Re: [arn-l Digest] Vol. 3 No. 177 Messages: 8

["Monty Neill" <monty@fairtest.org>]

This report does have useful information, but it is limited in a number of 
ways that it should not have been. A better analysis, overall, is found in 
the Harvard Civil Rights Project's recent report using NAEP data (tho 
without the state details Fuller et al provide). HCRP is at 
http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu/

Monty
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <arn-l-owner@interversity.org>
To: <arn-l@interversity.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 6:21 AM
Subject: [arn-l Digest] Vol. 3 No. 177 Messages: 8


ARN-L Daily Digest
Volume 3 : Issue 177 : "text" Format

Messages in this Issue:
 200607/10 : Arizona Sues Feds Over NCLB English Learners' Score Rules
   Bob Schaeffer
 200607/11 : Re: Arizona Sues Feds Over NCLB English Learners' Score Rules
   SheilaARS
 200607/12 : Feds Threaten Most States with NCLB Funding Loss
   Bob Schaeffer
 200607/13 : it can get worse...
   Monty Neill
 200607/14 : LA lack of transfer opportunities - with comment by MN
   Monty Neill
 200607/15 : Re: LA lack of transfer opportunities - with comment by MN
   ABurke5054
 200607/16 : Re: J.Kozol's manifesto
   Harold Berlak
 200607/17 : exams are flawed and inconsistent
   George Sheridan

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

Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 10:50:15 -0400
From: Bob Schaeffer <bobschaeffer@earthlink.net>
To: ARN Main List <arn-l@interversity.org>,
arn2-strategy <arn2-strategy@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Arizona Sues Feds Over NCLB English Learners' Score Rules
Message-ID: <44AE74A7.8000308@earthlink.net>

HORNE SUES EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
Arizona Republic -- July 8, 2006
by Meghan E. Moravcik

State schools chief Tom Horne made good on a threat Thursday to sue the
federal government over how the standardized test scores of students
learning English are counted in Arizona.

Until now, Horne said, state and federal education officials agreed to
count the scores of English-language learners starting after the
students' third year in the state, allowing them time to become
proficient enough in English to pass an academic test.

But federal education officials want to count those scores after only
one year.

"No Child Left Behind requires all states to include all students,
including students with limited-English proficiency, in their
accountability system," Chad Colby, a spokesman for the U.S. Department
of Education, said in a written statement. "Arizona is not doing this,
and the department has repeatedly told state officials they are
violating the law."

Horne said Arizona is following an oral agreement made three years ago.

"They made an agreement, and like anybody else, they should keep their
agreements," Horne said.

Horne said his lawsuit challenging the federal government's position
would be filed in U.S. District Court by the end of the day Thursday.

If the federal court does not rule in the state's favor, it could mean
an additional 100 Arizona schools will be labeled as failures. That, in
turn, could be costly for some districts if they end up enacting
expensive corrective plans.
   http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0707lawsuit0707.html


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

Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 10:53:18 EDT
From: SheilaARS@aol.com
To: arn-l@interversity.org
Subject: Re: Arizona Sues Feds Over NCLB English Learners' Score Rules
Message-ID: <330.6d6d976.31dfcf5e@aol.com>

Good for Arizona.  If more states followed the lead, and more people  spoke
out, we know it would change things.  Everyone is so afraid; it's  like a 
bunch
of lemmings.


[Attachment of type text/html removed.]

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

Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 11:32:32 -0400
From: Bob Schaeffer <bobschaeffer@earthlink.net>
To: ARN Main List <arn-l@interversity.org>,
arn2-strategy <arn2-strategy@yahoogroups.com>,
ARN State <ARN-state@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Feds Threaten Most States with NCLB Funding Loss
Message-ID: <44AE7E90.3010308@earthlink.net>

MOST STATES FALLING SHORT ON NO CHILD, FEDERAL REPORT SAYS

Associated Press -- July 7, 2006

WASHINGTON - Most states are failing to pass muster with the government
over student testing and may lose money unless they improve quickly.

The Education Department says 34 states, the District of Columbia and
Puerto Rico have major problems with the tests that were supposed to be
in place in the just-ended school year. They will get federal approval
only if they correct the problems in the coming year.

In addition, Nebraska and Maine had their testing systems rejected outright.

They all face the threat of losing from $40,000 to more than $1 million
of the money they receive to administer the No Child Left Behind law. In
most cases, the total would be less than $100,000; Nebraska and Maine
could lose one-quarter of their dollars.

The money would go instead to school districts, skipping state
governments altogether.

The report card of the states, released Thursday, is intended to get
them to finish the job.

President Bush's education law orders states to hold math and reading
tests in the third- to eighth-grade, and once in high school. The
deadline was the end of the 2005-06 school year.

Every state did have testing in the required grades. But many states
still have significant problems, such as developing exams for disabled
or limited-English students, or ensuring that tests are technically sound..

Texas, the home state of the president and Education Secretary Margaret
Spellings, fell short because of a number of federal concerns, including
whether the tests match up to the content that students are supposed to
learn.

Only 10 states won full approval. Four others are expected to get there
soon.

Deputy Education Secretary Ray Simon said the states' overall
performances were positive. Even the 36 jurisdictions whose approval
remains pending probably will get the federal OK within a year, he said.

"I think maybe the scope of the work was just more broad, difficult and
time-consuming than many of them thought," Simon said Thursday. "I don't
think there was any attempt for them to sit back, do nothing and say,
'Let's see how much we can get away with.'"

States that have fallen short must submit a plan and a timeline for
improvements. They may appeal their status, too. Those with continued
problems could lose 10 percent to 25 percent of their federal
administrative money.

Nebraska and Maine, the states most at odds with the department, face
the maximum fine - a one-fourth cut.

Nebraska's education commissioner, Doug Christensen, said the federal
decision blind-sided him and violated a past agreement.

"I cannot recall a professional issue in my over 40 years as an educator
over which I have been so disappointed," Christensen told Nebraska
reporters on Wednesday.

The department announced its findings after a review by a team of
testing experts.

Jack Jennings, president of the independent Center on Education Policy,
said withholding administrative money from states could be
counterproductive. State education departments rely heavily on federal
money to hire the staff that oversee testing.

"They will be weakening the very agencies they expect to carry out the
law," Jennings said.

Congress awards more than $400 million a year to states to help them
develop tests, and billions more in aid to schools. The department has
the option to withhold that money, too.

But do not expect that to happen, Jennings said. "It's easier to beat up
on the state bureaucrats than it is to tell school districts they're
going to lose millions of dollars," he said.

____

No Child States

The Education Department has reviewed the student testing systems used
by the states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico to determine if
they comply with the No Child Left Behind law. The grades given by the
department for those testing plans:

Full approval: Maryland, Oklahoma, Tennessee, West Virginia.

Full approval with recommendations for improvement: Arizona, Delaware,
Indiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah.

Approval expected, which means states must submit a plan to fix problems
but face no immediate threat of withheld money: Alaska, Connecticut,
Louisiana, Massachusetts.

Pending approval, which means states could lose federal administrative
money if they don't fix their problems based on a revised plan: Alabama,
Arkansas, California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia,
Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New
Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico,
Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington,
Wisconsin, Wyoming.

Nonapproved, which means the plans were rejected and states may lose the
maximum amount of administrative money: Maine and Nebraska.




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

Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 12:25:56 -0400
From: "Monty Neill" <monty@fairtest.org>
To: "ARN-L" <arn-l@interversity.org>,
"arn2-strategy" <arn2-strategy@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: it can get worse...
Message-ID: <047601c6a1e2$074c2770$8201a8c0@Monty>

> From the ASCD daily news SmartBrief:
    Texas Education Board expected to revise English curriculum
     Now that it has a majority of social conservatives, the Texas Board of 
Education likely will vote Thursday to consider a new timetable for 
rewriting state English standards, a move that could set the stage for a 
switch to a teacher-driven curriculum emphasizing the basics of spelling, 
grammar and punctuation. Because of the state's large textbook market, any 
changes to Texas standards would have national repercussions.   Houston 
Chronicle or link to 
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/4024620.html


Monty Neill, Ed.D.
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

[Attachment of type text/html removed.]

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

Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 16:48:06 -0400
From: "Monty Neill" <monty@fairtest.org>
To: "ARN-L" <arn-l@interversity.org>,
"arn2-strategy" <arn2-strategy@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: LA lack of transfer opportunities - with comment by MN
Message-ID: <056501c6a206$a61c8bf0$8201a8c0@Monty>

This is on NPR - got to 
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5538536 and you can 
listen to it.

A few comments: it reveals again the pincer movement (old military strategy) 
against  public schools: install a law that says students must move be able 
to move, but a law that says they must be able to move only to schools that 
are not 'failing'; meanwhile ensure that most schools in urban areas are 
soon labeled failing. The proposed lawsuit, if successful (and there may be 
no standing to sue as the law allows no private right of action), 
intensifies the pressure - which apparently the feds are already applying.

Yes, this also reveals the disgraceful and disgusting unwillingness to 
provide decent schooling in CA for poor kids. Prop 13 is a primary culprit, 
but the state could have raised state $. It did not. But the failure of the 
feds for many years to provide $ for building schools, and that NCLB is a 
law essentially silent on the issue of making better schools rather than 
creating inadequate transfer options, both contribute to intensifying the 
mess being exploited by Clint Bolick.

Two results could occur: of course even more pressure to do noting except 
teach the test, hence blighting educational opportunity for millions of 
kids; and more push for privatization since it is a virtual given that LA 
cannot meet the demand placed on it anytime soon (a decade, as they say). 
Yes, no kid should have to wait a decade - but privatization and test prep 
are not answers.

Monty

Education
California Schools Could Lose Aid over 'No Child' Law
by Claudio Sanchez



David McNew
California is under pressure to provide students at low-performing schools 
in its largest school districts with more options for transferring out. 
Above, a new school under construction in Maywood, Calif., part of the L.A. 
school district. Getty News Images




DEADLINE LOOMS FOR CALIFORNIA
California has until Aug. 15 to come up with a plan to allow more students 
to transfer out of low-performing schools in its largest school districts. 
If the state fails to meet that deadline, the U.S. Education Department has 
threatened to withhold part of the $700 million it provides California for 
high-poverty schools. Read the U.S. Education Department's letter to 
California:


 a.. Letter from the Education Department to California


All Things Considered, July 6, 2006 · This week, the U.S. Department of 
Education threatened to withhold millions of dollars in federal school aid 
from California because the state has failed to help students transfer out 
of low-performing schools.


The No Child Left Behind Law requires that students in such schools be given 
the option of transferring elsewhere. But nationwide, some 4 million 
students eligible for such transfers did not do so, in many cases because 
there was no place for them to go.


Getting the School District's Attention

In Los Angeles, some 250,000 students were eligible for transfers, but only 
a small percentage actually switched schools. Among those who didn't is 
Yolanda Decatur's 8-year-old son, Cameron.


Like many children in Los Angeles, Yolanda Decatur's three sons attend 
year-round schools -- a byproduct of crowding in the 800,000-student 
district. By 6:30 a.m. on a typical school day, Decatur has three bowls of 
milk and a box of Cap'n Crunch waiting on the kitchen table of her home.


Kyron, 5, is still in pajamas, watching Sesame Street. Cameron and Sexton 
Jr., 14, are dressed. Both boys have struggled academically, Decatur says, 
but it's 8-year-old Cameron who's having the most trouble at West Athens 
Elementary School.


"He goes through his tantrums," she says, adding that the school is too 
crowded to give her son the one-on-one attention he needs. "There's too many 
kids."


But it's not just the crowding. Decatur says that Cameron's teachers seem to 
have given up on him.


Last fall, she had nearly lost all hope of getting the school district to 
pay attention to Cameron's case. Then, John Mancino walked into the 
fast-food restaurant in south central Los Angeles where Decatur works full 
time.


Mancino, a management consultant by profession, with children of his own, 
says he became an activist because he hates the way the Los Angeles Unified 
School District bureaucracy deals with parents who request transfers.


"A lot of them have given up," he says. "They don't think they can beat the 
system. They've basically thrown the towel in."


Few Transfer Options for Students

Mancino's organization -- the Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education --  
has filed a complaint with the district and the state. It accuses school 
officials of withholding information from parents about the district's 
transfer policies and discouraging them from even applying.


"According to the law, NCLB [No Child Left Behind], they're supposed to make 
it very clear and explain it in simple, easy-to-understand terms, and 
they're not doing that," Mancino says. The district, he says, is "burying" 
the information about transfers "to get around the requirements of No Child 
Left Behind."


Mancino says about one-third of the district's students were eligible for 
transfers this past school year, but only 527 students actually did so.


The school district has dismissed Mancino's complaint.


"We have a massive program of transfer of students throughout this 
district," says L.A. school district superintendent Roy Romer.


Urging Parents to Be Patient

The L.A. school district has done everything possible to give parents 
options, Romer says, but it simply doesn't have the room for all of those 
students to transfer.

"We're 160,000 seats short. Where do you transfer to?" he says. "Give us 
some time. We'll have new buildings built. We're building them now."


Romer says the district is building 160 new schools at a cost of $19 billion 
to deal with the crowding. But, he adds, parents like Decatur have to be 
patient.


"I've got to say to that parent, 'We are making more change in the right 
direction than any other urban school district in California,'" Romer says. 
"You can't turn one of these things around in a month, a year or five years. 
It takes 10 to 12 years to do it."


That's not good enough for Yolanda Decatur.

"Tell my son, you look in his face and tell him he that he has to wait for a 
better school," she says.


She says parents like her feel that suing the school district will force it 
to act faster. "We have these rights to demand better schools for our 
children," she says.


Federal Funds at Stake

There is no lawsuit yet, but there will be soon, says Clint Bolick, of the 
Phoenix-based Alliance for School Choice.


Bolick, a longtime advocate of vouchers and school choice, is working with 
Mancino and his organization to help parents in Los Angeles. He says he's 
convinced that the threat of a lawsuit will force U.S. Education Secretary 
Margaret Spellings to deal with the problem.


"If she wants school districts to comply with the law, she has got to make 
an example out of a school district that is in blatant non-compliance, and 
she could not find a better example than the Los Angeles Unified School 
District," Bolick says. "She's offered an awful lot of waivers to school 
districts to get out of from the requirements of the law, and she's 
threatened a great deal. But so far, she has not made good on a single 
threat."


Chris Doherty of the U.S. Education Department strongly disagrees.

"This secretary has made clear that she's unsatisfied with what we're seeing 
across the country, and she's taking strong steps to bring those numbers up 
to where we want them to be," Doherty says.


Doherty has been monitoring parents' complaints in Los Angeles and across 
the country.


Spellings "has made California aware that she's following this extremely 
closely," he says. "She's made every state superintendent aware that she's 
poised to take action, including withholding funds from noncompliant 
districts and states, if need be."


In an unprecedented move, Spellings has given California six weeks to come 
up with a plan that would allow students in failing schools throughout the 
state to transfer to a better school this fall.


If the state does not submit a plan that Spellings deems adequate, Doherty 
says the education secretary will withhold part of the $700 million 
California is due to receive this fall in federal Title I funds, which are 
earmarked for high-poverty schools. And that, department officials say, is 
no empty threat.

California officials told NPR that what the U.S. Department of Education is 
asking for is going to be a logistical nightmare: Every failing school --  
and every school district -- where parents have tried, unsuccessfully, to 
transfer their children out now faces a six-week deadline to make sure those 
students find a new school.


California officials said lawyers for the state will likely examine the 
letter from Washington to see whether they can challenge the Aug. 15 
deadline, because under No Child Left Behind, there is supposed to be a 
process in place that gives states time to review and appeal any complaint 
or lawsuit. This process now appears to be out the window.

Monty Neill, Ed.D.
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

[Attachment of type text/html removed.]

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

Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 19:36:11 EDT
From: ABurke5054@aol.com
To: arn-l@interversity.org
Subject: Re: LA lack of transfer opportunities - with comment by MN
Message-ID: <328.7acc98a.31e049eb@aol.com>


In a message dated 7/7/2006 1:39:32 PM Pacific Standard Time,
monty@fairtest.org writes:


A few comments: it reveals again the pincer movement (old  military 
strategy)
against  public schools: install a law that says  students must move be able
to move, but a law that says they must be able to  move only to schools that
are not 'failing'; meanwhile ensure that most  schools in urban areas are 
soon
labeled  failing...



___________________________________________________________________
What nonsense.  NCLB requires states to improve their schools.   That's why
the NAACP is urging a federal court to enforce the "letter and  spirit" of
NCLB.  Instead of weeping and moaning and blaming NCLB, George  Bush, and 
the
Business Roundtable for everything under the sun, put pressure on  the 
states to
get on with improving their schools.

Art


[Attachment of type text/html removed.]

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

Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 16:51:22 -0700
From: Harold Berlak <hberlak@yahoo.com>
To: listserve ARN <arn-l@interversity.org>
Subject: Re: J.Kozol's manifesto
Message-ID: <D02AE8AC-2911-4B3F-BDA5-A52A1F8562DF@yahoo.com>

The jury is out   You've  got to be more than a little bit wary of a
movement that is built around a cultural icon largely composed of
(genuinely) liberal or progressive (mostly white) democrats who like
Kozol support deseg, civil rights and liberties. but do not make
connections between what going on in schools (and universities)  to
the obscene concentration of wealth and power in the US, and
increasing domination of the political process and social policy
generally by corporate capital.

Enter coalition with eyes wide open. For  all who are concerned about
testing abuse on children and teachers, and returning some sanity to
nationlal and state educational policies. we  must put aside
important differences if we want to curb the worst abuses in NCLB
(and state assessment policies).  For example. The feds are in the
process of attacking the Nebraska model  --which has its problems but
relatively speaking is a breath of fresh air.  Supporting  federal
legislation that would affirm Nebraska (and other states) departure
from the NCLB straightjacket is a battle that probably could be won.
(CDE  and CA State Board could no longer hold to excuse that they are
only following federal mandates)



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

Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 23:45:15 -0700
From: George Sheridan <learn@jps.net>
To: Arn-l@interversity.org
Subject: exams are flawed and inconsistent
Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.0.20060707234324.04318190@pop.jps.net>

Results of school testing are challenged
A new study says 'No Child Left Behind' exams are flawed, inconsistent.
By Deepa Ranganathan
http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/education/story/14274166p-15084055c.html
Published Sunday, July 2, 2006
Story appeared on Page A3 of The Bee

State tests of student achievement are so prone to change, and seemingly so
inconsistent with federal tests and with each other, that it's tough for
the public to tell whether the controversial No Child Left Behind Act has
made good on its promises.

Such is the finding of a new study by researchers at the University of
California and Stanford University.

The study, "Is the No Child Left Behind Act Working?" doesn't purport to
answer the question in its title. But it does suggest that states and the
federal government apparently obtain radically different results with
different tests, leaving the public without a clear way to judge the effect
of the 5-year-old federal law.

"We're left with this murky reality of not knowing whether No Child Left
Behind is adding anything," said said Bruce Fuller, an education professor
at UC Berkeley and co-director of Policy Analysis for California Education,
the consortium that issued the study. "The architects of NCLB promised more
transparency . but this is a pretty bewildering rendition of transparency."

The law, which requires every state to test students annually in math and
reading and make them all proficient by 2014, is up for reauthorization
next year in Congress. Some researchers say the study highlights how hard
it will be for the public to sift through the law's pros and cons.

"You definitely have multiple accountability systems going, and I think it
is confusing to people," said Ron Dietel, a spokesman for the National
Center for Research, Standards and Student Testing at UCLA.

The yearlong study examined several years of test scores in 12 states,
including California, and compared them to the results of the National
Assessment of Educational Progress -- the "Nation's Report Card" -- during
the same years.

The study turned up three major barriers to understanding the law's
effects. For one, every state defines "proficiency" differently. For
instance, Illinois reported in 2005 that nearly 80 percent of its
fourth-graders were proficient in math, while California, with more
rigorous standards, reported only about 50 percent.

Meanwhile, about the same proportion of fourth-graders in both states -- 
roughly 30 percent -- were proficient on the national assessment, which was
the same in each state.

Worse, in some states, there seemed to be virtually no link between reading
performance on state tests and on federal tests. Ten of the 12 states
reported annual increases in the percent of fourth-graders scoring
proficient in reading between 2002 and 2005, while national results
actually dropped in four of those states. In two more that reported
improvement -- California and Nebraska -- the national results were flat.

The researchers also found that states rejigger their testing systems so
frequently that there's no way to judge how students have improved over
time. California saw two major shifts in recent years: one in 1999, when it
started matching its tests to educational standards, and another in 2001,
when it employed a new company to write test questions.

"If parents were to only look at the state story about achievement trends,
they would be bewildered as to how their kids were learning over the past
10 years," Fuller said.

Officials at the state Department of Education took issue with some of the
study's findings, saying it examined an inadequate portion of the student
population and underestimates recent progress.

If the entire student population had been considered, rather than just
those deemed proficient, the researchers would have found a tight
relationship in California between state and national tests, officials said.

Fuller, however, said he focused on the top range of students because
that's the range for which states are accountable under federal law.

Rick Miller, an education department spokesman, said the state tests,
aligned to local standards, offer a more sensitive measure of whether kids
are learning than the national test does.

However, Miller said he was glad the study pointed out that some states,
wary of federal sanctions for inadequate progress toward their goals, have
set far less ambitious targets than California has.

"That's the perverse nature of NCLB -- it actually incentivizes states to
lower their standards," he said.

There's little consensus among researchers about how the law has affected
education, and some observers say it'll take longer than five years to
create strong tests in each state that will yield consistent results. "It's
a little premature to judge the global impact on our standards system,"
said Jim Lanich, president of California Business for Education Excellence
and a longtime supporter of the law.

The study recommends several ways to make testing results more uniform.
First, all states should be required to define proficiency the same way and
perhaps align their targets with those of the national test. Policy-makers
should consider designing more rigorous state tests, so teachers will focus
more on the critical thinking skills required to do well on the national
test. And finally, the federal government should consider helping states
find ways to track achievement even when they switch or alter their tests..

*


George Sheridan


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

End of [arn-l Digest] Vol. 3 No. 177 Messages: 8
**********