DeVos defends school privatization at D.C. think tank
In a recent speech at the Brookings Institution, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos advocated privatization of public education and set forth her version of "school choice." Arguing that there are no distinctions of consequence among the delivery mechanisms of open enrollment, tax credits, home schools, magnets, charters, virtual schools, education savings accounts, and choices not yet developed, DeVos maintained that parents are the first and primary point of accountability. Her remarks closely followed Brookings' release of its fifth annual Education Choice and Competition Index, its ranking of Brookings-defined "school choice" in the nation's 100 largest districts.
DeVos offered no proposed public policy improvements other than making as many delivery mechanisms as possible available to parents. She made no reference to student, community, taxpayer, or societal interests or values. DeVos criticized Denver's policy, ranked first by Brookings, for not including taxpayer-funded access to private schools among options available to parents, while praising New Orleans' approach for doing so. She also criticized Brookings' criteria for its index.
DeVos has historically opposed accountability and transparency comparable to that in public schools for charter schools in Michigan, 80 percent of which are operated under contract by for-profit Education Management Organizations, and which have performed poorly.
For more on the speech, see NEA President Lily Eskelsen GarcÃa's blog post on Devos's reference to Uber in the context of school choice. For more on the Trump administration's privatization agenda, see NEA's privatization fact sheet.
Senators ask GAO for report on tax credit voucher programs
On April 13, Senators Patty Murray (D-WA), Ron Wyden (D-OR), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) submitted a request to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) for a review of state tax credit voucher systems. The senators expressed concern that these state systems vary widely in terms of eligibility, cost, fiscal accountability, and transparency, which makes it difficult for lawmakers to evaluate the consequences of implementing a national tax credit voucher program, as has been suggested by the Trump administration.
The senators also noted conflict of interest problems identified in one of Arizona's tax credit voucher programs, and expressed interest in any existing safeguards to prevent fraud, waste, abuse, misconduct and mismanagement.
As Kevin Welner, Professor of Education Policy and Law at the University of Colorado explains, voucher advocates prefer these "neovouchers" because: they evade many of the state constitutional obstacles that prevent a more direct form of voucher from being implemented; participating private schools are subject to fewer regulations; wealthier families are more likely to be eligible; and individual taxpayers can receive tax benefits exceeding the value of their donations to these programs. Welner also notes that research does not indicate any academic value associated with vouchers.
Special report: a look at indicator trends in early state accountability plans
Under ESSA, states are required to submit accountability plans to the Department of Education (ED) by either April 3 (May 3 if time is needed to submit to the governor) or September 18. Nine states and the District of Columbia submitted plans on April 3, with more spring submissions still coming in.
As part of the accountability plan, states are required to include an accountability system complete with indicators for assessments, middle and elementary schools, graduation rates, English language learner proficiency, and, for the first time in a major ESSA innovation, school quality and/or student success. The following trends were observed in the ten early state plans:
- Indicator 1 - Academics
ESSA requires states to measure proficiency on annual assessments in math and English language arts (ELA) for all students and separately for each subgroup of students. Some early submitters included assessments in other subject areas like science and social studies.
- Indicator 2 - An Indicator for Elementary and Middle Schools ESSA requires states to include an indicator for elementary and secondary schools that are not high schools; states may choose growth or another valid and reliable indicator. All early submitters chose to include growth rather than another indicator, and some states included a measure of growth for high schools, as well.
- Indicator 3 - Graduation Rate
ESSA requires states to include the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate and, at the state's discretion, the extended-year adjusted cohort graduation rate. All early submitters, except Tennessee, chose to include the four-year and an extended-year rate.
- Indicator 4 - English Language Proficiency
States are required to measure progress in English language proficiency. All early submitters, except Connecticut, will use the WIDA ACCESS assessment. Connecticut is in the process of creating a growth model for the English language proficiency assessment.
- Indicator 5 - School Quality and or Student Success
States are required to include not less than one indicator of school quality or student success. NEA encourages affiliates to use the NEA "Opportunity Dashboard" when engaging stakeholders around indicator selection. A majority of the early submitters included opportunity indicators Chronic Absenteeism and College and Career Readiness; other opportunity indicators include Physical Fitness and Arts Access.
- Weight - School Quality and or Student Success ESSA requires that states assign weights to each indicator. Indicators one through four must be assigned a much greater weight in the aggregate than the fifth indicator(s). Early submitters assigned an average weight of 22 percent to the fifth indicator. Massachusetts has not yet decided on a weight. New Jersey, New Mexico, and Tennessee assigned the lowest weight--10 percent--and Nevada and Connecticut assigned the greatest weight--35 percent (high schools) and 33.3 percent, respectively.
For more ideas on indicators that can be used in a robust and fair accountability system that goes beyond standardized tests, please review NEA's Opportunity Dashboard.
ED letter addresses 2017-2018 school supports, stakeholder engagement
Now that Congress has overturned last year's accountability and state plan rules, ED is looking at several transition issues addressed in those rules. These issues include what supports and interventions are required for struggling schools during the 2017-2018 school year, and when states must begin to identify schools for comprehensive supports and improvements under new ESSA accountability plans. These two questions were addressed in an April 10 "Dear Colleague" letter from ED's Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.
On the subject of the 2017-2018 school year, the ED letter says that states must "continue to provide supports and interventions in the State's low-performing schools in the 2017-2018 school year in the same manner as in the 2016-2017 school year." The letter notes that a state may refresh its list of schools needing supports prior to the beginning of the 2017-2018 school year using the methodology in its ESSA plan, even if the plan has not yet been approved by ED.
On the subject of school identification, ED says that that states may delay the deadline for identifying struggling schools until the 2018-2019 school year. By that time states must identify schools needing comprehensive support and improvement as well as schools in which any subgroup of students, on its own, would place the school among the lowest-performing 5 percent of all schools.
The letter concludes with a reminder that states must comply with ESSA's extensive stakeholder consultation requirements even if states are no longer required to include a description of that consultation process in their consolidated state plan.
Virtual schools report: identify and address problems before expansion
Noting a slight uptick in needed state legislator attention to issues posed by the relatively small but rapidly growing full-time virtual school sector, the National Education Policy Center's fifth annual report on virtual education, Virtual Schools in the U.S. 2017, concludes that "there is, however, little high-quality systemic evidence that the rapid expansion of the past several years is wise." In 2015-16, 528 full-time virtual schools in 34 states enrolled 278,511 students. Virtual schools operated by for-profit Education Management Organizations (EMOs) enrolled an average of 1,309 students, whereas average enrollment for nonprofit EMO-operated and independent (no EMO) virtual school was 248 and 256 students, respectively. The half of all virtual schools identified that are also charter schools accounted for 82.2 percent of enrollment, with district-created virtual schools tending to enroll small numbers of students. Average student:teacher ratio in virtual schools was 34:1, compared to 16:1 for the nation's public schools, and masking a ratio of 44:1 in for-profit EMO-managed virtual schools versus a 19.5:1 ratio in nonprofit EMO-managed virtual schools.
- slow or stop the growth in the number of virtual schools and the size of their enrollments until the reasons for their extensively documented dismal student outcomes have been identified and addressed;
- specify maximum student-teacher ratios and regulate school and class sizes;
- ensure that virtual schools fully report data on the population of students they serve and the teachers they employ;
- develop guidelines and governance mechanisms to ensure that virtual schools do not prioritize profit over student performance; and
- support more research on how special education is being provided, actual costs of operating virtual schools, and professional development that promotes effective online teaching practices, among other issues.
Take action
Ask Congress to support public education by speaking out against cuts in federal aid for public schools and taking a stand against vouchers, tuition tax credits, education savings accounts and other forms of privatization. |
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.