Originally posted on Seattle Education:
We have all heard stories about who decided on the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) that are now holding students and teachers hostage to a narrow curriculum and an endless testing regime.
Mercedes Schneider decided to find out who the twenty-four people were that determined the Common Core Standards.
Here is an excerpt from her post Those 24 Common Core 2009 Work Group Members:
NGA (National Governors Associaiton) and CCSSO (Council of Chief State School Officers ) (and, by extension, USDOE) undeniably meant for CCSS to be something done “to” teachers. NGA’s and CCSSO’s concentration of individuals versed in standardized assessment on their CCSS work groups speaks to the purpose of CCSS to both financially benefit education testing companies and usher unprecedented, nationwide standardized testing into the classrooms of those very professionals purposely excluded from the CCSS work group table.
CCSS Mathematics Work Group
View original 2,800 more words
Todd Ruckle is voting no on the CSD referendum. That is most certainly his right. Here are some quotes from him:
Ok folks in the Christina school district, I along with 4 other citizens attended the referendum seminar at Christina high school and here is the results. The district wants 50 million dollars to maintain being almost the lowest ranking school district in new castle county. The superintendent was proud that Christina will not expel major problem students that completely disrupt student who want to learn. I highly recommend we vote this referendum down and get the community and local leaders together to create an major action plan to correct this ship before it sinks. 2/24 you need to vote or this referendum will pass without any action plan to bring this district back to being the best. It is truly time to get involved.
Since 2000, the district has held six referenda, four of which received favorable results.
Newark Councilman Todd Ruckle was one of only a handful of people who attended last week’s forum at Christiana High School. He voiced strong opposition to the proposed tax hike.
Much like the city’s financial planning, he said, an important part of crafting a budget is making cuts. He questioned what the school district has done to cut corners before asking the public to cough up more cash.
“Right now, I haven’t seen one cut,” he said. “I’ve seen expansions.”
Williams defended the proposal and argued that Christina is using all of its current available resources. If the referendum fails, he said, the district is prepared to make cuts.
“It’s not a scare tactic,” Williams said. “It would be painful, but it would be appropriate, and we would do it if we have to.”
Ruckle said he is worried how the tax hike will affect the senior citizens in his district, many of whom live on fixed incomes.
“I’m going to tell you right now, what I’m seeing, they’re not going to back it,” he said.
Mr. Ruckle is a supporter of Newark Charter School, where he has at least one child in attendance. Again, his choice, his right, no argument here. However, I think it is fair to make a few comments in response to his concerns:
- Public education is a sacred social contract and is designed to work for all, not just those that win a lottery
- Traditional school districts are not permitted to throw kids out of school indiscriminately or arbitrarily and have an obligation to educate all and keep our students in school in spite of behaviors than many feel warrant suspension/expulsion. We do not always do the right things along these fronts, but our calling demands we aspire to them, always.
- CSD, along with many other districts are routinely victimized by DOE’s label, shame, and punish politics which erodes public confidence, like yours.
- Proving a point to your local school system by not supporting it financially will only serve to further fracture our community and expose all schools, including NCS, to a weaker operational landscape and poorer opportunities for all children
- NCS receives local share of funding for almost every single child from CSD. An increase in our funding will send MORE monies to NCS to further enhance their excellent programs. Failing to support the referendum could mean less money for more children and cost NCS monies.
- Back to the issue of Dr. Williams pride in serving children by refusing to kick them out: is that really a position you want to take as a public servant, that children be denied access to their schools, teachers,a nd ultimately their education? We are not NCS. We serve all children, no matter how they come to us, no matter where they come from, no matter what their parents don’t choose for them.
Your arguments remind me of a famous movie scene:
Mr. Ruckle, please support our students, programs, and schools on February 24th. Don’t continue down this dark road you are showing us.
The most important thing NOW, NOW, NOW, is to let parents and students and teachers KNOW what these 3 schools will look like for 15-16 school year. CBA based deadlines and personnel decisions are imminent and our schools need stability and information to make good decisions…not the DEM House Caucus pounding their chests.
Do. Your. Job.
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 4:48 PM
Subject: Memo on Behalf of House Leadership regarding Christina School District
To: House Democratic Caucus Members
From: Representative Pete Schwartzkopf
Representative Valerie Longhurst
Representative John Viola
Re: Christina School District Priority Schools
During the past two days, several caucus members have contacted leadership expressing concerns about the Department of Education’s letter to the Christina School District (which is attached). Thank you for contacting us. We wanted to update you on what actions we took and where the situation currently is.
On Tuesday, Secretary of Education Mark Murphy sent a letter to Christina School District saying that the district’s Board of Education is not in compliance with the Priority School program. As a result, Secretary Murphy gave district leaders until February 27 to decide on one of following options for its three priority schools: closure or restructuring, either as a charter school or under an education management organization. The letter also detailed the Wilmington Education Advisory Group’s recommendation to redraw Christina’s school district lines and close the noncontiguous Wilmington portion of Christina’s district in the city. The suggestion was that doing so could have an effect on “the planning process for Christina’s Priority Schools moving forward.”
Caucus leadership held a conference call with staff to discuss this issue and the concerns that several of you raised about this letter. We had multiple conversations with the governor’s office about the issue and had decided to send a letter to the governor asking that the Department of Education to extend the fast-approaching February 27 deadline. In part, the letter would have noted that forcing a short turnaround for Christina to make a decision would not result in a productive outcome, and it could have a negative impact on school referendums that are taking place. We also planned to ask the governor to convene a group of district, DOE stakeholders to reach a decision on this issue. The letter would have requested that the Chairs of the House and Senate Education committees be included in the negotiations to help facilitate the discussion, and to ensure that each caucus received accurate accounts of the progress of the negotiations.
Late Wednesday evening, we learned that the Christina School Board voted at its Tuesday meeting to support the Wilmington Education Advisory Group’s recommendation to close the Wilmington portion Christina’s district (a copy of that resolution is also attached). When they learned of this, the governor’s office told us that the February 27 deadline no longer applied because Christina had pledged to work with the state to implement the WEAC redistricting recommendation.
Currently, we are communicating with the governor’s office about what they foresee as the next steps. Here’s what we do know:
· Any redistricting process will require action by the General Assembly.
· Any redistricting process will take multiple years to implement.
· Any redistricting process is a complicated process that will involve a lot of discussions about finances and revenue, and it may require a significant amount of state money to implement.
Most importantly, we need to recognize and remember that when we talk about redistricting these Christina School District schools, we are talking about not just the physical schools, but hundreds of teachers who will be unsure of their future, and thousands of students whose educational future is at stake. Whatever we do in the coming weeks and months, our focus must be on what’s best for all of them, as well as the state of Delaware.
Please do not hesitate to contact any of us in leadership if you have questions, concerns or suggestions.
Originally posted on Minding My Matters:
I’ve been thinking over how to do this, whether to write this post with a tone, or overload it with facts and figures and research.
I think what is best is just to speak from my heart on this. I’m willing to provide data to support my assertions, but in many ways and in many places I already have. Please take a few moments to look it up for yourself, if you aren’t sure, or message me directly, and I’m happy to answer anything I can.
That said, here we go.
We are all having the wrong conversation. All we discuss is how we can improve student learning, and what impact all the different things in a student’s life have on the student’s ability to learn, and how we can respond to the needs of students to help them learn. And that is a beautiful thing, truly. I would…
View original 800 more words
Originally posted on Exceptional Delaware:
I had an awesome time with Rick Jensen today talking about parent opt out of the Smarter Balanced Assessment. There was so much more I could have said, but I had an hour. Some folks called in. John Young from the Christina School Board, Delaware State Rep Sean Matthews and Delaware State Rep John Kowalko. Rick and I talked about special needs children, the Delaware DOE, Smarter Balanced Assessment, and how it is not illegal to opt your child out in Delaware. We talked about the “scare tactic” letter the DOE wants districts to give to parents when they opt their kid out and how it is based on state code that does not include parents at all. I hope to do this again soon!
10.1 The Department shall provide districts and schools with preliminary notification of a school’s identification pursuant to 7.0 no later than the end of July following the school year on which the identification is based, and final notice shall be given no later than August 1st.
10.2 Notice — A district that includes a school or a charter school identified as Under Improvement shall, at least 14 days prior to the start of the upcoming school year, provide the following notification to parents of students enrolled in that school:
10.2.1 Information regarding the school’s identification and reason for its identification;
10.2.2 For Title I schools, their right to enroll their child(ren) in a different school as prescribed by ESEA, and for non-Title I schools, information on the Statewide Choice program as prescribed in 14 Del.C.,Chapter 4;
10.2.3 For Title I schools, their right to have their child receive Supplemental Educational Services, as prescribed by ESEA, and for non-Title I schools, supplemental services if provided for in §103.7.0;
10.2.4 How they can be involved in addressing the academic issues that led to identification; and
10.2.5 Any other notifications required by the ESEA regulations.
10.3 Plan Development, Approval, and Modification
10.3.1 Schools receiving notice that they are identified as Under Improvement Phase I shall develop or revise their School Success Plan within three months of their notification. Schools identified as Title I shall also ensure that the ten (10) requirements for schools under improvement, as required in Section 1116(b)(3)(A) of the ESEA, are incorporated in the Success Plan. Schools shall provide the Plan to the district in which the school is located for approval or in the case of a charter school, to the charter school’s board. The district or charter school board shall, within 45 days of receiving a revised School Success Plan from a Title I school, establish a peer review process to assist with review of the Plan. The district or charter school board must promptly review the School Success Plan, work with the school as necessary, and approve the School Success Plan if it meets the ten (10) requirements for schools under improvement as required in Section 1116(b)(3)(A) of the ESEA. The Plan shall be implemented immediately upon approval.
10.3.2 Schools receiving notice that they are identified as Under Improvement Phase II shall modify their School Success Plan as necessary within three months of their notification.
10.3.3 Districts having schools that are identified as in Corrective Action Phase I and charter schools so identified shall develop their Corrective Action Plan within six weeks of their notification and shall provide the Plan to the Department for approval. Following submission, the Department shall collaborate with the school and the district and make any necessary revisions such that the Corrective Action Plan is approved within six weeks of submission. If the school, the district and the Department are unable to agree on the Corrective Action Plan at the end of the six week period, then the Department shall develop the Corrective Action Plan within 4 weeks of that deadline.
10.3.4 Districts having schools that are identified as in Corrective Action Phase II and charter schools so identified shall develop the Restructuring Plan required in 7.5 within three months of their preliminary notification and provide the Restructuring Plan to the Department for review and approval. Prior to the date of submission, the district or charter school shall have performed all necessary steps to ensure that the restructuring choice selected is viable and will be implemented, subject only to approval by the Department. The Department, in consultation with the State Board of Education, shall review and approve the Restructuring Plan, or make comment, and require revisions, if needed within 60 days of submission. If revisions are required, the district or Charter school must submit a final revised Restructuring Plan to the Department by April 30th of the Corrective Action Phase II year for final review and approval. The Department shall approve or disapprove the revised Restructuring Plan within 60 days of submission. If the Department disapproves the Restructuring Plan, the district or charter school submitting the Restructuring Plan shall make another selection from among the Restructuring options in 7.5.1. Department approval of the Restructuring Plan shall be subject to the results of that year’s accountability activities. Upon receipt of the final identification for that year, if results show that the school is in Restructuring, the district or charter school shall immediately implement the Restructuring Plan.
10.3.5 Schools that are selected by the Department for participation in the Partnership Zone shall be notified of such selection by September 1st. The district or charter school shall immediately begin negotiating the MOU required by 7.6.1. If the parties to the MOU are unable to agree on the MOU within 120 days, the district or charter school shall select from the Restructuring models found in 7.5.1, 7.5.2, or 7.5.3.
10.3.6 All plans submitted by schools and districts pursuant to 7.0 shall be developed with input from parents, teachers, and outside experts. Such plans shall establish measurable goals/benchmarks for the school. Once a plan is approved, information regarding the plan shall be provided to parents.
10.3.7 In evaluating School Success Plans, Corrective Action Plans, and Restructuring Plans, the Department shall ensure that each such plan satisfies applicable law, reflects input required in 10.3.6, includes measurable goals/benchmarks for the school, and is likely to result in the school improving its performance classification and exiting “under improvement” status.
10.3.8 Provisions in this section are in addition to, and not in lieu of, existing ESEA requirements for Title I schools.
13 DE Reg. 1064 (02/01/10)
14 DE Reg. 1353 (06/01/11)
WOW WOW WOW.
|All Staff Monthly Update
|Education Supports & Innovative Practices – Susan Haberstroh|
Community Education Building – National School Lunch Program
Community Eligibility Program – School Nutrition
Annual Bullying Report for School Year 2013-2014
Adult Education & Family Literacy Week – Student Leadership Institute
Free to See GED® Event
Delaware Health Alert #337:
|Accountability and Performance Management – Penny Schwinn|
|Office of Assessment – Brian M. Touchette
Office of Accountability – Penny Schwinn
* Giving and collecting surveys with a set goal
* Inputting survey data (if collected by paper and not online)
* Working with local districts, community organizations, and events to target
* Use weekly analytic results to drive strategic survey collectionThese representatives will be paid for each survey collected and this information will be used to inform a portion of the State Accountability System. If you have names or recommendations for these State Survey Representatives, please send them to Chantel Janiszewski at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Performance Management – Kate Villari
USED/ Race to the Top
Consolidated Grantsà processing well underway, progressing as anticipated.
|Financial Reform & Resource Management – Karen Field Rogers
Technology Resources and Data Development
* Education Insight Dashboard – We released version 4.0 of the Ed-Insight performance dashboard this month. This new school year release integrates data structures for Ed-Fi 1.2 and early learning extensibility as well as reporting functionality from within the interface. The dashboard now contains over 100 different performance metrics to help our educators make informed data decisions for their students. Administratively, we also finalized and executed appropriate contracts with vendors to maintain support structures for the coming year.
* We are in final testing of our second joint Sungard development opportunity with NHDOE surrounding RTI functionality within the Performance Plus individualized learning plan module. We expect to release this new functionality as soon as this completes. This is the second joint state development opportunity chartered on this project. Additionally, new test item styles have been released within the Performance Plus suite this month increasing functionality.
* We continue to facilitate coordinated discussions between LEA’s, Charters, GSS, and vendors to begin the statewide hardware replacement process for DCAS/SBAC test hardware. Most districts have received their second year hardware allocations this month.
* Early Learning ELI Dashboards – This project has is currently in development and on schedule. We continue to work on data loads and verification of test data for the dashboards. We also worked on development tasks, stakeholder interviews, and are actively working on inter-agency MOU’s to establish our data relationships.
* Website Redesign Project – We are in final QA and edits of the site functionality. Most content has been migrated into the new system and it is fully operational in our test environment. We hope to release the product within the coming weeks.
* Parent Choice Portal – Work continues in earnest on the project and we are quickly approaching a public launch. Final enhancements and quality assurance work is underway in the Great Schools Interface. We also signed and will execute state-wide online choice processing for LEA’s and Charters through the Data Service Center. This important administrative function is provided free of charge to all the districts and charters.
* Microsoft Office 365 Implementation – This project is nearing completion as we continue to work with individuals to migrate and merge mailbox resources. We’ll be continuing with configuration and training surrounding use of SharePoint on the web within our environment.
* DSC Absence/Personnel/FTE Reporting Migration – This project is fully implemented within the DOE environment and operational..
* Regular top level management discussions continue between our SIS, LMS, and Special Education vendor (SunGard) related to Delaware strategic direction and product integration/planning/direction. We are actively looking at new enhancement work in two areas: one related to RTI functionality within Performance Plus and eSchool Plus as well as some needed enhancements to SDE electronic transcript functionality.
* Statewide LMS Evaluation – A cross-departmental and district resource team have been evaluating vendor offerings in the learning management system space. We are nearing the end of the evaluation period and will be making a recommendation to senior management on a statewide offering we can make available to all LEA’s and Charters for use in personalized learning environments.
|Teaching & Learning Branch – Michael Watson|
|Career and Technical Education – Luke Rhine
Delaware’s Culinary ProStart:
Computer Science Program-of-Study:
National Alliance for Partnerships in Equity (NAPE):
Curriculum, Instruction & Professional Development – Shelley Rouser
Registration for both courses is on PDMS:
Secondary – Course #23341, Section #38033
Elementary – Course #23294, Section #37928
· Common Ground for the Common Core 2.0 begins September 23; convening sessions will run from September 23-25th. All Common Ground participants have received a Blackboard communication with the first newsletter, to include registration information, and the catalog, to include outcomes for all three convenings and bios on each Solution Tree facilitator.
· There are 550 participants from 15 districts, 10 charters, and 12 partner organizations currently registered for Common Ground.
The Districts include:
The Charters include:
Delaware Higher Education Office – Shana Payne
Early Development Learning Resources – Kelly Hunter
Exceptional Children Resources – Mary Ann Mieczkowski
State Systemic Improvement Plan:
Information regarding these meetings including the agenda, handouts, and minutes, can be found at the following link:
TASK FORCE: SCR 63 – IEP Task Force Update:
· The IEP Task Force held their kick-off meeting on Thursday, September 4th; over 40 legislators, parents, districts, DOE and disability related organizations were represented. Lt. Gov. Denn is the Chairman of this task force.
· The major outcome of this task force is to improve the IEP process for parents, students and districts. Some major areas of focus in this work include: allowing parents the opportunity to provide input during all stages of the process, flexible scheduling for parents, developing an IEP FAQ document and giving all teachers access to student IEPs.
· The next meeting is scheduled for September 23rd.
TASK FORCE: HR 24–Statewide Services for Deaf, Hard of Hearing and Deaf-Blind Students Task Force:
· This Task Force was established to study and make recommendations regarding implementing an independent entity to coordinate and provide statewide services and professional development for students who are deaf, hard of hearing, and deaf-blind.
The Task force will:
· Update: All members of the task force have been appointed. We are in the process of scheduling a kick-off meeting.
Statewide Personnel Development Grant (SPDG)-Behavior/Social Emotional Initiative:
· The Delaware Positive Behavior Support Project, in collaboration with Delaware Department of Education under the State Personnel Development Grant (SPDG), hosted Dr. Elizabeth Laugeson. Dr. Laugeson, from UCLA, presented the PEERS Curriculum for School-Based Professionals. A total of 56 people from eight school districts were in attendance. In addition, outside agency personnel attended from Autism Delaware and the Center for Disabilities Studies. Participants are now fully trained and certified to implement the curriculum.
· PEERS is an evidence-based curriculum developed for higher functioning adolescents that focuses on skills related to making and keeping friends, including managing peer conflict and rejection. Lessons include topics such as having two-way conversations, electronic forms of communication, choosing appropriate friends, managing arguments with friends, and handling teasing and bullying. PEERS teaches social skills using concrete rules and systematic steps of social behavior utilizing the Socratic method, role-play demonstrations, coaching with feedback, and homework assignments.
· There are currently seven schools participating (listed below) in the PEERS pilot program which involve group facilitators receiving ongoing coaching and professional development provided by the DE-PBS Instructional Coach, Susan Veenema over the next two years. Memorandums of Agreement are being executed with each pilot school.
Title I, C Migrant Education Program
· The migrant re-interviews were completed for quality control purposes related to the identification and recruitment of migrant students. This is a federal requirement that must be completed every three years by an outside agency. The results are used to verify migrant student eligibility which impacts federal funding.
Title III, English Language Acquisition Program
· A calendar of professional development and technical assistance opportunities, designed and delivered by WIDA, has been created for 2014-15. These SEA-sponsored events are a part of Delaware’s continuing corrective action in response to the 2011 USED Monitoring report which cited the SEA’s failure to provide professional development and technical assistance to districts/charters.
eLearning Delaware – Online Professional Development
The eLearning Delaware (eLDE) Summer 2014 session concluded with 118 educators successfully completing online courses. This is an 81% completion rate. Each of these educators will receive 30 clock hours of professional development credit for the six-week course.
“Introduction to Personalized Learning” was offered for the first time with 20 educators successfully completing the course.
ParTech -The News Journal: Article on Sunday, August 17, 2014
· The article, “‘Computer graveyard’ a gold mine for schools: State warehouse for donated gear helps schools keep pace,” appeared in The News Journal on Sunday, August 17. Reporter Matthew Albright from The News Journal visited the Collette Center on Wednesday, August 6 and interviewed Wayne Hartschuh and Tom Black for an article on ParTech. On Friday, August 15, a photographer visited Collette and photographed Steve Ballard as he worked in the warehouse.
· The article highlighted that ParTech placed 2,655 computers in K-12 schools over the past year and the total value of equipment placed in our schools was almost $1 million. The only thing he “missed” in the article was that he stated “along with things like mice, keyboards, and monitors.” I wish he would have also included printers, servers, server racks, memory, and hard drives in that list because those also were included in the total value number. All in all, a very good article.
Article can be found online at http://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/education/2014/08/16/computer-graveyard-gold-mine-schools/14181537/
|TLEU – Christopher Ruszkowswki|
|JDG: Licensure/Certification Status in 2014-15
JDG has been notified since 2004 to get their school-based participants credentialed as educators as required by state law. A June 2009 letter from Dr. Lowery indicated to Dr. Lee that DDOE would allow for a one-year extension of certification requirements. The TLEU now plans to take action against those not eligible for licensure/certification (we previously reported doing this in 2014, but then extended another six months). 20+ “members” will no longer be allowed to serve schools. The first letter went out last week.
DPAS-II Advisory Committee: 9/25 (First of Four this year)
Under revised state law, the DPAS-II Advisory Committee is now required to meet four times per year, select a Chair/Co-Chair, and advise on regulations, federal policy, TLEU implementation, etc. This is a significant change in tone and oversight.
The TLEU convened the meeting and prepped materials for the first meeting, which took last Thursday. Under code, there is a representative from the Governor’s Office on the committee in addition to the Chair of the House & Senate Education Committees. Both DSEA and DASA have selected three representatives each for this year. Final committee membership will be public.
As you know, the public release of DPAS-II was at last month’s State Board meeting (8/21). 51% of educators were rated “Effective” and 48% “Highly-Effective” this year (of the approximately 5,500 who received full evaluations). The TLEU also recently published a two page data-set on educator perceptions/feelings about the system. It’s posted here:
DSEA will focus heavily on the results from the survey, and not the outcomes of the system itself, over the next several months.
Credentialing Assessment Update: For 100+ Principals/APs who DID NOT PASS
This past summer, the TLEU delivered ten (10) Summer “Base-Camp” trainings for all of the state’s 500+ APs & Principals. At the end of each training, all APs/Principals completed a “Credentialing Assessment” that measures their ability to execute, calibrate, and critically think their way through the DPAS-II system.
There was a 76% passing rate. Those who didn’t pass were required to return in September for a second opportunity. Of the 106 individuals who need to return in September, only 50 have signed-up. The TLEU will also offer a third-and-final opportunity if necessary in October.
DASA has started a “boycott” effort and sent letters to the Department, informing the TLEU that these 100+ people are not required to be re-credentialed under state regulation. Further, both DASA and the Chiefs told APs/Principals that did not pass the assessment to not return in September. Based upon turnout and passing rate, the TLEU will chart a path forward in response to this on 10/15.
Relay Graduate School of Education–OPENING
Relay GSE is opening its Delaware campus in October. Dean Christine Rowland has begun building a team and meeting with LEA leaders regarding programming.
The White House recently cited Relay in a press release on innovation in Teacher Prep:
To learn more about Relay, there’s a four-minute video on “The Relay GSE Approach” that can be found here (the video also features current Delaware Leadership Project candidate, Rachel Valentin, who will be in-residency at Harlan Elementary this year):
This launch will mark the first significant pressure point since the passage of SB 51, and will raise the ire of every Delaware higher-education institution. Ultimately, Teach For America will likely partner with Relay GSE rather than Wilmington University, for instance. And Relay’s “practice-based” model will challenge the foundation of UD’s “theory-based” model.
Professional Learning Community (PLC) Support System–w/ Amplify
The TLEU is continuing to work with Amplify to offer the “PLC Support System” to LEAs across the State. Currently, the bulk of the work is around the review of the “Benchmark Assessments” being developed by Amplify. Through the PLC Support System initiative, participating LEAs will have access to two benchmark assessments in both Math and ELA in grades 3-12. Four of the participating LEAs are included in the review process (Brandywine, Milford, Campus Community, and Woodbridge), and all LEAs submitted “scope & sequence” materials as part of the assessment development process.
These assessments are being designed to provide standards-level feedback to educators so they can discuss student progress in PLCs and make necessary modifications to their instructional practices to better meet the needs of their students. 38 schools are currently signed-up to participate in this year’s system, which includes “PLC Coaches” working directly with Principals & Teacher-Leaders.
Other TLEU Headlines
DOE (Accountability), Penny Schwinn, Christopher Tate, email@example.com, Penny.firstname.lastname@example.org
Innovative Schools, Teresa Gerchman, Keina Hodge, email@example.com, TGerchman@innovativeschool
Rodel Foundation, Rex Varner, Lida Zlatic, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
|Charter Schools – Jennifer Nagourney
|2014-15 Renewal Process
Charter School Compliance Calendar & Meeting Calendar
Moyer Formal Review
Originally posted on Exceptional Delaware:
The obvious answer to my title would be “because it’s easy”. It’s not like I create these stories. They do it themselves. I just bring them to light for all of Delaware to see. Take Prestige Academy, and their board meeting at a tavern where they didn’t have a quorum and voted on stuff anyways. I couldn’t make this stuff up if I tried. I knew Jack Perry was “resigning”, so I thought I would see what their board minutes say. I wasn’t looking for anything sinister. By the time I got to their board minutes, and I saw what I saw, it was just another example of a Delaware charter school doing whatever the hell they want, regardless of the law.
I get a great deal of flack on Kilroy’s Delaware in the comments section when I say something negative about charters. There’s one guy named Publius. You would…
View original 1,739 more words
Originally posted on Factionista Files:
A recent staff meeting was interesting. We had been asked by our principal to take a PARCC practice test (at least part of one) ahead of time so that we, as a staff, could have a discussion about it at this staff meeting. My principal is someone who I would not consider to be a drinker of corporate reform Kool-Aid, but who also seems to be, in my opinion, only somewhat aware of the larger issues involved in corporate education reform. He is the kind of person who doesn’t like to dwell on what he has “no control over.” That is an amiable quality in most cases and has helped us focus more on what we can and should do much of the time, rather than get overly frustrated with the nonsense that has been flooding into our daily existence as teachers. But this time, it was hard to focus…
View original 1,594 more words
Hmmm, I wonder what this all means.
188.8.131.52 For schools at which a collective bargaining agreement governs its employees, a further agreement between and among the district or charter school, the collective bargaining unit, and the Department addressing those subjects, if any, that may inhibit the schools’ successful implementation of its model, including but not limited to:184.108.40.206.1 Limitations on hiring, reassigning and transferring covered employees into and out of the Partnership Zone school, such as seniority limitations;220.127.116.11.2 The methodology for determining which teachers will be transferred or reassigned as part of the model;18.104.22.168.3 Work rules relating to the educational calendar and scheduling of instructional time and non-instructional time,22.214.171.124.4 Instructional reform;126.96.36.199.5 Professional development requirements and other specialized training;188.8.131.52.6 Retention and employment incentives, including performance incentives for effective teachers and principals; and184.108.40.206.7 Any other subject required by these regulations to be addressed in the Partnership Zone school’s selected model.220.127.116.11 In the event the parties are not able to reach the agreement required by 18.104.22.168 within seventy-five (75) days of notice as a Partnership Zone school, each party shall present its last best offer on the areas of disagreement along with a draft agreement, to the Secretary of the Department, who shall accept one of the last best offers, or reject all of them. Should the Secretary reject all offers, the parties shall have thirty (30) days to confer and present the Secretary revised offers for re-consideration pursuant to this section.
Originally posted on Larry Cuban on School Reform and Classroom Practice:
Kate Rousmaniere is Professor and chair of the Department of Educational Leadership at Miami University (Ohio). Her most recent book is: The Principals’ Office: A Social History of the American School Principal, (Albany: SUNY Press,2013). The following article appeared in Atlantic Online, November 8, 2013.
A few years ago when I walked the hallways of a high school with my five-year-old niece Evie, she remarked, without prompting: “There’s the principal’s office: you only go there if you are in trouble.” As an educator and an aunt, I wondered how the office of an educational professional had come to be symbolized in such a decisive way in the mind of a child, particularly a child who had yet to enter formal schooling. As I scanned popular representations of the school principal, I found that Evie’s impression was hardly unusual. Across popular and professional cultures, the figure of the school…
View original 1,478 more words
KIPP IS COMING KIPP IS COMING!
Originally posted on Exceptional Delaware:
For those who may not be aware, I requested a Freedom of Information Act request from Delaware Governor Jack Markell’s office on December 3rd, 2014. I received it today, January 12th, 2015. My request was for all emails between Markell and the following individuals: US Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, Michelle Rhee, Joel Klein (of Amplify) and Paul Herdman of The Rodel Foundation of Delaware.
Some things are obvious from this FOIA release. Governor Jack Markell does not communicate big education matters via email. At least not his official state email. For a Governor that pushes education so much, you would think there would be more communication with his partner on the Education Blueprint. Some questions that are answered in this:
1) How did Paul Herdman get into Rodel?
2) What charter chain may be filing a charter application this month and how could this possibly have something to do…
View original 40 more words
Originally posted on Diane Ravitch's blog:
Peter Greene poses a question in this post. If poor children get low test scores, does that mean that all those who teach poor children are bad teachers?
Peter is always funny in the way he presents the “a-ha!” moments in educational research, which are usually either obvious or dumb. Here he looks at a study in Education Next that considered a teacher evaluation program in Chicago. It worked best for the reading scores of advantaged children. It had zero effect on the reading scores of impoverished children. One conclusion might be that poverty matters. But the researchers instead reach a different conclusion.
“Even though the data points to poverty as the big flashing neon sign of “Hey, here it is!” Steinberg and Sartain walk right past the blinking brightness to select again the teachers and principals as the cause. This is not so much mis-reading data as…
View original 85 more words
Originally posted on Diane Ravitch's blog:
Kristen Buras recently published a book about the dissolution of public education in Néw Orleans and its replacement by privately managed charter schools, staffed largely by inexperienced Teach for America recruits after the abrupt dismissal of 7,500 veteran teachers. Her book is titled “Charter Schools, Race, and Urban Space: Where the Market Meets Grassroots Resistance.”
In the current issue of “The Progressive,” Buras explains what happened in Néw Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. The story is different from what the major media say. It is important because so many public officials and civic leaders want to turn struggling districts into another Néw Orleans. Beware.
It begins like this:
“Within days of Hurricane Katrina, the conservative Heritage Foundation advocated the creation of a “Gulf Opportunity Zone,” including federal funds for charter schools and entrepreneurs. Slowly but surely, the narrative of disaster turned to one of opportunity, even triumph. We were told that…
View original 98 more words