Obama’s blueprint for California
The utopian demand that all children be proficient in math and English language arts by 2014 would be replaced by the goal that all students be on track for a career or college by 2020.
The unyielding pass or fail grade for a school based on collective test scores would be replaced by measurements of individual students’ growth and broader gauges of school progress, such as school climate and student attendance.
As its antidote to the excesses of the No Child Left Behind law, the Obama administration has released a 41-page outline for its as yet-unnamed reauthorization of NCLB, officially known as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
The Obama plan would inject flexibility and, for most schools, more autonomy with more federal money. It would address some of the sharpest criticisms and unanticipated consequences of the 2001 law without abandoning its central tenet: that schools must be held accountable, through annual testing and measurable objectives, for all students’ progress.
California schools have seen a narrowing of the curriculum, as have schools nationwide, in response to heavy testing in math and English. Unlike other states, California hasn’t lowered state standards to escape federal penalties. And so it should welcome from the ability to create more complex assessments, incorporating more subjects like history, and a reprieve from the unmanageable and NCLB-discrediting numbers of schools facing federal sanctions.
But the switch in focus from proficiency on tests to preparation for work and college would also expose California’s hypocrisy of bragging about high standards while settling for low achievement. No longer could California be able to ignore high dropout rates and justify straight-faced a high school exit exam based on seventh and eighth grade math and 10th grade literacy. It would have to truly align high school standards to college requirements and rigorous technical careers – a task that K-12 leaders and territorial-minded state colleges and universities have failed to do.
Obama would relax some of the overly prescriptive approaches of NCLB: parents’ right to transfer from any school that failed to make adequate scores two years in a row and to demand outside tutoring. Parents should be able to choose better schools, but schools should also be given a reasonable time — three or four years? — to improve first. Tutoring should remain an option, but schools should retain more control over Title I dollars.
Obama’s blueprint would distinguish between a schools that are lousy through and through from those where individual subgroups – special education or African-American students – are falling further behind. The former would face the sharpest interventions, while the latter might not. Civil rights advocates worry that this would signal a retreat from a commitment to minority students, but that assessment is premature. The document calls for a higher level of scrutiny on schools with a marked achievement gap; resources would be focused on students who need help, not the entire school.
Focus on equity
The blueprint reiterates the administration’s commitment to competitive grants, like Race to the Top, and promises not only to throw money at the worst 10 percent of schools but also to reward the top 10 percent – a big shift in tone and dollars. The feds would demand that effective teachers be spread equitably in low-income schools and, over time, equalize spending for poor and rich schools within a district – though it’s not clear how this could be enforced; the feds contribute only 7 cents out of every education dollar.
U.S. Rep. George Miller, a Democrat from Martinez who will play a large role in crafting the legislation in the House, praised Obama’s principles. But the nation’s two largest teachers’ unions expressed dissatisfaction.
The blueprint, said California Teachers Union President David Sanchez, “appears to be built on the same one-size-fits-all and flawed foundation of George Bush’s NCLB Act — a law that has unfairly and unproductively used test scores to label public schools and students as failing for the past eight years without providing the necessary resources or promoting the proven reforms to help schools improve.”
Either this is CTA’s lifting of the leg, or I’m reading a different document. I see flexibility where Sanchez see rigidity and new directions where he sees the status quo.
Congress, which now has the job of writing the legislation and filling in details, will have the final word.
4 Comments
"Darn, I wish I had read that over again before I hit send.” Don’t let this be your lament. To promote a civil dialogue, please be considerate, respectful and mindful of your tone. We encourage you to use your real name, but if you must use a nom de plume, stick with it. Anonymous postings will be removed.
 |
Did You Know?
Just the Facts
Other Sites to Watch
View More >>
SVEF is the education foundation advocating for the needs of school districts across Silicon Valley. SVEF seeks to improve public education through establishing partnerships with the private sector and the education community ..
..”The Obama plan would inject flexibility and, for most schools, more autonomy with more federal money”…
Well that would be a start. When Duncan went before the House recently, Rep Kline (R-Minn) pointed out that districts all over this country are struggling to meet the obligations of IDEA/Special Ed as mandated. The Feds are *supposed* to fund 40% of these services. Duncan’s proposed increase raises the current level from 12% to 17% — far short of the required level. No one disputes the importance of serving all kids, but the burden falls unfairly on school districts.
While we’re penalizing struggling schools and rewarding top performers, schools in the middle are slashing budgets, raising class sizes, cutting services and laying off teachers. In our district, we face a $5 million reduction to balance our 2010-11 budget. Our IDEA underfunding for 2009-10? $8 million. Over $1200 per regular ed student comes out of the general fund to meet this obligation.
The blueprint that would work for kids in our schools is one that fully funds the federal IDEA obligation.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
The prospect of this “blueprint” becoming reality is frightening. In California we have enough trouble with public policy trickling down from Sacramento or Los Angeles into our schools. More Federal mandates are not what we need. What are these folks in Washington thinking? Central planning doesn’t work. Though they may have fooled their sycophants with a few ARRA dollars, the thought of this camel getting his nose into the tent is not promising for the future of our schools. The reforms that may be needed in Chicago may not be appropriate for Los Angeles, Stockton, or San Bernardino. No matter how wise the expert is in Washington, DC; that person cannot know the needs and the unique challenges of every small community in the nation (or large urban city, for that matter). Having some bureaucrat from Washington “equalizing funding” in California schools would be a nightmare, regardless of how well intended that action might be. California would be wise to “pass” on any Federal dollars for education, but should always be willing to incorporate ideas that appear useful in improving our schools. BTW, the $200 million that could be on the table for California in the next round of ARRA funding doesn’t even cover one-third of the anticipated budget deficit for Los Angeles Unified next year ($640 million, and counting…).
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
What is wrong with the idea that not everyone should go to college? We lost the whole idea of vocational studies which are very good jobs these days; plumbing, electricians, car repair etc.
This is one of the reasons why we “lag” the world, in many countries they still have vocational schools and these kids are not part of the standards that we compare against. So no wonder we lag the world. “No child left behind” is impractical and, worse yet, is detrimental to kids that aspire to vocational careers.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
In response to Mike’s question “What is wrong with the idea that not everyone should go to college?” my answer would be: If the same number of poor students go to college as middle-class students, then the equity half of the problem would be solved. If you aren’t ok with that piece, good luck to you. There are two more reasons beyond equity that all kids need to be prepared for college even if they choose not to attend.
The reality for individuals is that nationally we are going to offshore an awful lot of jobs which don’t require college degrees so the unemployment rate and pay differential is dramatically worse at each step between high school dropouts -> high school grads -> college grads. So, I can’t imagine a president who wouldn’t set college graduation as the goal, since it is leads to a far better economic situation for people.
The reality for the country is that our capacity to compete with much larger countries like China and India is going to depend a lot on having enough well-educated people to drive the knowledge-intensive industries of the 21st century. So each college grad will have a multiplier effect on employment, because they are more likely to keep companies based here rather than overseas.
Anyone who is still complacent about any of these should really make sure they are ok with the economic future for people and the country if we aren’t getting all kids college ready.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity