[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ca-resisters] 11 Jan St. Bd of Ed meeting
- Subject: Re: [ca-resisters] 11 Jan St. Bd of Ed meeting
- From: Susan Harman <susanharman@IGC.ORG>
- Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 20:43:21 -0800
- Comments: To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Reply-to: Assessment Reform Network Mailing List <ARN-L@LISTS.CUA.EDU>
- Sender: Assessment Reform Network Mailing List <ARN-L@LISTS.CUA.EDU>
A nice young woman faxed me the language of 3 of the worst agenda items.
Can anybody else go? Weve got three or four, need more. Ill find out
about deadlines for written comments.
Item 31, Separation of CA Standards Tests from the SAT9. Harcourt has
the continuing contract. They bought the SAT9 for 5 years, the last year
of which will be the spring 2002 admin. They will, of course, choose
ANOTHER norm-referenced test to replace the SAT9, in addition to the new
I think the thing to say on this is, why another NRT? Why not just use NAEP?
Item 35, API awards regs. The stuff they did in Oct and Nov was
emergency. This will make those regs legit.
Interesting language: In accordance with Gov Code section
11346.5(a)(12), that St Bd must determine that no alternaive considered
would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the action
is proposed or would be as effective and less burdensome to affected
private persons than the proposed action.
The purpose of the proposed regs is to provide guidance for the API
award programs. The St Bd does not believe that existing law absent
these regs achieves that objectivbe. Moreover, the St Bd has been unable
to identify any alternative to the proposd regs that achieves the
objective. The St Bd invites interested persons to present statements or
arguments regarding alternatives to their proposed regs at the
above-mentioned hearing or during the written comment period.
I think we should say the bribes are discriminatory, since rich schools
only have to improve one or two points to get them, while poor schools
have to climb dozens of points. They are also insulting to good
teachers, divisive of colleagues.
Item 36, Parent Opt Out regs. These are emergency regs necessary to:
1) Limit the number of parental waivers of the SAT9 for purposes of
calculating an API. In order [to] maintain the validity of the API, it
is necessary to limit the number of parental waivers of the SAT9 to 15%
or less of the enrollment in the grades tested. A reg is necessary to
implement this limitation. In order to finalize the list of schools
eligible for awards based on the API, as soon as possible, the
regulation needs to be an emergency reg.
I think we say its retroactive, which is sleazy.
It will have a chilling effect on parents rights, which are guarenteed
2) Establish a deadline for the submission of the data nec to make
awards for the School Site Emmployees Perf. Bonus Prog., and the
Certificated Staff Perf Incentive Act Program. Forms certifying staff
numbers must be returned by 2/1.
To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L