Stop playing games

Stop playing games and help all of our students

The Greenville News

Imagine you were a star quarterback in college. You return to your hometown and the community leaders ask you to coach the local football team, insisting on one condition — that you coach all the children in the community, not just the good players or the children whose parents will be involved with the team. Your mission will be

to ensure that all the children get to participate and become better players. You want to give back to your community so you

accept the job.

The community leaders only promise funding sufficient for an adequate, rather than a solid, program. Yet, due to budget constraints they actually provide just two- thirds of the limited funding they promised. They also require lots of testing that is well intentioned, but it means your players receive materially less practice time than

those on the privately-funded teams.

Your team has a solid season, and you accomplish the community’s goal of coaching all the children in the community. The vast majority of your players show significant improvement, even those who don’t receive support from their parents or practice at home.

The community leaders, however, claim that you failed as a coach because you did not win the championship. You remind them your mission was to coach a team open to all community children, not to

recruit an exclusive set of players with which to compete against the privately funded teams which select the players they want. Nevertheless, you say that you could do even better with the full funding the community leaders had promised, and perhaps a little more time to coach your players rather than test them.

To your disappointment, they refuse and offer community money to the parents of those children who already play on the private, exclusive teams. The community leaders claim they are doing this to make you try harder.

The community leaders also claim they are not actually giving community money to the private team parents, they are merely

telling these parents not to pay their full share to support community programs. You know, of course, that the result would be the same if the private team parents paid their full share and the community leaders returned a portion of it back to them. You wonder if the community leaders are fooling anyone with this argument.

The community leaders also offer a small amount of community money to the parents of any children who leave the community team to join a private team, claiming they are helping these children escape your

failing team. You ask why, if they believe the team is failing, would they only help a few of the children escape? Shouldn’t they help all the children? Shouldn’t they provide at least a minimally adequate amount of funding to the community team before funneling community funds to the private teams?

• It is universally recognized that education drives economic prosperity. Improving public education will increase the community’s per capita income, decrease unemployment, reduce incarceration rates, decrease poverty, lower the community’s health care expenses, and result in a long- term reduction in our taxes.
• Our Legislature has funded the minimum amount required by the Education Finance Act in only eight of the law’s 36 years and in only three of the last 10 years. For the 2011-12 school year, our Legislature provided only two-thirds of the amount required by statute.
• Our Legislature proposes a tuition tax credit or school voucher bill almost every year. These bills are promoted with clever phrases such as the current “school choice” bill, but they do nothing to help improve our public schools. Instead, they will contribute to the state’s inability, or unwillingness, to fully fund our public schools, to the detriment of the entire community.
• These proposals would use state tax dollars to pay for student enrollment in a private school, reducing state revenue by millions of dollars annually. The 2012 proposal is estimated to reduce state revenue by $36.7 million in its first year. The cost to taxpayers would increase in subsequent years. By far most of the benefit from this legislation would go to families with children already attending private schools.
• This bill would in essence be a taxpayer funded bail-out of parents who have already chosen to send their children to private schools.
• Please ask your legislator to oppose these bills, to increase funding to our public schools, and to focus on helping allof our community’s children.

Neil Grayson is a Greenville lawyer and board member of Public Education Partners and the South Carolina Student Loan Corporation. Write to him at neil.grayson@nelsonmullins.com .

What Education Leadership Looks Like

Click here for a link to the video.

Zais - Doesn't Play Well With Others!

Subject: Feedback from Duncan/USDE on ESEA Waiver

 

Thank you to everyone who sent letters of support, signatures, emails over the past few weeks as we prepared our unified response to the ESEA Waiver Request sent to the US Department of Education. The reviewers are meeting with SDE staff over the next few days.

On Friday afternoon (March 30, 2012) at 2 PM at Scotts Branch High School,  we had a very productive meeting with US Secretary of Education Arne Duncan.  Those attending were Secretary Duncan, Congressman Jim Clyburn, former Secretary and Governor Dick Riley, Superintendent Mick Zais, Superintendents - Rose Wilder, John Tindal, Betty Bagley, Frank Morgan, Cynthia Cash-Greene, Leila Williams, Congressional and USDE Staff members, Debbie Elmore from The SC School Boards Association, Betsy Carpentier and Molly Spearman from SCASA.  Dr. Zais was invited into the meeting by Secretary Duncan and Congressman Clyburn. He heard the concerns and participated in the entire discussion. We had a very frank, open, and what seemed to be a very productive meeting. 

We asked that Secretary Duncan consider 1)granting South Carolina an immediate freeze on the 2014 AYP goals  2)review and present to reviewers our concerns as listed in the letter sent from the Executive Committee and supported by all superintendents, SCSBA, and SCEA 3)request that the waiver be sent back with instructions for collaboration with local districts and inclusion of the recommendations from superintendents and that it be resubmitted in September, or 4) if this is not possible, deny the waiver and allow local districts to apply for waivers.  

During the discussion, we detailed reasons for our concerns, particularly the A- F labeling, and the lack of answers to many questions and the uncertainty of how the new system would impact districts.  We agreed with Dr. Zais that many meetings were held to gather input; however, we felt that the waiver request was predetermined and little, if any change had been made as a result of input. We showed reasons that we felt the waiver would be more punitive than NCLB and that many of the goals were not achievable. Secretary Duncan was very attentive and explained that the waiver would go through the established review process and that he would take our concerns back to staff.

Shortly after we finished, Dr. Zais requested an impromptu meeting with those of us remaining.  Again, we had a very productive and open conversation and the final discussion ended at 4:30 p.m.  I think we all left feeling optimistic.

Shortly afterwards, a press release was sent out by the South Carolina Department of Education Press Office which had a very negative tone towards Congressman Clyburn and all of us. I am including the press release from the department, as well as the news article from the Sumter Item (see both below)... We will continue to be optimistic and work for the best of students in South Carolina and we tremendously appreciate Congressman Clyburn setting up the meeting for us, for Dr. Wilder hosting us in her beautiful school, for the time everyone gave to make this a productive meeting and for the unified support our colleagues across the state have given this effort.

Molly Spearman from SCASA 

From: Ragley, Jay [mailto:JRagley@ed.sc.gov]Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 4:57 PM

To: Ragley, Jay
Subject: ***STATEMENT BY SC STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION MICK ZAIS***

Statement from State Superintendent of Education Mick Zais

Today South Carolina State Superintendent of Education Mick Zais issued the following statement after attending an event at Scott’s Branch High School in Summerton, South Carolina where U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan made a public appearance.

After the event a secret meeting, organized by South Carolina Congressman Jim Clyburn and the South Carolina School Administrators Association, was held to lobby Secretary Duncan against South Carolina’s request for flexibility from certain provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act, commonly called the NCLB waiver.  Others in attendance included former U.S. Secretary of Education and former South Carolina Governor Richard W. Riley, SCASA Executive Director Molly Spearman, and several hand-picked South Carolina district superintendents.  Dr. Zais walked into the secret meeting, which he was not invited to attend, addressed the attendees and answered their questions.  Dr. Zais issued the following statement after the secret meeting.

Dr. Zais said, “The South Carolina Department of Education set an unprecedented level of transparency and public engagement during the NCLB wavier process.  The public comment period began on December 16, 2011 and lasted until February 1, 2012, and we received and reviewed approximately 1,100 public comments.  We held 22 public meetings including a statewide virtual meeting throughout the state.  However, Congressman Clyburn did not attend any of these community stakeholder meetings and few district superintendents did as well.”

Zais continued, “Rather than engaging the public in the sunshine, the education establishment is trying to cloak its activities in secret.  This goes against the transparency Secretary Duncan has required as part of the waiver process.  I hope he will reject today’s political stunt by Congressman Clyburn and the education establishment, and give South Carolina’s NCLB waiver a fair review.”

Article from Sumter Item
Leaders, Zais spar over waiver

ROBERT J. BAKER / THE ITEM

.

BY ROBERT J. BAKER bbaker@theitem.com

A simple visit from the U.S. Secretary of Education to Summerton's Scott's Branch High School on Friday quickly turned political as the state's highest education official went after one of the leading South Carolina Democrats in national politics.

State Secretary of Education Mick Zais alleged late Friday afternoon that House Assistant Democratic Leader James Clyburn and others in the state's "education establishment" secretly lobbied U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan against the state's request for flexibility from certain provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act. Zais said a secret meeting was held shortly after Duncan, former Gov. Richard "Dick" Riley and Clyburn, a Sumter native, met with about 75 juniors and seniors at the school to talk about the school's entry into the New Tech Network, a nonprofit consortium of schools that focus on technology-based learning initiatives rather than a traditional blackboard-and-lecture method.

"Rather than engaging the public in the sunshine, the education establishment is trying to cloak its activities in secret," Zais said. "This goes against the transparency Secretary Duncan has required as part of the waiver process. I hope he will reject today's political stunt by Congressman Clyburn and the education establishment and give South Carolina's NCLB waiver a fair review."

Zais said he was not invited to the meeting and later walked in and addressed its attendees. "But none of that fits what happened," said South Carolina School Administrators Association Executive Director Molly Spearman. According to Clyburn, the association requested a meeting with Duncan following his meeting with the students.

"When we learned Dr. Zais was still in the building, both Secretary Duncan and I asked that he be invited into the meeting," Clyburn said. "It is unfortunate that Dr. Zais has chosen to attack what I believe was a very productive meeting." Spearman said the meeting was a chance for her organization - which represents school district superintendents and school administrators across the state - to let Duncan know that they were not behind the entire waiver request.

"It's no secret that all 83 superintendents in South Carolina that our organization represents, along with the SCSBA and the South Carolina Education Association, have great concerns and reservations about the waiver request as it was sent to Washington, D.C.," Spearman said in response to Zais' allegations. "To us, it appears that it will be worse than No Child Left Behind, and we were just wanting Duncan to know that we are adamantly opposed to it."

Zais said in his release that a public comment period from Dec. 16 through Feb. 1 garnered more than 1,100 public comments from 22 public meetings across the state, including a statewide virtual meeting held online. One of the first two meetings was held at Manning High School in early January.

"We tried to give our input to the department at the meetings," Spearman said. "But little change was made to the waiver. We believe their plan was pre-determined when they started the meetings, and they made very little, if any, changes from the input they received."

Clyburn said, like Spearman, he thought all parties at Friday's meeting walked away with a better understanding of the state's educational climate.

"What ensued was an opportunity for both Dr. Zais and the school superintendents to share their respective perspectives on the NCLB waiver," Clyburn said. "I believe (Duncan) walked away with a better understanding of our state's education climate. It is a shame that Dr. Zais did not appreciate the opportunity to present his position."

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

It's a shame  the education leaders in this state cannot sit down and work through issues that will determine the future of our communities. The Rock Hill School District hosted one of the meetings referenced which was given almost no advance notice or publicity by the state. Even on short notice, all the Rock Hill School Board was in attendance as was our Superintendent and the York Superintendent (with some York Board members). Zais was not present.

As I posted after the meeting - I'll take the known instead of the unknown from the state department of education. None of the waivers make the necessary improvements needed for a successful NCLB revision - and both parties (Democrats and Republicans) have enough blame for everyone.

Jim

Public Schools Matter

This video is about technology, but it is also about opportunities public schools provide for special need students.

Click here for a link to the video.

Message From Joy Grayson - Greenville county

Friends.

Last night, our House of Representatives voted 65-49 to pass H. 4894, the Tuition Tax Credit/Deduction bill, labeled by some as a "school choice" bill.

What Does This Bill Do? 

First, this bill, regardless of income, will give tax deductions to parents for each child enrolled in a private school, home school or in a public school outside his or her district. Keep in mind, this is a “deduction” not a credit. So, a $4,000 deduction may only amount to a few hundred dollars off your tax bill if your kids leave public schools for other options.  Second, this bill also gives a tax break to individuals or corporations who make donations to scholarships (vouchers) to fund private school options.  Third, this bill will cost our State and you, the taxpayer, $37 million in its first year!

What Does It Not Do? 

Theoretically, the scholarships provided for in the bill would allow "exceptional needs" students and children who receive Medicaid and free or reduced lunches to attend private schools.  However, private schools do not have to take these children. Private schools have full control over their admission policies. The bill does not require private schools to admit low income or special needs students.  Also, low income families typically do not pay income taxes. There is no tax break provided for those who do not pay income taxes. This does NOT help the poor children in our state choose other schools. There is no busing requirement, no after school care, no special needs requirements and no reduced lunch plans for students. Therefore, this bill only helps the parents who can already afford private school education. Please do not be fooled when politicians say this helps poor children have school choice.

 

It is estimated that SC will lose $37 million in revenue during the first year due to this bill. The house passed their budget a few weeks ago, but this potential $37 million reduction was not factored into it.

Our state does not fully fund the current public education costs at levels required by the state Constitution, yet the Legislature deems it necessary to start funding private education. Currently, public schools are funded at 67% of the amount required by law. With next year's budget, funding levels will rise 72% of the required amount. This is the amount used to fund our school 14 years ago in 1998.

My house representative, Tom Corbin, voted yes to this bill last night. Truthfully, I am extremely upset as he has stated he was a public school advocate. However, his votes do not show this and his vote last night proves to me that he is more interested in a political show. There are outsiders from NYC and PA who are pouring in tons of money into our political system and are helping candidates get elected. They are pushing their agendas and the main agenda they have is a school voucher bill using the name school choice. Howard Rich and the Koch brothers are some of these. They have already paid millions of dollars to our representatives. For more information, please go to http://www.buyingsc@blogspot.com. Tom has taken their money, as have most other legislators you know. It is hard to not believe that this type of money is not influencing their vote.

I know many of you are tired of hearing me preach about this issue, but I urge you to learn more. This type of bill will have a direct effect on our public schools. School choice is not bad.  Greenville County has an abundance of choices for education. We have some wonderful public, private, magnet and charter schools. But this bill is not about the children or about education.   Once our legislators fully fund our public school system, then it may be logical to fund other options. But, now is not the time.

This bill goes to the Senate next. Please talk to your senators, ask all of  the candidates before the June primary their specific view on this issue. VOTE in the primary. Pass this email to everyone you know and please, please, visit the links below. This has become an important issue to me because when I volunteer at Mountain View Elementary School or Greenville Middle School, I see the many wonderful things happening in education but I also see empty science labs and no front office help. I see copy rations and teachers funding their own supplies. Our state is so much better than this. We need to stop thinking politics and party lines. Someone needs to stand up for what is right. We need to care for our children, not let people from out of state decide how to do that.

http://www.thestate.com/2012/03/29/2212145/sc-house-passes-school-choice.htmlArticle about the bill that passed

http://www.buyingsc.blogspot.com/ interesting information on Howard Rich including donations to candidates.

http://www.kochbrothersexposed.com/education about the Koch brothers.

Thanks for reading this and please pass along. The word needs to get out. Joy Grayson

The Cycle of Poverty

I attended York County Day with our state legislators on Wednesday. There was plenty of talk about what should be done ( but wont), and what will be done (not much in an election year). There was very little talk about education - sometimes that is a good thing with our state legislature - and there was absolutely no talk about what is mentioned today in the Educating South Carolina blog. The irony, what is discussed in the blog could be the major issue facing education improvement for South Carolina.
Click here to read the post from the Educating South Carolina blog and let me know what you think. Should this have been discussed?

SC School District 56 Speaks Up!

From The Clinton Chronicle:

School District 56 and SCRG differ on funding totals

Published: Wednesday, February 1, 2012 8:10 AM EST

As the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a U.S. senator from New York is so famously - and often - quoted: "You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts."

A glaring example of this was evident at last week's Laurens School District 56 board of trustees meeting.

District staff distributed to the board and media a copy of a report from the SCRG (South Carolinians for Responsible Government) Foundation on education funding in South Carolina for the 2011-2012 school year.

Superintendent Dr. David O'Shields then proceeded to tear apart the information in the report.

"In reality, only about half the figure stated by the Foundation is available to the district to pay for general fund expenses," O'Shields said.

The report said an average of $11,754 is spent on every pupil in public schools in South Carolina. That money comes from a variety of sources; local ($5,705), state ($4,834), other ($1,500) and federal ($1,215).

As a side note, it's interesting that politicians -- particularly our state superintendent of education -- decry that Washington is trying to take over our schools with "strings" attached to federal funds, and yet, the federal funding source is the smallest of all.

The report said District 56 spends $12,770 per pupil, while our neighbors in Laurens spend $9,472 on each student.

The report said the totals do not include revenue from bonds, investments and intergovernmental agency transfers.

That is simply not true, O'Shields said. After subtracting revenue that is set aside (everyone is shying away from using the word "earmarked") for specific purposes other than classroom instruction, the figure spent in District 56 on each pupil is $5,510.

Dr. Gerald Robinson, the district's chief financial officer, provided a written response to the Foundation's report that O'Shields used in his presentation to the board.

"The general public can be misled by the slick, glossy professional nature of the Foundation's report. However, when one digs beneath the surface, a much different picture emerges than the perception painted by the Foundation."

The Foundation's report is unrelenting in its claims and criticisms of public school funding in the state.


"The Foundation utilizes an exaggerated methodology to give the impression that school districts have much more money available for operational expenses," Robinson said.

If we believe the information presented by school district officials - and we do - then South Carolinians for Responsible Government are being irresponsible, at the very least.

Generation 'Gimme'?

That's right, are our children of today the generation of 'gimme' - and are  public schools responsible for this? They are if you believe "Fox and Friends". I received the email below from Swain Sheppard, SCD5 Patriots Treasurer, who forwarded an email from Glenn McCall, the York County Republican Chair. Seems a professor of economics at Valencia College in Orlando, Jack Chambless, talked about a beginning class project he does with his mostly sophomore students. He asks them to write a 10 minute essay on what the American Dream means to them and what they would like the Federal Government do for them to help them achieve their dream. Well, you can imagine the things that were included about what they'd like the federal government to do for them - after all - it was a dream.. The kicker comes at about the 2 minute 25 second mark when Mr. Chambless says the public schools are at fault because none of the students could recall learning anything about; Adam Smith; John Locke or; Hayek (I think).

My first reaction was, has this guy ever worked with high school and college age kids before? Surely he should know there would be no acknowledgement of prior instruction. But then, there is a good chance a lot of students at the less prestigious colleges have never had instruction on those guys. If it's not in the SC State standards, or required for SC graduation, it probably wasn't a subject to be covered.  Maybe that is something our local legislative delegation should take up.

So, should it be? That's a good discussion topic we should have soon.

Emails and video below:

Jim,

This video pretty much summarizes why alot of the people in the Cities,Counties,States, and Country are not happy with our school systems. Please view and if you would send me your thoughts. It is 5 minutes long.

Swain Sheppard

SCD5Patriots-Treasurer

GPS Conservatives for Action-Treasurer

----- Original Message -----

From: Glenn McCall

To: Glenn McCall

Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 9:06 AM

Subject: FYI: Please watch this video of a college professor and what he learned about students' expectations from government...scary!!!

If you haven’t seen the below short video please, take a moment and watch it… see what a college professor learned about students' expectations from government. Scary!!! This is what is wrong in our country and why we must work hard to get more conservatives to run for local school board and in the class rooms.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=VxHfYNTrnic

Senator Hayes To Hold Meeting February 6, 2012

South Carolina State Senator Wes Hayes will hold a District 15 public meeting on Monday, February 6, 2012. The meeting will be held at Fewell Park, 1204 Alexander Road, Rock Hill, SC and will begin at 7:00 pm. Senator Hayes had this to say concerning education in his most recent newsletter:

SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION. Representative Young also sponsored a Joint Resolution last year that would permit the voters to decide whether the State Constitution should be amended to delete the Superintendent of Education from the list of state officers that the Constitution requires to be elected. Instead, the Resolution provides that the Superintendent of Education would be appointed by the Governor, upon the advice and consent of the Senate, for a term coterminous with the Governor. The Resolution passed the House last year, and initially reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee with a minority report. Although the minority report has been removed, one Senator has objected to the Resolution, and it has been placed on the contested calendar


THE BUDGET. Recent projections from the Board of Economic Advisors (the “BEA”) seem to suggest that South Carolina’s budget shortfalls over the past several years are beginning to trend in a positive direction. After four consecutive years of declining state revenues, the FY11/12 budget was based on a revenue forecast that projected the Recurring General Fund at $350 million higher than FY10/11. This additional revenue raised the base General Fund budget to $5.45 billion for FY11/12, but this amount is $1.3 billion less than the FY07/08 General Fund budget. Despite budgetary issues, the FY11/12 budget provided over $760 million in tax relief to business and individuals, including $600 million of property tax relief and $146 million to lessen the burden from the employment tax increase. Additionally, as for K-12 funding, the current budget in-creased the base student cost by $265 per pupil to $1,880 (which still remains short of the EFA man-dated amount of $2,700 per pupil). Looking ahead, the Board of Economic Advisors projected last November that there will be an additional $920 million of revenue for FY12/13, and $493 million of that amount will be recurring funds. However, there re-mains much uncertainty about how these additional funds will factor into the FY12/13 budget, given the proposed legislation on spending caps, the $664 mil-lion shortfall on education funding under the EFA, and what initially appears to be an additional $200 million of new money needed to fund Medicaid

REFORMING K-12 EDUCATION FUNDING. Last year, I chaired the Select Committee on K-12 Funding to consider changes to how K-12 funds are distributed. Our goal was to develop a revenue-neutral funding distribution method that increases funding for impoverished students, students with a limited English proficiency, students in gifted and talented programs, students not meeting state standards, and that recognizes the need to fund basic district operational and fixed costs. I sponsored a Bill to accomplish the Committee’s objectives, and it provides for the following: (1) flexibility and transparency (provide districts with the flexibility to transfer and expend funds from designated revenue sources and require an online check registry to ad-dress transparency concerns); (2) deregulation (re-quire the State Board of Education to develop regulations establishing a process for districts to apply for deregulation); (3) teacher pay (require the Board of Education to develop regulations creating a framework for an optional teacher incentive compensation program); (4) the SC Public Charter School District (address additional funding requests and distinguish between brick-and-mortar and virtual schools); and (5) replacing the Education Finance Act with a simpler system where the money follows the child. This Bill passed favorably out of the Senate Education Committee and now rests with the Senate Finance Committee for fiscal review.

CHARTER SCHOOLS. I am disappointed that the charter school Bill was delayed in the Senate last year because of a dispute over early voting. The Bill had passed the House and was up for third reading in the Senate when it was delayed at the end of Session. I am hopeful that it passes early this Session. The Bill would allow charter school students to participate in extracurricular activities at their resident public school if those activities are not offered by the charter school. The Bill also would allow for single-gender charter schools and permit higher education institutions to voluntarily sponsor charter schools. The Bill does not specify statewide charter school district funding but provides that the General Assembly shall provide recurring funds for the district. For FY11/12, the General Assembly allocated $25 million in the budget for charter schools. Thus, in addition to the $1,880 per weighted pupil funding received from the state, students enrolled in virtual charter schools shall receive $1,700 per weighted pupil, and students enrolled in brick and mortar charter schools shall receive $3,250 per weighted pupil.

You may find the rest of his comments by clicking here.

Can You Have Too Much Confidence?

Click here for a link to the video.

Competing in a Global Society - A Meeting in Columbia

I had promised some comments on a meeting I attended in Columbia, SC in November. Comments have been delayed because I couldn't decide how to handle statements made by South Carolina's Superintendent of Education, Mick Zais. I have now decided to follow the old rule, "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything". I will say it took  guts for the Superintendent to appear before a lot of business and educators to make his comments.

In addition to the Superintendent, there were several local and national speakers. Dr. Yong Zhao, University of Oregon and Jamie Vollmer, author of Schools Cannot Do It Alone  would probably be considered the "Headliners", but the day was full of many great speakers. Boeing, Michelin North America, Milliken & Company, and AT&T had representatives explain how those companies are helping public education and how it is in the best interest of every company in South Carolina to join them. Former SC Governor and Secretary of Education Dick Riley and SC State Senator Hugh Leatherman were on a panel discussion.  A favorite speaker was Ms. Lucy Beckham, Wando High School Principal and also the National Principal of the Year. One of her topics was how Wando helped land the Boeing Plant.

The meeting also served as a kick-off for the school superintendents' Vision for Public Schools. The web site showcasing the vision was developed by Rock Hill's Jason Broadwater. A neat aspect of the web site is that you can add your comments on what you think the vision should be. Click here to visit the web site. If you believe in the vision for public schools, click here to endorse it.

The meeting was moderated by Rock Hill School Superintendent, Dr. Lynn Moody, who was also largely responsible for pulling all the participants together.

My take-away notes:

• No country in the world educates as diverse a group of students as the United States.
• Even the countries that perform better on standardized tests benchmark our education system.
• We don't have a people problem. Our education system model is basically the same as it was in the 1800's, a system that was not designed to graduate 100% of the students. If we want to graduate more, and we certainly do, we must change the model. In 1967, 77% of the available jobs did not require a high school education. Today that number is 13%. In a few years it will be 6%. Teachers must be part of the solution in changing the model.
• We all acknowledge that children learn at a different pace, but the one fixture of education is that we hold the time for education constant - so the quality becomes variable. If we want everyone to succeed, we need to make the time variable and hold the quality constant.
• Schools need to build a conversation. Stop the fear-fault-blame. It will take everyone at all levels. Parents need to be able to trust their schools and schools need to build an understanding and permission to support change.
• Shift  discussion to the positive. Share success stories and the amazing works of the district. Take the discussion to the community, not just in the schools. Utilize; school signs; restaurant place mats; posters in stores; business networks; and online videos. Have a new message every week.
• Sustain the effort. This is for the long haul and needs to be part of the job of education.
• Start - Do It Now!

If Doctors Were Treated Like Teachers

From the Huff Post Education Blog from more than a year ago:

If doctors were treated like teachers:

by Joel Shatzky

1. "Charter hospitals" could certify "smart people" as qualified to begin practicing medicine without any prior experience in the field if they had had "some business background."
2. Since a "doctor" can "doctor" anything, a cardiologist would be on staff at a hospital in place of a urologist when there was a shortage of urologists. The cardiologist could "learn on the job." Of course, a general practitioner could be used in the place of any specialist since such a doctor would have "general knowledge" of anything involving medicine.
3. Whenever a doctor gave a patient a prescription, the patient's parents could come to the doctor's office demanding he or she change the prescription since the parents "knew better."
4. Because of a shortage of doctors, Mayor Bloomberg would institute a summer "crash course" in medicine for people who had no background in the field but "liked playing doctor" when they were little. Those who got through the six-week course would then be considered qualified to care for the most severely ill patients since no other doctors would want to do the job.
5. Doctors would qualify for "permanent license" if they showed by their rates of patient survival that they were "improving their scores." In order to do so, doctors would only treat the healthiest patients and refuse to treat the sicker ones to keep their rates of successful treatment high.
6. Many "Charter hospitals" would be established in which unlicensed doctors could practice the latest techniques on their patients, using the funds of public hospitals to subsidize them. Of course, only the healthiest patients, whose relatives cared enough about their condition to place them in a charter hospital would be admitted. Any patient exhibiting signs of serious illness would be immediately discharged and placed in a public hospital.
7. The average longevity of a doctor's career would be considered "normal" if he or she practiced for no more than five years.
8. If a hospital proved to have a poor "patient survival record," it would be closed down and three new hospitals would be created in the same building with nothing to do with each other but with three times as many bureaucrats running them.
9. Any patient who entered a doctor's care when already terminally ill would be expected to make a full recovery -- or the doctor would be considered incompetent.
10. A special program -- "Heal for America" -- would recruit students who graduated from the top colleges in the country but with no background in pre-medicine to "try to make a difference" by being placed in the most severely crowded and understaffed clinics and hospitals so they could know "what it feels like" to be a doctor, if only for a few years.
11. The American Medical Association would be condemned by politicians and health "experts" for "protecting incompetent doctors" on the basis of mortality rates in high-risk neighborhoods and the organization would be disbanded as a "menace to public health."

A Blogger Tips Hat To Rock Hill Schools

From the SC Justice Watch Blog:

Way To Go, Rock Hill Schools! Graduation, Not Incarceration!

Posted on January 12, 2012 by scjustice

In greenlighting an “intensive intervention” program for students with extreme behavioral problems, the Rock Hill school board has taken a major step toward stemming its local “school-to-prison pipeline” – the crowded path that runs from the principal’s office to the criminal justice system, where millions of expelled/suspended/dropped-out Americans, who should have been kept on track as youths, while away their lives on the public dime. The program will provide academic tutoring, as well as counseling aimed at helping troubled kids better cope with society’s hurdles and their own emotions.

Judging from an article in The Herald of Rock Hill, there are probably numerous area teachers, parents and students who are sighing with relief about now.

[The program] launches at a time when district officials say schools are seeing more students exhibit behavior described as “uncontrollable outbursts of anger.”

A student ran from a school into nearby woods and police were called to help bring him back, district spokeswoman Elaine Baker said.

Another told a teacher he hated her and threatened to kill her. One child hit a teacher. Another bit a teacher.

“We’re seeing a concerning, dramatic increase in the number of young children with these needs,” Associate Superintendent Harriet Jaworowski said. “If they’re that young, it’s a reaction to something else. That’s what we want to address.”

The district has identified at least 12 students who would benefit from the program.

Unfortunately, most of the readers’ comments beneath the article attack the program and the school board for squandering taxpayer dollars, missing the point entirely. This program will cost $100,000 a year, the school board says. That’s a drop in the bucket when one considers the lives saved and the grief spared.

.

But if the “decency” argument is lost on you: This is a economic-development program, employing strategies proven to boost graduation rates, thereby bolstering our workforce and tax base. An economic-impact study shows that if we cut the annual number of high school dropouts/expulsions by half, the 650,000 “new graduates” would bring $7.6 billion in increased earnings, $5.6 billion in increased spending, $2 billion in increased investments, $19 billion in increased home sales, 54,000 new jobs and $9.6 billion in growth to the U.S. economy.

.

As for your tax worries, consider the booming prison population that you already subsidize. Essentially, you pay a little more up front to keep a kid on track, or you pay out the nose down the road.

Should SC Get A Waiver From NCLB

There was a meeting a few weeks ago at Northwestern High School on the state of South Carolina applying for a waiver from some provisions of the No Child Left Behind legislation. My biggest take-away from the meeting was, for a lot of the folks in the room, the "known" of the federal legislation was better than the "unknown" of what might come from the South Carolina Department of Education.
What does this say about trust in the SC Department of Education? OUCH!

It appears to me that some of the "bad" provisions of the NCLB legislation would remain in place and some not well thought out "new ideas" would be added.

The article below does a good job explaining some of the issues.

From the Answer Sheet:

NCLB waivers: The devil is in the details

By Valerie Strauss

This was written by Jack Hassard, professor emeritus of science education at Georgia State University and a former high school teacher. He is the author of these books: The Whole Cosmos Catalog of Science , Science Experiences , Adventures in Geology , The Art of Teaching Science (2009), and most recently, Science As Inquiry . Specialities include science teaching & learning, global thinking & education, geology, web publishing, blogging, writing, and antiquing. This essay was originally posted at his blog, The Art of Teaching Science, and on Anthony Cody’s Living in Dialogue blog at Education Week Teacher.

By Jack Hassard

The U.S. Department of Education wants to insure that every teacher in the United States is evaluated on the basis on student progress on high-stakes achievement tests. To achieve this, the DOE will issues waivers on some aspects of No Child Left Behind in exchange for a state-wide system to evaluate teachers using tests.
In this post I provide details and opinions on this development.

Waivers In the News
The NCLB waivers have become a newsworthy item. Here are links to a few articles published recently.

Waiver ties teacher evaluation to test scores, was the title of an article in Atlanta Journal-Constitution on January 10.

In Education Week, James Cavanagh wrote a piece entitled Some States Skeptical of NCLB Waivers.

Will NCLB Waivers Reverse Narrowing of the Curriculum? an article in Education Week

Huffington Post reported: No Child Left Behind Waivers may be too expensive, State officials say

ESEA Flexibility Requests

This all started when 11 states had asked for waivers, after the DOE announced they would offer a "flexibility package" from some provisions of No Child Left Behind, especially ones the states felt they couldn't reach by the target dates set by NCLB. States submitted what is called an ESEA Flexibility Request. This link will take you to a Word document which spells out exactly what should be in the request, and how it should be organized. It's really a template that all states must use to get the waiver.

Here are links to ESEA Flexibility Requests received so far:
Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana , Kentucky, Massachusetts,Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Tennessee each submitted a request for ESEA Flexibility on November 14, 2011. You can read the entire request for each of these states by following the links to the states.

Flexibility is asking and spelling out the waivers that each state requests, and then assuring that they will meet the principles identified by the DOE.

Principles Exchanged for Waivers 
I downloaded the 249 page Georgia Flexibility Report to find out what really is in these reports, and why some states are all for them, and why some states are very skeptical of the NCLB waivers. My comments in this section are based on an examination of the Georgia report. I live in Georgia, and am professor emeritus of science education at Georgia State University, and have had more than 30 years of experience in education in Georgia.

Georgia was a Race to the Top (RttT) winner, and has had a head start on the principles that are described below that they must implement and meet in order to get waivers on NCLB.

There are three principles that all states who request a waiver must adopt. They must detail how they will develop, and implement each of these principles in all schools by 2017. Examination of the principles exposes the sheer weight of bureaucratic rules, high-stakes tests, teacher evaluation measures, and the inordinate number of officials controlling public education far from the day-to-day lives of students and teachers.

Principle 1: Adopt College and Career Ready Standards 
College and career ready standards means that the state will adopt the Common Core State Standards in mathematics and reading/language arts. In Georgia's case the GaDOE is partnering with Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to support the "transition" to the Common Core State Standards. The state agrees to develop and administer annual, statewide, aligned, high-quality assessments that measure student growth.

The Common Core State Standards, which were written by Achieve, Inc., have been adopted by most states. Achieve is busy at work writing the new Science Standards, and they no doubt will be adopted by all states. But, keep in mind that Achieve is also writing the tests based on these sets of national standards, and so down the road, we will see a set of national tests. And, it doesn't matter where students live, they all must live up to this single of standards in each curriculum area.

Principle 2: State-Developed Differentiated Recognition, Accountability and Support 
This is a big one. The state agrees to provide meaningful information about school performance, student achievement and graduation rates, closes gaps for all schools across the state, and targets schools that need help. Priority schools (the lowest performing), and Focus schools (schools that contribute to the achievement gap) will be targeted. Reward school — you guessed it, a school that has exceptional performance. There is even a plan to compensate high performing schools.

One of the sub-principles driving each state is setting performance standards for high school and elementary/middle schools. To do this, the states (at least as shown in the Georgia proposal) use a prescribed formula to get to the Performance Targets in 2017. Here is the formula or algorithm that Georgia uses to determine annual growth that school must meet in each subject area.

Annual Growth = (100% - 2011 Proficiency Rate)/6

As an example in high school biology in Georgia, the annual growth would be: 100% - 69.1 = 30.9/6 = 5.15. 69.1 was the 2011 proficiency rate. So, if you are teaching biology in Georgia, proficiency rates must increase by 5.15 so that by 2017, the rate will be 84. It seems to me that this kind of thinking urges teachers to teach to the test to make sure that their students can answer correctly the questions on the high-stakes bubble tests. There is no theory underlying the notion of annual growth, and how these scores relate to the research in the learning sciences.

Go to any state department of education website in the United States and you will find a treasure trove of data on student test scores by year, content area, grade level and school. At the Assessment page on the Georgia Department of Education website you will find endless Excel data tables by grade level, subject area, and school which you can download.

Principle 3: Supporting Effective Instruction and Leadership (Guidelines for Principal and Teacher Evaluation)

This principle is the one that is being picked up in newspapers, and on blogs around the country. Fundamentally, it means that teacher and administrator evaluation will be tied in some way to student progress on achievement tests. Using student progress on achievement test scores as a measure of teacher effectiveness is riddled with problems, and inconsistencies. The tests themselves are developed by testing corporations that have little or no vested interest in the local school and its curriculum, students, teachers, or parents. The decisions being made are far removed from communities that make up the school districts, and collectively are the building blocks of the state education system. Everything that is being done is from the top-down by bureaucrats who once were part of local schools, but have moved to central command centers in the state capitals of the U.S., and from their vantage points, look out, and make decisions for thousands of students and teachers.

Here is a multiple choice question for you to consider: DEM, LEM, and TEM are:

a. Nicknames for the latest X-Box game superheroes

b. Abbreviations for newly discovered planets outside the solar system

c. Names of three new political parties in the State of Georgia

d. Acronyms for Georgia's system wide approach to effectiveness and accountability

Well. How did you do? The answer is "d," and you can find these terms in charts and discussions in the State of Georgia's first proposal for theRace to the Top competitionand in the Georgia ESEA Flexibility Request. A DEM is the acronym for District Effectiveness Measure; LEM is the acronym for Leader Effectiveness Measure; and TEM — you guessed it, is the acronym for Teacher Effectiveness Measure. All of these measures will have a significant student growth component, and of course the state will develop a "establish a clear and transparent approach to measuring student growth." Now, if you believe this, I'll sell you a bridge! You can read more about this here.

Summing Up 
I have read Georgia's Race to the Top grant proposal and the Flexibility Request. What have we done? We've lost our way in the world of reform led by people who know very little about the lived world of students and teachers. To improve schooling, reform has to be led from the ground up by educators working at local levels.

I rigorously object to the Race to the Top, to the notion of college and career ready standards, and the use of high-stakes tests for making life changing decisions about students, teachers and administrators. I've written much on this, and I have summarized research and analysis in two eBooks that are available here:
Achieving a New Generation of Science Standards
The Enigma of High-Stakes Testing in Science

-0-

Follow The Answer Sheet every day by bookmarkinghttp://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet.