AFT Disappointed with Administration's ESEA Blueprint

[proud2BlibKansan]

Based on an initial review of the U.S. Department of Education's plan for reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, it appears that despite some promising rhetoric, this blueprint places 100 percent of the responsibility on teachers and gives them zero percent authority, AFT president Randi Weingarten says. The plan was released on March 13.

"For a law affecting millions of schoolchildren and their teachers, it just doesn't make sense to have teachers—and teachers alone—bear the responsibility for school and student success," Weingarten says.

"Teachers are on the front lines, in the classroom and in the community, working day and night to help children learn. They should be empowered and supported—not scapegoated. We are surprised and disappointed that the Obama administration proposed this as a starting point for reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. We will work to make this law, which is the lifeblood for millions of disadvantaged students, work for kids and their teachers. Our next step is to share this blueprint with teachers in America's classrooms to elicit their opinions."

Hundreds of AFT members already have weighed in on the future of ESEA—the main federal education law—by responding to an AFT Voices question on the union's public Web site.

http://aft.org/newspubs/news/2010/031310esea.cfm

[mzteris]

1. but I thought you guys WANTED more responsibility

". . . The administration would allow states and districts considerably more leeway to determine how to intervene in schools that are struggling to meet the law’s achievement targets, but aren’t among the lowest-performing schools. It would also permit states to expand the subjects tested beyond reading and mathematics. And it would ask schools to report on a broader range of factors, such as school climate.

“We’ve got to get accountability right this time so it actually drives improvement in student achievement,” Mr. Duncan said in a March 12 conference call with reporters. He added there were three overarching goals with the newly released blueprint: setting a high bar for students and schools, rewarding excellence and success, and maintaining local control and flexibility.

"Through this plan, we are setting an ambitious goal: all students should graduate from high school prepared for college and a career—no matter who you are or where you come from."


. . . To address complaints that the NCLB law doesn’t make a clear distinction between schools that are consistently struggling to raise the achievement of all their students and schools that are having trouble only with particular student populations, the Obama administration is seeking to differentiate interventions for schools that have varying difficulty in meeting the law’s goals.

The new vision for ESEA would provide local and state flexibility in determining what interventions were necessary in most schools. And broadly, the department says there would be consequences and rewards for districts and states as well as schools.

But the bottom 5 percent of schools would be forced to use the department’s four turnaround models that now govern the Title I School Improvement Grant program. The next-lowest 5 percent would be on a “warning” list and be required to take action using research-based interventions, although the department would not mandate one of the four turnaround models.

In addition, states would be required to identify schools with the greatest achievement gaps and take aggressive action to fix the problem. If, within three years, a school’s students failed to improve, the department would require the state to take over the school’s Title I spending.

States would also be directed to point to high-poverty schools that were making significant progress in closing achievement gaps and reward them with recognition and additional funding.

Still, the idea earned high marks from advocates for state and district officials.

. . . In an important policy shift, schools that failed to meet achievement targets would not be mandated to provide school choice or supplemental educational services, known as SES. Mr. Duncan had already signaled that the tutoring and public-school-choice provisions under NCLB were not acceptable to him. Last April, in light of the $10 billion in additional Title I money flowing to states and school districts from the federal economic-stimulus package, he invited states to apply for waivers to make those provisions more flexible. So far, the department has granted 43 waivers.

The proposal could meet with opposition in Congress, particularly among Republicans.

“It’s disappointing to see and school choice removed from the parental toolbox, particularly because it appears the focus is shifting to the needs of schools rather than the needs of students,” said Alexa Marrero, a spokeswoman for Rep. John Kline of Minnesota, the top Republican on the House Education and Labor Committee.

Mr. Duncan’s dislike for the supplemental-services provisions in NCLB is well known. While the chief executive officer of the Chicago school system, he fought regularly—and publicly—with the Education Department during the Bush administration in his quest to allow the district to serve as a provider of tutoring services for its students, even though the district had not made adequate yearly progress. The department told Mr. Duncan in 2004 that he must stop providing the services using federal funds, but he refused to do so.

. . . On another front, the ESEA renewal plan seeks to give teachers a voice in school improvement efforts by using still-to-be-specified surveys about working conditions and school climate.

And it would seek to strengthen provisions in current law that require states to make sure their most effective teachers are distributed equitably among high- and low-poverty schools, such as by providing more reporting and transparency. Schools would be required to report on factors such as teacher turnover, teacher absenteeism, and the number of novice teachers working in a school.


Not sure what's not to like here? Doesn't it cover a lot of the complaints I've been hearing from DU teachers??

States would also be directed to develop a definition of “effective teacher” that relies at least partially on student outcomes, and to establish systems for linking students’ academic performance to their teachers and school leaders.

. . . “encourage funding equity,” such as by requiring schools and districts to more clearly show how resources are being distributed among high- and low-poverty schools.

Under the blueprint, states would be able to measure individual students’ academic growth, rather than comparing different cohorts of students with each other, as under current law.

. . . the administration was seeking to replace AYP—the signature accountability yardstick in the NCLB law—with a new measure aimed at making sure students are ready for college or a career.

And earlier this month, the administration released a proposal to tie Title I grants for districts to states’ adoption of college- and career-ready standards. States could either join with a consortium seeking to develop such standards, or work with their institutions of higher education to craft them.

The Title I proposal is expected to bolster the Common Core State Standards Initiative, the highest-profile national effort to develop more uniform, rigorous standards.

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/03/13/25esea.h29...

[mbperrin]

3. This law mandates that even if all schools are wonderful, 10% will be labeled

as troubled and in need of remediation.

Right from your post:

But the bottom 5 percent of schools would be forced to use the department’s four turnaround models that now govern the Title I School Improvement Grant program. The next-lowest 5 percent would be on a “warning” list and be required to take action using research-based interventions, although the department would not mandate one of the four turnaround models.

So the goal of 100% acceptable schools cannot be met by definition and by law using these standards. Quite an idea.

Incidentally, teachers are 100% responsible now; we just don't have any power, and not under the new law, either.

[proud2BlibKansan]

5. And dont forget the 100% mandate!

100% of our kids are supposed to be proficient by 2014. It doesn't look like Obama is going to fix that.

And that is absolutely ridiculous.

[mzteris]

7. so you didn't read it . . . ahhhh . . . I see.

The looming 2014 deadline under NCLB—the date by which all students are supposed to be proficient in reading and math—would essentially go away under the department’s blueprint.

[ncteechur]

15. so whose mother's son or daughter are you going to say isn't going to be proficient?

Excuse me, Mrs. ___,

Unfortunately we have determined that your child will in all likelihood not be proficient at the end of this year. We did our best. If you had only been a little richer and paid more property taxes, or if you could have quit your 2nd shift job to come work more with your kid, or we know that the math teacher down the hall isn't really that good but, hey, they need a job too. So you'll just have to deal with your child's failure.

Maybe it will improve next year.

Or maybe not.

Sincerely,

____ Elementary School

[mbperrin]

17. By definition, any normalized grouping has a non-proficient component.

This is what's the matter with the whole system now. It's graded "on the curve." This means that there will always be a relatively fixed % of exceptional, "regular", and insufficient no matter what they learn or do.

Much better choice would be a criterion system. What exactly do you want a proficient student to be able to do and by when? 100% could master any given objective, but these statistics games, like the new ESEA, which automatically makes the bottom 10% no good, will never show the true level of performance in any system. Even if the last place school this year is twice as good as the first place school last year, it will be shown as unacceptable.

And yes, where kids start from matters. I've got 16 year olds that leave from school to go work until 2 am or 3 am stocking at the Walmart who then are due in school at 7:40. They're helping to pay their family's electric bill, little brother or sister's medicine, or insurance for the vehicle to stay out of jail. Now that's just one example. No matter whose fault it is that these kids must work, they must. And four hours of sleep with absolutely no time for homework, research, or reading will not add up to a proficient performance.

That's another reason that labels are so hurtful. In reality, these kids are overburdened, not "bad" students. But in our statistically crazed alphabet soup of ratings, that's what they go down as. Our county is the 5th poorest out of 254 in Texas, so this is a common scenario here.

Love a solution. Got one?

[ncteechur]

18. so who do you designate as the non-proficient. If 5-10% will not be proficient

let's go ahead and designate them and get them out of the way. I mean there is no need to worry about them or try hard with them or tutor them if they are not going to be proficient.

I will not tell a child they cannot be proficient. I mean we have already seen a post about a teacher who wrote loser on a students paper. Is it OK tell a child they are a loser because we know we cannot get everyone at grade level? I'm not telling a child's parents that.

[mbperrin]

19. No TRAINED educator would ever think or write such a thing on any

child's paper. Period.

This is part of where not paying enough gets you. You have to take every damned misfit you can find with a piece of paper from some cow college somewhere, and you have to give them three years to get their certification. Meanwhile, they're in the classroom wreaking havoc with just such shit as you have just posted.

Then, when they cannot pass their certifications, they'll be released by their district. BUT all they have to do is go one town over, and they're virgins again. They can be hired and work three years while trying for their certs. And so on.

And the other problem with the current system of labeling is there is a FINAL designation, whereas in reality, there is no end to the educational PROCESS. At this point in time, little Johnny performed on the day of the test worse than 90% of the other kids who took the test on that day. The fact that he had a fever or that his dad got drunk last night and beat the hell out of his mother while Johnny hid in a closet or any other fact has no bearing on why he did what he did on that test that day.

If he scores lower on the test than on his classwork, that will be evidence that his teacher is a grade inflator, a cheat. If he scores higher on the test than on his classwork, that means he is energized by the challenge of his test, and his teacher is no good at motivating him. If he scores just the same, his teacher is just mediocre, able to spark just enough for Johnny to pass, not the kind of world class beaters we're looking for (!)

See, the mere fact that every child, every type of learner from every type of background, is forced to take only one kind of test, and only one day a year, ensures that the test is unfair. Same treatment is not equal treatment. For example, to find out if you're fit, we'll have you run the hundred yard dash. Okay, you, the lazy kid in the wheelchair, get off your ass and run! Whaddya mean, you can't run? Non-proficient, that's you. Let you try with the chair? See anybody else out here with a chair? Nah, you little privilege seeking whiner, you're just a failure, and you don't want to admit it.

Day in, day out, 180 days a year, a student will learn things. Some will learn these things quickly, some more slowly. Some will become really fond of some of this learning and do great things with it. For others, Bertrand Russell is just not that interesting, but can they ever tell you about John Lennon! Child needs some extra time, give it; child needs another way to see it, try to. These standardized tests are an incredibly tiny snapshot of a giant process, no accuracy guaranteed.

Let's give all the vehicles a standardized test. On this day of the test, each vehicle will be required to run 250 miles around an oval, always turning left, and they must finish within a given time . Then they'll be required to stop from 70 mph within a given distance.

hmmm, lessee, you ambulances did well on the course time, but your stopping distance sucks. You're too heavy, and we don't need you. You're failures as standardized vehicles. Dumptrucks, get outta here! You just clogged up the track! Same with you cement truck guys, you derricks, all you construction failures!

Who did well here? Well lookee lookee, you NASCAR types are great! Every family in America needs you because you finished top of the test! So we can junk all the other vehicles and build only NASCAR from now on.




This is the world that one dimensional standardized multiple choice tests have created, and I hate it. Education now has an END - the passing of these tests, rather than a PROCESS - joining with life and becoming part of it wherever you fit best. So if you like winners and losers, love a few hours of testing a year and labels for everyone!


Of course I forgot the hundreds of millions in profits to corporate test writers and graders and remediation sellers, including Neil Bush, whom I think is banned forever from banking in the state of Colorado, but is selling a lot of tapes and books in Florida and Texas on passing these tests..


Hope this helped. I know it's too long.

[mzteris]

6. TEACHERS in ESEA

INTRODUCTION
This blueprint builds on the significant reforms already made in response to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 around four areas:
(1) Improving teacher and principal effectiveness to ensure that every classroom has a great teacher and every school has a great leader;
(2) Providing information to families to help them evaluate and improve their children’s schools, and to educators to help them improve their students’ learning;
(3) Implementing college- and career-ready standards and developing improved assessments aligned with those standards; and
(4) Improving student learning and achievement in America’s lowest-performing schools by providing intensive support and effective interventions. Incorporating and extending this framework, this blueprint for a re-envisioned federal role builds on these key priorities:


(1) College- and Career-Ready Students
Raising standards for all students. (etc...)
Better assessments. (etc...)
A complete education. (etc...)


(2) Great Teachers and Leaders in Every School
Effective teachers and principals. We will elevate the teaching profession to focus on recognizing, encouraging, and rewarding excellence. We are calling on states and districts to develop and implement systems of teacher and principal evaluation and support, and to identify effective and highly effective teachers and principals on the basis of student growth and other factors. These systems will inform professional development and help teachers and principals improve student learning.

In addition, a new program will support ambitious efforts to recruit, place, reward, retain, and promote effective teachers and principals and enhance the profession of teaching.

Our best teachers and leaders where they are needed most. Our proposal will provide funds to states and districts to develop and support effective teachers and leaders, with a focus on improving the effectiveness of teachers and leaders in high-need schools. We will call on states and districts to track equitable access to effective teachers and principals, and where needed, take steps to improve access to effective educators for students in high-poverty, high-minority schools.

Strengthening teacher and leader preparation and recruitment. We need more effective pathways and practices for preparing, placing, and supporting beginning teachers and principals in high-need schools. States will monitor the effectiveness of their traditional and alternative preparation programs, and we will invest in programs whose graduates are succeeding in the classroom, based on student growth and other factors.

(3) Equity and Opportunity for All Students
Rigorous and fair accountability for all levels. (etc...)
Meeting the needs of diverse learners.
Greater equity.

(4) Raise the Bar and Reward Excellence


(5) Promote Innovation and Continuous Improvement

Fostering innovation and accelerating success. The Investing in Innovation Fund will support local and nonprofit leaders as they develop and scale up programs that have demonstrated success, and discover the next generation of innovative solutions.

Supporting, recognizing, and rewarding local innovations. Our proposal will encourage and support local innovation by creating fewer, larger, more flexible funding streams around areas integral to student success, giving states and districts flexibility to focus on local needs. New competitive funding streams will provide greater flexibility, reward results, and ensure that federal funds are used wisely. At the same time, districts will have fewer restrictions on blending funds from different categories with less red tape.

Supporting student success. Tackling persistent achievement gaps requires public agencies, community organizations, and families to share responsibility for improving outcomes for students. We will prioritize programs that include a comprehensive redesign of the school day, week, or year, that promote schools as the center of their communities, or that partner with community organizations. Our proposal will invest in new models that keep students safe, supported, and healthy both in and out of school, and that support strategies to better engage families and community members in their children’s education.


************** MORE on TEACHERS ***********

Great Teachers and Great Leaders

Of all the work that occurs at every level of our education system, the interaction between teacher and student is the primary determinant of student success. A great teacher can make the difference between a student who achieves at high levels and a student who slips through the cracks, and a great principal can help teachers succeed as part of a strong, well-supported instructional team. Research shows that top-performing teachers can make a dramatic difference in the achievement of their students, and suggests that the impact of being assigned to top-performing teachers year after year is enough to significantly narrow achievement gaps. We have to do more to ensure that every student has an effective teacher, every school has effective leaders, and every teacher and leader has access to the preparation, on-going support, recognition, and collaboration opportunities he or she need to succeed. Our proposals will ask states and districts to put in place the conditions that allow for teachers, principals, and leaders at all levels of the school system to get meaningful information about their practice, and support them in using this information to ensure that all students are getting the effective teaching they deserve.
Great Teachers and Great Leaders

A New Approach

▶▶Elevating the profession and focusing on recruiting, preparing, developing, and rewarding effective teachers and leaders.

▶▶Focusing on teacher and leader effectiveness in improving student outcomes.

▶▶Supporting states and districts that are willing to take bold action to increase the number of effective teachers and leaders where they are needed most.

▶▶Strengthening pathways into teaching and school leadership positions in high-need schools.

EFFECTIVE TEACHERS AND LEADERS
Our proposal will continue and improve formula grants to states and school districts to improve the effectiveness of teachers and leaders, and ensure that students in high-need schools are being taught by effective teachers in schools led by effective principals. To help meet these goals, states and districts may choose how to spend funds to meet local needs, as long as they are improving teacher and principal effectiveness and ensuring the equitable distribution of effective teachers and principals. To measure, develop, and improve the effectiveness of their teachers, leaders, and preparation programs, states and districts will be required to put in place a few specific policies and systems, including:

▶▶Statewide definitions of “effective teacher,” “effective principal,” “highly effective teacher,” and “highly effective principal,” developed in collaboration with teachers, principals, and other stakeholders, that are based in significant part on student growth and also include other measures, such as classroom observations of practice. As states transition to using these measures of effectiveness, we will maintain the provisions of current law relating to “Highly Qualified Teachers,” but with additional flexibility.

▶State-level data systems that link information on teacher and principal preparation programs to the job placement, student growth, and retention outcomes of their graduates.

▶▶District-level evaluation systems that (i) meaningfully differentiate teachers and principals by effectiveness across at least three performance levels; (ii) are consistent
with their state’s definitions of “effective” and “highly effective” teacher and principal; (iii) provide meaningful feedback to teachers and principals to improve their practice and inform professional development; and (iv) are developed in collaboration with teachers, principals, and other education stakeholders.

Developing Effective Teachers and Leaders.
Both states and school districts will carry out strategies to develop effective teachers and leaders that meet their local needs.

States may use funds to recruit and develop effective teachers and principals, support the creation of effective educator career ladders, and improve teacher and principal certification and retention policies to better reflect a candidate’s ability to improve outcomes for students. Recognizing the importance of principal leadership in supporting teachers, states will work to improve the effectiveness of principals, through activities such as strengthening principal preparation programs and providing training and support to principals of high-need schools. States will also be required to develop meaningful plans to ensure the equitable distribution of teachers and principals that receive at at least an “effective” rating. If states are unsuccessful in improving the equitable distribution of these teachers and principals, they will be required to develop and implement more rigorous plans and additional strategies more likely to improve equity.

School districts may use funds to develop and implement fair and meaningful teacher and principal evaluation systems, working in collaboration with teachers, principals, and other stakeholders; to foster and provide collaboration and development opportunities in schools and build instructional teams of teachers, leaders, and other school staff, including paraprofessionals; to support educators in improving their instructional practice through effective, ongoing, job-embedded, professional development that is targeted to student and school needs; and to carry out other activities to improve the effectiveness of teachers, principals, and other school staff, and ensure the equitable distribution of effective teachers and principals. Funds spent on strategies such as professional development and class size reduction must be aligned with evidence of improvements in student learning.

Districts that have put in place the required evaluation systems may generally spend funds flexibly, except that a district that is not improving equity in the distribution of effective teachers and principals will be required to submit a new plan to the state under which funds will be spent solely on ensuring its evaluation system meets the requirements described above and on specific activities aimed at improving the equitable distribution of effective teachers and principals.

Measuring Success. We will require transparency around the key indicators of whether students and schools have effective teachers and principals and whether teachers have the professional supports they need. Both states and districts must publish report cards at least every two years that provide information on key indicators, such as teacher qualifications and teacher and principal designations of effectiveness; teachers and principals hired from high-performing pathways; teacher survey data on levels of support and working conditions in schools; the novice status of teachers and principals; teacher and principal attendance; and retention rates of teachers by performance level. States will also be required to report on the performance of teacher and principal preparation programs by their graduates’ impact on student growth and other measures, job placement, and retention.

TEACHER AND LEADER INNOVATION FUND
Our proposal will continue competitive grants for states and school districts that are willing to implement ambitious reforms to better identify, recruit, prepare, develop, retain, reward, and advance effective teachers, principals, and school leadership teams in high-need schools. Grantees must be able to differentiate among teachers and principals on the basis of their students’ growth and other measures, and must use this information to differentiate, as applicable, credentialing, professional development, and retention and advancement decisions, and to reward highly effective teachers and principals in high-need schools. School districts must also put in place policies to help ensure that principals are able to select and build a strong team of teachers with a shared vision and that teachers are choosing to be part of a school team.

Grantees may use funds to reform compensation systems to provide differentiated compensation and career advancement opportunities to educators who are effective in increasing student academic achievement, who take on additional roles and responsibilities in their schools, and who teach in high-need schools, subjects, areas, and fields. Grantees may also use funds to staff high-need schools more effectively, such as through the implementation or use of earlier hiring timelines. States and districts will be encouraged to use these funds to take on additional innovative reforms, such as improving teacher salary schedules so as to eliminate incentives for teachers to obtain credentials that have been shown not to be linked with student performance. Additionally, states must describe the extent to which high-performing pathways are in place. In all cases, applicants will be required to provide evidence of stakeholder involvement in the development of their proposal.

TEACHER AND LEADER PATHWAYS
Our proposal will continue competitive grants to improve and strengthen the recruitment and preparation of effective teachers, principals, and other school leaders by nonprofit organizations, colleges and universities, and school districts, through high-quality preparation programs that prepare educators for high-need districts, schools, subjects, areas, and fields.

Teacher Pathways. To strengthen traditional and alternative pathways into teaching, our proposal includes competitive grants for the recruitment, preparation, placement, and induction of promising teacher candidates for high-need schools, subjects, areas, and fields. Programs must be designed to meet the specific teacher needs of a district or districts, and must either have a record of preparing effective teachers or commit to tracking and measuring the effectiveness of their graduates in the classroom.
In making grants, the Secretary will take into account whether programs will prepare teachers to teach to college- and career-ready standards; the extent to which programs are designed to meet the needs of high-need areas, including rural areas, or high-need fields, such as teaching English Learners, students with disabilities, or other students with diverse learning needs; and the extent to which programs provide streamlined opportunities for applicants who can demonstrate competency in specific knowledge or skills. Priority may be given to programs that work to recruit and prepare high-performing college graduates or non-traditional candidates, such as military veterans or midcareer professionals. The Secretary also will carry out a teacher recruitment campaign, working with states, districts, and outside organizations to recruit talented candidates into the teaching profession.

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/blueprint.pdf


so what, specifically is the problem with this?

[mbperrin]

2. MY union! Hopefully, something can be done about the crazy idea

that we can just a hole in students' heads, stick in a funnel, and pour in knowledge. That means any knowledge not in there was spilled by the teacher. Crazy idea.

Some of the problems in schools: children below Maslovian needs being met; large classes; boring curricula focused simply on passing one standardized test per year; resources being used in massive dose by AP/IB/Special ed and other "special" groups, while "regular" kids get shoveled into large classes, newest teachers, least materials, no access to tutoring or other ancillary activities.

Very difficult for a teacher to make up all that alone. And you're alone, because the folks in charge need badly to have someone to blame when things go wrong. There's a reason why school results in this country are forlorn since we began all this testing nonsense in 1984. If you examine the history, that is precisely when all the trouble started. These tests are simply a device to funnel money to private schools who do not have to meet the same standards or admit the same students that the public schools do.

There is hardly any problem that can be solved faster with less education. If we gave someone a pile of rocks, a quart of grease, a frying pan, and said make hamburger out of that, no one would think that was fair. Happens all the time in education, except they throw the rocks at you.

[proud2BlibKansan]

4. You should borrow my sig pic!

I'm proud to be an AFT member. I'm also a national delegate and am looking forward to the convention this summer. If Randi doesn't stop kissing Arne's ass, I think we should start an impeachment :)

This press release is a start. But she should be calling for a national strike instead of saying we will go along with Arne's reforms.

[mbperrin]

13. Thanks for being there at the national level, too!

So hard for people to understand that before we put a great teacher in every classroom, that there must be a classroom available for every teacher. That's so basic no one wants to talk about it, because it will cost M-O-N-E-Y for every school, instead of doling out rewards to the top with money taken as punishment from the bottom.

Slogans are easy. Teaching is hard. Sure wish all the sloganeers would take 5 years off and get into the classroom!

[mzteris]

9. some excerpts - please critique (not criticize!)

(I trust you know the difference.)

Supporting student success requires deploying every tool at our disposal. The students most at risk for academic failure too often attend schools and live in communities with insufficient capacity to address the full range of their needs. The result is that students cannot always focus on learning and teachers cannot always focus on teaching.
Preparing students for success requires taking innovative, comprehensive approaches to meeting students’ needs, such as rethinking the length and structure of the school day and year, so that students have the time they need to succeed and teachers have the time they need to collaborate and improve their practice. It means supporting innovative models that provide the services that students need; time for teachers to collaborate to meet academic challenges; environments that help all students be safe, healthy, and supported in their classrooms, schools, and communities; and greater opportunities to engage families in their children’s education and strengthen the role of schools as centers of communities.

Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students

A New Approach
▶▶Providing a cradle through college and career continuum in high-poverty communities that provides effective schools, comprehensive services, and family supports.
▶▶Supporting programs that redesign and expand the school schedule, provide high-quality afterschool programs, and provide comprehensive supports to students.
▶▶Using data to improve students’ safety, health, and well-being, and increasing the capacity of states, districts, and schools to create safe, healthy, and drug-free
environments.

PROMISE NEIGHBORHOODS
Our proposal will provide new, competitive grants to support the development and implementation of a continuum of effective community services, strong family supports, and comprehensive education reforms to improve the educational and life outcomes for children and youths in high-need communities, from birth through college and into careers. Programs must be designed to improve academic and developmental outcomes for children and youths through effective public schools, community-based organizations, and other local agencies. Programs will be encouraged to take a comprehensive approach to meeting student needs, drawing on the contributions of community-based organizations, local agencies, and family and community members. Grantees will conduct a needs assessment of all children in the community in order to establish baseline data against which the grantee will aim to improve outcomes, and will promote and coordinate community involvement, support, and buy-in, including securing and leveraging resources from the public and private sectors.

21ST CENTURY COMMUNITY LEARNING CENTERS

Our proposal will provide competitive grants for states, school districts, nonprofit organizations, and partnerships to implement in school and out of school strategies that provide students and, where appropriate, teachers and family members, with additional time and supports to succeed.
Competitive grants will be awarded to states, school districts, and community-based organizations to leverage models that comprehensively redesign and expand the school day or year, provide full-service community schools, or provide services before school, after school, or during the summer. All programs will focus on improving student academic achievement in core academic subjects, ranging from English language arts, mathematics, and science, to history, the arts, and financial literacy, as part of a well-rounded education, and providing enrichment activities, which may include activities that improve mental and physical health, opportunities for experiential learning, and greater opportunities for families to actively and meaningfully engage in their children’s education.

Priority will be given to applicants that propose to carry out programs to support the improvement of Challenge schools identified under the College- and Career-Ready Students program, and those that propose to implement comprehensive and coordinated programs, including comprehensively redesigning and expanding the school schedule for all students, providing comprehensive supports to students and families through full-service community school models, or establishing partnerships between school districts and nonprofit organizations for in school or out of school strategies.

SUCCESSFUL, SAFE, AND HEALTHY STUDENTS

Our proposal will provide competitive grants to support states, school districts, and their partners in providing learning environments that ensure that students are successful, safe, and healthy. To better measure school climate and identify local needs, grantees will be required to develop and implement a state- or district-wide school climate needs assessment to evaluate school engagement, school safety (addressing drug, alcohol, and violence issues), and school environment, and publicly report this information. This assessment must include surveys of student, school staff, and family experiences with respect to individual schools, and additional data such as suspensions and disciplinary actions. States will use this data to identify local needs and provide competitive subgrants to school districts and their partners to address the needs of students, schools, and communities.

Grantees will use funds under the Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students program to carry out strategies designed to improve school safety and to promote students’ physical and mental health and well-being, nutrition education, healthy eating, and physical fitness. Grantees may support activities to prevent and reduce substance use, school violence (including teen dating violence), harassment, and bullying, as well as to strengthen family and community engagement in order to ensure a healthy and supportive school environment.

Priority will be given to applicants that propose to support partnerships between districts and nonprofit organizations, including community-based organizations. Priority will also be given to grantees willing to direct funds to schools with the greatest need, including Challenge schools, as identified under the College- and Career-Ready Students program, or schools with the greatest needs as identified through the school climate needs assessment.

****

*****
A Complete Education
As we ask states to raise their standards to prepare their students for college and the workplace, we will also be asking more from students, families, teachers, principals, and every level of the educational system. To make higher standards meaningful, we must ensure that states, districts, schools, and teachers have the resources and assistance they need to help students reach these standards, such as instructional supports, high-quality professional development, and teaching and learning materials aligned with those standards. This means a new investment in improving teaching and learning in all content areas – from literacy to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics to history, civics, foreign languages, the arts, financial literacy, environmental education, and other subjects – and in providing accelerated learning opportunities to more students to make postsecondary success more attainable.

A Complete Education

A New Approach
▶▶Strengthening instruction in literacy and in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, aligned with improved standards that build toward college- and career-readiness.
▶▶Supporting teachers and students in teaching and learning to more rigorous standards that prepare students for college and a career.
▶▶Improving access to a well-rounded education for students in high-need schools.
▶▶Expanding access to college coursework and other accelerated learning opportunities for students in high-need schools.

. . .

STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES - more -
ENGLISH LEARNER EDUCATION - more -

MIGRANT EDUCATION
Our proposal will continue and strengthen formula grants to states, districts, and other providers to meet the educational needs of migrant students. To ensure that funds are most effectively targeted to the areas in which migrant students live, we will update the current funding formula to incorporate more accurate and timely data. We will also strengthen and facilitate interstate efforts to support the educational transition of migrant students into local schools and communities.

HOMELESS CHILDREN AND YOUTHS EDUCATION
Our proposal will continue and strengthen formula grants to help states and districts put in place systems and services to meet the educational needs of homeless students. First, we will better target funds to serve homeless students by allocating funds on the basis of counts of homeless students rather than by shares of Title I allocations. Second, we will remove barriers to effective services for homeless children. And third, we will clarify provisions of the current statute where ambiguity resulted in delays in services for homeless children and youths. Our proposal will also increase transparency by requiring grantees to report on the academic outcomes for students served by the program.

NEGLECTED AND DELINQUENT CHILDREN AND YOUTHS EDUCATION
Our proposal will continue and strengthen formula grants to states to improve educational services for students in state-operated institutions and community day programs for neglected or delinquent children and youths. To better direct funds to support students in locally-operated institutions, our proposal will ask districts to reserve funds received under the College- and Career-Ready Students program to support programs conducted by locally-operated institutions.

INDIAN, NATIVE HAWAIIAN, AND ALASKA NATIVE EDUCATION
RURAL EDUCATION
IMPACT AID

****

adding this just 'cause I like it!

ENSURING A WELL-ROUNDED EDUCATION
To help more students in high-need schools receive a well-rounded education, our proposal will provide competitive grants to states, high-need districts, and nonprofit partners to strengthen the teaching and learning of arts, foreign languages, history and civics, financial literacy, environmental education, and other subjects.

Grants may support either the development of new, promising instructional practices or the expansion of instructional practices for which there is evidence of improving student performance in one or more of these subjects. Such practices, which should be aimed at improving instruction for all students, including English Learners and students with disabilities, may include high-quality professional development, better assessments, high-quality state- or locally-determined curricula aligned with state standards, or innovative uses of technology.

Priority will be given to applicants proposing to integrate teaching and learning across academic subjects; to use technology to address student learning challenges; and at the high school level, to work with colleges or universities to ensure that coursework is truly aligned with those institutions’ expectations.http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/blueprint.pdf

[mbperrin]

12. First, thanks for asking for a critique.

The one assumption underlying all of these changes is that the current model of education is operating at its peak efficiency and cannot do the job we want. What is that job? I think the well-rounded education is the underlying goal of any educational system. Now what is well-rounded? It means students graduating high school ready for college OR OTHER post-secondary training. Would you agree?

35 years ago, the high school I attended (and now teach in) offered two tracks of education beginning your junior year of high school: academic preparation for college or technical education for a vocational career. Until then, all students took the same courses: freshman and sophomore English, US History, World History, Speech, Algebra, Geometry, Biology, PE, Spanish, Latin, or French. Band, choir, or orchestra could be taken instead of PE.

Then, your junior year, you picked the college track or the vocational track. College track meant: Algebra 2, Analytic Geometry, Trigonometry, English III and IV, Studies in Western Civilization; two more years of your foreign language; two more years of PE or your music; Chemistry; Biology II.

Vocational track students took Algebra II, two more years of PE or music, and 5 hours per day for the next two years of your chosen vocational area: plumbing, electrical, construction, HVAC, drafting; cosmetology, printing trades, auto body repair and paint; auto mechanics; welding; electronics design and repair; woodworking; and locksmithing. These vocational shops were located on the campus, and the instructors were all licensed in their various trades. End results: at graduation, these folks were ready to hire with certificates ready to be supervised by masters; in the case of cosmetology, they were ready to go to work - they had taken their licensing exams from the state as their final exams.

All were grounded in the real world. A lot was purchased in an existing neighborhood, and the construction trades students dug the footings, ran the slabs, installed the plumbing, electrical and HVAC systems after they framed, finished, bricked and shingled them. The house was sold to buy the materials and lot for the next one.

The auto students took in overhaul jobs from the general public, as did the auto body folks; the printing trades produced the district literature of all kinds right there on campus; the electronics people work in apprentice positions in various oilfield companies here in town, and so on. Results? In the 60's to mid-80s, this town had the highest per capita income in Texas and in the top 20% nationwide. I personally earned a National Merit Scholarship to Texas A&M from GM, along with two other students here in town that year.

In 1984, the Texas Legislature, under the prodding of H. Ross Perot and others, decided that every child should go to college, and the TEAMS test (the ancestor of all the various instruments nationwide) was developed. Vocational programs were killed; the shops were turned into classrooms. Today, we have the 4x4 in Texas, where every child is required to take four years each of core subjects, meaning that each student will get to choose exactly 2 elective courses in the course of their 4 year career.

Did I mention that since 1984, when TEAMS was introduced, that SAT scores have fallen in Texas every year, and that my town is now in the bottom 10% of income in Texas, as well as in the bottom 10% nationwide? And we just produced our second National Merit Scholar in 16 years in this district?

Meanwhile, back at the campus: we have 29 teachers without a classroom - they must "float" into other teachers' rooms during the day to get their 6 courses taught; they can use what they can carry, and the resident teacher has no place to work on lesson plans, parent calls, reports, grading, except in the teacher lounge with the other 30 or so souls who have also been displaced. They can also work with what they can carry, and they are free to use their own personal cell phones to make calls (be assured that no student who might be angry that you called mom will ever get that number and call you at 3 am - it can't happen, right?); also, new teachers are assigned a "mentor" teacher who gets no time off, no stipend, and no resources to mentor you, and who could be located 4 blocks away (our campus covers 6 city blocks) with no common lunch or conference time. New teachers are also assigned to the largest classes with the most immature students - sophomores, because one of the "rewards" of teaching longer is teaching seniors - the 70% who are left and who seem to want to graduate.

Other resources: each classroom has 30 chairs and 3 student computers, and 1/2 our student body has no computer at home, so feel free to design some exciting tech lessons. Don't forget - district policy is to provide one printer cartridge per year for each teacher with a printer. After that, you buy your own, so you won't mind your floater using your printer to prepare for their classes, will you? Also, copy allowances are sufficient to make 20 copies for each student each year, and then you're finished with that.


Now, my question is this - should we give every teacher the bare resources they need to teach, such as a classroom of their own, printer cartridges and copies for students, real mentoring when new; and would it be okay for students to be able to learn what they are interested in, either going to college or going to work? Is there any problem with someone graduating high school with an apprentice plumber ticket which means that when I call on a Saturday to get a drain run, it's a 4 hour minimum at $90 per hour, and that child gets $180 of it? Is it okay to train a generation of competent mechanics, construction workers, and welders? Okay if the cosmetologist earns $56,000 per year net because they know how to satisfy their customers?

Try to find a competent mechanic, body repair, plumber and see what I mean. Right now, the law actually prevents this from happening. Students are stuck in courses they could not care less about and must pass the big test in the spring. There is so much emphasis on the testing that when they are finished in April, even the AP students think the year is over. Testing and test results are emphasized so much that students themselves think that's why they're there.

If students were learning something they were interested in, something they wanted to do, all of those other programs you're talking about above, would be unneeded. It doesn't matter how many counselors test and talk to the student who's going to work for his dad in the drywall business after graduation. For that young person and his family, the family business IS success and IS the result of intergenerational effort, and he or she really doesn't know why they must take calculus and physics and 4 years of German. Result? Boredom, skipping, failing, disruption.

Before we build the shuttle, we've got to get the Mercury program off the ground. We haven't done that yet. Sorry this is so long, too long, but it's not a soundbite problem.

[mzteris]

14. thank you for your thoughtful reply . . .

I understand and agree with everything you've said here. What we now have to do is try and move forward. Some ideas "work", some don't. But we have to still at least keep TRYING! I think that is what Obama is doing. Maybe not everyone agrees with his approach, but it's an attempt to get us out the rut our system seems to be in.

I think the A#1 problem is MONEY. There's not enough being spent PROPERLY in education. I mean, take Kansas City for example - they had TWO BILLION DOLLARS to spend on education. You'd think they'd be the best school system in the nation! But no, they're going bankrupt and closing half their schools. Why is that? Poor management. Pie in the sky stuff. Yeah, we do need to get back to BASICS.

Children need to learn critical thinking skills. They need to do art and music and play and have recess. Stop "pushing" academics further and further down the chain. "Trades" need to be VALUED again. There should be "NO SHAME" attached to not attending college. Get rid of the deadwood at colleges and maybe a college education would be affordable again.


Anyways - in re: the "Blueprint" - I think it addresses a lot of these concerns. Whether they will be realized in actuality at the local level remains to be seen. But the ideas in there are sound, imo.

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. Thank you Ignore for kicking my thread!

[mzteris]

10. I always seek to enlighten n/t

[Catshrink]

16. LOL

:evilgrin:

[proud2BlibKansan]

20. Five times!!

LOL

[proud2BlibKansan]

11. kick