Teacher World

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

Yesterday, I began a blog about President Obama’s plan to fix No Child Left Behind. Since his plan is rather lengthy, I tried to make it more palpable by breaking it down into two blogs. If you haven’t read my previous blog, you will want to start there or this will make little sense. I had discussed Obama’s first four details of his plan, so I will start this blog with his fifth.

Because schools that are doing well are frequently mislabeled “failing” under NCLB, the President’s fifth proposal is to offer states and school districts more flexibility when it comes to determining areas which require improvement and strategies which would address poor performance. He would continue to place expectations on struggling schools to make necessary changes to become more successful.

Frankly, I think most schools are already working to identify where improvements need to be made and developing the necessary strategies through collaboration to do just that, so I’m unclear how this is different from current policy, except perhaps doing away with the label “failing.” Unless, I’m not reading this correctly, this seems like a lot of gobbledygook.

The President’s sixth proposal addresses the valid concern that at this time it is frequently the case that schools which face the greatest challenges don’t have the most effective teachers. Obama proposes providing incentives and accountability to get effective teachers to work in these schools and to identify effective teachers and use them as mentors for less effective teachers.

Let’s face it; the reason why many effective teachers are unwilling to work in challenging schools is because these schools are usually intercity schools where the teachers battle far more than low academic performance. I would also assert that there are probably many effective teachers in these schools already but they are laboring against such unbelievable odds that their effectiveness is not even recognized.  But if teachers who have been labeled effective are willing to take advantage of incentives to teach in challenging schools, more power to them. I would hope that the effective teachers already in those schools would receive the same incentives to stay.

I heartily support President Obama’s sixth proposal: to get away from federal government’s “one size fits all” solutions, and increasing local control to track down their own solutions to address problems in their schools. Yes, get the federal government out of our business so that we can more effectively proceed with the business of educating our children!

The next phase of President Obama’s plan addresses the fact that NCLB does not promote or reward innovation in our schools. His plan calls for extending the school day and school year, creating smarter tests, using collected data to improve teaching methods, raising standards for all kids, and supporting grant programs which reward both states and schools who find better ways to get highly effective teachers in the classroom.

The only issue I have with this last part of his plan is the idea of increasing the school day. I recently wrote a blog which advocates going to year-round school. We all know that the first month or so of school is spent reteaching the skills from the year before because our students all suffer from amnesia over the summer. If we want to stay competitive with other nations, we must look realistically at year-round schools. But a longer school day? No way! We risk student and teacher burn-out if our days are made significantly longer, and I believe the extra minutes tacked on are not worth the price we will pay.

Next, Obama addresses the fact that, under NCLB, the schools which are the lowest-performing schools simply do not have the resources or the reforms to make necessary improvements. The President’s solution: “Invest in ambitious and bold efforts to transform our nation’s lowest achieving schools, while demanding new and dramatic change in their leadership and reforms to teaching and learning at those schools.”

I’m sorry, but this just sounds like political talk, in fact I couldn’t even figure out how to put this in my own words, which is why I gave you the exact quote. What does this really mean? How is this really going to happen? And who’s paying for it? Blah, blah, blah!

The President then claims that currently, many parents are not engaged in their children’s education, and schools are not always welcoming of parents. Again, I must quote directly from Obama whose plan supports that we “double the federal investment in family engagement” (what the heck does that mean?) and that incentives be provided for schools which create innovative ways of engaging parents and community members.

Yes, parents do need to get more involved in their children’s education, although I’m uncertain how doubling “the federal investment” is going to encourage that. (What does that even mean?) If President Obama’s plan could focus as much attention on ineffective parents as it does on ineffective teachers, we might see some real changes in our schools.

And, while it may be true that some schools are not welcoming of parents, I would argue that the vast majority of elementary schools are. In my school, for instance, I can honestly say that I don’t think a day goes by that I don’t see parents in our building helping their child’s teacher, attending a function in their child’s classroom, meeting with the principal over a school project, etc. 

President Obama’s final focus is on rural schools, as he concludes that currently states don’t have the resources to adequately provide support for rural schools which face unique challenges. Obama’s plan supports the innovation, reform, and better funding of rural schools particularly in regards to better use of technology. Finally, and here we go again, he calls for the need to recruit and retain effective principals and teachers in rural schools.

So, how do I feel about these proposals to fixing No Child Left Behind? Frankly, I am somewhat ambivalent. While I wholeheartedly support fixing this ridiculously punitive legislation with its cookie-cutter view of education, and its idiotic expectation of 100% passage of state tests by 2014, I have been in education long enough to know that whatever new policy is adopted will eventually be thrown out only to be replaced with a new policy, which in time will also be thrown out only to be replaced with a new policy yet again…

And educators become pawns in the hands of those who have the power to make the decisions; we are expected to embrace the policies, or we will be held accountable when the newest policy fails. Ironically, we who know the most from first-hand experience in the trenches are not asked to share our opinions. We have no voice, but we will be expected to be good, little soldiers ready to fight the next policy’s battles. It just gets old after awhile. And I get so tired of the political rhetoric instead of real solutions to real problems.

Those of us who teach have no choice but to wait this next round out. The good news is that, from the looks of President Obama’s plan and based on how terrible NCLB has been, anything he is proposing would be better than this broken, unrealistic policy.

So, my ultimate reaction is to wait it all out, to try not to be too cynical, and to hope for the best. What about the rest of you? Let us know how you feel.

Educational Reform, low-performing schools, No Child Left Behind, state achievement tests, Teacher-World's Blog Educational Reform, effective teachers, No Child Left Behind, President Obama, state achievement tests

Have you heard about President Obama’s new campaign called “Educate to Innovate”? The purpose of this campaign, as spelled out on whitehouse.gov is “to improve the participation and performance of America’s students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM).” According to this website, the Administration, backed by the Federal Government, foundations, big companies, science and engineering societies, and non-profits, plans to participate in several events, activities, and announcements to support the President’s plan, making it a national priority.

Why this national initiative? Apparently recent data suggests that United States students are not stacking up in the fields of math and science. And what is the data that has been used for this shocking revelation? The 2006 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) comparison and the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) math tests. Okay, I’ll bite! I have no idea what these are. Does anyone know?

Well, I did some checking and I don’t believe that the 2006 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) comparison  has ever been administered at our school, I don’t know about yours, and the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) math tests are given to select students from select schools. Again, I never heard of any fourth graders in our school system taking this test either. But, let’s say I accept the findings of these random studies which I have never heard of. What is the purpose behind this gigantic and expensive initiative?

Here are the goals behind this movement, directly from the website:

* Increase STEM literacy so that all students can learn deeply and think critically in science, math, engineering, and technology.
* Move American students from the middle of the pack to top in the next decade.
* Expand STEM education and career opportunities for underrepresented groups, including women and girls.

Now, all of this sounds great! But I want to know the how! Tell me exactly what the plan is and how it will affect all children. I want to know how it will motivate my students, and what kind of technology we will receive to get them interested in utilizing technology, or what lab equipment we will receive to enable them to get excited about scientific inquiry. How will schools be involved, or will they at all? I am so tired of hearing about all of the money going into educational reform but not really seeing how that money or those innovations trickle down to my school system. I’ve talked about transparency before, and this is the next big idea in education that sounds so good. But after reading this article, I walked away with no clear idea of what is actually going to happen with this new plan. Please read it for yourself, and then join me in asking the Administration to spell it out clearly and thoroughly for the rest of us: How is this really going to work? Give us specifics because the first stage, as outlined on this website, does little to convince me that there is a specific plan in place to achieve a great goal.

Please, don’t get me wrong! I am for STEM. I just want it S-P-E-L-L-E-D O-U-T. Make me see it!

Educational Reform, Funding Education, Teacher-World's Blog Educate to Innovate, Educational Reform, engineering, mathematics, President Obama, science, STEM, technology

The Department of Education released the names of the ten winning applicants in the Phase 2: Race to the Top competition in their August 24th release. They include the following: the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, and Rhode Island.

Even though these applicants had the highest scores, apparently other states were not far behind. The number of winning applicants was determined by the quality of their applications and the available funds. According to the release, “The 10 winning applicants have adopted rigorous common college- and career-ready standards in reading and math, created pipelines and incentives to put the most effective teachers in high-need schools, and all have alternative pathways to teacher and principal certification.” Hmm…sounds a little scary to me. I’m not sure what pipelines are, but I have a feel for what incentives might be used. Does merit pay ring a bell? Also, if you check out the release from the Department of Education, you will get a feel for the intended budget for each state, as well as the District of Columbia. We’re talking a lot of money here, gang!

 If you are from any of the above winning areas, it would probably behoove you (as it would me since I am a teacher in Ohio) to read your state’s application. Let’s face it; even if your school is not a participating LEA, the writing is on the wall that your whole state will eventually be adopting the same reforms. So, take the time to read through a summary of your state’s application at the very least, and get a preview of what lies ahead. Pre-warned is prepared!

Educational Reform, Funding Education, Teacher-World's Blog Department of Education, Educational Reform, Race to the Top Phase 2

This is the last in my series on Diane Ravitch. I have been blogging about her recent article from the August/September issue of neatoday magazine. In her article, “Stop the Madness”, she explains why she no longer supports NCLB, and she ends her article discussing how we can improve our schools.

According to Ms. Ravitch, “We must first of all have a vision of what good education is.” We should be asking what constitutes a well-educated person, what we want students to learn before they graduate, what we want them to accomplish, and why we educate students. In other words, we need to agree on what education is, what it looks like, and why we want to be a part of it as teachers.

Second, she says we need to look beyond reading and mathematics and decide what other qualities are synonymous with a well-educated, well-rounded student. We want to turn out students who are able to think for themselves, have good character, are able to make good decisions, have courage and humor, and who treat others with compassion and fairness. And we need to teach students to be responsible citizens who make educated decisions by rationally studying different points of view.

Finally, she states that we need to send out academically well-rounded students who are able to use both math and science to understand and solve real problems in their communities and in their world and who can also appreciate and participate in their artistic and cultural heritage. In other words, we need students who participate in  significant ways, who enjoy the world around them, and who are willing and able to work to improve it. We need to teach them about the world in which they live and help them to find their niche within it.

What kind of test could ever adequately measure these truly important things? There is no such test because the true test of these qualities is life and the purposeful living of it. As Diane Ravitch states, “If these are our goals, the current narrow, utilitarian focus of our national testing regime is not sufficient to reach any of them. Indeed, to the extent that we make the testing regime our master, we may see our true goals recede farther and farther into the distance.” She concludes by stating that, if we continue on this current path, we are likely to produce a generation who equate learning with the drudgery of “worksheets, test preparation, and test-taking”.

In her final plea to turn the current tide by doing away with NCLB in the hopes of saving our public schools, Ms. Ravitch wraps up with this eloquent, heart-felt statement: “As we seek to reform our schools, we must take care to do no harm. In fact, we must take care to make our public schools once again the pride of our nation. To the extent that we strengthen them, we strengthen our democracy.”

(Diane Ravitch’s article was based on her book entitled The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education,)

Educational Reform, High Caliber Schools, No Child Left Behind, state achievement tests, Teacher-World's Blog Diane Ravitch, Educational Reform, NCLB, state achievement tests

Wow! Have you read anything written by Diane Ravitch? The latest neatoday magazine had a lengthy article written by her which answers a lot of questions about NCLB and Obama’s policies to “reform” NCLB. Over the next few blogs, I will be going over some of the interesting facts she presents regarding what has become, for most teachers and principals, a very heated issue.

Diane Ravitch is an educational historian who was appointed to public office under both Presidents Bush and Clinton and is a former United States Assistant Secretary of Education. As such, she was a strong proponent of NCLB when it was originally proposed, but her opinion about Bush’s educational reform has dramatically reversed itself in recent years. This is important for us to keep in mind: she was not against it from the start but has become disillusioned with it over time. This gives her comments, in my opinion, far more credibility.

In this article, Ms. Ravitch discusses how recent educational reform was born. She points a finger at “The Billionaire Boys’ Club”; foundations like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Walton Family Foundation that have taken a keen interest in failing schools and low test scores leveraging their way into a position of influence in American education. As she says, “There is something fundamentally antidemocratic about relinquishing control of the public education policy agenda to private foundations run by society’s wealthiest people. These foundations, no matter how worthy and high-minded, are not subject to public oversight or review, as a public agency would be. They have taken it upon themselves to reform public education, perhaps in ways that would never survive the scrutiny of voters in any district or state.”

She continues to point out that, while public schools and teachers are being held to an incredible degree of scrutiny and accountability, these foundations have no accountability whatsoever. This means that there is no consequence to them if a policy they have advocated should fail, but the schools that had to administer that failed policy may face consequences.

The goal of these foundations seems to be to privatize public education as much as possible. They point to the few charter schools that were successful in 2009, as the role models for educational reform. (Interestingly, out of the 4,600 charter schools operating in 2009, only about 300 were visibly successful.) Now, Diane makes a good point. If more charter schools are introduced into urban areas where poverty abounds, these schools “will enroll the motivated children of the poor, while the regular public schools will become schools of last resort for those who never applied or were rejected. The regular public schools will enroll a disproportionate share of students with learning disabilities and students who are classified as English-language learners; they will enroll the kids from the most troubled home circumstances, the ones with the worst attendance records and the lowest grades and test scores.”

Ms. Ravitch makes the point that privatizing public schools is as ludicrous as privatizing police and fire departments. And she predicts the demise of public education if we do not stand up to politicians and these wealthy “reformers”. She closes this section of her article with a valid argument for public schools when she states, “As we lose neighborhood public schools, we lose the one local institution where people congregate and mobilize to solve local problems, where individuals learn to speak up and debate and engage in democratic give-and-take with their neighbors.”

A sobering thought in sobering economic times. Just think back to your public school education and all of the community events that were inspired by your school: band, choir, school plays, athletic events, science fairs, art shows, etc. These are the kinds of things that tests can’t measure, but they most assuredly build character and dedication, and for some, lead to eventual careers. And these are the kinds of things that build community.

I, for one, will continue to be vocal about my love for and dedication to public education, as Diane Ravitch is doing. What about you?

Educational Reform, No Child Left Behind, Teacher-World's Blog Diane Ravitch, Educational Reform, NCLB, privatizing education, public education

Have you heard that Pennsylvania is receiving $141 million to turn around its persistently lowest achieving schools? The announcement was made on June 9, by Arnie Duncan. According to the Department of Education, this money is part of the $3.5 billion made available to schools this spring as part of the 2009 budget and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. According to Duncan, “When a school continues to perform in the bottom five percent of the state and isn’t showing signs of growth or has graduation rates below 60 percent, something dramatic needs to be done. Turning around our worst performing schools is difficult for everyone but it is critical that we show the courage to do the right thing by kids.”

So, what does this mean for states like Pennsylvania who qualify for this money? Well, they have to follow one of these models in order to radically improve the educational systems in their states:

* TURNAROUND MODEL: Replace the principal, screen existing school staff, and rehire no more than half the teachers; adopt a new governance structure; and improve the school through curriculum reform, professional development, extending learning time, and other strategies.
* RESTART MODEL: Convert a school or close it and re-open it as a charter school or under an education management organization.
* SCHOOL CLOSURE: Close the school and send the students to higher-achieving schools in the district.
* TRANSFORMATION MODEL: Replace the principal and improve the school through comprehensive curriculum reform, professional development, extending learning time, and other strategies.

All of these, to varying degrees, are extremely radical steps which will ultimately be considered as threatening to the individuals involved in the affected schools. There are drawbacks to each, but let’s try to break it down. My first concern with the broad assumption that a school has to be turned around is precisely this: Is the school the problem, or is it the environment or the social decay in which the school is located that is the real culprit here? I continue to state, without equivocation, that until the environment these children live in changes, and it is not only acceptable but safe to go to school and get an education, no amount of intervention within the schools will be completely successful in turning these schools around. Having stated this obvious fact, for the rest of this blog, my purpose is to look a little deeper into these four methods to discern the pros and cons of each.

Clearly, the assumption of all of these approaches is that the principal has contributed through negligence or mismanagement to help create an environment which is not conducive to learning. In my opinion, principals should only be removed if careful examination of their record were to reveal inadequacies and failures. Otherwise, keep the administrator and work from there. And I have a real problem with the implied assumption with the Turnaround Method that the problem is the majority of the teaching staff. Why else is there a restriction that, at the most, only 50% of the teachers should stay on staff?

The School Closure method seems very unfair for so many reasons that it is hard to zero in on just one. First, it implies that everyone in that school was ineffective in the performance of their job. I find that impossible to fathom, let alone believe. And I can’t even imagine the navigational nightmare involved in redistributing all of these poor school-less children to other schools, not to mention what such an increase in student numbers would do to the schools which would have to accommodate the new arrivals. It just sounds like a total nightmare to me.

I refuse to address the Restart Model, so that leaves the Transformation Model. Of all of the above, I feel that this is the method that seems to be the fairest, although I wouldn’t feel that way if I was the principal. Let’s face it, is there any school anywhere that wouldn’t benefit from some transformation? What school would not turnaround with “comprehensive curriculum reform, professional development, and other strategies”?  (Notice that I took out the “extended learning time” because I have said in past blogs, and continue to maintain, that I think a longer school day is counterproductive. If any additional time is going to be tacked onto learning time, let it be adding on days to the school calendar not hours to each day.)

True turnaround of a school, in my humble opinion, can and should be accomplished with the original staff working together to bring about necessary change. Give teachers who have not been effective the opportunity to improve and grow. Then if they continue to be ineffective, let them go. Imagine the pride and solidarity that a successful transformation would create! These schools would serve as models to other schools that change is possible when there is money to support it and people working together to make it happen.

So, let the transformations begin! And good luck to all of you in Pennsylvania.

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Changes in Teaching, Educational Reform, Funding Education, Teacher-World's Blog American Recovery and Reinvestmenat Act, Arnie Duncan, Department of Education, Educational Reform, turnaround schools

First, I am curious to know how many of you out there even knew about Race to the Top. I think it was one of the best kept secrets. And I’m not sure why that would be the case. This should be a good thing, right? So why wasn’t there more publicity about it?

The only reason I knew anything about RttT was because I am always searching the internet for important education news that might be interesting to blog about. So I read about it quite awhile ago and blogged about my excitement that possibly, for the first time, the Department of Education was going to get it right, since one of the goals was to align the math and reading standards nationally from elementary school up to college. I was very excited about the prospect of common standards and what that could mean for teachers. Aside from that, I heard nothing about RttT. We received no information at our schools about it. Such an important venture that would involve school systems throughout our state, and we were never adequately informed? I don’t get it!

A few months ago, we got an email from our union president asking us if we wanted to be a part of this plan. The first problem I had with this was that it was hard to commit to a plan that you had never seen. One of our concerns was that it might involve merit pay, something most of us do not support, and that it also might interfere with the union and its rights. Due to these issues, we voted down the opportunity to participate in this contest. But, admittedly, I don’t think most of us even realized that what we were turning down was the Race to the Top. I didn’t connect the two events either because it wasn’t expressed clearly in the email.

Recently, I explained to some of my co-teachers what we had turned down and what it means for our careers. That will be the topic of a future blog, but my point in this blog is this: why was the opportunity to be involved in educational reform, which is supposed to be so important, so poorly explained and why was there so little publicity? Every school system in participating states should have been showered with information about Race to the Top long before we were ever asked to take a vote. Additionally, it seems ridiculous to sign on to a plan that you have never seen. The order seems convoluted. Wouldn’t it have made more sense to study the proposal before committing to it? Am I crazy or does it feel a little like a trap to you? Would you ever sign a legal document that would affect your future without reading it over first?

I am hoping that before states enter into Phase 2, some of these issues will be ironed out and school systems will be better equipped to make the decision to either accept or decline the opportunity to be involved in Race to the Top. We will just have to wait and see.

I am also curious how many of you who are reading this are in a school system which is currently participating in Race to the Top. Please let us know, and tell us how you were informed about RttT,

Educational Reform, Merit Pay for Teachers, Teacher's Unions, Teacher-World's Blog Department of Education, Educational Reform, Race to the Top, teacher unions

I have been blogging about the upcoming meetings which will be held to discuss the assessment process currently in place and ways to improve it. I wish I had seen anywhere in the statements made by either Arne Duncan or the Department of Education the need to revamp the social studies achievement tests. Let me state my case, and feel free to tell me if you agree or not.

One of the issues we have in Ohio, which may or may not be true of all states’ achievement tests, is that so much of our social studies test at the fifth grade level is a fourth grade test, in that it is based on material covered in Ohio history in fourth grade. Now, I understand the rationale that students should remember what they learned the year before and build on that knowledge the next year. But Ohio history and United States history involve two completely different curriculums, and the only time they converge is when we talk about the Mid West region or historical events that occurred in Ohio. Therefore, to ask students on a fifth grade achievement test to recall very specific information about Ohio inventors or battles and other events that occurred in Ohio seems both unfair and unnecessary. How many of us could remember specific details about events we learned about a year ago? Does this really test mastery of the social studies standards?

These tests contain many questions which, in my opinion and other teachers I have spoken to as well, have little or nothing to do with understanding the foundations upon which our nation is built. We should be assessing students’ broader knowledge of important concepts pertaining to:
* the exploration and colonization of our nation and how this affected the Native Americans who lived here
* our fight for independence
* the formation of a workable government through the Constitution of the United States
* the branches of government and how they effectively check and balance each other
* citizen’s rights and responsibilities
* a basic knowledge of economy
* immigration; reasons for it and how it shaped our nation
* how industrialization, transportation, and expansion changed our nation

If our social studies test would address these issues in a broad way, I believe it would be a truer test of how well students understand the country in which they live. Shouldn’t the goal in teaching social studies be to educate the younger citizens to have pride in their country and instill a desire to be responsible, contributing members of the society they will play an active role in when their education is complete? If that is our goal, then shouldn’t our test reflect that goal? Or would we prefer citizens who can recall the Battle of Fallen Timbers and what the most important outcome of that battle was?

Don’t get me wrong. I think it is admirable to have the ability to recite specific and detailed information about the past. I am just not sure that this is the criterion upon which we wish to base mastery of social studies. The time has come to revamp these tests with the true goal in mind; to create citizens who have a solid understanding of their nation and a strong desire to serve it as contributing members. Otherwise, I think we’ve missed the mark.

Educational Reform, state achievement tests, Teacher-World's Blog Add new tag, Arne Duncan, assessment testing, citizens, Department of Education, Educational Reform, social studies achievement tests

There is some encouraging news from the U.S. Department of Education, where they have announced that they will be holding several meetings with representatives from each state to focus on the need for educational reform in the following areas:
* Adopting college- and career-ready standards and assessments;
* Recruiting, developing, rewarding, and retaining effective teachers and principals;
* Building data systems that measure student success and inform teachers and principals about how they can improve their practices; and
* Turning around our lowest-performing schools.

Over the next few blogs, I would like to address some of these goals separately, but, since the first one has me most excited, I will start there.

In Arne Duncan’s speech to the National Conference of State Legislatures on December 10, he stated, “Forty-eight states have already signed on this year to a state-led effort to develop common, college and career-ready standards in English and math. This common core standards movement originated in the states, and it is very much a state effort. Just a year ago, no one would have anticipated that 48 states would agree to work toward common standards. This is the right thing for children, for our nation’s long-term economic health, and it is courage in action.”

Wow! Is it possible that we are finally going to get it right? That standards from the elementary level up will be commonly aligned, taught, assessed, and used to create a framework that will culminate in the academic structure of our colleges and universities? Is this possible, or is it too good to be true? We are so used to working autonomously that we have difficulty even picturing what a unified educational system would look like. Imagine a nation in which every state had the same standards and the same tools with which to assess successful mastery of these common standards. Imagine all students taking the same achievement tests and the opportunity that would create for better interpretation of test data. Imagine having a common way to formulate, assess, and use the data collected from these tests to better educate our children. Imagine the benefits of national collaboration to attain best results in our schools.  Imagine how much easier it would be for students who moved from state to state to continue their progress seamlessly.

Forgive my excitement, but the potential here is staggering! And for the first time in a long time, I am waiting with anxious anticipation to hear what comes out of these meetings because these educational reforms might actually have the power to reform our educational system for the better. So, let’s keep our fingers crossed, or if you believe in prayer, let’s do that, too. It’s been a bumpy ride, but maybe; just maybe, it’s going to get a whole lot smoother.

Educational Reform, state achievement tests, Teacher-World's Blog assessments, career-ready standards, college standards, common standards, Department of Education, Educational Reform