Whatever I Want! by Mystic Angel
 
January 2012
1Survey 1
2Survey 2
3Survey 3
4Survey 4
5Survey 5
6Survey 6
7Survey 7
8Survey 8
9Papa John's Employee Calls Woman 'Lady Chinky Eyes' on Receipt
10Dolphins Coaching Candidate Joe Philbin's Son Found Dead in River
11Little girl shows remarkable poise in stare-down with African lion
12Supernatural Wins People's Choice Awards 2012
13How Did One Life to Live End? Watch the Final Scene!
14Survey 14
15'The Walking Dead' TCA panel: 6 things we learned
16Survey 15
17Cruise Ship Survivors Share Stories Both Harrowing and Hopeful
18Google End Piracy, Not Liberty
19THIS IS SOME FUCKED UP FUCKING SHIT!
20Surging online interest in Domnica Cemortan
21Colbert Super PAC Timeline: Highlights From Colbert's Campaign :(INFOGRAPHIC)
22Ex-Penn State Coach Joe Paterno Dead at 85
23 New promo: Four Reasons to Watch Five-0
24I WANTS!
25ASSHOLE!
26Stephen Colbert Reacts To State Of The Union Address, Herman Cain's Rebuttal (VIDEO)
27Welcome Back, Kotter's Robert Hegyes, Who Played Epstein, Dies
28BMW Self Driving Car: Carmaker Shows Off Hands-Free Car On Autobahn (VIDEO)
29The Miami Heat's Mario Chalmers: A Sure-Fire Starter
30I am Human NOH8 Campaign PSA
31No Child Left Behind Waivers: States Failed To Hold Schools Accountable For Student Performance
No Child Left Behind Waivers: States Failed To Hold Schools Accountable For Student Performance
January 31, 2012

MIAMI -- In its initial review of No Child Left Behind waiver requests, the U.S. Education Department highlighted a similar weakness in nearly every application: States did not do enough to ensure schools would be held accountable for the performance of all students.

The Obama administration praised the states for their high academic standards. But nearly every application was criticized for being loose about setting high goals and, when necessary, interventions for all student groups including minorities, the disabled and low-income or for failing to create sufficient incentives to close the achievement gap.

Under No Child Left Behind, schools where even one group of students falls behind are considered out of compliance and subject to interventions. The law has been championed for helping shed light on education inequalities, but most now agree it is due for change.

Indiana's proposal to opt out of the federal law's strictest requirements was criticized by the Education Department for its "inattention" to certain groups, like students still learning the English language. New Mexico's plan, a panel of peer reviewers noted, did not include accountability and interventions for student subgroups based on factors like achievement and graduation rates. In Florida, the department expressed concern that the performance of some groups of students could go overlooked.

The concerns were outlined in letters sent last December by the administration to the 11 states that have applied for a waiver. Since then, state and federal officials have been talking about how to address the concerns; some states have already agreed to changes.

The letters were obtained by The Associated Press for all of the states except Tennessee and Kentucky, which declined to provide them until an announcement is made on whether a waiver is granted. The Education Department has previously said it expected to notify states by mid-January.

"Our priority is protecting children and maintaining a high bar even as we give states more flexibility to get more resources to the children most in need, even if that means the process takes a little longer than we anticipated," said Daren Briscoe, a department spokesman.

Jack Jennings, president of the Center on Education Policy, said federal officials are in a challenging spot.

"The current law means that each group of kids, whether they are children with a disability, or African-American, or poor kids, have attention paid to them, because the schools are accountable for each and every group," said Jennings. "But what the states are asking is that they all be lumped together."

The Bush-era law is aimed at making sure 100 percent of students reach proficiency in math and reading by 2014, a goal states are far from achieving. As that year draws closer, more and more schools are expected to fall out of compliance, subjecting them to penalties that range from after-school tutoring to closure.

While there is bipartisan agreement the 2002 law needs to be fixed, Congress has not passed a comprehensive reform. President Barack Obama announced in September that states could apply for waivers and scrap the proficiency requirement if they met conditions designed to better prepare and test students.

The 11 states that applied for the first round of waivers were Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico and Tennessee. Many more states are expected to request waivers in the second round meaning all eyes will be on the first approvals.

The Center on Education Policy analyzed all the waiver requests and found that in nine of the 11 states, almost all decisions on penalties and interventions would be based on the performance of two groups: all students and a "disadvantaged" group that would replace the current system of separate categories of students according to race, ethnicity, income, disability and English language proficiency.

Those separate categories are at the heart of what No Child Left Behind aimed to correct vast achievement gaps between white, black and Hispanic students, between the affluent and low-income and what most agree is the problem with the law: If any one of these groups of students does not meet the state's annual benchmarks for proficiency in reading and math, the school is labeled as "failing."

In a letter sent Jan. 17, Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, and Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., urged Education Secretary Arne Duncan to require strong accountability measures and ensure civil rights and educational equity gains under No Child Left Behind are not lost.

"We fear that putting students with disabilities, English language learners and minority students into one `super subgroup' will mask the individual needs of these distinct student subgroups," they said.

In the feedback provided to states by a panel of peer reviewers in December, many states were praised for plans to institute college and career-ready standards and develop teacher evaluation systems that take into account student growth two hallmarks of the Obama administration's education policy. The panel's concerns varied, but meeting the needs of all groups of students was one consistent theme.

In New Mexico, for example, the U.S. Education Department expressed concern about a lack of incentives to close achievement gaps and hold schools accountable for the performance of all students. In a follow-up letter sent late in January, subgroup accountability was still an area of concern.

Hanna Skandera, secretary designate for the New Mexico Public Education Department, said the state's original plan did include breaking down data on student performance by subgroup on each school's report card. But after conversations with the U.S. Education Department, schools will be adding information on whether they are on track for progress and growth in meeting annual targets. If a group falls behind, schools will be subject to intervention measures.

"We had high level reporting," Skandera said. "Now we're going to provide another layer so everything is crystal clear to parents across the state."

Minnesota's initial feedback included concern about "the lack of incentives to improve achievement for all groups of students and narrow achievement gap between subgroups." Sam Kramer, federal education policy specialist for the Minnesota Department of Education, said most of that criticism was focused on the state's graduation rate. In its initial submission, the state did not take into account the graduation rate of different subgroups in its annual targets.

After receiving the letter, the state switched to a system that will take into account how subgroups of students did in meeting those graduation targets.

Kramer said he thinks Minnesota will be better able to meet the needs of disadvantaged groups of students under the new system.

"No Child Left Behind was very good at diagnosing the problem," Kramer said. "It was very good at shining a light on the differences between subgroups."

It was less effective, he said, at offering successful ways to help improve.

"We are going to be able to go in and be flexible and reactive to the specific needs of those subgroups," Kramer said.

Pedro Noguera, an education professor at New York University, said the struggle by school districts to lift the performance of different groups of students is a signal of a deeper problem that won't be solved by waivers.

"We need to make sure the districts and schools feel some pressure to make sure that all the students they are responsible for are being educated," he said. "However, they need to focus on different kinds of evidence, and not merely performance on a standardized test. That's where they don't get it."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/31/no-child-left-behind-waiv_n_1243291.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003
Join Now!
Home
My-Journal.com
Sign in
FAQ
Help

February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
January 2018
November 2017
October 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007

   
Login to select
your favorite journals

PrevTopNext
 



© Website Copyright 2012 by My-Journal.com
© Journal Content Copyright 2012 by the Author
 
Terms of Service Agreement
 
Privacy Policy