Response to DeVos nomination shows a nation committed to public education
Voucher advocate Betsy DeVos was narrowly voted in as secretary of education, but not before a historic public outcry resulted in more than one million letters and over 80,000 phone calls to Senators in opposition. All Democrats and two Republicans, Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Susan Collins (R-ME), stood up for public education and voted against DeVos, leading to a tie-breaking vote by Vice President Mike Pence.
Educators played a leadership role in the broad-based, bipartisan challenge to a nominee who spent a career supporting vouchers and other forms of privatization. Commenting on the vote, NEA President Lily Eskelsen García said that the outcome "marks only the beginning of the resistance. Students, educators, parents, civil rights and special education advocates-along with millions of Americans-are speaking loud and clear: we are here to stay...we will protect public education." Eskelsen García added that: "We are going to watch what Betsy DeVos does. And we are going to hold her accountable for the actions and decisions she makes on behalf of the more than 50 million students in our nation's public schools."
DeVos signals scaled-back consolidated state plan template
In her first major announcement since confirmation, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos encouraged states to continue their work under the current April 3 and September 18 state plan submission guidelines, but indicated that submission requirements may be modified by March 13, 2017. In a February 10 letter to chief state school officers, DeVos said that the Department of Education (ED) was reviewing the consolidated state plan template to ensure that its requirements are consistent with an ESEA provision that only allows ED to require consolidated plan information that is "absolutely necessary." DeVos explained in the letter that ED:
... in consultation with SEAs as well as other State and local stakeholders, will develop a revised template for consolidated State plans that meets the "absolutely necessary" requirement by March 13, 2017. The Department may also consider allowing a State or group of States to work together to develop a consolidated State plan template that meets the Department's identified requirements through the Council of Chief State School Officers.
DeVos said that states could look to the current guidance until the revisions are announced, since ED would not be adding additional requirements.
ED releases accountability FAQs
ED released 58 pages of FAQs on accountability in the final days of John King's tenure as secretary of education. The detailed FAQs focus on the state accountability system, the accountability indicators, annual meaningful differentiation of schools, and identification of schools. The FAQs add to substantial guidance previously issued by ED on how to comply with its final rule on accountability and state plans, including the consolidated state plan template and the consolidated state plan template guidance.
An example of an accountability FAQ involves the definition of "consistently underperforming" subgroups. ED's proposed accountability rule was widely criticized for saying that "consistently" meant two years in a row since ESSA states, in an apparent effort to move past the federally prescribed two-year requirement in NCLB, that the definition of "consistently underperforming" must be state determined. The final rule modified ED's original proposal, to a degree, stating that "consistently" means two years unless the state can demonstrate to ED that it has a better alternative. ED uses the FAQ on "consistently underperforming" to again argue against anything more than two years, and reminds states that they "must make the required demonstration" if they want to use a different period of time.
Ohio online charter faces penalties for inflated enrollment claims
Charter accountability legislation successfully advocated by the Ohio Education Association, NEA's state affiliate, has led to a state audit finding that the state's largest online charter operator, the Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow (ECOT), inflated its student attendance to secure $106 million in taxpayer funds. ECOT claimed enrollment of more than 15,000 students in 2016, but the audit found that only 40 percent of its students met the full-time enrollment requirements necessary for state funding. ECOT faces penalties of more than $60 million, pending the outcome of an appeal. The Columbus Dispatch conducted a random sample of 699 ECOT students and found that for the 2015-16 school year the majority logged in so infrequently they would qualify as truant under Ohio law. According to the Dispatch, while 2,674 enrolled ECOT students graduated last spring, 3,252 dropped out. ECOT's graduation rate of 39 percent was less than half the state's 83 percent rate and far lower than any of Ohio's six largest urban public school districts. One of six dropouts in Ohio is an ECOT student.
To put the $106 million of Ohio taxpayer dollars going to ECOT in perspective, the governor's proposed increase in funding for all of Ohio's 610 school districts for next year is $64.4 million, and $106 million would fund approximately half the yearly cost of offering universal kindergarten statewide. For more on the ECOT controversy, read this story in NEA Today.
ED details state requirements for English learners
On January 18, ED released detailed guidance for states on the sections of the final accountability rule impacting English learners. The guidance, titled Resource Guide: Accountability for English Learners under the ESEA, covers state goals and measurements of interim progress, progress in achieving the English language proficiency indicator, English learners with disabilities, recently arrived English learners, and former English learners.
Take Action
Tell Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos that parents, students and educators need answers about her commitment to public education. Add your name here to NEA President Lily Eskelsen García's letter asking the secretary for answers to four critical questions about her plans that were not addressed substantively at the nomination hearings.
| 
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.