed over a century ago to one built for the information age. We can build an accountability system based on data we trust and a standard that is honest—one that recognizes and rewards great teaching, gives new or struggling teachers the support they need to succeed, and deals fairly, efficiently, and compassionately with teachers who are simply not up to the job. With your input and leadership, we can restore the status of the teaching profession so more of America’s top college students choose to teach because no other job is more important or more fulfilling.

In the next decade, half of America’s teachers are likely to retire. What we do to recruit, train, and retain our new teachers will shape public education in this country for a generation. At the same time, how we recognize, honor, and show respect for our experienced educators will reaffirm teaching as a profession of nation builders and social leaders dedicated to our highest ideals. As that work proceeds, I want you to know that I hear you, I value you, and I respect you.

Arne Duncan is the U.S. secretary of education.

Washington D.C. a bright spot in U.S. reading test data

Michelle Rhee, controversial superintendent of DC schools, will be happy to see this.

Reading scores stalled under 'No Child' law, report finds D.C. fourth-graders a bright spot in disappointing 2009 data
By Nick Anderson and Bill Turque
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, March 25, 2010

Reading achievement in D.C. public schools has climbed in the fourth grade in recent years, the federal government reported Wednesday, while progress nationwide has stalled despite huge instructional efforts launched under the No Child Left Behind law.

A report from the National Assessment of Educational Progress shows that fourth-grade scores for the nation's public schools stagnated after the law took effect in 2002, rose modestly in 2007 and remained unchanged last year. By contrast, the long-troubled D.C. schools have made steady advances since 2003, although their scores remain far below the national average.

The national picture for eighth-grade reading was largely the same: a slight uptick in performance since 2007, but no gain in the seven years when President George W. Bush's program for school reform was in high gear. The District's eighth-grade reading scores showed meager growth in that time.

When Bush signed the law, hopes were high for a revolution in reading. Billions of dollars were spent, especially in early grades, to build fluency, vocabulary, comprehension and a love of books that would propel students in all subjects. The goal was to eliminate racial and ethnic achievement gaps. But Wednesday's report shows no great leaps for the nation and stubborn disparities in performance between white and black students, among others...

California screws up NCLB tutor list (SES); refuses to qualify Lindamood-Bell but approves substandard ARC Associates

Ineffective tutors, why does California pay them to continue?
June 28, 10:03 PM

Under No Child Left Behind, outside literacy tutoring is supposed to be offered to schools with low academic scores. State Department of Education agencies are supposed to screen and select tutoring centers that are deemed to be effective...

SES focuses on supplemental instruction or tutoring in English-language arts and/or mathematics for eligible students in Title I Program Improvement (PI) schools. Schools in Year two and beyond of PI are required to offer SES. The SES program augments the PI schools’ programs of instruction to help eligible students meet California’s state content standards."

...However one has to wonder what criteria they are using to select their tutors and how they monitor their effectiveness. I have found out Lindamood Bell, which offers scientifically researched successful programs with well documented statistical evidence or reading gain was NOT approved to be an SES tutor.

According to Tom Mendoza at Lindamood Bell learning process's, the Ca DOE was evasive about their criteria and did not offer any plausible explanation for the refusal.

In contrast, San Francisco based * ARC Associates, was approved by the CDE. ARC associates is the tutoring company.who has worked at Cesar Chavez Elementary School for the past five years and last year made $237,266.71 from the San Francisco Unified School District. This year, the district will pay ARC a projected $559,523 in SES tutoring contracts, according to the San Francisco Unified School District’s Office of State and Federally Funded Programs.

Yet nowhere has the weakness in the tutoring program been more stark than at Cesar Chavez, where tutoring has failed to increase scores on the standardized math and reading tests for most of the last five years. In 2007, test scores actually plunged 139 points, and last year’s scores rose only 10 points despite a growing number of students taking advantage of the subsidized tutoring.

This year at Cesar Chavez, 93 of the 183 eligible first through fifth grade students have been spending two or three hours a week since January getting assistance, but few expect better results on tests. At a school in Program Improvement, all students are eligible to receive tutoring, although some students get priority including those who are failing state tests and first graders who fail a reading test.

Arlene Graham, program liaison for ARC Associates, blamed the low test scores on the difficulty in teaching students whose first language is not English. Chavez’s student body is comprised of 71.6 percent Latino English learners compared to 17.5 percent district-wide. “The reality of working with bilingual children is that they have to go through development academically in their own language, then transition academically into English,” said Graham. “How do we get the English content and meaning to them? There is a lag.”

In contrast, Lindamood Bell made substantial gains with ESL students in 2009 working in collaboration with Vista Unified School District at Olive, their lowest performing school which consisted of many ESL students. See http://www.examiner.com/x-4959-Special-Education-Examiner~y2009m6d8-Vista-unified-school-district-and-Lindamood-Bell-proves-all-students-can-achieve

Reading instructor Amber Lamprecht was able to make 1.4 years of reading gain in 36 hours over 6 months to ESL students. http://www.examiner.com/x-4959-Special-Education-Examiner~y2009m4d22-36-hours-to-change-a-child-life

...Secretary of education, Arne Duncan recently stated that California has "lost it's way" when it comes to education. When one looks at this tutoring situation, he is absolutely right. Why should he give California more funds for education when our current decision makers at the CDE make such poor choices?

*As first reported in Mission Local web site:

SES Providers for Ca: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ti/ap/providers.aspx


https://www.examiner.com/x-4959-Special-Education-Examiner~y2009m6d28-Ineffective-NCLB-tutors-why-does-Ca-DOE-allow-them-to-continue

Jonathan Kozol and Randy Ward need to get together and make a real speech

As I listened to Jonathan Kozol tonight, I was shocked at how deep his voice is. Kozol is not a big man, but he can sure fill a large church--both with his voice, and with people. St. Paul's Cathedral in San Diego was packed to the gills.

Kozol wants to get rid of No Child Left Behind Act. Fine. Lots of people agree with him, including me.

So we go back to before the NCLB was passed. But wait--before the NCLB was passed, everyone agreed that SOMETHING HAD TO BE DONE. WE WERE CIRCLING THE DRAIN. AMERICAN EDUCATION WAS DEEPLY DYSFUNCTIONAL. Kozol offers nothing to do in place of NCLB, except the refrain heard over and over again in teacher education classes: pay attention to the individual child, inspire him, value him. I heartily agree, but many, if not most, teachers already do this. And many other teachers won't, or can't, do this, no matter how many Jonathan Kozols trot around the country. Or they will do this, but won't or can't do all the rest of the things a teacher needs to do.

Kozol left me wanting more. He bemoans the fact that most black and Latino kids get inadequate educations, but ignores the fact that ghetto schools have, ON AVERAGE, weaker teachers, when they need above-average teachers to compensate for the students' impoverished lives.

San Diego County Superintendent Randy Ward knows better. When he was up in northern California, he came up with a great idea for getting good teachers to go to bad schools. He would allow schools a certain amount of money, which they could use for regular teachers, and for extra teachers and programs. Poor schools could give up the extras, and use the extra money to offer to good teachers, to attract superior educators to their schools.

THE IDEA IS BRILLIANT. So why does Randy Ward sit silent in the front row at St. Paul's?

Get together, Jonathan and Randy. Tell us what we need to hear.

by Kathleen Hogan, Voice of San Diego, October 9, 2007, Letters