So, there's a seldom discussed potential loophole to RTTT with regards to the School Improvement Grant Program that may allow for some small measure of local control in SIG schools that would otherwise fall into the RTTT Partnership Zone. The following letter, dug up by the NJ, is a best effort by DeDOE to close that loop. Here's how it works, potentially: If a RTTT Tier I-II school becomes a SIG Grant School before designated to the Partnership Zone, the local school district can enact one of the four required reform models (the same as for RTTT) without having to engage a "Lead Partner." They are essentially acting as their own LEAD PARTNER.
However, the following waiver could allow for DeDOE to insert itself into the SIG program and direct the selection of the model as well as hold SIG schools to RTTT requirements. Of course, my primary objection is based upon the reasoning that RTTT is fundamentally flawed, the models are unreliable, the research limp... And that much of what RTTT seeks to accomplish could occur if Delaware revisited the existing education funding formula and adopted spending practices that support students first.
I think I can best sum it up this way: I recently read a report from Sept. 2009 about the Year 2 in the Vision Network (that would be the same Vision Network that DE's RTTT Application --which has a two-year sunset on AYP -- lauds) in which this statement is written: We must remember that significant comprehensive change like Vision 2015 takes time to show effects; research has shown that school improvement is marked by steady, incremental improvement over a period of time..."
Let's stop talking about buckets of unpasturized cash and the cow from which its milked, and wrap our vision around the children drinkng the commodity.
http://blogs.delawareonline.com/delawareed/2010/06/04/turning-around-failing-schools/
Turning around failing schools
June 4th, 2010, Author: Nichole Dobo, Categories: Education Reform, K-12, Race to the Top
Here’s a recent letter the state Department of Education sent to the U.S. Department of Education.
This is sort of inside baseball, but it’s of interest to staff at schools who are on The List (aka schools that face interventions), board members and anyone else who follows details of RttT.
Click on the jump to read the letter.
———————————————————————–
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Bold text was added by DelawareEd to draw attention to certain sections of the letter.]
May 24, 2010
Assistant Secretary Melendez
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
400 Maryland Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20202
Dear Assistant Secretary Meléndez:
I am writing to request waivers of School Improvement Grant (SIG) requirements of Section II.B.2(d) (which prohibits an SEA from requiring an LEA to implement a particular model absent a State takeover) and Section II.A.8 (which requires an LEA, not an SEA, to establish achievement goals by which to measure progress) as set forth in the final requirements for the School Improvement Grants program, as published in 74 FR 65618 (Dec. 10, 2009) and amended by the interim final requirements, as published in 75 FR 3375 (Jan. 21, 2010) for FY 2009 and FY 2010 SIG funds.
First, I am requesting permission for the Delaware Secretary of Education to select a SIG intervention model in Tier I and Tier II state Partnership Zone schools (a subset of persistently low-achieving schools), if and only, when:
1) The LEA and local bargaining unit are unable to come to an agreement within 75 days of negotiation. In this case, each party shall present its last best offer on the areas of disagreement along with a draft agreement to the Secretary of the Department who shall accept one of the last best offers or reject all of them. Should the Secretary reject all offers, the parties shall have thirty (30) days to confer and present the Secretary revised offers for re-consideration.
2) The LEA and local bargaining unit are still unable to come to an agreement within 120 days of negotiation. In this case, the LEA must select an intervention from the Restart, Closure, or Turnaround intervention models. [DelawareEd note: This leaves out Transformation, the model favored by the union.]
Second, I am requesting that state regulation requiring Partnership Zone schools to meet AYP within two years of implementing an intervention model apply to any Partnership Zone school (a subset of persistently low-achieving schools) participating in SIG. This goal is directly aligned with state targets in the approved RTTT application.
These waivers will assist the SEA and each affected LEA to reach the educational goals we have established under RTTT. Approval of these waivers will allow Delaware to ensure aggressive and timely reform in our most persistently low-achieving schools, Partnership Zone schools, in accordance with the existing Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) between the state, all LEAs, and all local bargaining units as approved in the Delaware RTTT application. The fact that all LEAs, all local bargaining units, and all local school boards signed an MOU with the SEA agreeing to these conditions indicates clear statewide consensus on these processes and goals.
I believe that these waivers will increase the quality of instruction for students and improve the academic achievement of students in the state’s most persistently low-achieving schools. Delaware’s measureable educational goal for these waivers is: all Partnership Zone schools will meet AYP within two years of model implementation.
The agreed-upon timeframes for RTTT MOUs indicates broad consensus on the need for serious and rapid reform in our state’s most persistently low-achieving schools. If the state were unable to enforce the MOU processes agreed to under RTTT, it is possible that some LEAs with the most persistently low-achieving schools would not implement any intervention model. The timelines serve as an incentive for both the LEA and the local bargaining unit to focus on the goal and not delay reform because of disagreements around insignificant details.
Moreover, the requirement that these schools meet AYP within two years of implementing reform indicates broad consensus and personal accountability. This provision encourages both LEAs and local bargaining units to institute aggressive, research-based, and significant reforms with a strong likelihood of producing swift success for our students.
Because the Partnership Zone schools are a subset of Delaware’s persistently lowest achieving schools, SIG schools will continue to serve the same population of students that the SIG program is designed to serve if the waiver is approved. The SIG program will only support Partnership Zone schools that fall into Tier I and Tier II of the SIG eligible schools. SIG awards will not be granted to a Partnership Zone school that is not identified in the three SIG tiers, including any Partnership Zone school that is not a Title I school and is not Title I eligible.
This waiver will allow Delaware to align efforts under RTTT and SIG in order to maximize LEA use of funds across programs while providing additional state supports through state regulation for our neediest Partnership Zone schools. This way both programs will work simultaneously and harmoniously to promote aggressive reform, to ensure each school has quality staff, and to raise student achievement substantially.
Delaware assures that it provided all LEAs in the State with notice and a reasonable opportunity to comment on this request and has attached a copy of that notice. To expedite its waiver request, Delaware will subsequently submit copies of any comments it receives from LEAs. Delaware also assures that it provided notice and information regarding this waiver request to the public by publishing a notice in state newspapers and by posting information on its website and has attached a link (http://www.doe.k12.de.us/infosuites/staff/si/TitleIPartA/TitleIWaivers/TitleIPartAWaiverRequests.shtml) to that notice.
Please feel free to contact me by phone or email at llowery@doe.k12.de.us if you have any questions regarding this request. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Lillian M. Lowery
Secretary of Education
Delaware Department of Education
LML/AEH
c: Carlas McCauley
Susan Wilhelm
Dan Cruce
Amelia Hodges
Lori Duerr
No comments: