Cafe Conversation :: Parental Involvement in Education

We hope you will join us to continue the “Conversation” on Monday, March 5, 2012 at 7 -9pm at the Stamford Government Center, 2nd floor Senior Center with light supper at 6:30pm.

The Parent Leadership Training Institute (PLTI) Alumni Association, Stamford Public Schools, PT Council, ROSCCO and DOMUS are holding a “Cafe” model Conversation Follow-up on the topic of Parental Involvement in Education; with a focus on creating a school learning environment that is physically, emotionally and intellectually safe.  Childcare, dinner, translation and transportation will be provided.  Please rsvp to ConversationContinues@gmail.com or to Eva Weller at 203 329-0452.

Coming soon: teacher report cards based on student performance

posted in: The CT Mirror, January 25, 2012
By Jacqueline Rabe Thomas

Years of disagreement have stalled efforts to grade teachers and dismiss those who are ineffective. That all changed Wednesday when a group of educators — including teachers’ unions, superintendent and school board groups — agreed on how to properly evaluate teachers so those who are struggling are identified and put on a path to improve or be dismissed.

“Districts are really going to embrace this,” said Diane Ullman, Superintendent of Schools in Simsbury and a member of the state panel responsible for creating an evaluation process districts must follow. “We’ve been waiting for this.”

The plan calls for student performance and testing to count for half of the grade the state’s 50,000 teachers receive. The remaining share will be linked to teacher observations and parent and peer feedback surveys.

“I think we are 100 percent there,” Education Commissioner Stefan Pryor told the Performance Evaluation Advisory Council as he pointed to the presentation on display outlining the plan. “That’s our system.”

Getting to this point has been difficult, as state and education leaders have found it a daunting task to grade a job that is just as much an art as it is a science.

“The question has been what is that right prescription? We want to ensure you have useful measures and feedback,” said John Luczak, who helped start teacher evaluations in Illinois and is currently helping the dozen Race to the Top winning states launch their evaluations. “Useful measures are what is missing in too many [evaluation] systems.”

The group agreed teachers should be evaluated as follows:

  • 45 percent on student learning indicators (things like test scores and attendance);
  • 5 percent on how the school performs as a whole or student feedback survey;
  • 40 percent on teachers’ observation and practices;
  • 10 percent on peer and parent feedback surveys

“Unusual buy-in”

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy has indicated on several occasions the state needs to give districts the power to identify ineffective teachers and to stop using years on the job as the lone or primary measure when making layoff decisions. And, at a recent education reform summit he convened earlier this month, as he began to get to the crux of his speech on how he plans to tackle the highly controversial teacher evaluation issue, the sound equipment cut out.

His gut response was to ask the room if the teachers unions’ were responsible. It’s not that he genuinely believes they were behind the mishap, but the perception for years has been that the teachers’ unions are vehemently against evaluations and will do anything to make the discussion go away.

That’s no longer the case, as both the state’s teachers’ unions said Wednesday they are on board with this plan.

“This is very robust,” Mary Loftus Levine, head of the Connecticut Education Association, the state’s largest teachers union, said of the plan.

“This is a pretty good plan,” agreed Sharon Palmer, leader of the state’s American Federation of Teachers chapter. “Yes, student improvement and growth is playing a huge role, but it’s factoring it in in a fair way.”

Luczak said the fact that Connecticut already has its teachers’ unions on board is a huge step.

“Today was a pretty historic day for Connecticut. This is pretty unusual buy-in,” he said. “There are a lot of teachers’ unions who are fighting this in many other states.”

New York is facing a lawsuit from its teachers’ union challenging its evaluation system in which student achievement makes up 40 percent of a teacher’s grade.

The National Council of Teacher Quality reports that 13 states require teacher evaluations to be tied to student achievement. The State Board of Education still needs to approve this plan for Connecticut to become the 14th state. Pryor also said he intends to include this plan in the state’s application for a waiver to the requirements of the federal No Child Left Behind Law.

In a statement, Malloy called the agreement a “milestone.”

“Connecticut has taken a major step toward a meaningful teacher evaluation system,” Malloy said. “Today’s consensus proposal has real potential to increase teacher effectiveness — and as a result, to elevate student achievement.”

What’s in a grade?

Few states have included student and parent surveys when grading teachers because there is little research to back up how to do it effectively.

“The science isn’t quite all there yet,” said Joe Cirasuolo, executive director of the Connecticut Association of Public School Superintendents. “That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try this.”

And because of this uncertainty, the panel decided to have parent and student surveys account for just 10 percent of a teacher’s grade. For the parents’ survey, sample questions discussed by the panel included, “Does your child’s teacher return your calls or emails?” and “Is your child learning?” Final questions have not been determined.

“Parent satisfaction is legitimate and important. This isn’t about encouraging a ‘gotcha’-like outlet for frustration,” said Luczak.

The most controversial component in grading teachers has been how much standardized tests will be factored in the evaluation. While groups like ConnCAN, a New-Haven based reform group, have pushed for tests playing an overwhelming role in evaluations, teachers’ unions have resisted saying that many students don’t do well on tests.

Malloy was actually one of those students who did poorly on standardized tests, but that did not stop his support for including them in evaluations.

“It would be folly” not to include it, he told those who attended his education seminar at Central Connecticut State University. “We are capable of finding the right balance,” he said.

And on Wednesday, the diverse group of education leaders found the balance. The model they approved has student tests counting for 25 percent of a teacher’s grade.

“This evaluation is much more holistic than just test scores,” said Palmer. Another 25 percent will look at other student performance measurements, such as meeting benchmarks or looking at how students compare with their peers in other schools.

“This is an incredible step forward,” said Patrick Riccards, the leader of ConnCAN. “This is the right balance. It uses multiple measures while recognizing student performance is the most important.”

One major obstacle does remain though: the CEA reports 70 percent of the teachers in the state do not teach a subject that has a standardized test. For example, there’s no 11th-grade social studies test.

Pryor said that for those teachers, his department plans to help districts create tests for schools use for various subjects, though many districts already have such tests they’ve put in place.

The remaining 40 percent of the grade will be based on a classroom observation by a team of teachers and principals at each school. Those reviews will be based on strict standards the state will give districts to use based on things like the amount of time a teacher spends on task, if they are following best practices, if they do a good job reaching all their students and how rigorous their lesson plans are.

“This isn’t going to be a popularity contest,” Luczak said.

Full speed ahead

Finding consensus on the major components for an evaluation model may have been achieved Wednesday, but the details for it to become a reality are still a long way off.

Training teachers and administrators to implement these evaluations was the major concern raised by members of the state panel.

“What’s going to come off the teacher’s plate to deal with this new requirement,” asked Bruce Douglas, the leader of the state’s interdistrict magnet school district in the Capitol region.

Pryor assured the group that the state would provide money and expertise to help districts perform these evaluations.

“We will put dollars behind that,” he said.

Other tweaks that still need to be figured out is if a student that comes to a class mid-year should count towards a teacher’s evaluation, what weight special- or high- need students should have and then finally what to do with these evaluations.

Because most districts in the state lack a comprehensive evaluation system, Ullman said it’s made it districts like hers difficult to identify which teachers need help.

“This will change that,” she said.

Luczak said in the other states he has helped implement their evaluations it has taken a year to get it up and running, and estimates the 2013-14 school year is an achievable deadline. State law requires districts to have evaluations in place by July 2013 that are consistent with the model the State Board of Education adopts.

Link to original article: http://ctmirror.org/story/15172/coming-soon-teacher-report-cards-based-student-performance

CT should slow down on NCLB waiver

Wendy Lecker: CT should slow down on NCLB waiver
Published 03:27 p.m., Friday, January 27, 2012 – Stamford Advocate

Editor’s note: This is the first of a new column in which Stamford resident Wendy Lecker will address state and national education issues. Her education policy credentials, in addition to those mentioned below, include working for the national Rural Schools and Community Trust, and Connecticut Voices for Children, where she investigated resource disparity among Connecticut public schools. The column will appear in this space every other week.

Last March, U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan addressed Congress about the flaws in the No Child Left Behind Law. He called NCLB “fundamentally broken,” and said its “one-size-fits-all solutions” usurped the ability of local and state officials to tailor policies to individual schools or students.

Moreover, the steep increases in Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), schools’ yearly testing targets, meant states intervened in more schools each year, “implementing the exact same interventions regardless of the schools’ individual needs.”

Duncan intimated that these problems in NCLB were uncovered during its 10 years of implementation. However, the problems were known from its inception.

From the beginning, almost everyone, except Congress, recognized the fallacy of measuring and punishing schools based on one yearly set of standardized tests.

In July 2001, prior to NCLB’s enactment, Thomas Kane, a scholar from the right-leaning Hoover Institution, together with Douglas Staiger and Jeffrey Geppert, pointed out almost every pitfall in AYP: the inappropriate one-size-fits-all remedies, its inaccurate measures of school performance, the possibility for error, the reality that more diverse schools would be punished for their diversity alone, and the inevitability of most schools failing to make AYP eventually.

The scholars urged Congress to slow down. Although there was an urgent need for improvement, they countered that “impatience is an insufficient excuse for bad education policy.”

Nonetheless, Congress passed the law, the Bush and Obama administrations oversaw its implementation, and the predicted damaging outcomes occurred.

The logical response to the realization that NCLB is flawed would be to freeze the AYP targets for all states until Congress has a chance, during the reauthorization process, to give the law the attention it should have given it in 2001. As Montana’s schools chief noted in a letter to Duncan, freezing AYP “would have been beneficial to every state, district and school and have provided relief from the most onerous portion of the current federal law.”

Instead. Duncan has offered “flexibility” from NCLB targets for those states that agree to a specific set of new requirements.

Unfortunately, these new requirements may be as onerous and expensive, if not more so, than NCLB itself. States must adopt new curricula, new tests, new sanctions/supports for the 15 percent lowest scoring schools, must link teacher and principal evaluations to standardized test scores, and instead of all students being “proficient” by 2014, all students must be “college ready” by 2020.

California has estimated that it will cost the state over $2 billion to implement the mandates attached to this “flexibility.”

Montana found that the requirements would cost the state millions of extra dollars and the “reforms” required were not in students’ best educational interests. Montana declined this NCLB “replacement program” because it did “not make educational or financial sense.” Montana had informed the federal government months earlier that it would freeze its AYP targets for this year anyway, and suffered no repercussions.

Nebraska and Wyoming also have expressed reservations about these NCLB “waivers.”

Now, Connecticut’s state Department of Education has decided to request this “flexibility.” It seeks to submit an application by Feb. 21, less than one month away.

Prior to submitting its application, shouldn’t Connecticut look at what it may be getting us into?

In 2004, Connecticut considered suing the federal government over the onerous costs of the NCLB mandates. Before making that decision, the state commissioned a cost study of NCLB.

Now, two states have already found that this “flexibility” will cost up to billions of dollars. Before signing up for these new mandates, Connecticut must assess their cost to taxpayers.

The U.S. Department of Education requires that states receive “meaningful input” from the public about their flexibility requests. These mandates require massive changes in curriculum, testing and teaching. For example, linking test scores to teacher evaluation means that children would now have to endure standardized tests in every subject.

So far, the “input” the state Department of Education seeks consists of a web address to write to, found on a page of the DOE’s website. However, the DOE has not made any draft application available for review. It is impossible to give meaningful input on the application without knowing its contents.

I called and emailed the DOE’s communications director to inquire about any other possibilities for public input prior to the Feb. 21 deadline. I received no reply.

Connecticut residents need ample opportunity to review the details of the NCLB flexibility application, before it is submitted, and to weigh in on their potential fiscal and educational impact.

When it comes to the future of our children and communities, we must look before we leap. As those scholars warned in 2001, “impatience is an insufficient excuse for bad education policy.”

Wendy Lecker is a former president of the Stamford Parent Teacher Council, and was staff attorney at the Campaign for Fiscal Equity, plaintiffs in a school funding lawsuit in New York.

link to original article: http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/default/article/Wendy-Lecker-CT-should-slow-down-on-NCLB-waiver-2753177.php

Governance in Vermont

In May 2006 Commissioner Richard Cate released a white paper entitled “The Governance of Education in Vermont – 1777 to 2006.” The paper, meant to stimulate a year-long discussion, outlined a plan for changing the governance model of the education system in Vermont. As part of this discussion, the department hosted 30 facilitated meetings across the state. The goal of these meetings was to engage a large and diverse group of Vermonters in a conversation about governance in the Vermont education system. These meetings were held at local schools across the state between January and May.

read more:

http://education.vermont.gov/new/html/dept/archived_initiatives/governance.html

Public Hearing on the Budget :: February 2, 2012

at 7:00 p.m. in the Westover Magnet School Auditorium at 412 Stillwater Avenue.
Dr. Winnie Hamilton, Interim Superintendent of Schools presented the 2012-2013 Operating Budget last night at a Board of Education meeting. You can find the presentation here. The full budget will also be posted on the Stamford Public Schools website.

You are invited to a public hearing on the budget on Thursday, February 2, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. in the Westover Magnet School Auditorium at 412 Stillwater Avenue. The Interim Superintendent and the Board of Education will present the proposed budget and then take public comments. Childcare and interpreters will be available. See flyers in English and Spanish.

The timeline for the budget process is as follows:

- Board of Education fiscal meetings – January 17th through February.
Check website for meeting updates: www.stamfordpublicschools.org

- Public hearing – Feb. 2nd at Westover School

- Board vote on budget – Feb. 16, 2012

- Budget goes to Mayor on Feb. 29th

- Boards of Finance and Representatives review

- Final vote by BoF in April (TBD) and BoR in May (TBD)

- Board of Education reallocation by late May

The Parent Teacher Council’s Advocacy Committee will examine the proposed budget in detail and share highlights and talking points before the public hearing with the Board of Representatives and Board of Finance, usually scheduled in March. If you have any questions, please contact Regan Allan, regana@optonline.net.

Parent Teacher Council’s Forum with our State Delegation

January 19, 2012
We had an outstanding turnout at the Parent Teacher Council’s Forum with our State Delegation.
As a follow up to that Forum, here are some resources that will help keep you up to date on what is happening at the state level in education: http://www.cga.ct.gov/ed/ – This is the link to the State Education Committee page. It has links to the Education Cost Sharing Task Force, a record of bills and other helpful information.

chris.calabrese@cga.ct.gov This is the email address of the person who you can contact to be put on the email list to get advance notice of education committee bills and hearings.

Here are the email addresses of Stamford’s state elected officials:

Senator Scott Frantz: Scott.Frantz@cga.ct.gov

Senator Carlo Leone: Carlo.Leone@cga.ct.gov

Representative Livvy Floren: Livvy.Floren@housegop.ct.gov

Representative Dan Fox: Dan.Fox@cga.ct.gov

Representative Gerald Fox: Gerald.Fox@cga.ct.gov

Representative Patricia Miller: Patricia.Miller@cga.ct.gov

Representative Michael Molgano: Michael.Molgano@cga.ct.gov

Representative William Tong: William.Tong@cga.ct.gov

Scholarship applications are now being accepted :: Dollars for Scholars

Scholarship applications are now being accepted online at www.StamfordDollarsForScholars.org for the graduating class of 2012. To be eligible, a student must live in or attend High School in Stamford, CT, be graduating this spring of 2012 and plan to attend a 2 or 4 yr college or a vocational school in the fall of 2012. Scholarship applications are being accepted online only at www.StamfordDollarsForScholars.org through April 15th. The Awards committee will review all applications, select award recipients and award the scholarships in May 2012.

Any questions about the scholarship process should be directed to awards@sd4s.org If you are interested in volunteering your time, making a donation, or sponsoring a scholarship in the name of your business, organization or a loved one, please contact info@sd4s.org.

Stamford’s 14th Parent Leadership Training Institute (PLTI)

Applications are now open for Stamford’s 14th Parent Leadership Training Institute (PLTI).

PLTI will continue to offer in-depth leadership training to 25-30 selected parents. Parents are their children’s first and most important teachers. They are also the best advocates for children in society. Parents can speak out on issues and inform policy-makers, the media, and other parents, about the needs of their families. PLTI offers a stimulating curriculum that will boost parents’ leadership skills to address areas of concern such as, accessible child health, the achievement gap, neighborhood safety, and the significance of parental involvement. Together parents will emerge as strong leaders and advocates for all children.

The institute begins with an all-day (parents only) retreat and continues with classes on Tuesday evenings for 19 weeks from 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 pm, beginning with a family style dinner from 5:00 p.m. to 5:45 p.m. Classes 6pm – 9pm. Childcare will be provided for ages 5 and up. Candidates will be selected from a diverse group of parents, who are passionate about children‘s issues and policies, and also have an interest in developing their individual leadership skills.

The institute is offered free of charge. Your time, commitment, and a written community project that reflects your passion, is what we ask for in return. Please consider whether PLTI is the right initiative for you at this time. If you are interested, please return the completed application form on or before January 18, 2012.

Mail to: Stamford Parent Leadership Training Institute, 888 Washington Blvd., 8th Floor, and Stamford, Ct. 06901. If you have any questions, please call: Josephine Fulcher-Anderson, PLTI Coordinator – (203) 977-5829 or (203) 216-2063 – Fax 203-969-0797.  Download the Application Form.

CAFE CONVERSATION FOLLOW-UP :: Creating a school environment that is physically, emotionally, and intellectually safe.

Stamford Government Center, 2nd Floor Senior Center
Light Supper 6:30pm
Discussion 7pm – 9pm

Creating a school environment that is physically, emotionally, and intellectually safe. It’s not too late to join the Conversation! Help us develop next steps for our community. Hear committee progress reports. Please RSVP for Childcare and/or Translation Services by Mail or Phone download form

PTC Forum: State Related Education Issues with our State Delegation

January 11, 2012 New Date!

PTC Meeting 6:30pm in the Government Center

The Parent Teacher Council of Stamford will host a forum regarding state related education issues with our state delegation (state senators and state representatives) on Wednesday, January 11th from 6:30pm-8pm in the 5th Floor Board Room of the Government Center.

It is rare to get our delegation in one spot to discuss issues and ask questions, so be sure to attend this important forum. You will be able to share your concerns about issues related to the Education Cost Sharing formula, No Child Left Behind sanctions, state testing mandates and other topics.  Let your voice be heard!

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 128 other followers