Kitsap Education

Washington state’s application for the Department of Education’s Race to the Top grants is in process, carrying with it endorsements from almost all Washington public schools. Check out the story I wrote about it last week. But not everyone is on board.

Lots of branches of the statewide teachers union have not signed on, including those in Central and North Kitsap.

Bremerton’s Education Association did sign on, though President Tina Mahaney said it was philosophically hard to do. “Philosophically we are against competing because we don’t feel we should have to compete for money for basic education,” she said. However, BEA members agreed that it would be wrong to pass by a chance to gain funds for the schools when budget cuts come every year. “We can’t afford to let any money pass us by if it’s out there,” Mahaney added.  Bremerton schools stand to gain more (over $1.1 million) from RTTT than any other local district. The level of poverty among students in the Bremerton schools entitles them to more federal funds each year than any other local district. Under RTTT, that Title I status also could garner Bremerton schools more money. (In comparison, CK schools have almost twice the enrollment as Bremerton, but without the district-wide Title I status CK only gets a little more than $900,000.)

South Kitsap Education Association signed on too to “be collaborative” with the school district, said Judy Arbogast, SKEA president. There is concern among SKEA members about the extra workload created by the potential of new federal money. Arbogast said there are many unknowns, including the “cost-benefit analysis.” Arbogast also said that there is a mixed message. On the one hand, schools are charged with meeting the needs of every child under the federal No Child Left Behind law, but now they are competing for the money to do it. “We shouldn’t be fighting for the money that is needed,” she said. 

Catherine Ahl, a former NK school board member and active participant these days in the League of Women Voters, has been against RTTT for several months. She wrote an email to me late last week.

“I recommended voting against it although I don’t think WA has a chance in Hell of winning anyway. I believe if money comes from the federal government there will be strings attached and reporting requirements that might cost many of the dollars received. If the state doesn’t receive the money, schools might still be mandated to do what they signed up for. This seems to be a diversion from the (NEWS) lawsuit ruling. It will do nothing about funding transportation, utility, curriculum replacement etc. that local levies are paying for. The state continues to ignore its Constitutional duty.” 

Some estimate that Washington has only a 20 percent chance of winning any RTTT money. Remember in the last go-around of RTTT awards only two states, Delaware and Tennessee, won grants.

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.

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?

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.

Big thanks for Kitsap Sun reporter extraordinaire Steven Gardner for spotting something ed-related and sending it my way. A new report from the Journalism Center on Children and Families finds that high stakes testing and zero-tolerance policies in schools actually accomplish the opposite effect for which they were intended. The policies results in jail time for kids.

Here’s a link to a column about the study. Read it and let me know what you think (as if I’d have to ask!)

Lots of state education stuff going on this week.

Gov. Chris Gregoire made public plans to help the state land some of the federal Race to the Top money.

Read more about Race to the Top and her proposals here and here and here. It’s also interesting to read a survey done in November of 500 public school teachers. The survey asks questions related to Washington’s RTTT proposal, including teachers’ view of how they are paid. 

Also this week, the Quality Education Council released a preliminary plan to revamp the state’s education funding system. The funding system is to be in place by 2018. The council made 13 recommendations, including improvements in early learning, all-day kindergarten, transportation and maintenance costs.

Read a press release from OSPI and the full report here.

I’ve been looking into how local school districts are using money from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Basically, ARRA has become a filler for state-level funding cuts. In Bremerton, for example, schools received $2.3 million in ARRA funding. And, you guessed it, cuts in education funding (called apportionment because it’s based on student head count) and I-728 money totaled $2.3 million.

Bremerton School Board member Louis Mitchell labeled the situation “a net wash.”

To learn more about how ARRA funding is being used in other states, check out this Education Week story.

I think it’s safe to say schools can expect more cuts in the spring. Sherry Appleton and Christine Rolfes, state representatives from the 23rd District, told community members at forum on Nov. 9 that more cuts are coming.

The White House announced today that the competition for a portion of nearly $4 billion in its “Race to the Top” money is now underway. States will apply for the money. Those that are doing innovative things in education will be ranked higher than those who aren’t. The Obama administration wants to reward and feed programs and plans that will make a difference in public education.

Read more about Race to the Top in this very informative story from Education Week.

So is Washington a contender? By joining the group of states working on common core educational standards, we’ve added to our ranking. But we don’t have a law that allows charter schools. For that, we lose points. Also, I recently heard about (read? – I forget) about how the Gates Foundation has rewarded a whole big bunch of money to the state of Minnesota to help the state write and submit its Race to the Top application and plan. I did not hear a similar story about Washington.

I did find a memo on OSPI’s website laying some groundwork for Washington’s application. I have an email into OSPI asking for some more details. I’ll let you know when I hear back.

Update at 3 p.m.: Washington state’s Race to the Top application will be a legislative package originating from the governor’s office. The application will focus on how the state has addressed low-perfomring schools, teacher pay and evaluations and standards and assessments. Nathan Olson, of OSPI’s communications office, said that while Washington does not have charter schools, it does have innovative schools that work “outside the public school philosophy.” The Tacoma School for the Arts is a good example. “We think places like that will help us,” he said. The application is due Jan. 19, 2010. 

More later, I’m sure, on this …

A few days ago I posted this about a report on the fitness of young people for military service. The full story came out Thursday and can be read here. It includes a link for the full report.

A couple high (or maybe they should be called “low”) lights:

• 27 percent of youngsters are too fat to serve
• One in 10 would not be eligible to join because they have a prior felony or serious misdemeanor conviction
• 32 percent have other health problems, including asthma, ADD and poor hearing or eyesight, that prevent them from serving
• One in four do not have a high school diploma, making them ineligible. Some can join with a GED, but they have to score high enough on the military entrance exam to receive a waiver. However, according to the report, most of those who dropped out and received a GED instead do not possess good enough reading and math skills to serve.
• Lots of kids have a combination of these problems.

As a result, only two in 10 are fully ready to join the Army without any waivers.

So what do all these top military leaders propose to do to combat these problems?  The answer will probably at least surprise, if not shock, you. It’s preschool.

The report takes evidence from a long-term study done in Michigan called the High/Scope Perry Preschool Project. reschool students, along with a group of kids who did not attend preschool, were followed for years to see how their early education experiences (or lack of experiences) affected their lives.

Call me an education geek, but this is fascinating stuff.

This press release popped into my inbox this morning. I’d heard something about it on the radio a few days ago, but didn’t get a clear picture until I read this:
“According to an alarming new report, 75 percent of young people ages 17 to 24 are unable to enlist in the military because they fail to graduate high school, have a criminal record, or are physically unfit. U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and some of America’s top retired military brass will hold a news conference at the National Press Club Thursday to call for immediate action to address this national security threat.
The retired admirals and generals and Secretary Duncan will call for greater investment in high-quality early learning programs to ensure that more young people graduate, obey the law, and have the option of military service if they choose that path. They will also release state-specific data on the number of young Americans unable to serve in each state.”
WHO: Secretary of Education Arne Duncan – U.S. Department of Education
General Wesley K. Clark, U.S. Army (Ret.) – Former Supreme Allied Commander – NATO
Major General James A. Kelley, U.S. Army (Ret.) – Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
Major General James W. Comstock, U.S. Army (Ret.) – Former Reserve Component Advisor, U.S. Central Command
Brigadier General John W. Douglass, U.S. Air Force (Ret.) – Former Assistant Secretary of the Navy
Rear Admiral James Barnett U.S. Navy (Ret.) – Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, FCC
Former Under Secretary of the Army – Joe Reeder
National Director, MISSION: READINESS – Amy Dawson Taggart

Wow! I’ll follow up here on Thursday after more information is released.