Articles in the Educational Legislation category

Support for vouchers not clearly drawn along party lines

BoardBuzz caught this article from USA Today this week on the Washington, D.C. voucher program.  The program is up for reauthorization in Congress, and some unexpected supporters have come out in favor of continuing the program.  Historically, Democrats have opposed private school voucher programs that take taxpayer dollars away from public schools.   However, a small–but growing–group of black, Democrats have begun to support vouchers as a means of providing new opportunities for minority students particularly in poor, urban areas.

USA Today reported:

While vouchers will likely never be the clarion call of Democrats, they’re beginning to make inroads among a group of young black lawmakers, mayors and school officials who have split with party and teachers union orthodoxy on school reform. The group includes Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, Newark Mayor Cory Booker and former Washington, D.C., mayor Anthony Williams.

President Obama included only enough funding in his proposed budget for FY 2010 to allow current students to continue in the Washington, D.C. voucher program.  His plan is to let the program expire with the graduation of the current students in the program.  Two prominent Democrats, Sens. Diane Feinstein and Robert Byrd joined Republicans in criticizing President Obama’s plan. 

The Washington, D.C. voucher program is unique as the only private school voucher program funded with federal tax dollars.  Several studies conducted by the Department of Education throughout the years have shown that the program simply does not work.  Students have not performed better and or reached higher levels of achievement in the program.  View our post about the most recent study.  For more information, be sure to check out the Voucher Strategy Center.  We’ll continue to follow this as discussions are likely to heat up with new, unexpected bi-partisan support for the program. 

mharden|May 15th, 2009|Categories: Educational Legislation, NSBA Opinions and Analysis, Privatization|

Educating Congress on improving accountability

Earlier this week Jim Hull, policy analyst for our very own Center for Public Education, briefed a group of congressional staffers on “Improving Accountability Measures for Local Schools and School Districts.”  Hull focused the briefing on two areas :

  1. What growth models are and how they should be used; and
  2. Whether schools should be given credit for students that take longer than four years to graduate high school.

Staffers were provided insights into what different types of growth models there are, how they should be used, what states or districts would need to have in place to develop a growth model. BoardBuzz was particularly interested to learn that the terms “growth models” and “value-added” were not synonymous, even though many people use them interchangeably. As Hull explained, 

Value-added models are a type of growth model but not all growth models are value-added models. Just as a square is a type of rectangle, but not all rectangles are squares.

As for whether schools should be given credit for those students who take longer than four years to graduate high school (late graduates) BoardBuzz and the staffers found out the answer is a resounding yes!   Hull provided a wealth of interesting data which showed that late graduates were more successful after high school than their classmates who went on to earn a GED or dropped out all together. Late graduates were also as well off in some aspects of life after high school as their classmates from similar backgrounds who graduated on-time, though not in others. So indeed, students are better off graduating late than never and schools should be given credit for these students.

For those who would like to learn more, BoardBuzz strongly recommends checking out Jim Hull’s presentation here. And we’re happy to report that you won’t get lost if you’re not a statistical or research expert –BoardBuzz certainly isn’t – Hull provides the information in non-technical terms that school board members, policymakers, and the general public can easily understand so they can be more informed participants in the accountability debate.

For more information on Growth Models and Late Graduates check out the Center’s Guide to measuring student growth and Better late than never reports.

Jim Hull|May 15th, 2009|Categories: Announcements, Educational Legislation, High Schools, NSBA Opinions and Analysis, Student Achievement|

An interesting exercise

We’ve all played the game, either in our head or with some friends: “What would you do if you won the lottery?”  And now some view the stimulus money that is allocated for education in a lottery-winning way.  One report, “Smart Options: Investing the Recovery Funds for Student Success” has been getting some attention for their Top Five ideas to reshape America’s education system.

Today, Jay Mathews of the Washington Post grades the top five, which include creating national standards, conducting meaningful teacher evaluations, and helping struggling students, among others, and gives readers a chance to rank the most important items or add your own.  While Mr. Mathews’ grading rationale is an interesting read, some  John/Jane Q. Public’s ideas are captivating as well.  So far, the consensus is that money doesn’t fix everything, and there are lots of models that seem to work.

The bottom line is the group that funded the report wants these major changes to be complete by 2012, to which Mathews says, “I think they are dreaming.”   The pressure is certainly on, and there are more eyes than ever watching the world of education.

BoardBuzz knows that school districts are awaiting the funds, and looking at the best ways to make them work in school districts.  For more information about the stimulus and what it means for school districts, be sure to check out NSBA’s Economic Stimulus Resource Center.

Kevin Scott|May 11th, 2009|Categories: Educational Finance, Educational Legislation, NSBA Opinions and Analysis, School Boards|

Obama releases budget details

ED Secretary Arne Duncan today released details of the proposed FY 2010 budget for education programs. The education community had expected the proposed funding level for Title I  Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the major funding source of No Child Left Behind, to be flat in view of the increases under the stimulus package (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act).  President Obama proposed some new early childhood education initiatives under ESEA Title I.  To show its commitment in teacher quality and high school reform, the administration significantly raised funding for rewarding teachers and principals and delicated new funding to improve graduation rate.

Here are the proposed funding levels for some of the programs:

  • $13 billion for ESEA Title I grants to school districts ($1.5 billion decrease from the current level)
  • $1.5 billion for ESEA Title I school improvement grants ($1 billion increase from the current level)
  • $11.5 billion for the Individuals with Disabilities Educatoin Act grants to states (same as current level)
  • $500 million for a new early childhood grant under ESEA Title I to help school districts estaliblish or expand preschool programs
  • $300 million for the new early learning challenge fund for states to improve the quality of publicly funded preschool
  • $517 million for Teacher Incentive Fund to reward teachers, prcinipals and other personnel who raise student achievement and work in hard-to-staff schools ($420 million more than the current level)
  • $50 million for high school graduation initiative to help school districts test and implement strategies to increase graudation rate

For more information, see ED’s Website

Katherine Shek|May 7th, 2009|Categories: Educational Finance, Educational Legislation, Elementary and Secondary Education Act, NSBA Opinions and Analysis|

The Obama Administration: The first 75 days

NSBA Director of Federal Relations, Reggie Felton, will discuss the Obama Administration’s first 75 days and what that means for school boards and public education. Log in to view the live discussion on Sunday, April 5th at 1:00 PM PDT.

Andrew Paulson|April 5th, 2009|Categories: Educational Legislation, Multimedia and Webinars, NSBA Opinions and Analysis|

ED announces changes to Title I regs

Education Secretary Arne Duncan announced changes this week to some of the Title I final regulations put in place under the previous administration last October, see a this letter to the state school chief officers.

These changes include:

  • Repealing the requirement that states must revise their accountability workbooks for peer review, particulary reviewing their curre policy on N-size (minimum subgroup size) and confidence interval that affect the calculation of AYP;
  • Allowing school districts identified for improvement to be SES (supplemental educational services) providers; and
  • Giving school districts a one-year waiver on the requirement that they must notify parents about school choice options at least 14 days prior to the new school year if testing information is not available in a timely fashion (on a case-by-case basis).

In addition, NSBA is successful in making sure school districts will not have to put aside a significantly larger sum of funds for choice and SES under NCLB, see our concern in the letter to Duncan here. The secretary said he will consider a waiver that allows school districts to exclude the additional funding from the stimulus when determing the 20 percent set-aside funds for choice and SES.

NSBA applauds the secretary’s decision to revise some of the rules, but believes all the final rules enacted in the waning days of the previous administration should be deferred until the new administration has sufficient time to review them.

Katherine Shek|April 2nd, 2009|Categories: Educational Legislation, Governance, NSBA Opinions and Analysis|

Stay tuned for two online discussions

NSBA Director of Federal Relations Reggie Felton will discuss the Obama Administration’s first 75 days and what that means for school boards and public education. Log in to view the live discussion on Sunday, April 5th at 1:00 PM PDT.

NSBA General Counsel Francisco M. Negron, Jr. will discuss recent legal developments and how they will impact school district policies and procedures. Log in to view the live discussion on Monday, April 6th at 1:00 PM PDT.

 

Andrew Paulson|April 2nd, 2009|Categories: Announcements, Educational Legislation, NSBA Opinions and Analysis, School Law|

It’s not ‘tricky’ to give credit where credit is due

Yesterday, BoardBuzz told you about Virginia’s new high school graduation rate and how students who graduated in more than four years (late graduates) are not counted as graduates.  And we just came across this important article from Education Week (registration required) on the debate over whether to give schools credit for students who graduate in more than four years or not.

The article points out that there are those who are concerned about giving schools even partial credit for their late graduates.  Such as Dane Linn, director of the education division at NGA’s Center for Best Practices who said:

We need to be careful. We can’t yield to pressure that lots of kids need extra time, when all they might need is extra support to finish the requirements.

But BoardBuzz asks: what incentive do schools have to keep students in school longer rather than provide them with extra support to help them finish their requirements? It would take a lot less time and resources for a school to provide extra support instead of paying for an extra year of schooling. So what reason would a school have to keep a student in school longer than needed? BoardBuzz can’t think of any.

Unfortunately, the opposite is true now; schools are penalized for keeping kids in school who had fallen behind their classmates.  BoardBuzz isn’t the only one who thinks so. as Education Week points out as well:

Under the law’s accountability provisions, students who don’t graduate in four years count against schools’ graduation rates. Many educators have complained that such an approach punishes schools that go the extra mile to keep students from dropping our or to lure back those who have left school.

Maybe Dane Linn and others who are concerned that giving schools credit for their late graduates will be harmful to students should check out the Center for Public Education’s report Better late than never: Examining late high school graduates. There they will find that similar on-time graduates are no better off after high school than late graduates in several areas (although not in others).  However,  students are much better off graduating late than dropping out or even going on to earn a GED.  In any case, BoardBuzz has to respectfully disagree with Daria Hall over at the Education Trust, who said giving credit to schools for late graduates is “one of the trickier policy conversations we’ve been involved in for a while.” No, it’s not tricky. Give schools credit where credit is due and count late graduates as graduates. Schools should be rewarded for their efforts to keep students in school unitl they earn a diploma, not punished.

Fortunately, it appears BoardBuzz has an ally who may be able to do something about it.  U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has said:

You want to really reward the schools that do a great job of helping those students who are most at risk. So you need balance there. While [graduating in] in three years is magical, and four is great, five is good too.  There’s nothing sacred about four.

What’s your take on it?  Leave a comment and tell us about it.

Jim Hull|April 2nd, 2009|Categories: Educational Legislation, Elementary and Secondary Education Act, High Schools, NSBA Opinions and Analysis, Student Achievement|

A more accurate and useful graduation rate

BoardBuzz was happy to see that Virginia can now report a more accurate on-time graduation rate. Unlike past graduation rates that estimated a graduation rates, Virginia now is able to determine how many first time 9th graders graduated four years later. And according to the Washington Post Virginia’s new on-time graduation rate is 82 percent. 

Of course an accurate graduation rate in and of itself doesn’t help students graduate, but the data used to calculate these rates can be quite useful. Educators and policymakers can use the data collected by the state to implement policies and practices to prevent students from dropping out. In Virginia they found such early warning signs such as:

  • Nearly 60 percent of dropouts repeated at least one grade in high school;
  • More than 40 percent were freshman or10th graders who were at least age 17;
  • Dropouts were more likely to miss days of school; and
  • English language learners (ELL) were the most likely group to drop out.

As our Center for Public Education’s report on dropout prevention found prediction is a key element in any school’s dropout prevention strategy, along with intervention, prevention and recovery. 

Although BoardBuzz applauds Virginia for calculating a more accurate high school on-time graduation rate, there are still concerns. For example, the graduation rate only gives credit to schools graduating students in four years or less, with the exception of select English Language Learners (ELL) and Students with Disabilities. As the recent Center for Public Education report Better late than never clearly shows, on-time graduation may be best but students are much better off after high school if they graduate late than if they drop out or even if they go onto receive their GED. And that means that schools should get credit where credit is due by counting all the students who graduate late  — not just ELL or Special Education students. 

To learn more about graduation rates check out the Center for Public Education’s The straight story on high school graduation rates.

Jim Hull|April 1st, 2009|Categories: Educational Legislation, High Schools, NSBA Opinions and Analysis, Student Achievement|

NSBA testifies against federal mandate

BoardBuzz was pleased to see NSBA weighing in on Capitol Hill today.  The federal government should provide a national vision that considers the different needs of local school districts and communities in promoting healthy eating and lifestyles for children, Reggie Felton, NSBA‘s director of federal legislation told the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry today at a hearing on child nutrition. See NSBA’s official statement here and the entire testimony here.

Felton testified before the Committee on NSBA’s positions and recommendations regarding what role Congress should play in helping the nation’s school districts to improve nutrition in foods sold on campus. He argued that imposing federal mandates on schools and their communities is not the way to go.

“A national vision for child nutrition must reflect the understanding of current authority and Constitutional responsibilities of states and local communities, and redefine the role of the federal government so that it promotes national policies within the framework that supports states and local communities,” Felton said.

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) chair of the Committee, plans to reintroduce legislation that would impose federal requirements on what types of foods can be sold in school outside the federally subsidized lunch and breakfast programs throughout the school day. NSBA opposes such legislation, see our recommendations here.

Sen.  Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) Ranking Member of the committee and Sen. Mike Johanns (R-NE) agreed that local school districts and their communities must have the flexibility to address nutrition issues. “The very junior partner in education is the federal government,” said Johanns. “[The local community] knows what’s best for these kids.”

State school boards associations across the country have been working with school districts to develop and implement local wellness policies. NSBA’s school health program also works with educators and communities to bring awareness of increases in obesity among youth and to promote healthy lifestyles.

Katherine Shek|March 31st, 2009|Categories: Educational Legislation, NSBA Opinions and Analysis, Wellness|
Page 20 of 35« First...10«1819202122»30...Last »