Mike Cole wrote:
>
> Good News for Education in President's 1998 Agenda
> In his State of the Union Address, President Clinton gave a
> preview of education-related initiatives he hopes to begin in 1998. His
> effort will be directed at elementary and secondary education. Last
> year, many of his education initiatives were aimed at making college more
> affordable to students from middle class backgrounds. One of the new
> efforts is aimed at renovating and expanding the number of classrooms in
> the country. He would offer $1 billion per year in federal tax credits
> to lenders to leverage nearly $22 billion per year in bonds to build and
> renovate public schools. The effect of the tax credit would be that
> school districts could obtain interest-free money for school buildings.
> Through the tax credit, the federal government would be picking up the
> interest on the bonds. He also proposes to get $12 billion to school
> districts over the next seven years to reduce first through third grade
> class sizes to eighteen students. The money would help pay the salaries
> of 100,000 additional teachers for those grades. The administration
> wants the figure of 100,000 new teachers to be a parallel to the 100,000
> new law-enforcement officers that were part of the administration's
> anti-crime initiative of several years ago. And to continue the push to
> achieve education reform across the country, Mr. Clinton proposes
> three-year grants of $10 to $25 million per year for urban school
> districts and $250,000 to $3 million for rural school districts to
> implement standards-based, district-wide reforms.
>
> More Classrooms: Under the school construction and renovation
> initiative, $10 billion would be available over 10 years. That money
> would leverage an estimated $22 billion in school construction bonds
> between 1999 and 2000, and similar amounts in succeeding years. Building
> additional classrooms in order to reduce the size of first through third
> grade classes would be one approved use for the money.
>
> Smaller classes: The first three years of education are critical to
> the succeeding years because the tools for learning, most notably
> facility in reading, are acquired by children in those years. Some
> research, including a longitudinal study in Tennessee, has shown that
> small class size results in improved scores on tests of basic skills.
> The President wants to concentrate resources in the grades where it is
> likely to have the highest payoff. The current initiative follows on the
> President's call last year for a national effort to see that all U.S.
> children can read independently by the time they leave the third grade.
You'll recognize this is the same language as used in state laws
recently passed in California. There are two problems with it: HR2614,
the Reading Excellence act (passed by the house and in Senate committe)
defines how reading independently would be measured (tests based on
reliable replicable research) and how reading must be taught. (download
the bill from Thomas the library oc Congress web page)
> The administration wants the teachers who would be hired under the
> initiative to be top notch. Accordingly, 10 percent of the money would
> be used for teacher training in how to teach reading effectively and how
> to maximize the advantage of small classes. To demonstrate competence,
> teachers hired under the initiative would be required to pass state
> competency tests.
This is again an attempt to impose a narrow view of reading and in fact
HR2614 and several state laws specifically require teachers to pass a
phonics test. Those already certified would also be required topass the
test to keep their certification.
The training and testing set aside money could also be
> used to provide mentors or support services for new teachers, to give
> incentives for teachers to teach in high poverty schools, and to develop
> rigorous tests for new teachers. States, in turn, would be encouraged to
> develop such basic skills tests and use them with all new teachers.
> Teachers hired under the initiative would have to be fully certified or
> be making satisfactory progress toward full certification.
2614 provides that each state would have to change its certification in
two years to be permitted to use any federal funds or bolock grants.
>
> Accountability: When school districts receive this money they would
> be required to demonstrate measurable progress in reading achievement
> within three years.
HR2614- now in the Senate after passing the house use the term reliable
repliable research as the basis for tests and instructional programs
that would be acceptable. This proposal has the force if the bill passes
of imposing a national curriculum and methodology on every school in
every state.
An appointed panel- under 2614- would have total control over accepting
or rejecting the results districts and states report with Reid Lyon
(NICHD)assuming the power of national reading czar.
When that progress is not demonstrated, the
> districts would be required to take corrective action or risk losing
> funding. School districts would be required to report annually on
> student achievement, class size, and teacher qualifications.
>
> Target Districts: High-poverty school districts will receive
> priority in funding. They would receive a share of funds proportional to
> the funds they now receive under Title I. The remaining funds would be
> distributed throughout the state based on class size. These funds are to
> be matching funds, but the match will be on a sliding scale from 10
> percent to 50 percent with high-poverty districts having the least
> obligation to match. An additional $1.5 billion over five years would be
> set aside to raise student achievement in high-poverty areas. The money
> would go to about 50 high-poverty school districts that agree: 1) to use
> high standards and tests of student achievement; 2) to identify and
> provide help to students, teachers, and schools that need it; 3) to
> prevent students from falling behind by providing quality teaching,
> challenging curricula, and extended learning time; and, 4) to end social
> promotion and turn around failing schools. The selected school districts
> are expected to become models of system-wide, standards-based reform.
>
> Education Opportunity Zones: Another part of the education package
> would be a competitive grant program to establish Education Opportunity
> Zones. The grants would be for three years and would be worth between
> $10 and $25 million per year for urban school districts and between
> $250,000 and $3 million for rural school districts or consortia of such
> districts. The money would be used to support standards-based,
> district-wide reforms. Among permitted activities would be: rewards for
> schools that improve student achievement substantially; implementation of
> proven reforms in failing schools or the shutting down of such schools;
> implementation of sound management practices and accountability systems;
> providing intensive development to teachers and principals; helping
> outstanding teachers earn master teacher certification from the National
> Board for Professional Teacher Standards and giving them bonuses when
> they do; and implementing programs to identify low performing teachers,
> to assist them in improving, and to remove them if they fail to do so.
> Any district successful in winning an Education Opportunity Zone grant
> will have agreed to benchmarks by which its efforts at reform would be
> measured. If the district meets its benchmarks in three years, it would
> receive an additional two years of support. These districts would be
> required to develop a plan to maintain their accomplishments once federal
> funds run out.
>
> Role of the Department of Education: The Department of Education is
> to act as a technical assistant to districts undertaking reform. The
> Department will help districts identify and implement best practices.
Here's another Trojan Horse. 2614 determines that best practices are
those explicitly teaching phonics and based on "reliable equitable
research. The law, not the DOE or the profession, defines best
practices.
> particular focus of its efforts will be to help school districts carry
> out early identification of children at risk of academic failure and to
> intervene quickly and effectively to alleviate that risk.
Here's the imposition of a narrow medical model- focussing on disabilty
on curriculum for all children.
(Background
> material for this article was provided by the Council of Scientific
> Society Presidents.)
>
> Update on Voluntary National Education Tests
> As the first session of the 105th Congress adjourned late last year,
> several legislators including Rep. William Goodling (R-PA), Chairman of
> the House Education and the Workforce Committee, were intent on
> preventing President Clinton from following through on his plan to have
> voluntary national testing of reading for fourth graders and of
> mathematics for eighth graders by 1999. Their desire was to stop these
> national tests altogether. In compromise language written into the
> fiscal year 1998 appropriation bill for the departments of Labor, Health
> and Human Services, and Education, Congress forbade use of any fiscal
> 1998 funds to pilot test, field test, implement, administer, or
> distribute in any way, any national tests. That had the effect of
> delaying any possible administration of the tests until at least the year
> 2000. The same legislation gave the National Assessment Governing Board
> (NAGB) "exclusive authority over all policies, direction, and guidelines
> for developing voluntary national tests..."
>
> NAGB is an independent board whose job is to oversee the National
> Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), often called the nation's
> report card because it is the best indicator of the academic performance
> of children across the country.
NAEP has been widely criticized for its arbitray standards and the way
in which partial results have been released to the press. It is not the
best indicator of academic performance.
Prior to the legislation, the Department
> of Education awarded a contract to the American Institute for Research
> (AIR) to develop the national tests. The legislation required that the
> tests be developed "...based on the same content and performance
> standards as are used for NAEP and...linked to NAEP to the maximum extent
> possible."
>
> The bill gave NAGB 90 days from the Nov. 13, 1997 date of enactment
> to review the national test development contract and make any
> modifications the Board deemed necessary or to terminate and recompete
> the contract if it proved unworkable. NAGB met in late January to act on
> this requirement. The Board did not terminate the contract but extended
> the time for development of the test, ruling that it isn't feasible to
> administer the test until 2001. Education Secretary Richard Riley did
> not concur in that view but was pleased that test development would
> proceed.
>
> Opponents of the test on Capitol Hill also were pleased because
> NAGB's action delays the beginning of testing for at least two years. So
> for the moment, testing opponents appear satisfied that a delay until
> President Clinton leaves office is good enough. Opponents fear that the
> test is the first step to a national curriculum that would challenge the
> fiercely held conviction in this country that education is the
> responsibility of parents and local education authorities---not the
> federal government.