Red Flags Rising

MNPS parent and blogger TC Weber has written several pieces about new Director of Schools Dr. Shawn Joseph. His latest compares Dr. Joseph’s start to that of former MNPS Director of Schools Pedro Garcia. It’s an interesting approach and well-researched. No matter your thoughts on TC’s conclusions, the parallels are worth considering.

Here’s how he starts:

It has been an interesting couple of months here in Nashville. Back in July, we got a brand new Director of Schools, Dr. Shawn Joseph. Everybody broke their arms clapping themselves on the back because it appeared we had a found a good old fashioned champion of public education for a superintendent. While in some ways that may be true, it appears that we may have gotten something else. The jury is still out on exactly what kind of director we’ve hired, but it’s safe to say that a number of red flags have arisen.

Over the last several months, I’ve written several posts outlining these red flags that have arisen since Dr. Joseph was hired.

Read more to see the issues TC identifies as potential red flags.

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport


 

Tennesseans Against Liberals?

Just a group of moms and dads and teachers and administrators and engaged community members working together to make Tennessee schools great. Sounds nice, right?

That’s how the issue advocacy group Tennesseans for Student Success describes itself. Here’s the official description from their website:

Tennesseans for Student Success is made up of moms and dads, teachers and parents, administrators and education leaders, and community and elected officials. If you are interested in joining our work, we have a place for you to be a part of this historic work.

We hope you’ll join us in one of our Coalitions for Student Success. Our students are more prepared for their next steps than they have ever been before. Tennessee’s kids are now better prepared for life after school, but there is more work to be done. We need your help as we all work to spread the message of student success in counties and communities across the state.

See, a perfectly positive group spreading the message of student success all across Tennessee.

And then there’s this:

img_7748-mov

 

They sure don’t like that Gloria Johnson. You know, the former state rep. running for her old seat. The one who stood up to Bill Haslam and to special interests seeking to privatize public schools by way of vouchers.

Their involvement in the 13th district House race is more interesting in light of a twitter encounter back in August relative to the Nashville School Board races.

Here’s that tweet:

img_1351

 

So, they don’t endorse candidates? True, the ads against Gloria Johnson don’t technically ask voters to vote against her. But, the message is pretty clear.

Then, there’s this press release from after the August primary:

“Every election day brings the possibility of changing course in the General Assembly. As Tennessee’s students, teachers, parents, administrators, community leaders, and education advocates continue their work to make sure every child in the state has the opportunity to succeed, it is paramount Nashville stay focused on student success. Tennessee kids are the fastest improving in the nation in education and every elected official must be committed to that work.

“Tennesseans for Student Success this summer spent time across the state engaging with voters about our advocacy for all Tennessee classrooms. From school tours in Knoxville to Days of Action in Brentwood to reading events in Bolivar, we worked to advance and protect education reform throughout the state.

“As we celebrate the victories of Senator Dolores Gresham, Senator Steve Dickerson, Representative Charles Sargent, Representative Jon Lundberg, and Representative John DeBerry we are grateful voters considered the message of student-centered, commonsense education reform and voted for what’s best for their children, their teachers, their classrooms, and their futures.”

Hmm. All the candidates they are celebrating are also lawmakers who support school vouchers. While the candidate they are warning voters about, Gloria Johnson, opposes vouchers.

So, what’s the story? Is Tennesseans for Student Success a nonpartisan issue advocacy group just trying to help our schools? Or do they believe that liberals can’t also support student success? Or are they a front group for a Haslam Administration that supports school vouchers?

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport


 

 

Supplemental Letter

25 Republican House and Senate Education Committee members, including Tennessee’s Lamar Alexander, sent a letter to Education Secretary John King expressing displeasure with proposed rules on what it means for federal Title I funds to “supplement, not supplant” state and local funds.

The legislators contend the proposed rule violates the intent of ESSA and could damage local districts and impact spending flexibility.

Here’s what they had to say:

The Honorable John B. King, Jr.
Secretary
U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20202

Re: RIN 1810-AB33
Proposed Rule on Implementing the Supplement, Not Supplant Provision Under Title I of the ESEA

Dear Secretary King:

We respectfully submit these comments in response to a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to create new regulations to implement programs under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which was published in the Federal Register on September 6, 2016. As Members of the United States Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) and House of Representatives Committee on Education and the Workforce, we are writing to express our strong concerns about the U.S. Department of Education (“the Department”) proposals to regulate the supplement, not supplant (SNS) requirement found in section 1118(b) of ESSA.

ESSA was signed into law by President Obama on December 10, 2015, after passing the U.S. House of Representatives (359 – 64) and Senate (85 – 12) with overwhelming bipartisan support. The new law represents a broad consensus to restore to States, Local Educational Agencies (LEAs), educators, and parents the responsibility for making important decisions about how to improve educational opportunities and outcomes for all students.

In Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, the U.S. Supreme Court established that the test for reviewing an agency’s interpretation of a statute consists of two related questions. First, the question is “whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter” because the court and agency must “give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.” Second, if “Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue” or “if the statute is silent or ambiguous” the question is “whether the agency’s answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.”

Unfortunately, the NPRM does not reflect the clear and unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. In the new law, Congress directly spoke to the issue by both clarifying and simplifying how LEAs demonstrate compliance with the SNS requirement under Title I of ESEA. The NPRM draws broad and inaccurate conclusions about what Congress intended when amending the SNS provision that are not supported by the statutory text and violate clear and unambiguous limitations on the Secretary’s authority. While the NPRM includes some provisions that accurately reflect the statute, it includes additional requirements on LEAs that are unlawful, unnecessary, and could result in harmful consequences to LEAs, schools, teachers, and students.

The intent of Congress in amending the SNS requirements under Title I of ESEA is clear and unambiguous in directly speaking to the issue of how LEAs must demonstrate compliance. As the Court has held, that should be “the end of the matter” for the Department, which through rulemaking should “give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.” Instead, the NPRM violates this principle in imposing new requirements that reflect the Department’s own construction of the statute. We therefore strongly urge the Department to rescind this additional language and work with Congress in a bipartisan, bicameral way to implement ESSA as Congress clearly intended. The following outlines areas of agreement, and then describes the ways in which the Department’s proposal violates the letter and intent of the statute and could lead to negative results for low-income students and schools if it were implemented.
1. General Requirements in Compliance with ESSA and Congressional Intent
Sections 200.72(a) and (b)(1)(i) of the NPRM are consistent with the statute and Congressional intent by providing appropriate regulatory clarification that will enable LEAs to satisfy the requirements of the law. Consistent with section 1118(b)(1) of ESSA, the NPRM requires LEAs to use Title I, part A funds only to supplement the funds that would, in the absence of such funds, be made available from state and local sources for the education of students participating in Title I programs, and not to supplant such funds. This general requirement has been in ESEA since 1970 and is maintained under ESSA. Additionally, the NPRM repeats statutory language eliminating the non-regulatory “cost-by-cost” test. Accordingly, LEAs are no longer required to identify that an individual cost or service supported with Title I, part A funds is supplemental under ESEA. Finally, the NPRM also repeats statutory language that prohibits any requirement for LEAs to provide services with Title I, part A funds through a particular instructional method or instructional setting. Therefore, we recommend the Department maintain sections 200.72(a) and (b)(1)(i) of the NPRM.
2. Additional Requirements in Violation of ESSA and Congressional Intent
Section 200.72(b)(1)(ii) of the NPRM violates the “unambiguously expressed intent of Congress” and clearly contradicts provisions of the law that have existed since 1970 by outlining new and prescriptive methodologies from which LEAs must choose to distribute state and local education funding in order to demonstrate compliance with the SNS requirement under Title I, part A. Specifically, the NPRM would require each LEA to allocate “almost all State and local education funds to all of its public schools – regardless of Title I status” in a way that meets one of three federally prescribed tests. While the NPRM includes a “State-determined option for compliance” that the Department reasons is intended to “maximize flexibility for innovative approaches,” an LEA can only exercise this option if the methodology for distributing state and local funds is as rigorous, and results in substantially similar amounts of state and local funding for Title I schools in the district, as the other federally prescribed options. Furthermore, exercising this option must be ultimately approved by federal peer reviewers and the Secretary. Section 200.72(b)(1)(iii) also includes a “special rule” that provides a fourth option for how an LEA could comply with the new regulatory requirement, which is essentially the same Department proposal that was rejected during negotiated rulemaking. These new requirements on how state and local funds are distributed, which are not included in the law, violate the plain language of the statute, including limitations on the Secretary’s authority, and conflict with the unambiguous intent of Congress in amending the SNS requirement.
i. Section 1118(b)(2) of ESEA Does Not Require a Particular Funding Outcome

Section 1118(b)(2) of ESEA, as amended by ESSA, reads as follows:

(2) COMPLIANCE- To demonstrate compliance with paragraph (1), a local educational agency shall demonstrate that the methodology used to allocate State and local funds to each school receiving assistance under this part ensures that such school receives all of the State and local funds it would otherwise receive if it were not receiving assistance under this part.
The unambiguously expressed intent of Congress in adding the new paragraph (2) to the SNS provision was to clarify how LEAs should demonstrate compliance. This language replaces the test, established in non-regulatory guidance, that required most LEAs to demonstrate that each cost (i.e. material or service) charged with Title I funds was supplementary, which was criticized for being opaque, confusing, burdensome, incentivizing fragmented spending decisions, and otherwise in conflict with the purposes of Title I and the original intent of SNS. Instead, the plain language of ESEA now requires only that LEAs demonstrate that their methodology for allocating state and local dollars does not take into consideration a school’s receipt of Title I funds, which effectively means that the methodology must only demonstrate Title I neutrality. In other words, school districts cannot construct a methodology for distributing state and local funds to schools that deliberately reduces the amount of such funds that are allocated to Title I schools because they are also receiving Title I dollars. In doing so, Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue in setting forth an unambiguous auditable standard that does not require or support further regulatory clarification. That should be the end of the matter for the Department.

When the Senate passed its version of ESSA, entitled the Every Child Achieves Act, (S. 1177), which was approved unanimously by the Senate HELP Committee and passed the full Senate 81-17, it included language identical to paragraph (2) above, as well as a committee report negotiated between HELP Committee Republicans and Democrats. This report explained the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress in how LEAs must demonstrate compliance with SNS under Title I, saying:
Specifically, the bill allows States and LEAs to comply with SNS for title I, part A funds if they can document that the manner in which they allocate State and local resources to schools is “Title I neutral,” or that the methodology does not account for the title I funds that schools will receive. Additionally, the bill removes requirements in regulation that force LEAs to identify individual costs or services as supplemental. Instead, the way in which State and local resources are allocated to a school must be examined as a whole to ensure that the methodology does not account for title I funds the schools will receive. This language will provide more flexibility for schools to utilize title I funds to implement comprehensive and innovative programs. LEAs will be able to demonstrate SNS compliance in a much less burdensome and restrictive way, while still making clear that Federal dollars are supplemental to State and local dollars and not be used to replace them.
The plain language and unambiguously expressed intent of this provision is to provide more flexibility to LEAs in complying with SNS by demonstrating that their methodology for distributing state and local funds does not account for the Title I funds, and, therefore, any federal Title I dollars that a school receives is clearly supplemental to the state and local funds that they would otherwise receive. Compliance is established once this methodology is demonstrated. Thus, this should be the end of the matter. However, the regulatory clarification proposed in the NPRM goes well beyond the requirement set forth clearly in statute and unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. The Department’s proposal prescribes four new standards from which school districts must choose, which collectively require either a specific methodology for distributing state and local funds or specific funding distribution outcomes. Congress deliberately chose not to create any such standards and added a paragraph on how an LEA would comply with the SNS provision to clarify that intent.
ii. The NPRM Violates Clear Prohibitions on the Secretary’s Authority
In ESSA, Congress spoke directly to limit the Secretary’s authority to regulate. First, section 1118(b)(4) of ESEA prohibits the Secretary from prescribing any specific methodology for allocating state and local funds. Second, section 8527(a) states:
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize an officer or employee of the Federal Government, including through a grant, contract, or cooperative agreement, to mandate, direct, or control a State, local educational agency, or school’s … allocation of State or local resources, or mandate a State or any subdivision thereof to spend any funds or incur any costs not paid for under this Act.
Based on these clear prohibitions, that should have been the end of the matter for the Department. Instead, section 200.72(b)(1)(ii) of the NPRM violates the statute and the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress in two ways.

First, the NPRM violates section 1118(b)(4) by prescribing the methodologies that LEAs may use to distribute state and local education funding. The Department reasons the NPRM is consistent with this prohibition because it provides a menu of options from which school districts can choose. However, in doing so, the NPRM creates a set of finite conditions for compliance with SNS, the practical effect of which is to prescribe specific methodologies that states and school districts must choose from to allocate State and local funds to all public schools. The proposal is also in violation of the intent of this prohibition, which was added to protect against any federal interference with school district funding methodologies, so long as those methodologies comply with paragraph (2) as discussed above.

Second, under the proposal, the Secretary is violating section 8527(a) by mandating, directing, and controlling how state and local resources are allocated, or alternatively, mandating states and LEAs spend additional funds not paid for under the statute. The fact that the NPRM will “mandate, direct, or control” the allocation of State or local resources or how a state or LEA spends its funds is not in dispute. The NPRM itself estimates that LEAs not in compliance would have to reallocate $800 million in State or local funds, or spend $2.2 billion in new State or local funds, or do a combination of both, in order to comply. The prohibition on such a mandate in section 8527(a) is not new to the law and its meaning is clear – federal officers may not mandate, direct, or control how States and LEAs spend or allocate their own dollars. This understanding of section 8527(a) was confirmed by a federal district court in School District of the City of Pontiac v. Secretary of the United States Department of Education. Therefore, by prescribing the methodologies that LEAs may use to distribute state and local education funding and effectively mandating, directing, and controlling how state and local resources are allocated, the NPRM violates clear prohibitions in the law and the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress to limit the Secretary’s authority to regulate.
iii. The NPRM is Not Supported by the Legislative History
The NPRM is not supported by the legislative history of ESSA in amending the SNS requirements. The Department reasons the proposed regulations “would ensure that Title I funds are used to fulfill their statutory purpose,” including to provide all children with a fair and equitable education, rather than to make up for “inequitable allocation of State and local funding to title I schools.” Many states have examined and are continuing to examine whether their own state and local funds are being allocated equitably to Title I and non-Title I schools. However, SNS has never required, nor is it intended to require, equity or fairness in the allocation of state and local education dollars.

As explained in a 2008 report, published by the Center for American Progress, under SNS “[a] district could provide half as much money for poor schools as middle-class schools, get Title I money, and then keep its own spending the same, using the new Title I dollars entirely for special programs in high-poverty schools.” The fact that Title I schools have received less state and local money than non-Title I schools would not violate the SNS requirement. The Department has maintained this interpretation of SNS since 1970.

The amendments made under Title I of ESSA do not alter this understanding of the purpose and intent of the SNS provision. The purpose of section 1118(b)(2) was not to prescribe how state and local funds must be distributed to Title I schools in comparison to non-Title I schools. Instead, it was to replace a complicated test for compliance issued by the Department in non-regulatory guidance with a simplified statutory requirement regarding how LEAs may comply with SNS. The Title I neutral test established by this provision is not new to the program. Guidance issued by the Department as recently as 2015 permitted LEAs to utilize a Title I neutral test to demonstrate compliance with SNS in schools operating a schoolwide program. Specifically, as articulated in the guidance, “the supplement not supplant requirement for a schoolwide program is simply that the school receive all non-Federal funds it would receive if it did not receive Title I funds.” The Title I neutral test does not change the purpose or expand the scope of SNS. As explained in a 2012 report by the Center for American Progress and the American Enterprise Institute, which recommended amending the SNS provisions in ESEA to provide the Title I neutral test for compliance that Congress ultimately included in ESSA:
It is important to note that this proposed test would not look at whether the amount of state and local money a Title I school receives is equitable. Given the significance of the problems caused by the current supplement-not-supplant test, this issue should be addressed on its own, separate from other Title I fiscal issues.
The legislative history of ESEA demonstrates Congress was aware of and considered language to address concerns about equity and fairness in the allocation of state and local education funds. Congress considered but did not approve proposed language that would have required spending in Title I schools to be measured against spending in non-Title I schools using actual per-pupil amounts. This proposal had been debated for years leading up to the enactment of ESSA. For example, the Senate HELP Committee debated but did not approve an amendment to ESEA’s comparability provision offered during Committee consideration of the Every Child Achieves Act by Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) that would have required LEAs to demonstrate that combined state and local per-pupil expenditures, including personnel and non-personnel expenditures, in each Title I school were not less than the average combined state and local per-pupil expenditures in non-Title I schools. Additionally, the House Education and the Workforce Committee debated and defeated a similar amendment offered by Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-OH) during Committee consideration of the Student Success Act. Instead, Congress added a new provision in section 1111(h)(1)(C)(x) that requires states and LEAs to publicly report actual per-pupil expenditures. Congress recognized the need for public scrutiny of funding allocations among schools. But Congress also recognized any mandates regarding actual per-pupil funding differences similar to what is proposed in the NPRM would cause far more harm than good for low-income students and chose not to enact them. Nobody involved in the negotiations that led to ESSA can plausibly argue that Congress intended to provide statutory authority for the requirements laid out in this NPRM.

Beyond the addition of this reporting provision, the issue of equitable funding between Title I and non-Title I schools was never raised during the subsequent Congressional negotiations that resulted in ESSA. During this process, the White House and the Department provided a list of priorities for Congressional consideration. This was not among those priorities. No member of the Conference committee ever proposed to amend either the comparability or SNS provisions under ESEA to address differences in actual per-pupil spending between Title I and non-Title I schools.

The NPRM does not reflect the plain language of ESEA or the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress in amending the SNS provisions in Title I of ESSA. As held by the U.S. Supreme Court, if “Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue” and “the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter.” ESSA clearly reflects the intent of Congress to clarify and simplify how LEAs must demonstrate compliance with the SNS requirements of Title I-A and places clear limitations on the Secretary’s authority to regulate beyond those requirements in statute. In requiring a particular funding outcome, prescribing the methodologies that LEAs must choose from to demonstrate compliance with SNS, and mandating, directing, or controlling how state and local funds are distributed to schools, the NPRM violates the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. Furthermore, the NPRM is not supported by the legislative history of the SNS provision that has been in the law since 1970 or the amendments made to it under ESSA. Rather than deferring to Congressional intent, the Department, through the NPRM, seeks to impose its own construction of the statute, which does not stand up to scrutiny.
3. Potential Negative Impact of the Proposed Rule
The NPRM, if implemented, will have a harmful impact on low-income students, teachers, schools, and LEAs. First, the NPRM gives the federal government unprecedented control over state and local education finance systems and requires states to govern LEAs’ compliance, possibly in violation of some state and local laws. This will create chaos for State and local education systems and distract them from the important work of raising student achievement, especially for the most disadvantaged. Rather than improving academic outcomes, the NPRM would force state and local leaders to focus on arbitrary compliance targets.

Second, the NPRM would undermine school-based budgeting reforms. State and local leaders around the country have recognized that one of the best ways to improve school performance is to hire good principals and provide them the autonomy to hire the staff and develop the programs that will best meet the needs of their students. The prescribed methodologies set forth in the NPRM will likely require district office staff to make final decisions about which teachers and programs are placed in which schools. This is the only way to ensure spending is distributed in compliance with the NPRM. Staffing and program decisions will be based on a “numbers game” that focuses on meeting regulatory spending targets rather than the needs of students.

Third, most communities will not have the option of raising spending to comply with the NPRM. Therefore, because staff salaries are by far the largest cost within LEAs, the NPRM will force LEAs to transfer teachers out of their current schools to other schools chosen by the district. This will force many LEAs to violate collective bargaining agreements. But more importantly, it will likely exacerbate existing teacher shortage crises and in some cases force LEAs to place less effective teachers in higher need schools. Driving staffing decisions by arbitrary compliance requirements will harm low-income students.

Fourth, the NPRM ignores the reality of how certain costs critical to school operations, such as costs for school construction, transportation, and employee benefits and pensions, are accounted for by districts. The NPRM would force “almost all” state and local funds to be allocated directly to the school level, making it impossible for districts to reserve funds for these important functions. We are not aware of any LEAs that currently distribute “almost all” state and local funds to the school level – thus, this NPRM would drastically upset how local schools finance these costs.

It is unfortunate that, once again, the Department has refused to adhere to the letter and intent of the law, or listen to the many stakeholders who helped shape ESSA, are responsible for implementing the new law, and have already articulated the problems this NPRM would create. Congress will do everything in its power to ensure that this proposed rule never becomes final.

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport


 

Doing the Right Thing

Shelby County’s Director of Schools Dorsey Hopson announced that all teachers will receive a three percent raise this year, not just those who meet certain scores on the state’s flawed value-added evaluation system.

More from Chalkbeat:

Hopson told the district’s educators in an email Thursday that they’ll see the raise reflected in their Nov. 18 paychecks. The pay hikes will be retroactive and will also go to librarians, counselors, instructional facilitators, coaches, social workers, physical/speech therapists and psychologists.

The decision came after Hopson learned that the district won’t receive the state’s testing data until December.

The decision by Hopson came about as a result of last year’s TNReady debacle. It also came in the same week that Knox County’s School Board asked the state for a waiver from included this year’s TNReady test results in student grades and teacher evaluations.

Hopson made the right decision — it is unfair to ask teachers to wait to receive pay raises because of the state’s mistakes with TNReady. It’s also unfair to use data from last year’s mess of a test administration to evaluate teachers. While I’ve expressed doubts about the usefulness of value-added data in evaluating teachers, even those who haven’t should acknowledge that using data from last year (or this year) is problematic.

Shelby County educators will all see a raise this year. The next question: Will the school board there join Knox County in requesting a waiver from using test data for students and teachers this year?

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport


 

PET Talks TNReady

JC Bowman is the Executive Director of Professional Educators of Tennessee 

Tennessee has made a decade long effort to raise ours standards in public education, with mixed results and contentious debate among stakeholders and policymakers. We have high expectations for our students and our schools, which is a point all can agree upon. The appropriate role of assessment is still being debated. Getting it right is important. We need an accurate measure of student achievement and we must treat LEA’s and our educators fairly in this process.

We agree with the Tennessee Department of Education’s opinion that in previous transitions to more rigorous expectations, while scores dropped initially, they rose over the long term. We believe policymakers should continue to see Tennessee students perform better on national assessments.

One thing is certain: “This year’s scores cannot be compared to last year’s TCAP. And it is not practical to judge schools, students or educators by these results as we establish a new baseline with first year TNReady results” according to JC Bowman, executive director of Professional Educators of Tennessee.

Professional Educators of Tennessee would caution policymakers to be less concerned with these test scores, especially with the frustrations of last year’s TNReady experience. We should put more emphasis on the immeasurable impact that teachers may make on a child’s life. To that end we continue to work with the department to reduce the amount of standardized testing in our classrooms. And we are pleased that they have been proactive in that arena with us. TNReady is apparently on track to run smoothly this school year, and a lot of work is currently underway to ensure success. It is also important to know that the new testing vendor Questar, as well as the TNDOE, is making a genuine effort to work with classroom educators across the state to provide responsive customer service and high quality assessments.

In Tennessee, Questar is responsible for developing, administering, scoring and providing reports for the TNReady assessment program, including grades 3 through 8 State Summative Assessment in ELA and Math as well as State End-of-Course Assessments in ELA I, II, III; Algebra I and II; Geometry; and Integrated Math I, II, and III.

It has long been acknowledged that a strong public educational system is essential not only to the successful functioning of a democracy, but also to its future. That system must provide all children with an equitable and exceptional education that prepares them for college, career and life.

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport


 

Knox County Takes a Stand

Last night, the Knox County School Board voted 6-3 in favor of a resolution calling on the General Assembly and State Board of Education to waive the use of TCAP/TNReady data in student grades and teacher evaluations this year.

The move comes as the state prepares to administer the tests this year with a new vendor following last year’s TNReady disaster. The lack of a complete testing cycle last year plus the addition of a new vendor means this year is the first year of the new test.

The Board passed the resolution in spite of Governor Haslam warning against taking such a step.

In his warning, Haslam said:

“The results we’ve seen are not by accident in Tennessee, and I think you have to be really careful about doing anything that could cause that to back up,” Haslam said.

He added:

Haslam attributed that progress to three things, including tying standardized tests to teacher evaluations.

“It’s about raising our standards and expectations, it’s about having year-end assessments that match those standards and then I think it’s about having assessments that are part of teachers’ evaluations,” Haslam said. “I think that you have to have all of those for a recipe for success.”

Haslam can present no evidence for his claim about the use of student assessment in teacher evaluation. In fact, it’s worth noting that prior to 2008, Tennessee students achieved at a high level according to what were then the state standards. While the standards themselves were determined to need improvement, the point is teachers were helping students hit the designated mark.

Teachers were moving students forward at this time without evaluations tied to student test results. Policymakers set a mark for student performance, teachers worked to hit that mark and succeeded. Standards were raised in 2008, and since then, Tennessee has seen detectable growth in overall results, including some exciting news when NAEP results are released.

To suggest that a year without the use of TVAAS scores in teacher evaluations will cause a setback is to insult Tennessee’s teachers. As if they’ll just relax and not teach as hard.

Another argument raised against the resolution is that it will somehow absolve teachers and students of accountability.

Joe Sullivan reports in the Knoxville Mercury:

In an email to board members, [Interim Director of Schools Buzz] Thomas asserted that, “We need a good standardized test each year to tell us how we are doing compared to others across the state and the nation. We will achieve greatness not by shying away from this accountability but by embracing it.” And he fretted that, “This resolution puts that at risk. In short, it will divide us. Once again we could find ourselves in two disputing camps. The pro-achievement folks on the one side and the pro-teacher folks on the other.”

Right now, we don’t know if we have a good standardized test. Taking a year to get it right is important, especially in light of the frustrations of last year’s TNReady experience.

Of course, there’s no need for pro-achievement and pro-teacher folks to be divided into two camps, either. Tennessee can have a good, solid test that is an accurate measure of student achievement and also treat teachers fairly in the evaluation process.

To be clear, teachers aren’t asking for a waiver from all evaluation. They are asking for a fair, transparent evaluation system. TVAAS has long been criticized as neither. Even under the best of circumstances, TVAAS provides a minimal level of useful information about teacher performance.

Now, we’re shifting to a new test. That shift alone makes it impossible to achieve a valid value-added score. In fact, researchers in the Journal of Educational Measurement have said:

We find that the variation in estimated effects resulting from the different mathematics achievement measures is large relative to variation resulting from choices about model specification, and that the variation within teachers across achievement measures is larger than the variation across teachers. These results suggest that conclusions about individual teachers’ performance based on value-added models can be sensitive to the ways in which student achievement is measured.
These findings align with similar findings by Martineau (2006) and Schmidt et al (2005)
You get different results depending on the type of question you’re measuring.

The researchers tested various VAM models (including the type used in TVAAS) and found that teacher effect estimates changed significantly based on both what was being measured AND how it was measured.

Changing to a new type of test creates value-added uncertainty. That means results attributed to teachers based on a comparison of this year’s tests and the old tests will not yield valid results.

While insisting that districts use TVAAS in teacher evaluations this year, the state is also admitting it’s not quite sure how that will work.

From Sullivan’s story:

When asked how these determinations will be made, a spokesperson for the state Department of Education acknowledges that a different methodology will have to be employed and says that, “we are still working with various statisticians and experts to determine the exact methodology we will use this year.”

Why not at take at least a year, be sure there’s a test that works, and then build a model based on that? What harm would come from giving teachers and students a year with a test that’s just a test? Moreover, the best education researchers have already warned that testing transitions create value-added bumps. Why not avoid the bumps and work to create an evaluation system that is fair and transparent?

Knox County has taken a stand. We’ll soon see if others follow suit. And if the state is listening.

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport


 

 

Whatever It Takes

This story on Community Schools offers an interesting look at what it takes to overcome the impact of poverty on education. The bottom line: It takes patience and creativity. It requires an investment of resources.

From the story:

Though the Washington Heights principal firmly believes in the idea that students can only learn if their basic needs outside the building are met — a key element of Mayor Bill de Blasio’s approach to struggling schools — he is also wary of the argument that infusing schools with social services will immediately lead to academic payoffs.

“Turning a kid’s lights back on on doesn’t make their test scores go up,” House said. “It’s the precondition for learning.”

House knows that firsthand. His community school, serving grades 6-12, was built a decade ago, but changes in key metrics like graduation rates and test scores haven’t come quickly. CHAH, which is 92 percent Hispanic and roughly 90 percent poor, has only recently come off the state’s “priority” list of low-performing schools.

The challenge, according to the principal, has not been finding agreement on the importance of addressing student needs:

I think most people probably don’t need to be convinced that access to health care or eyeglasses or mental health supports is a good thing for kids who might otherwise struggle to have access to those things—

I would argue with that though. I think people see that as a common-sense solution, [but] they’re not interested in paying for it.

I think House (the principal) has it right. People generally agree that kids need to have basic needs met as a precondition to learning. Unfortunately, the will do to whatever it takes is lacking.

Instead, we play at the margins. I appreciate the SCORE recommendations on teacher preparation. Improving the way we prepare teachers and providing them with early career support and mentoring is important for teachers and can improve outcomes for students.

I’ve long advocated for better pay for teachers. Not only do they deserve a professional salary, research indicates that better pay can improve outcomes for students.

Some in our state push vouchers while others suggest expanding the presence of charter schools will make a lasting impact.

Here’s the deal: None of these changes matter to a hungry kid who doesn’t have access to healthcare. The child who goes home to a house with no power or who attends seven schools in ten months because they are moved from one temporary housing solution to another or who has never seen a dentist — that child doesn’t care that teacher prep is a little better or that there’s a new way to evaluate teachers or that grading is now “standards-based.” Sure, these ideas may have merit and may provide some improvement to the school climate, but unless basic needs are met, learning will be difficult.

As House notes, there is often broad agreement on that point. What’s missing is the willingness to invest the money.

Here in Tennessee, we are not even adequately funding the number of teachers we need — we’re coming up $400 million short on that score. Instead of thinking of ways to provide critical social services to students, our General Assembly has eliminated the inheritance tax and the Hall Tax — foregoing hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue so that those who have can have more.

We currently have around $900 million in a budget surplus from the 2015-16 fiscal year and we’re $140 million above projections for this fiscal year. How much of that will be invested in schools? Of that new investment (if any), how much will go to provide the wrap-around services students require to ensure basic needs are met?

We understand the challenge. We know the need. Will we do whatever it takes?

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport


 

Teaching Protests in the Classroom

The following piece was submitted by Casie Jones.

As an educator, I always want to bring what we call the “real world” into the classroom to build student awareness of self and knowledge beyond just the local community. This was especially true in the context of my classroom at an alternative high school in which many students did not even know the world beyond their own neighborhood. I taught from the desire to help my marginalized students see the greater opportunities that they had and not to be bound by the limitations they assumed society placed on the them—sort of that “rise above” concept. As a white woman, this felt like a genuine way for me to contribute to the betterment of their lives as minorities. But in light of the recent surge in protests, self-reflection revealed that this pedagogical philosophy requires an immediate revision. A scroll through my newsfeed on a popular social media site shows several posts regarding teaching students about protests, yet I feel compelled to add another perspective despite how controversial it may seem.

Even 60 years after the Civil Rights Movement, Dr. King is hailed as a hero for his non-violent approach to protesting racial segregation and inequality, but, though credit is given for his significant impact, Malcolm X is still known as the lesser of the duo because of his militant perspective and methods. However, Dr. King would not have seen that success without the counterbalance of Malcolm X’s work. We teach time and time again how heroic the pacifist Dr. King was in the face of aggression and encourage students to embody these principles for society to truly heal. And yet, Dr. King knew that taking risks such as crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge would yield a violent response. In essence, both Malcolm X and Dr. King knew the same underlying truth that violence was the result of ignorance and implicit bias.

Despite the differences in approach, fundamentally both civil rights leaders knew that violence also exposed socially overlooked injustices. Now we are once again engaged in a civil rights movement. With the remaining essence of Dr. King and Malcom X, we celebrate the young man who gives free hugs, hold our breath as we watch protesters block bridges and face SWAT teams, and breathe sighs of relief when nights of protest pass with no carnage. However, when protestors damage property or engage with police or speak of a war against authority, we cringe. We rally behind hash tags of “ALLlivesmatter” or #peace but are unwilling to support “BLACKlivesmatter” or ignore #NODAPL because they are inciting riotous behavior and require us to face those implicit biases that STILL exist. Our pervasive message is that violence is just not the way we reconcile race and equality; this is not how we preserve our freedom—this is not how we make America great again.

Or is it? I firmly believe that what we need to be willing to teach in our classrooms is that successful protesting has historically NOT been peaceful. It comes with a cost especially if freedom (whether religious, political, or social) is truly at stake. Many would argue that those moments are historical and should remain historical because today’s society is different. But I vehemently beg to differ because at each of those moments in history, it was considered “today’s society.” We are living in a civil rights movement and more than just a black and white issue. Our current civil war consists of police brutality against black males, Native American protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline, LGBQT discrimination, Islamophobia, the right to carry, and many other issues plaguing Americans. What we must be willing to recognize is that in each of these battles, the war is not person vs person, but is person vs a systemic mindset. And as a nation we have been here before. But true change may not come peacefully. And we must be willing to teach that. Here are a few examples to support this risqué teaching philosophy:

1. As the news reports vandalism and looting during protests, critics discuss how disrespectful this is and that some have referred to rioters as “animals” that should be locked up for violating the law. However, our history books sensationalize the colonist for dressing like Natives and throwing an entire shipment of tea into the Boston Harbor in rebellion against the oppressive British regime and heavy taxes. In a justified fight against oppression, property will suffer.

2. During the Protestant Reformation, many protestors (hence Protestant) where slaughtered as martyrs for the sake of religious freedom from the Catholic Church. They violated laws against translating the Bible and speaking publicly against the church because the law and the church were synonymous. In a justified fight against oppression, lives will be lost.

3. The bloody French Revolution greatly impacted the Western world’s structure of government. As one of the last remaining monarchies, the French aristocracy was a very small percentage of the country’s population but controlled all aspects of life and law. After long-term suffering of starvation and abuse of power, the French peasants held a massive rebellion dethroning the French monarchy and ushering in a republic and later a democracy. Lady Guillotine crafted a powerful voice. In a justified fight against oppression, governments will fall.
We are living in a nation that was founded because a group of determined white people sought to throw off chains of oppression. Now that same group has created a nation in which others have sought to demolish the same oppressive chains. Our nation champions an internationally lethal war on terror and yet requires a permit to protest on areas that block traffic and sidewalks or require audio support. In other words, we have forgotten our own struggle and no longer want to be bothered in our own homeland. Peaceful protests are praised on our own soil but we should also look at the broader perspective of history and understand the bloody sacrifice that it took to bring us to the present, a present that will someday be our nation’s past. I wonder if those who have gone before us would find our methods of protesting effective.

We once stood united against an oppressor and, that which we fought against, is now that which oppresses us once more. I am not advocating teaching students that rebellion is our greatest move. But what I AM advocating for is that we teach students the passion that it has taken to move society this far and that we are currently living in yet another cycle of human history in which the oppressed must challenge the oppressor. We cannot allow students to think that the struggle is behind us and glorify the greats such as Dr. King or Martin Luther. We must show them that we also need those like Malcolm X who challenged the status quo to open our blind eyes to injustice. We must still cultivate future “greats” that will challenge closed mindsets, make us socially uncomfortable, and protect freedom for all.

Casie Jones has been an educator for over 15 years as a teacher, instructional coach, school support director, and educational consultant.  She has served as a Teach Plus Fellow, an advocate for SCORE and SAP, and a TN Common Core Coach.  Casie has also been featured in The Huffington Post, Bluff City Ed, The Commercial Appeal, and EdWeek.

If you’re an educator with a story idea, send an email to andy AT spearsstrategy DOT com

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport


 

 

You’ve Been Warned

MNPS Board Members Will Pinkston and Christiane Buggs wrote a column for the Atlanta Journal Constitution urging voters in Georgia to reject that state’s effort to create an Opportunity School District modeled after Tennessee’s struggling Achievement School District.

Here’s some of what they had to say:

Under this hostile approach, the ASD rips schools from their communities and hands them over to charter operators that convert them into taxpayer-subsidized private schools. Rather than sticking to a limited scope with a baker’s dozen schools, as originally envisioned, the ASD now has nearly 30 schools in its purview — and it’s expanding every year in ill-advised ways.

They also pointed to a recent Vanderbilt study to note the ASD’s lack of results:

If the ASD actually was working, some of it might be defensible. But research by Vanderbilt University shows the ASD is failing. The online news outlet Chalkbeat recently reported that a locally led school-turnaround initiative in Memphis has “sizable positive effects on student test scores, while the ASD’s effects are marginal.”

Tennessee’s ASD came about as a result of legislative approval of the (ultimately winning) Race to the Top application. As Buggs and Pinkston note, in its current form, the ASD has moved beyond the original vision. In doing so, the ASD has encountered problems that include troubling audit findings and a struggle to demonstrate results.

Georgia voters get to weigh-in on whether or not their state creates an ASD clone. Buggs and Pinkston offer a cautionary tale of well-intentioned reform gone wrong.

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport


 

Learning 1, Imaginary Menace 0

Despite the best efforts of Jay Sekulow and Steve Gill, it seems Tennessee’s 7th grade social studies standards will still include learning about Islam in the world religion portion of the course.

The Tennessean reports:

In total, the department’s social studies review team has cut down the number of 7th grade standards, where Islam is taught, from 75 to 67.
The process has included a name change of standards under the “Islamic World, 400 A.D/C.E.–1500s” to “Southwest Asia and North Africa: 400-1500s C.E.” Some references to the “Islamic World” have been changed to “Africa.”
And under the new draft standards, students are asked to learn the origins, spread and central features of Islam. These include the founder Mohammed, sacred texts The Quran and The Sunnah and basic beliefs like monotheism and The Five Pillars. The diffusion of Islam, its culture and Arabic language are also still included in the standards.

A little over a year ago, I wrote about Sekulow and his fear-mongering for profit around Tennessee’s social studies standards. Citing one of his emails, here’s what I wrote about the alternate reality in which Sekulow apparently lives:

Hundreds of seventh grade students all across Tennessee converting to Islam after their world history class. It’s happening everywhere. In rural and urban communities. It’s happening because Tennessee teachers are not just teaching world religions, they are specifically focusing on Islam and indoctrinating our children. They must be, with so many conversions happening every single week.
Actually, so far, no one has reported a single conversion of any student to Islam after taking a seventh grade history class.

Despite the lack of any actual problem, Commissioner of Education Candice McQueen called for an early review of the state’s social studies standards. And, State Board of Education Chair Fielding Rolston punted on the issue. That’s what prompted the changes noted in the Tennessean story cited above.

The good news is the standards (as proposed) leave the teaching of Islam as part of a broader curriculum on world religions largely intact.

It’s not clear (yet) if Sekulow and Gill will find a new way to gin up fear and pad their wealth as the state enters a comment period for the proposed revisions.

The comment period for the standards has been extended to December 15th. Those wishing to review the standards and offer feedback can do so here.

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport