My GHEA Rocks!

Issue #213--June 5, 2015     State capacity to help turnarounds limited The federal School Improvement Grants (SIG) and Race to the Top (RTTT) programs provided billions of dollars to help states turnaround low-performing schools and achieve other goals.  There is limited research, however, on the extent to which states have the capacity to support such turnarounds or are pursuing strategies to enhance that capacity.  Seeking to fill this gap in the research, the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance released a new brief in May, State Capacity to Support School Turnaround, which examines the extent to which states reported that they: (1) prioritized school turnaround but had concerns about accomplishing their turnaround goals; (2) had significant gaps in expertise to support turnaround; and (3) adopted strategies to enhance such capacity. In interviewing states and analyzing data, researchers found that: More than 80 percent of states made turnaround a priority, but at least half found it difficult to turn around low-performing schools-potentially because research on effective strategies to sustain turnaround in low-performing schools is so limited, leaving states uncertain as to how to achieve this goal, and because such endeavors are so complex and challenging. Most states (76 percent in 2012 and 80 percent in 2013) reported significant gaps in turnaround expertise, both broadly and with respect to specific strategies encouraged by SIG (e.g., developing and implementing teacher evaluation models based on student growth and/or "turnaround competencies"). Most states (85 percent) used strategies to enhance turnaround capacity, either intermediaries (e.g. Department of Education (ED) regional branches or independent consultants) or the use of organizational or administrative structures (e.g., state or regional turnaround offices), with the use of intermediaries decreasing over time and the use of structures increasing. While the researchers did not provide specific recommendations, they anticipated that this brief would shed light on where states think they are in terms of their capacity to support turnaround, on the capacity constraints states face, on where additional supports could be warranted, and on what strategies states are using to address the capacity constraints they reported.   Experts: annual standardized testing hurts poor and minority students Marc Tucker, president of the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE), writes in an EdWeekblog that continued NCLB-like testing in an ESEA reauthorization will harm poor and minority students. Tucker explains that the performance of  poor and minority student was improving faster before NCLB testing than after; that many nations with no accountability testing perform better than the U.S. and have smaller gaps; that current annual testing results in poor and minority students receiving "an endless diet of drill and practice" and a "dumbed down curriculum" in contrast to the rich curriculum in wealthier schools; and that annual testing encourages teachers to focus on students who are just below the pass points on tests, ignoring those who will pass anyway and those with little chance of passing.  Tucker says that student achievement data is important, but could be obtained by giving tests to a sampling of students in every school every couple of years. In a blog post in The Hill supporting parent rights to opt out of testing,  Judith Browne Dianis, codirector of the Advancement Project,  John Jackson, head of the Schott Foundation for Public Education, and Pedro Noguera, the Peter L. Agnew Professor of Education at New York University, also criticize NCLB's annual standardized testing regime.  The authors state that current tests too often fail to provide timely information to allow teachers to improve instruction, have proven ineffective in improving education, and cause, particularly for poor and minority students, "over-testing and a narrowing of the curriculum in the name of test preparation."  "Schools serving poor children and children of color remain under-funded and have been labeled 'failing' while little has been done at the local, state or federal level to effectively intervene and provide support."  The authors, who note the importance of assessments for diagnostic purposes, add that:  "We now know students cannot be tested out of poverty, and while NCLB did take us a step forward by requiring schools to produce evidence that students were learning, it took us several steps backward when that evidence was reduced to how well a student performed on a standardized test."   Miccosukee Indian School receives AYP flexibility Miccosukee Indian School in Florida became the first tribally controlled school allowed to use a definition of adequate yearly progress (AYP) that differs from the state definition in the 13-year history of NCLB.  The school receives funds from the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) in the Department of Interior.  "I applaud [Miccosukee] Chairman Billie and the Miccosukee Indian School for developing this innovative and culturally-relevant plan for guiding and measuring their students' academic progress," said Secretary of Interior Sally Jewell in an announcement.  Jewell added that the flexibility granted by Interior and ED advances tribal self-determination and can serve as a model for other tribes in the BIE system. The Condition of Education The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) has published its annual comprehensive statistics on education, The Condition of Education.  Among the many facts reported using 2012-2013 data:  49.8 million students attend public schools and 2.3 million attend public charter schools. The racial/ethnic makeup of public schools is:  51 percent White; 15.7 percent Black; 24.3 percent Hispanic; 5.13 percent Asian American and Pacific Islander; 1.07 percent American Indian/Alaska Native; and 2.8 percent two or more races.  English learners represent 9.2 percent of public school students; and 12.95 percent of public school students age three to 21 years old receive special education services. Competition begins for larger i3 grants Today ED launched the latest Investing in Innovation (i3) validation and scale-up competitions.  The i3 fund, designed to develop and expand innovative solutions to education problems, was established under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and has continued since.  Validation grants, which require a moderate evidence of effectiveness, will provide up to $12 million.  Scale-up grants, which require strong evidence of effectiveness, will provide up to $20 million.  (A competition is already in process for the popular $3 million development grants.)  The deadline for filing a notice of intent to apply is June 25, 2015. The deadline for submitting applications is August 4, 2015.  Take Action: Get ESEA right ESEA legislation is heading to the Senate floor this month where decisions will be made that will impact our education system for years to come.  Tell your Senators to get ESEA right and pass a bill that focuses on opportunity for all, ensures more time for learning instead of testing, and empowers educators to lead.     Questions or comments? Contact the Education Policy and Practice Department at ESEAinfo@nea.org.