Have you seen Delaware's RTTT money?

Last I heard, Delaware still had not received its first RTTT payment.  Now, if I'm wrong and the money has quietly flowed into the state, please correct me and ignore the rest of this post :) And if I'm right, who knows where you'll end up?

The Common Core State Standards Initiative is a state-led effort coordinated by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). Delaware's own Governor, Jack Markell, is co-chair (with Gov. Sonny Perdue of Georgia) of the NGA Lead Governors on Common Core Standards Committee. Markell also chairs NGA's Education, Early Childhood and Workforce Committee.
So, to be fair, the Common Core Standards are cloaked in state-domain (and I have chosen my words carefully b/c I do believe there is a federal overstep being committed) and Delaware seems to have had  its share of influence in the process. (good ,if you support Jack's Blueprint for Education; bad, if you champion local control.) But, then, why is Delaware's official adoption of the standards so late in coming? School opens in just weeks and the DeDOE is only now, at its August meeting, bringing the standards to the State BOE for action.

"If you've been following the common-standards coverage in this blog, you know that Aug. 2 was a big-deal day, because states vying for Race to the Top money got maximum points if they had adopted the standards by then. When the RTT Round 2 finalists were announced, we noted that nearly all states that had won a grant (in Round 1) or were still in the running for one (Round 2) had adopted the standards.

Then it came down to one: Delaware was the only one of the RTT winners or contenders that had not yet adopted the common standards." (It won a grant in Round 1.) (Deadlines, Delaware, and the Common by Catherine Gewertz, Curriculum Matter Blog, August 10, 2010)

Veteran Education Week reporters Catherine Gewertz and Erik Robelen bring you news and analysis of issues at the core of classroom learning.

Yes, it's come down to Delaware, the last RTTT hangover when it comes to the standards. Gewertz did ferret out the reasons for our lateness (click the link above to read them in full) -- the unexpected, delayed release of the final standards product that threw off the timeline promised in our RTTT application (we cited June as the month that we would officially adopt). Furthermore, the feds and DeDOE have had a dialogue about the process developed to adopt them (it passes the litmus test.) As Gewertz blogs "So it seems that unforeseen events, good intentions, and a clear plan seem to have made the Aug. 2 date a bit more flexible for Delaware." Statisticians also believe that even without the 20 points automaticially awarded for adopting the standards, Delaware still would have won in the first round. Lucky Delaware, and a real shame for all the states that will not WIN Race funds and have aleady committed their states to fast-tracked standards.

But, it all raises a question in my mind, and without intending to, I think Gewertz gives us an answer: Why hasn't Delaware received the first of its Race to the Top winnings? Gewertz blogs:

"Spokesman Justin Hamilton said that Ed is keeping a close eye on how states are progressing with the plans they outlined in their Race to the Top applications. He noted that RTT money can only be drawn down by states in chunks, as they reach key milestones in that work.

"If we determine at any point along the way that a state is not holding to the commitment it made in its application, it could put its funding in jeopardy," he said."

Is Arne Duncan holding onto Delaware's funding until the State Board of Education formally adopts the Common Core Standards? Is he waiting for Delaware to reach that key milestone?  Time will tell...

[Continue Reading]

Common Core Standards: Smoggy in States' Rights

Should Delaware adopt the Common Core Standards? 

Yes, we know, the State Board of Education WILL adopt them.  It goes without saying because DeDOE wrote it into the Race to the Top Application.  But, should they?  Now, that's a harder question. 

There is no doubt in my mind that Delaware needs to develop more rigorous standards.  We rank consistently low when our stardards are compared to those of states.  But, there's something a bit more insidious to this pending adoption.  It's an issue of state's rights, one long ago, acknowledged in D.C. when No Child Left Behind became the law of the land.

While NCLB mandated assessments, the same testing that has caused the pushdown of academic standards across the nation, it specifically did not legislate common academic standards.  Legislators in D.C. along with their USDOE designees struggled with defining where state's rights began and federal jurisdiction ended.  The question of overstep really had t do with what constituted "curriculum" because the choice of curriculum is clearly defined as a right of a state, district, or school.  It doesn't fall under federal domain, see this tidbit from the ESEA. Click the title to link back.

SEC. 9527. PROHIBITIONS ON FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS.

(a) GENERAL PROHIBITION- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize an officer or employee of the Federal Government to mandate, direct, or control a State, local educational agency, or school's curriculum, program of instruction, or allocation of State or local resources, or mandate a State or any subdivision thereof to spend any funds or incur any costs not paid for under this Act.

(b) PROHIBITION ON ENDORSEMENT OF CURRICULUM- Notwithstanding any other prohibition of Federal law, no funds provided to the Department under this Act may be used by the Department to endorse, approve, or sanction any curriculum designed to be used in an elementary school or secondary school.
(c) PROHIBITION ON REQUIRING FEDERAL APPROVAL OR CERTIFICATION OF STANDARDS-

(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal law, no State shall be required to have academic content or student academic achievement standards approved or certified by the Federal Government, in order to receive assistance under this Act.
(2) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to affect requirements under title I or part A of title VI

(d) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION ON BUILDING STANDARDS- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to mandate national school building standards for a State, local educational agency, or school.

It's starting to look a bit like Wilmington on a bad air day - smoggy.  While I can tell you that the preference given to states willing to adopt the Common Core Standard in their Race to the Top Application subverts the rights accorded to the states in the above referenced standard, something of that nature always sounds better coming from a someone with a Ph.D.  So, I found one (which wasn't very hard, because while opponents have been shunned by mainstream media, they are there and they do have a message for policymakers, parents, and teachers alike):

Since the federal government’s legal and political authority to mandate common national standards is contested, the administration has instead applauded and encouraged the work of the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) in developing proposed“common core” standards in reading and math (henceforth referred to as the NGA/CCSSO effort). The administration has also announced its intention to “require all states to adopt and certify that they have college- and career-ready standards in reading and mathematics, which may include common standards developed by a state-led consortium, as a condition for qualifying for Title I funding.”3 Likewise, the federal Race to the Top competition for funds gives an advantage to states that have a clear intention to adopt such standards.4 As the NGA/CCSSO effort is the only collaborative effort of this type and 48 states and the District of Columbia are listed as cooperating with the initiative, the NGA/CCSSO standards are poised to become the de facto national curriculum standards.

From the The "Common Core” Standards Initiative: An Effective Reform Tool?  by William J. Mathis, Ph.D, at the Univeristy of Colorado at Boulder, presented by The Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice in Lansing Michigan.  Full report can be found at http://greatlakescenter.org/docs/Policy_Briefs/Mathis_NationalStandards.pdf

What further muddies the water is that the Common Core Standards are on their way to becoming de facto national standards, but the development process was curiously short -- only one year in duration, and lacking the rich participation of many key partners. For instance, Mathis found in the course of his research that:

...the level of input from schoolbased practitioners appears to be minimal, the standards themselves have not been field tested, and it is unclear whether the tests used to measure the academic outcomes of common standards will have sufficient validity to justify the high-stakes consequences that will likely arise around their use. Accordingly, it seems improbable that the common core standards will have the positive effects on educational quality or equality being sought by proponents, particularly in light of the lack of essential capacity at the local, state and federal levels.

So let's talk about the Common Core Standards vacuum.  There's a bit of a timeline here that needs to be acknowledged.

1989 -- Mathis cites "President Bush called the first “education summit,” at which governors agreed to set national goals and pledged support for state-based reform initiatives. Educators were for the most part not represented in these two efforts. As a result, standards-making shifted from the professional sphere to a business influenced political domain."

1990 -- President Clinton signed Goals 2000, legislation based on the first education summit,  into law. "This legislation, provided states with grants to adopt content standards and established a national goals panel. Goals 2000 generated a conservative-
led backlash against the growing federal role in education as well as the specific content of some goals and standards. The tenor of the reaction can be seen in a 1995 Senate resolution, passed on a 99-1 vote, protesting the adoption of history standards, in large part because of a controversy about multiculturalism. Congress eliminated the national goals panel in 1996" (Mathis, p8)

In th ensuring years, Texas became the first state to adopt a common curriculum aligned to standards and assessments. President Bush 2, from Texas, incorporated these policies into his re-authorization of ESEA, or NCLB.  States responded by lowering their standards into order to escape the punitive elements of NCLB.

Which brings us to today -- Mathis has found that:

In April 2009, representatives from 41 states met with CCSSO and NGA representatives in Chicago and agreed to draft a set of common standards for education. Achieve, a corporation founded by the NGA following the 1996 demise of the national standards effort, was commissioned by NGA/CCSSO after the Chicago meeting to draft the new “common core” standards in reading and mathematics. The project was fast-tracked: Achieve was to have a draft by summer 2009 and grade-by-grade standards by the end of the year. Historically, the development of subject-matter standards had been the province of specialists in those subjects working in universities and in schools. By contrast, Achieve workgroups in private and the development work was conducted by persons who were not, with apparently only a single exception, K-12 educators. The work groups were staffed almost exclusively by employees of Achieve, testing companies (ACT and the College Board), and pro-accountability groups (e.g., America’s Choice, Student Achievement Partners, the Hoover Institute). Practitioners and subject matter experts complained that they were excluded from the development process. Project Director Dane Linn said this was because they were (as paraphrased by Education Week) “determined to draft standards based on the best available research about effective math and reading curricula, rather than the opinions of any single organization.”30 The internal review boards consisted predominately of college professors. Of the more than 65 people involved in the common core design and review, only one was a classroom teacher and no school administrator is listed as being a member of the groups.31 In addition to the financial support from the federal government, the Gates Foundation is a significant contributor to the common core standards effort.32 A number of confidential iterations of the standards took place between the developers and state departments of education. The first public release of a draft was on March 10, 2010.33

Bold and Red are mine to highlight areas where I see concern. 

The final standards were released June 2, 2010.  Subsequently, all states hoping to receive RTTT funds in Round 2 were required to adopt those standard by August 2, 2010.  Which brings around to my original question:  Should Delaware adopt the common core standards?

From the perspective of states' rights, I'd say that any adoption would be yielding federally-protected control to the federal government in direct defiance of the ESEA.  It's a gray area.  The Obama administration could have mandated the common core standards, if they had definitively differentiated "standard" from "curriculum."  But they didn't; likely because the ESEA doesn't grant such authority.  It would have been an overstep.  Therefore, Obama charged the task to the governors, like Delaware's own Jack Markell.  The question that remains to be answered is this:  is it legal to require a state to adopt the standards in order to attain RTTT funding? Already discussion have occurred as to whether the feds can tie Title 1 funds to the adoption of the Common Core.  Is this an opening of the door for more erosion on states' rights? 

What's a state to do?  What's a state with abyssmally low standards and falling standardized test scores to do?  Fortunately, I don't have a vote on this one.  It lays at the feet of our Delaware State Board of Education.  I just have to live with the results.

I'll leave you with recommendations that Mathis identified in his report:

• 
  

  
  

  The NGA/CCSSO common core standards initiative should be continued, but only as a low-stakes advisory and assistance tool for states and local districts for the purposes of curriculum improvement, articulation and professional development.

  The NGA/CCSSO common core standards should be subjected to extensive validation, trials and subsequent revisions before implementation. During this time, states should be encouraged to carefully examine and experiment with broad-based school-evaluation systems.

  Given the current strengths and weaknesses in testing and measurement, policymakers should not implement high-stakes accountability systems where the assessments are inadequate for such purposes

Should we choose to follow them, it may make the air a bit easier to breathe...

From Edweek.com:

[Continue Reading]

RTTT Judges go "SOVIET"

RTTT Judges Reviewed...Kinda...

Ed. Dept.'s 'Soviet Judges' Review of Race to Top Scores


By Michele McNeil on April 22, 2010 12:41 PM
1 Comment
No TrackBacks

There's been a lot of talk about how fair the scoring was in the first round of Race to the Top. Did reviewers follow the guidance and always award the correct number of points? Did a few outliers skew the results? Did some states get the luck of the draw and benefit from a bunch of easy graders, or did others draw the short end of stick and get all of the hard graders?

The Education Department, as part of its technical assistance seminar in Minneapolis yesterday for state applicants, said it did its own statistical analysis to examine these issues. Joanne Weiss, the department's Race to the Top guru, called it the "Soviet judges" review (in a nod to notorious figure-skating scoring scandals of years past). UPDATE: For a summary of their review, fast forward to slide 15 of this PowerPoint presentation the department did yesterday...

For the rest of the article, including links to supporting documents go HERE

[Continue Reading]

If you haven't seen it yet, you can catch Delaware's Race to the Top presentation to USDOE at http://transparentchristina.wordpress.com/2010/04/10/get-the-popcorn-this-is-riveting-stuff-rttt-markell-lowery-usdoe-secretjudges/

/

[Continue Reading]

Mass Insight on the Partnership Zone

In the earlier part of January, I blogged my suspicions of Delaware's plan to pilot Mass Insight's Turnaround Challenge Program in Delaware schools.  The release of Delaware's Race to the Top Application confirmed my concerns. 

Before we get started, here are my early questions:
1) Will School Board Members, as LEA leaders, be invited to participate in the Partnership Zone Institute?
2) Who has Mass Insight and DOE identified to Potential Operational Partners?
3) Will participants in the Partnership Zone Institute be invited to participate in the series of visits to schools nationwide that have been successfully reformed?  And at who's cost?

The following excerpts are from different sections of the application, arrange here to provide ease of reading.
Here we go --

According to Delaware's RttT Application:

The State’s Turnaround Office will provide a range of supports to LEAs as they turn around lowest-achieving schools, from the point of entry into the Partnership Zone, to the planning process, to recruitment of leaders and staff, and finally, to the launch and operations of the turnaround school ... The State has established a partnership with Mass Insight to support its turnaround efforts, making it one of a handful of states selected for partnership with this national leader in school reform...

Goals

As noted above, Delaware expects to turn around at least 10 lowest-achieving schools by 2014, with each school reaching AYP within two years of launch. The State will initiate three interventions in the 2011-12 school year, and will initiate seven more for the 2012-13 school year...

While the process to identify PLA schools is quantitative and objective, the process to select PLA schools to enter the Partnership Zone will include qualitative components Partnership Zone schools will be selected at the discretion of The Delaware Secretary of Education...

The State’s planned timeline for implementation is as follows: In March 2010 (using 2009 data), the State will identify an initial list of PLA schools. By September 2010, the State will select at least three schools from this list to enter into the Partnership Zone and begin preparations to implement one of the four intervention models in the 2011-2012 school year. By the end of July 2011, the State will again identify a list of PLA schools, and in August of that year, the State will select at least seven more schools to enter into the Partnership Zone. These schools will immediately begin preparations to implement one of the four intervention models in the 2012-13 school year. In this way, Delaware will launch interventions in 10 schools by the 2012-13 school year. These 10 schools will represent nearly 5% of all schools in the State, and more than 25% of all schools currently in school improvement, corrective action, or restructuring. The identification process will repeat annually in July based on accountability assessment results, with additional schools selected for the Partnership Zone as determined by The Delaware Secretary of Education...

Delaware recognizes the challenge faced by LEAs in turning around the State’s lowest performing schools. With a long history of failure, these schools require radical reform to achieve sufficient academic progress among students. To this end, Delaware has established strict requirements for the four intervention models required by State law (which are equivalent to the turnaround, closure, restart, and transformation options described in the Race to the Top guidelines). In addition, Delaware expects rapid progress – schools in the Partnership Zone will need to achieve AYP in just two years...

To meet this need, a newly-formed State Turnaround Office will provide a range of services to LEAs, beginning when a school is selected for the Partnership Zone. The Turnaround Office will bring the nation’s best thinking on, and experience with, school intervention to Delaware, by working with Mass Insight...

Below are the details of the State’s implementation plan for its first cohort of three Partnership Zone schools:
1. Run a “Partnership Zone Institute” to inform LEAs selection of an intervention model and provide access to a network of potential operational partners: By July 2010, the State will host a “Partnership Zone Institute,” for LEA leaders. The Institute will provide a short, intense education process to ensure that local leaders are knowledgeable about the full range of available school intervention models, best practices, and potential operational partners. The Institute will begin with a one-day conference, providing in-depth reviews of the turnaround, closure, restart, and transformation models, including presentations by school intervention experts and support organizations. For example, the State and Mass Insight might run a workshop to share early results and experience from other turnaround states within the Mass Insight network. Next, the Institute will host a series of visits to schools nationwide that have been successfully reformed.  Finally, as LEAs may choose to outsource management of Partnership Zone schools to a third party operating partner (10) the State will facilitate introductions to potential partners that have a proven track record and an interest in expanding to Delaware (this may require a second one-day conference). As planning and implementation continue, the Turnaround Office will provide additional assistance with recruiting partners, should LEAs be interested.

(10) One model for outsourcing management of schools in turnaround is known as the “lead partner” model. These partners are granted operating freedom (e.g., authority to recruit and manage personnel) in exchange for accepting accountability for performance. Lead partners provide all academic and non-academic services at the school, actively develop a new school culture, and establish a full-time presence on site in the school...

3. Assist with recruiting, selecting, and training school leaders, teachers, and other staff: As soon as a school is selected for the Partnership Zone, LEAs should begin their search for a school leader (or a partner that will then provide a school leader). Ideally, the leader will be involved in the design of the reform model and implementation plan, and in the negotiation of staffing and operating flexibility. However, it may also be difficult to secure a leader until the LEA can assure that leader that he or she will have sufficient flexibility to manage the school (i.e., after negotiations with the union are complete).
Regardless of the timing, the Turnaround Office will support LEAs in recruiting, selecting, and training school leaders (and eventually other staff), by acting on behalf of the State to build a pool of potential leaders for all turnaround schools. This will include working with high-quality alternative certification and training programs (as described in section (D)(1)), leveraging the networks of Mass Insight, and assisting LEAs with recruiting local operating partners that have their own leader pipelines...

School leaders for the first cohort of Partnership Zone schools should be in place no later than February 2011.

5. Provide supplemental funding: The Turnaround Office will ensure that Partnership Zone schools receive the maximum funds from School Improvement Grants under section 1003(g) of the ESEA (approximately $500,000 per school), and will provide additional funding of $200,000 to each Partnership Zone school for its first three years of operations.

[Continue Reading]

Everything You Could Ever Want to Know About the Delaware Comprehensive Assessment System

All Text from the Delaware Race to the Top Application
Note:  Nearly every paragraph is a snippet from a different part of the application.  I have organized them in most chronological order I can provide in order for flow of reading.  I have highlighted some sections in bold for emphasis.

Happy Reading:

While DSTP is rigorous when compared to NAEP and other state assessments, it could be more comprehensive, cover a wider range of subject areas, and include multiple formative assessments to help teachers hit progress goals. For this reason, in 2009 the Delaware General Assembly mandated the implementation of a new computer-adaptive test (the Delaware Comprehensive Assessment System – DCAS), including formative and summative assessments, by the 2010-11 school year. Delaware is on track to meet this mandate, with a signed contract with an assessment vendor in hand.


Since Delaware’s new assessment will align with the common core standards (pending review and adoption), address college-readiness requirements, and be operational a full five ears before a common assessment is expected, the State intends to make its assessment available to the multi-state consortium as a model for the common assessment. When the common assessment is ready, Delaware will transition from DCAS to the new assessment.

DCAS: Delaware Comprehensive Assessment System. Delaware’s new statewide test of student achievement, which will be computer-adaptive and include multiple formative assessments. For every student, DCAS will provide up to three computer-adaptive formative assessments and one summative assessment per year, including end-of-course exams in high school, making Delaware one of the few states able to measure student growth in a valid and reliable way. DCAS will be fully implemented in the 2010-11 school year including benchmark and summative assessments for grades 2-10 in English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies and end-of-course exams for high school courses (e.g. Algebra II)



To measure learning against these standards, Delaware is dedicating nearly $13 million in local, state and federal funding to develop the Delaware Comprehensive Assessment System (DCAS) – a series of new computer adaptive, flexible formative assessments that will be used to inform instruction and measure ongoing student learning. This investment, which shifts funding from an older summative testing system to one that is flexible and aligned with reform, includes $5.0 million of LEA funds, $4.1 million of State funds, and $3.6 million of federal No Child Left Behind funds.


Data from DCAS will flow into Delaware’s existing longitudinal data system, which already allows the State to know how every LEA, every school, every teacher, and every student is performing and improving.


As a computer-adaptive system, DCAS will improve testing by allowing all test takers, including students with disabilities, to take the same exam and have testing items adjusted to their level of knowledge. In this way, this single assessment will focus questions at the upper limit of a student’s knowledge, providing a nuanced assessment of aptitude and content knowledge.

Assessments:
In December 2009, the State signed a contract with an assessments vendor to develop DCAS (described in section (B)(2)), a set of statewide formative and summative assessments that will align with the common core standards. The vendor will make the DCAS tests for English language arts, mathematics, social studies and science available by August 2010, and the test will launch in the 2010-11 school year.

DCAS will be piloted during the spring semester of the 2009-10 school year. During the development of DCAS, the State will host a DCAS standard-setting event involving K-12 educators, higher education content experts and assessment experts to ensure that DCAS performance level cut scores represent college- and career-ready status for Delaware high schools. Once the development of DCAS is complete, the State will submit its revised State Accountability Workbook for USDOE peer review and approval.

In August 2010, the DCAS vendor will provide initial training for teachers and administrators on the new assessment. The State will augment this training with a manual and webinars to ensure that all teachers understand the importance of formative and benchmark assessments in improving instruction. Finally, in June 2010, the State will compete, as part of a consortium of states, for federal common assessments grants.


(B)(2)(i) Developing the Delaware Comprehensive Assessment System. DCAS, Delaware’s own computer-adaptive assessment system, will be used to administer up to three formative and summative assessments per year per student in core subjects, and will include formative and end-of-course exams in most other subject areas. In developing DCAS, Delaware will use a combination of local expertise, outside vendors, and participation in consortia that will develop and share testing items (see above) to gain access to high-quality testing items at the best possible value. As a computer-adaptive system, DCAS will improve testing by allowing all test takers, including students with disabilities, to take the same exam and have testing items adjusted to their level of knowledge. In this way, this single assessment will focus questions at the upper limit of a student’s knowledge, providing a nuanced assessment of aptitude and content knowledge.
DCAS will also be able to synchronize with the State’s data system, yielding immediate results that a teacher will use to improve instruction. For educators, DCAS will provide a more accurate measure of student growth and more timely and detailed information that will be used for planning and improving educational programs at the school, LEA and state levels. The State will provide data coaches to aid in the use of assessment data to improve instruction (see section (C)(3) for more information on using data to inform instruction). In addition, DCAS will provide multiple opportunities for students to demonstrate proficiency and will provide academic achievement information to students and parents, including a measure of fall-to-spring and year-to-year individual student growth. The robust student data created from this assessment system will form the foundation for a data driven approach to education and evaluation that will affect all of education in Delaware.

Finally, as prescribed by the Delaware General Assembly, DCAS is to be developed in a cost-effective manner and, to the fullest extent possible, developed in collaboration with other states.

Delaware’s goal is to adopt new standards by June 2010 and to train the approximately 7000 teachers affected by the new standards by the start of the 2010-11 school year. The State expects the curriculum refinement process to be 50% complete by the end of the 2010-11 school year, and 100% complete by the end of the 2011-12 school year. By the end of the 2010-11 school year, the State expects that 100% of DCAS tests will be in place, which will include at least three formative assessments. To support college-readiness, the State expects that 100% of students will be taking the SAT by the end of the 2010-11 school year.

[Continue Reading]

"DDOE's Unnecessary Current Positions"

From Delaware's Race to the Top Application:

(A)(2)(i)(e) Using the fiscal, political, and human capital resources of the State to continue after the period of funding has ended


In order to continue providing fiscal support to the reforms initiated through the Race to the Top application, the State will pursue a tiered strategy, including:


1. Continuing the overarching Statewide commitment to reform as outlined above
2. Implementing a consolidated purchasing program among LEAs for select categories of goods and services – this may include a central bidding process for instructional materials
3. Coordinating with the General Assembly to realign existing funding in the Public Education budget for reform efforts
4. Providing greater flexibility to LEAs in the administration of their state funding in order to promote autonomy, innovation and reform. This effort began in the last Delaware General Assembly, specifically with House Bill 119.

Combined, these activities will support reform and promote autonomy, efficiency and innovation in education spending throughout the State. Continued funding coordination and repurposing will involve fiscal responsibility and political will as the DDOE works with the General Assembly to ensure that State and federal education funding is distributed fairly and effectively.


Human capital resources dedicated to reform will also continue after the period of the grant. The Project Management Office and the 9 positions therein will remain in place following the period of the grant. The PMO represents a fundamental reorganization and reorientation of the DDOE to create a culture focused on performance and results. Initially these positions will be funded by Race to the Top, jump-started in the “New DDOE,” but over time the DDOE will reallocate fiscal and human resources from unnecessary current positions to these new offices on a permanent basis. The existing resources of the DDOE will be repurposed to support reform without growing the overall size of the Delaware DOE in the long term.

My biggest objection to Race to the Top, aside from the fact that the reform models are not proven, was the committment required by LEAs to continue funding for successful reforms after the seed money has been depleted. 

This section of the grant application begins to address these post-mortem requirements.  DDOE has committed to "Coordinating with the General Assembly to realign existing funding in the Public Education budget for reform efforts." Well it's about time!  (sarcasm) Shame it took the incentive of $75 Million to get everyone on the same page. 

"The Project Management Office and the 9 positions therein will remain in place following the period of the grant. "  Oh, so much for smaller class sizes, more teachers, and text books ...  We're going to use RttT to create a New DDOE  and eliminate "unnecessary current positions."  Well, let me say it -- IF WE HAVE UNNECESSARY CURRENT POSITIONS IN DDOE, THEY NEED TO BE ELIMINATED NOW!  Why are we wasting money paying for unnecessary human capital?  To ensure that the body count stays the same in Dover?  To prevent the attrition of a position to the Consolidation of State Government? Come on!  I have waivers to permit my schools to operate outside the maximum class size regulations, and DOE has unnecessary current positions.  Down-size now and send me a teacher!

The existing resources of the DDOE will be repurposed to support reform without growing the overall size of the Delaware DOE in the long term.  Oh, I get it, now!  We are going to use RttT to re-train the same people who have stood by while our public school system floundered and failed. It would be my guess, based upon the Delaware Way, that DDOE has a tank of employees who have filled their positions for decades and are within arms reach of retirement and pension.  Let's keep them in place long enough to get them to their full pension because that is certainly the smartest and best way to use our education dollars.

Since taking this unpaid job, I find myself slamming my head into the wall more and more.  What's broken in our schools didn't start in our schools.  It started in the beauracracy crafted around our schools.  RttT leads me to believe that the state thinks we need millions of dollars to undo that before we can begin reaching our failing students.  We have to stop investing in the latest reform, trend, and curriculum and get back to the basics.  Education needs to be about our children, not the adults.  And right now, the conversation really seems to be about the adults. 

[Continue Reading]

"Delaware Will Become a Laboratory for Reform for the Nation"

From Delaware's Race to the Top Grant Application:

Delaware’s newly-defined regulatory framework for school turnaround gives the State the authority to intervene directly in failing schools and requires schools to demonstrate results by achieving AYP within two years. It also requires both strict adherence to the school intervention models defined in the Race to the Top guidance, and negotiation of collective bargaining agreement carve outs to secure the staffing and operational flexibility necessary for successful implementation. In cases where negotiations fail, the State has the authority to break a stalemate. This collaborative, yet robust approach will be complemented with central supports from the State and will allow the DDOE to affect change at the local level.

Beyond these strengths, Delaware brings another advantage to its reform – its size. With just 126,800 students, 19 districts, and 18 charters, Delaware is small enough to make true statewide reform achievable. In Delaware, reform will be managed face-to-face, not via a remote bureaucracy, allowing the State to act quickly in response to challenges and opportunities. By proving that reform is possible with the same complex conditions that other states face (e.g. diverse stakeholders, limited funding, complex governance), and doing it quickly, Delaware will become a laboratory for reform for the nation.

My Take:
1) Delaware's students will be expected to make AYP in 2 years.  Statistically speaking, this requirement fails to take into consideration the divserse learning styles and curve of each child.  

2) The Reform will be managed face-to-face?  Between who?  School Boards, nor Delaware's School Board Association, were not brought into a collaborative relationship to assist in creation of the State's Application.  We have been repeatedly marginalized.  In scanning the Application, there are multiple instances of the reiteration of stakeholders and school boards are repeatedly left off that list.  DOE did not reach out to school boards until the deadline was imminent and they needed a signature, at which time we were told that DOE's reforms would happen anyway and if we wanted any money, it was sign or be left behind.  Hands Tied.  Period. 

3) Delaware will become a laboratory for Reform for the Nation:  This is perhaps the most frightening statement I've read today.  Delaware's children are not lab rats.  I want our kids to succeed.  But, I believe acheivement is better accomplished by small class sizes and the re-construction of Delaware's Education Funding Mechanisms.  We need more classrooms and more teachers.  We need to eliminate waivers, compel payment by the state for their share of full-day Kindergarten, and stick to what we know works.  Teachers will tell you that they are most effective when they have smaller classes and can work with each and every child at their level in a consistent manner.  We need to take the adults (Politician, and Businessmen) out of the equation and state focusing on the children!

[Continue Reading]

Obama Wants to Expand RttT

Obama Calls For $1.35 Billion For Race To The Top Education Program - Update


(RTTNews) - Speaking in Falls Church, Virginia, on Tuesday, President Barack Obama asked Congress for $1.35 billion in the 2011 budget for his Race to the Top education program.


If given the funds, the White House said the program would expand to recognize school districts that are prepared to embark on system-wide improvement of their educational policies and practices, enabling them to compete directly for a grant under the program...

http://www.rttnews.com/Content/PoliticalNews.aspx?Node=B1&Id=1183462

[Continue Reading]

Could Mayoral Control be the future of our City Schools?

(okay, that question may land me in hot water, but it's no secret that there are many in Wilmington who believe that their schools should be run locally, not by the Red Clay, Colonial, or the Christina School Districts.  Therefore, I believe, it deserves to be asked.)

Rochester, NY
Rochester, NY, Mayor Bob Duffy wants control of his cities schools, joining a growing cohort of urban leaders vying for education reform through mayoral control.  In Duffy's view, public safety, economic development and public education would all be better served under a consolidated government.  Though he appears to be gaining the support of both the NY Legislature and Governor Patterson,  the move is not without controversy and opponents, including the education union and some school board members who are mounting a fight.  (The School Board would cease to exist if the state's third largest district falls under Duffy's control.)

According to the http://www.democratandchronicle.com/, Duffy says, "This is about aligning systems that are critically important for the future health of our city and our children," He envisions a district that would integrate social service and nonprofit organizations to provide a comprehensive "kids zone."

By law, the city of Rochester pays $119 million to the school district annually. Savings would come through combining departments, while educational quality would improve in part through a more comprehensive social service net, Duffy said.

Mayoral Control
Arne Duncun has gone so far as to say, he would consider his time as education secretary a "failure" if more mayors didn't take over control of their city schools by the end of his tenure. 

Rochester isn't alone. as reported by Dakarai Aarons efforts "are under way in Detroit and Milwaukee to institute mayoral control, spurred by frustration over sometimes glacial academic progress.

"Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett (who is running to replace Doyle) have been unsuccessful so far in their attempts to get the state legislature to pass a mayoral control bill, most recently in a special session two weeks ago. Barrett is still pushing forward, and the state senate's education committee is holding a hearing on the issue Jan. 5.

"In Detroit, Emergency Financial Manager Robert C. Bobb recently asked for academic control of the schools. He and others have expressed support for Mayor Dave Bing having a say in how the schools are run. The Michigan House will take up the issue in a series of hearings starting Jan. 14."

In October, reporter Lesli A. Maxwell produced an examination of Mayoral Control as education reform for the Wallace Foundation's, Leading for Learning Report.  Maxwell cites 18 cities who have explored the change in education leadership.  There are the heavy-hitters -- New York City, Washington D.C. and Chicago -- as well as efforts in smaller cities like Harrisburg, PA; Yonkers, NY; Providence, R.I.; Trenton, NJ; and Hartford, Conn.

Even our neighbor, Philadelphia, developed a model of control in 2001when the school district reverted to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Currently, the Mayor appoints two members of the School Reform Commission and the Governor appoints three others. 

What mayoral control does present is a direct line of accountibility for school performance to one person, the mayor.  If voters don't like the direction of their public education, they have the ability to change leadership every four years.  When Mayor Bloomberg ran last fall in NYC, his education record was a central issue in the election.

"No mayor has exercised such unlimited power over the public schools as Mr. Bloomberg," Diane Ravitch, a professor of education at NYU, former assistant secretary of education and frequent critic of Bloomberg, has written.

In the eyes of some critics, this is simply going too far. "We still think there are reasons to keep mayoral control," United Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten said in her introduction to the union's report on school governance. But she continued,"The experience of the last seven years points strongly to a need for a governance system that is more democratic, more accountable and more transparent."

In New Mexico,

The push for mayoral control reflects rising frustration and desperation over poor student achievement, crumbling buildings, bureaucratic wrangling among school officials and revolving-door superintendents.



The districts have standardized their curriculums, ended "social promotion" of kids who fall too far behind, opened new schools to give students more choice and brought in millions of dollars in corporate donations.


But education specialists continue to debate whether kids really get a better education under such arrangements, whether any academic gains will be permanent, and how much credit mayors should get for the successes.

Kenneth Wong, a Brown University education professor, examined test scores of the 100 largest school districts from 1999 to 2003. He found that students in mayor-controlled school systems often perform better than those in other urban systems. Test scores in mayor-run districts are rising "significantly," he says.


However, Wong says in his study that "there is still a long way to go before (mayor-controlled) districts achieve acceptable levels of achievement."

Delaware school boards by contrast are slow moving machines that levy power among seven unpaid individuals with rotating elections of one or two seats per year.  It takes a minimum of five years to replace a board in Delaware and often longer. 

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not trying to advocate my way out of a seat on the CSD BOE.  School Boards provide local accountibility representative of all parts of a district.  Candidates must reside in defined geographic nominating districts and are elected by all voters who choose to hit the polls on election day.  They are both accountible and accessible in ways that a mayor may not be.

In an April article for Edweek.com, former executive director for the New York Commission on School Governence, Joseph P. Viteritti found that:

Mayoral Control produces a mixed bag of results.  Mayoral control of public schools, now found in more than a dozen localities across the nation, has become part of the landscape of American urban education, even as the idea has played out differently from city to city.

Boston and Chicago are prototypes. In Boston, where the governance change was carried out in 1992, the mayor has worked closely with school professionals to implement new programs. In Chicago, where it was enacted in 1995, the mayor, at least initially, worked around school people. Detroit is a case study of mayoral control undone: The plan there went down in a 2005 referendum after six rocky years characterized by racial, partisan, and regional antagonism. The District of Columbia is a recent convert (2007); Los Angeles came close, but never quite got there. And talk about a move to mayoral control has been heard in such diverse places as Albuquerque, N.M.; Dallas; Memphis, Tenn.; Milwaukee; Minneapolis; Newark, N.J.; Rochester, N.Y.; and Seattle.

Veteritti further writes:

In New York City, our Commission on School Governance recommended that responsibility for the analysis and dissemination of performance data be turned over to the Independent Budget Office, which does not report to the mayor or rely on him for funding. Putting city hall in control of the schools increases the risk of politicizing education and the assessment of school performance. If a city is seriously considering mayoral control, education presumably is already a high political priority, so achievement data can be an irresistible temptation around election time.

So, returning to my question of mayoral control and the role it could play in the City of Wilmington:  The Jury is out on whether it works, though it is a favored model U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncun.  However, even in Duncun's home town, Chicago, longitudinal data seems to indicate that his own changes to education failed to spurr sustainable progress. 

I certainly don't have the answer.  But, it's a question worth asking ... and especially in light of regulation changes coming from DOE that could open the door for the elimination of local control in schools failing to make AYP.  You can check out those changes in detail at http://transparentchristina.wordpress.com/2010/01/14/delaware-regulation-changes-and-their-potential-impact/ thanks to a fellow blogger who's made that information easily accessible.

Time will tell.

[Continue Reading]

Education is a marathon, not a SPRINT

Education is a marathon, not the sprint that proponents of Race to the Top would have you think.

Christina voted to sign the MOU last night with two dissenting votes.  While I sincerely hope that the RttT grant will lead our children to great success, my vote reflected a greater concern:

We are mortgaging the futures of our students.  At the end of the four year grant program, Federal Guidelines require districts to not only continue funding programs created under RttT, but to assume the state's share of that funding as well.  

As two board members admitted last night, Christina's financial infrastructure is fragile and failing: 

Thanks to WDEL 1150 AM for posting their video of the debate at http://www.wdel.com/video/?v=race2top.wmv  Pertinent Text Below:

"From a fiscal responsibility and looking at the district and the changes that we need to do; I look at what status quo is currently.  No current operating referendum.  We're looking at the budget and fewer and fewer dollars next year to sustain even what we are currently doing and yet still failing miserably and debating whether we have five, six, ten, or twenty schools on aparticular list, we know where the hell we stand."

And

"We are not in a good place now and I think this points us to a better place.  The four years and done spend down doesn't have me that worried ... four years is a long, long time ... our current model will completely collapse in less than four years financially anyway.  So as as John Maynard Keynes says, 'It doesn't pay to look too far into the future because in the long term we are all dead.'"

As the parent of a young child in our district with another getting there, it is prerequisite that I have my eye on this district's long-term financial picture.  If we are headed to "financial collapse" within the next four years, how are we to plan to support more expenses when those four years are over?  And in four years, my children and our many elementary age children now and to come will not be dead.  They will; however, be struggling to attain a world class education in a system that is likely to be completely broken.

It is with that concern and my refusal to subscribe to short sidedness, that I cast my no vote last night.  I believe that it is better to build a realistic strategic plan, to enact true and proven best practices, not unfounded ones, and engage in thoughtful financial planning.  Instead, it is my opinion, that our board chose to engage in an open-ended and ill-defined BINDING agreement. 

Finally, it is not a character failing to "vote your conscience" when the futures of 17,000 children weigh upon you.  Rather, I believe it is your obligation. 

A vote against an unproven reform and for sounder financial decisions cannot be equated to a vote for the failure of that reform.  I pray it works. It is now all we have.

[Continue Reading]

Is Delaware the Turnaround Model?

Last Wednesday, Dr. Lowery noted that the DOE has recently engaged with Mass Insight to assist in some of the many reforms that Delaware is undertaking, regardless of whether we receive RttT funding or not.

In referring to Markell's Blueprint for Education, published while he was still candidate Markell and not the Gov., Dr. Lowery stated, "if we don't get RttT, this is going to fall apart, but we are doing this" as she stood before a large screen projection of "Exhibit 1" of the State's application.

Then, tonight, I'm trolling Mass Insight's website and stumble upon this little nugget of information:

STG's (SCHOOL TURNAROUND GROUP)continued work produces organizational strategies, work plans, and manuals for states, large urban districts, and outside funding partners to turn around low-performing schools through a new system of turnaround zones with improved operating conditions, Lead Partners, and other supports. The "Partnership Zone Initiative," which has received startup funding from the Carnegie Corporation of New York, with matching support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, will establish turnaround zones”in up to three states in 2009-2013 to serve as proof-points for these school turnaround and district redesign strategies.

And I can't help but ask, "Why am I spending time looking for the peer-reviewed model, when it appears that is the role that Delaware will play for the nation?"

Which would be fine and dandy, if there was proof that it worked.  And if we knew for certain that any district could opt-out of the MOU at any point without penalty?  Right now, the Fed language is "mutually agreeable."  And if DEDOE would put it in writing that if a district fails to succeed in meeting AYP or mutually opts-out that said district would only have to return the unspent portions of the sum and will not be responsible for repaying spent funds.

And I did ask for that in writing last Wednesday? You bet, but it was laughed off.  Only, I must have a longer memory than most b/c not too long ago we were settling lawsuits out of court that we incurred b/c we didn't have to funds to pay for the contract we engaged upon ...

And the moral of the yet-unwritten story is this:  If Delaware is the MODEL, DOE will never mutually agree for a district to opt-out nor will any be permitted to fail and thus, we could in fact see local control thoroughly eroded ...

[Continue Reading]

What does the Race to the Top grant program mean for teachers?

From Teacher Magazine at http://www.teachermagazine.org/tm/articles/2009/09/02/rtt_explained.html?tkn=YNTF9IX1JRMrm4etRAgFOPrwpkMiLw8HmXZS

Published: September 2, 2009

What Teachers Need to Know About Race to the Top

As states continue the scramble for education dollars this year, teachers may hear frequent references to a federal grant program called “Race to the Top.” What exactly does it mean for classroom educators?

The Race to the Top Fund, part of the Obama administration’s economic stimulus package, is a $4.35 billion competitive grant program for states, administered by the U.S. Department of Education. It is designed to encourage states to make coordinated, large-scale education improvement efforts across a number of policy areas that the Education Department sees as key.

The Criteria
According to draft plans outlined by the department in July, there are 19 proposed criteria that states’ will be judged on when submitting reform plans for Race to the Top money. Central among them is the state’s use of student-achievement data for evaluating teachers and principals. Under the guidelines, if a state bars the use of student-achievement data in teacher-evaluation decisions—as California and New York currently do—the state would automatically be disqualified from the grant process.

On the whole, the list of criteria revolves around the four central reform areas: States must adopt internationally benchmarked standards; improve the recruitment, retention, and rewarding of educators; improve data collection; and turn around the lowest-performing schools.
Under the proposed guidelines, the Education Department would give extra weight to grant proposals that focus on science, technology, engineering, and math, known as the STEM subjects.
States with alternative-certification routes for teachers and principals, and merit-pay plans for educators, would also be given preference.

States would also be judged on whether they have statewide backing for their reform plan, including from teachers’ unions. A letter of endorsement from the state union would be considered evidence of such support.

Under the current schedule, proposed guidelines for the program would be finalized in October, and applications from states would be due in December. Awards would be made to successful states in March 2010, with a second wave of grants scheduled for the following September.

Defining Teacher Quality
As is clear from the criteria for approval, teachers in states that ultimately receive Race to the Top grants could see significant changes in their practic, ranging from curriculum reforms to new ways of using student data to plan instruction. But the biggest changes for teachers are expected to come from the program’s emphasis on revamping teacher-quality systems (via recruiting, retention, and compensation strategies) by integrating them, at least in part, with student-achievement data.

“Successful state proposals will plan to strengthen the entire ‘talent chain’—recruitment, preparation and credentialing, placement, induction, professional development, evaluation, advancement, and retention,” wrote Joanne Weiss, the Education Department’s director of Race to the Top, in a recent Education Week Commentary. “In particular, we want schools and districts to know which teachers are effective (as measured in significant measure by how their students are improving academically), and to ensure that local decision makers use this information to inform key decisions. …”

As Education Week Staff Writer Stephen Sawchuk reported in his analysis of the proposed guidelines, states “must commit to using their teacher-effectiveness data for everything from evaluating teachers to determining the type of professional development they get to making decisions about granting tenure and pursuing dismissals.”

Those reforms, however, have encountered opposition from teachers' unions, which have traditionally been leary of linking teacher evaluation to student-achievement data. The unions harbor particular concerns about the technical quality of the student tests that would be used to judge their members’ performance. They have also expressed concern about the validity of the value-added methodologies—systems that seek to determine the extent to which individual teachers are contributing to students’ academic performance. Both the National Educators Association and the American Federation of Teachers, as well as many state unions, have submitted comments on the Race to the Top guidelines to the Education Department.

How well the unions succeed in changing the Education Department’s position will be determined when the final guidelines are released in October.

[Continue Reading]