End It, Don’t Mend It: What to Do with No Child Left Behind

CATO Institute

EXCERPT from Executive Summary, September 5, 2007

by Neal McCluskey and Andrew J. Coulson

"Virtually all of those analyses have assumed that the law [No Child Left Behind] should and will be reauthorized, disagreeing only over how it should be revised. They have accepted the law's premises without argument: that government-imposed standards and bureaucratic "accountability" are effective mechanisms for improving American education and that Congress should be involved in their implementation...

"We find that No Child Left Behind has been ineffective in achieving its intended goals, has had negative unintended consequences, is incompatible with policies that do work, is at the mercy of a political process that can only worsen its prospects, and is based on premises that are fundamentally flawed. We further conclude that NCLB oversteps the federal government's constitutional limits treading on a responsibility that, by law and tradition, is reserved to the states and the people. We therefore recommend that NCLB not be reauthorized and that the federal government return to its constitutional bounds by ending its involvement in elementary and secondary education."

**********************************************

Get Congress Out of the Classroom

The New York Times

By DIANE RAVITCH

October 3, 2007

EXCERPT:

The main goal of the law ¬ that all children in the United States will be proficient in reading and mathematics by 2014 ¬ is simply unattainable. The primary strategy ¬ to test all children in those subjects in grades three through eight every year ¬ has unleashed an unhealthy obsession with standardized testing that has reduced the time available for teaching other important subjects. Furthermore, the law completely fractures the traditional limits on federal interference in the operation of local schools. Unfortunately, the Congressional leaders in both parties seem determined to renew the law, probably after next year’s presidential election, with only minor changes. But No Child Left Behind should be radically overhauled, not just tweaked.

********************************************

Proficiency Illusion

National Review

By Liam Julian

October 4, 2007

EXCERPT:

"One of the biggest flaws with NCLB, for example, is its insistence that all students - 100 percent - be proficient in reading and math by 2014. That won’t happen, of course. But no politician has the stomach to amend this irrational goal to a more manageable 70 or 80 percent, fearing that inevitable question: “Which 20 percent children don’t you care about?”

********************************************

Making No Child Left Behind Worse

The Heritage Foundation

By Dan Lips

EXCERPT:

An early draft of the new NCLB bill suggests that congressional leaders are working to make the already flawed program worse. As is well known, No Child Left Behind's problems are myriad. The law dramatically increased federal authority in education, eroding state and local control and imposing a heavy bureaucratic burden on school systems across the country. Its high-stakes testing requirements created a strong incentive for states to engage in a "race to the bottom" by weakening standards and making tests easier to pass. And few children have benefited from NCLB's very weak school choice options. These lackluster reforms were purchased with dramatic increases in federal spending. But even the current version of No Child Left Behind is significantly better than what Congress is now discussing.

By STEVE LOHR

New York Times

Published: October 31, 2007

Adrianne Yamaki, a 32-year-old management consultant in New York, travels constantly and logs 80-hour workweeks. So to eke out more time for herself, she routinely farms out the administrative chores of her life — making travel arrangements, hair appointments and restaurant reservations and buying theater tickets — to a personal assistant service, in India.
Kenneth Tham, a high school sophomore in Arcadia, Calif., strives to improve his grades and scores on standardized tests. Most afternoons, he is tutored remotely by an instructor speaking to him on a voice-over-Internet headset while he sits at his personal computer going over lessons on the screen. The tutor is in India.

The Bangalore butler is the latest development in offshore outsourcing.

The first wave of slicing up services work and sending it abroad has been all about business operations. Computer programming, call centers, product design and back-office jobs like accounting and billing have to some degree migrated abroad, mainly to India. The Internet, of course, makes it possible, while lower wages in developing nations make outsourcing attractive to corporate America.

The second wave, according to some entrepreneurs, venture capitalists and offshoring veterans, will be the globalization of consumer services. People like Ms. Yamaki and Mr. Tham, they predict, are the early customers in a market that will one day include millions of households in the United States and other nations.

They foresee an array of potential services beyond tutoring and personal assistance like health and nutrition coaching, personal tax and legal advice, help with hobbies and cooking, learning new languages and skills and more. Such services, they say, will be offered for affordable monthly fees or piecework rates.

“Consumer services delivered globally should be a huge market,” observed K. P. Balaraj, a managing director of the Indian arm of Sequoia Capital, a venture capital firm in Silicon Valley.
But globalization of consumer services faces daunting challenges, both economic and cultural.

Offshore outsourcing for big business thrived partly because the jobs were often multimillion-dollar contracts and the work was repetitive. In economic terms, there were economies of scale so that the most efficient Indian offshore specialists could become multibillion-dollar companies like Infosys Technologies, Tata Consultancy Services and Wipro Technologies.

It is not all clear that similar economies of scale can be achieved in the consumer market, where the customers are individual households and services must be priced in tens or hundreds of dollars.

Then there are the matters of language, accent and cultural nuance that promise to hamper the communication and understanding needed to deliver personal services. Already, some American consumers voice frustrations in dealing with customer-service call centers in India. At the least, the spread of remotely delivered personal services will be a real test of globalization at the grass-roots level.

Even optimists acknowledge the obstacles. In a report this year, Evalueserve, a research firm, predicted that “person-to-person offshoring,” both consumer services and services for small businesses, would grow rapidly, to more than $2 billion by 2015. Yet consumer services, in particular, are in a “nascent phase,” said Alok Aggarwal, chairman of Evalueserve and a former I.B.M. researcher. “It’s promising, but it’s not clear yet that you can build sizable companies in this market.”

Veterans of the business offshoring boom predict an emerging market, but most are not investing. Nandan M. Nilekani, co-chairman of Infosys, said there is “definitely an opportunity in the globalization of consumer services,” and he listed several possibilities, even psychological counseling and religious confessionals. But, he added in an e-mail message, “This is just ‘blue sky’ thinking! We have no business interest at this point in this direction.”

What the offshore consumer services industry needs, it seems, is a solid success story in some promising market.

A leading candidate to watch, according to analysts, is TutorVista, a tutoring service founded two years ago by Krishnan Ganesh, a 45-year-old Indian entrepreneur and a pioneer of offshore call centers.

Concerns about the quality of K-12 education in America and the increased emphasis on standardized tests is driving the tutoring business in general. Traditional classroom tutoring services like Kaplan and Sylvan are doing well and offer online features. And there are other remote services like Growing Stars, Tutor.com and SmarThinking.

Yet TutorVista, analysts say, is different in a number of ways. Other remote tutoring services generally offer hourly rates of $20 to $30 instead of the $40 to $60 hourly charges typical of on-site tutoring. By contrast, TutorVista takes an all-you-can-eat approach to instruction. Its standard offering is $99 a month for as many 45-minute tutoring sessions as a student arranges.

TutorVista also stands out for its well-known venture backers, its scale and its ambition. The two-year-old company has raised more than $15 million from investors including Sequoia, Lightspeed Venture Partners and Silicon Valley Bank. TutorVista employs 760 people, including 600 tutors in India, a teaching staff it plans to double by year-end. Its 52-person technical staff has spent countless hours building the software system to schedule, monitor and connect potentially tens of thousands of tutors with students oceans away.

“Our vision is to be part of the monthly budget of one million families,” Mr. Ganesh said.
It is a long-term goal. To date, TutorVista has signed up 10,000 subscribers in the United States, and its British service, rolled out in September, has 1,000.

Further gains will depend on winning over more customers like the Tham family in California. Since he was in elementary school, Kenneth has had stints of conventional tutoring, often in classroom settings with up to 10 other students. At times, this cost the family up to $500 a month. Last year, Ernest Tham, a truck driver, noticed a reference to TutorVista on a Web site and suggested his son give it a try.

“Kenneth was apprehensive at first, and I wasn’t sure how it would work,” Mr. Tham said. “But, shocking to say, it’s gone very well.”

Kenneth said he initially found it “very unusual, not seeing another person. You get used to it, though. It’s not a problem.” He schedules one or two sessions nearly every day, mainly for English and chemistry. With a digital pen and palette, he writes sentences and grammar exercises, for example, and his work appears on his computer screen and on the screen of his tutor. They discuss the lessons using Internet-telephone headsets.

“You can also get help with homework problems,” Kenneth said, “but they’re not supposed to do all your homework for you.”

In a year with the TutorVista service, Kenneth has improved both his grades and standardized test scores, his father said.

Ramya Tadikonda has tutored Kenneth Tham, among many others, from her home in Chennai, India. To achieve its ambitions, TutorVista must recruit, train and retain thousands of tutors like her.

Ms. Tadikonda, 26, is a college graduate who had previously worked as a software and curriculum developer for a math Web site for students, but left to raise her children. Earlier this year, she joined TutorVista, took the company’s 60-hour training course, followed by tests and practice sessions for two months. She now works about 24 hours a week as a math and English tutor and makes about $200 a month.

Ms. Tadikonda says she enjoys tutoring and the flexible hours. “You can have a career and still spend time with your family,” she said. “I never thought I could do that.”

The timing is right for global tutoring, according to John J. Stuppy, TutorVista’s president and a former executive at Sylvan Learning, the Educational Testing Service and The Princeton Review. Improved Internet technology and the ability to tap of vast pool of educated instructors at low cost are crucial ingredients. “It becomes possible to make high-quality, one-on-one tutoring affordable and accessible to the masses,” said Mr. Stuppy, who joined TutorVista last year.

Steve Ludmer, 28, and his partner Avinash G. Samudrala, 27, are betting the time is right for another kind of global consumer service. They left lucrative jobs in management consulting and private equity to start a remote personal assistant service, called Ask Sunday, which began in July.

The company is based in New York, but its work force is mostly in India. It is one of a handful of startups trying to create a business in offshore personal assistant service. Some, like GetFriday, charge hourly rates of $15 or so, but Ask Sunday has a per-request model, $29 a month for 30 requests a month or $49 for 50.

The requests can be unusual. A few subscribers had Ask Sunday search online dating services for short lists of people who meet their criteria. But the requests are mainly to help busy people like Ms. Yamaki, the New York management consultant, free up time and outsource hassles.

During a late meeting at the office recently, Ms. Yamaki said, she sent a one-line e-mail message from her laptop that told Ask Sunday to order her usual meals from her favorite Manhattan restaurant, for delivery at 9:30 p.m. When the meeting ended, her take-out food was waiting.

To handle such personal chores, Ms. Yamaki has handed Ask Sunday a wealth of personal information, including credit card numbers, birth dates of family and friends and phone numbers for doctors, car services, favorite restaurants and others. She finds the convenience well worth it.

“The service is great in a pinch to make your life a little smoother,” Ms. Yamaki said. “And it’s available 24 hours a day, which is more than you can expect from a personal assistant at work.”

By Scott J. Cech

Education Week

Published Online: November 5, 2007

Despite dramatic growth in the number of high school students taking Advanced Placement courses, most of those classes teach material worthy of the name, according to the first-ever audit of AP-course quality.

The New York City-based College Board, the nonprofit organization that owns the Advanced Placement brand, said more than two-thirds of the 134,000 ostensible AP-course syllabuses submitted for review by teachers from 14,383 secondary schools around the world were immediately approved. College Board officials also said that approximately 17,000 teachers did not meet the initial criteria to submit a syllabus for the audit, which Trevor Packer, the vice president of the Advanced Placement program, described as “the largest curricular review that’s ever been undertaken in American history.”

However, College Board officials did not immediately provide a total number of courses that have been approved for posting on a new, searchable registry of AP classes, known as the “AP Course Ledger,” which was announced to the public today. Officials also said that, at this point, they could not provide a percentage of courses that had been rejected.

“As a result of this work, college-admissions officials, students, parents, and educators can have continued confidence that the AP designation on students’ transcripts is only allowed for syllabi that have been approved by college faculty,” Mr. Packer said.

The review, paid for by the College Board, analyzed AP-course documents that teachers submitted between January and June 1 of this year. The deadline for submitting syllabuses has been extended until this coming Jan. 31 for teachers of two new AP classes—Chinese and Japanese—and for some block-schedule teachers.

The course syllabuses were reviewed by 839 college and university professors in the 37 subject areas taught in AP classes, which are designed to teach college-level material and prepare students to pass end-of-course AP exams that can qualify them for college credit.

Teachers could consult a syllabus checklist the College Board posted on its Web site showing what ingredients their course outlines should have.

Guidance Offered

The College Board also posted evaluation guidelines for teachers, as well as several sample syllabuses for the 52-year-old AP program. About 67 percent of AP teachers’ course outlines were approved immediately. Teachers whose outlines were rejected on the first try were given two more chances to rejigger the documents, with feedback from the professors about how to improve their chances.

In at least one state, College Board officials went so far as to conduct in-person workshops to help teachers.

“It was about, ‘Here are the things we’re going to be looking for,’ ” said W. Tad Johnston, a mathematics specialist and regional representative for the Maine Department of Education, which invited the officials.

But the process was far from a cakewalk for some teachers, Mr. Johnston said—even those who have been teaching AP for years.

“We have an [AP] U.S. History teacher with a strong track record—a lot of her students score four or five [out of five possible points on their AP exams], and it’s rare she has a student score less than three, but her syllabus took several resubmissions,” he noted.

While some teachers only had to put in as few as three hours into preparing their syllabuses, Mr. Johnston added, some took up to 40 hours on the task.

“I’m not really surprised that AP courses are AP-level,” said Dan Fuller, the director of public policy for the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, an Alexandria, Va.-based nonprofit organization of about 180,000 administrators and teachers. “It’s sort of circular logic, but schools and educators know what they’re doing—they know what things are up to snuff and what aren’t.”

No ‘AP Study Hall’

The College Board has said it plans to follow up its reviews during the 2008-09 school year with a few in-person visits by professors to schools with especially low AP-exam scores. Mr. Packer said in an interview, however, that those observations of how syllabuses are being followed will only be conducted with advance notice.

While Mr. Packer conceded that prearranged visits would allow schools with subpar teaching to put a good face on potentially lackluster pedagogy, he said the audits were “not a policing mechanism. … [W]e are not a police force.”

Thomas Matts, the College Board’s director of the AP-course audit, said college-admissions offices have historically looked favorably on AP courses on students’ transcripts. Yet with the number of students taking AP classes jumping 150 percent in the past 10 years, “the admissions offices came to us asking us to provide them with some evidence that teachers … hadn’t watered down their standards to accommodate this fantastic growth.”

Barmak Nassirian, the associate executive director of the Washington-based American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, said colleges’ view of AP coursework’s rigor has dimmed over the years.

Over time, he said, “it became a tool solely for admission purposes, not as a [mark of an AP course’s] college equivalence, but even that began to suffer a little bit when course designation got a little loosey-goosey.”

Mr. Packer said the audit, which higher education officials asked in 2004 that the College Board conduct, was launched because, among other reasons, “[college-] admissions officers wanted assurance that ‘AP’ wasn’t being attached to courses that weren’t AP, and that any course labeled ‘AP’ had been examined by college faculty.” He said he had heard from admissions officials who were examining college applicants’ high school transcripts and wanted to know, for example, if there was really such a class as “AP Study Hall.”

School advocates worry that inaction may extend current law for 3 years.

By David J. Hoff

Education Week

Published in Print: November 7, 2007

For all the discord over the No Child Left Behind Act, supporters and critics agree on one thing: It should be fixed, and quickly.

Now it’s looking increasingly likely that Congress won’t make much progress in addressing the law’s flaws this year, endangering the prospects that the task will be completed before President Bush leaves office.

Efforts to revise the law are mired in backroom negotiations in both the House and the Senate and show no signs of gaining the momentum necessary to ensure completion of the reauthorization in 2008.

With Congress’ agenda filled with other tasks, including a potentially protracted fight with President Bush over spending on education and other domestic programs, it will be difficult for lawmakers to meet their self-imposed goals of ensuring passage of NCLB bills in both the House and the Senate this year, followed by a compromise version the two chambers can approve in early 2008.

“It is unlikely that we will be able to get a bill off the House floor this year,” Tom Kiley, a spokesman for Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., the chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, said in an e-mail. “However, we continue to work hard on the legislation, and we continue to meet with Republicans and education organizations.”

In the Senate, there is more optimism about passing an NCLB bill in 2007.

“We’re negotiating [and] still hopeful it can get done this year,” said Melissa Wagoner, the spokeswoman for Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, the chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee.

Deadline Looms

Despite wide agreement that the NCLB needs revision, negotiating which changes to make will not be easy.

Lawmakers are “trying to find the center … in a way that preserves what’s meaningful in the law but doesn’t lose what makes it worthwhile,” said Gary M. Huggins, the director of the Commission on No Child Left Behind, a private, bipartisan panel organized by the Aspen Institute that proposed a long list of changes to the law in February. “That’s a heavy political lift.”

But, Mr. Huggins added, it’s important that Congress make progress on the reauthorization soon. He and other supporters of the law acknowledge that its accountability rules need to be tweaked, such as by using students’ academic growth over time, rather than comparisons of different cohorts of students passing through a given grade, to gauge schools’ and districts’ progress.

Renewal Efforts in 2007

Significant events this year for reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act:
• Jan. 8: President Bush marks the fifth anniversary of signing the law by meeting with the chairmen of Congress’ education committees and urging them to produce a bill to renew the law this year.

• Jan. 24: The day after the president’s State of the Union address, the Department of Education releases its “blueprint” for NCLB reauthorization, proposing to give vouchers to students in persistently low-performing schools.

• March 13: The Senate and House education committees hold a rare joint hearing on general issues facing the NCLB law. Throughout the spring and summer, both panels individually hold hearings on specific issues such as accountability, teacher quality, and supplemental educational services.

• July 30: In a speech at the National Press Club, Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., the chairman of the House education committee, says the law “is not fair, not flexible, and is not funded.” He says he wants his committee to approve a reauthorization bill by the end of September.

• Aug. 28: Rep. Miller and his Republican counterpart release the first installment of a draft bill to reauthorize the measure, covering Title I of the law. A draft bill covering other sections is released Sept. 6.

• Oct. 15: President Bush says he would veto any NCLB bill that would “weaken” the law’s accountability requirements.

• Nov. 1: The month begins with no formal committee action on the next version of NCLB and little time left on the congressional calendar in 2007. Political experts say it would be difficult for Congress to complete reauthorization while the political world is focused on the presidential nominating process.

SOURCE: Education Week

If such changes aren’t made soon, he and others predict, too many schools may be unfairly tagged under the federal law as needing improvement.

Schools that fail to make adequate yearly progress in raising achievement in reading and mathematics, whether for students overall or certain subgroups, face increasingly tougher sanctions under the law.

Many school officials at the local level and their representatives on Capitol Hill want more significant changes to NCLB than Mr. Huggins does, and they too want Congress to act soon to amend some of the law’s rules and align them with states’ accountability systems.

“At times, it’s very frustrating operating under the dual system that’s been established” under the federal law and Texas’ own legislation, said Randy Mohundro, the superintendent of the 700-student DeLeon Independent School District, about 80 miles west of Fort Worth.

What’s more, Mr. Mohundro said, the law’s requirements for assessing students with disabilities and English-language learners virtually ensure those students’ failure. “We’re causing kids to fail tests that they’re not ready to take,” he said.

At the beginning of the year, President Bush discussed the future of the law with the chairmen and Republican leaders of the House and Senate education committees. They all agreed that they would work toward reauthorizing the law.

Although funding authority for the law technically expired Sept. 30, the law includes a clause that automatically renewed it for the 2008 fiscal year, which began Oct. 1.

“We’ve all agreed to work together to address some of the major concerns that some people have on this piece of legislation, without weakening the essence of the bill, and get a piece of legislation done,” President Bush said after the Jan. 8 meeting. That occasion marked the fifth anniversary of Mr. Bush’s signing of the law, which he considers one of his top domestic accomplishments.

While the president and congressional leaders at the meeting didn’t announce a timetable for reauthorization, most Washington policy experts said it would be best to finish an NCLB bill in 2007. The presidential-nominating process will begin in earnest with the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary in early January, and will dominate the political world, making it hard for Congress to pass large, difficult bills such as the NCLB renewal.

If Congress doesn’t act soon, the current version of the law could stay in place for another three years.

Just as it’s difficult for Congress to enact major bills during a campaign season, particularly with a president nearing the end of his second term, the arrival of a new president can also delay the schedule. With a change in the White House, it often takes a year or more to finish detailed bills such as the NCLB law that have been left hanging since the previous administration.

Now ... or 2010?

President Bush signed the NCLB law two weeks before the first anniversary of his inauguration. It took almost two years of President Clinton’s first term for Congress to produce a bill to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The NCLB law is the latest version of the 42-year-old ESEA.

State and local officials don’t like the prospect of waiting until 2010 to make significant changes to the law.

“State officials and others would be disappointed if Congress failed to act on the issue,” said Ronald R. Cowell, the president of the Education Policy and Leadership Center, a Harrisburg, Pa.-based group that works with Pennsylvania schools.

In addition to the headaches of implementing a law they consider flawed, local officials fear that large numbers of schools would be declared in need of improvement under the current NCLB accountability system. Many of them wouldn’t deserve that label, argued Reginald M. Felton, the director of federal relations for the National School Boards Association, in Alexandria, Va.
“What does that do to the public buy-in for public education?” he said.

By Cynthia G. Brown, Robin Chait

Center for American Progress

October 1, 2007

Recent research has demonstrated what we all know—great teachers are critical to high levels of student achievement, particularly for low-income and minority students. Yet today poor and minority children are least likely to get our best teachers.

Congress is considering proposals for the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that would provide federal incentives to reform the teacher compensation systems in high poverty schools.

House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller has spent his career fighting to improve the quality of America’s teaching force—and, at the same time, to protect the rights of American workers to join a union. As part of his plan to fix Title II of the No Child Left Behind Act, he and Ranking Committee Member Howard McKeon have proposed a grant program for school districts that pay more to the highest-performing teachers who commit to stay in the highest-need schools for at least four years.

This is an important initiative that deserves support on both sides of the aisle—especially from progressives who believe in strengthening public education for low-income students.
Unfortunately, critics of the proposal have been spreading misleading information that has obscured the facts. Let’s take a look at some of their claims.

CLAIM: The federal government, through this proposal, would mandate the use of test scores to evaluate teachers.

FACT: The new proposal for Title II, Part A does not mandate the use of test scores to evaluate teachers. It is a voluntary grant program in which states and districts can choose whether or not to participate. If they choose to participate, growth in student achievement, rather than absolute student achievement, is used as one measure for evaluating teachers. Consequently, teachers aren’t penalized for teaching low-performing students. And test scores are not the sole measure used to evaluate teachers—classroom evaluations conducted by multiple professional educators must be used as well.

CLAIM: Teacher compensation is a matter of collective bargaining subject to state and local law and not federal law.

FACT: The proposed Title II provides protections for collective bargaining—it does not override it. Employment contracts are negotiated and agreed to at the local level and are subject to state law.

CLAIM: Decisions about how to evaluate teachers should be made at the local, not federal level.

FACT: The Title II proposal requires districts to design their own evaluation programs working in collaboration with teachers. While the programs are subject to some general guidelines, most of the decisions about how teachers are evaluated will be made at the local level.

Moreover, the federal role in education is and should be about addressing issues of educational equity and ensuring that students in high-poverty schools receive a high-quality education. Performance pay is one tool districts can use to attract outstanding teachers to high-poverty schools. Many districts will welcome this federal support.

CLAIM: Performance pay programs are premature because methods to determine the value that individual teachers add to student learning haven’t been thoroughly researched and evaluated.

FACT: Performance pay is still a new idea, but the record from recent research and experiments around the country is encouraging. Recent summaries of research on performance pay programs demonstrate that these programs have positive effects on student achievement.[i] An evaluation of 130 schools participating in the Teacher Advancement Project, a comprehensive professional pay system that includes pay for successful performance, found that these schools are now getting better results than similar schools.[ii] Programs developed in consultation with teachers in Denver and Minnesota are also proving effective and popular among teachers.

Until we find a better way to attract and retain great teachers in our highest-poverty schools, we need to keep trying promising reforms, including performance pay.

CLAIM: Attention and resources are better spent on reforming the whole school, improving working conditions for teachers, and providing professional development.

FACT The proposed Title II does provide funding for professional development. Part B is a large formula grant program for states that support professional development activities in the neediest schools. Moreover, districts that participate in the Part A performance pay program are also required to improve working conditions for teachers. Title I of NCLB provides significant funding for whole school improvement.

CLAIM: Performance pay programs will spark unhelpful competition among teachers and create a disincentive for them to collaborate and share information.

FACT: Research has found that performance pay programs do not create negative, competitive environments if the programs are designed appropriately and with teacher input. Moreover, nothing in the performance pay provisions in the Title II proposal stops districts from providing awards to all teachers at schools that show gains, not just to individual teachers. As we know from endeavors ranging from military service to athletics, commitment to the team and recognition of individual excellence are perfectly compatible.

Democrats, Republicans and teachers see flaws in Calif.'s Rep. Miller's proposal to renew the 2001 education law. He's not giving up.

By Nicole Gaouette

Los Angeles Times

October 30, 2007

WASHINGTON -- Rep. George Miller (D-Martinez) has never been one to back away from a brawl -- he once warned an adversary that if he wanted to fight, it was going to take a while, so he'd better bring lunch. But as Miller pushes to renew the landmark education law known as No Child Left Behind, he faces so many fights that the fate of the bill is increasingly in doubt.

As chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, Miller is sparring with Republicans who see his proposed changes as an unacceptable watering down of the law's core standards.

Teachers object to his proposal to link pay to performance.

Even his fellow Democrats -- particularly freshmen who campaigned against it and members of the Congressional Black Caucus -- are giving him a hard time, largely for not doing enough to soften the law's most rigid requirements.

Some critics of the law say the emphasis on math and English testing has squeezed teaching time for history, science and other subjects. Others say that the law is too strict and punishes schools that are doing a fairly good job.

"People have a very strong sense that the No Child Left Behind Act is not fair, that it is not flexible and that it is not funded," Miller said in a recent speech. "And they are not wrong. The question is what we are going to do next."

The 2001 law, President Bush's hallmark domestic achievement, is supposed to be renewed every five years, although it remains in effect even if lawmakers fail to do that.

Democrats pledged to rewrite it this year, but time is short and political tensions are high. Congress plans to adjourn for the year in a few weeks. And some Democrats are loath to give Bush a victory on No Child Left Behind when he refused to compromise on the Iraq war.

The administration has also made clear it wants just minimal changes.

No Child Left Behind was designed to end what the president called the "soft bigotry of low expectations" by forcing schools to track data on low-income and minority students and holding the schools accountable if those pupils did not do well. Schools also have to show that all students are making adequate yearly progress in math and English, or face tough sanctions.

Miller drafted 1,036 pages of proposed changes with the committee's lead Republican, Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon of Santa Clarita. But as Miller has tweaked that proposal to appeal to Democrats and teachers, he has lost Republicans.

The balance he seeks is between those who think the law's standards are too rigid and those who want them as tightly defined as possible.

A 33-year veteran of the House, Miller is known for his pragmatism, his ability to make a deal and his close ties to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), all of which may help him find an answer in the few weeks he has left.

"We're certainly not in full agreement," Miller said, mentioning talks with committee Republicans. "Not between my caucus and their caucus, not between Mr. McKeon and myself. Whether we can reach an agreement remains to be seen. We're pushing as hard as we can."

McKeon said he was hopeful that he and Miller could reach a compromise, but he expressed concern "that some provisions in the draft would weaken accountability, allowing schools to mask a lack of achievement in the fundamentals of reading and math and obscure the information provided to schools and communities."

For Miller, who has made children a focus of his career and has long advocated greater teacher accountability, working on the first No Child Left Behind bill was a natural cause. A staunch liberal, he was an odd partner for Bush, but they worked closely enough for the president to dub the burly former football player "Big George."

In the five years since Miller and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) helped write and pass No Child Left Behind, they complain, the administration has never fully funded the law in a way that would help schools meet their additional burdens. Republicans counter that few laws are fully funded.

The law has frustrated some parents and teachers who dislike its effect in local schools.

Rep. Albert R. Wynn (D-Md.), a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, has told Miller that his draft continues to overemphasize standardized tests.

The cost, Wynn says, includes "extraordinary pressure placed on students and the loss of important instruction in music, art and other elements of a well-rounded education."

Some critics say that too many schools are sanctioned under the law. Schools that fail to meet goals for three years must offer students free tutoring or the chance to switch schools. After five years of failure, the law mandates, a school must be restructured with a new staff or new leadership or be converted to a charter school.

Miller's draft bill would broaden measurements of students and schools -- for instance, letting states measure how much students improve over a year and not just whether they meet the bar set by No Child Left Behind.

Miller also wants to expand the standards by which schools are judged beyond math and English scores -- a shift McKeon strongly opposes. Under Miller's proposal, up to 15% of an elementary school's evaluation could be based on assessments of history, science, and civics and government classes. For high schools, rates for graduation, dropouts, attendance and college enrollment could be considered too.

Some of the strictest sanctions would be relaxed under Miller's bill. For example, it would loosen a rule that puts an otherwise successful school on probation if a small group within it -- such as learning-disabled children -- fails to meet the standards.

The draft would also change the way English-language learners are evaluated, allowing them to be tested in their native language for up to five years instead of the current three years, and permitting a two-year extension for some. Republicans say this would mean a child who spoke no English could enter the public school system in fifth grade and graduate from high school without ever being evaluated in English.

Teachers unions have objected to Miller's proposal to allow high-needs school districts to give $10,000 bonuses to outstanding teachers and up to $12,500 for teachers of math, science, special education and other subjects that are short of instructors. Criteria for the awards would be developed with input from the unions.

Critics of the unions say teachers are trying to avoid accountability. The unions say Miller's plan -- which McKeon backs -- is not workable.

"You can be a better teacher than I am, but based on conditions that you have to work in, it makes it much more difficult for you to do the same job," said National Education Assn. President Reginald Weaver. "Plus, paying teachers based on student performance hasn't really made a difference in how students achieve."

In the Senate, Democrats and Republicans are in talks about the bill, and Kennedy hopes to begin formal discussions in the education committee in the next few weeks.

Miller, meanwhile, continues to search for a compromise that can win enough support to pass the House.

"We would be wrong to waver when it comes to the existing goals and standards of the No Child Left Behind law," he said. "We would also be wrong if we failed to respond to the serious concerns with the law raised by people who sincerely care about America's educational future."

Bridging Differences

Deborah Meier and Diane Ravitch have found themselves at odds on policy over the years, but they share a passion for improving schools. Bridging Differences will offer their insights on what matters most in education.

October 30, 2007

This Is Not Good Education

Dear Deb,

There are times when I feel that we are on the same wavelength, and times when I know we are not. Right now, my frustration is multiplied because in the course of your last mini-essay, I found myself alternately agreeing and disagreeing with your assertions.

I said that many people who have spoken out about the recent round of NAEP scores seem not to have read the report in which the scores were embedded. I expressed the wish that the commentators would take the trouble to read the report before characterizing what they read in the newspapers, which is third-hand at best. This observation sent you into musing about how the original sources themselves are “an interpretation of data,” and how we all rely on the writers that we trust—or happen to agree with.

But that was not my point. The NAEP data are an original source for those who wish to discuss the latest round of national tests. They are not an “interpretation of data.” They are the data. I assume that you mean to say that you are unimpressed by NAEP, that you do not like the content of the NAEP frameworks or the methodology of the NAEP assessments. That is fair enough. But that is a different discussion from the one I raised.

Policymakers in Washington and the state capitols are influenced by the every-other-year reports from NAEP about state and national progress. It is your right to dismiss NAEP out of hand, but the people making important decisions about education policy are on a different trajectory. They look at the numbers and they see a reality that you dismiss as trivial and unimportant. Maybe you are right and they are wrong.

My point is that if public policy is going to be affected by NAEP—and I believe it is (and should be)—then at least the people who write about the NAEP scores should read the data and not rely on second-hand or third-hand accounts. Like the tests or hate them, they are the best measure we have right now. As the recent report from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute (“The Proficiency Illusion”) showed, the state tests vary widely and randomly in terms of their expectations and standards.

As I said in my last post, the progress on NAEP in most areas has been slight or insignificant from 2003-2007. I take this to mean that NCLB has had trivial effects on student achievement in reading and math, the subjects tested every other year. Now that the president and the U.S. Department of Education have made it their business to show that federal legislation can and will raise test scores, every release of NAEP data is accompanied by a press statement from the U.S. Secretary of Education that magnifies slight gains as huge achievements.

This is troublesome. It is troublesome because the federal government’s role as the honest, impartial collector and distributor of information gets corrupted when it acts as a cheerleader. And it is troublesome because it is unrealistic to expect test scores to make major leaps in a few years. When they do, one should suspect chicanery of some kind.

NAEP shines a light on state testing practices, as the Fordham report shows. Many states are reporting unrealistic leaps in achievement and high levels of proficiency to satisfy the absurd demand of NCLB for a trajectory that will bring every child to "proficiency" by the year 2014. NAEP shows how unlikely it is that any state will meet that goal and how inflated most of the states' claims of achievement are.

You make a transition from national testing to the dangers of a national curriculum. We have discussed this often. Like you, I would like to see schools where children have time to build, to create, to explore, to experiment, to play. I would like to see kids in the primary grades building castles and fortresses and stores with blocks. But unlike you, I don’t think this kind of playful learning is at odds with a national curriculum.

What is really frightening today—due in large measure to NCLB—is that we have a national testing mania without any curriculum at all. So now our schools are obsessed with preparing to take tests, getting good scores on tests, and then starting the test prep all over again. Out the window goes any thoughtful or playful engagement with history, literature, or the arts, as well as time for physical education (in many New York City schools, children are lucky to have one period a week for physical education). This is outrageous. This is not good education.

So here is where we find our differences and we find our agreements. Unlike you, I am not frightened by a national curriculum and national testing; I believe we already have both, supplied by commercial publishers of textbooks and tests. And what we have is low-level and antithetical to good education. Where we agree is that we have a vision of what good education is and should be. Even if we don’t agree on every detail, we do agree that what we have now is far from good education.

Diane

October 25, 2007

What Frightens Me About a National Curriculum

Dear Diane,

Your frustration about folks avoiding original sources is reasonable. Especially when it's actually easily available. But, of course, the "original source" itself is an interpretation of data. In short, we fall back on easier, less time-consuming ways. ("We" being me. See the back-and-forth comments about—presumably—the same data between Erin Johnson and myself.)

In fields that I don't feel deeply connected to, I mostly look for the experts I "trust". There's no way to be an expert in all the subjects I need to have an opinion about! So I go along with the consensus in some cases (like climate) and rely on "my" experts (generally via the magazines I read) on foreign policy and economics—e.g. Richard Rothstein, or Paul Krugman. So why should I expect folks to do otherwise about schooling?

But it's why it is so easy to get myths out there into the public sphere as though they were facts. In our field, there's the myth about the good old days. It rests in part on how often opinion leaders of all political stripes refer casually to the "decline" of public education; ditto for the assumption that most other nations are doing better at something called "schooling" or "education" without our having stopped to define what either means. We fall back on test scores whose contents and assumptions few question, whose methodology even education reporters know little if anything about, not to mention the narrowness of the measures—or the way scores are set. We use a language that assumes that being well-educated is a zero-sum game, in which the progress of others has to injure us.

We trust these assumptions because to think otherwise would require going against the grain and becoming an expert oneself. Rothstein's piece in American Prospect is not the first masterly complicating of the economic/schooling myths, but precisely by complicating it he loses part of his audience. For example, he reminds us that we "forget" that there's a 20-30-year gap between when the tests are administered and when that age group has an impact on the economy. In the information age, resources are also not evenly distributed. While, for example, FairTest—the only national organization that is in the business of being skeptical about test data, has a budget of less than half a million, the three or four leading testing agencies each spend many millions on promoting the idea that tests are the one true measure. (Disclosure: I'm on the board of FairTest.)

It leads me to wish we had a very different way of spending those 13-20 schooling years—preparing people to assess the events that surround them, independently sorting out pros and cons. I'm for the "liberal arts"—but not at the expense of "making sense" of the world around us, those "habits of mind" we build our curriculum around at schools associated with the Coalition of Essential Schools. The traditional liberal arts might even support such habits, if we designed them with this in mind. It would, for example, take a very different definition of advanced mathematics. The public's much-criticized lack of interest in advanced math may, in fact, betray their good sense, not their bad. Calculus-driven math may be foolish-driven math, that mis-prepares us, leaving us disarmed before the realities of our world. Perhaps a "statistics-driven" math would be equally tough and "advanced" but more suitable for a democratic citizenry?

In short, what frightens me about a national curriculum is not merely that I think it's more exciting to teach based on the particular interests and events that swirl around the young but because I think I can even "cover" more stuff of importance if I begin with what grabs our interest—from dinosaurs, mummies, castles, to modern Iraq or climate claims. I can better engage kids with the world they live in—including its history—if I make that the central aim of my work. Diane, it seems unlikely we can get a national consensus around the kind of experimentation that many of us think needs to take place. Nor should we! But suppose I'm right, that more "coverage" of the traditional fare won't make us either scientifically more sophisticated or mathematically more at home in this world? I'm not interested in banning traditionalism, but I'm also not interested in prohibiting us from the kind of exploration that needs to take place. Nor do I want to leave it all to private schools to experiment with the age-old conundrums. I think there are responsible ways to engage in this work, not just in private but also in public schools.

Our scientific future depends, I believe, on our remaining a nation that appreciates "play"—the non-utilitarian (or at least not immediately so) mindset that we're born with. We are systematically cutting ourselves off from the roots of human intellectual inventiveness. We need to find the equivalent of a generation-old practice of taking cars and radios apart to see how they work and building fortresses out of whatever is on hand. Computer-programmed games can't replace the old chemistry sets. Finding the modern equivalents requires us to experiment, not to return to the 1896 Ivy League consensus, great as it was. Some of us were lucky to have had both, but too many kids today have neither. They thus develop an acquiescent mindset or else a merely rebellious one, but an insufficiently curious and self-disciplined one.

As I meet with teachers and principals and parents I hear a lot of anguish and fear. Of course my sample is biased, but…. Read Dan Brown's book, "The Great Expectations School: A Rookie Year in the New Blackboard Jungle" for a moving account of why we may be entering an era of temp teachers.

Deb

October 30, 2007

Why They Called It the Manhattan Project

By WILLIAM J. BROAD

By nature, code names and cover stories are meant to give no indication of the secrets concealed. “Magic” was the name for intelligence gleaned from Japanese ciphers in World War II, and “Overlord” stood for the Allied plan to invade Europe.

Many people assume that the same holds true for the Manhattan Project, in which thousands of experts gathered in the mountains of New Mexico to make the world’s first atom bomb.
Robert S. Norris, a historian of the atomic age, wants to shatter that myth.

In “The Manhattan Project” (Black Dog & Leventhal), published last month, Dr. Norris writes about the Manhattan Project’s Manhattan locations. He says the borough had at least 10 sites, all but one still standing. They include warehouses that held uranium, laboratories that split the atom, and the project’s first headquarters — a skyscraper hidden in plain sight right across from City Hall.

“It was supersecret,” Dr. Norris said in an interview. “At least 5,000 people were coming and going to work, knowing only enough to get the job done.”

Manhattan was central, according to Dr. Norris, because it had everything: lots of military units, piers for the import of precious ores, top physicists who had fled Europe and ranks of workers eager to aid the war effort. It even had spies who managed to steal some of the project’s top secrets.

“The story is so rich,” Dr. Norris enthused. “There’s layer upon layer of good stuff, interesting characters.”

Still, more than six decades after the project’s start, the Manhattan side of the atom bomb story seems to be a well-preserved secret.

Dr. Norris recently visited Manhattan at the request of The New York Times for a daylong tour of the Manhattan Project’s roots. Only one site he visited displayed a public sign noting its role in the epochal events. And most people who encountered his entourage, which included a photographer and videographer, knew little or nothing of the atomic labors in Manhattan.

“That’s amazing,” Alexandra Ghitelman said after learning that the buildings she had just passed on inline skates once held tons of uranium destined for atomic weapons. “That’s unbelievable.”

While shock tended to be the main reaction, some people hinted at feelings of pride. More than one person said they knew someone who had worked on the secret project, which formally got under way in August 1942 and three years later culminated in the atomic bombing of Japan. In all, it employed more than 130,000 people.

Dr. Norris is also the author of “Racing for the Bomb” (Steerforth, 2002), a biography of Gen. Leslie R. Groves, the project’s military leader. As his protagonist had done during the war, Dr. Norris works in Washington. At the Natural Resources Defense Council, he studies and writes about the nation’s atomic facilities.

Dr. Norris began his day of exploration by taking the train to New York from Washington, coming into Pennsylvania Station just as General Groves had done dozens of times during the war to visit project sites.

“Groves didn’t want the job,” Dr. Norris remarked outside the station. “But his foot hit the accelerator and he didn’t let up for 1,000 days.”

For tour assistance, Dr. Norris brought along his own books as well as printouts from “The Traveler’s Guide to Nuclear Weapons,” a CD by James M. Maroncelli and Timothy L. Karpin that features little-known history of the nation’s atom endeavors.

We headed north to the childhood home of J. Robert Oppenheimer, the eccentric genius whom General Groves hired to run the project’s scientific side as well as its sprawling New Mexico laboratory. Last year, a biography of Oppenheimer, “American Prometheus” (Knopf, 2005), won the Pulitzer Prize.

“One of the most famous scientists of the 20th century,” Dr. Norris noted, got his start “walking these streets” and attending the nearby Ethical Culture School.

Oppenheimer and his parents lived at 155 Riverside Drive, an elegant apartment building at West 88th Street. The superintendent, Joe Gugulski, said the family lived on the 11th floor, overlooking the Hudson River.

“One of my tenants read the book,” Mr. Gugulski told us. “So I looked it up.” To his knowledge, Mr. Gugulski added, no other atomic tourists had visited the building.

The Oppenheimers decorated their apartment with original artwork by Picasso, Rembrandt, Renoir, Van Gogh and Cézanne, according to “American Prometheus.” His mother encouraged young Robert to paint.

By the late 1930s and early 1940s, blocks away at Columbia University, scientists were laboring to split the atom and release its titanic energies. We made our way across campus — with difficulty because of protests over the visit of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, which is widely suspected of harboring its own bomb program.

Dr. Norris noted that the Manhattan Project led to “many of our problems today.”

The Pupin Physics Laboratories housed the early atom experiments, Dr. Norris said. But the tall building, topped by observatory domes, has no plaque in its foyer describing its nuclear ties.

Passing students and pedestrians answered “no” and “kind of” when asked if they knew of the atom breakthroughs at Pupin Hall. Dr. Norris said the Manhattan Project, at its peak, employed 700 people at Columbia. At one point, the football team was recruited to move tons of uranium. That work, he said, eventually led to the world’s first nuclear reactor.

After lunch, we headed to West 20th Street just off the West Side Highway. The block, on the fringe of Chelsea, bristled with new galleries, and Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses. On its north side, three tall buildings once made up the Baker and Williams Warehouses, which held tons of uranium.

Two women taking a cigarette break said they had no idea of their building’s atomic past. “It’s horrible,” said one.

Dr. Norris’s “Traveler’s Guide” fact sheet said the federal government in the late 1980s and early 1990s cleaned the buildings of residual uranium. Workers removed more than a dozen drums of radioactive waste, according to the Department of Energy in Washington. “Radiological surveys show that the site now meets applicable requirements for unrestricted use,” a federal document said in 1995.

We moved to Manhattan’s southern tip and worked our way up Broadway along the route known as the Canyon of Heroes, the scene of many ticker-tape parades amid the skyscrapers.
At 25 Broadway, we visited a minor but important site — the Cunard Building. Edgar Sengier, a Belgian with an office here, had his company mine about 1,200 tons of high-grade uranium ore and store it on Staten Island in the shadow of the Bayonne Bridge. Though a civilian, he knew of the atomic possibilities and feared the invading Germans might confiscate his mines.

Dr. Norris said General Groves, on his first day in charge, sent an assistant to buy all that uranium for a dollar a pound — or $2.5 million. “The Manhattan Project was off to a flying start,” he said, adding that the Belgian entrepreneur in time supplied two-thirds of all the project’s uranium.

We walked past St. Paul’s Chapel and proceeded to the soaring grandeur of the Woolworth Building, once the world’s tallest, at 233 Broadway.

A major site, it housed a front company that devised one of the project’s main ways of concentrating uranium’s rare isotope — a secret of bomb making. On the 11th, 12th and 14th floors, the company drew on the nation’s scientific best and brightest, including teams from Columbia.

Dr. Norris said the front company’s 3,700 employees included Klaus Fuchs, a Soviet spy. “He was a substantial physicist in his own right,” Dr. Norris said. “He contributed to the American atom bomb, the Soviet atom bomb and the British atom bomb.”

So how did the Manhattan Project get its name, and why was Manhattan chosen as its first headquarters?

Dr. Norris said the answer lay at our next stop, 270 Broadway. There, at Chambers Street, on the southwest corner, we found a nondescript building overlooking City Hall Park.

It was here, Dr. Norris said, that the Army Corps of Engineers had its North Atlantic Division, which built ports and airfields. When the Corps got the responsibility of making the atom bomb, it put the headquarters in the same building, on the 18th floor.

“That way he didn’t need to reinvent the wheel,” Dr. Norris said of General Groves. “He used what he had at his fingertips — the entire Corps of Engineers infrastructure.”

Dr. Norris added that the Corps at that time included “extraordinary people, the best and brightest of West Point.”

In time, the office at 270 Broadway ran not only atom research and materials acquisition but also the building of whole nuclear cities in Tennessee, New Mexico and Washington State.
The first proposed name for the project, Dr. Norris said, was the Laboratory for the Development of Substitute Materials. But General Groves feared that would draw undo attention.
Instead, General Groves called for the bureaucratically dull approach of adopting the standard Corps procedure for naming new regional organizations. That method simply noted the unit’s geographical area, as in the Pittsburgh Engineer District.

So the top-secret endeavor to build the atom bomb got the most boring of cover names: the Manhattan Engineer District, in time shortened to the Manhattan Project. Unlike other Corps districts, however, it had no territorial limits. “He was nuts about not attracting attention,” Dr. Norris said.

Manhattan’s role shrank as secretive outposts for the endeavor sprouted across the country and quickly grew into major enterprises. By the late summer of 1943, little more than a year after its establishment, the headquarters of the Manhattan Project moved to Oak Ridge, Tenn.

Despite this dispersal, Dr. Norris said, scientists and businesses in Manhattan, including The New York Times, continued to aid the atomic project.

In April 1945, General Groves traveled to the newspaper’s offices on West 43rd Street. He asked that a science writer, William L. Laurence, be allowed to go on leave to report on a major wartime story involving science.

As early as 1940, before wartime secrecy, Mr. Laurence had reported on the atomic breakthroughs at Pupin Hall.

Now, Dr. Norris said, Mr. Laurence went to work for the Manhattan Project and became the only reporter to witness the Trinity test in the New Mexican desert in July 1945, and, shortly thereafter, the nuclear bombing of Japan.

The atomic age, Mr. Laurence wrote in the first article of a series, began in the New Mexico desert before dawn in a burst of flame that illuminated “earth and sky for a brief span that seemed eternal.”

In Manhattan, the one location that has memorialized its atomic connection had nothing to do with making or witnessing the bomb, but rather with managing to survive its fury.

The spot is on Riverside Drive between 105th and 106th Streets. There, in a residential neighborhood, in front of the New York Buddhist Church, is a tall statue of a Japanese Buddhist monk, Shinran Shonin, who lived in the 12th and 13th centuries. In peasant hat and sandals, holding a wooden staff, the saint peers down on the sidewalk.

The statue survived the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, standing a little more than a mile from ground zero. It was brought to New York in 1955. The plaque calls the statue “a testimonial to the atomic bomb devastation and a symbol of lasting hope for world peace.”

The statue stands a few blocks from Columbia University, where much of the bomb program began.

“I wonder how many New Yorkers know about it,” Dr. Norris said of the statue, “and know the history.”

Teacher Magazine

Grammar Interrupted

By Cindi Rigsbee

I worry about the English language. Thanks to new advances in technology, the impact of pop culture, and the increasing focus on tested areas of our curriculum, the Queen’s English is in more trouble than ever before. Until someone develops a high-stakes test on the use of the past participle, will anyone really be interested in how well our students are writing and speaking?

First, let's talk about technology. Spellcheck has clearly made the world lazy. Students think they don’t need to learn the rules of spelling and grammar because one click will do it for them.

These same students (and my own children) are addicted to Instant Messaging. My son, who in high school struggled with attention issues in the classroom, could sit at his computer desk at night and carry on 16 simultaneous conversations. Those conversations did not include correctly spelled words or any attempt at punctuation; in fact, IM-speak is actually meant to be incorrect, just so long as it’s fast! For an example, check out this excerpt from a MySpace page that belongs to a student at my school:

"wut it do i ain't talked 2 u n a minute ever since da last day of skool fo christmas break wut been ^ 2 me nuttin jus sittin @ home ain't gone nuttin 2 do........well i wuz jus stoppin by 2 sho ur page sum luvin get baq @ me when u can"

Enough said on that subject.

Pop culture plays a part in the slow, painful torture of correct English in another way, too. Songs on the radio reinforce incorrect usage of grammar (and have for years). Take this oldie from the 80's:

"I feel the magic between you and I" (from Eric Carmen's "Hungry Eyes" on the Dirty Dancing soundtrack).

I ask you, would the songwriter say, "Give it to I, baby!"?

In "Brick House," The Commodores sang, “Ain’t nothing wrong with dat.” This usage of non-standard English for emphasis is actually less offensive. Eric Carmen's use of “I” as an object of the preposition is an ill-fated attempt to sound formal, which adds pretentiousness to the list of crimes committed here.

And don’t get me started on Pink Floyd’s “We Don’t Need No Education.” Ugh. Who says?

Nostalgia for Diagramming

In addition, there has been an enormous shift in our schools in the way they teach—or don’t teach—grammar. We feel those tests looming, hanging in the air over us, gray clouds of reality waiting to descend in mid-May. My students have heard the morning announcements: “There are 165 days left until the end-of-grade test.” (Would the students tell on me if I attacked the intercom speaker with my yardstick?) Focusing on tested areas of the curriculum has often resulted in teachers being forced to give up instruction they love, including the fine points of English grammar.

I remember teaching diagramming. Sentence diagrams were the granddaddy of graphic organizers. I took pride in drawing those precise lines and knowing exactly where to place the indirect object. They were like perfect puzzles, and those of us who mastered them felt like we had just figured out how to do calculus to the third derivative (I don’t even know what I just said).

Not only did I teach diagramming, I taught parts of speech and had students do random, isolated sentences. I did realize that those exercises never seemed to transfer to a student's casual writing and speaking. Just because students could identify pronouns in a sentence didn’t mean they stopped saying, “Me and her need to go to the bathroom.” But we had to start somewhere! Nowadays, however, there is little room in the curriculum for such time-intensive instruction.

The Art of the Mini-Lesson

So what do we do? Sit back and watch our language continue to deteriorate? I, for one, refuse to go down without a fight. Here’s how I’ve changed my teaching:

First of all, I teach short mini-lessons on grammar. Nancie Atwell (In the Middle), Irene Fountas and Gay Su Pinnell (Guiding Readers and Writers), and Lucy Calkins (The Art of Teaching Writing) have touted the mini-lesson for years. It's a short lesson focused on a specific principle or procedure. And for me, it works wonders for those irritating grammatical problems.

So, I'll play a bit of "Hungry Eyes," then say, “Class, why is it improper to say, ‘between you and I?’ How do we usually use the pronoun ‘I’?” I have the students provide a couple of sentences for the overhead, and we have a grand musically enhanced discussion!

On another day, I might ask the students to explain the different ways we speak to one another. I hope they’ll tell me that we speak more informally with our friends—the mode Ruby Payne (in A Framework for Understanding Poverty) calls “casual register.” I explain that we write that way, too, on our MySpace pages and in our text messages. However, formal writing calls for adhering to the conventions—“Remember that discussion we had about pronouns?”

And last, I hit ‘em where they live. I pull out examples of those MySpace pages and ask students to write them over in standard English. I tell them, “This is not art. No symbols – I want words!” Most of the time, they rise to the expectations that are placed on them.

Oh, and one more thing: I challenge them to represent themselves as being intelligent writers and speakers. With luck, one of them will grow up to write the songs. And I won't have to struggle to keep my car on the road when I listen to the radio.

Cindi Rigsbee is a National Board-certified middle grades teacher in Durham, N.C., and a former North Carolina regional teacher of the year. She was a finalist for the Terry Sanford Award for Creativity and Innovation in Teaching.

Plagiarism

Lauren McCabe writes:

As I sat at the airport last weekend, grading my students’ summer reading essays and waiting to take off, I was angry. Not because of the tardiness of my flight, but because I was looking at 15 plagiarized essays from my seniors, seniors who knew better. They had all summer to read a book and write this five-paragraph essay on any topic they wanted. After I read over two essays and saw the exact same words, sentences and paragraphs, it wasn't hard to figure out that these papers had been copied.

After talking with some of my colleagues over the weekend, I learned that plagiarism wasn’t a new concept at my school, Environmental Charter High School, and that most of the students on my list had turned in plagiarized work in the past. I began to wonder why students plagiarize. Could it really be that they were just too lazy to write their own papers? And the essay they turned in and tried to pass as their own was of very low quality. Didn’t they have respect for themselves and their abilities?

While I was venting my frustration to an administrator at my school, he offered a bit of insight into the community I teach in and he grew up in. He explained that the major battle these students are fighting every day does not necessarily come from an external source, but from within. The inferiority complex is a constant war within our students. They “dumbed down” their essays to a level so far below their actual writing abilities because they thought it would be more believable to me that way. They ran away from this challenge because they didn’t believe they could achieve on their own.

This is not to say “poor babies” or to give excuses for blatant plagiarism, but I think it is important to understand the mindsets with which our students walk into the classroom every day and ways by which we can expand those views. Pure laziness is only one possibility of many for explaining why students plagiarize, as is the inferiority complex. But until we consider all of the possibilities and stop labeling students, we will never solve the issue. Malleable intelligence, the concept of intelligence not being fixed, will be the first topic of discussion that I start off with in my next class.

This is simply immaturity, laziness and seeing if they could get away with it....
Here is what I do...I don't make a big deal about it. I just put a 0 on their papers and write, " Same as Julie's paper; 0 same as David's paper" I don't moralize, I don't lecture, I don't call their parents. It takes me 10 seconds to write it on the paper. I usually never have a plagiarism issue again.

I'm sure you gave your students the option to contact you should they run into difficulty and provided an email or phone number, so there really are no excuses for the plagiarism.

Again, in high school ,students must pass a class to move on to the next grade level , not like in middle school, which is another reason they are turning in poor quality work.

One practical thing you can do and you may already be doing this for students who have trouble structuring an essay is to write out five to seven sample topic sentences for each essay: The background sentence, thesis sentence and 3 to 5 supporting topic sentences and a concluding sentences and have them "build" the essay. This way they have a template to begin using. Santa Monica High School has a website with a paper called the "Sweet Sixteens of Good Writing" It is a helpful handout with sixteen boxes that offer tips on good writing.

Another hint, don't leave the topic wide open but give them five or six options. They still have choice but also have something concrete about which to write. Did you connect the essay to the book they were reading? This way they have to read the book to write about it in the essay.

Great job giving a summer assigment as you are way ahead of the game in knowing a little about each student and their work ethic. It also gives you information that allows you to adjust and correct what you want in your upcoming reading and essay assignments which puts you way ahead of the game. Keep it up!

Posted by: evelyn

Posted by: Anonymous

This is not your fault. It is a break down in the system. This is learned behavior that has most likely happened in the past without consequence.

In any serious academic institution, plagiarism is a serious offense. I hear you saying that the administrator, in sentiment, excused the behavior. Why didn't the administrator offer to come to your class and deal with this problem so you can focus your mind and energy on curricular and instructional issues?

I don't want to be too cynical, but I can guess at the answer. First, the system emphasizes attendance and seat time. Any serious discipline must have the possibility of suspension as its ultimate consequence. Administrators hate suspensions because it takes away from attendance and makes the school's discipline statistics look bad.

I like the advice of evelyn. Don't moralize on the issue, but absolutely don't accept plagiarism. The students will figure it out for themselves. You can focus on being the best English teacher you can be, and model professionalism to the students. Too many teachers stray the academic path in an attempt to be life coaches.

Posted by: David

The pattern of plagiarism that I've heard about is that in this internet age, the kids often have really bad process for their writing. So, you'll see a lone plagiarized sentence in a single paragraph, or you'll find that the student's work is a strange hybrid of original and plagiarized work, even when hunting down the material to plagiarize and weaving it into a coherent text must actually have been more work. They need extremely explicit instruction in how to write and how to include citations. You might want to explain to them that using citations impresses the teacher, because it demonstrates that you've done a lot of research.

Posted by: Amy P

Education Week

Reading Aid Seen to Lag in ELL Focus

By Mary Ann Zehr

Educators and experts across the country who work with English-language learners are moving toward a consensus that the federal Reading First program needs to be refined to become more effective for children acquiring English.

Administrators in several big-city districts with large numbers of such students are stepping up their training of teachers on how best to teach second-language learners to read under the No Child Left Behind Act’s flagship reading program, which serves grades K-3.

Last school year, the 410,000-student Chicago public school system established a new position at the district level for a bilingual specialist to coach teachers at the city’s 17 Reading First schools with large numbers of ELLs on how to tailor reading instruction to such students.

The Los Angeles Unified School District, where 38 percent of the 708,000 students are ELLs, started an institute for Reading First teachers this school year on reading strategies for ELLs.
And since last school year the 1.1 million-student New York City school system has been providing workshops and coaching to Reading First teachers and administrators on the same topic.

The U.S. Department of Education’s 11-member Reading First Advisory Committee has enough concerns about whether ELLs are getting what they need under the $1 billion-a-year program that it set up a subcommittee to look into the issue last week, according to Kris D. Gutiérrez, a committee member and a professor of social-research methodology at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“My opinion is we have a long ways to go to meet the needs of English-language learners under the current policies and practices of Reading First,” Ms. Gutiérrez said. Among the program’s problems, she said, are that students’ reading skills are tested before they learn English, the literacy curriculum is too narrow, and teachers are not prepared to work with ELLs.

Education Department officials, asked last week if Reading First is working for ELLs, said “state-reported annual performance data show that many Reading First sites are showing improvements in reading fluency and comprehension for their English-language-learner students,” according to an e-mail message from Elaine Quesinberry, a spokeswoman for the department.

New Language

Concern about how to refine reading instruction for English-language learners also has spread to Capitol Hill.

A draft bill to reauthorize the NCLB law, put forth by the House Education and Labor Committee, calls for Reading First programs to be “linguistically appropriate”—a term not included in the current federal education law.

Rep. Rubén Hinojosa, a Texas Democrat and a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, was one of the lawmakers who helped get the phrase into the draft, according to Elizabeth Esfahani, his press secretary. The phrase is mentioned 11 times in the draft.

A number of reading experts and educators said that even though “linguistically appropriate” is a vague phrase, its addition to the law would likely be beneficial for English-learners.

“The advantage of the new [legislative] language is it’s going to nudge states and districts, as they submit their plans, to stress more how teacher training and coaching will lead to teaching English-language development better,” said Russell Gersten, the executive director of the Instructional Research Group, an educational research institute in Long Beach, Calif.
Mr. Gersten headed a panel for the Education Department to write a“practice guide” for education of English-language learners, released in July, and has been a consultant for Houghton Mifflin Company’s reading textbooks.

Margarita Calderón, a professor and research scientist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, agrees with others who say Reading First has not worked well for ELLs. The additional language “would be an improvement,” she said, “because schools will have to be accountable and show they are doing this in a linguistically appropriate way.”

But, aside from agreeing on the need for more teacher training, educators’ views of how Reading First needs to be improved sometimes contradict each other, particularly on whether students’ native languages should be used to teach reading.

Mr. Gersten said teachers should teach English structures, such as “compare and contrast” or “cause and effect,” and help students practice them. It’s also helpful for teachers to preview reading lessons with students to ensure that they know what a story is about, he said. Pictures or Web sites can be useful for previewing, Mr. Gersten noted.

But he said it would be a mistake for the words “linguistically appropriate” to steer schools to use students’ native languages for reading instruction. He hasn’t found studies concluding that bilingual education is more effective than English-only methods to be persuasive.

On the other hand, Miriam Calderón, who is not related to Margarita Calderón and is a policy analyst at the Washington-based National Council of La Raza, said her group lobbied members of Congress to add linguistically appropriate to Reading First particularly for that purpose.

And Johns Hopkins’ Margarita Calderón believes that including the term “linguistically appropriate” in the law could encourage the teaching of reading to ELLs through their native languages at the same time they are learning English.

Varying State Policies

While reading experts favored the proposed changes in Reading First for ELLs, state education officials in several states with large populations of English-learners were indifferent. Officials in Arizona, California, and New Jersey all said they already are implementing Reading First in a linguistically appropriate way.

Their approaches, all approved by the Education Department, differ widely, however. State plans vary in how they implement the Reading First program for English-language learners.

Arizona

• Requires instruction and materials to be in English.

• No approved list of materials school districts must choose from.

California

• Requires school districts to select materials from an approved list that includes textbooks in Spanish and English. No separate textbooks designed for English-language learners.

• No separate block of time for English-language development.

New Jersey

• Requires that schools provide reading instruction in Spanish if they have a critical mass of Spanish speakers who are ELLs.

• Requires school districts to select materials from an approved list that includes textbooks in Spanish and English and has separate English-language development textbooks tailored for ELLs.

• In addition to the regular 90-minute reading block, schools must teach English-language development to ELLs for a minimum of 30 minutes each day.

SOURCES: State education departments in Arizona, California, and New Jersey

New Jersey, for instance, requires that Reading First schools provide instruction to ELLs in Spanish, while Arizona requires that all Reading First instruction be in English. California permits schools to use Spanish instruction for Reading First in bilingual classrooms that meet state restrictions for using that educational method.

New Jersey also requires schools to select Reading First materials from an approved list that includes core materials in Spanish or English and has separate materials for teaching English-language development to ELLs.

But California has not adopted separate materials for ELLs, and the state board of education’s refusal to enable such an adoption is controversial. In the state’s next adoption process, however, textbook publishers will have to meet specified criteria to address the needs of ELLs. For example, they will need to provide ideas for teachers to preview reading lessons for ELLs.
Shelly Spiegel-Coleman, the executive director of Californians Tomorrow, a coalition of 17 groups that advocate in behalf of ELLs, said the increasing gap in reading achievement in California between native speakers of English and ELLs demonstrates that the nearly 6-year-old Reading First program isn’t working.

As evidence, she said the achievement gap in reading between native speakers of English and ELLs in Los Angeles schools, the state’s school system with the most ELLs, has stayed the same or widened from last year to this year at every grade level tested. Ms. Spiegel-Coleman, who just retired as director of the multilingual-academic-support unit of the Los Angeles County Office of Education, criticized the Open Court Reading materials used for the program, and also said the instruction gave students little chance to practice English. The core language arts series is published by SRA/McGraw-Hill.

Julie Slayton, the executive director of strategic planning and accountability for the Los Angeles school district, said the Open Court materials are high-quality, but noted that the quality of instruction “varies widely.”

David L. Brewer III, the superintendent for LAUSD, said in an e-mail message that, like any other materials, Open Court “gets results when skillful teachers use it properly.” He said the Open Court program “will need to be modified somewhat to better accommodate ELL students, especially teacher professional development,” which he expects to happen in the next textbook-adoption cycle.

The addition of the phrase “linguistically appropriate” to the federal education law, Ms. Spiegel-Coleman believes, would force California officials and school districts to do more for ELLs.
“California has a reading initiative, and Reading First is just more of the same—more assessments, coaches, more intensity, more monitoring.” She added, “You can’t do the same old thing. If you have kids who don’t speak English in Reading First who aren’t doing well, you have to do something else.”

Maine’s Laptops Found to Aid Writing Scores

By The Associated Press

Maine’s program to give every 7th and 8th grade student a laptop computer is leading to better writing. 4real!

Despite creating a language all their own using e-mail and text messages, students are still learning standard English, and their writing scores improved on the state’s standardized writing test in 2005 compared with 2000, before laptop computers were distributed, according to a new study.

Students’ writing skills were higher whether they took the online or pen-and-paper version of the state test. Yet students who said they use laptops in more phases of the writing process scored significantly higher than students who use them in fewer phases or not at all, the study found.

“If you concentrate on whether laptops are helping kids achieve 21st-century skills, this demonstrates that it’s happening in writing,” said David L. Silvernail, the director of the Maine Education Policy Research Institute at the University of Southern Maine in Gorham.

The study by Mr. Silvernail and Aaron K. Gritter is the first in a series that aims to evaluate the impact on student achievement and learning of Maine’s first-in-the-nation laptop program. Next year, the researchers plan to release a study on the laptops’ impact in math instruction.

The laptop program, which seeks to eliminate the “digital divide” between poor and wealthy students, kicked off with distribution of more than 30,000 computers to 7th and 8th graders in public schools in 2002 and 2003. Their teachers also received laptops, as well as training in how to use them in instruction.

The study focused on 8th graders’ scores on the Maine Educational Assessment to see if the standardized-test results backed up perceptions among students and teachers that laptops have led to better writing skills.

State Commissioner of Education Sue Gendron said it represents the first concrete evidence backing up what most educators already feel: The laptop program, known as the Maine Learning Technology Initiative, is working.

“It’s about enhancing learning opportunities, and the evidence and the data we’ve received in this report substantiates that this is the right approach,” she said.

Honing Language Skills

Maine Education Assessment scores show that 49 percent of 8th graders were proficient in writing in 2005, compared with 29 percent in 2000.

The gain wasn’t just a function of taking the writing portion of the test using a computer and keyboard. Students who used pen and paper and students who used a computer keyboard showed similar improvement on the test, Mr. Silvernail said.

For the same period, math scores were unchanged, and science scores grew by 2 points, while reading scores actually dropped by 3 points, Mr. Silvernail said. Writing showed the biggest improvement—7 points, from 530 to 537, he said.

Mr. Silvernail said it is unrealistic to expect big increases on standardized tests tied to laptops, but writing is the exception.

Laptops make it easier for students to edit their copy and make changes, he said. And it was important, he said, that those skills translated when the test was taken with pen and paper.
Students who, in a survey that accompanied the 2005 test, reported using their laptops in all phases of the writing process were twice as likely to have met proficiency than students who said they did not use their laptops in writing, the study found.

Virginia Rebar, the principal of Piscataquis Community Middle School, was not surprised by the results, because language skills are being developed every time the computers are used, in social studies and other subjects beyond language arts.

“It’s just a lot easier to edit, to self-critique. Our teachers engage students in a lot of peer-editing. Not only are they helping themselves, but they’re helping each other as they get to their final projects,” she said.

Teachers union gets wiggle room against rival

By Michael J. Mishak

Las Vegas Sun

The Nevada State Education Association's push to boost taxes on gaming offers the union an advantage on another front. The tax plan provides leverage as the association tries to fend off a rival union.

The education association is locked in a struggle with Teamsters Local 14, which is campaigning to represent Clark County teachers. To win, the Teamsters must persuade more than half of those teachers to oust the education association as their representative.

But the association has painted the Teamsters into something of a corner by asking voters to boost the gaming tax so the state could grant teachers a raise.

The Teamsters local and two of its sister locals have workers spread throughout the gaming industry. The union is likely to oppose the higher taxes, which would leave it working to defeat a statewide ballot initiative whose purpose is to help teachers.

The Teamsters said Wednesday they will continue their organizing campaign and predicted the education association would fail to raise gaming taxes.

The association needs to secure nearly 60,000 signatures to place an initiative on the statewide ballot in 2008. If it's approved, voters would need to pass it again in 2010. The association seeks to bump the tax on gaming revenue from 6.75 percent to 9.75 percent.

The association's proposal is the latest in a series of hurdles facing the Teamsters local. From the outset, the union faced the challenge of organizing a largely apathetic and transient membership. Fifty percent of Clark County's teachers typically leave within five years. Also working against the Teamsters is the absence of a record of ever representing public educators.

The Teamsters originally expected their organizing drive would last through most of 2008. But the education association and Teamsters recently agreed to shrink the timeline. The campaign is now expected to conclude by the end of next month.

To be sure, the teachers union has weaknesses, and the Teamsters clearly see an opening. Members are frustrated by years of small raises and saw their union as largely ineffectual in this year's legislative session.

Education lobbyists made the mistake of going around Assembly Democrats to cut a deal with Senate Republicans on education funding. The move irritated the teachers' natural allies and could mean less clout with Assembly Democrats in future Legislatures - not a comforting thought.

The Teamsters say the education association's leadership is now lashing out at the most powerful interest in Nevada - the gaming industry - to deflect attention from its failures.

Ron Taylor, a district teacher who launched a grass-roots effort to decertify the education association and now works for Teamsters Local 14, said the tax proposal was a direct response to the Teamsters organizing effort, which he said is picking up steam.

"It's obvious this action was done because of us," Taylor said. "The NSEA is trying to protect their cash cow - the Clark County Education Association. They have no shot, but this is a way to tell teachers, 'We're fighting for you.' It's transparent."

The state education association represents more than 18,000 teachers across Nevada, including about 13,000 in Clark County.

The Teamsters say they have collected more than 2,000 signed authorization cards. The union needs 7,500 cards by the end of November to make the case for an election, which, if sanctioned by the state labor board, could take place next spring, said Gary Mauger, secretary-treasurer of Teamsters Local 14.

As for the teachers union tax plan, Mauger said he would consult with the Teamsters executive board and the Nevada AFL-CIO before rendering judgment. Still, he added, "Going and putting the burden on the hand that feeds you sometimes doesn't make for a good way to go."

Richard Hurd, a labor expert at Cornell University's School of Industrial and Labor Relations, said the gaming tax proposal could galvanize the teachers union, slowing - if not killing - the Teamsters' momentum.

"It could be that what the education association is doing now is attempting to demonstrate that they have the potential to deliver," Hurd said.

Terry Hickman , the education association's executive director, said the union's plan was purely a response to a state that chronically underfunds education. Nevada ranks 49th in the nation in education spending.

"It's not enough to complain," Hickman said. "If you are not solution-based, get out of the way. Any association that opposes funding for our kids, I wonder what their values are."
And yet, the teachers union is going it alone.

Danny Thompson, executive secretary-treasurer of the Nevada AFL-CIO, said the 200,000-strong labor federation would vote on the teachers' tax plan, but he said support was unlikely. The AFL-CIO supports the Teamsters organizing effort.

"We support broadening the tax base away from one industry," Thompson said. "If you raise the gaming tax without raising others' taxes, you increase your dependency even more."

Education Week

By Sterling C. Lloyd

In 2007, an estimated 1.2 million students failed to earn high school diplomas with their graduating class. Given that high school graduates, on average, enjoy higher earnings and require fewer government services than non-graduates, the costs of dropping out are high for both individuals and the nation as a whole. As a result, effective interventions that help keep students in school are likely to pay significant dividends. This is especially true if they successfully target those most at risk of dropping out. This Stat of the Week examines the high school pipeline in order to find the point at which the most students are lost.

The 2007 edition of Education Week's annual Diplomas Count report analyzes the high school graduation process as a series of grade-to-grade promotions using the Cumulative Promotion Index. The CPI allows researchers to pinpoint where, in the high school pipeline, students are lost. The results show that the 9th grade is the leading source of student loss. In fact, more than one-third of non-graduates, in the class of 2003-04, failed to make the transition from 9th to 10th grade. This finding suggests that programs to increase graduation rates may need to help 9th graders get off to a good start in high school.

Where are students lost?

Nationally, more than one-third of the students lost from the high school pipeline failed to move from 9th to 10th grade.

Understanding the causes underlying freshman-year loss could be crucial for improving the prospects of youth at-risk of dropping out. To that end, a July 2007 report from the Consortium on Chicago School Research identified four predictors of whether Chicago public high school students would graduate within four years. The researchers found that 9th graders were more likely to graduate on time if they: (1) remained on-track (by accumulating at least ten semester credits and earning no more than one semester "F" in a core academic course), (2) earned higher GPAs, (3) failed fewer semester course, and (4) had fewer absences.

The report notes that, "for many students, freshman year is like a bottleneck" where sub par academic performance puts them so far behind that they are unable to catch up. This finding about the 9th grade underscores the importance of reform strategies designed to assist students early in high school. The Chicago researchers suggest that interventions such as summer school and tutoring programs would be more effective by targeting students who fail one to four courses in the freshman year.

by John Cronin, Michael Dahlin, Deborah Adkins, G. Gage Kingsbury
10/04/2007


"The Proficiency Illusion" reveals that the tests that states use to measure academic progress under the No Child Left Behind Act are creating a false impression of success, especially in reading and especially in the early grades.

The report, a collaboration of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute and the Northwest Evaluation Association, contains several major findings:

States are aiming particularly low when it comes to their expectations for younger children, setting

elementary students up to fail as they progress through their academic careers. The central flaw in NCLB is that it allows each state to set its own definition of what constitutes "proficiency."

By mandating that all students reach "proficiency" by 2014, it tempts states to define proficiency downward.

Although there has not been a "race to the bottom," with the majority of states dramatically lowering standards under pressure from NCLB, the report did find a "walk to the middle," as some states with high standards saw their expectations drop toward the middle of the pack.
In most states, math tests are consistently more difficult to pass than reading tests.

Eighth-grade tests are sharply harder to pass in most states than those in earlier grades (even after taking into account obvious differences in subject-matter complexity and children's academic development).

As a result, students may be performing worse in reading, and worse in elementary school, than is readily apparent by looking at passing rates on state tests.

Click here to read the full report.

The teachers of Clark County are currently facing a tough choice. Unfortunately, the choice they are being offered is between two unions, neither of which is designed to address the needs and interests of today¹s educators.

As more and more teachers in Clark County have expressed discontent with their representative unit, the Clark County Education Association, the Teamsters have decided to throw their hat in the ring. The Teamsters are saying that the status quo, the CCEA, is not meeting the interests of the teachers they represent. The CCEA says the Teamsters are unprofessional and are not capable of representing teachers effectively.

The fact of the matter is neither the CCEA nor the Teamsters are looking out for the best interests of teachers. Teachers are professionals who deserve a professional organization that will engender the type of respect and recognition that unions do not bring to the table. No matter what name a union goes by, whether it is the NEA, AFT or the Teamsters, the union model is the same. The Teamsters are no better a solution to the concerns of the teachers of Clark County than the CCEA.

The militant labor union mentality is inherently wrong for teachers. Industrial-style unionism neither advances the respect and compensation that educators deserve, nor does it improve the quality of education for kids.

Teachers have been tasked with the education of our nation¹s children, and must be the best and the brightest. The union model rewards teachers who act in a way that belies the nature of their profession. They are indeed professionals and should act and be treated as such. If teachers strive to be taken seriously as a profession, they need to align themselves with groups whose priorities do not center on political agendas that have little to do with the classroom.

The problem is that the unions currently in charge have a tight grip on information that is provided to teachers, and because of this lack of free flow of information, most teachers are unaware they have choices regarding who represents them. Most teachers believe that their only choice is to join the union or nothing at all. The move by the Teamsters to represent teachers in Clark County is good in a way because it is informing teachers that their choice is not the union or nothing.

However, if the Teamsters are successful and unseat the CCEA, the current problems will still exist. Teachers will continue to come in second place to union interests, and they will still not get the recognition they deserve as professionals.

It¹s understandable that Clark County¹s educators are wondering if there are better options than a union. The answer is yes. In fact, there is a groundswell among America¹s teachers, who are leaving traditional teacher labor unions, to join non-union professional associations. Nearly 300,000 teachers nationwide have opted to join non-union educators associations such as the Association of American Educators, which has members in all 50 states. Members can get most of the benefits that the unions provide but at a fraction of the cost.

It¹s a common sense option. Attorneys have the American Bar Association. Physicians have the American Medical Association. Why shouldn¹t educators belong to an organization that respects them as the academic professionals that they are?

Clark County teachers have a unique opportunity to do what¹s best for their profession and for the kids they teach. There have indeed been problems with the CCEA¹s representation and teachers should want change. However, the Teamsters¹ outdated labor model is no more appropriate for today¹s teachers than is the NEA. Teachers deserve a professional choice.

Gary Beckner is executive director of the Association of American Educators. www.aaeteachers.org

October 3, 2007

Contact: Heather Reams

Director of Communications

Association of American Educators

1-877-385-6264

heather@aaeteachers.org

Teacher Survey Sheds New Light on Performance Pay Debate

Alexandria, VA—Today the Association of American Educators (AAE), the largest national independent non-union teachers’ association, released its second survey on No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Survey results showed distinct differences in opinion with teacher labor unions, particularly with regard to performance pay and the use of “growth models” for accountability, both of which give teachers credit for student academic gains made during the school year.

The 1,286 respondents, all of whom are active classroom educators, appear to agree with the language that is currently in a draft bill of NCLB in Congress that encourages districts to implement some kind of performance-base pay system for teachers.

“Teachers know better than anyone what parts of NCLB work and what parts need to be improved or removed all together,” said Gary Beckner, AAE Executive Director. “This survey shows, however, that there are thousands of teachers who do not agree with the agenda for NCLB that is being pushed by the teacher unions.”

Some results of the survey are as follows:

70% of respondents say that traditional compensation systems based simply on the highest degree earned and time in the system should be improved upon; 63% say they would accept additional compensation based on the tested academic growth of their students over a school year; 59% say they should receive a bonus if their students achieve higher student achievement gains than other teachers teaching the same type of students; Members stated that student achievement gains and classroom evaluations were the top two measures of their work.

“Clearly educators want to be evaluated and compensated just like other professions,” said Beckner. “If teachers want different pay options to reward them for good work, they should have them.”

When teachers were asked about “growth models” for accountability, 81% supported adding a growth model component to NCLB.

A growth model gives credit to teachers and schools for academic gains each student makes from their initial baseline during the school year. This is especially important for teachers working with students who begin the school year several grade levels behind. Most educators agree that this is a more fair and accurate representation of a child's true academic progress.

The majority of teachers – 84% – agree with both the state and federal criteria for Highly Qualified Teacher status.

The responses were not all positive. Teachers believe that it is an unrealistic goal for all students to be on grade level by 2014.

Complete results of the survey, which ended on September 17, can be found at http://www.aaeteachers.org/AAE%20Survey%20October%202007.pdf

Dedicated to the academic and personal growth of every student, the Association of American Educators is the premier educators’ network that advances the teaching profession through teacher advocacy and protection, professional development and promoting excellence in education so that educators receive the respect, recognition and reward they deserve. AAE has members in all 50 states and welcomes professionals from all education entities. www.aaeteachers.org

They are giving schools, teachers and students more reasons than ever--there were already too many--to neglect the humanities, to marginalize the arts, and to skimp on the social sciences. Moreover, they miss at least half of the true wellsprings of American competitiveness, which are not just skills but also knowledge, habits of mind, modes of inquiry, traits of character, among others. (For a longer exposition of this point, see our original essay and the longer Fordham volume that we edited, Beyond the Basics.)

The stir we did not anticipate came from friends worried that we had abandoned results-based accountability, turned against testing, and even declared war on standards.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. We support those important education reforms as ardently as ever. But we're also more mindful than ever of the truism that "what gets tested gets taught" and are alarmed that too narrow a conception of what schools are accountable for, by way of results, yields too narrow a definition of what teachers are responsible for imparting to their pupils. Good tests are efficient ways to determine how well students have learned what the curriculum sets forth. (That's why we admire the Advanced Placement exams, for example.) But bad tests, and an over-emphasis on test results at the expense of solid instruction across a balanced curriculum, can lead to damaging ends. There we stand.

by Chester E. Finn, Jr., Diane Ravitch

Conventional wisdom holds that this landmark law cannot be revamped--though it could probably be extended as is, just to keep the money flowing--absent a fairly broad consensus. Miller and Pelosi could indeed bring a bill before the House and possibly ram it through on a near-straight party line vote (though such a move would likely provoke more Democratic defections than GOP supporters) but it would come unglued in the Senate, where it's essential nowadays to have 60 firm votes for anything controversial. Which this would surely be.

The United States Congress these days is a near-to-dysfunctional institution. It accomplishes little of anything and less of importance. Call me cynical after too many years inside the Beltway but it appears to me that, on any but the most routine matters, lawmakers now act only when at least one of three (overlapping) conditions is met-and not always then. (1) There's a bona fide national crisis (e.g., 9/11, Katrina). (2) There's a huge public outcry. Or (3) there's a full-fledged Washington-style scandal needing to be redressed.

NCLB satisfies none of those conditions. Yes, a flock of educators, a pride of politicians, and a bestiary of policy wonks are unhappy with it, but nobody could claim that a crisis exists. Most people still have scant awareness of it, and there's surely no clamor from the public at large. And it has no Washington-style scandal associated with it. Sure, one could argue that the variability and slackness of state standards is an education scandal, that the unkept promise of public-school choice is a scandal, etc., but that's not the same as saying that someone has walked off with the payroll or is profiteering at children's expense. (To see a true, action-forcing scandal at work, observe what's been happening--and what's been revealed--about college student loans, which may finally lead to reauthorization--four years late--of the Higher Education Act.)

But Congressional dysfunction isn't the whole story. There's also perilously little agreement on what ails NCLB and how to cure it. Indeed, I submit that today there is near-consensus on precisely one point: the desirability of some sort of "growth model" for determining AYP, i.e. the proposition that schools' performance should be judged by examining the additional academic "value" that they add to their pupils rather than (or in addition to) the absolute number of kids reaching a single fixed standard. Here, too, however, even if there's rough agreement at the conceptual level, widespread discord still prevails on just about every element of how growth models should be designed and implemented--and how many places are capable of doing it.

Regarding other aspects of NCLB, there's no shortage of advice. A five foot shelf of books, studies, reports, commission recommendations, etc. is rapidly accumulating. (I plead guilty to having helped contribute half a linear foot or so.) Its very amplitude attests not only to the length and complexity of the law but also to the disputed nature of what, exactly, is awry in NCLB 1.0 and what are the essential attributes of version 2.0. Even more important, underlying all the technical specifics are four immense (my granddaughter would say "hunormous") dilemmas that go to the heart of the matter.

Is NCLB's goal itself naïve and unrealistic? Politicians pledge that no child will be left behind, yet I don't know a single educator who seriously thinks 100 percent of U.S. children can become "proficient" (according to any reasonable definition of that term) by 2014 in reading and math. Indeed, exemptions have already been made for seriously disabled youngsters. In truth, getting American kids from their current 30 percent or so proficient level (using NAEP standards) to 70 or 80 percent would be a remarkable, nation-changing achievement. Yet I can't imagine a lawmaker conceding that this would be worth doing. The first thing hurled back at him would be "which 20 percent of the kids don't matter to you?"

Is the program upside down? It's no surprise that we at Fordham think NCLB 1.0 inverted a fundamental design principle: Congress opted to be tight with regard to means and loose with regard to ends--trusting every state to set its own standards while micro-managing any number of measurement systems and highly prescriptive sequences of school and district interventions. Far better to promulgate a single national standard and assessment system, then trust states, districts and educators to devise their own means of getting there on their own timetables. But half of Congress will recoil in horror from the freedom and flexibility implied therein while the other half will be put off by uniform standards.

Is the architecture usable for this purpose? As Gadfly has noted before, in 1965 it made sense, indeed was practically inevitable, for Uncle Sam to distribute his new education dollars via the traditional structures of state education departments and local school systems. Four decades later, however, the main focus of federal policy is altering the behavior and performance of those very institutions in ways they don't want to be altered (while also still distributing dollars to and through them). It's beyond imagining that the old multi-tiered architecture can satisfactorily handle the new challenges. Yet nobody is thinking creatively about alternative structures by which NCLB's goals might more effectively be pursued.

Can the federal government successfully pull off anything as complex and ambitious as NCLB in so vast and loosely coupled a system as American k-12 education? Unfortunately, the executive branch is as dysfunctional as the legislative. It can't keep our levees strong, our bridges standing, or our airplanes on schedule, much less provide health care to the needy or root out terrorists in our midst. Sure, we ask it to do too much and we're terrible at prioritizing. That said, however, let's face the reality that education is even harder to change because it's so decentralized and so many of its street-level bureaucrats can ignore, veto, or undermine the plans of distant rulemakers.

So long as these monster questions lack agreed-upon answers, I don't see much hope for an NCLB 2.0 that's markedly better than NCLB 1.0.

by Chester E. Finn, Jr.

Las Vegas Review-Journal

Dropout age change worrisome

Critics say new state law might result in more students quitting school

By ANTONIO PLANAS
REVIEW-JOURNAL

Jon Williams was behind in credits at Western High School and knew he wasn't going to make up the work on time to graduate with his classmates.

So instead of sticking it out at Western to catch up on health credits dating back to his freshman year, he enrolled in an adult education program this summer. Now he's on pace to graduate early, in January.

But the option to guide struggling 17-year-old students such as Williams in the Clark County School District to adult education classes instead of keeping them at traditional high schools might soon end.

A new state law passed during the 2007 Legislature increased the age students are legally allowed to drop out of high school to 18 from 17. At least one top state education official said his interpretation of the law is that students who haven't completed their graduation requirements must stay in traditional high schools until 18.

That law has adult education advocates warning that the Legislature's attempt to keep students in school might actually have the opposite effect, and lead to more dropouts or force the students to attend traditional high school an extra year.

"Not everybody fits into a traditional school setting," said Sandra Ransel, principal of the district's Desert Rose Adult High School and Career Center. "The decision to leave high school is a very personal decision. Every kid has a different story. Adult high fills a niche."

About a third of all students who graduated from Desert Rose last school year were 17, Ransel said.

State schools Superintendent Keith Rheault said he is supportive of the new law. But while the district is still enrolling students who are 17 at Desert Rose, Rheault said that practice might soon change.

"We're still working through to see how the new law will affect the district," Rheault said. "What I take from the intent (of the law) is that legislators wanted to keep kids at high schools for a year longer, before their final option, an adult (education) diploma."

Desert Rose, the only adult school in the district, offers classes for 12 hours a day to students 17 and older. Students can earn an Adult Standard Diploma, which is certified by the state.
Assemblywoman Bonnie Parnell, D-Carson City, the main sponsor for the new law, said it was her understanding that the law still would allow 17-year-old students to attend adult education programs and alternative schools.

"This does not say that students have to be in a traditional high school," Parnell said. "What we're concerned about is students are in school until they get their diploma or GED."
Parnell said she's worried that some people think the law at least partially closes the door to students who want to enroll in adult education programs.

"If that's the case, we need to look at that and do something about it," Parnell said.
District statistics indicate that some students are dropping out long before they reach 17.

During the 2005-06 school year, 3,543 students dropped out between their freshman and junior years of high school. During that same year, 1,007 middle school students dropped out.
The new law does allow students who have completed their high school credit requirements to graduate before the age of 18.

District officials don't believe the law will affect the district's dropout and graduation rates, which were 5.9 percent and 60.1 percent in the 2005-06 school year.

Like Parnell, some view keeping students in school an additional year as a positive move.
"It's one more hurdle they have to get past before they drop out," said Joyce Haldeman, the district's executive director of community and government relations.

But there are no assurances the students and their parents will follow the new law. Also, the state is not allocating any additional resources to enforce it.

Michelle Memapan, 18, said she was in and out of high school when she lived in Torrance, Calif. She moved to Las Vegas in December and recently enrolled at Desert Rose.
She said it's her experience that some students just don't succeed in a traditional high school. She hopes the law won't keep students like her from having the option of alternative programs such as adult education.

"Students will drop out with no way of catching up," she said.

Las Vegas Review-Journal

EDITORIAL: In the classroom

Compulsory attendance; administrators as teachers

The Clark County School Board last week moved to put in place a couple of changes approved by the Legislature earlier this year -- one that makes eminent sense, and one that doesn't.
First, the good news.

The board voted unanimously to implement a modest proposal to require that administrators actually spend some time in the classroom.

Under the plan, school district bureaucrats -- including Superintendent Walt Rulffes -- will teach or observe in a classroom for at least a half-day each school year.

No, a half-day isn't much, but it's a start toward recognizing complaints from teachers that administrators are out of touch with the day-to-day realities of the district's operations. And if administrators try to slide on this mandate -- for instance, by showing a video instead of actually trying to engage students -- let's hope teachers blow the whistle.

Predictably, Steve Augspurger of the Clark County Association of School Administrators union -- Question for another day: Why do bosses need a union? -- was whining about the requirement.

"If anybody should be observing classrooms, it should be the legislators who passed this law," he said. "We can't find enough qualified teachers. We can't find enough substitutes. So you exacerbate the problem by having administrators teach who may not have taught in a long time."

Forcing district desk jockeys to spend three hours a year in an actual classroom will cause problems? Boo hoo. Sell it to the rank and file.

Mr. Rulffes said he'd do his part, entering a classroom to teach algebra or maybe geometry. Perhaps he can concoct a formula to explain the relationship between school spending and student achievement.

Now, the bad news.

In approving the "administrators in the classroom" plan, the board also OK'd a provision raising the compulsory attendance age to 18 from 17. That means a student who hasn't yet completed his senior year in high school couldn't voluntarily leave until he turned 18.

Now, this isn't as bad as the plan floated earlier this year by the National Education Association to force kids to stay in school until the age of 21 -- really -- but it's certainly moving in that direction.

What exactly is the point? To lower the dropout rate? To encourage more students to attend college? Is there any evidence this will work? None that anybody offered to the board on Thursday evening.

And why do we want to clog up classrooms with 17-year-olds who obviously have no desire to be on campus? Is this good for the students who are truly trying to learn? How?
In fact, such students can cause disruptions that sidetrack teachers and distract other students.

Kids are already held in captivity by the public school system for 11 years. If the district hasn't succeeded by then in equipping a student with the basics he needs to survive in the real world, what good is another year going to do?

If this proposal is about easing the dropout rate or some other policy goal, it's doomed to failure. If it's a way for the district to secure funding by keeping more butts in the seats, it's shameful.

By Jean-Paul Renaud | South Florida Sun-Sentinel

September 7, 2007

Broward County teachers today are voting on a contract that more generously rewards the top union officials who negotiated it than rank and file educators.

If it is approved, about two-thirds of Broward's 17,000 public school teachers will receive raises of 5 percent or less. The most substantial increases, as high as 17 percent, will go to the most senior teachers — less than a third of Broward's educators.

In contrast, more than two-thirds of the 22-member Broward Teachers Union executive board, which negotiated the contract, have the seniority to qualify for the most generous raises, records show.

"I'm not surprised at all because one would assume that the people at the top level are the ones that are on the negotiating team," said School Board member Stephanie Kraft. "I don't think that sounds right. I guess it would be nice if they would look after all the teachers equally."Several board members said the situation, though not unusual for a school district, reflects the power of unions. Some teachers said it shows union leaders are out of touch with the rank and file.

School districts across the state have a complicated system of setting salaries, mostly based on seniority levels that officials call "steps." In Broward, there are 22 steps, and teachers typically do not see substantial pay raises until they reach the 20th level — or their second decade educating children. All salaries are based on 196 days of work and can be increased if teachers obtain additional academic degrees and training.

The executive board of the teachers union helped craft the contract with the school system. The board includes 15 educators with more than two decades of service to the district. Union leaders say their board's makeup is dynamic and diverse, and this year members argued about how to divide the raises.

"It's become much more diverse," said Pat Santeramo, who as union president collects a $150,000 salary. "There are quite a few younger people. They are all very opinionated, similar to the School Board."

Teachers at the beginning and middle of their careers often complain about the salary system.

"Everyone should be taken care of across the board," said Denise Haltrecht, a first-grade teacher at Coconut Palm Elementary in Miramar. "One step should not be neglected over the other. We all work just as hard. Just because you're at year 20 doesn't mean you're working any more than a beginning-year teacher."

On her 13th year as a teacher, Haltrecht and her 467 colleagues on that step will receive a 4 percent raise.

Some School Board members say the system is unfair.

"Everybody should be treated equally," said Chairwoman Beverly Gallagher. "I didn't agree with the step system. But if we don't agree to the steps, then we would be at an impasse and nobody would get anything. Everybody would just be waiting."

But Santeramo said there should be rewards for "longevity, skills, knowledge."

"How we do that could be restructured," he said, adding that the union will sit down with school district officials in the new year to devise a less complicated way of doling out raises.

One person on BTU's board is on step 20. The 419 other teachers on that step will be paid a base salary of $53,377, a 7 percent raise.

Another board member is on step 21, along with 413 other teachers in Broward. Their salaries will jump to $62,677, a 17 percent increase over last year.

And 13 board members are on step 22 and will see their base salaries climb to $70,000 — a 12 percent increase that will make the 4,000 teachers with that seniority among the highest paid in the tri-county area.

"It's just another example of people who are not experiencing what most teachers are experiencing," said Donna Shubert, a kindergarten teacher at McNab Elementary in Pompano Beach. "They have the years in and they're negotiating with their own mind frame."

Shubert has been a teacher for nine years and will receive a 5 percent increase that will raise the salaries of educators on step 9 to $40,980.

Santeramo, however, says the makeup of the union's executive committee has little to do with the way senior teachers are compensated.

"We look at trying to provide a fair and equitable salary for all the employees," he said. "We represent all 17,000 teachers."

One School Board member has a solution for those teachers who think their union doesn't represent them.

"This is a perfect example of why beginning teachers and those that are a few years into their careers need to be more involved and engaged in their union," said Board Member Jennifer Gottlieb.

Jean-Paul Renaud can be reached at jprenaud@sun-sentinel.com or 954-356-4556.

Union Negotiates Pay Raises… For Union Chiefs
Posted on September 14, 2007 at 9:30 am by WTH

I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised when union representatives negotiate themselves bigger raises than they do for their own membership. But, it still rankles every time it happens… and it happens almost every time!

In this case it is the Broward County, Florida teacher’s union that has fenagled a higher raise for the top earners in the District than those at the lower end of the pay scale. It seems they have invented an absurdly complicated “steps” plan (there are 22 of these “steps”) where folks at the low end will forever get smaller raises than folks at the high end. Naturally, the union reps are all at the highest end of the scale.

Big surprise, eh?

Broward Teachers Union negotiates big raises for vets, little for newcomers

“Broward County teachers today are voting on a contract that more generously rewards the top union officials who negotiated it than rank and file educators.

If it is approved, about two-thirds of Broward’s 17,000 public school teachers will receive raises of 5 percent or less. The most substantial increases, as high as 17 percent, will go to the most senior teachers — less than a third of Broward’s educators.”

I thought that unions were all for the ‘little people”? What happened to that whole egalitarian concept that unions claim is their chief motivation?

I guess where it concerns getting raises for union bosses, the little guy will have to wait!

You know, they are only out to “help” you, dontcha?

With Immigrants, Districts Balance Safety, Legalities

By Mary Ann Zehr

Education Week

Amid stepped-up federal efforts to curb illegal immigration, some school districts with large numbers of immigrant students are crafting new policies intended to balance cooperation with federal officials, protection of student privacy, and the safety of students during enforcement operations.

In Albuquerque and Santa Fe, N.M., for example, school personnel are barred from putting information about a child’s immigration status in school records or sharing it with outside agencies, including federal immigration authorities. Personnel are also told to deny any request from immigration officials to enter a school to search for information or seize students. School officials—with the help of lawyers—instead would determine whether to grant access.

Meanwhile, some small communities with an influx of immigrants are weighing how best to respond if children are left stranded at school because family members have been detained in an immigration raid.

“There are schools with a high number of undocumented workers in their communities who are having to react to these issues, … whether it’s children being left without parents or [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement] workers trying to get information from the schools,” said Cullen Casey, a lawyer for the National School Boards Association.

Making that task even more complex is the landmark 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Plyler v. Doe, in which the court ruled that children are entitled to receive a free public K-12 education in this country regardless of their immigration status.

That means, said Mr. Casey, that school officials are prohibited from asking for documentation of parents’ or students’ legal status in the United States, such as asking for Social Security numbers. Instead, they are allowed to ask about a student’s residency in a school district, which can be proved with a utility bill.

But Mr. Casey also warned that schools are not a sanctuary for undocumented students because in a school, as anywhere else, anyone could make a phone call to immigration authorities and report information about a particular person’s legal status.

Although the government has no official estimate of the number of undocumented children in schools, the Pew Hispanic Center, a nonprofit research organization in Washington, estimates that about 1.8 million children in the nation are undocumented.

Increased Enforcement

What seems to be a given is that increased federal enforcement of immigration laws will continue. Illegal immigration has heated up as a political issue over the past year or so, and President Bush, U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, and Julie L. Myers, the assistant secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, an arm of the Homeland Security Department, have all said that enforcement is a priority.

In fiscal 2006, which ended last Sept. 30, immigration officials arrested 3,667 people in workplace enforcement actions. This year, by the end of July, federal officials had already nearly matched that number of arrests, with two months to go in fiscal 2007.

Enforcement Rules On School Grounds

In a legal settlement, the Albuquerque, N.M., public schools adopted a policy last year on how to provide “safe schools” for immigrant students.

DISTRICT POLICY

“Any communication to an immigration agency or official initiated by a school or school personnel concerning any student in reference to his or her real or perceived immigration status is prohibited.”

“Any request by immigration officials for consent to enter a school to search for information or to seize students shall initially be denied and immediately conveyed to the school principal and/or the superintendent’s office.”

FEDERAL POLICIES

Excerpt from U.S. Border Patrol Handbook

“Policy requires written approval from the chief patrol agent or the deputy chief patrol agent prior to any enforcement-related activities at schools or places of worship. ...”
Excerpt from policy of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
“Arresting fugitives at schools, hospitals, or places of worship is strongly discouraged, unless the alien poses an immediate threat to national security or the community.”
SOURCE: Albuquerque Public Schools

“The very vulnerabilities that people use to get into this country … to take an identity to get work—all of that means vulnerability to the security of the United States,” said Pat A. Reilly, a spokeswoman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE.

Ms. Reilly said ICE agents are not interested in arresting minors but rather in going after “criminal-document users, identity-theft people, and employers and front-line supervisors whom we can prove knowingly hired illegal aliens and make it part of their business plan.”
She said that schools shouldn’t have to create special plans to care for children whose parents might be detained because, if a parent is arrested and says that he or she is the sole caregiver for a child or elderly person, federal officials release that person to go home and appear later in court.

But Steve Joel, the superintendent of the 8,000-student Grand Island school system in Nebraska, said that when ICE officials arrested undocumented people at a meatpacking plant in his community last December, he and his staff had to figure out what to do with 25 children who had had both parents detained.

When federal officials asked mothers who had been arrested if they had children at home, Mr. Joel said, “they would say no, because they didn’t want their children arrested.”

Dec. 12 turned out to be a very hectic day for Mr. Joel: He held several press conferences, and worked with school staff members to make sure that every child had a safe place to go after school. By 8 p.m., he said, a handful of children were still at school without a ride. In that case, Mr. Joel said, school officials put them in their own cars and drove them to the homes of relatives.

It’s that part of the response that has Mr. Joel—and his school system’s lawyer—concerned. “We have big-time liability if we put kids in our cars,” Mr. Joel recalled the lawyer telling him.

The raid in Grand Island prompted Robin R. Stevens, the superintendent of the 1,600-student school system in Schuyler, Neb., 100 miles northeast of Grand Island, to start planning for a response in the event of an immigration raid. Like Grand Island, Schuyler has a meatpacking plant that employs some students’ parents.

“We’re trying to be proactive and come up with a plan that will be in place that we’ll never have to use,” Mr. Stevens said. “We will emphasize from the get-go that [during an immigration raid] the safest place for those kids to be if they are in school is to remain in school.” He said the school district’s crisis team and safety committee are involved in making the plan.

Schools and Border Patrol

In Albuquerque, the “safe schools” policy addressing immigration issues resulted from a lawsuit involving Border Patrol agents, who work for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, a branch of the Homeland Security Department that is separate from ICE. Before the creation of the department, Border Patrol agents worked for what was then the Immigration and Naturalization Service, or INS.

Border Patrol agents are required to get prior approval from a supervisor before taking any enforcement action on school grounds. That requirement stems from a 1992 federal court ruling, in Murillo v. Musegades , in which a judge gave the El Paso, Texas, school system a temporary restraining order against INS agents who school officials claimed were intimidating students on school grounds. The Border Patrol issued a memo in 1993 stating that enforcement operations at schools by its agents had to be approved in advance by supervisors.
But in 2004, Border Patrol agents violated that policy in Albuquerque, said David H. Urias, a staff lawyer for the San Antonio office of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which later sued the agency, the school district, and the Albuquerque Police Department.

Two Albuquerque police officers who were assigned to work in public schools stopped and detained two boys—Sergio Gonzalez and Ruben Tarango—on the campus of their school, Del Norte High School, according to the lawsuit. They asked for identification, which one student did not have.

The police officers called Border Patrol agents, and an agent arrived on campus and questioned the two boys, the lawsuit stated. The suit went on to say that a Border Patrol agent then “unlawfully seized” Carlos Gonzalez, Sergio’s brother, who was pulled from class.
The MALDEF lawsuit, Gonzalez v. Albuquerque Public Schools, claimed that the boys’ rights had been violated.

All three boys, who were undocumented, agreed to return voluntarily to Mexico. But before they left the United States, MALDEF negotiated for them to stay. Currently, Sergio Gonzalez is a permanent legal resident, and Carlos Gonzalez has permission from the federal government, negotiated by MALDEF, to finish high school in the United States, according to Mr. Urias. The third youth eventually returned to Mexico.

The 89,000-student Albuquerque district settled with MALDEF last year and agreed to the new policy concerning immigrant students. Before that agreement, “I’m not sure there were clear lines of delineation on who could do what,” said Eduardo B. Soto, an associate superintendent for the school system. “Now it is clear.”

Last month, the Albuquerque Police Department reached its own settlement with MALDEF, agreeing to a new policy barring officers from “stopping, questioning, detaining, investigating, or arresting minor children (under 18 years old) on any immigration-related matter while on or immediately in the vicinity of public school grounds or property.” The policy also says that police officers are prohibited from assisting others in detaining or questioning children on immigration-related matters.

Other Incidents

The 12,000-student Santa Fe school system in June adopted a policy similar to Albuquerque’s, after a March 22 incident in which ICE agents arrested an undocumented man in a school parking lot when he was picking up his 4th grade daughter.

Theresa M. Ulibarri, the principal of Chaparral Elementary School in Santa Fe, where the incident took place, said the new procedures would give her more confidence in handling such a situation should it arise again.

“When you are presented with state police officers, ICE officers, you think it’s the government and they know the rules better than you do—that I should present them with what they are asking for,” Ms. Ulibarri said.

Now, she knows that she can insist that law-enforcement officials follow certain procedures. “I would make sure that they would need to reveal their identity, and not just with a flash of the badge,” she said. “I would make sure the child is safe. Not all police officers are tactful when dealing with children. I would ask to be present.”

Michael A. Olivas, a law professor at the University of Houston who is a MALDEF board member and helped draft the Albuquerque policy, said he is wary, however, about the prospect of a formal policy in every school district with a lot of immigrant students.

“Common sense would tell you that your training [for school personnel] ought to alert them to what the basic issues are,” he said. “You don’t need to codify this. … There ought to be basic do-no-harm rules.”

But in Albuquerque, said Rachel LaZar, the director of El Centro de Igualdad y Derechos, an immigrant-rights and advocacy organization there, the policy is needed not only because of “past mistakes,” but also because “there is an increased presence of federal immigration officials in our communities, and that’s having a chilling effect on parents and children in feeling they can access education.”

She added: “This is a policy that clarifies a protocol to staff, teachers, principals, and administrators. It sends a message to the community that their school is a safe place for all students.”

High-Achieving Students From Lower-Income Families Fall Behind, Study Finds

By Catherine Gewertz

Education Week

The educational accountability movement’s keen focus on bringing all students to academic proficiency risks leaving behind a group of particularly promising students: high-achieving children from lower-income families, a report released today contends.

The study analyzes national data to track the school performance of about 3.4 million K-12 children who come from households with incomes below the national median but score in the top quartile on nationally normed tests. It finds that they start school with weaker academic skills and are less likely to flourish over the years in school than their peers from better-off families.

Civic Enterprises LLC, a Washington-based research and public-policy group, and the Lansdowne, Va.-based Jack Kent Cooke Foundation, which co-produced the “Achievement Trap” study, urged researchers and policymakers to better understand the dynamics that allow high-achieving, lower-income children to fall behind, and to focus concerted attention on ways to help them.

“By reversing the downward trajectory of their educational achievement, we will not only improve their lives but strengthen our nation by unleashing the potential of literally millions of young people who could be making great contributions to our communities and country,” the report says.

The report’s release coincided with testimony by one of its authors before the education committee of the U.S. House of Representatives on possible revisions to the No Child Left Behind Act. Joshua S. Wyner, the Jack Kent Cooke Foundation’s executive vice president, urged federal lawmakers to broaden the law’s focus so that schools are held accountable for improving the performance of higher-achieving as well as lower-achieving students.

Hobbled From the Start

Higher-achieving children from lower-income families enter school with a disadvantage that shows up in their national test scores, the report says. More than 70 percent of 1st graders who score in the top quartile are from higher-income families, and fewer than three in 10 are from lower-income families.

In the ensuing years, the higher-achieving lower-income children are more likely to lose ground, according to the study. For instance, 44 percent fall out of the top quartile in reading between the 1st and 5th grades, compared with 31 percent of high achievers whose family income is above the national median, which was $48,200 in 2006, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
They are also more likely to drop out of high school or not graduate on time than those from economically better-off families, the study found. The difference persists through college and graduate school, with lower-income students less likely to attend the most selective colleges or to graduate.

The report does offer some optimistic notes. Of the higher-achieving students, it says, 93 percent of those from lower-income families, and 97 percent of those from higher-income families, graduate from high school in four years. Those rates are much better than the 70 percent of all students on average that researchers estimate get their diplomas on time. But the data still show too many “unrelenting inequities” that harm the prospects of capable children from lower-income families, the authors say.

The data also suggest the distance still to be traveled in understanding and addressing the dynamics in racial achievement gaps.

Among lower-income students, Asians showed a significantly better chance of staying in the top quartile in math during high school than did other students, and African-American students were the least likely group to rise into that top tier in reading or math, according to the report.
Michelle M. Fine, a professor of social psychology and urban education at the City University of New York, said she welcomed the examination of how economic class can affect children’s education. But addressing the needs of all disadvantaged children, she said, entails a more nuanced examination of how race and class intersect to influence their performance.

“Something is clearly working for those lower-income Asian kids that isn’t working for the lower-income black kids,” she said, referring to the racial-performance breakdowns among lower-income students in the report. “A class-only analysis isn’t going to give us the whole picture.”
Solutions must go beyond the policy thrust advocated in the study, she said, to systemic improvements in districtwide school financing, equitable distribution of highly skilled teachers, and access to quality preschool.

House Plan Embraces Subjects Viewed as Neglected

By Kathleen Kennedy Manzo

Education Week

Advocates for broadening the curriculum hope a draft House proposal for reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act will give a boost to history, art, music, and other subjects that they believe have been marginalized in many districts under the 5½-year-old federal law.
The draft of changes to Part A of the Title I program , released by Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., Rep. Howard P. “Buck” McKeon, RCalif., and key colleagues late last month, features potential incentives for states to test students in core subjects other than those now required—mathematics, reading, and, beginning this school year, science.

“It’s a good start … and encouraging that Congressmen Miller and McKeon are showing sensitivity to the criticism that there has been a narrowing of the curriculum” under No Child Left Behind, said Jack Jennings, the president of the Center on Education Policy, and a former aide to House Democrats. “If school districts can include testing in other subjects [in gauging how well their schools are doing], it allows them to pay more attention to those other areas.”

A report released in July by the CEP, a research and advocacy organization based in Washington, found that most districts have significantly increased instructional time in reading and math in the hope of improving student achievement and helping schools meet goals for adequate yearly progress, or AYP, under the federal law. The law requires testing in those two subjects annually in grades 3-8 and once during high school.

As a result of that emphasis, nearly half the nation’s school districts pared down instructional time in other critical subjects by more than two hours each week, according to the report. ("Survey: Subjects Trimmed To Boost Math and Reading," Aug. 1, 2007.)
Other surveys and reports have confirmed that trend.

Grants and Measures
The preliminary House Education and Labor Committee plan would allow states to include student scores from state tests in history and other subjects as additional measures of how schools were performing. Those test scores would be given a fraction of the weight of math and reading results in determining AYP. The use of multiple measures would give states more information on school performance, said Mr. Miller, the chairman of the committee, whose ranking Republican is Mr. McKeon.

“We address the question that’s been raised, … whether NCLB is driving the narrowing of curriculum by school districts responding [to the law] simply by teaching to the test,” Mr. Miller said in a conference call with reporters last week. “Instead of using one multiple-choice test on one day,” he said, “we ought to allow schools to provide additional information that would give a more comprehensive and accurate picture of how schools are doing.”

The discussion draft also proposes a grant program for districts to strengthen instruction in “music and arts, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, history, geography, and physical education and health as an integral part of the elementary and secondary school curriculum.” It does not specify funding levels or say how many grants would be available.
According to Martin West, a professor of education at Brown University in Providence, R.I., who has studied the impact of the NCLB law and state tests on the school curriculum, the prospective grants would likely be less of an inducement to enhancing state testing programs than the multiple-measures provision.

“The testing proposal is potentially important to states that might want to consider testing in other subjects,” he said, “because doing so under the current NCLB creates a divergence between the state system and federal system.” The Miller-McKeon draft plan “would remove an important disincentive,” Mr.West said.

Some educators said they were encouraged by the plan.
“The notion that only very practical training equips you to deal with life and the world that we live in goes against every educational tradition for thousands of years,” said Theodore K. Rabb, a professor emeritus of world history at Princeton University and board chairman of the National Council for History Education, in Westlake, Ohio. Mr. Rabb asked the council’s membership this past summer to write Congress about their concerns over reductions in history education.
“This proposal is the most encouraging single thing that has happened lately,” he said, “that [lawmakers] are beginning to realize that there is a problem.”

Debate Over Merit Pay Heats Up

By The Associated Press in Teacher Magazine

Washington

The head of the nation's largest teacher's union and a top House Democrat had a testy exchange Monday over the inclusion of merit pay in an updated version of the No Child Left Behind education law.

California Rep. George Miller, chairman of the House education committee, criticized National Education Association President Reg Weaver for rejecting the merit-pay proposal.
The exchange occurred during a hearing into the renewal of the five-year-old education law, which requires annual testing in reading and math and imposes sanctions on schools that fail to hit progress goals.

Miller included the teacher pay plan in draft legislation circulating on Capitol Hill.
The proposal would give bonuses, worth up to $10,000 in most cases, to "outstanding" teachers. The proposal doesn't spell out who would be eligible for the extra money but says raising student test scores must be a factor.

Weaver said that level of detail should be bargained locally, not spelled out by Congress. The NEA has long opposed linking individual student scores to teachers' pay, though many local teachers unions across the country are agreeing to such proposals. Most notable is a popular plan in Denver.

Miller noted that Weaver previously supported teacher-related legislation that included the same merit-pay proposal, but Weaver said the union gave general support for that overall bill, not the pay plan specifically.

That nuance didn't sit well with Miller. Growing visibly angry, he said: "You can dance all around you want. You approved the language."

The union, which has more than 3 million members, is actively lobbying against the draft legislation. The union is influential, particularly with Democrats who often benefit from the NEA's political backing.

"Our members are united and will stand firm in our advocacy for a bill that supports good teaching and learning and takes far greater steps toward creating great public schools for every child," Weaver said during the hearing.

The draft bill also would change the law to allow schools to get credit for tests in subjects other than math and reading. And it would measure the performance of individual students over time rather than comparing the scores of students in a certain grade to students in that grade the year before, a change that is generally popular.

Miller said he hopes the full House will take up the renewal of the law this fall. Senate lawmakers also are in the process of writing legislation.

Virtual Schools Growing

By The Associated Press in Teacher Magazine

TALLAHASSEE, Fla.

As a seventh-grader, Kelsey-Anne Hizer was getting mostly D's and F's and felt the teachers at her Ocala middle school were not giving her the help she needed.

But after switching to a virtual school for eighth grade, Kelsey-Anne is receiving more individual attention and making A's and B's. She's also enthusiastic about learning, even though she has never been in the same room as her teachers.

Kelsey-Anne became part of a growing national trend when she transferred to Orlando-based Florida Virtual School. Students get their lessons online and communicate with their teachers and each other through chat rooms, e-mail, telephone and instant messaging.

"It's more one-on-one than regular school," Kelsey-Anne said. "It's more they're there; they're listening."

Virtual learning is becoming ubiquitous at colleges and universities but remains in its infancy at the elementary and secondary level, where skeptics have questioned its cost and effect on children's socialization.

However, virtual schools are growing fast — at an annual rate of about 25 percent. There are 25 statewide or state-led programs and more than 170 virtual charter schools across the nation, according to the North American Council for Online Learning.

Estimates of elementary and secondary students taking virtual classes range from 500,000 to 1 million nationally compared to total public school enrollment of about 50 million.

Online learning is used as an alternative for summer school and for students who need remedial help, are disabled, being home schooled or suspended for behavioral problems. It also can help avoid overcrowding in traditional classrooms and provide courses that local schools, often rural or inner-city, do not offer.

Advocates say those niche functions are fine, but that virtual learning has almost unlimited potential. Many envision a blending of virtual and traditional learning.

"We hope that it becomes just another piece of our public schools' day rather than still this thing over here that we're all trying to figure out," said Julie Young, Florida Virtual's president and CEO.

Florida Virtual is one of the nation's oldest and largest online schools, with more than 55,000 students in Florida and around the world, most of them part-time. Its motto is "Any Time, Any Place, Any Path, Any Pace."

Struggling students such as Kelsey-Anne, who suffers from attention deficit disorder, can take more time to finish courses while those who are gifted can go at a faster speed.

Casey Hutcheson, 17, finished English and geometry online in the time it would have taken to complete just one of those courses at his regular high school in Tallahassee.
"I like working by myself because of no distractions, and I can go at my own pace rather than going at the teacher's pace," he said.

For all its potential, virtual schooling has its critics and skeptics.

"There is something to be said for having kids in a social situation learning how to interact in society," said state Rep. Shelley Vana. "I don't think you get that if you're at home."

But virtual students get a different kind of social experience that is just as valuable, said Susan Patrick, president and CEO of the North American Council for Online Learning in Vienna, Va.
"We should socialize them for the world that they live in," she said, suggesting that people spend much of their time interacting via computer these days.

Many policymakers approach virtual learning with dollar signs in their eyes, expecting big savings from schools that do not need buildings, buses and other traditional infrastructure.
"We should not, as stewards of public money, be automatically paying the same or even close to the same amount of money for a virtual school day as we pay for a conventional school day," said Florida Senate Education Committee Chairman Don Gaetz.

Florida Virtual this year is slated to get $6,682 for every full-time equivalent student, just slightly less than the average of $7,306 for all of the state's public schools. Young said her school has expenses that traditional schools do not.

"Our data infrastructure is our building," she said.

Teacher unions have opposed spending public dollars on some virtual schools, mainly those that are privately operated or function as charter schools.

Indiana lawmakers this year refused to fund virtual charter schools. Opponents argued they are unproven and would have siphoned millions of dollars from traditional public schools.

Florida Virtual's Young said she plans to recommend that her state follow the example of Michigan, which passed a requirement that students complete some type of online experience to earn a high school diploma.

If "we do not give them an opportunity to take an online course, we're doing them a tremendous disservice," she said. "It's become the way of the world."

Teamsters Assist CCEA Drop

Several teachers have indicated that they missed the
open window to drop CCEA. Since CCEA does not actively
advertise this open window, it seems only fair
teachers should be given another chance to drop. While
CCEA spent thousands of dollars recruiting new
teachers, they neglected to tell them that as a
probationary teacher they can’t really represent them.
They also failed to notify new members and old of the
fact that dues are increasing. The Teamsters feel this
is a travesty and are willing to assist teachers in
dropping from CCEA.

Any teacher wishing to drop simply send an e-mail
indicating their desire to drop and Teamsters is
providing a lawyer to handle the case. Free of charge
to teachers, nope, you don’t even have to sign an
Authorization Card. We would prefer you did, but this
is too important and we feel this is a just cause.

Go to the Teachers4Change website to complete this
email.

We have also heard that some teachers who dropped
their membership in CCEA are still having their dues
taken from their paychecks. These folks need to send
Ron Taylor (at the T4C website) an email.....

Don't forget the Open House at the Teamsters Hall on
Saturday, September 15..... Many folks have questions
regarding the the Health Trust...... Be there!!!!!

Ken
CCTL Moderator

Sep 06, 2007 by Julie Rose

(KCPW News) The top education official in the nation continues to use Utah's public school system as evidence that No Child Left Behind is necessary. In a speech yesterday, Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings suggested that Utah officials oppose No Child Left Behind because it judges the state's public schools too harshly.

Associate State Superintendent Brenda Hales bristles: "Every state has a unique population and unique challenges," says Hales. "That's where you get in to trouble - when you have big government trying to dictate how states should perform. It almost becomes a 'Big Brother' situation."

Utah education officials and lawmakers have been vocal in their disdain for federal education mandates found in No Child Left Behind. Secretary Spellings yesterday said states need to embrace the goals of the law rather than making excuses for why it won't work. Hales says the basic goal of improving student performance is worthy.

But Utah officials take issue with the federal government claiming it knows best: "We've always felt like No Child Left Behind's goals are meaningful and essential, but how we meet them should be decided on a state level," says Hales.

Low-income and minority students in Utah continue to lag in basic skills, but Hales says the state is working to address the gap. Federal officials have denied many of Utah's requests for flexibility in how it qualifies teachers and handles school testing.

Utah Congressman Rob Bishop has vowed to fight reauthorization and revisions of No Child Left Behind set for debate next year.

It has been reported that Teamsters representatives were handing out organizational/campaigning materials at one of our New Teacher Orientations. It is inappropriate for any labor organization to engage in campaigning activities on District property during District time, the representatives were directed to immediately case and desist. CCEA has since asked for confirmation that the District will prohibit such conduct now and in the future, and that confirmation has been given. Please make sure everyone with supervisory responsibility over personnel and/or District facilities knows that the District cannot and will not allow any labor organization campaigning activities on District property during District time.

CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT

LEGAL OFFICE

INTRA-OFFICE COMMUNICATION

August 30, 2007

To: Executive Cabinet

From: Bill Hoffman

Subject: Collective Bargaining Campaign Activities
__________________________________
I am informed that the incumbent bargaining agent which represents District licensed personnel is being challenged by at least one other bargaining agent to become the recognized bargaining agent. It appears that campaign activities are occurring in some school sites. Please distribute the following memo, which discusses campaign activities, to appropriate administrators:

1. Pursuant to Article 2-1 of the existing collectively bargained agreement (CBA) between the District and the Clark County Education Association, the Association is the exclusive representative of all licensed personnel employed by the District. The District may not condone or approve of practices which would undermine CCEA’s exclusive rights of representation.

2. Article 7 of the CBA grants to the CCEA specific contractual rights regarding the use of School District facilities which are not available to other persons, entities, businesses or non-recognized labor organizations.

The District has the right to restrict the use of its facilities in a manner consistent with the CBA and the District’s Policies and Regulations.

a. School Mailboxes, Interschool Mail Service, and Faculty Bulletin Boards. The Association shall have the use of school mailboxes and the inter-school mail service for the distribution of non-defamatory and non-campaign related material initiated by the Association. The Association shall have the use of faculty bulletin boards for posting of non-defamatory materials and non-campaign related materials.

Copies of all materials shall be given to the building principal. The material will be clearly identified and the

Association accepts the liability for such material.

District teachers shall be permitted use of School District mail services for district-related business, but not for campaign related materials. School facsimile machines and copiers may only be used for district-related business, but not for campaign related materials. School mailboxes, mail services, and faculty bulletin boards may not be used for campaign purposes.

b. InterAct. The Association, the Teachers’ Health Trust, and the CCEA Community Foundation shall have the use of the District’s electronic bulletin board/messaging system through InterAct for posting of non-defamatory and noncampaign related materials. In addition, there shall be a link through InterAct to the Association’s website. This link may not be used for purposes of soliciting membership.

Messages, materials and announcements posted on InterAct must be approved in advance by the Associate Superintendent, Human Resources Division, or her designee. InterAct may not be used for campaign purposes.

c. Facilities. The Association shall be allowed the use of school buildings and premises for association meetings and activities on regular school days as long as arrangements have been made with the principal of the building. Such activities shall not conflict with any regular or special educational activities and shall not involve additional or extra custodial services and/or other unusual expenses to the School District. Use of the buildings on other than school days requires the approval of the Superintendent in addition to the school principal. Any added expense resulting from the Association use shall be paid by the Association. Individual teachers will not be prohibited from the responsible use of the school facilities.

3. Access by non-employee representatives for purposes of campaigning. As a general proposition, the District may refuse to allow non-employee representatives from nonrecognized union organizations to have access to District property, provided there is an adequate opportunity for organizers to contact employees without entering District “Non-working time” means break times and duty-free lunch 1 periods as well as those periods of time before work and after work.

“Non working areas” means areas where employees are not 2 performing duties associated with their employment, for example, the teachers’ lounge and school parking lots.

Written by former Senate education staffer and journalist Alexander Russo, This Week in Education covers education news, policymakers, and trends with a distinctly political edge.

September 6, 2007

Spellings Letter; Teacher Quality Draft Later Today

Thanks to the Ed Trust, here's a PDF of the Spellings letter to Miller that she promised yesterday, listing problems she and others have with the M&M discussion draft. Speaking of which, Miller said that Title II and the rest would be posted sometime today, which will help us see whether the teacher quality elements of NCLB are going to be strengthened or -- is such a thing possible? -- weakened. (There's a nod to teacher quality in the form of an attempt to close the equitability loophole in Miller's Title I proposal, according to EdWeek's David Hoff, but if they couldn't do that in 2001 they don't seem likely to take care of it now.)

Weighing Miller's NCLB Proposal

Three different takes on how Cong. Miller's proposal is going over. Compare and contrast:

'No Child' Loopholes Decried Washington Post

Should suburban schools that barely miss federal learning targets be allowed to escape penalties, while inner-city schools that never even hit the dart board are required to give free tutoring and let students transfer to better schools?

Secretary of Education Criticizes Proposal NYT

The education secretary criticized a Congressional proposal to soften provisions of the President’s Bush signature education law.

Spellings Criticizes No Child Proposals AP

The administration and congressional lawmakers agree on one key change. They want schools to measure the performance of individual students over time rather than comparing the scores of students in a certain grade to students in that grade the year before.

New NCLB Bill "Isn't Wonkery," Says Chairman Miller;
Criticisms Are "Hokum"

The public mud-slinging between Spellings and Miller is really heating up. Makes you wonder what they say about each other behind closed doors. And, substantively, it bodes poorly for a strengthening of the current NCLB law.

Responding to Spellings' criticisms read to him by USA Today's Greg Toppo at a conference call with reporters today, Chairman Miller said that what he's trying to do with NCLB isn't just "wonkery" (as Spellings describes it) but rather much-needed changes to an imperfect law. "I know she wants to add confusion and doesn't like the debate," said Miller of Spellings. He also repeatedly mocked the "99.9 percent pure" claim Spellings once made (fire the writer who came up with that one), and called claims that multiple measures would muck up accountability "hokum."

Obviously, Miller's got to do what he's got to do, and -- this sentence is already so vague -- is going to go ahead and do it. But still it's sad to hear him denounce the current NCLB system which he created and defended for so long, now using much the same language as his detractors had (ie, a single test on a single day determining AYP). Such is politics. Somewhere, Joel Packer is smiling.

Help with test may lead to suspensions

Teachers would get five days for reading questions to students

By Emily Richmond

Las Vegas Sun

Apparently believing their students were being set up to fail, two Clark County special education teachers refused to follow testing regulations and instead read aloud the questions on a statewide reading exam.

The state education department has recommended the teachers each be suspended for five days, even though Keith Rheault, Nevada's superintendent of public instruction, originally wanted them suspended for 30 days.

The incident took place March 22 at Doris French Elementary School during a standardized test used to measure student progress, as required by the federal No Child Left Behind Act. Schools that score poorly face progressively harsher penalties.

The suspensions must be approved by the State Board of Education, which oversees teacher licensing issues. Darrin Purana, assistant director of employee-management relations for the Clark County School District, said he could not discuss the specifics of the incident at French. However, his office conducts its own investigation when this type of situation arise s , and teachers can face penalties at the district level as well, Purana said.

Rheault said he supported the scaled-back sanctions after taking a closer look at the circumstances. He said it's possible the teachers were trying to spare the students from what was perceived as an unreasonable demand for performance, rather than attempting to inflate test scores.

Although the U.S. Education Department has expanded the list of how students with special needs can be accommodated in testing, teachers say the questions are still beyond the grasp of many of their pupils. Students not fluent in English also struggle with the tests.

In cases similar to what happened at French, teachers' actions, although misguided, are often an "act of caring," said Sue Daellenbach, testing director for the Clark County School District.
"Taking these tests can be a stressful thing for students, particularly those who are severely disabled," Daellenbach said. "Teachers are by nature caring people, and it's a tough thing to have to watch your kids struggle. But even if you think you're helping your student, you still have to follow the law."

At French, "the teachers admitted they were aware it is not permissible to read a reading test aloud, but believed they were acting in the best interest of the students," according to a state report summarizing the incident.

In addition to the suspensions, the state recommended a letter of admonition be placed in each teacher's personnel file.

The names of the teachers involved were not released by the district. Three other Nevada teachers were charged with improperly helping students with tests during the 2006-07 school year. Two teachers received 30-day suspensions, and the remaining case is to be heard next week.

For cheaters, iPods are playing their song

Students use devices to save answers, data for exam day, state report says

By Emily Richmond

Las Vegas Sun

Move over, cell phones and calculators. There's a new device joining the list of banned items for Nevada's test-taking students - the iPod.

The usual suspects - cell phones, passed notes and the good ol' peek over the shoulder - still lead the list of cheating techniques.

But the state education department's annual report on testing improprieties for the first time includes incidents of students sneaking iPods into exams. In some cases teachers allowed the devices to be used, apparently unaware they could help student s cheat.

"Kids are getting clever, aren't they?" said Sue Daellenbach, testing director for the Clark County School District.

Keith Rheault, Nevada's superintendent of instruction, said iPods may not seem like an obvious choice for cheaters. But "you can put anything on those things," Rheault said, including audio recordings of class lectures, recitations of mathematical formulas or other content that could help a student answer questions on an exam.

The report itemizes all testing mishaps and cheating reported by schools on the high school proficiency exams and standardized tests given in grades three through eight. The tests are used in part to measure student progress under the federal No Child Left Behind Act. Students must pass the high school proficiency exam to graduate.

For the 2006-07 academic year, more than 300,000 students were tested at more than 600 locations. There were 130 reported irregularities, such as missing answer sheets, a 10 percent drop from the prior year.

The total includes 47 incidents of students cheating, a slight increase over the prior academic year but more than double the 23 incidents reported in 2004-05. Educators say the cheating figures for the past two years can be considered a trend, even though the raw numbers are low in the context of the number of tests taken.

Rheault said he wants schools to tackle the largest source s of problems - cheating with electronic devices, and teachers misunderstanding what kinds of extra help they are allowed to give students with special needs.

"We're still getting a lot of teachers who either didn't provide accommodations when they could have, or provided them when they shouldn't have," Rheault said.

Part of the problem is that Clark County, which accounts for about 70 percent of the state's K-12 students, has to train more than 2,000 new teachers annually in proper testing procedures and policy.

"There's a constant learning curve," Daellenbach said. "Even with the best training , there are going to be schools that have someone doing something for the first time, and there are going to be human errors."

Among the reported incidents:

• At an alternative high school in Carson City, a teacher's cell phone rang during the math proficiency test . He left the room to take the call. When later questioned, 15 students admitted either cheating or using their cell phones during his absence. The tests were invalidated.

• At Churchill County High School, two students turned in identical answer sheets on the math proficiency test after helping each other with the answers. They were also permitted to listen to their iPods during the exam.

• At the Clark County School District's Community College West High School, a student was observed using his cell phone during the 11th grade writing proficiency test. The student later admitted using the phone to look up a vocabulary word.

• Testing at four schools was interrupted by fire alarms. Three may have been caused by pranksters, but at Mt. Charleston Elementary School in Nye County, there actually was a fire.

View of Merit Pay Shifting

By The Associated Press
Washington

While the words "merit pay" drew hisses and boos at a recent teachers' union convention, educators are endorsing contracts that pay bonuses for boosting students' test scores.
The National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers oppose linking a teacher's paycheck to how well their students do on tests. But that is not stopping Rob Weil, the AFT's deputy director of educational issues, from helping local unions hammer out contracts that include new merit-pay plans.

"We don't have a message on a board that says, 'Hey, thinking about this?'" he said. But he said the AFT feels obliged to assist chapters that have decided to go that route.

Teachers usually are paid according to a century-old career ladder that rewards seniority and levels of education. The system was designed to ensure fair compensation for women and minorities. The average starting salary today is about $31,000.

"They don't make enough money, especially the good ones—especially the great ones," said Louis Malfaro, the teachers' union president in Austin, Texas, where nine schools are part of a pilot program to overhaul how teachers are paid.

In North Dakota, North Dakota Education Association President Dakota Draper said a merit pay system would be tough to set up, though the association would be willing to look at the idea.

"If you go into any school, the difference in the classrooms can be remarkable," Draper said. "It would be very unfair to base a merit system on test scores."

Jon Martinson, executive director of the North Dakota School Boards Association, said all teacher salaries in the state should be higher because it is becoming more difficult to attract people to the profession. Martinson also said he is frustrated with the traditional pay scale and would like to see more incentives.

"If everybody's on the same pay scale after X number of hours, what's the incentive to be outstanding teachers?" Martinson said. "I support the concept of looking at student test scores as a way to incentivize. When you get into details, that's difficult."

Malfaro said Austin's approach is modeled partly on Denver's, which links salaries to students' test scores and other measures. Malfaro says the Austin effort will expand slowly and be evaluated methodically to avoid the kinds of mistakes made elsewhere.

"Our approach has been a slow, deliberate and steady one," Malfaro said. "This is a highway with wrecked cars all over it."

Florida recently had to retool a merit-pay plan after a large number of districts opted out, citing teacher concerns. A plan in Houston came under criticism because it was put in place over teachers' objections.

Vanderbilt University education professor Jim Guthrie said the involvement of teachers is essential.

"I just put myself in their shoes. All of a sudden you are going to change all the rules and you're not going to talk to me?" said Guthrie, who is assisting districts that got federal grants to implement merit pay.

Weil, the AFT official, said teacher compensation has to be bargained locally. He also said the new plans should make good professional development available to increase the chances that teachers will raise students' achievement.

Union opposition to merit pay stems partly from failed efforts of the 1980s. In those cases, principals generally were given the power to decide who would get the additional dollars.
"They often had no basis of any objective measure of performance," said Susan Moore Johnson, a professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. "So what sometimes happened is there would be different awards made to different individuals and they would become public, and people would be appalled at the individuals who were given the awards or not given the awards."

The 2002 No Child Left Behind law has placed a greater emphasis on using objective data in schools.

The law requires annual math and reading tests. The scores of students in certain grades are compared year to year. Lawmakers want to change the law, which is up for renewal, to encourage schools to measure individual student progress over time instead of using snapshot comparisons of certain grade levels.

Once schools track that, they could look at which teachers consistently are moving students along, say children's advocates. Some places, including Tennessee, already are doing this.

But teachers say many factors affect test scores, including some that are beyond their control; for example, family income and level of parental involvement.

While individual student scores already are tied to teachers' pay in Denver and elsewhere, Austin's program relies on test scores to reward all teachers for school-wide gains.

Johnson, the Harvard professor, said that is fair. "It's becoming clear to do math well, you have to read well. So if students do well in math, do you give that math teacher the bonus? Or do you give that bonus to the reading teacher two years before?"

Malfaro said Austin's approach will encourage teachers to collaborate instead of competing. To further encourage that, some teachers will serve as mentors. As in Denver, principals and teachers will work together to set goals at the start of the year.

"If this is just about making money a different way and isn't about forcing systemwide change, then I think it fails to live up to its potential," Malfaro said. "Then I think it's just going to be one more education fad that kind of came up, got kicked around for a few years, and then faded out. And that would be a shame."

The Austin school board approved more than $4 million annually to fund the pilot program. A districtwide plan would cost at least $30 million annually, which voters would have to approve, Malfaro says.

A study of the pilot program in Denver, before it was expanded, showed that the changes improved student achievement. That probably helped persuade voters to support a $25 million-a-year tax increase to pay for expanding it to the entire school system.

The federal government, foundations and states also are helping finance new teacher-pay programs.

The chairman of the House education committee, Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., says he wants the revised No Child Left Behind law to include money for a new merit-pay effort. Among states, Minnesota is out front on the issue. The Minnesota Legislature passed a law two years ago encouraging districts and teachers to develop new pay plans, partly linked to student test scores.

There is excitement about the change in the three dozen or so districts that have undertaken it, says Randi Kirchner, professional pay systems coordinator for Education Minnesota, a union that operates at the state level.

Kirchner acknowledges some national union leaders do not support pay plans linked to student scores. But she says the Minnesota system is more acceptable than some others because student scores are just one of many measures used and teachers have a strong say in whether the new plans are put in place and what they look like.

"We didn't just sit on the sidelines," she said. "We chose to be actively involved, so Minnesota would have a workable system that focuses on the best ways to improve teaching and learning."

Unwrapping the Gifted

By Tamara Fisher

Tamara Fisher is a K-12 gifted education specialist for a school district located on an Indian reservation in northwestern Montana and president-elect of the Montana Association of Gifted and Talented Education. With Karen Isaacson, she is also co-author of Intelligent Life in the Classroom: Smart Kids and Their Teachers. Her hobbies include drawing, hiking, fourwheeling, and building houses. (She lives in a house she built herself.) In this blog, Fisher discusses news and developments in the gifted education community and offers advice for teachers on working with gifted students.

August 14, 2007
My Yard is Gifted

Rather than begin my blog here at Teacher with the necessaries of who I am and what I'm all about (there's plenty of time for that later), I'd like instead to kick it off with a hopefully-thought-provoking analogy. Given that the anticipation of a new school year is energizing the coming weeks, my aim with this post is simply to generate some timely thought, reflection, discussion, and questions.

Teachers are among the most amazing people I know, and as responses to Jessica's recent "Why do teachers stay" post showed, we all teach for some rather inspiring, optimistic, and altruistic reasons. Teachers are talented, curious, hard working, and very caring. Because of that, I know you are up to the challenge I offer today.

Take a moment and ponder which of your current or former students come to mind as you read the next few paragraphs:

In March of each year, I marvel at my lawn. Unlike most other yards, it remains relatively green throughout the winter (when it is not snow-covered). When spring arrives, and without any prompting from me, it rapidly grows into a lush carpet. I don’t water it. I don’t weed it. I barely manage to mow it (we all know how hectic spring is for teachers!) Yet even lacking my help, my yard is amazingly gorgeous and healthy in springtime. As others struggle to green up their lawns in spring, mine (seemingly) needs no attention.

My yard is gifted. It’s the soil… My neighborhood used to be a dairy farm and my particular lot was a holding pen. The soil beneath my yard is pretty much well-aged manure. No wonder I don’t even have to try and yet still end up with a gorgeous lawn when the snow melts!

I take it for granted, though. As the summer heat comes and I jaunt off around the country to various conferences or to visit relatives, my yard still doesn’t get watered. It still doesn’t get weeded. It still barely gets mowed. And despite the fact that its soil is second-generation manure, the neglect now clearly shows. My lawn isn’t anywhere near what it could be. It DOES need attention; it does need the nurturing I often neglect to give it because I am otherwise occupied or because I think it will be okay without my help.

It is inevitable that we teachers, at one point or another, will have students in our classrooms who somehow ended up with great soil. Academically and intellectually, they often seem to blossom all on their own. They are “where they need to be” (or, more often than not, are well beyond) according to state standards for children their age. With – let’s admit it – sometimes very little effort on the teacher’s part, they learn everything they’re supposed to learn that year, or they already knew it before the year began. They are easily overlooked because it’s a safe bet that they will test as “Proficient,” while so many others are in the danger zone.

I’m not saying that we shouldn’t put forth every effort to help our struggling students. Of course we should! Part of the beauty of America is that we believe in the possibilities within everyone.
And I’m not saying that there are no teachers out there who do their best by the gifted students in their classrooms. There are many, many amazing teachers who do everything they can to challenge the highly capable kids in their charge. And there are many others who want to do what’s right by them, but are at a loss as to where to begin, or are overwhelmed by all of the need in their classrooms and the requirements of their jobs.

But, to generate thought and discussion, I ask: Generally speaking, do we (as a nation, as a profession) put forth every effort to stretch the students who are already “there”? Do we take for granted the fact that some students, without much assistance from us, will be (supposedly) “just fine” academically on their own? Are they really “just fine” or “where they need to be” if we haven’t truly challenged them to stretch and grow academically and intellectually? Do they not deserve to be s t r e t c h e d also? Do they not deserve to learn and grow academically as much as possible, too? Are they really reaching their potential if we haven’t even tried to find how far their potential reaches?

Perhaps I can predict what some of you are wondering: “But where am I going to find the time to challenge those kids when I’m already swamped getting everyone else up to speed?” “But if I move that child ahead in the curriculum, then what will his teacher next year do with him?” “Isn’t it elitist to target only certain students for special learning opportunities?” “If I let her do something ‘special,’ then won’t I have to let all of the other kids do it, too?” “If they are already learning [or already know] what they’re ‘supposed’ to be learning, then why do I have to worry about them?”

This is just one post, and the topics of gifted students and gifted education are too big to cover all at once. We shall get to those concerns, those questions, those issues, too. For now, I only hope to prompt some thinking about the students with great soil, the ones whose lawns are green in winter, the ones whom we believe to be “already where they need to be.” What thoughts, questions, worries, ideas, epiphanies, and concerns do you have in regards to them?

Thank you for joining me and I look forward to interacting with everyone over the course of this year!

Las Vegas Review-Journal

LETTERS: We're losing students in high school

To the editor:

As a high school teacher in the Clark County School District, I read Friday's Review-Journal ("Rulffes hails gains posted by schools") with a mixture of pride and disappointment. It seems that everyone in the school district is so busy patting themselves on the back for meeting the No Child Left Behind Act standards that they've failed to notice an alarming statistic.

Although the elementary schools, and to a lesser degree the middle schools, are doing amazingly well in producing positive results, people have ignored the lackluster progress made by the valley's high schools.

If you discount the magnet high schools -- Vo Tech, Las Vegas Academy, etc. -- and the ones with relatively small populations -- Moapa Valley, Virgin Valley, etc. -- 29 high schools with "normal" populations remain. Of these 29 high schools, only three made adequate yearly progress: Coronado, Liberty and Silverado.

The school district needs to take a hard look to determine why we are losing students as they march through the grades.

One could certainly make the case that smaller schools are better. After all, each one of the small high schools made the grade. That is an interesting statistic.

William Cuff

HENDERSON

July 24, 2007

Lenita Powers

Reno Gazette-Journal
Nevada’s ranking for the well-being of children has improved since last year, but the state also suffers from the worst dropout rate in the nation, a report to be released Wednesday found.

The 2007 Kids Count Data Book, a national report measuring 10 key areas to determine the health and economic prospects of children, ranked Nevada 33rd in the nation, up from 36th last year.

“This data is important because children and youth inherit the future,” said R. Keith Schwer, director of Nevada Kids Count. “So, the question for us is: Are we doing what we should be doing in our stewardship of these children and youths?”

This is the 18th annual Kids Count report issued by the Annie E. Casey Foundation, a Baltimore nonprofit organization that promotes reforms to help vulnerable children and families. The 2007 Kids Count uses comparative data from Nevada and the nation for 2000 and from 2004-05.

Nationally, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Connecticut ranked highest in well-being indicators for children and teens. Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi ranked the lowest.

Kids Count also found “persistent disparities in outcomes for children of color, particularly African Americans,” said Laura Beavers, a Casey Foundation research associate.

Next year, the foundation plans to work toward including state-level data for racial and ethnic groups for its 10 key indicators.

Nevada’s ranking between the 2006 and 2007 reports improved, but since 2000 the state has seen an increase in the percentage of low-birth weight babies and in the percentage of children living in single-parent families or in homes where no parent has full-time, year-round employment. The number of children living in poverty, where a family of four earns below $19,806, also rose by 15 percent.

The worst news: Nevada ranked dead last with the poorest high school dropout rate in the nation.

Nevada school officials question the accuracy of that ranking because it is based on a community survey taken by the Census Bureau that asked 16- to 19-year-olds whether they are still in school or have earned their diplomas. That means dropouts or teenagers who didn’t earn their diplomas who moved from other states would be included in Nevada’s dropout rate, they said.

Since states use different methods to determine their dropout rates, Schwer said Kids Count must use the Census Bureau’s community survey because it is the only consistent measure for the states.

“The problem is Nevada still has a high dropout rate, and that is the fundamental issue,” Schwer said. “The national dropout rate is 7 percent and Nevada is at 11 percent, and that is the dropout rate based on Nevada’s school records.”

The dropout rate in the Washoe County School District was 2.6 percent in 2005-06, Superintendent Paul Dugan said.

“Certainly, you have to question the accuracy of the data, especially with regard to Washoe County School District students; but despite that, I am very concerned about both our dropout and graduation rates,” he said. “While someone may want to argue the methodology being used, the bottom line is there are too many dropouts, and that’s a challenge we can’t ignore.”

Dugan said continued emphasis must be on reading and mathematics, and on the need for teachers and staff to develop closer relationships with students.

“We don’t lose them when they’re 11th-graders,” he said. “We’re losing them long before that, so we need to pay more attention to them when they enter as freshmen.”

Schwer, also director of the Center for Business and Economic Research at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, said Nevada’s rapid growth and migratory population are other factors in its high dropout rate.

“Even though Nevada is not a border state, we have had a large increase in population from outside the country,” he said. “Typically, when you have non-English speakers, you have a higher-than-average dropout rate.”

Nevada also fared better in the national ranking this year compared with 2006 in two other areas. Its teen death rate decreased from 43 nationally to 35, and its teen birth rate decreased from 41 to 39.

Nevada’s teen birth rate among females ages 15-19 improved, decreasing by 19 percent and dropping from 63 births per 1,000 in 2004 for that age group down to 51 per 1,000.

However, while Nevada saw a drop in its teen birth rate, it still ranked 39 in the nation. Schwer said Nevada still ranks poorly for teen births and teen deaths because, although it has improved, it is still below the national average.

“Although there has been substantial improvement over time, the other side of that is there has been greater improvement in other states,” he said. “So from a policy viewpoint, the teen issues — the teen death rate, birth rate, dropout rate — are issues we need to improve.”

Kyle Devine, family health program specialist with Nevada Bureau of Family Health Services, said it’s difficult to compare those rates with other states because of demographic and socioeconomic differences.

“So, to me, it’s not so much about where we rank in the nation,” Devine said. “It’s more about seeing where there is still a problem and how we can work with the communities to help support teens to make healthier choices so we can improve our rates.”

Statistics don’t always tell the human part of the story, either, or how those statistics could one day change.

Maggie Hoffman, 17, had to drop out of high school in Silver Springs after she became pregnant, and she now lives at Casa de Vida in Reno awaiting the birth of her child. After her baby is born, Hoffman said she plans to put him up for adoption and go back to school or join the Job Corps.

“I made some bad choices in life, but I have grown up a little bit more,” she said. “I’d like to get back into the Job Corps and take the culinary program. If that doesn’t work, I want to try to get my GED (general education development). I want to become a chef and someday open my own restaurant.”

Congress Passes ‘Competitiveness’ Bill

By Sean Cavanagh

Education Week
Congress approved legislation Thursday that seeks to bolster mathematics and science education through improved teacher recruitment and training and promote successful classroom practices through federal grants.

The bipartisan legislation, which the House approved by a 367-57 vote and the Senate passed unanimously, had the backing of numerous business and education organizations. Members of Congress have dubbed the proposals, now consolidated into one bill, “competitiveness” legislation, because they believe it will strengthen the quality of the U.S. workforce and gird the American economy against foreign competition.

The bill now goes to President Bush, who lawmakers believe will sign the bill.

"In my mind, there will be no more important legislation that passes the Congress this year," Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., one of its sponsors, told reporters this week. "This is the prime model of bipartisan cooperation."

The bill would establish several new federal math and science programs and expand existing ones. If Congress appropriates money for all the programs, it would cost $43.3 billion over three years, though much of that spending would be devoted to research programs in technology, energy, and other areas.

The measure would broaden the Robert Noyce Scholarship Program, which provides grants of $10,000 a year to college majors in math- and science-related subjects who agree to teach in high-need schools. Among other changes, the bill would provide awardees of the program, which is administered by the National Science Foundation, up to three years of scholarship funding, instead of the current limit of two years. In addition, scholarship recipients would be given additional time to complete their teacher training, under the legislation.

Furthermore, the proposal addresses some of the math and science priorities identified by President Bush. It would create "Math Now," a program in which the U.S. Department of Education would award grants to states to attempt to implement proven strategies in math instruction. The legislation says the goal is to help students reach grade level in math and prepare them for algebra, a subject most students take in 8th or 9th grade.

In the past, Bush administration officials have likened Math Now to the federal Reading First program, a $1 billion-a-year effort that seeks to improve instruction through the promotion of researched-based practices in reading. Department of Education representatives have faced charges of favoring certain commercial reading products in awarding grants to states, but Reading First has also won praise for improving instruction and achievement from state officials and researchers. ("White House Suggests Model Used in Reading To Elevate Math Skills," Feb. 15, 2006.)

'In Harmony'
The "competitiveness" legislation also appears to address another of President Bush's goals by authorizing new grant programs to increase the number of Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate classes in schools nationwide.

Additionally, the bill calls for the secretary of education to contract with the National Academy of Sciences to convene a national panel to "identify promising practices in the teaching of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics in elementary and secondary schools."

Last year, the White House set up the National Mathematics Advisory Panel, a 17-member group charged with studying effective classroom strategies in math and presenting recommendations to the president. Lee Pitts, a spokesman for Sen. Alexander, said the panel established in the new legislation would "extend the work of the math panel into science, technology, and engineering." It is not meant to duplicate the math panel, he added.

The House and Senate originally approved separate versions of the math and science legislation. Lawmakers from both chambers met in a conference committee in an effort to resolve those differences and produce a final bill for consideration by the House and Senate.

Speaking with reporters Aug. 1, two sponsors of the House and Senate bills, Rep. Bart Gordon, D-Tenn., and Sen. Alexander, said negotiations over the final bill were not difficult.

"We were very much in harmony," Rep. Gordon said. "The conference was short and sweet."

The bill would establish two new competitive grant programs within the Education Department, according to a conference report released by lawmakers this week. The first is aimed at expanding master's degrees in science- and math-related fields. The other would support programs that encourage undergraduates to obtain bachelor's degrees in science- and math-related fields and foreign languages at the same time they are gaining teacher certification. The legislation authorizes $151 million for the bachelor's degree program and $125 million for the master's degree program in fiscal 2008, according to a summary of the conference report.

The bill only authorizes new spending on federal math and science programs; it does not guarantee they will get that money. Appropriations for those programs are currently included in three separate spending bills under consideration by Congress, said Mr. Pitts.

Francis M. "Skip" Fennell, the president of the 100,000-member National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, in Reston, Va., said his organization was pleased with the legislation, especially provision within it that seek to provide support and assistance to inexperienced and struggling educators.

"We know that the lack of proper mentoring and support for teachers is one reason so many leave the profession in the first years of teaching," Mr. Fennell said in a statement. Math coaches, he said, "will help early and midcareer teachers and afford better learning opportunities for students."

John J. Castellani, the president of the Business Roundtable, also praised the congressional action. "If we are to maintain our competitive edge, we must improve the education our students receive in science, technology, engineering and mathematics," he said in a statement. "America's ability to compete in a 21st-century economy rests on our continued investments in math and science education. The U.S. Congress has confirmed its commitment to ensuring that we are prepared to continue to lead the world in research and technology-well into the future."

Associate Editor David J. Hoff contributed to this story.

Doubts Cast on Math, Science Teaching Lures

By Sean Cavanagh

Education Week

Few strategies for luring more students and working adults into math and science teaching have proved as popular among elected officials as financial incentives, which try to make one of the least appealing aspects of the job—low pay—a little less daunting.

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill are considering a number of bills that would expand existing incentives, such as scholarships and loan forgiveness for aspiring educators, and create new monetary inducements. Dozens of states, meanwhile, already offer their own incentives for teachers in subjects with shortages, including mathematics and science.

But those who have studied financial incentives say evidence is scant that they are attracting substantial numbers of college students and career-changers to math and science teaching, despite years of investments in those programs.

Opinions vary on why incentives have not shown greater results. Some believe the money available is relatively insignificant when weighed against potential job candidates’ worries about poor salaries and working conditions. Others say the hodgepodge of federal, state, and local incentives is so fragmented that few potential teachers are aware of what’s available.

“There’s been virtually no research on how effective [these] options are,” said Dan Goldhaber, a research professor at the Center on Reinventing Public Education, based at the University of Washington in Seattle. “We ought to be making decisions about these programs based on something more than what might be effective, and instead base it on empirical evidence.”

Yet backers of incentives believe they can offer an important carrot for college students and for people already in the work world. Even if that extra money is of secondary importance to job candidates, it can make the teaching profession more appealing to math and science majors who are likely to have more lucrative options in the private sector.

Teaching for Dollars
In addition to the myriad state financial-incentive programs, the federal government oversees a number of monetary hooks to recruit and retain teachers in high-need fields, including math and science:

The Robert Noyce Scholarship Program, administered by the National Science Foundation, offers scholarships of $10,000 annually, for two years, to students majoring in math- and sciencerelated fields, as well as to working professionals.

The Teacher Loan Forgiveness Program, signed into law in 2006 and administered by the U.S. Department of Education, makes teachers of math, science, and special education eligible for up to $17,500 of loan repayment.

Teachers of math and science also can have up to 100 percent of their Perkins Loans canceled, with the amounts depending on years of service in the classroom.

The federal Transition to Teaching program provides money to school districts and colleges to pay for financial incentives of up to $5,000, total, to midcareer professionals, including paraprofessionals, interested in becoming trained as teachers in high-need schools.

SOURCES: U.S. Department of Education; National Science FoundationAnna M. Swenty, 26, credits an incentive program with having changed her thinking about teaching.

After earning a bachelor’s degree in biology from the University of Missouri-Columbia three years ago, Ms. Swenty was considering graduate school and research jobs, but those career paths seemed too specialized. It wasn’t until she learned about the federal Robert Noyce Scholarship Program that the idea of teaching began to take hold.

The program, which is financed through the National Science Foundation at about $9 million a year, provided her with a total of $10,000 to return to school and earn a teaching certificate. In return, she agreed to work in a high-poverty school. She now teaches biology and earth science at Narrows High School in western Virginia.

“It was a godsend,” Ms. Swenty said of the scholarship. “I was worried about going into debt. … No one ever told me in my [undergraduate] program that teaching was a viable option.”

Financial Hook
Noyce money flows to colleges and universities, which give it to qualified applicants: college majors in math and science subjects who want to go into teaching, and working professionals with expertise in those areas. The program’s effectiveness is being evaluated, a process that is expected to be complete next year, said Joan T. Prival, the program’s lead director at the NSF. Separate bills approved by the House and the Senate would expand the program.

House lawmakers also recently approved a bill that would provide scholarships of as much as $16,000 to college students who agree to work in high-need subjects in schools serving large numbers of low-income students A measure that cleared the Senate this month would tie loan forgiveness to teachers’ income levels and lengths of service.

Low pay is just one of the factors that most frustrate teachers about their profession. Surveys show lack of administrative support and poor working conditions are of equal or greater concern.

Schools nationwide struggle to find qualified teachers in math and science. About 36 percent of secondary school math classes are taught by teachers who lack even a minor in math or a related subject, compared with 24 percent in all core academic subjects, according to the Education Trust, a Washington-based policy organization.

The pressure on schools to find teaching talent is likely to grow. About one-third of today’s teaching corps is expected to retire by 2010, according to one estimate. And the United States will need about 280,000 new teachers in math and science by 2015, a recent report says.

Although he believes financial incentives can make a difference to potential teachers, Gerald F. Wheeler, the executive director of the National Science Teachers Association, in Arlington, Va., said pay plans that offer higher salaries to math and science teachers have greater potential, because they bring educators’ yearly pay closer to those of jobs in the private sector.

“It doesn’t have to be equal” to other professions, he said, “but they have to be able to play in that marketplace.”

But grants and scholarships have proved more politically palatable in states than such differential-pay plans or pay-for-performance proposals, which tie teacher compensation to student achievement, said Tricia Coulter, the director of the teaching-quality and leadership institute at the Education Commission of the States, a research organization in Denver.

Thirty-one states have financial incentives for recruiting and retaining teachers, the ECS estimates. They vary in size and scope. Kansas offers $5,000 a year to college juniors and seniors who agree to become teachers in high-need subjects, including math and science.

During the 2006-07 academic year, the state awarded 248 scholarships, 45 of which went to math and science teachers, said Diane Lindeman, the director of student financial assistance for the Kansas board of regents. The state spent $778,000 on scholarships during that year.

The program helped only a small fraction of the number of teachers needed to fill math and science vacancies, Ms. Lindeman acknowledged. “There are so many factors in this other than just throwing money at people for going to college,” she said. “You’ve got to have the people who are actually eligible to do this and want to do this.”

Little Advertised?
Kansas’ scholarships require recipients to teach at a public or private school in the state for at least two years. About 40 percent of awardees in the most recent recorded year did not complete their obligation because they moved out of state or lost interest in teaching, among other reasons. Awardees who do not fulfill that obligation must repay the scholarships. Recouping money from those who renege can be a cumbersome process, Ms. Lindeman said.

Some policy experts warn that incentives can have the unintended effect of encouraging new teachers who lack the necessary talent or enthusiasm for the job to stay to meet financial commitments.

“You lock in some people who you probably do not want to be teaching,” said Eric A. Hanushek, a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.

Several observers said a greater flaw is that aspiring teachers do not have a single source to tell them about the available federal and state incentives—a common problem in financial aid. A bill sponsored by U.S. Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J., would require the federal government to set up a database of public and private scholarships in math- and science-related fields.

“There’s a whole lot of stuff out there, but people kind of stumble across it,” said Margaret E. Heisel, a lead coordinator for the California Teach/Science Math Initiative, a program aimed at recruiting educators into the profession. Students, she said, need a system that tells them that “if you are interested in math or science teaching, we have a way of making sure you don’t have a lot of debt at the end of college.”

The UC and California State University systems in 2005 announced a plan to try to raise the number of math and science teachers who graduate from their collective teacher programs from 1,000 to 2,500 a year. The systems, with private-sector support, offer a host of financial incentives to teachers, including waiving up to $19,000 in college loans.

One state program that appears to have achieved some success is in North Carolina, where teachers of math, science, or special education in high-poverty or academically struggling schools were given an extra $1,800 a year, according to a 2006 study by researchers at Duke University. Turnover among those teachers fell by 12 percent from 2001 to 2004, and might have fallen more if the program, which the state eliminated in 2004 for lack of legislative support, had been better understood by teachers, researchers found.

Many state incentive programs “are new, and they’re relatively small in scale,” said James Brown, the co-chairman of the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Caucus, a Washington-based group that is backing federal legislation to expand incentives.

“The states are grappling with this just as the federal government is, and it’s going to take a while to get it right,” Mr. Brown said. “The problem is large enough that you need a national role that will get national attention.”

Coverage of mathematics, science, and technology education is supported by a grant from the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, at www.kauffman.org.

Teacher Magazine
August 2, 2007

Principal Pulls Rank, Teacher Quits

According to a New York Times article, Austin Lampros, a New York City math teacher, resigned from his teaching post at the High School of Arts and Technology in Manhattan this year after the school’s principal altered a student’s grade so she could graduate. Lampros told the Times that, although the student rarely attended class, failed to turn in homework assignments, and even missed the final exam, a school administrator gave her special treatment and a passing grade.

When a representative from the teachers’ union complained, Lampros was permitted to fail the student. Using an override privilege granted by her contract, the principal reversed that student’s grade again.

The article suggests that Lampros is one of many teachers in New York City who feels pressured by administrators to pass marginal students in order to boost declining graduation rates. “It’s almost as if you stick to your morals and your ethics, you’ll end up without a job,” he said.

Survey: Subjects Trimmed To Boost Math and Science

By Alyson Klein

Education Week
Nearly half the nation’s school districts are spending less instructional time on subjects such as science, history, and art in order to prepare their students for the mathematics and reading tests mandated under the 5½-year-old No Child Left Behind Act, says a report released last week by the Center on Education Policy.

In a nationally representative survey of 349 districts, the Washington-based group found that 44 percent reported cutting time from other subjects to focus on math and reading. The decreases were relatively substantial, according to the report, totaling about 141 minutes per week across all subjects, or almost 30 minutes per day.

The July 24 report lends credibility to critics’ contention that the NCLB law’s emphasis on reading and math has squeezed out other subjects. It also bolsters arguments that the law should be expanded to include tests in science, social studies, and other subjects.

“This report matches everything we’ve seen,” said Gerald F. Wheeler, the executive director of the National Science Teachers Association, based in Arlington, Va. “We need to be more intelligent about what it means to educate the whole child.”

Mr. Wheeler said the federal government should add science to the NCLB accountability system so that schools will set aside time for it. Beginning with the new school year, under NCLB, states must test students in science three times before high school graduation. States may count those scores for accountability purposes, but they’re not required to do so.

Exposure to subjects such as history can help students master higher-order thinking skills in math and reading, said Theodore K. Rabb, a professor emeritus at Princeton University and the board chairman of the National Council for History Education, based in Westlake, Okla.

But others say schools are right to focus on reading and math, particularly in the early grades.

“If you can’t read, what can you do?” said Sandra Stotsky, who, starting next month, will be an education professor at the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville. “If you can’t do math, you can’t ultimately do science.”

The CEP reported similar findings in a March 2006 report, which found that many districts had increased instructional time in math and reading at the elementary level, sometimes by giving short shrift to other subjects. ("Study: NCLB Leads to Cuts for Some Subjects," April 5, 2006.)

Making the Write Choice

By John Norton

TeacherMagazine

Last October, The Washington Post published a story, "The Handwriting on the Wall," about the decline of handwriting instruction in elementary schools and the likelihood that future generations will not learn cursive.

The story cited research suggesting that writing by hand may be important to cognitive development, and that messages written in long hand create a greater sense of personal authenticity. But a growing number of educators just shrug. They are busy with other priorities in an increasingly digital world.

As part of a new partnership, teachermagazine.org is publishing this regular column by members of the Teacher Leaders Network, a professional community of accomplished educators dedicated to sharing ideas and expanding the influence of teachers.

The Post story stirred a surprising amount of lively, even passionate, conversation among members of the Teacher Leaders Network who participate in our daily online discussion.
Here's what some of them had to say:

Gayle: I started teaching 40 years ago in a 3rd grade classroom. In those days, cursive writing was mandatory in the curriculum, and it was the 3rd grade teacher's job to teach it. In a recent issue of Edutopia, the editor describes today's students who listen to iPods, text message, and watch TV all at the same time. Multi-tasking is the norm. Imagine me standing in front of a 3rd grade class today, saying: "Now, class, everyone sit down and slant your letters as we write in cursive." There is a disconnect.

Gregg: I teach 3rd grade in South Carolina. The current state standards require me to "begin cursive writing." When the new and revised standards are released next school year, they will state: "Begin using proper letter formation, print OR cursive." Handwriting will no longer be apart of the 4th and 5th grade standards.

If my students can sign their names in cursive, then I am a happy teacher. I am so glad that cursive is becoming a passing fancy. In today's world, students really don't need cursive writing. Everything they read, from e-mails to textbooks, is in print.

Cathy: An ingrained memory springs forth from very long ago, of a 3rd grade teacher loudly berating me in front of the entire class for the messiness of my cursive writing, which resulted in my inability to get the required "stating of the math problem" in the allotted space. I was mortified. My cursive is no better today, many years later, and I'm delighted to use it as little as possible since that memory never really faded.

Susan B: When I told my mom I was going to switch careers to become an elementary teacher, she said, "You can't! You have TERRIBLE cursive!" Mom acquired beautiful "Palmer Method" script in one-room schoolhouses, and bemoaned the inadequate cursive instruction my siblings and I received way back when. I never could turn in acceptable cursive papers without painstakingly copying them over at least once.

When I was 12, I bought myself a typewriter with babysitting money, taught myself to type, and never looked back. Over the years, what little cursive I had virtually vanished. Recently, I discovered my state's leadership exam requires handwritten essays and responses. Even though I believe cursive is more professional and likely to positively influence scores, I printed on the exam, and I did pass.

Susan G: I continually surprise myself with my rather romantic connection to cursive writing, diagrammed sentences, and geometric proofs. I remember 5th grade, when we got our first writing pens. In the back of the room, by the sink, there was a bottle of ink with a blown-glass well on the side of the interior. It was an impressive ritual to take your pen, lift the lever that depressed the ink bladder, dip your pen into the well, and release the lever, filling the pen with ink.

The power to create words is pretty amazing—it connects us to the past and the future. I would still recognize the elegant hand that filled a book of poetry from an old boyfriend. My maternal grandmother died before I was born, but I got to know her through her handwritten journals. It occurs to me that my grandchildren may not feel as intimately connected to my email archives.
Is there something to be gained in learning to actually form those words without a keyboard?

Yes, and there is legitimate learning theory that says writing by hand helps us imbed and retain what we write.

Rick: I hope I'm pretty progressive when it comes to education ideas, but I'm going to register an "old fogey" opinion on the handwriting topic. Let me make my case for why teaching the next generation cursive handwriting is still wise in a high-technology world.

First, cursive handwriting helps numerous students with fine-motor skills that are not otherwise developed by pushing keys on a keyboard.

Second, handwriting is still useful. What do we do when the electricity goes out, or there's no easily accessible electricity source or machine to do our writing and printing for us? Do we really want to be so reliant on having to type and print everything electronically?

Third, a personally written, cursive note of thanks, encouragement, or explanation has a lot of currency in today's e-mail and text-messaging world. That someone would take the time to select paper or a card, write the note in cursive, then send it or drop it by your office, classroom, or mailbox carries a lot of weight.

Fourth, that personal note, written in cursive, creates a connection that printing our letters and words usually doesn't produce. My own kids go to camp each year, and I take time each summer to hand write, in cursive, long letters to each of them. It's a quiet, reflective process, a little slower than typing, but contemplative and personal. It's one way I give something of myself to them.

Fifth, cursive handwriting has prestige and allows us to check authenticity. Claims can be made on all sides about anything stored electronically. Why are personal signatures still required on all important documents—contracts, major purchases, diplomas, doctor's prescriptions, etc.? Our written hand is our personal testimony and record of authenticity.

A year after my grandfather died, I wore a coat of his that my grandmother passed along to me. He was a wise and compassionate man, and I missed him terribly. I put my hand into one of the coat's pockets and felt something. It was a note he had written in cursive. My grandfather had touched this paper and formed these letters. As silly as it may sound, I felt like he was there, and I was connecting to him.

John Norton is the co-founder and moderator of the Teacher Leaders Network. Other excerpts from the Network's 24/7/365 professional conversations can be found on the TLN website.

Half of new teachers leave the field within five years, according to the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, a nonprofit organization dedicated to providing students with qualified teachers.

A recent California State University study showed a quarter of California teachers leave the profession within four years because of bureaucratic impediments, unnecessary meetings and inadequate support. As a result, the state of California has spent more than $455 million each year recruiting, hiring and preparing replacement teachers.

Nevada has no state recruitment program and doesn't track statewide retention rates, costs or whether large class sizes or student discipline problems are driving teachers out of the classroom.

The nationwide problem of teacher shortages might be that teaching is losing its appeal.
Nat Lommori, superintendent of the Lyon County School District, remembers attending
out-of-state teacher career fairs years ago where hundreds, if not a few thousand, applicants waited for interviews.

"We didn't even take lunch," he said of a two-day affair in Greeley, Colo. "It was that busy. We don't even go there anymore because there's nobody there."

He said things are different because of the low pay.

"(Teaching) does not compare with other professions," he said. "These people have to get a bachelor's degree, and if you have a bachelor's degree in engineering or accounting, you're making $40,000, $50,000, even $60,000 coming out."

Rich Alexander, Douglas County assistant superintendent, said statistics show that people have several different careers during their lifetime.

"We are seeing that change in teaching," he said. "Simplistic solutions -- just pay them more to stay -- offers no assurance that they will stay and are little incentive compared to family and other issues."

Reasons to leave

Keith Rheault, Nevada superintendent of education, listed the three most significant reasons teachers leave off the top of his head: relocation, retirement and problems with a school district.
Gloria Dopf, deputy superintendent of instruction for the Nevada Department of Education, said the department handles licensure and related issues but not recruitment.

"The hiring and recruitment of teachers is a local function, so essentially, the districts have more direct access with teachers and have the ability of analyzing why teachers leave," she said.

Districts do track why teachers leave.

"The people that we do see leaving might be moving to another state or maybe closer to family," said Richard Stokes, associate superintendent of human resources for the Carson City School District. "Or, people are moving with a spouse because a spouse has relocated.
"We don't see all of the reasons as to why they're going," Stokes said. "We chat with them and find out why they're leaving. Sometimes, they don't go into why they're leaving."

Not all teachers have exit interviews, and only about 50 percent accept the invitation for an exit interview in Carson City, Stokes said.

Administrators are not sure how accurate the termination and resignation numbers are because some teachers resign before they are fired, said Tom Stauss, assistant superintendent of human resources for the Washoe County School District.

Lynn Warne, president of the teachers union for Washoe County, said resignations occur because of burnout, poor classroom conditions, unresolved discipline issues with students and too many students in a classroom.

"The class-size reduction that the state tried putting in place has led to team-teaching," she said. "The true spirit of class-size reduction has never been implemented or implemented correctly."

The poor physical condition of a school can lead to a drop in a teacher's spirit, said Warne.
"The deferred maintenance price tag the district carries is huge," she said. "Not only are the buildings falling apart, we're packed to the rim with teachers. It's a huge morale buster."

Many teachers leave to follow a spouse who is moving. Sometimes, the family moves to be closer to relatives. Of late, Stokes said he'd seen some resignations occur because of the high cost of gas. Teachers who lived in Reno left their job with Carson to work in the Washoe County School District, and vice versa.

Taking the reins

Ten years ago, Washoe County School District administrators noticed that teachers were flocking out the door. Eighteen percent left that year.

The school district started a mentoring program to provide teachers with support. In the past 10 years, the attrition rate has dropped from 18 percent to 5 percent.

Attrition is a reduction in staff numbers due to resignation, retirement or death. Retention is the percentage of teachers that return each year.

"We found new teachers need more support their first year because of the many demands a new teacher faces," said Sharyn Appolloni, program coordinator for the Washoe County School District's mentoring program.

"A novice teacher in their first years needs that support to be the best teacher they can be," Appolloni said.

Just this past year, the Washoe district matched 300 trained mentors with 300 first- and
second-year teachers.

New teachers take district-

offered classes, such as classroom management or math and literacy. Mentors meet weekly with new teachers, observe them in classrooms and accompany them on learning visits.
Teaching assessments show that mentored teachers perform at the same levels as veteran teachers in the classroom, Appolloni said. That means students benefit, too, she said. In addition, 19 instructional coaches were hired in 2006-07 and placed at schools to provide on-site professional development.

"The real beauty is they are there all the time helping teachers with what they need," said Susan Denning, a district coordinator with the teaching and learning program.
Carson City also provides a mentoring program. Teachers are given tips for managing the classroom, preparing for lessons, ordering supplies and setting up field trips. But there are no data showing that its mentor program has improved teacher retention rates.

"Since I have been at the Carson City School District, since July 2001, we replace 8 to 10 percent of our certified staff -- teachers, counselors, etc. -- each year," Stokes said. "The percentage has only varied slightly over the past six years. I don't have data that shows that our mentoring program is preventing teachers from leaving our district."

Hiring not a problem

Administrators in the Washoe, Carson City, Lyon and Douglas County school districts said they do not have problems hiring the teachers they need, except in a few niche areas, such as special-education or high school science and math.

"I would say that for elementary education, there are enough applicants for the vacancies we have," Stokes said. "Anything on the secondary level gets a little trickier because it's a
more-focused discipline."

Little Rock

A one-year moratorium on new teaching guidelines set to take effect this fall is being sought by historians upset with what they say will be a watering down of the teaching of Arkansas history in the public schools.

Tom Dillard, president of the Arkansas History Education Coalition, suggested Saturday that the new guidelines for social studies, approved by the state Education Board this year, violate a 1997 state law on teaching Arkansas history and effectively reverse the group's effort of at least the last 20 years to incorporate the subject into school curricula.

"We now face the prospect of Arkansas history being removed from the curriculum in the schools of our state—at least effectively removed, if not completely so," Dillard said at a news conference at the main library in Little Rock.

Last year, the Arkansas Education Department led a committee of educators to study revising the guidelines, as the agency routinely does for the various subjects. The board then approved the guidelines, combining social studies and Arkansas history into one subject for kindergartners through sixth graders and requiring the teaching of world history in seventh and eight grades, typically when Arkansas history is taught. Dillard noted that the 10-year-old state law, adopted he said after the state Education Department failed to follow through on a promise to beef up Arkansas history instruction in the schools, requires that schools teach a unit of Arkansas history as a social studies subject at each elementary grade "with greater emphasis at the fourth and fifth grade levels."

In addition, he said, the schools must teach a full semester of Arkansas history to students between the seventh and 12th grades.

Dillard said the new guidelines could effectively reduce Arkansas history to a mere mention to young students and could eliminate the subject altogether from a high school student's coursework. He said the world history requirement in the new guidelines most likely would bump Arkansas history into the higher grades, where teachers have no textbooks and few materials on the subject and when students can elect to take other social studies courses to graduate.

"We contend that the new social studies frameworks are in violation of Act 787 of 1997 and we believe it's in violation probably in a variety of ways," Dillard said.

Coalition members will meet with state Education Commissioner Ken James on Thursday, when they plan to ask for the moratorium. Also, Dillard said, the group will ask that Gov. Mike Beebe appoint a blue-ribbon panel to study the guidelines and arrive at changes that preserve the teaching of Arkansas history.

Last week, two new textbooks on Arkansas history were published but they are geared for middle school classes. Dillard said the two decades since Arkansas' 150th sesquicentennial have been a building process with the mission to change the poor condition of Arkansas history education in the schools. He, other historians, and teachers stressed the importance of continuing with that progress.

"What this latest action by the Department of Education has done is to cut the legs out from under the people who have spent time, effort and money in creating these materials," said Tom DeBlack, president of the Arkansas Historical Association and professor of Arkansas History at Arkansas Tech University.

DeBlack stressed the importance of teaching children "where they came from."
"We need to give our students a real awareness of who they are, of how they came to be as a people and what their possibilities are in the future as part of the great American scheme," Dillard said.

Dillard and others expressed disappointment with what they said appeared to be an almost secretive process used by the Education Department to arrive at the new guidelines.
But Julie Thompson, a spokeswoman for the Education Department, said in a telephone interview Saturday that the agency went to great lengths to involve historians and educators in making the revisions.

She acknowledged that committee members were asked not to discuss preliminary changes. But the agency used this "security feature," she said, to prevent a problem that occurred in 1992. In that year, preliminary guidelines for math were released and some schools ended up teaching to the wrong guide, she said.

Thompson said the new guidelines on Arkansas history do not violate state law, and they maintain an emphasis on state history at the lower levels. The guidelines for elementary schools provide more detail and, therefore, create a greater likelihood that students will get more instruction in Arkansas history, she said.

Thompson acknowledged that it was "unfortunate" that the textbook review occurred the same year as the standards were revised, and said the agency might have to take a closer look at what materials are available for teaching Arkansas history in the high schools.

Las Vegas

The Clark County School District has reduced its teacher shortage by more than half by recruiting in Midwest cities that have laid off teachers or that have an abundance of unemployed teachers.

The school system was short 545 teachers as of Thursday, down from the 1,100 teacher shortage just a month ago. The district's greatest shortages are for secondary math and special-education instructors.

Byron Green, director of recruitment for the district, said recruiters are snatching teachers from Detroit, Cleveland, Chicago and Buffalo, N.Y.

Detroit and Cleveland have recently had teachers layoffs, Green said. But the other Midwest cities offered Clark County "a surplus of teachers that want to find a teaching job," Green said.
From June 1 until the weekend of July 20, recruiters with the district will have traveled to Chicago and Buffalo twice, and had three visits in both Detroit and Cleveland, he said.

Green said the district has been recruiting six days a week during the summer. He hopes the teacher shortage can be reduced substantially by the time classes resume on Aug. 27.

The district began the 2006-07 school year short 344 teachers and had between 400 and 450 vacancies during the school year. The vacancies were filled by substitute teachers.

EducationWeek
Washington

A new study of Chicago students suggests that the federal No Child Left Behind Act may indeed be leaving behind students at the far ends of the academic ability spectrum—the least able students and those who are gifted.

The study by University of Chicago economists Derek A. Neal and Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach lends some empirical support to the common perception that schools are focusing on students in the middle—the so-called “bubble kids”—in order to boost scores on the state exams used to determine whether schools are meeting their proficiency targets.

“The whole point is that the details of how you calculate `adequate yearly progress’ matter for how teachers will allocate their effort across students,” said Mr. Neal, who presented his paper today at a conference hosted by the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank based here. “Anytime you keep score by looking at the number of kids who pass some proficiency standard, that will shape whom teachers teach.”

But Doug Mesecar, the acting assistant secretary in the Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development at the U.S. Department of Education, said it’s too soon to conclude that the law’s accountability mechanisms aren’t working as they were intended.

“I don’t think it tells enough of the whole story to support the generalizations that were made,” said Mr. Mesecar, who was part of a panel formed by the AEI to discuss the report. “We need to know more, to continue to study, and have more data to do these kinds of analyses, and then, if we do find it is a problem, we need to go in and rectify it.”

‘The Irony’
For their study, the Chicago researchers zeroed in on two time periods during which the 421,000-student school system was changing its testing-and-accountability system. The most recent period was 2002, when the school system, seeing that passage of the NCLB law was imminent, made the Illinois Standards Achievement Test a high-stakes exam and set proficiency cutoffs that students would be expected to meet.

The earlier period was 1998, after city school officials tried much the same approach with the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. While the ITBS cutoff points were considered lower, the 1998 accountability system also upped the stakes in a slightly different way by requiring 8th graders who did not pass the tests to attend summer school.

To measure the impact of the new systems, the researchers compared reading and mathematics scores for students in 5th, 6th, or 8th grades in the year, or years, after the changes had taken place with those made by similar cohorts of students a few years earlier. The idea was to determine whether the changes in students’ tests scores were larger or smaller than what might have been expected had the school system conducted business as usual.

The post-reform pattern, in all cases, was consistent: Students in the middle of the pack made the largest test-score gains, compared with students in previous years. The bottom 20 percent of students made the least progress and, in some cases, even lost ground. The top 10 percent of students made either no academic gains or improvements that were smaller than those of students in the middle, depending on the subject matter.

For the least-able students, the situation was only slightly better in the post-1998 reform period. Those students’ scores improved more then, the researchers believe, because the standards had been set at lower levels. They speculated that teachers may be more likely to write off low-achieving students when the likelihood that they will ever meet the achievement target is more distant.

Also, while the federal law mandates that schools ensure that all students reach proficiency levels by the 2013-14 school year, “there’s no evidence to show that schools are taking that seriously,” Mr. Neal said.

"This is the irony of the `soft bigotry of low expectations,`” he added, quoting a line from President Bush. “Having lower standards is actually beneficial to low-advantage children."

Teaching to the Middle
Another panelist, Charles Murray, AEI’s W.H. Brady scholar, said he found Mr. Neal’s finding “persuasive.”

“This strikes, I hope, a major blow to the chest of proficiency counts as a measure of progress in education,” added Mr. Murray, who recently published studies suggesting that achievement gaps between children of different races may be immutable. “To ask children to perform at levels at which they are incapable is one of the cruelest things you could ask a child to do.”

A more pointed critique of the study, however, came from Susan L. Traiman, the director of education and workforce policy at the Washington-based Business Roundtable and a supporter of the NCLB law. Like Mr. Mesecar, she said more years of data are needed to determine if the patterns Mr. Neal found in the early years of testing-and-accountability changes are consistent.

“Teaching to the middle is nothing new,” she added. “It’s what most beginning teachers do.”
While the law requires most states to gauge students’ academic progress by counting the number of students who reach proficiency targets, U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings in recent years began to allow some states and districts to experiment with other accountability models. Currently, for example, nine states have waivers to try so-called “growth models,” which typically give schools credit for gains that students make toward proficiency.

A better variant on that model, Mr. Neal said, might be one that takes into account previous achievement differences among students, their peers, and other factors in the same way that golfers are assigned handicaps to account for differences in golf courses or in their ability levels.
“You need some handicapping system that allows you to say that teacher A had a bad year or teacher B had a good year, regardless of whether they taught in New Trier, Ill., or some inner-city school in New Jersey,” he said.

The new study, “Left Behind by Design: Proficiency Counts and Test-Based Accountability,” has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

This would be an excellent time to phone in your
questions and comments on the Teamsters, CCEA, and
AAE.

Hope you can join in on this stimulating conversation.
If you have any questions, please forward them to me
at --- keninvegas308@yahoo.com or place them in
this forum. I intend to ask MEH about her salary,
CCEA's poor performance when it comes to negotiations,
and CCEA's procedures on not representing first-year
teachers (probationary teachers) when it comes to
problems with school administrators.

Ken

To the editor:

Because more and more teachers in Clark County have expressed discontent with their representative unit, the Clark County Education Association, the Teamsters have decided to throw their hat in the ring.

But the fact of the matter is neither the association nor the Teamsters is looking out for the best interests of teachers. Teachers are professionals who deserve a professional organization that will engender the type of respect and recognition that unions do not bring to the table. The Teamsters are no better a solution to the concerns of the teachers of Clark County than the association.

The militant labor union mentality is inherently wrong for teachers. Industrial-style unionism neither advances the respect and compensation that educators deserve nor does it improve the quality of education for kids.

Teachers have been tasked with the education of our nation's children, and must be the best and the brightest. The union model rewards teachers who act in a way that belies the nature of their profession. If teachers strive to be taken seriously as a profession, they need to align themselves with groups whose priorities do not center on political agendas that have little to do with the classroom.

It's understandable that Clark County's educators are wondering if there are better options than a union. The answer is yes. In fact, there is a groundswell among America's teachers, who are leaving traditional teacher labor unions to join non-union professional associations. Nearly 300,000 teachers nationwide have opted to join non-union educators associations such as the Association of American Educators, which has members in all 50 states. Members can get most of the benefits that the unions provide but at a fraction of the cost.

Clark County teachers have a unique opportunity to do what's best for their profession and for the kids they teach. There have indeed been problems with the Clark County Education Association's representation, and teachers should want change.

However, the Teamsters outdated labor model is no more appropriate for today's teachers than is the National Education Association. Teachers deserve a professional choice.

Gary Beckner

MISSION VIEJO, CALIF.

THE WRITER IS CHAIRMAN OF THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN EDUCATORS.

Turning to Teachers

Unhappy with a new curriculum developed by an outside firm, Pittsburgh's school district is diverting money from the company’s contract to hire district teachers and academic coaches as curriculum writers this year. Under the plan, some $2.4 million from the district's $8.4 million contract with Kaplan K12 Learning Services will be divvied up among the teacher-curriculum writers, teachers who provide feedback, and University of Pittsburgh's Institute for Learning, which will provide resources and services to the writers. According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, teachers could make $16,000 to $22,000 per course for designing the curriculum—in addition to their regular pay.

Initial installments of the new curriculum introduced by Kaplan last school year triggered a range of complaints from teachers, prompting the district to reconsider the contract. Kaplan Senior Vice President Seppy Basili, however, said it’s normal for school systems to develop more of their own curricula in the second or third years of a contract with Kaplan. "The decision to go in this direction was based on some of the feedback really all through the year from teachers who, I think, wanted a greater voice and greater stake in the process," Basili said.
Posted by Stacey Hollenbeck

Last week I purchased a burger and fries at McDonalds for $3.58.

The counter girl took my $4.00 and I pulled 8 cents from my pocket and gave it to her. She stood there, holding the nickel and 3 pennies. While looking at the screen on her register, I sensed her discomfort and tried to tell her to just give me two quarters, but she hailed the manager for help. While he tried to explain the transaction to her, she stood there and cried. Why do I tell you this?

Because of the evolution in teaching math since the 1960s...

Teaching Math In 1960

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit?

Teaching Math In 1970

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80. What is his profit?

Teaching Math In 1980

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80. Did he make a profit?

Teaching Math In 1990

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20 Your assignment: Underline the number 20.

Teaching Math Today

A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish and inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habitat of animals or the preservation of our woodlands. He does this so he can make a profit of $20. What do you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down their homes?

(There are no wrong answers.)

Don't Hurry Math

Pennsylvania is learning the hard way that modernizing math instruction does not always further comprehension. The state’s students are faltering in math placement tests, in spite of demonstrating achievement elsewhere. As a result, colleges and universities are having to rewrite textbooks and add remedial courses so their students can catch-up on math concepts and skills.

The college math professors in the state blame the emphasis placed on student testing combined with introducing higher-level math to increasingly younger students. “Many bright students are hurried through algebra and trigonometry courses on their way toward statistics and calculus,” said Marie Wilde, chairwoman of the mathematical and information sciences program at Cedar Crest College in Allentown, Pennsylavania. Wilde agrees that "teaching to the test" has contributed to the gap in student math skills.

Parents in Pennsylvania's upper Bucks County successfully lobbied their school district to add a traditional math program that focuses on the basics this fall.

Posted by Elizabeth Rich

A New Yardstick

As the debate over evaluating test scores continues, many schools across the country are shifting their method of evaluating student progress. More than two dozen states, including Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, and Ohio, are looking to a new way of analyzing test scores, called a “growth model,” which assesses individual student's progress as they advance from grade to grade instead of comparing them to the previous year’s class.

The model has been helpful in both urban areas where the student population includes at-risk children, as well as affluent communities which tend to attract top-performing children. While tests scores traditionally have been used to focus on low performing students, the growth model considers students at all levels, thereby putting pressure on high-performing schools that have yet to answer to test scores.

The growth model, however, does not have a universal appeal. Some teachers and parents feel the approach still places too much emphasis on test scores and they find the data incomprehensible. Said Aimee Bolender, president of the Alliance-AFT, which represents 9,000 teachers and staff from the Dallas school district, “You have to be a Ph.D. in statistics to even comprehend it.” Teachers’ unions like the growth model, but reject its use for performance reviews and merit pay. Said Bolender, “It’s detrimental for education. It’s pulling apart teams of teachers and it doesn’t look at why test scores are low.”

In response to the growing popularity of the growth model, Margaret Spellings, U.S. Secretary of Education, said in a statement, “We are open to new ideas, but when it comes to accountability, we are not taking our eye off the ball.”

Posted by Elizabeth Rich

Teachers Attacked

Reports of assaults against teachers seem to growing, particularly in big city schools. Sometimes they are verbal. Sometimes they are violent physical attacks. NPR’s Fresh Air host Terry Gross speaks with two veteran teachers, Ed Klein and Frank Burd, who were physically assaulted last year in their Philadelphia classrooms. Both Burd and Klein are white and taught at predominantly African American schools; however, neither perceived the incidents to be entirely racially motivated.

Music teacher Klein was relocated to a school one month into the school year when his former school dropped their music program. Entering a new school, with a class that was busy testing the limits and a staff that was overwhelmed, Klein struggled to get control of his classroom. Klein called parents frequently and, for the most part, they were responsive. He even saw changes in student behavior in a few cases. One day, however, a student told him he’d better stop calling home or he’d be sorry. Following that exchange, Klein was sprayed with a fire extinguisher on two consecutive days. On the third day, four students forced him to the floor where he suffered a broken jaw and a concussion.

For his part, after he approached a student to turn down his iPod during class, veteran math teacher Burd remembers little of his attack. Five broken bones and a brain injury later, Burd says, “I don’t feel betrayed by the students, I feel betrayed by the kid who did it.’

Will either teacher return to the classroom? Klein admits to good days and bad days, but is not sure if he will ever teach again. “I’m in a difficult position,” he told Gross. Said Burd, “I need to work. I like to work and I like teaching. I don’t know right now about the classroom. ...”

Posted by Elizabeth Rich

Nearly 20 years ago, as we were preparing to launch this magazine, we talked to hundreds of teachers across the country about their careers and about their aspirations, concerns, and daily challenges. Our working title for the magazine was Professional Teacher, and we were determined not to treat teachers as tall children, but rather to address them as experts whose work is as important to society as that of doctors, lawyers, and other professionals. We would provide them with articles about teaching and learning, research, ideas, innovations, and the larger issues that shape education.

Essentially, what teachers told us was that they weren’t treated as professionals. They didn’t feel adequately prepared for their challenges. They didn’t have much decisionmaking power outside the classroom, and had little control over their professional lives. Neither their working conditions nor their compensation were conducive to their work. But most relevant for us, they said they probably wouldn’t read our magazine because they had little time or energy for anything but the practical demands of the job.

Despite all that, we launched Teacher Magazine because we believed then, as we believe now, that teachers are the key to successful schools and students. None of the many reforms floated in the past two decades will improve schools without competent, committed teachers who are treated as professionals. There has been general agreement that the teaching career path needs to be radically changed. However, that is a daunting challenge that society seems unable or unwilling to meet.

But what if there were another way to make teaching more of a profession? Suppose teachers were in control of their own destiny, empowered to practice their craft like other professionals. Imagine that they could form partnerships, much as lawyers and doctors do, and make their services available under contract to “clients” (i.e., schools). They would hire an administrator to handle noninstructional matters, but teachers would make the educational decisions and would bring new teachers into the “firm,” evaluate them, decide on compensation, and—when necessary—discharge them.

That “imaginary” situation became a reality with the creation of EdVisions Cooperative 13 years ago, when a small group of teachers in Minnesota concluded that “a new model of ‘educational entrepreneurship’ was not only possible, but necessary.” They believed “that teacher leadership is not about power, but about mobilizing the largely untapped attributes of teachers to strengthen student performance by working collaboratively in a shared capacity.”

The founders’ goal was to empower teachers, but they recognized that teaching is not an end in itself. The ultimate goal is to help youngsters grow and learn. To “stay in business,” teacher partnerships must satisfy their clients. That means they must be at the leading edge of their profession, always looking for new, innovative methods.

EdVisions first offered its professional services to the Minnesota New Country School in 1994 and it has become a nationally recognized model for project-based learning. Today there are more than 30 EdVision schools across the country and nearly 2,500 students who are actively engaged, excited, and performing at high levels.

The EdVisions people are the kind of teachers we had in mind when we started this magazine. America desperately needs teachers like these, and we should do whatever is necessary to produce them.

For more information about EdVisions, including a video on project-based learning that made Ron Wolk want to go back to school, visit EdVisions. Several relevant books are also cited on the Web site, including Teachers as Owners, edited by Edward J. Dirkswager and published by Scarecrow Press.

A new public school teacher in North Dakota works for a year on probation before getting job security. For a teacher in Missouri, it's five years.

It's just one example of how policies affecting the teaching profession vary from state to state, according to a report by the National Council on Teacher Quality, a private group in Washington.
Just as the federal No Child Left Behind education law is being rewritten on Capitol Hill, state laws nationwide need reworking, the nonpartisan group says.

"For the most part the current system is a mix of broken, counterproductive and anachronistic policies in need of an overhaul," says the report, which summarizes each state's laws and regulations affecting teachers. The report is scheduled for release Wednesday.

The group found differences in how teachers are evaluated, prepared, licensed and compensated—all factors that affect teaching quality.

Kate Walsh, president of the National Council on Teacher Quality, said the variation in policies makes little sense, but she stopped short of calling for national standards for teachers.
"I've seen some states do some good things that I know wouldn't happen if they were all in the same room trying to do it," Walsh said.

One example of how states differ from each other, and the labor market more broadly, involves teacher evaluations.

While annual reviews may be a fact of life in many businesses, only about a quarter of states require annual evaluations for teachers, according to the report. Hawaii, Missouri and Tennessee let teachers go as long as five years without a formal review, the report says.
And only about half the states require reviews to include a classroom observation.

Richard Ingersoll, a professor of education and sociology at the University of Pennsylvania, says that's unwise. "Evaluations are important. These are employees that are working with our children," he said.

But Massachusetts Commissioner of Education David Driscoll said states are reluctant to create too many requirements in this area. In large schools, he said, principals may not have time to review every teacher annually.

The majority of teachers go through undergraduate education programs at colleges or universities. But states, which approve these schools, set weak standards for them, according to the report.

For example, it finds that only nine states—California, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Texas and Washington—require aspiring elementary-school teachers to take an introductory American history class while in education school.

"You want to make sure the teacher knows something about the American Revolution and the Civil War," Walsh said.

The report finds many states are making it difficult for people who did not graduate from education schools to become teachers. Barriers include requiring large amounts of coursework and only allowing colleges, not other nonprofits or school districts, to run teacher preparation programs, the report says.

"It's OK to put up criteria of quality and rigor," Driscoll said, adding that states should not "be making people jump through hoops that aren't important." The report gives Massachusetts good marks for bringing people with different backgrounds into teaching.

Similarly, veteran teachers should be able to move easily between states by taking licensing tests showing they meet the new state's standards, the report says. Instead, newcomers are more likely to have to take additional course work, which can expensive and time consuming.
Veteran music teacher Neil Manzenberger knows all about that.

He recently moved to Cornville, Ariz., after teaching music in public schools in Indiana for three decades. The plan was to retire, Manzenberger says, but he couldn't resist the lure of the classroom. "When the school buses started rolling in August, I said, 'Man I miss those kids.'"

When he sought a teaching position, Manzenberger said he was stopped by an Arizona requirement that he take a course on the methods of teaching elementary-school music. While Manzenberger hadn't taken that course as a student, he actually taught it for several years at an Indiana University satellite campus.

After an eight-month dispute, during which Manzenberger said he couldn't even find the required course nearby, he finally got a waiver to teach.

"It was ludicrous," he says. "It was just absolutely the dumbest thing I've ever dealt with."
Even as states are erecting barriers that could prevent qualified people from teaching, they also are making it too easy for unqualified people to get in, the report says.

For example, the authors say states are letting novice teachers into classrooms before they have passed state licensing tests.

Just three states—New Jersey, New Mexico and New York—require new teachers to pass such tests before entering the classroom. Many states give teachers one year to pass, but 20 states let people teach for three years or more without passing, the report says.

"Licensing tests serve a critical purpose," says the report. "They provide the public with assurance that a person meets the minimal qualifications to be a teacher."

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 14, 2007

Contact: Booker T. Stallworth, Communications Director
(360) 956-3482

Teachers and EFF Win Unanimous Victory at U.S. Supreme Court

WASHINGTON, DC—Today the United States Supreme Court announced it has overturned the Washington Supreme Court’s ruling in Washington v. Washington Education Association and Davenport v. Washington Education Association (WEA). The cases are the culmination of a decade’s worth of work by concerned teachers and the Evergreen Freedom Foundation (EFF), a Washington state think tank. The Court's ruling could potentially affect millions of union-represented workers nationwide.

As reported by SCOTUS Blog: "In the final of three decisions on the merits Thursday, the Court ruled that it is not a violation of the First Amendment for a state to bar a labor union representing government employees from using non-union workers' dues for political causes if those workers have not explicitly consented. The result was approved unanimously, but there were three partial concurring votes. The decision, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, was issued in a pair of consolidated cases, Davenport v. Washington Education Association (05-1589) and Washington v. Washington Education Association (05-1657)."

"We are elated that the U.S. Supreme Court has honored the First Amendment rights of teachers by overturning the state Supreme Court’s decision," said Bob Williams, president of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation. “The Court understood that the constitutional rights of teachers should be protected and are not superseded by the union’s statutory rights. This ruling will help protect non-member teachers from having their agency fees used on union politics against their will."

At issue in the case is a state statute that required labor organizations to get permission from nonmember workers before using mandatory dues for political purposes. “Nonmembers" are workers who have resigned from the union but are forced to pay collective bargaining fees as a condition of employment.

The WEA admitted to multiple violations during a state investigation and was fined over $590,000 by a Thurston County court.

The WEA later claimed in court that had no 'fiduciary responsibility' to its members and that the law unconstitutionally ‘burdened’ its free speech rights. The Washington Supreme Court agreed.

"The next step is to make sure the law is strongly enforced in state to ensure the WEA and other unions are in compliance. The WEA has been busily attempting to undermine the law while it was under Supreme Court review," Williams said.

Additional Information

For the most up-to-date information, photos, video, key documents related to the cases, and a weblog on the case, please visit www.teachers-vs-union.org.

###

Sunday, May 20, 2007

Associated Press

BOULDER, Colo. — Writing teachers are being tested themselves these days in trying to discern whether a student is another Stephen King, a Seung-Hui Cho, Eric Harris or Dylan Klebold.

"It's a subjective phenomenon, being able to identify the difference between art and pathology," Sidney Goldfarb, a University of Colorado professor told the Camera.

Goldfarb, who has taught creative writing for four decades, once assigned 21 students to write short stories. Two wrote of suicide; the other 19 murder.

Last month an Illinois high school student was arrested after writing an essay describing his dreams of shooting people and having sex with dead bodies.

Columbine gunmen Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris portrayed hit men in a video they made for a high school government and economics class. The English Department at Virginia Tech referred Cho to the school's counseling service because of his violent writing.

Jeffrey DeShell, chairman of the CU English department, said he couldn't recall a student in the creative-writing program ever being referred to counseling for homicidal writing or odd classroom behavior. Some students have been referred to mental-health professionals when their writing reveals that they could be suicidal.

"We live in a violent society," said Matt Burriesci, associate director of the Association of Writers and Writing Programs of Fairfax, Va., which represents creative programs at 400 colleges and universities.

"There is a very thin line between monitoring someone with psychological problems and someone who is just writing about violence. Pick up a Stephen King novel or a John Grisham novel."

King, in an essay posted on EW.com, said after all the school violence his own college writing would have raised red flags, "For most creative people, the imagination serves as an excretory channel for violence. We visualize what we never actually do."

He added, "On the whole, I don't think you can pick these guys out based on their work, unless you look for violence unenlivened by any real talent."

DeShell said murder is a common way for novice writers to kill off their fictional characters. In one of Shakespeare's earlier plays, Titus Andronicus, nearly everyone dies. Students also may be trying to shock professors.

"A lot of students are trying their imaginations out," he said. "We should be a place that is somewhat safe for that."

Lorna Dee Cervantes, a faculty member who teaches poetry workshops, said teachers should not encourage students to write about violence.

By Kathleen Parker
The Washington Post Writers Group

CHARLESTON, S.C. -- In a new twist in American race relations, a federal court has ruled that a white teacher in a predominantly African-American school was subjected to a racially hostile workplace.
The case concerned Elizabeth Kandrac, who was routinely verbally abused by black students at Brentwood Middle School in North Charleston. Their slurs make shock jock Don Imus look like a church deacon.
Nevertheless, despite frequent complaints, school officials did nothing to intervene on Kandrac's behalf, arguing that the racially charged profanity was simply part of the students' culture. If Kandrac couldn't handle cursing, school officials told her, she was in the wrong school.

read the rest of the article