No subject
Tue Mar 23 20:22:41 CST 2004
*************************
Just when you thought you knew the rules ...
Schools are scrambling to comply by fall with a slew of demands, as the No Child Left Behind Act turns the status quo upside down.
By Marjorie Coeyman
NEW YORK - Last year, the US Department of Education honored the Kilgore School with a Blue Ribbon Award, designating the Cincinnati public elementary school an example of American public education at its best.
Last week, Kilgore got a very different message. The school so recently at the head of the class was informed of its new status as a failure - one of 8,600 public schools in the country judged to be performing so poorly that its students must be allowed to transfer to other schools.
Thus dawns the brave new world of the No Child Left Behind Act, a world in which much of the status quo in public education is about to be turned upside down.
Across the United States, the implications of the law are just starting to be felt at the school level - often, as in the case of Kilgore, in dramatic ways. Principals who, until a few weeks ago, were consumed with closing out another school year, are now struggling to understand the new law's requirements. Some of those with schools on the failing list are now bracing for the possibility that large numbers of their students may head elsewhere when school starts - in some cases, just a few weeks from now.
Even principals with schools not on that list are staring at batteries of new annual tests, more-rigid hiring requirements, and the need to pay fresh attention to struggling subgroups of students.
The new law's advocates call it a wake-up call designed to force accountability and improvement on schools by 2014, when all schools must meet the goal of academic proficiency for every student. The measures, they argue, offer concrete benchmarks for success and immediate options for those in struggling schools. Its detractors are labeling it an unrealistic piece of legislation.
Beyond that debate, however, bewilderment is growing among those on the front lines - principals, superintendents, and teachers - at schools that have struggled hard to make improvements and still are being hit with punitive measures.
"The system will be jolted in the fall, and this is just the first in a series of shocks that will be administered to the public schools," says Jack Jennings, director of the Center on Education Policy in Washington, D.C. "The President and the Congress meant to shock the schools."
Heavy reliance on test scores is just one factor already producing some odd results.
For example, more than 1,400, or about a third, of all Michigan schools are now considered to be failing - though not one school in Arkansas has received that designation. A Kentucky elementary school that boosted its test scores by 20 percent last year is also classified as a failing school on the basis of earlier test results.
A key factor can be that schools must now demonstrate that all children are succeeding. If any one group - from low-income families, minority students, special- education students, or limited-English students - tests poorly for two years, that school is labeled a failure. That principle was applied as part of the Texas school reform initiative, and many applaud it as a tough but fair method of policing a system that tends to favor the affluent.
We'd like you to change - immediately
But the speed with which these sanctions are moving into place is one of the touchiest points of the new law. The dramatic reversal for the Kilgore school - which already outperformed many other schools with similar demographics - comes from the new law's insistence that no child will in fact be left behind, either through low test scores or a failure to improve.
Another frustration is the reliance on 1998-2000 test scores, which fail to account for recent improvement. In addition, determining failure relies heavily on varying state standards. States like Michigan, which adopted more ambitious standards, therefore, will now have to deal with larger numbers of "failing" schools.
The failure designation hurts because affected districts will have not only to allow students to transfer but also to pay their transportation costs. Those same districts may also have to worry about seeing their best schools swamped by new attendees. Even here, however, the application of the law will be uneven. Districts in which the best schools are already too crowded may be freed from any such obligation.
Failing schools will also have to offer to pay for tutoring or other academic services for the students that remain, creating a further drain on resources.
Not everyone believes the transfer issue will create massive problems. Some districts already have school choice, and others doubt parents will make such changes in large numbers.
"Parents are not going to take their children to an unknown school in an unfamiliar neighborhood," says Sheldon Benardo, principal of P.S. 86 in New York's Bronx neighborhood, who has already sent letters to the parents of his pupils informing them of their right to transfer.
And some systems insist they'll be ready for the challenge. "We've had considerable discussion and planning, and I think we will be prepared," says Marilyn Johnson, general counsel of the Chicago public school system, where at least 260 elementary schools will be affected.
Other districts simply say overcrowding will make it more or less impossible to comply with transfer requests.
More requirements to come
Many educators say the adjustments they are currently making are onerous. But some warn that they pale in comparison with what lies ahead.
For instance, some districts that already have trouble attracting teachers may find it nearly impossible to comply with provisions that all teachers must be "highly qualified" by 2005. For states with tight budgets, the need to have a statewide testing system in place that same year may prove a heavy burden. "We like the bill," says Peter McWalters, commissioner of elementary and secondary education in Rhode Island. "But this is a resource issue."
Some educators are simply concerned that certain students can't respond quickly enough. "We receive kids at all kinds of levels. We get kids who've been kept out of school for five years, and immediately we're supposed to bring them up to state standards?" asks Douglas Williams, superintendent of Perry Township, a half-urban, half-suburban district that curves around Indianapolis.
The requirement that the job be done so quickly, says Mr. Williams, is like telling President Bush, " 'Look, you eradicate every terrorist from the face of the earth in the next couple of years, or we'll get rid of you.' "
Eliminating terrorists and raising standards are praiseworthy goals, Perry says, "and they're exactly what we should be shooting for. But you just can't do it in that period of time."
The basic problem with No Child Left Behind is that it was written by legislators - a group who "wouldn't know a school if they fell over it on the sidewalk," says Richard Elmore, professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education.
The law sets target dates for improvement but never really tells schools - especially those struggling with high poverty rates, shortages of qualified teachers, and limited resources - how to make that improvement. "The law takes a 'and then a miracle happens' position," says Professor Elmore. "The provisions of the law are way ahead of the capacity on the ground."
Throw the ball farther down the field
But that's not necessarily a negative, argues Rick Hess, assistant professor of education and politics at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, when dealing with a system that has always proved highly resistant to change.
"You can take the incrementalist tack," he says, "or throw the ball farther down the field and assume everybody's going to adjust."
The thinking, he says, was that "there is a window of opportunity. They made a calculated decision to go for what they could get."
But when it comes to details like determining which schools will be willing to begin taking children from failing schools this fall, "I haven't heard anywhere near enough conversation," says Kathy Christie, vice president of the Education Commission of the States in Denver. "Nobody's really prepared for this." However, she points out, "you have to start somewhere."
What kicks into place this school year (2002-2003):
Students in schools that have performed poorly for two years may move to another school (about 8,600 schools qualify).
Teachers hired with Title I money (targeted at poor schools) must be "highly qualified," meaning they either have a degree in the field they teach or have passed a state exam.
Paraprofessionals and aides hired with Title I money must either have at least two years of college or have passed a state exam.
Title I schools must inform all parents if their child is taught for more than four weeks by an unqualified teacher.
All schools must have annual assessments of students with limited English, and biennial use of the NAEP (a national test) in math and reading for a sample of 4th- through 8th-graders.
States must distribute annual report cards assessing their schools.
Districts must deliver annual local report cards.
Performance milestones that lie ahead:
2003: All schools failing to show improvement for two years must allow their students to transfer to another school.
Parents with children in schools that have performed poorly for two years may request $300-1,000 in Title I funding to provide their child with a tutor or other supplemental educational services.
2004: All paraprofessionals and aides in all schools must either have two years of college or have passed a state exam.
2005: All teachers must be highly qualified (i.e., have a degree in the field they teach or have passed a state exam).
2005: States must test all students each year in grades 3 to 8 in reading and math, and at least once for grades 10 to 12.
2007: States must test all students in science at least once in elementary, middle, and high school.
2013-2014 school year: All schools, districts, and states must be making "adequate yearly progress" towards having all their students proficient in reading and math.
The timeline for failing schools:
Two years of failure: Students can transfer, and the school must receive technical assistance from the district.
Three years of failure: Students can use Title I money for tutoring and other supplemental educational services.
Four years of failure: The school must do one of the following: replace school staff relevant to the failure; implement new curriculum including professional development; significantly decrease management authority at the school level; appoint an outside expert to advise the school; extend the school year or day; or restructure the school
Five years of failure: The school must significantly alter its governance method by allowing a state takeover; hiring a private management company, or converting to a charter school.
---------------------------------
Sources: US Dept. of Education; Center on Education Policy
**********************************************
--
Jerry P. Becker
Curriculum & Instruction
Southern Illinois University
Carbondale, IL 62901-4610
Phone: (618) 453-4241 [O]
(618) 457-8903 [H]
Fax: (618) 453-4244
E-mail: jbecker at siu.edu
--Boundary_(ID_c8kc6Z3JixrXfB+nRp1OOg)
Content-type: text/html
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<TITLE>Just when you thought you knew the rules ...</TITLE>
<STYLE type=text/css>BLOCKQUOTE {
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
DL {
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
UL {
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
OL {
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
LI {
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
</STYLE>
<META content="MSHTML 5.50.4522.1800" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Jerry Becker
[mailto:jbecker at siu.edu]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, July 09, 2002 8:10
PM<BR><B>To:</B> jbecker at siu.edu<BR><B>Subject:</B> Just when you thought you
knew the rules ...<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>*************************</DIV>
<DIV>From the Christian Science Monitor, Tuesday, July 9, 2002. See</DIV>
<DIV>http://www.csmonitor.com/search_content/0709/p11s01-lepr.html</DIV>
<DIV>*************************</DIV>
<DIV>Just when you thought you knew the rules ...<BR></DIV>
<DIV>Schools are scrambling to comply by fall with a slew of demands, as the No
Child Left Behind Act turns the status quo upside down.<BR></DIV>
<DIV>By<U> Marjorie Coeyman</U></DIV>
<DIV><BR>NEW YORK - Last year, the US Department of Education honored the
Kilgore School with a Blue Ribbon Award, designating the Cincinnati public
elementary school an example of American public education at its
best.<BR><BR>Last week, Kilgore got a very different message. The school so
recently at the head of the class was informed of its new status as a failure -
one of 8,600 public schools in the country judged to be performing so poorly
that its students must be allowed to transfer to other schools.<BR><BR>Thus
dawns the brave new world of the No Child Left Behind Act, a world in which much
of the status quo in public education is about to be turned upside
down.<BR><BR>Across the United States, the implications of the law are just
starting to be felt at the school level - often, as in the case of Kilgore, in
dramatic ways. Principals who, until a few weeks ago, were consumed with closing
out another school year, are now struggling to understand the new law's
requirements. Some of those with schools on the failing list are now bracing for
the possibility that large numbers of their students may head elsewhere when
school starts - in some cases, just a few weeks from now.<BR><BR>Even principals
with schools not on that list are staring at batteries of new annual tests,
more-rigid hiring requirements, and the need to pay fresh attention to
struggling subgroups of students.<BR><BR>The new law's advocates call it a
wake-up call designed to force accountability and improvement on schools by
2014, when all schools must meet the goal of academic proficiency for every
student. The measures, they argue, offer concrete benchmarks for success and
immediate options for those in struggling schools. Its detractors are labeling
it an unrealistic piece of legislation.<BR><BR>Beyond that debate, however,
bewilderment is growing among those on the front lines - principals,
superintendents, and teachers - at schools that have struggled hard to make
improvements and still are being hit with punitive measures.<BR><BR>"The system
will be jolted in the fall, and this is just the first in a series of shocks
that will be administered to the public schools," says Jack Jennings, director
of the Center on Education Policy in Washington, D.C. "The President and the
Congress meant to shock the schools."<BR><BR>Heavy reliance on test scores is
just one factor already producing some odd results.<BR><BR>For example, more
than 1,400, or about a third, of all Michigan schools are now considered to be
failing - though not one school in Arkansas has received that designation. A
Kentucky elementary school that boosted its test scores by 20 percent last year
is also classified as a failing school on the basis of earlier test
results.<BR><BR>A key factor can be that schools must now demonstrate that all
children are succeeding. If any one group - from low-income families, minority
students, special- education students, or limited-English students - tests
poorly for two years, that school is labeled a failure. That principle was
applied as part of the Texas school reform initiative, and many applaud it as a
tough but fair method of policing a system that tends to favor the
affluent.<BR></DIV>
<DIV>We'd like you to change - immediately</DIV>
<DIV><BR>But the speed with which these sanctions are moving into place is one
of the touchiest points of the new law. The dramatic reversal for the Kilgore
school - which already outperformed many other schools with similar demographics
- comes from the new law's insistence that no child will in fact be left behind,
either through low test scores or a failure to improve.<BR><BR>Another
frustration is the reliance on 1998-2000 test scores, which fail to account for
recent improvement. In addition, determining failure relies heavily on varying
state standards. States like Michigan, which adopted more ambitious standards,
therefore, will now have to deal with larger numbers of "failing" schools.</DIV>
<DIV><BR>The failure designation hurts because affected districts will have not
only to allow students to transfer but also to pay their transportation costs.
Those same districts may also have to worry about seeing their best schools
swamped by new attendees. Even here, however, the application of the law will be
uneven. Districts in which the best schools are already too crowded may be freed
from any such obligation.<BR><BR>Failing schools will also have to offer to pay
for tutoring or other academic services for the students that remain, creating a
further drain on resources.<BR><BR>Not everyone believes the transfer issue will
create massive problems. Some districts already have school choice, and others
doubt parents will make such changes in large numbers.<BR><BR>"Parents are not
going to take their children to an unknown school in an unfamiliar
neighborhood," says Sheldon Benardo, principal of P.S. 86 in New York's Bronx
neighborhood, who has already sent letters to the parents of his pupils
informing them of their right to transfer.<BR><BR>And some systems insist
they'll be ready for the challenge. "We've had considerable discussion and
planning, and I think we will be prepared," says Marilyn Johnson, general
counsel of the Chicago public school system, where at least 260 elementary
schools will be affected.<BR><BR>Other districts simply say overcrowding will
make it more or less impossible to comply with transfer requests.<BR></DIV>
<DIV>More requirements to come</DIV>
<DIV><BR>Many educators say the adjustments they are currently making are
onerous. But some warn that they pale in comparison with what lies
ahead.<BR><BR>For instance, some districts that already have trouble attracting
teachers may find it nearly impossible to comply with provisions that all
teachers must be "highly qualified" by 2005. For states with tight budgets, the
need to have a statewide testing system in place that same year may prove a
heavy burden. "We like the bill," says Peter McWalters, commissioner of
elementary and secondary education in Rhode Island. "But this is a resource
issue."<BR><BR>Some educators are simply concerned that certain students can't
respond quickly enough. "We receive kids at all kinds of levels. We get kids
who've been kept out of school for five years, and immediately we're supposed to
bring them up to state standards?" asks Douglas Williams, superintendent of
Perry Township, a half-urban, half-suburban district that curves around
Indianapolis.<BR><BR>The requirement that the job be done so quickly, says Mr.
Williams, is like telling President Bush, " 'Look, you eradicate every terrorist
from the face of the earth in the next couple of years, or we'll get rid of
you.' "<BR><BR>Eliminating terrorists and raising standards are praiseworthy
goals, Perry says, "and they're exactly what we should be shooting for. But you
just can't do it in that period of time."<BR><BR>The basic problem with No Child
Left Behind is that it was written by legislators - a group who "wouldn't know a
school if they fell over it on the sidewalk," says Richard Elmore, professor at
the Harvard Graduate School of Education.<BR><BR>The law sets target dates for
improvement but never really tells schools - especially those struggling with
high poverty rates, shortages of qualified teachers, and limited resources - how
to make that improvement. "The law takes a 'and then a miracle happens'
position," says Professor Elmore. "The provisions of the law are way ahead of
the capacity on the ground."<BR></DIV>
<DIV>Throw the ball farther down the field<BR><BR>But that's not necessarily a
negative, argues Rick Hess, assistant professor of education and politics at the
University of Virginia in Charlottesville, when dealing with a system that has
always proved highly resistant to change.<BR><BR>"You can take the
incrementalist tack," he says, "or throw the ball farther down the field and
assume everybody's going to adjust."<BR><BR>The thinking, he says, was that
"there is a window of opportunity. They made a calculated decision to go for
what they could get."<BR><BR>But when it comes to details like determining which
schools will be willing to begin taking children from failing schools this fall,
"I haven't heard anywhere near enough conversation," says Kathy Christie, vice
president of the Education Commission of the States in Denver. "Nobody's really
prepared for this." However, she points out, "you have to start
somewhere."</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>What kicks into place this school year (2002-2003):</DIV>
<DIV><BR>Students in schools that have performed poorly for two years may move
to another school (about 8,600 schools qualify).<BR><BR>Teachers hired with
Title I money (targeted at poor schools) must be "highly qualified," meaning
they either have a degree in the field they teach or have passed a state
exam.<BR><BR>Paraprofessionals and aides hired with Title I money must either
have at least two years of college or have passed a state exam.<BR><BR>Title I
schools must inform all parents if their child is taught for more than four
weeks by an unqualified teacher.<BR><BR>All schools must have annual assessments
of students with limited English, and biennial use of the NAEP (a national test)
in math and reading for a sample of 4th- through 8th-graders.<BR><BR>States must
distribute annual report cards assessing their schools.<BR><BR>Districts must
deliver annual local report cards.</DIV>
<DIV><B><BR></B></DIV>
<DIV>Performance milestones that lie ahead:</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>2003: All schools failing to show improvement for two years must allow
their students to transfer to another school.<BR><BR>Parents with children in
schools that have performed poorly for two years may request $300-1,000 in Title
I funding to provide their child with a tutor or other supplemental educational
services.<BR><BR>2004: All paraprofessionals and aides in all schools must
either have two years of college or have passed a state exam.<BR><BR>2005: All
teachers must be highly qualified (i.e., have a degree in the field they teach
or have passed a state exam).<BR><BR>2005: States must test all students each
year in grades 3 to 8 in reading and math, and at least once for grades 10 to
12.<BR><BR>2007: States must test all students in science at least once in
elementary, middle, and high school.<BR><BR>2013-2014 school year: All schools,
districts, and states must be making "adequate yearly progress" towards having
all their students proficient in reading and math.<BR></DIV>
<DIV>The timeline for failing schools:</DIV>
<DIV><BR>Two years of failure: Students can transfer, and the school must
receive technical assistance from the district.<BR><BR>Three years of failure:
Students can use Title I money for tutoring and other supplemental educational
services.<BR><BR>Four years of failure: The school must do one of the following:
replace school staff relevant to the failure; implement new curriculum including
professional development; significantly decrease management authority at the
school level; appoint an outside expert to advise the school; extend the school
year or day; or restructure the school<BR><BR>Five years of failure: The school
must significantly alter its governance method by allowing a state takeover;
hiring a private management company, or converting to a charter
school.<BR>---------------------------------<BR>Sources: US Dept. of Education;
Center on Education Policy</DIV>
<DIV>**********************************************</DIV><X-SIGSEP><PRE>--
</PRE></X-SIGSEP>
<DIV>Jerry P. Becker<BR>Curriculum & Instruction<BR>Southern Illinois
University<BR>Carbondale, IL 62901-4610<BR>Phone: (618)
453-4241
[O]<BR> (618)
457-8903 [H]<BR>Fax: (618)
453-4244<BR>E-mail: jbecker at siu.edu</DIV></BODY></HTML>
--Boundary_(ID_c8kc6Z3JixrXfB+nRp1OOg)--
More information about the OCTM
mailing list