Kitsap Education

I guess the jury is probably still out on whether HSPE (I’ve been saying “hispee” because that’s what my sophomore is saying) is a better acronym than WASL? Let me know Kitsap Education readers.

I know one of the motivations behind changing the name of the WASL involved concerns that the actual term “WASL” had become such negative baggage for the state test. For some folks, WASL became an epithet. I can kinda see that, especially given the wrath that could rain down on a school where student scores were low.

So is HSPE better? What about MSP? (Again I’ve been saying M-S-P because that’s what my younger kids are saying.)  I do know that both HSPE and WASL are better than the name of the test in Virginia. That’s SOL and if you grew up in the 1980s like me, S-O-L meant something pretty derogatory.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

The Obama Administration announced recently it’s plans for changes in the No Child Left Behind education law.

Education Week published a story on March 13 that goes into great detail about the proposed changes in the law. Lots of folks have chimed in since the announcements too. Here are some links to a few pieces from news organization around the country:

The LA Times

USA Today

USA Today Part II

The Washington Post

The Washington Post, Part II

The Wall Street Journal

I think lots of folks – educators, parents, taxpayers – were glad to learn that NCLB would be overhauled, especially as that magical year, 2014, approached. That was the year every school child in America would be “proficient” in math and reading. And unicorns would run free across the earth too. (Oopps, did I type that out loud?)

So Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan do propose to eliminate the 2014 deadline and there are other parts of NCLB that will be softened up, including sanctions for many so-called “failing schools” that were failing simply because of the law’s convoluted way of configuring failing. See, even that explanation doesn’t make sense. Instead schools will be labeled as high performing, needs improvement and chronically low performing. Will this make sense? I guess we have to wait and see.

But the new NCLB proposal is not without critics or criticisms. The Obama/Duncan plan still relies pretty heavily on standardized testing and opens up testing to include subjects beyond reading and math. This is supposed to widen the focus of teaching and curriculum beyond the narrow scope on reading and math that was the result of the focus on testing only those subjects under NCLB. It’s good that the focus of teaching and curriculum will be widened, I’m not sure more testing is the best way to convey that fact.

There are lots of other little quirky things that come under fire, but the one thing I’ve heard over and over for the past few days is the concern that the Obama/Duncan plan links test scores to teacher performance evaluations and to teacher pay. Leaders of teachers unions are labeling it “scapegoating.”

Remember, these are broad outlines of a blueprint for education, not set-in-stone plans. It will be interesting to watch them unfold and be shaped and changed into the reauthorization of federal education legislation. One thing about education, it’s never dull.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Police Report on Bremerton School District Meetings

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Leaders in the House and Senate have now agreed to raise the levy lid for school districts from 24 to 28 percent. Gov. Gregoire is expected to sign this measure into law. Read more about the move here. Sounds like a way to make up for some money lost to state cuts in education, right?

Four local school districts (NK, CK, Bremerton and BI) just passed new school support levies in February. Last spring it was North Mason. So local voters right now seem inclined to support schools with local tax dollars, despite the sagging economy. But will this measure push voters just that much too far? And will local school districts take advantage of it? I wrote about this issue back in February when voters approved those four levies.  At that time, school leaders seem disinclined to think they would ask voters to raise their levy lids.

School district leaders pointed out that the raising the levy lid will simply mean that more of the school funding burden is shifted back to local tax dollars. That, in turn, creates more disparity across the state between property-rich and property-poor districts.

It sort of reminds me of what happened back in the 1970s when state funding ebbed, local dollars had to flow. At one point, local levy dollars made up an average of 25 percent of school budgets. In Seattle, voters failed two local levies in a row, causing a 37 percent dip in funding for Seattle Public Schools. Follow this timeline and you can see how education funding has changed over the years. After several state Supreme Court rulings recalibrated the funding forumlas, local levies dollar contributions to school budgets fell to just 5 percent in the early 1980s.

Looks like to me we’re on our way back to the future.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

The march toward having common core academic standards across the United States has been underway for quite awhile. Now those standards have been released for public review. If memory serves, 48 states have signed on to be part of this effort. That list includes Washington. Alaska and Texas are the only states to decline.

The state Office of the Superintendent for Public Instruction lists the common core standards on its website. You can check it out here. A Washington Post story last week had some good information too.

It’s easy to see the benefit of these standards in a highly mobile society. I was just talking with my sophomore today about how he (a military child) has taken physical science three times. On the other hand, it’s hard in this massive, diverse country to believe that one size really can fit all when it comes to education. Maybe the key is in how the standards are taught – instruction can be individual but standards are the same?

The other question that comes to my mind is the amount of time, money, energy, sheer will that has gone into writing the academic standards for this state. And the same amount or more that has been vested in writing the tests to measure whether the students are meeting those standards. Is that all tossed out the window with these new standards?

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

I’ve been watching how state leaders are working through all the negotiations, machinations, imaginations … lots of ‘nations … on the state budget. I guess the one consistent is that schools will have less money for the 2010-11 school year. The Office of the Superintendent for Public Instruction has a cool pivot table on its website that can tell you how much each budget proposal (governor, Senate and House) will affect local school districts. From the looks of the table, the governor’s takes the most away, with the Senate proposal taking the second highest and the House last. For example, South Kitsap’s state allocation is about $62 million. The governor’s budget cuts $3.8 million while the Senate takes $2.5 million. The House version cuts $1.3 million. The biggest cuts come from what’s called  “K-4 enhancement,” which means money that pays for more teachers to make class sizes in kindergarten through fourth grades smaller. The second biggest cut is money for I-728. This voter-approved measure provided money for smaller class sizes and a myriad of other programs, including tutoring, summer school etc.

Check out the link here.

Not many days left in the session, so hopefull we’ll know soon what to expect.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

I heard rumblings over the weekend and then received an email on Tuesday from a CK parent concerned that there was a kid with a gun at the junior high all-district dance at Ridgetop Junior High on Friday night. The CK parent also wondered about a rumor that someone was shooting at cars at a CK junior high on Friday afternoon.

Both are untrue.

CK spokesman David Beil said that there was a rumor of a gun at the dance on Friday night. A deputy at the dance followed up on the rumor and found the student in question was armed with only a cell phone. As for the kid shooting at cars on Friday afternoon, Sheriff’s spokesman Scott Wilson said there was a report of some junior-high age kids shooting a BB gun in the general direction of cars but not in the vicinity of a local school.

Hope that clears that up for folks.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

It’s a little late to join the chorus, but Diane Ravitch, a former assistant secretary in the Department of Education under President George W. Bush, is now criticizing the No Child Left Behind Act.

In a story that aired this morning on NPR, Ravitch said NCLB has put education in America “on the wrong track.” Her biggest concern? Standardized testing – the cornerstone, centerpiece, the crux of NCLB. Under the bi-partisan law adopted way back in 2001, if students don’t make incremental progress in their scores on standardized tests (known as adequately yearly progress) then schools are punished.

Read more of what Ravitch had to say here. For probably more detailed information than you ever wanted about NCLB, read here.

NCLB always puzzled me, even way back in 2002. That year I worked as the full-time education reporter at the Sun (I am freelance now) and the paper was kind enough to send me to a press education summit about NCLB down at the University of Southern California. We actually had cocktails and dinner one night with Rod Paige, the education secretary at the time. Looking back it all seems a little surreal that I had the chance to meet the education secretary who would set NCLB in motion. Anyway, during cocktails we all gathered around Paige trying to get in a question or two. I can’t remember who asked (I’d like to think it was me but I truly can’t remember) Paige whether NCLB would eventually implode on itself. Because eventually all schools would be on a list of not making adequately yearly progress. Let’s face it, schools aren’t making little widgets that will come out perfectly if teachers just get their teaching perfect. Schools are working with humans – as flawed and complicated as any creature on this planet. I recall Paige’s response being appropriately vague and something about setting the bar high. Looking back, how was he going to respond to a question like that anyway, especially as NCLB was just getting underway? 

But since that time, we have watched schools slowly slide in adequately year progress and slip onto the “improvement” list. Schools that receive Title I federal education funding face sanctions; those that don’t receive Title I funds aren’t affected.  Title I, given to schools where a lot of students qualify for free and reduced lunch, is one of the few “hammers” the feds can use to enforce NCLB.

Despite my criticism of Ravitch realizing too little too late, I do find what she says about the focus of NCLB intriguing. From the NPR story:

“The basic strategy is measuring and punishing,” Ravitch says of No Child Left Behind. “And it turns out as a result of putting so much emphasis on the test scores, there’s a lot of cheating going on, there’s a lot of gaming the system. Instead of raising standards it’s actually lowered standards because many states have ‘dumbed down’ their tests or changed the scoring of their tests to say that more kids are passing than actually are.

Some states contend that 80 to 90 percent of their children are proficient readers and have math proficiency as well, Ravitch notes. But in the same states, only 25 to 30 of the children test at a proficient level on national tests such as the National Assessment of Educational Progress.”

Once again, I think it’s apparent that there is no magic bullet for the massive public education system in America.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Jessica Breitbarth is mom to three pretty awesome and successful sons who attend North Kitsap schools. She and I have had several (well, many) interesting conversations around education in the last year or so. Recently a math and engineering fair targeting girls and hosted by Olympic College piqued her interest. She agreed to write about her concerns for Kitsap Education. What follows is her thoughtful essay.

I recently read about Olympic College’s annual Math and Science Fair for girls in fifth through eighth grades. While I congratulate OC for its initiatives, it should offer a similar program to boys.  Unfortunately, none exists and my efforts to contact OC have gotten me no responses. 

Why is this an issue? Because for years, junior college, college and most graduate degree graduation rates have had a tremendous and growing gender gap.  And, despite what you may have heard, disparity favoring boys over girls in math, science and engineering is also nearly non-existent.   Check out this site for more information.

 What is this you say?  WOMEN are outperforming men? Yes, and it may indicate a societal crisis in the making.

 While the so-called “gender gap” has stabilized, the fact remains that 57 percent of all college enrollees are female and only 43 percent are male.  The statistics for land grant universities is worse, and some predict that it will stabilize at 58 percent and 42 percent for women and men, respectively.  See http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/college-gender-gap-remains-stable-57-women/story?id=9676229  A University of Missouri study showed gender gaps of graduating students at closer to 61 percent to 39 percent.  Hispanic men comprise one of the smallest numbers of college enrollees at merely 9 percent of the potential pool of students.

 Perhaps as a woman or parent of daughters you think this doesn’t matter to you.  Think again.

Over a fifth of all households with married couples are households where the husband is the only worker.  That number rises to 37 percent for households with children under  age six,  http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s0587.pdf  It is reasonable to assume that a substantial portion of families survive for at least some time on the salary of the husband alone.  Moreover, the life time earning potential for those with a college degree is roughly twice that of a high school graduate who does not attend college,  http://www.incontext.indiana.edu/2009/mar-apr/article1.asp

 In addition, schools may not be addressing social maturity and behavioral standard differences between boys and girls at the beginning of schooling.  The current teaching and evaluation methods may exacerbate the differences in cognitive development, and put boys at a disadvantage early on.  This may give girls an advantage visa vie boys, but perhaps girls,  too, would benefit from classrooms that catered to both boys’ and girls’ cognitive and social maturity.  http://www.columbia.edu/~tad61/gender_social02232009.pdf

The impact on society may also be great.  Over 70 percent of all individuals incarcerated have not completed a high school degree.  One study showed that educational training, especially a GED, reduced the re-arrest rate to 24 percent from 46 percent of the control group.  Another study showed that for those with two years of college, the re-arrest rate was a startlingly low 10 percent compared with 60 percent overall. Since men comprise the majority of those arrested and prison inmates, education clearly plays a role in preventing crime.  See, for example, http://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/research_brief__2.pdf and http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1763

 So, what are we going to do about it?

One thing we, as a society, can do is to encourage girls and boys equally to pursue education.  Programs like the OC program are excellent, but they do a disservice to boys who may be interested in learning more about higher education opportunities.  I am not suggesting that OC do away with the program, but that they have a similar weekend targeting the male population.

Second, we can train early and elementary education teachers on the ways to address cognitive and social immaturity of boys.  If we can give teachers the proper skills and curricula to handle the differences, the gender gap may not arise. 

 Third, we can emphasize to boys the importance of a high school program heavy in foreign languages, math and sciences.  These courses are the leading indicators of success in college.  While girls are getting the message, boys are actually reducing the amount of math and science they are taking in high school from previous years. High school counselors take note:  I am talking to you.

Fourth, parents can help to reinforce behavioral standards that improve the cognitive and social maturity in boys.  Parents can also reinforce the idea that school is cool. 

Fifth, colleges, foundations and others can provide scholarships specifically for boys outside of athletic scholarships.  When I recently searched a leading scholarship and financial aid website, the only male-specific scholarships were athletic scholarships.  Not so for women.  And even athletic scholarships are football heavy.  Men participating in non-money making sports (sports other than basketball and football) have FEWER not more scholarship opportunities than their female counterparts BECAUSE of Title IX. 

 Google “Encouraging Girls” and you will still get websites on encouraging girls in math and science, but you also get encouraging girls to get their PhDs.  Google “Encouraging Boys” and you will find “encouraging boys to read with comic books”, but nothing about higher education. The messages may seem subtle, but this is one thing our boys ARE reading loud and clear.  School is for girls.  We need to change the message to school is for everyone.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

From: Louis Mitchell

Sent: Tuesday January 05, 2010 1:08 p.m.

To: Flip Herndon

Subject: FW: Communication between members of a governing body outside of a meeting

Importance: High

Flip,

It has come to my attention that a Board member is attempting to contact me to discuss the Board business outside of a public meeting. I do not engage in emailing or calling Board members directly and have only accepted a call from a seated Board member once in recent years. The call served to reaffirm my strict adherence to the Open Public Meetings Act.

On December 11, 2009, Mr. Scott Rahm called me and engaged me in a 2 hour and33 minute conversation in which he stated he had direct conversations with a quorum of the Board (Mr. Boynton and Ms. Perkins) – prior to the December 10, 2009 Board meeting - to discuss the nomination process (and by extension vote) for Board leadership. I informed Mr. Rahm that his actions have just taken the Bremerton School District “two steps backward.” This egregious  violation of the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) in which discussion among a quorum occurred to set, predetermine, influence and/or arrange a public nomination and vote is reprehensible and an affront to the laws and procedures we are sworn to uphold. Although we have new faces, it seems we again are confronted with old behaviors.

Sidebar discussions of a quorum of the Board to discuss votes may constitute an “action” as defined by RCW Sec. 42 and undermines public trust, open communications and foments distrust among the Board. I have attached one of the many opinions from the Washington State Attorney General’s Office to elucidate the issue. Whereas communication may occur between two members of a governing body, one cannot be assured of confidentiality between other governing members as emails – and conversations – have been shared among a quorum in the past. The best insurance against OPMA violations is to not engage is (sic) such communications to begin with.

Although I am willing to consider the actions of the three new Board members as ignorance of the law, I have determined that until such a time as the new members participate in a study session on the OPMA and come to consensus on their obligations under the law, engaging them in direct communication outside of public meetings is not in the best interests of school district governance and will not build public communication and trust. The only way to build communication and trust – as the three new members have stated is their focus – is to set in place policies that restrict such communications to open public meetings, and eliminate policy promoting gatekeeper authority over individual Board members. In light of Mr. Rahm’s revelations, I have amended my previous email disclaimer to include conversations.

Regards,

Louis Mitchell - Bremerton School Board Director

DISCLAIMER

In order to observe strict compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act, I do not authorize the forwarding of this email to any Bremerton School Board Director, nor will I send or accept direct emails or conversations from Bremerton School Board Members.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post