NCLB sanctions revolving door

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

The article below is interesting for several reasons (including for the DC capacity-building discussion):

1. The article is about Schools that got aid because they did not make AYP and were INOI typically then made AYP. However, the assistance was then withdrawn and 7 or the 8 Cleveland schools then failed to make AYP. How common is this across the nation? - who knows.

2. The Ohio ed official said that resources were limited. This is a state in which some 4 times the State Supreme Court found the state violating the state's constitutional requirement to adequately fund education. Every time the legislature and governor refused. The court has now basically thrown up its hands. Funding remains very inequitable, and Cleveland has faced many cutbacks in recent years. So much for leaving no child behind.

3. The OH official claims that spending money on schools that made AYP may violate NCLB. Perhaps, but NCLB does not prevent the state from helping schools - which is it not doing. Of course, the feds have failed to adequately fund ESEA as well (not that funding it would make it a good law). 

4. A few ideas on how to ensure a better flow of resources to schools that need help are found, from the MI state official - e.g., state regional centers to provide assistance. This piece says the Cleveland schools found the assistance helpful [this has not always been the case: in Chicago, the university 'partners' Vallas set up to help probationary etc schools were a pretty thorough failure; and I've heard stories from various sources that in NYC the 'reading coaches' often know less than the teachers; etc. Still, done right, additional assistance that teachers can use can be a real help to schools.]

5. The help often revolved around the state tests and 'benchmark' tests of 20 multiple-choice items. This may have boosted test scores, but it is nothing short of scary to focus education on a handful of multiple-choice items and call it improvement or reform.

Monty 

http://www.catalyst-cleveland.org/04-06/0406followup1.htm
Follow Up 
April/May 2006
Sanctions and support catch schools in revolving door
by Caitlin Scott

Eight Cleveland schools got off the state's list of schools in need of improvement in 2004-05. But the celebration was short lived - seven of the eight failed to meet state testing targets the very next year, which placed them in jeopardy of ending up right back on the list. 

Teachers and principals at the schools say extra state support -$50,000 grants used to hire school coaches - helped them meet the targets and get off the list. But the state withdrew that support, when the schools emerged from "needs improvement" status. 

Schools are put on the state list when they fail to meet testing targets for two years in a row; progressively tougher, federally mandated sanctions are triggered the longer schools remain on the list. To get off the list, schools must meet targets for two years.

Finite resources and federal law that focuses assistance on schools in need of improvement limit support. 

That means help doesn't last long enough to make real change, says Barbara Mazzone, a 6th-grade teacher at Charles Lake K-8, in the Bloomville St. Clair neighborhood.

She describes the policy as, "You made the grade, now we drop you like a hot potato."

Teachers praise support
Many staff members at schools that had coaches described their services as invaluable. Coaches helped foster teamwork and positive attitudes among staff, say teachers.

"It wasn't just what she did, but how she did it," says Jane Kysela, a 6th-grade teacher at J.D. Rockefeller in the Hough neighborhood. The school's coach "boosted our morale and our spirits. That led to success. We never felt that we were alone."

At Charles Lake, the coach trained staff to use assessments created by the district's central office that contain eight items similar to ones on the state exam. The coach taught teachers to analyze results and group students for instruction according to skill level.

The coach was instrumental in overseeing this process and coordinating teaching among staff members, Mazzone says.
Using state grants to help schools in need of improvement is a common strategy nationally. In the Center on Education Policy's 2006 report on the federal No Child Left Behind law, 45 of 50 states said that they used special grants to districts to help schools in need of improvement "somewhat" or "to a great extent." 

In Cleveland's case, coaches come from the Educational Service Center of Cuyahoga County. They typically visit schools several times a week to:
- provide professional development for all staff;
- model lessons;
- observe teachers and provide feedback to improve instruction;
- analyze student achievement data and help teachers use results to shape instruction;
- help organize students into small flexible groups for instruction and sometimes lead groups;
- consult with staff as requested.

In Cleveland, where one coach visits several schools each week, teachers say coaches also connect schools within the district. This allows teachers to share resources easily across schools. 

"If you needed a practice test, for example, or a particular lesson plan, the coach was able to give you an idea of where to get it," Mazzone explains.

"I think schools need these supports all the time," she adds. "Maybe that's not feasible for the state. But there should at least be someone from the state who checks up on you." 

Should support continue?
In Ohio, grants end after three years or after the school comes off the state list. 

"Some buildings can be on their own after three years, some need more time," says Linda Prosak, executive director of institutional advancement for Cleveland schools. 

Rockefeller's Kysela adds: "There was a tremendous burden on teachers" once the school lost outside help. "It was just so abrupt."

The loss of state support was exacerbated by simultaneous budget cuts in the district, teachers and principals noted.
Several factors conspire to limit state support.

Keith Speers, director of the state's Office of Field Relations, points to a lack of money to continue helping schools once they are off the state improvement list. "The reality is that there are finite resources," he asserts. 

Federal education law also funnels dollars specifically to schools on the state's list. So extending resources may not be in keeping with the law, he says.

State support should be strong enough to get schools back on track and keep them on track, Speers asserts. If schools backslide, it may be that the school wasn't committed to the changes, he asserts.

Although coaching is the only form of support that school-level staff talked about, the state also offers online web tools, regional professional development and a "partnership agreement" that plans interventions for schools on the state list.

Michigan's experiment
Like Ohio, Michigan faced requests for state grants to continue for a year after schools came off the state list, says Yvonne Caamal Canul, director of the Michigan Office of School Improvement. 

Michigan is trying that in 2005-06, but Caamal Canul says she has reservations. 

Giving grants to more schools may dilute the impact of the grants and makes it more difficult for the state to monitor them. And, like Ohio's Speers, she says extending the grants to schools that have come off the state list may not be in keeping with federal education law.

The grants are meant to boost schools in need of improvement, not to become a yearly gift to the general budget, she asserts. "We're not Santa Claus. We may not do this again next year," she says.

If Michigan does extend the grants, Caamal-Canul says it may be limited to schools that: have submitted excellent plans for using the funds; are in years 3, 4, 5, or 6 before coming off the list; and previously failed to meet state targets due to achievement, rather than other factors.

Ideally, Caamal Canul says it might be best for grants to go to a regional educational organization that would help schools as needed. This way the organization would remain stable, while the schools shifted in and out of the services. A regional organization might also have more flexibility to help schools in need regardless of their improvement status.

What's next for Cleveland? Since state policy isn't likely to change, Prosak says the district will have to figure out how to support schools that come off the state list.

"We can be creative," Prosak says. As with many shortfalls in funding, "Cleveland will be looking to external partners, including foundations and corporations."

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