Re: FairTest initial comments on House ESEA reauth discussion draft

[aburke5054@aol.com]

I'm sure the massive financial resources of FairTest and FEA could 
jeopardize reauthorization, but your problem is that significant 
portions of the civil-rights community are pressing for holding the 
line on NCLB's testing and accountability provisions, and perhaps even 
expanding them.  For instance, La Raza, the Mexican American Legal 
Defense Fund, the Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights, and the Center 
for American Progress joined Ed Trust and the Commission on NCLB in a 
letter urging among other things growth models with accountability at 
the classroom level.  Calling these organizations criminals just shows 
the desperation of the truly irrelevant.



Art


-----Original Message-----

From: Horn, James <jhorn@monmouth.edu>

To: arn-l@interversity.org

Sent: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 6:28 am

Subject: Re: [arn-l] FairTest initial comments on House ESEA reauth 
discussion draft



If Fairtest and FEA put their money behind saying no to 
reauthorization, by 09

the horrific intent of NCLB will be so crystal clear that that even 
those

adamant privatization-deniers will not be able to deny any longer.


With systems like Fairfax County now on the chopping block, and with 
more and

more prosperous school boards and superintendents and parents seeing 
their own

futures in jeopardy, the political will to make serious changes to ESEA 
in 09

will be hugely incentivized by then, and Fairtest and FEA might 
actually be

invited to take part in that discussion.



Placating and appeasing this crime against public education will not 
make it any

better.  The charterites, the voucherites, and the ed industry who are 
pushing

for reauthorization don't give a shit what you think about in terms of

"improvement" of this reauthorization.  You can save your breath.



Only a public outcry, protest, and votes, from those who would save 
public

education, will bring the end to this madness.  If the right-wingers 
could bring

down immigration reform, the sane and the humane can bring down this 
crime

against children.



We need to stop acting reacting like Democrats, and start acting with 
the same

political fury that has made the wingnuts so successful.





Jim Horn



-----Original Message-----

From: arn-l-owner@interversity.org on behalf of Monty Neill

Sent: Thu 8/30/2007 5:32 PM

To: authenticaccountability; ndsgroup@yahoogroups.com; 
ARN-state@yahoogroups.com;

ARN-L; arn2-strategy

Subject: [arn-l] FairTest initial comments on House ESEA reauth 
discussion draft



FairTest staff have read most of the discussion draft and had some 
conversations

with others who have done so. We will be working with other groups in 
the Forum

on Educational Accountability to win as many improvements in this draft 
as we

can, including through the Committee work and on to the floor of the 
House

(assuming a bill is voted out of Committee). The Senate is working more 
slowly.







Before getting to the content, some points on context:



            - If ESEA is not reauthorized this year, or if a bill 
passes

Congress and is vetoed, the current law - NCLB - remains in place until 
there is

a reauthorization.



            - Most Republicans in the House Committee want either no 
changes to

NCLB (except perhaps some more testing or using tests to rate 
teachers), or want

to send block grants to the states (their are various permutations on 
this).

They have opposed local assessments (though many claim to support local 
control)

and  use of multiple indicators (more than assessment results in 2 
subjects),

and other things.



            - Democrats on committee want some positive changes, but 
most seem

ready to accept continuation of the AYP-assessment- consequences model 
-eitehr

agreeing with it or seeing it as politically unchangeable at this time.



            - In short, we may win some things, but there are no 
visible

prospects for winning (at this time) some major changes that really are

necessary. The forces to accomplish that do not now exist.  In the 
short term,

we will work to get as good a bill as we can, despite the constrained

circumstances. As will all groups, we will have at some point to decide 
if we

should work to block passage or give our support - even if reluctantly 
- to

passage.







Some comments on the discussion draft and proposed changes:







In essence, ESEA/NCLB remains essentially a law in which schools must 
improve

their standardized test scores in two subjects at a rate at which no 
one who has

studied the issue believes is possible, given too little federal, state 
and

local funding, and great unmet social needs. This process leads 
inexorably to

school "redesign" that will primarily affect low-income schools and 
districts,

leading them to adopt a set of options (redesign) for many of their 
schools that

lack consistent or significant evidence of success. Underlying, a more

centralized control over education (federal to state to district to 
school) is

apparent in many large and small components of the law - with absence 
of

evidence that such centralization is improving real learning outcomes 
(not just

boosting state test scores).







That said, the edges have been softened and there are some promising 
new

components. The draft for multiple forms of assessment is mostly good, 
though no

funds are yet authorized. Some allowance for multiple indicators is 
introduced

(other subjects, graduation) - but are given too little weight, under 
too

stringent conditions. Becoming subject to interventions (improvement 
efforts and

sanctions) apparently will be on the basis of one group in one subject 
not

making AYP two years in a row; this is likely mainly to help 
middle-to-upper

income areas; but, there is flexibility for states to design 
alternative

processes (quite vague at this time, to me). Finally, while the draft 
does not

include any authorization of overall spending, the bigger problem is

appropriations: even the good ideas won't work without money, and 
schools will

continue to be expected to do what governments don't give them the 
resources to

do.







Here are some specifics, typically with the first (and sometimes 
second)

lettered item being the discussion draft proposal, the rest ideas for 
changes.

The FEA recommendations are more extensive than what is below: the 
Committee

clearly does not intend a major overhaul of the structure and many key

provisions, which is what it should do.  (You may need to rely on the 
discussion

draft and on the FEA's legislative recommendations to follow all the 
points

below - no time to spell them all out in detail).











I. All proficient by 2014 and AYP structure



           A. The draft keeps these essentially unchanged.

            B. Keep 2014 as official (nominal) goal, but link all 
progress

determinations to FEA rate of improvement (ROI) proposal (improve at 
rate of

good Title I school).  [There may be developing some intermediate 
options we

could support, not as good as ROI but notably better than current AYP.]



                        - note ROI is used at a few new points in draft 
[have to

re-find them]



            C. As we may not get B, what improvements to AYP can we 
offer, e.g.:



                       - change 10% in safe harbor to 5%



                       - other?



            D. confirm/clarify that the trigger for interventions is 
one

group/one subject at every point; clarify more on what is meant by 
allowing

states to develop an optional approach toward determining 'high 
priority' for

assistance (p. 182).







II. Assessment



           A. Draft retains test every year in 3-8, creates a multiple

assessment pilot in Sec 1125



            B. Strike that requirement so only required to test once 
each in

3-5, 6-9, 10-12



                        - clarify that if states do growth approach, 
must assess

statewide every year



                        - "encourage" states testing alternate years or 
less to

participate in new 1125 (local assessments) including all grades 3-8.



            C. Formative assessments - clarify that 'formative' - 
whenever

required - uses definitions/criteria  in new 1125



           D. In new Sec. 1125:



                       - drop required state rubric



                        - authorize $150-200 million/year (at least $5 
mil per

participating state, more for larger state or more comprehensive work), 
allow

funds unexpended on one year to be carried over to future years



                        - allow funds under 6113(a)(4) [the  $400 
million to

improve assessments] to be used for this purpose



                        - allow funds to be used to develop other 
subject

assessments if a) state already has local assessments in reading and 
math, or b)

authorized funding not fully used by the pilot project;







III. Multiple indicators



            A. Discusssion draft requires disaggregated grad rates to 
count for

HS.



            B. Also it allows other factors to become 'extra credit' 
for schools

not making AYP in reading or math.



            C. Changes needed: We would prefer a composite weighted 
index

system, as in FEA recommendations. Propose those. Alternatively, within 
the

model in the draft, suggest these changes:



            D. Add additional factors that count, esp. reduction of 
grade

retention rates



            E. Allow 'statewide' not 'state developed' assessments in 
other

subject areas



           F. Increase allowable credit for other factors



                        - we should specify how much total in a) other 
subjects,

and b) other indicators.



           G. Make "full credit" easier to obtain than the current

near-impossible



                        Comment: goal is to ensure a balanced 
curriculum for the

education of the whole child, counter the tendency to reduce to two 
subjects  -

minimal proposed weights will not do that







IV. Improvement/sanctions



            A. Requires plan after one year of not making AYP (OK); 
allows 3

years for plan to succeed (and a 4th if make AYP in year 3 of plan); 
then

'redesign' is largely renamed 'restructuring'. [high schools have 4 
plus 1]



            B. Have 4 years for plan to take effect in elementary as 
well.



            C. Clarify or delete what is meant by "formal contract with 
an

intermediary" (is this EMO and privatization in new guise? Or working 
with other

kinds of groups?]; re-insert the "other" category; clarify the time 
sequence of

redesign (appears to be do redesign in year after plan effort fails, 
then

implement redesign, but where does 2 years come in?); why is 'closing' 
only in

(3)(A) and should it be there? (kids have to be somewhere)



            D. Clarify any details re: professional development or 
other topics

in improvement



            E. What if the money to do the work and the reporting is 
not

actually sufficient or available - what then? Are there suggestions to 
make that

if $X not appropriated, then certain things need not be done?







There are issues around students with disabilities, English language 
learners,

and parental involvement that I have not addressed here. Professional

development and other sections have not been released.







In conclusion: FairTest is far from happy with the choices. We are 
working to

win what we can, recognizing they are more limited at this time than we 
want.

Most of what preceded has to do with improvements within what is still 
a

wrong-headed framework in which under-resourced education is to be 
controlled by

accountability (and a narrow conception at that, based on standardized 
tests

primarily) - rather than well-resourced education in which 
accountability and

assessment are useful components. We will keep working toward that 
goal,







Monty







Monty Neill, Ed.D.

Co-Executive Director

FairTest

342 Broadway

Cambridge, MA 02139

617-864-4810    fax 617-497-2224

monty@fairtest.org

http://www.fairtest.org

Donate: https://secure.entango.com/servlet/donate/MnrXjT8MQqk



-------------------------------------------------------

Unsubscribe ARN-L:

http://interversity.org/lists/arn-l/subscribe.html












________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - 
http://mail.aol.com