This from the
Courier-Journal:
Much ado is being made over a sweeping education bill filed in the
Kentucky Senate this session, with some saying the wide-ranging bill
contains "fundamental changes" to education assessment and
accountability in the Bluegrass State.
Talk outside of
education circles has focused mainly around the idea that the education
bill, or Senate Bill 1, would "repeal" Common Core, but a read through
the 88-page legislation shows a number of other major proposed changes.
"That
piece of legislation is a big one," Tracy Herman, legislative liaison
for the Kentucky Department of Education, told the state board of
education this week. "It's kind of a sea change from where we've been.
... We're all anxious to see where folks land on that as we move through
the process."
Bill sponsor Mike Wilson, R-Bowling Green, has said there already are committee substitutes pending on the original legislation.
But here's a basic breakdown of some of the things that are – and aren't – in this wide-ranging bill.
It doesn't "repeal Common Core."
In
fact, the term "Common Core" is not mentioned even once in the original
bill. However, the bill does propose a new way of reviewing Kentucky's
education standards, suggesting, among other things, that the Kentucky
Board of Education review standards every six years using the help of a
number of review committees and advisory panels.
One of
those newly created committees would be a "standards and assessment
recommendation committee" that would include three people appointed by
the governor, three members of the Senate and three members of the
House.
Wilson said the idea of repealing Common Core
comes from this review process. He said that changes to the standards
will effectively mean they are no longer Common Core standards.
"There
will probably be some standards that will still be the same," Wilson
said. "A standard is just a standard. It doesn't matter who comes up
with it if it's a good standard."
But Kentucky has
previously done reviews and changes to its standards and is currently
going through another review process right now.
Education
Commissioner Stephen Pruitt recently told the Courier-Journal that he's
not sure the current standards Kentucky has can even be called Common
Core, saying that is why the state dubs them "Kentucky Core Academic
Standards."
Kentucky Board of Education member Mary Gwen
Wheeler said during the recent board meeting that she was concerned that
"obviously there are pieces in SB1 that I think make a lot of decisions
about education more political."
She later told the
Courier-Journal that she read the bill as being that the final
recommendation would come from a group of people that include
legislators.
"My request to the legislature is for them
to be thoughtful," Wheeler said, "and not expose what should be good
professional, sound education decisions to partisan politics."
It deletes requirements to have social studies tests.
Wilson
said he doesn't think there is any good standardized social studies
test in the education marketplace, and he'd rather see social studies
just be tested at the local level by teachers.
"You have vendors hawking their wares and saying they line up with the standards and they don’t," Wilson said.
The
Kentucky Department of Education is reviewing its social studies
standards. Pruitt recently said that new social studies standards would
not be rolled out this year, with the current standards still being used
as the state continues its work.
Program reviews would be done away with under this bill.
The
idea was to have some way to measure the quality of instruction in
areas that aren't easily measured by standardized tests, but some
schools officials have said the paperwork behind them is onerous, and a
Kentucky Department of Education review this past summer said that
schools were sometimes
over-scoring themselves on these program reviews.
Certain special needs students would no longer be included in a school's accountability.
The
current version of the bill says that certain students with
disabilities who take longer than four years to graduate high school
would no longer have their test scores counted in schools' scores after
their fourth year of high school.
It would hand teacher evaluations back to local school districts to oversee.
The
bill proposes that each school district develops its own teacher
evaluation model that is based on a framework established by the
Kentucky Department of Education.
Right now, school
districts use an evaluation model from the state, called the
Professional Growth and Effectiveness System. This bill would revert
greater control and maintenance of teacher and staff evaluations back to
local school districts, with school districts not required to report
data to the state.
The bill stipulates that the
evaluation systems couldn't use student growth to measure teacher
effectiveness and said the evaluations can't be part of the state's
school accountability system.
References to the ACT are erased.
The
bill deletes references to the college-readiness exam the ACT,
stipulating instead that a college admission and placement test of
English, math, science and reading be given in the fall of ninth grade
and the spring of 11th grade.
The bill creates "bands of schools" to measure how different schools are doing.
The
bill proposes that the heaviest weight in the accountability model be
based on how well schools are doing over three years compared to the
average growth of its "band of schools." The "band" would be a group of
schools that are similar in demographics, including the numbers of
students with disabilities or with limited English proficiency.
The
bill also stipulates that student growth scores would not be used in
the accountability model, but it says the accountability model would
include things like graduation rates, elementary and middle schools'
climate and safety, industry certifications, high school students'
results on college admission and placement tests, and more.
It alters some of the definitions and requirements for dealing with struggling schools.
The
bill lays out definitions for three types of struggling schools and
also lays out responses for when schools fall into those categories.
Some say the bill would take away some of the authority from the state
in helping to turn around struggling schools.
"Initial
intervention schools" would be schools in the lowest 25 percent in the
state that had also failed to meet state accountability targets for
three consecutive years. If a school under this label have a principal
opening, the district superintendent – using a narrowed field of
candidates from the school's site-based decision-making committee
– would get to choose the new principal.
"Focus schools"
would be so named if they either have had a graduation rate below 68
percent for three consecutive years or have had three consecutive years
of low performance by a certain student group (such as English language
learners, minority students, students on free or reduced price lunch or
students with disabilities). Schools named to the focus category would
get district help in revising their school improvement plans.
"Priority
schools" would be those in the bottom 5 percent in the state that fail
to meet state accountability targets for three years, or schools that
were previously labeled as persistently low-achieving and have not
exited that status. When a school is labeled as a priority school, the
bill would have the school undergo an external audit done by a team that
does not include any of the school's district employees.
After
the audit, the local school board would solicit requests for
proposals from external management organizations to provide a turnaround
training and support team to the school. The superintendent would be
able to choose to keep or move the school's principal and other
certified staff to comparable positions in the district and would have
the power to select a new principal, in consultation with a number of
stakeholders.
Turnaround plans – both short-term and
five-year plans – for any priority school would get input from the
Kentucky Department of Education but would get ultimate approval from
the local school board. The bill stipulates that turnaround plans should
request exemptions from the state from certain reporting requirements.
1 comment:
I am not sure which saying is most applicable; "one step forward and two back" or "don't throw out the baby with the bath water"? I think both. How many times are they going to recreate the wheel?
Post a Comment