Teacher World

I recently blogged regarding the announcement that half of the nation’s public schools failed to meet No Child Left Behind progress goals, which has added incentive for U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan and others to give waivers to states allowing them to change the standards for “adequate yearly progress” in schools. One such state which plans to apply for a waiver happens to be my own home state of Ohio.

Ohio public schools did better than the nation, with 60 percent meeting federal goals during the last school year, but half of its districts failed to meet these goals.

Under current NCLB policy, all public school students are to be proficient in math and reading by 2014. To guarantee that this occurs, the federal government required states to set “adequate yearly progress” goals. Each year or every few years, these goals must be raised. Due to this practice, most states now require approximately 90 percent or more of their students to pass the state tests.

Since Ohio and Kentucky recently adopted demanding math and reading curricula and are also developing new, college-preparatory tests for students, Duncan has argued that this high bar penalizes states like these.

How bad is the problem in Ohio? Well, in the Cincinnati area, 45 percent of its public schools failed federal annual academic progress goals. The largest district, Cincinnati Public, had 67 percent of its schools fail, and the second largest, Lakota, had 9 out of 20 of its schools fail. Winton Woods had all six schools fail.

So what is the common problem within these schools? Steve Denny, the executive director of accountability for Winton Woods, says it is the schools’ diversity; he says that the more diverse the school is, the harder it is to meet federal requirements. Which makes a lot of sense.

Here’s how it works: for a school to meet federal standards, each demographic student group, or subgroup, must pass the tests. Subgroups are based on several factors including ethnicity, poverty, disability, and limited-English-speaking level of students. Schools that don’t have many of these students have few federal progress goals to meet. But, according to Denny, it only takes a few students in a subgroup to fail for the school and district to fail as well.

Janet Walsh, the district spokesperson for Cincinnati Public, explained that in the 39 schools in the district which failed to meet federal goals, learning disabilities were a factor. She went on to explain that about 5 percent of the students in the district are unable to take the regular state tests due to severe disabilities. Yet, Ohio only allows these schools to give alternative tests to one percent of its students. This means that the other four percent fail the tests.

Jeanine Molock, director of accountability at the Ohio Department of Education said, “Ohio is in a better position than most states. Our story wasn’t as dramatic as most states were reporting.” She explained that part of the reason for this is the fact that Ohio allows its schools to meet federal standards four different ways, which exceeds the chances which other states have.

First, there is the traditional way: if the required numbers of students pass their state tests, as in other states, Ohio schools can meet federal goals. However, if an Ohio school fails that, it can still pass if one of the following goals is met:

• its two-year average for passing grades meets the federal standard,
• or enough students are on a trajectory to pass tests within two years,
• or the percent of students failing declines by 10 percent from the prior year.

But, Molock said that, in spite of this flexibility, Ohio will seek a waiver from federal progress restrictions by February. Those of us who are Ohio teachers will be watching to see if our state gets a waiver, and if so, what exactly that waiver means for our schools.

low-performing schools, No Child Left Behind, state achievement tests, Teacher-World's Blog Arne Duncan, No Child Left Behind, Ohio, state achievement tests, state waivers

Okay, so the news came out regarding how public schools measure up using the No Child Left Behind standards and, as expected, it isn’t pretty! In a recent report from the Associated Press, nearly half of America’s public schools failed to meet federal achievement standards this year. This marks the largest failure rate since NCLB took effect ten years ago, according to this report which was released Thursday.

The Center on Education Policy report revealed that over 43,000 schools (48 percent) did not make “average yearly progress” this year, with the lowest failure range of 11 percent in Wisconsin to the highest failure rate of 89 percent in Florida.

Earlier this year, Education Secretary Arne Duncan predicted that 82 percent of our nation’s schools would not pass muster, so maybe we should be relieved that the statistics are actually lower than his prediction. Regardless, it all reinforces the simple fact that the 2014 goal that requires states to have every student performing at grade level in math and reading is impossible to achieve. (Of course, educators have been trying to say this since the passage of NCLB, but what do we know?)

In his statement Wednesday, Duncan said, “Whether it’s 50 percent, 80 percent or 100 percent of schools being incorrectly labeled as failing, one thing is clear: No Child Left Behind is broken. That’s why we’re moving forward with giving states flexibility from the law in exchange for reforms that protect children and drive student success.”

The report also revealed huge variations in state’s scores which can be explained by a variety of factors. Some of these include the fact that some state’s tests are more difficult, and some states have higher numbers of low-income and immigrant children. Additionally, NCLB mandates that states must raise the passage rate each year, and some states put off the largest increase until this year in hopes of avoiding sanctions.

Jack Jennings, president of the Washington D.C-based Center on Education Policy said that the law, which should have been rewritten four years ago, is “too crude a measure” to give a clear picture of what is happening in schools. However, due to the bipartisan atmosphere in Congress, lawmakers seem unable to agree on how to fix it.

He told The Associated Press, “No Child Left Behind is defective. It needs to be changed. If Congress can’t do it, then the administration is right to move ahead with waivers.”

Recently, President Obama and Arne Duncan have agreed to allow states to file for waivers allowing them to use a variety of additional factors to determine whether they are successful and also to choose how their schools will be punished if they don’t show improvement. Some of these other factors include using college-entrance exam scores and adding the performance of students on their Advanced Placement tests.

With at least 39 states and Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico planning to file waivers, Republicans in Congress are accusing Duncan and the president of using waivers to push a “backdoor education agenda” that will let schools off the hook at the end of the day.

Owen Rust, a Yahoo contributor, published a commentary after this news was released which reemphasizes the dangers of allowing the House education committee to rewrite NCLB.

Rust reported that, according to the biographies of the members of this important committee, none have worked as certified teachers in a K-12 classroom. Glen Thompson, Representative from the fifth district of Pennsylvania, has a background in education but worked in health care. Lou Barletta, Representative from Pennsylvania’s 11th district, majored in elementary education before he left school to try out for a Major League baseball team. And Virginia Foxx, Congresswoman from North Carolina’s fifth district, was a full-time educator, but she taught at the college level, which is very different from teaching in K-12 public school systems.

Apparently, several members of the committee also served on their local school boards early in their political careers. That seems to be the sum total of this committee’s educational experience, leaving many to question, as teachers have from the start, just how qualified these politicians are to be formulating educational policies.

While I have no doubt that this committee is comprised of some very intelligent, caring, and successful legislators, the lack of educational background, training, or experience is troublesome, to say the least.

Would you ask educators to devise business policy? Of course not! So how is it that a group of people with no education background have the expertise to dictate what happens in our classrooms and in our schools? Doesn’t anyone else see the absurdity of this situation?

Georgia schools Superintendent John Barge said, “A lot of educators saw the weaknesses in No Child Left Behind even when it was rolled out – that this day and time would come. It’s kind of a train wreck that we all see happening.”

Before we just continue the train wreck, shouldn’t this committee work with real educators to formulate an education policy that is reasonable and doable? Let’s get rid of No Child Left Behind and replace it with a policy that is best for students (and that does not mean judging their proficiency from a standardized test) and best for our public schools.

Educational Reform, No Child Left Behind, Teacher-World's Blog Arne Duncan, Center on Education Policy, No Child Left Behind, President Obama

The Los Angeles Unified School District has been under scrutiny for 19 months while they underwent a civil rights investigation. On October 11, the U.S. Department of Education announced that the investigation showed the district created wide academic disparities since it has failed to provide an equal education to English-learners and black students.

The district agreed to resolve these disparities through various methods, and Department of Education Secretary Arne Duncan, who revealed the agreement at a news conference which was held at LAUSD headquarters, said that the plan would ensure that every student in this school district, the second largest in the nation, would receive the same academic opportunities “regardless of race or national origin.”

Duncan said that he was encouraged by the district’s willingness and sense of urgency in voluntarily agreeing to resolve the disparities rather than waiting to be ordered to do so, especially since these issues are “incredibly complex and politically charged.”

“Though we still have a long way to go before we see that English learner students and African-American students are consistently getting what they need to perform up to their fullest potential, I’m confident today’s agreement will help address the causes of concern that prompted our review,” he said.

While Duncan did not say that students’ civil rights were being violated and didn’t reveal detailed results of the investigation, a statement by the Education Department made it clear that it will monitor whether the district is complying with the agreement until educational codes are being met.

This agreement resulted from a “compliance review” by the Education Department’s Office of Civil Rights, which was disturbed by wide achievement gaps between the district’s lowest performing student groups as compared to other students. For example, according to the district’s 2009-10 report card, only 5% of English language learners at the high school level ranked as proficient in either English or math. As for black students, 32% ranked as proficient in English and 9% in math. Yet, the overall district average was 37% in English and 17% in math.

John Deasy, the superintendent of LAUSD, acknowledged that disparities existed and worked with federal officials to reach a solution. The district will have to find ways to fund the measures as the plans for specific areas are developed.

A huge problem with this district’s English-language program is that it has allowed non-native speakers to stay in English-learning programs for years, sometimes through their whole school career, without ever meeting the criteria to move out into mainstream classrooms. As a result, many students have either fallen behind their grade level or dropped out of school in frustration. For example, in the 2009-2010 school year, only 14.4% of English learners were reclassified as fluent.

The district has now agreed to revamp this program by the next school year, placing special emphasis on high school students who haven’t been considered proficient in English, so that they will be able to take the courses they need to in order to graduate. This will be a challenge, as the district has the highest number of English-learning students in the United States.

Under this new agreement, English-learners will receive grade-level courses, teachers will be trained to work with multiple English-proficiency levels, and special education teachers will also receive English-instructional materials.

And there is a component in the program which targets black students in an attempt to boost their “academic language proficiency” beginning in elementary grades.

Three other areas of concern with the investigation were the findings that black students are underrepresented in gifted and talented programs but overrepresented in suspensions and disciplinary actions. Additionally, the investigation revealed that schools with predominantly black populations lack appropriate technology and library resources.

The district said it will work to resolve these disparities with evaluations for gifted and talented programs which are fairer for black students and fairer decisions regarding disciplinary actions. (It is a mystery to me how they will achieve this without letting students into gifted and talented programs who don’t really belong, just to pad the numbers, and decreasing the severity of disciplinary action so that there are less suspensions.) They also agreed to provide more computers and increase library book collections in schools that have a high black population. (I wonder where they will find the funds for that expenditure.)

Although no details were revealed, the agreement called for a school-based community pilot program to be launched in an African-American neighborhood which would provide health and social services for the community.

The president of the teachers union, United Teachers Los Angeles, Warren Fletcher, praised the Education Department for shedding a light on the areas that need improvement, while at the same time pointing out that the district has laid off more than 1,200 teachers and has closed libraries in several of its schools.

Of the agreement, Fletcher commented, “It’s very general. We have to see how those services are going to be provided.”

As I read this article, I could not help but feel frustrated, as I’m sure those who teach in these schools are feeling, too. As usual, the fingers are pointing at the school district, but how does a district in the heart of Los Angeles cope with the problems of a big city, a huge non-English-speaking population, all of the challenges of city life with drugs, gangs, and violence, less government funding for sorely needed programs, a massively reduced teaching staff resulting in bigger class sizes, and now, more demands with no additional resources to meet those demands?

The school district is failing these students because the city is failing these students. Fix the problems in the surrounding neighborhoods, and the schools will be free to do what they are there to do; teach its students, not fix its students.

Funding Education, low-performing schools, state achievement tests, Teacher-World's Blog Arne Duncan, Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights, LA Unified School District, minority students, U.S. Department of Education

Finally, some welcome news regarding No Child Left Behind, but it’s still not what President Obama has been asking for; reforming the federal education law before the beginning of this school year. Let’s look at why reform is necessary and what will be happening until true reform occurs on this law.

Since federal educational aid is directly linked to standardized testing results under NCLB, this law has received criticism from many. One of the legitimate concerns with this link between aid and test results is that it causes teachers to focus primarily on the material that would elevate test scores. And yet, in spite of a proposal which was introduced 16 months ago and countless Congressional meetings and hearings held to fix NCLB, no agreement has been reached due to “partisan politics in the House,” according to a statement by the Department of Education.

Arne Duncan, Secretary of the Department of Education said that NCLB is “forcing districts into one-size-fits-all solutions that just don’t work. The President understands this and he has directed us to move ahead in providing relief.”

The director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, Melody Barnes, stated, “American’s future competitiveness is being decided today, in classrooms across the nation. With no clear path to a bipartisan bill in Congress, the President has directed us to move forward with an administrative process to provide flexibility within the law for states and districts that are willing to embrace reform.”

Earlier, I wrote a blog about Idaho demanding a third year in a row without raising the proficiency targets in math and reading, relief that does not comply with NCLB. Until agreement for true reform of NCLB is reached, under this new process, states like Idaho that are seeking relief from certain provisions of NCLB will receive that relief, but they must “demonstrate commitment to education reform.” Now, I confess that I have no idea how states are to demonstrate that commitment because there were no details in the article to explain this. Barnes was quick to add that this policy is “not a pass on accountability.”

In the meantime, the administration is continuing to forge ahead on the reform of NCLB with a plan that provides for an accountability system which is more flexible and more targeted, based on measuring annual student growth on college-and career-ready standards. The plan would focus on data and the quality of a district’s teachers and principals. This “flexibility package” with all of its details, will be made public in September. 

Duncan remained hopeful that true reform will be attained soon. “We’re still hopeful that Congress can continue its work this fall. In the meantime, states and districts have an opportunity to move forward.”

Educational Reform, No Child Left Behind, state achievement tests, Teacher-World's Blog Arne Duncan, Educational Reform, No Child Left Behind, President Obama, state waivers

Some good news for a change for educators! This past Wednesday, Education Secretary Arne Duncan met with the House Committee on Education and the Workforce and delivered a strong message that No Child Left Behind needs to be revamped because it sets too many schools up for failure, something teachers have been trying to say since its inception.

Duncan stated that, according to his department, it is estimated that four out of five schools in the United States, which could be as high as 82%, will be unable to reach the NCLB benchmark which states that all students will test at a proficient level by 2014. (Educators have made this same claim since the bill was passed in 2001, but our concerns have fallen upon deaf ears. Ironic that suddenly the Department of Education has come to a conclusion we have known from the start, isn’t it?)

Duncan further stated that when this current year’s test scores are counted, the numbers could reveal that our nation’s schools are already at risk, but he is not putting the blame on schools, which seems to be the favorite past time of many these days. Instead, he is putting the blame where it finally belongs; on No Child Left Behind.

“This law has created dozens of ways for schools to fail and very few ways to help them succeed. We should get out of the business of labeling schools as failures and create a new law that is fair and flexible, and focused on the schools and students most at risk,” Duncan told the committee.

One of the contributing factors making it increasingly more difficult to reach the goal of 100% proficiency is that each year the standards are higher than the year before. As a result, Duncan told the committee that the percentage of schools that are not meeting Adequate Yearly Progress could rise from the current level of 37% to 82%.

He further stated that all states and districts have to “implement the same set of interventions in every school that is not meeting AYP, regardless of the individual needs and circumstances of those schools” because they are governed by the same federal law. Duncan called this concept “fundamentally flawed.” He explained, “By mandating and prescribing one-size-fits-all solutions, No Child Left Behind took away the ability of local and state educators to tailor solutions to the unique needs of their students.”

Duncan was not just there to ask for the reauthorization and speedy revamping of NCLB; he was also defending President Obama’s budget request for 2012. In his statement, he expressed his concern that the United States under-invests in education compared to higher-performing countries.

Arne Duncan is my new hero, at least at this moment! I admit that I have not always agreed with what he has said or done, and I have frequently taken issue with Race to the Top, one of his pet projects. But hearing these welcome words about NCLB, a law that has angered teachers due to its impossibility, helps to relieve some of the disappointments and worries teachers are going through in these difficult times.

I have blogged that I volunteered to teach in a co-taught, self-contained classroom for at least two years. SPED students make up half of my classroom population. Now, anyone who has worked with these students knows how ridiculous it is to expect that we will be able to get every one of these students to pass the OAA. We have one student who got only 7 questions correct on last year’s math test! Yes, you heard me right! A few of our SPED students will probably pass one or more of this year’s tests, but most will not. How many teachers are going to want to work with these students if they, by law, must get them to reach a level of proficiency on all of their tests? It’s impossible, it’s ludicrous, and it is ultimately unfair to these students who deserve teachers who are excited to work with them, not assigned to do so against their will.

And there are always those students who do not qualify for SPED services but fall between the cracks nonetheless. Getting these students to pass, in spite of multiple attempts at intervention is often equally impossible.

So, while it astounds me that it took this long for those in power to realize that No Child Left Behind was a flawed piece of legislation from the get go, I am grateful that it sounds like it is going to be analyzed more realistically now. When Diane Ravitch, a staunch supporter of NCLB initially, has been speaking out against it and claiming that it will destroy public education, it’s clear that it is long past time to make some necessary changes to this law.

So, thank you, Arne Duncan, because, with these simple words, you have given educators everywhere some real hope for the future at a time when we are desperately searching for any hope at all.

Educational Reform, No Child Left Behind, special education, state achievement tests, Teacher-World's Blog Arne Duncan, Diane Ravitch, House Committee of Education and the Workforce, No Child Left Behind, special education, state achievement tests

Let’s talk about the Value Added Model or VAM, the newest method being pushed to evaluate teachers. It is based on the theory that a teacher’s effectiveness can be judged by measuring the progress that teacher’s students make on standardized tests over the course of the year. It is being suggested that this be the measure with which teachers are retained or let go. It’s the same method of evaluating teachers which was printed in Los Angeles by the L.A. Times, and we all know how that worked out.

Here’s the problem with VAM, according to neatoday’s January/February magazine: “Every respected, independent testing expert in the country agrees that VAM is not a valid or reliable measure for making high-stakes decisions about teacher effectiveness. It is junk science.” And it gives these examples to support their findings:

* The Board on Testing Assessment wrote an open letter to Department of Education Secretary Arne Duncan in October, 2009, stating that not enough research had been done on VAM’s validity to use it as a basis for determining teacher effectiveness. It also concluded that a student’s scores can be affected by various factors other than their teacher.
* The Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences published a 36-page analysis of VAM in July, 2010, in which it stated that “more than 90 percent of the variation in student gain scores is due to the variation in student-level factors that are not under the control of the teacher.”
* The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) assembled a panel of experts in August, 2010, who warned against giving substantial weight to VAM scores as a tool for measuring teacher effectiveness.
* Researchers for the RAND Corporation, a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decision making through research and analysis, concluded, “The research base is currently insufficient to support the use of VAM for high-stakes decisions about individual teachers.”
* And in the wake of the L.A. Times debacle, Rutgers Professor Bruce Baker concluded, after an analysis of the study, that its ratings of teachers are racially biased. He cited that the lowest VAM scores were earned by black teachers while the highest were earned by Asian teachers.

Additionally, a policy letter drafted by ten prominent education scholars, including Eva L. Baker, a UCLA professor and co-director of the National Center for Evaluation Standards and Student Testing, and Paul Barton, former director of the Policy Information Center of the Educational Testing Service; Stanford Professor Linda Darling-Hammond; education historian and New York University Professor Diane Ravitch; and several other prominent figures, warns of the danger of linking teacher evaluations to standardized tests. In this letter, they state: “Too many policymakers have recently adopted the misguided belief that improvements in students’ scores on standardized tests in mathematics and reading can be heavily relied upon to evaluate, reward, and remove the teachers of these tested students. However, even the most sophisticated use of test scores, value added modeling (VAM), is a flawed and inaccurate way to judge whether teachers are effective or ineffective.” They go on to cite evidence from recent research that concluded that VAM was too inaccurate to be used as the primary means of evaluating teachers.

Which brings us full-circle in asking whether VAM scores can be used as a reason for firing teachers. First neatoday states that tenured teachers cannot be fired without “just cause”, and using VAM as that “just cause” is not appropriate when its value has not been proven. Secondly, it explains that if Professor Bruce Baker is correct that VAM is racially disparate, a study would have to exist that proves the validity of using VAM as an accurate measure of teacher effectiveness, and again, no such proof exists.

As part of its report, EPI experts cited these two concerns about the use of VAM:

* It will likely lead to “expensive…litigation in which experts will be called to testify, making the district unlikely to prevail.”
* And it is also likely to “demoralize teachers.”

Shortly after the L.A. Times published its list of the most effective to least effective teachers in local schools in Los Angeles, Rigoberto Ruelas Jr., a fifth grade-teacher who was rated less effective according to the Value Added Model, in spite of his “great performance rating” at his school, jumped off a bridge to his death.

The awful tragedy is that a performance measure was used publicly here to demoralize teachers; a measure which has never been proven to be an accurate gauge of a teacher’s effectiveness, a measure which has actually been discounted by reliable sources, including one directly affiliated with the Education Department.  Which can’t help but leave teachers fearful of the future since proposed House Bill 21 is asking for Value-Added Data to be a requirement for renewing licensure which means using VAM as an evaluation tool.

Teachers need to get vocal with their legislators and demand that they vote this bill down, or we all will be held to a standard that has not even been proven to be a fair or accurate evaluative tool. Go to this site and sign a letter against VAM, but speak up now, before it is too late!

Educational Reform, teacher evaluations, Teacher-World's Blog Arne Duncan, Diane Ravitch, neatoday magazine, RAND, teacher evaluations, Value Added Model

In March of last year, I blogged about the Central Falls School District located in Rhode Island. You will remember that this is the school district which fired all of its high school teachers as a result of their poor performance record. In case you’ve forgotten, let me refresh your memory.

On February 24th, the Central Falls School Board of Trustees voted 5-2 to fire every teacher on their high school staff. All 93 names were read aloud including 74 classroom teachers, along with reading specialists, guidance counselors, PE teachers, the school psychologist, assistant principals, and the principal. Teachers from schools all over came to support these devastated staff members. It was a heart-wrenching scene, one which could not help but fill teachers everywhere with a true sense of fear. That fear was deepened when both Arne Duncan and President Barack Obama supported the firings. Obama expressed his strong opinion that when schools were not showing improvement, drastic action would need to be taken.

So, almost a year later, what’s the news in Central Falls, Rhode Island? The fired teachers made a deal that allowed them to get their jobs back, but it has not been smooth sailing. Apparently many of them have been either calling in sick or quitting. I imagine morale is exceptionally low. Wouldn’t yours be if you had been publicly accused of not doing your job and publicly fired as well?

In the meantime, the U.S. Department of Education has awarded the high school $1.3 million to continue its reform process. The money comes from a fund set up to transform 5,000 low-performing schools around the U.S.

According to reports, the money is to be used to purchase computers, pay professional staff, and develop a performance management system. It will be interesting to see if the money makes a difference. If it helps turn around this low-performing school then one would have to ask was the lack of progress  a result of teacher incompetence or was it poor funding? Or, at this point, has morale been so battered that the money is only a Band-Aid, when the school system is in need of a tourniquet? We will have to wait and see…

Educational Reform, Funding Education, low-performing schools, Teacher-World's Blog Arne Duncan, Barack Obama, Central Falls School District, poor-performing schools, school funding, U.S. Department of Education

A Department of Education release by Arne Duncan, the Secretary of Education, bemoans the fact that the 2009 results of the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development shows that America scored average in reading and science and below average in math. In his latest release, Duncan made the following statement:

“Today’s PISA results show that America needs to urgently accelerate student learning to remain competitive in the global economy of the 21st century. More parents, teachers, and leaders need to recognize the reality that other high-achieving nations are both out-educating us and out-competing us. Our educational system has a long way to go to fulfill the American promise of education as the great equalizer.

Being average in reading and science — and below average in math — is not nearly good enough in a knowledge economy where scientific and technological literacy is so central to sustaining innovation and international competitiveness. The results are especially troubling because PISA assesses applied knowledge and the higher-order thinking skills critical to success in the information age.”

What he failed to report was that only six countries scored higher than the U.S. on reading, and we were on a par with the average for science. Additionally, we have shown improvements compared to past PISA results. We have stopped dropping in the international rankings, and, according to Bob Wise, the president of the Alliance for Excellent Education: “there has been some improvement in the mean scores of all three subjects since the last assessment.”

Now, clearly, we have a ways to go, but I wish Mr. Duncan had at least mentioned the improvements which have been made. I also wish that in his statement, he would have taken a little time to talk about the elephant in the room. Let’s face it, in the countries which score so high, education is viewed very differently than it is by many here in the United States. It is the number one priority, and children learn that early on from their families. Working hard and doing your best at all times is a concept that is not just taught in the schools but at home as well. As a result, these countries have an advantage right off the bat.

When comparing data, scientists know that the variables which influence that data must be consistent and controlled. When studying test data from different countries, there are clearly no fixed or controlled variables other than the test itself. Therefore, the test results from the latest PISA are more an indictment against our country and its values than it is against those in education who work to prepare students to perform well on these constant tests which have little to no meaning for so many in the U.S. And it is an indictment of many in our society whose attitudes are openly disrespectful and critical toward public education in general.

Teacher-World's Blog Arne Duncan, Department of Education, PISA, school testing

Great news! Congress passed the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act. So what does this mean?

According to U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, “Today, Congress approved a bill that will make the most significant investment in the National School Lunch program in more than 30 years. The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act will increase healthy choices in school cafeterias across the country. These changes will help schools fight our country’s childhood obesity epidemic and give students access to the nutritional food they need to help them learn. “

What specifically does this act hope to accomplish? Well, as I listed in a previous blog, the Healthy, Hungry-Free Kids Act will:

* Increase access to meal programs
* Improve nutrition standards
* Establish standards for competitive foods sold in schools
* Increase physical activity
* Train people who prepare school meals
* Enhance food safety programs

In an earlier blog, I expressed my hope that this act would pass. We are often astounded by the food that our students are offered in our school cafeteria on a regular basis. Carbohydrates and sugar abound, and this at a time when we are very conscious of the increase in child obesity. Good nutrition is a lost concept in many schools as food service personnel deliberately attract students to buy school lunches by providing foods that students prefer but that are clearly not healthy.

Teachers have clamored for this change for a very long time. I for one can’t wait to see how the Healthy, Hungry-Free Kids Act impacts our school’s cafeteria!

Teacher-World's Blog Arne Duncan, child obesity, Congress, Healthy, Hungry-Free Kids Act, school lunches

As promised, here is the last blog I will write about Arne Duncan’s speech to the Annual National PTA Convention in June. He made an interesting comment concerning the roles parents should play in their children’s education: they should be “partners in learning, advocates and advisors who push for better schools, and decision-makers who choose the best educational options for their children.” It is the last role I wish to address in this blog.

Clearly, it is every parent’s decision where their children will attend school. And I think it is safe to say that the majority of parents send their children to public schools for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that public education is free. But what do parents do when they become disenchanted with the school of their choice? Unfortunately, in my experience, a lot of these parents do not take the time to actually connect to their child’s teacher and principal in a constructive way to try to reach a remedy to whatever issues exist. Instead of trying to work out existing problems, some parents even threaten to remove their children from their present school and send them somewhere else. Now, that may eventually be the decision that is made, but parents should work through all available resources first before making precipitous decisions. Arne Duncan stated, “Parent engagement is, of course, a two-way street. Parents sometimes disengage when schools fail to welcome their input. Too often, parents come in to school only when there is a problem—rather than touching base regularly to see how students are progressing.”

So, parents, first and foremost, don’t wait till there is a problem to come in and spend some time in your child’s school in whatever capacity available to you. Get to know your child’s teacher and principal by helping in the classroom, being a chaperone, helping as a room mother or father, calling or emailing to find out what is happening in class, and attending conferences. Call for a conference if you have questions or concerns. Teachers will make time for you. Then, if problems pop up, you have already built enough of a relationship with your child’s teacher to be able to work together to solve it. It is unlikely if you follow this advice that you would ever get to the point of considering removing your child from their school.

Second, if you do not have the time to get to know your child’s teacher and a problem develops,set up a conference and do all you can to amicably resolve the issue. Do not go in loaded for bear believing everything your child has told you. Work together with the teacher to try to reach a compromise. And do not threaten to pull your child from school unless all other options have been explored and failed. It is not going to help your child to make drastic changes. So let that be a last resort, no matter where your child goes to school.

Teacher-World's Blog Arne Duncan, education, parents, PTA, teachers