Overriding a Key Education Law
By SAM DILLON
Published: August 8, 2011
Alex Brandon/Associated Press
Arne Duncan, secretary of education, in 2009. He said the No Child Left Behind law was hurting efforts to improve schools.
Related
Times Topics: No Child Left Behind Act | Arne DuncanMr. Duncan told reporters that he was acting because Congress had failed to rewrite the Bush-era law, which he called a “slow-motion train wreck.” He is waiving the law’s proficiency requirements for states that have adopted their own testing and accountability programs and are making other strides toward better schools, he said.
The administration’s plan amounts to the most sweeping use of executive authority to rewrite federal education law since Washington expanded its involvement in education in the 1960s.
Conservatives said it could inflame relations with Republicans in the House who want to reduce, not expand, the federal footprint in education. But Mr. Duncan and White House officials described their plan as offering crucial relief to state and local educators as the No Child law, which President George W. Bush signed in 2002, comes into increasing conflict with more recent efforts to raise academic standards.
The law made its focus the use of standardized test scores in schools, particularly those serving minority students.
“I can’t overemphasize how loud the outcry is for us to do something right now,” Mr. Duncan told reporters on Friday in a conference call that he said could not be reported until midnight Sunday.
Melody Barnes, director of President Obama’s White House Domestic Policy Council, who joined Mr. Duncan in the announcement, said that all states would be encouraged to apply for waivers from the law’s accountability provisions, but that only states the administration believed were carrying out ambitious school improvement initiatives would get them.
“This is not a pass on accountability,” Ms. Barnes said. “There will be a high bar for states seeking flexibility within the law.”
Under the current law, every school is given the equivalent of a pass-fail report card each year, an evaluation that administration officials say fails to differentiate among chaotic schools in chronic failure, schools that are helping low-scoring students improve, and high-performing suburban schools that nonetheless appear to be neglecting some low-scoring students.
About 38,000 of the nation’s 100,000 public schools fell short of their test-score targets under the federal law last year, and Mr. Duncan has predicted that number would rise to 80,000 this year.
Skeptics said Mr. Duncan’s predictions were exaggerated, but a huge number of schools are falling short under No Child’s school rating system. Eighty-nine percent of Florida’s public schools, for instance, missed federal testing targets, although 58 percent of Florida schools earned an A under the state’s own well-regarded grading system.
When Mr. Duncan sketched an outline of the administration’s waiver plan in June, Representative John Kline, the Minnesota Republican who is chairman of the House education committee, demanded that Mr. Duncan show by what legal authority he would override the federal law. Mr. Duncan responded by citing provisions of the No Child law itself that give the education secretary broad waiver powers.
On Friday, Mr. Kline said in a statement, “I remain concerned that temporary measures instituted by the department, such as conditional waivers, could undermine” efforts by Congress to rewrite the law.
Mr. Kline’s committee has completed three overhaul bills focusing on elimination of federal programs, financial flexibility for states, and charter schools. But the committee has not yet produced bills rewriting the law’s crucial school accountability and teacher effectiveness provisions.
Senator Tom Harkin, the Iowa Democrat who is chairman the Senate education committee, said he understood why Mr. Duncan was pursuing the waiver plan, since “it is undeniable that this Congress faces real challenges reaching bipartisan, bicameral agreement on anything.”
Educational Leadership
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Public School Code Update- House Bill 1352
From: Tomalis, Ronald [rtomalis@pa.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 3:08 PM
To: 'all-lea@lists.cas.psu.edu'
Subject: Public School Code Update
To: All School Districts, Intermediate Units, Career and Technology Centers, and Charter Schools
From: Ronald J. Tomalis, Secretary of Education
Subject: School Code Update
As part of the 2011-12 state budget, Governor Tom Corbett signed into law House Bill 1352, which makes several changes to the Public School Code of 1949. Below is an overview of the changes made by Act 24 of 2011.
Please note that this is a summary and further guidance on the implementation of these provisions will be forthcoming.
School Employees
· Suspends the state’s continuing professional development requirements for educators and school and system leaders until June 30, 2013; however, this provision would not apply to a new superintendent, assistant superintendent, principal, assistant principal, IU executive director, IU assistant executive director and director of a Career and Technology Center, who are still required to complete a leadership development program aligned with Pennsylvania’s school leadership standards. Those not required to complete a leadership development program during this two-year period can still participate in Act 45 and Act 48 activities, which will count toward their professional development requirements. For those who opted not to take courses during the 2-year suspension of the requirements, they will have the same number of hours of continuing professional education and the same amount of time to complete those requirements as they did at the time the suspension took effect. For additional information, contact Dave Volkman at dvolkman@pa.gov.
· Adds several offenses that would bar or suspend an individual’s eligibility for school employment and creates standardized reporting requirements for current or prospective school employees to provide notification of arrests or convictions for certain offenses. For more details, contact Steve Fisher at sfisher@pa.gov.
· Allows individuals who hold a graduate degree in business, management or finance and have at least four years of relevant work experience to serve as a superintendent or assistant superintendent. Individuals with this background must successfully complete the state’s professional development program for school leaders (PIL). For more details, contact Dave Volkman at dvolkman@pa.gov.
· Provides alternative certification pathways for second-career professionals to become teachers and school administrators through residency programs. Contact Terry Barnaby at tbarnaby@pa.gov for more information.
· Allows individuals who hold a teaching certificate issued by another state to be eligible for comparable Pennsylvania certification if the candidate holds a bachelor’s degree, has at least two years of successful classroom experience, demonstrates subject matter competency in the applicable area, and satisfies statutory requirements related to their criminal background check, medical history and being of good moral character. For more information, contact Terry Barnaby at tbarnaby@pa.gov.
Provides an alternate route to teaching for individuals who possess a bachelor’s degree, pass relevant subject exams, and complete an approved program in education within three years of issuance of the certificate. In addition, candidates for administrative certificate of vocational director certification must hold a bachelor’s degree from an accredited college school, three years of relevant professional experience and must be of good moral character. Candidates must complete a graduate program in education or within two years of employment in a school or system leader position provide evidence that they successfully completed the state’s professional development program for school leaders (PIL). The Secretary of Education is authorized to evaluate and approve all post-baccalaureate certification programs and qualified providers of such programs, which may include providers other than institutions of higher education; and to develop guidelines for the approval of flexible post-baccalaureate instructional certification programs. For more information, contact Terry Barnaby at tbarnaby@pa.gov.
School Finances
· Provides for an additional $100 million in Accountability Block Grants in the 2010-11 fiscal year to be distributed by formula and expendable on ABG eligible expenses in either the 2010-11 or 2011-12 fiscal years. For additional information, contact Bob Staver at rstaver@pa.gov.
· Allows school districts to reopen their 2011-12 budgets to reflect state and federal appropriations for fiscal years 2010-11 and 2011-12. Contact Benjamin Hanft at bhanft@pa.gov for additional information.
· Provides for payments for Basic Education Funding, Special Education Funding, community colleges, libraries, intermediate units, pupil transportation and remaining Accountability Block Grant funds. For additional information, contact Benjamin Hanft at bhanft@pa.gov.
· Exempts school districts from securing PDE approval for construction projects, plans and specifications, and leases when state reimbursement is not requested. For additional information, contact Mike Walsh at micwalsh@pa.gov.
· Removes provisions requiring the Commonwealth to reimburse charter and cyber charter schools for the employer’s share of Social Security payments. Contact Benjamin Hanft at bhanft@pa.gov for additional information.
· Requires public reporting of Intermediate Units’ (IU) annual financial reports and detailed information associated with certain IU financial transactions in excess of $50,000. For more information, contact Jeannine Weiser at jweiser@pa.gov.
District Administration
Limits preK-12 data collection for the 2011-12 and 2012-13 school years to only that which is necessary to: comply with federal mandates; populate the Pennsylvania Value-Added Assessment System; meet DPW requirements with regard to supervising and licensing or registering a child care provider; satisfy requirements for criminal background checks and state payments or reimbursements; and meet school safety reporting requirements. Contact Dave Ream at davream@pa.gov for more information.
Eliminates the requirement for a school entity to maintain a dual enrollment committee. Contact Bob Staver at rstaver@pa.gov for more information.
Permits school districts to admit beginners after the first two weeks of the school year. Contact Steve Fisher at sfisher@pa.gov for more information.
Requires school districts to maintain certified safety committees. Districts that do not form such a committee would lose a portion of their state subsidy equal to the discount the district would have received under the Workers’ Compensation Act. This would not apply to districts that self-insure. (Continuation of prior year provision.) For additional information contact Mike Kozup at mkozup@pa.gov.
School Safety
· Clarifies that school safety reports must be filed with PDE on an annual basis. (This was a clarification; previous language referenced semiannual reporting.) For additional information, contact Mike Kozup at mkozup@pa.gov.
· Re-establishes the Safe Schools Advocate for school districts of the first class and moves the office from PDE to the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency. Contact Mike Kozup at mkozup@pa.gov for more information.
Higher Education
· Allows post-secondary students to choose not to be individually identified in federally required data submissions. For more information, contact Wil DelPilar at wdelpilar@pa.gov.
· Moves to the school code the transfer and articulation provisions previously enacted in the fiscal code. These require state-owned universities to accept associates degrees for transfer with full junior standing, and requires state-related universities to identify at least 30 general education credits that can seamlessly transfer for credit from institutions participating in the state’s Transfer and Articulation system. (Continuation of prior year provision.) Contact Julie Kane at jukane@pa.gov.
Other Changes to the School Code
· Requires the Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association to establish a policy by August 8, 2011, that allows students who attended a school entity that abolished its athletic program in whole or part to participate in another district’s athletic program. For more details, contact John Tommasini at jtommasini@pa.gov.
· Codifies language previously enacted regarding employment pools for former employees of the Scranton School for the Deaf and the Scotland School for Veterans Children. (Continuation of prior year provision.) Contact Diana Hershey at dihershey@pa.gov for more information.
In a separate action, Governor Corbett signed into law Senate Bill 330, Act 25 of 2011. This eliminated most referendum exceptions that were contained in Special Session Act 1 of 2006 allowing a school board to increase taxes above the statutory index without seeking voter approval. As a general matter, the referendum exceptions maintained are costs to pay interest and principal for certain debt already incurred and interest and principal related to electoral debt, special education costs that exceed the index, and pension costs that exceed a certain index. This law also allows small businesses to pay school property taxes in installments. For more information, contact Benjamin Hanft at bhanft@pa.gov
(Penn*Link)
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 3:08 PM
To: 'all-lea@lists.cas.psu.edu'
Subject: Public School Code Update
To: All School Districts, Intermediate Units, Career and Technology Centers, and Charter Schools
From: Ronald J. Tomalis, Secretary of Education
Subject: School Code Update
As part of the 2011-12 state budget, Governor Tom Corbett signed into law House Bill 1352, which makes several changes to the Public School Code of 1949. Below is an overview of the changes made by Act 24 of 2011.
Please note that this is a summary and further guidance on the implementation of these provisions will be forthcoming.
School Employees
· Suspends the state’s continuing professional development requirements for educators and school and system leaders until June 30, 2013; however, this provision would not apply to a new superintendent, assistant superintendent, principal, assistant principal, IU executive director, IU assistant executive director and director of a Career and Technology Center, who are still required to complete a leadership development program aligned with Pennsylvania’s school leadership standards. Those not required to complete a leadership development program during this two-year period can still participate in Act 45 and Act 48 activities, which will count toward their professional development requirements. For those who opted not to take courses during the 2-year suspension of the requirements, they will have the same number of hours of continuing professional education and the same amount of time to complete those requirements as they did at the time the suspension took effect. For additional information, contact Dave Volkman at dvolkman@pa.gov.
· Adds several offenses that would bar or suspend an individual’s eligibility for school employment and creates standardized reporting requirements for current or prospective school employees to provide notification of arrests or convictions for certain offenses. For more details, contact Steve Fisher at sfisher@pa.gov.
· Allows individuals who hold a graduate degree in business, management or finance and have at least four years of relevant work experience to serve as a superintendent or assistant superintendent. Individuals with this background must successfully complete the state’s professional development program for school leaders (PIL). For more details, contact Dave Volkman at dvolkman@pa.gov.
· Provides alternative certification pathways for second-career professionals to become teachers and school administrators through residency programs. Contact Terry Barnaby at tbarnaby@pa.gov for more information.
· Allows individuals who hold a teaching certificate issued by another state to be eligible for comparable Pennsylvania certification if the candidate holds a bachelor’s degree, has at least two years of successful classroom experience, demonstrates subject matter competency in the applicable area, and satisfies statutory requirements related to their criminal background check, medical history and being of good moral character. For more information, contact Terry Barnaby at tbarnaby@pa.gov.
Provides an alternate route to teaching for individuals who possess a bachelor’s degree, pass relevant subject exams, and complete an approved program in education within three years of issuance of the certificate. In addition, candidates for administrative certificate of vocational director certification must hold a bachelor’s degree from an accredited college school, three years of relevant professional experience and must be of good moral character. Candidates must complete a graduate program in education or within two years of employment in a school or system leader position provide evidence that they successfully completed the state’s professional development program for school leaders (PIL). The Secretary of Education is authorized to evaluate and approve all post-baccalaureate certification programs and qualified providers of such programs, which may include providers other than institutions of higher education; and to develop guidelines for the approval of flexible post-baccalaureate instructional certification programs. For more information, contact Terry Barnaby at tbarnaby@pa.gov.
School Finances
· Provides for an additional $100 million in Accountability Block Grants in the 2010-11 fiscal year to be distributed by formula and expendable on ABG eligible expenses in either the 2010-11 or 2011-12 fiscal years. For additional information, contact Bob Staver at rstaver@pa.gov.
· Allows school districts to reopen their 2011-12 budgets to reflect state and federal appropriations for fiscal years 2010-11 and 2011-12. Contact Benjamin Hanft at bhanft@pa.gov for additional information.
· Provides for payments for Basic Education Funding, Special Education Funding, community colleges, libraries, intermediate units, pupil transportation and remaining Accountability Block Grant funds. For additional information, contact Benjamin Hanft at bhanft@pa.gov.
· Exempts school districts from securing PDE approval for construction projects, plans and specifications, and leases when state reimbursement is not requested. For additional information, contact Mike Walsh at micwalsh@pa.gov.
· Removes provisions requiring the Commonwealth to reimburse charter and cyber charter schools for the employer’s share of Social Security payments. Contact Benjamin Hanft at bhanft@pa.gov for additional information.
· Requires public reporting of Intermediate Units’ (IU) annual financial reports and detailed information associated with certain IU financial transactions in excess of $50,000. For more information, contact Jeannine Weiser at jweiser@pa.gov.
District Administration
Limits preK-12 data collection for the 2011-12 and 2012-13 school years to only that which is necessary to: comply with federal mandates; populate the Pennsylvania Value-Added Assessment System; meet DPW requirements with regard to supervising and licensing or registering a child care provider; satisfy requirements for criminal background checks and state payments or reimbursements; and meet school safety reporting requirements. Contact Dave Ream at davream@pa.gov for more information.
Eliminates the requirement for a school entity to maintain a dual enrollment committee. Contact Bob Staver at rstaver@pa.gov for more information.
Permits school districts to admit beginners after the first two weeks of the school year. Contact Steve Fisher at sfisher@pa.gov for more information.
Requires school districts to maintain certified safety committees. Districts that do not form such a committee would lose a portion of their state subsidy equal to the discount the district would have received under the Workers’ Compensation Act. This would not apply to districts that self-insure. (Continuation of prior year provision.) For additional information contact Mike Kozup at mkozup@pa.gov.
School Safety
· Clarifies that school safety reports must be filed with PDE on an annual basis. (This was a clarification; previous language referenced semiannual reporting.) For additional information, contact Mike Kozup at mkozup@pa.gov.
· Re-establishes the Safe Schools Advocate for school districts of the first class and moves the office from PDE to the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency. Contact Mike Kozup at mkozup@pa.gov for more information.
Higher Education
· Allows post-secondary students to choose not to be individually identified in federally required data submissions. For more information, contact Wil DelPilar at wdelpilar@pa.gov.
· Moves to the school code the transfer and articulation provisions previously enacted in the fiscal code. These require state-owned universities to accept associates degrees for transfer with full junior standing, and requires state-related universities to identify at least 30 general education credits that can seamlessly transfer for credit from institutions participating in the state’s Transfer and Articulation system. (Continuation of prior year provision.) Contact Julie Kane at jukane@pa.gov.
Other Changes to the School Code
· Requires the Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association to establish a policy by August 8, 2011, that allows students who attended a school entity that abolished its athletic program in whole or part to participate in another district’s athletic program. For more details, contact John Tommasini at jtommasini@pa.gov.
· Codifies language previously enacted regarding employment pools for former employees of the Scranton School for the Deaf and the Scotland School for Veterans Children. (Continuation of prior year provision.) Contact Diana Hershey at dihershey@pa.gov for more information.
In a separate action, Governor Corbett signed into law Senate Bill 330, Act 25 of 2011. This eliminated most referendum exceptions that were contained in Special Session Act 1 of 2006 allowing a school board to increase taxes above the statutory index without seeking voter approval. As a general matter, the referendum exceptions maintained are costs to pay interest and principal for certain debt already incurred and interest and principal related to electoral debt, special education costs that exceed the index, and pension costs that exceed a certain index. This law also allows small businesses to pay school property taxes in installments. For more information, contact Benjamin Hanft at bhanft@pa.gov
(Penn*Link)
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Report indicates possible cheating on PSSA tests
By KATHY MATHESON (Associated Press)Published: July 13, 2011
Article ToolsShare | Font size: [A] [A] [A] Our Social Networks FacebookSign Up newsletter
PHILADELPHIA - The state Department of Education is looking into a report that has surfaced indicating possible cheating on state standardized tests in at least three dozen school districts, a spokesman said Tuesday.
The forensic analysis of the 2009 Pennsylvania System of School Assessment results does not assert cheating occurred, but says certain answer patterns and erasures make the results suspicious.
Among the school districts identified as having multiple testing irregularities are Hazleton, Philadelphia, Connellsville and Lancaster. Many other districts were cited for one or two inconsistencies, including North Schuylkill and Minersville Area.
North Schuylkill Superintendent Andrew Smarkanic learned of the report Tuesday and said he has not had the opportunity to read it. Although he wasn't superintendent at the time the tests were administered in 2009, Smarkanic said he assumes students did better on those tests due to preparatory testing that was instituted before the 2009 tests. The report states that one of the inconsistencies measured in all school districts is whether test scores changed "improbably" within one year.
Minersville Area Superintendent M. Joseph Brady did not return a call for comment Tuesday. Jim Yacobacci, the district's new elementary principal and former assistant high school principal, was unaware of the report and was on vacation Tuesday, referring all questions to Brady.
In the Hazleton Area School District, at least one school appears on the list for each of the seven grade levels - third to seventh, eighth and 11th - at which PSSA tests are administered.
Listed in the report are Freeland, Heights-Terrace, Hazleton, Valley and West Hazleton elementary/middle schools, as well as Hazleton Area High School. Each of the five elementary/middle schools is listed at multiple grade levels.
Hazleton Area Superintendent Sam Marolo said Deputy Superintendent Francis X. Antonelli and high school Principal Rocco Petrone are preparing a report on the state's findings and would be available to discuss the matter today. Neither Antonelli nor Petrone could be reached for comment Tuesday night.
The Department of Education was unaware of the report - issued in July 2009 under a previous administration - until it was published this week by The Notebook, an independent news service covering the Philadelphia school district, said Timothy Eller, a spokesman for Education Secretary Ronald Tomalis.
"It's very frustrating to the secretary that nothing was done in the past with it," Eller said.
Then-Education Secretary Gerald Zahorchak, now superintendent of the Allentown schools, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The news comes days after officials in Georgia revealed a massive cheating scandal in Atlanta, with nearly half of the city's 100 schools involved. State investigators said 178 educators had fudged standardized tests used to meet federal benchmarks dating back to 2001.
That same week, the U.S. Department of Education began looking into cheating allegations in Washington, D.C. Over the past several years, such scandals have surfaced in school districts in Baltimore and Houston, as well as Texas, Michigan and Florida.
Experts say many districts can feel pressured to meet testing standards to avoid penalties under the federal No Child Left Behind legislation, or to ensure positive results for teachers who are rewarded based on student performance.
In Pennsylvania, the PSSA is given annually in various grades to assess math and reading skills. Based on statistical properties, results at dozens of traditional and charter schools in 2009 were flagged as being "highly improbable," according to the report by Minnesota-based Data Recognition Corp.
The report noted that any possible fraud could have been perpetrated by students, teachers or other officials. But the findings also stressed that the scores could have been obtained fairly.
"Their scores, response pattern, and number of erasures were aberrant, from a statistical probability perspective," the report states. "This does not imply that the school or student engaged in inappropriate testing activity."
The Philadelphia schools are willing to investigate the cheating allegations, but spokeswoman Jamilah Fraser said in a statement that such probes are difficult because of teacher turnover, student transience and the vagaries of memory.
The district has received about 10 to 15 accusations of breaches in test security in each of the past three years, and a few have been substantiated through internal investigations, Fraser said. Alleged violations could range from "low-level" offenses, such as failing to cover materials during a testing period, to more serious ones.
She also noted the district has a "very robust test monitoring protocol." Approximately 75 percent of schools, including charters, receive unannounced visits to random classrooms during PSSA testing, Fraser said.
It's not clear how often forensic audits were conducted under the previous administration, Eller said. The July 2009 report from Data Recognition Corp. refers to that being "the first year of data forensic analyses for the PSSA," but a company spokeswoman declined comment.
Eller noted the department's 2010 budget had no money for audits, but that Tomalis has ordered them reinstated for this year.
Article ToolsShare | Font size: [A] [A] [A] Our Social Networks FacebookSign Up newsletter
PHILADELPHIA - The state Department of Education is looking into a report that has surfaced indicating possible cheating on state standardized tests in at least three dozen school districts, a spokesman said Tuesday.
The forensic analysis of the 2009 Pennsylvania System of School Assessment results does not assert cheating occurred, but says certain answer patterns and erasures make the results suspicious.
Among the school districts identified as having multiple testing irregularities are Hazleton, Philadelphia, Connellsville and Lancaster. Many other districts were cited for one or two inconsistencies, including North Schuylkill and Minersville Area.
North Schuylkill Superintendent Andrew Smarkanic learned of the report Tuesday and said he has not had the opportunity to read it. Although he wasn't superintendent at the time the tests were administered in 2009, Smarkanic said he assumes students did better on those tests due to preparatory testing that was instituted before the 2009 tests. The report states that one of the inconsistencies measured in all school districts is whether test scores changed "improbably" within one year.
Minersville Area Superintendent M. Joseph Brady did not return a call for comment Tuesday. Jim Yacobacci, the district's new elementary principal and former assistant high school principal, was unaware of the report and was on vacation Tuesday, referring all questions to Brady.
In the Hazleton Area School District, at least one school appears on the list for each of the seven grade levels - third to seventh, eighth and 11th - at which PSSA tests are administered.
Listed in the report are Freeland, Heights-Terrace, Hazleton, Valley and West Hazleton elementary/middle schools, as well as Hazleton Area High School. Each of the five elementary/middle schools is listed at multiple grade levels.
Hazleton Area Superintendent Sam Marolo said Deputy Superintendent Francis X. Antonelli and high school Principal Rocco Petrone are preparing a report on the state's findings and would be available to discuss the matter today. Neither Antonelli nor Petrone could be reached for comment Tuesday night.
The Department of Education was unaware of the report - issued in July 2009 under a previous administration - until it was published this week by The Notebook, an independent news service covering the Philadelphia school district, said Timothy Eller, a spokesman for Education Secretary Ronald Tomalis.
"It's very frustrating to the secretary that nothing was done in the past with it," Eller said.
Then-Education Secretary Gerald Zahorchak, now superintendent of the Allentown schools, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The news comes days after officials in Georgia revealed a massive cheating scandal in Atlanta, with nearly half of the city's 100 schools involved. State investigators said 178 educators had fudged standardized tests used to meet federal benchmarks dating back to 2001.
That same week, the U.S. Department of Education began looking into cheating allegations in Washington, D.C. Over the past several years, such scandals have surfaced in school districts in Baltimore and Houston, as well as Texas, Michigan and Florida.
Experts say many districts can feel pressured to meet testing standards to avoid penalties under the federal No Child Left Behind legislation, or to ensure positive results for teachers who are rewarded based on student performance.
In Pennsylvania, the PSSA is given annually in various grades to assess math and reading skills. Based on statistical properties, results at dozens of traditional and charter schools in 2009 were flagged as being "highly improbable," according to the report by Minnesota-based Data Recognition Corp.
The report noted that any possible fraud could have been perpetrated by students, teachers or other officials. But the findings also stressed that the scores could have been obtained fairly.
"Their scores, response pattern, and number of erasures were aberrant, from a statistical probability perspective," the report states. "This does not imply that the school or student engaged in inappropriate testing activity."
The Philadelphia schools are willing to investigate the cheating allegations, but spokeswoman Jamilah Fraser said in a statement that such probes are difficult because of teacher turnover, student transience and the vagaries of memory.
The district has received about 10 to 15 accusations of breaches in test security in each of the past three years, and a few have been substantiated through internal investigations, Fraser said. Alleged violations could range from "low-level" offenses, such as failing to cover materials during a testing period, to more serious ones.
She also noted the district has a "very robust test monitoring protocol." Approximately 75 percent of schools, including charters, receive unannounced visits to random classrooms during PSSA testing, Fraser said.
It's not clear how often forensic audits were conducted under the previous administration, Eller said. The July 2009 report from Data Recognition Corp. refers to that being "the first year of data forensic analyses for the PSSA," but a company spokeswoman declined comment.
Eller noted the department's 2010 budget had no money for audits, but that Tomalis has ordered them reinstated for this year.
Topics for 7-14-15
Defining a Profession. . .
One of the constant debates raging in conversations about education in America centers on the idea of whether or not teaching is a true profession.Many would argue that teaching is a true profession based on the commitment, dedication and training of educators which neatly parallels other professions. Others see teaching as something more akin to a skilled trade that can be easily mastered by anyone. Rancor tends to define this debate as advocates vehemently argue in favor of their unyielding position.
Before answering this question effectively, it is important to define the characteristics of a professional. Until we come to agreement about shared characteristics of professional fields, it will be impossible to come to consensus about where teaching stands on the continuum of work.
Defining a profession:
1. Professions have a codified body of knowledge that is defined by practitioners and applied in a systematic way. Think about medicine: Doctors work together to identify approaches for diagnosing and treating disease that is shared and generally followed by all in the field.
2. Professions provide differentiated pay for differentiated skill sets. Again, medicine provides a good example for comparison: Cardiologists performing open heart surgeries on a regular basis are paid more than podiatrists removing plantar warts.
3. Professions retain ownership over entry and evaluation standards. Law is probably the best example of this professional trait: Lawyers have to answer for their actions before review boards that are comprised of other lawyers and that have the power to revoke licenses.
4. Professionals retain responsibility for assessing and holding themselves accountable for the results of their work.
5. Professions are responsive to the times, taking an action orientation to their work and continually improving established practices. Return to medicine: Treatments are continually being perfected as new technologies and medicines are discovered and introduced by practitioners.
6. Professions offer practitioners opportunities for continued professional growth over the course of a career.
Would teaching qualify as a profession? Why or why not? What impact does this have on our ability to recruit and retain motivated young scholars to our field?
Is teaching a true profession?
Of the various professional fields -- Medicine, Law, Politics, Business, Military Defense and Entertainment -- teaching can be compared to any of them and is found mostly wanting. Education should stand with all of them, but except in rare and mostly individual cases, this is not so.
1. Teachers are not automatically paid commensurate with their skill, knowledge, talent or experience.
2. Teaching is still organized on an obsolete agricultural seasonal model in many parts of the country.
3. Teaching shares more in common with trade organizations than traditional professions. Particularly in hierarchy, wages, benefits, and prestige.
4. Teachers largely do not have support staff, as true professionals do.
5. True professions have never had governing bodies made up of people outside the profession to dictate policy and standards.
Of the various professional fields -- Medicine, Law, Politics, Business, Military Defense and Entertainment -- teaching can be compared to any of them and is found mostly wanting. Education should stand with all of them, but except in rare and mostly individual cases, this is not so.
1. Teachers are not automatically paid commensurate with their skill, knowledge, talent or experience.
2. Teaching is still organized on an obsolete agricultural seasonal model in many parts of the country.
3. Teaching shares more in common with trade organizations than traditional professions. Particularly in hierarchy, wages, benefits, and prestige.
4. Teachers largely do not have support staff, as true professionals do.
5. True professions have never had governing bodies made up of people outside the profession to dictate policy and standards.
While the attention of policy makers to the teaching profession is welcomed & needed, if teaching is to be a true profession, teachers must play a central role in making it so. Unfortunately, in most American communities teachers lack the most basic requirements of professionals -- respect, responsibility, & autonomy. By taking advantage of the national focus on the quality of our teaching force, teachers have an opportunity to change this situation. This will require, however, that teachers ask themselves what role they play in ensuring that there is a talented, dedicated, & well-prepared teacher in every classroom. For example: * What role do teachers play in recruiting high-quality individuals into the profession? In screening for quality "up front?" * How do we make sure that candidates get the best preparation program possible & that they have the knowledge & skills to teach before they enter our classrooms? * What role do veteran teachers play in supporting beginning teachers? How do we change a system that gives our newest teachers the most difficult classes & the extracurricular activities that no one else wants? * How do we help our colleagues improve their practice? * How do we open our own practice to examination? * How do we ensure that teachers are given opportunities to grow & to develop as professionals? * How do we encourage & reward excellence? * What do we do about the poorly performing teacher?What role must teachers play in ensuring quality -- in making teaching a true profession?Questions on "Making Teaching a True Profession"************************************************ 1. What role must teachers play in the support of beginning teachers? 2. What role must teachers play in helping all teachers improve their teaching? 3. What role must teachers play in encouraging & rewarding excellence in teaching? 4. What role must teachers play with poorly performing teachers? 5. What is one thing I can do, or one step I can take, to ensure that there is a talented, dedicated, & well-prepared teacher in every classroom? source: http://listserv.ed.gov/archives/edinfo/archived/msg00293.htmlDiscussion:
Mandates: Politics and Policy?
Icebreaker:
As a principal, many view the position as a position of power. Nevertheless, it is an influential position. How will you build respect and sustain relationships? What are a few key ideas to establish your position as principal?
Wrap-Up Questions:
In todays schools we often hear the comment "unfunded mandates" that have been placed on schools by way of legislation or policies. Please share whether you believe this is actually true and if it is, share one unfunded mandate that you feel should be funded. But even more important, tell me how you would suggest funding it responsibly.
Please share your thoughts on politics and education and why do we have policies? In addition, think about policy and what generates policy.
Power points for today are in your email...
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Sample Request (Special Ed)
Advocate’s Name
Address
State, City, ZIP
Telephone Number
Date
Principal
School
Address
State
Reference: Child’s Name
DOB: (fill in birthdate)
School: (fill in school)
Dear Principal,
I am writing on behalf of, (Child’s Name), requesting she be evaluated for consideration for special education services. (S/he) is currently in (number) grade at (school).
(Describe why you think your child needs special education services.)
(This request is based on the following state and federal laws)
(The educational benefit that the child would experience in the regular classroom includes…)
(Child) needs additional educational help. To help expedite the special education evaluation process, please know that by signing this letter I hereby consent to any and all testing that needs to be done to evaluate my child’s need for special education services.
If you would like me to sign an additional form, I will do so. However, since this letter already gives consent, the required timeline for the evaluation begins now. (We are aware the timeline for the evaluation will be _____________, based on ______________ ).
Please let me know as soon as possible if any records are needed from me to complete the special education evaluation process.
If you have questions about this request, please call me at work (555-5555) or at home (666-6666) after 4 p.m. I appreciate your help and rapid response.
Sincerely,
Special Education Advocate
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)