2009 Progress Report for LEV Foundation
Posted on 30. Nov, 2009 by Mike.
We’re thrilled to release our first LEV Foundation Progress Report. It’s a great overview of our accomplishments since our founding in 2001 and our vision for education in Washington State.
Continue Reading
Question of the Week
Posted on 30. Nov, 2009 by admin.
Great Teachers and Leaders is one of six selection criteria for Race to the Top (R2T). R2T calls for the use of a fair evaluation system for teachers and principals that differentiate effectiveness using multiple rating categories and take student growth into account.
Should student performance be included in teacher evaluations?
Leave a comment below to join the discussion with other parents, educators and advocates.
Continue Reading
LIVE BLOG: QEC, day 1
Posted on 30. Nov, 2009 by Heather.
The Quality Education Council is meeting today and tomorrow in Olympia (no online agenda yet, sorry meeting docs now up). For those interested in seeing Superintendent Dorn’s mustache (it is Movember), tune in to TVW.
I’ll be posting updates throughout the day, all you need do is hit ‘refresh.’
9:05am-10am
Beginning Teacher Mentor Program (Beginning Educator Support Team) - Erin Jones, Jeanne Harmon, Fran Oishi, Jamie Schneider
-Included data on the positive effect of teacher participant in quality induction program on student achievement
-Other research shows import of supportive culture and positive work environments for teachers
-$2.348 million in both 2009-10 and 2010-11; BEST is competitive grant program
-BEST program supports beginning teachers through Professional Certification, assessment at completion of program
-Federal Way, Lake Washington, Renton, ESD 112 Consortium, Lover Valley Consortium (Grandview, Toppenish, Zillah, Wapato)
>>Some pushback/questioning around use of student test scores as demonstrative of teacher effectiveness. Superintendent Randy Dorn asked how mentors are selected and trained. Jeanne Harmon answered that there are standards that are used, as well as training provided by OSPI.
>>Sen. Curtis King asked if mentors are still in classrooms, or if they mentor full time. Ms. Harmon said it varies by districts, and depends largely on the number of beginning teachers in a district. Small districts may have only one or two beginning teachers, and don’t have a need for full-time mentors. Larger districts may have more than 30 beginning teachers, and employ a full-time mentor or two rather than providing release time for part-time mentors.
>>Dr. Jane Gutting asked about retention rates of teachers who complete induction programs. Ms. Harmon said the Center for Strengthening the Teaching Profession does collect data on retention, and rates are higher for teachers who go through induction.
>>Sen. Eric Oemig asked if Washington could conduct a study like Tennessee did, with student growth and the like. Ms. Harmon said we could not do such a study statewide, but some districts do also use assessments that measure student growth.
>>Dr. Gutting asked what the cost would be to expand BEST to all teachers, and if it could be incorporated into alternative route teacher preparation programs. Ms. Harmon said when they last costed it out a statewide program would cost $24 or 25 million, and they had not yet looked at incorporating the program into Residency Certification programs. Rep. Skip Priest asked if the provided funding was adequate. The question wasn’t completely answered, but Ms. Schneider did say they are able to give much better support to beginning teachers this year than in previous years (when the state provided less than $900 per new teacher).<<
10am-10:55am
State Board of Education Update - Edie Harding, Kathe Taylor
>>Supt. Dorn asked if Career Concentration courses had to be Career and Technical Education course. Edie Harding said they do not have to be taught by teachers with CTE endorsements, which is the same as current requirements around the current occupational education requirement. Sen. Joseph Zarelli asked why these aren’t all just lumped into the elective category so students can choose additional courses that interest them, CTE or otherwise. Kathe Taylor said that because not all high schools have CTE programs, the Career Concentration requirement needs to allow flexibility, and the implementation task force is considering that. Additionally, the flexibility of the requirement allows students to take the courses relevant and/or of interest to them (for example, additional language courses if they know they want to pursue a career abroad).
>>Speaker Frank Chopp asked where financial literacy fits in to these requirements, especially given our current economic conditions. Ms. Taylor said those standards have been incorporated into social studies. Speaker Chopp pushed for financial literacy to be its own requirement. Ms. Harding said she would be open to that, and it needs to be brought to the State Board of Education to consider. Supt. Dorn asked about the third math credit. Ms. Harding said it can be Algebra II, but it could also be Accounting, and depends on the student’s High School and Beyond Plan.
>>Sen. Rosemary McAuliffe asked about waivers for certain requirements, including physical education and art. Ms. Taylor said there are waivers for PE, allowable for “good reason,” but there isn’t a current waiver for the art requirement. Dr. Gutting asked if the impact of CORE 24 on the teacher workforce as been studied. Ms. Harding said they have looked at that, however, many new teachers in shortage areas can’t find jobs because of the economy.
>>Speaker Chopp asked if students needed to take remedial courses at community and technical colleges because advanced math courses weren’t available in their high schools. Ms. Taylor said they are tracking our most recent high school graduates in community and technical colleges. Supt. Dorn then pontificated on the WASL component of graduation requirements, and how the Class of 2013 will need to pass the Math WASL in addition to the Reading and Writing WASLs.
>>Sen. Zarelli asked if the SBE can implement graduation requirements on its own, or if the Legislature has approval authority. Ms. Harding said the SBE does not plan on implementing CORE 24 until there is adequate funding, and the Legislature may always “trump” the SBE.<<
11:05am-11:50am
Anatomy of Change - Paul Rosier, Greg Lynch, Carl Johnson
[In short, a proposal on how to deal with future changes in requirements, system changes, etc.]
1pm-2pm
Phase-In of Funding Recommendations - Isabel Muñoz-Colon
>>Some relevant and irrelevant questions.<<
2pm-3pm
Discussion of Proposal by Reps. Priest and Sullivan
>>Sen. McAuliffe brought up that other members of the QEC met with Reps. Priest and Sullivan, and asked if this proposal reflects their involvement. Reps. Priest and Sullivan said they did have conversations with others (including Dr. Bette Hyde, Mary Jean Ryan, Sen. Oemig and Rep. Bruce Dammeier) and this proposal does include thoughts/reflections from those conversations.
-Recommendations
1) 2010 Legislature should adopt baseline prototypical school funding formula for implementation in 2011, based on Funding Formula Technical Working Group recommendations, but with a more simplified set of funding factors
2) Amend ESHB 2261 to start the work of the Compensation Working Group (change lead staff agency to OSPI) and Local Finance Working Group in May 2010; continue FFTWG to monitor early implementation of the prototypical school model
3) 2010 Legislature should implement new pupil transportation funding formula in 2011 ($806,000 in 2010)
4) Legislature should phase-in full funding of new pupil transportation formula over a 3-year period beginning in 2011 (full implementation cost: $150.5 million if in 2011-12)
5) Legislature should increase MSOC factors in the prototypical school funding formula ($1,082.76 per student; full implementation cost: $619.7 million if in 2011-12)
6) Legislature should monitor outcomes of the Beginning Educator Support Team program; if it proves effective, phase-in funding to cover all beginning teachers (full implementation cost: $31.8 million if in 2011-12)
7) Legislature should include a program of early learning for at-risk 3- and 4-year-olds as part of Basic Education, beginning in 2011, 3 year phase-in (full implementation cost: $54.4 million beyond current ECEAP if in 2011-12)
8) Legislature should continue incremental phase-in of full-day kindergarten, with completion in 2018 (full implementation cost: $181.5 million if in 2011-12)
9) Legislature should prioritize class size reduction in primary grades by providing K-3 class size allocation of 15 students per teacher, phased in over 5 years beginning in 2011, starting with high-poverty schools (full implementation cost: $645.5 million if in 2011-12)
10) Legislature should increase funding allocations to support LAP and Transitional Bilingual Instruction Program in 2011 (full implementation cost $256.1 million for LAP and $75.4 million for TBIP if in 2011-12)
11) QEC workplan for 2010 should focus on increased instruction hours, CORE 24, increased allocations for critical support staff, research-based professional development and possible innovations to support student/school health, with recommendations to the 2011 Legislature for a phase-in schedule
>>Sen. McAuliffe expressed concern for putting certain formulas in statute since the Compensation Work Group won’t have made its recommendations yet, and we won’t know how much educator compensation will be.
>>Sen. Zarelli would like to see the QEC recommend a system of professional development and support to the Legislature, rather than pieces, to weigh whether certain programs work well together, or not. He would also like to know the capacity of districts to handle smaller class sizes; facilities will need to be considered.
>>Dr. Hyde spoke to the cost savings of quality early learning programs, citing work from five years ago that found Bremerton saved $3,000 per child per year (reduced special education and remediation rates).
>>Others brought up data systems and accountability, as well as the intent for the funding formula to eventually be an allocation model. Sen. McAuliffe played Debbie Downer and reminded everyone of the $2.6 billion deficit that has to be dealt with 2010.
>>Rep. Sullivan pushed back on the comments calling for delay, saying the line is already forming for proposals for when the economy recovers, and given the Constitution, the QEC needs to put forward a strong proposal so the Legislature makes sure to move education to the front of the line.
>>Supt. Dorn posited that many districts that can’t pass levies aren’t able to provide what we would consider Basic Education, and the state needs to step up and meet its obligation. Going forward, members need to put forward proposals, and the QEC should consider adopting 2018 values so they know what they are working toward.
>>Ms. Ryan thought the QEC should go back through ESHB 2261 and sync up some of the dates, most likely moving up the work of certain groups. Ms. Ryan also reiterated her sense of urgency.
>>Rep. Dammeier said he sees ESHB 2261 as the vision and the proposal from Reps. Priest and Sullivan as the foundation, and he likes a lot of what is in their proposal.<<
3:40pm-4:15pm
Public Comment
Lucinda Young, WEA - also support WASA’s Anatomy of Change proposal; concerns over Master Certification work of PESB; early learning continuum extends to grade 3; would like to see 2018 values; fund transportation and MSOCs; support teacher mentoring
Pat Montgomery, Auburn parent volunteer -structure implementation of ESHB 2261 so that when funding becomes available, we fund the underfunded first
Doug Nelson, Public School Employees -be bold; support adoption of 2018 goal values; increase support staff allocations
Neil Sullivan, representing himself (works in Spokane Public Schools, on Funding Formula Technical Working Group) - levies are now used to fund Basic Education and that’s not how it is supposed to be, per the state Constitution
Kim Howard, Washington State PTA - supports adoption of 2018 goal values; transparency and ease of understanding are important; support moving work group timelines forward
George Scarola, League of Education Voters - QEC is on the right track, has simplified how to get started and made it easy to understand; QEC/OSPI needs more staff support; tying teacher mentoring to extended provisional contract is good way to support beginning teachers; implement early learning, all-day kindergarten and K-3 class size enhancement synchronously; beef up CORE 24 recommendations; adopt 2018 goal values
Adjourned until tomorrow…
Continue Reading
Technology Alliance: Stick with math & science requirements
Posted on 29. Nov, 2009 by Jen.
(This is a guest blog post by Susannah Malarkey, executive director of Technology Alliance, a statewide, not-for-profit organization of leaders from Washington’s diverse technology and related businesses and research institutions.)
If “innovation is in our nature,” then sticking with the math and science graduation requirements should be the natural decision for state policy leaders to make.
On behalf of the Technology Alliance, I feel compelled to add my voice to the growing chorus of indignation at Superintendent of Public Instruction Randy Dorn’s proposal to delay math and science graduation requirements. Washington’s innovation community is deeply concerned that this proposal signals a retreat from a commitment to ensure all students possess the foundational knowledge and skills they need to be successful in post-secondary education and 21st century careers.
Sticking to the task of preparing our students to be informed, engaged citizens and to compete for family-wage jobs is not only a matter of economic competitiveness; it is a matter of basic fairness. Our state has a diverse technology sector that creates high-wage, high-impact jobs. Unfortunately, we are not preparing the vast majority of Washington students to benefit directly from the opportunities our economy is creating.
We continually tout our highly-educated and innovative workforce (we rank 4th in the nation for intensity of scientists and engineers), but we ignore how we got there (we also rank 4th for net-migration of college degree-holders).
For years, we have made do with minimum high school graduation requirements that don’t align with the level of preparation students need to be successful in college-level work (around half of Washington graduates entering community colleges must take non-credit bearing coursework on content they should have learned in high school), or even be eligible to apply for admission to our public 4-year institutions.
And now, when we have an opportunity to make significant strides in bringing our education system into the 21st century through the basic education reform work currently underway and federal investments aimed at spurring innovation and accountability within our K-12 system, Washington’s education leader proposes yet another delay in math and science graduation requirements.
How can it be that one of the most innovative states in the nation is still having a debate over whether students should demonstrate proficiency in math and science before exiting high school?
As state education strategies go, it does not inspire confidence. Instead of repeated delays and watering down of expectations, we should be pursuing reforms that would help our students to meet those expectations:
- Implementation of CORE 24 to align minimum course-taking requirements with the expectations of college and the workplace;
- A concerted focus on improving teacher quality and our teacher evaluation system; and
- Data and accountability systems that will empower teachers, school leaders, parents and policymakers to take the steps necessary to ensure our K-12 system is serving the best interests of our students.
Our state leaders need to maintain their commitment to providing a meaningful high school diploma to all Washington students. Anything less is unfair to our kids and unsustainable for our state economy.
Susannah Malarkey is the executive director of Technology Alliance.
Continue Reading
Race to the Top: General Criteria
Posted on 25. Nov, 2009 by Heather.
The final Race to the Top (R2T) guidelines are out, and we all want to know what Washington’s chances are for scoring a piece of the pie. In a series of posts, you’ll find a detailed run through of the guidelines, as well as some analysis on where Washington stands (previous post on overall picture here, eligibility and requirements here, state success factors here, standards and assessments here, data systems here, teachers and principals here and turning around struggling schools). This post focuses on the last of six selection criteria: general stuff (not the most creative name).
General (55 points)
F1. Making education funding a priority (10 points)
Extent to which:
i) The percentage of total revenues available to the state that were used to support elementary, secondary and public higher education for FY 2009 was greater than or equal to the percentage of the total revenues available for FY 2008
ii) The state’s policies lead to equitable funding between high-need districts and other districts, and within districts between high-poverty schools and other schools
The percentage of total revenues for K-12 and higher education did increase in the 2009-11 biennial budget, as compared to the 2007-09 budget — an increase of one percentage point, largely due to shrinking revenues. Because Washington budgets bienniums rather than individual years, it makes more sense to compare the biennial budgets. Comparisons between FY 2009 and 2008 can be extrapolated from comparisons of the biennial budgets.
| 2007-09 | 2009-11 | |||
| Amount | Percent | Amount | Percent | |
| Total State | $32,597,107 | $31,388,596 | ||
| K-12 | $13,297,765 | 40.8% | $13,311,962 | 42.4% |
| Higher Ed | $3,581,124 | 11.0% | $3,262,624 | 10.4% |
| K-12 + Higher Ed | $16,878,889 | 51.8% | $16,574,586 | 52.8% |
| Note: Dollar amounts in thousands | ||||
Generally speaking, Washington’s funding model is fairly equitable between districts. Those districts with higher percentages of low-income and ELL students typically receive more funding. Because budgeting is done by districts, it is hard to know about the funding equity between schools within districts. And this isn’t to say that every district receives the same amount of funding per student, but compared to other states, our distribution of funding is fairly equitable across districts.
F2. Ensuring successful conditions for high-performing charter schools and other innovative schools (40 points)
Extent to which:
i) The state has a charter school law that does not prohibit or effectively inhibit increasing the number of high-performing charter schools
ii) The state has laws, statutes, regulations or guidelines regarding how charter school authorizers approve, monitor, hold accountable, reauthorize and close charter schools
iii) The state’s charter schools receive equitable funding compared to traditional public schools, and a commensurate share of local, state and federal revenues
iv) The state provides charter schools with funding for facilities, assistance with facilities acquisition, access to public facilities, the ability to share in bonds and mill levies or other supports; and the extent to which the state does not impose any facility-related requirements on charter schools that are stricter than those applied to traditional public schools
v) The state state enables school districts to operate innovative, autonomous public schools other than charter schools
First thing’s first: Washington does not allow charter schools. The criteria for charters was more exhaustive than what is included above, but considering Washington’s lack of charters I saved my fingers some typing. Now, Washington does have what the U.S. Department of Education calls “innovative schools.” I don’t know all of them, so please forgive me if your local school isn’t included, but examples of such schools in Washington include: Delta High School (Tri-Cities), Aviation High School (Highline), Tacoma School of the Arts, The New School (Seattle) and TAF Academy (Federal Way). Washington will probably make the case that these schools fit this criteria of R2T.
F3. Demonstrating other significant reform conditions (5 points)
The extent to which the state has created, through law, regulation or policy, other conditions favorable to education reform or innovation that have increased students achievement or graduation rates, narrowed achievement gaps or resulted in other important outcomes
Well, if a state earns points anywhere else in the R2T application, it seems the state deserves to earn the 5 points here. My guess is these last 5 points may serve more as tie-breaker points than anything else.
Continue Reading
Race to the Top: Turning Around the Lowest-Achieving Schools
Posted on 25. Nov, 2009 by Heather.
The final Race to the Top (R2T) guidelines are out, and we all want to know what Washington’s chances are for scoring a piece of the pie. In a series of posts, you’ll find a detailed run through of the guidelines, as well as some analysis on where Washington stands (previous post on overall picture here, eligibility and requirements here, state success factors here, standards and assessments here, data systems here and teachers and principals here). This post focuses on the fifth of six selection criteria: turning around struggling schools.
Turning Around the Lowest-Achieving Schools (50 points)
E1. Intervening in the lowest-achieving schools and districts (10 points)
The extent to which the state has legal, statutory or regulatory authority to intervene directly in the state’s persistently lowest-achieving schools and districts that are in improvement or corrective action status.
Washington does not have intervention authority. Current law will need to me changed to grant the state this authority.
E2. Turning around the lowest-achieving schools (40 points)
Extent to which the state has a high-quality plan and ambitious yet achievable annual targets to:
i) Identify the persistently lowest-achieving schools and, at its discretion, any non-Title I eligible secondary schools that would be considered persistently lowest-achieving schools if they were eligible to receive Title I funds (5 points)
ii) Support its districts in turning around these schools by implementing one of four school intervention models: turnaround, restart, school closure or transformation (35 points)
Like the other 49 states, Washington complies with the accountability system established by No Child Left Behind. NCLB places schools and districts that fail to make “adequate yearly progress” in categories based on the number of years AYP has not been made. This is the main system the state uses to identify struggling schools. However, as many have pointed out, AYP doesn’t really give any insight into which schools could be considered persistently low-achieving. This is a large part of the reason behind the State Board of Education’s work on creating a more exhaustive accountability system. The SBE’s proposed accountability system would incorporate federal accountability models and offer more depth in certain areas. If Washington wants to be competitive in this area, the state should adopt the SBE’s proposal.
One more to go: general criteria.
Continue Reading
Race to the Top: Great Teachers & Leaders
Posted on 25. Nov, 2009 by Heather.
The final Race to the Top (R2T) guidelines are out, and we all want to know what Washington’s chances are for scoring a piece of the pie. In a series of posts, you’ll find a detailed run through of the guidelines, as well as some analysis on where Washington stands (previous post on overall picture here, eligibility and requirements here, state success factors here, standards and assessments here, and data systems here). This post focuses on the fourth of six selection criteria: teachers and administrators.
Great Teachers and Leaders (138 points)
D1. Providing high-quality pathways for aspiring teachers and principals (21 points)
i) Legal, statutory or regulatory provisions allowing alternative routes to certification for teachers and principals, including providers other than institutions of higher education
ii) Alternative routes to certification that are in use
iii) Process for monitoring, evaluating and identifying areas of teacher and principal shortage and preparing teachers and principals to fill these shortage areas
Washington has some work to do in this area. While we do offer four alternate route pathways to teaching, there are no routes for principals. And all of our alternate route programs are offered by institutions of higher education or in partnership with them. There is some good news, our routes are currently in use and Washington does have a process of some sort to identify shortage areas. Unfortunately, the number of teachers who enter the profession through alternate routes is low (less than 100 per year). To be competitive in this area, Washington would need to have a plan to open up alternate pathways to prospective principals, allow providers other than colleges/universities to offer programs, enable programs and candidates to have more flexibility and increase the number of candidates completing alternate route programs.
D2. Improving teacher and principal effectiveness based on performance (58 points)
Extent to which the state, in collaboration with participating school districts, has a high-quality plan and ambitious yet achievable annual targets to ensure local districts:
i) Establish clear approaches to measuring student growth and measure it for each individual student (5 points)
ii) Design and implement rigorous, transparent and fair evaluation systems for teachers and principals that differentiate effectiveness using multiple rating categories, take student growth into account and are designed and developed with teachers and principals (15 points)
iii) Conduct annual evaluations of teachers and principals with data on student growth for their students, classes and schools (10 points)
iv) Use these evaluations, at a minimum, to inform decisions regarding: (28 points)
a) Developing teachers and principals (e.g. coaching, induction, professional development)
b) Compensating, promoting and retaining teachers and principals, including opportunities for highly effective teachers and principals to obtain additional compensation and responsibilities
c) Whether to grant tenure and/or full certification to teachers and principals using rigorous standards and streamlined, transparent and fair procedures
d) Removing ineffective tenured and nontenured teachers and principals after they have had ample opportunities to improve, and ensuring that such decisions are made using rigorous standards and streamlined, transparent and fair procedures
Current Washington law does require annual observations for teachers and administrators, but does not lay out a uniform rating system or explicitly require student data to be a part of the evaluation. Instead the law says that, for teachers, criteria will be developed in these categories:
- instructional skill;
- classroom management;
- professional preparation and scholarship;
- effort toward improvement when needed;
- the handling of student discipline and attendant problems; and
- interest in teaching pupils and knowledge of subject matter.
There are districts in Washington that use multiple rating categories for their evaluations, and include student data in the evaluation process. All evaluation systems used by districts should be transparent and designed with teachers/principals as they are bargained and included in the union contract. Incorporating student growth data would be hard for many districts as there is no uniform, statewide mechanism to do this — the WASL is not a growth assessment. Some districts do use diagnostic and/or interim assessments that can provide student growth data.
Current law also does allow for the use of evaluations in determining whether or not to renew an employee’s contract. However language around other functions outlined in (D)(2)(iv) of R2T guidelines are less clear and vary between districts. Most districts probably use evaluations to help teachers and principals develop professionally one way or another. But not all districts are able to offer induction, mentoring and/or coaching programs. The Beginning Educator Support Team grant program started this fall in 10 or so districts, as pilot induction programs for beginning teachers. If these programs are found to be effective, it would be worth it for the state to expand access to all new teachers in all districts. Washington will probably try to make the case in its application that highly effective teachers do receive additional compensation, holding up bonuses to National Board certified teachers. Certainly this is one example of rewarding effective teachers, but it may not be uniform enough for the U.S. Department of Education — not all highly effective teachers are National Board certified.
D3. Ensuring equitable distribution of effective teachers and principals (25 points)
Extent to which the state, in collaboration with participating school districts, has a high-quality plan and ambitious yet achievable annual targets to:
i) Ensure the equitable distribution of teachers and principals by developing a plan, informed by reviews of prior action and data, to ensure that students in high-poverty and/or high-minority schools have equitable access to highly effective teachers and principals and are not served by ineffective teachers and principals at higher rates than other students
ii) Increase the number and percentage of effective teachers teaching hard-to-staff subjects and specialty areas
Washington has no current mechanism to meet this sub-criterion. This will need to be developed as part of the state’s agreement/plan with participating local school districts.
D4. Improving the effectiveness of teacher and principal preparation programs (14 points)
Extent to which the state has a high-quality plan and ambitious yet achievable annual targets to:
i) Link student achievement and student growth data to the students’ teachers and principals, link this information to the in-state preparation programs where those teachers and principals earned their credentials, and publicly report the data for each preparation program
ii) Expand preparation and credentialing options and programs that are successful at producing effective teachers and principals
Washington intends for its data system to be able to produce this kind of linked information. Prior to the passage of ESHB 2261, the state had a plan to link student and educator data. ESHB 2261 explicitly calls out this intent, and requires teacher preparation programs to release information about the effectiveness of their graduates by July 2011.
D5. Providing effective support to teachers and principals (20 points)
Extent to which the state, in collaboration with participating school districts, has a high-quality plan for participating local districts to:
i) Provide effective, data-informed professional development, coaching, induction and common planning and collaboration time to teachers and principals
ii) Measure, evaluate and continuously improve the effectiveness of those supports in order to improve student achievement
Professional development and support varies by district. Washington will need to partner with districts that currently offer robust support programs for educators and/or are willing to adopt more robust programs.
Next up: turning around struggling schools.
Continue Reading
Race to the Top: Data Systems to Support Instruction
Posted on 24. Nov, 2009 by Heather.
The final Race to the Top (R2T) guidelines are out, and we all want to know what Washington’s chances are for scoring a piece of the pie. In a series of posts, you’ll find a detailed run through of the guidelines, as well as some analysis on where Washington stands (previous post on overall picture here, eligibility and requirements here, state success factors here, and standards and assessments here). This post focuses on the third of six selection criteria: data systems.
Data Systems to Support Instruction (47 points)
C1. Fully implementing a statewide longitudinal data system (24 points)
Perhaps this is overconfidence talking here, but Washington has made some pretty good progress on its statewide longitudinal data system, and will continue to move toward the type of system the U.S. Department of Education is looking for. The first thing in Washington’s favor is the four-year Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems Grant we were awarded in June 2009 by the Department of Education. When fully developed, the system will provide longitudinal assessments of student and teacher growth, useful data that aligns curriculum with desired student outcomes, and transparency of information with a demonstration of governmental accountability to students, parents, taxpayers, policymakers and other stakeholders. In short, Washington has already indicated its commitment to fully implementing a statewide longitudinal data system.
The second thing in our favor is the passage of ESHB 2261 in April 2009. ESHB 2261 supports the expansion of the state’s data system to be one that links student, educator, and financial information. Elements expected in the data system include linked student and educator data; common coding of courses and major areas of study; a common, standardized structure for reporting the costs of programs; separate accounting of state, federal, and local revenues and costs; information linking state funding formulas to school district budgeting and accounting; information that is centrally accessible and updated regularly; and a non-identifiable copy of data that is updated at least quarterly and made available to the public.
Finally, Washington put a law on the books in 2007 that calls for collection of P-20 data in Education Data Center housed in the Office of Financial Management.
Now, all Washington needs to do is follow through and actually implement all these things, which is no small task to be sure.
C2. Accessing and using state data (5 points)
As referenced above, Washington has put in statute the intent to make statewide data more accessible to everyone — educators, parents, researchers, policymakers, data nerds, etc., etc. We definitely have some work to do in this area, but efforts are already underway.
C3. Using data to improve instruction (18 points)
i) Increase the acquisition, adoption and use of local instructional improvement systems to help teachers, principals and administrators inform and improve their instructional practice, decision-making and overall effectiveness
ii) Support participating school districts in providing professional development to teachers, principals and administrators on how to use these systems
iii) Make data from instructional improvement systems, together with statewide longitudinal data system data, available and accessible to researchers
This is the data area where Washington as a state needs the most improvement. Yes, the state makes WASL data available to educators; however, that data is not always available in a timely or useful way. Teachers do not know if little Calvin struggled with numeracy, addition, fractions or all three when he earned a 2 on the math WASL. This sort of information would be helpful to educators and parents, especially before August and promotion decisions have been made. Diagnostic and interim assessments could be great tools for the state to make available to districts so teachers can better know where students start the year and how they are progressing. Washington could approach this multiple ways. There are a slew of off-the-shelf diagnostic and interim assessments. No, they don’t always line up directly to Washington standards, and they are often only available in reading and math, but they provide more insight into students’ basic skills than non-existent alternatives. Washington could also offer practice WASLs at the beginning and middle of the year, to be scored by teachers/building staff, which would give schools more opportunity to target those students who are struggling. And those are just two ideas, not mutually exclusive of one another, and certainly not exhaustive.
Next up: great teachers and leaders.
Continue Reading
Weekly roundup of education news from LEV
Posted on 24. Nov, 2009 by admin.
Education advocates and newspapers quickly weighed in on Superintendent Dorn’s proposal to delay math and science high school graduation requirements last week. LEV has begun to post in-depth analysis on the final Race to the Top guidelines on our blog. We’re also introducing a Question of the Week to encourage discussion on thought-provoking questions about education and public policy.
Question of the Week
In Portland Public Schools, budget cuts could hit home to students and parents. Up to five classroom days could be cut from the school calendar because of furlough days. Recent polling shows that 60 percent of Washington residents don’t believe our state is facing a budget crisis even though higher education and K-12 have been cut by 12 percent.
Should policymakers consider eliminating all-day kindergarten or cutting school days to help balance the budget?
Join the discussion with other parents, educators and advocates:
News from LEV
Superintendent Randy Dorn’s speech to the state school directors
TVW filmed Superintendent Dorn’s speech to the Washington State School Directors’ Association on delaying math and science graduation requirements.
Wrong move, wrong time
In case you missed it, here’s LEV’s reaction to Superintendent Dorn’s proposal to delay high school graduation requirements for math and science.
What’s at risk in the state budget?
Our friends at the Washington State Budget and Policy Center have put together this excellent narrated slide show about the very real impacts of the projected $2.7 billion state budget shortfall.
What are Washington’s chances of winning Race to the Top dollars?
LEV reviews the eligibility requirements for Race to the Top and how Washington stacks up.
Final Race to the Top guidelines released
Each Race to the Top application will be evaluated based on a 500-point scale. Here’s the breakdown for how points will be awarded.
News from the Media
Editorial: State schools chief Randy Dorn blinks on math and science requirements
The Seattle Times is concerned that Dorn’s proposal will harm low-income and minority students the most.
Editorial: Don’t delay reckoning on science, math norms
The Spokesman-Review believes students will rise to the challenge to meet math and science requirements similar to how they responded to reading and writing.
Continue Reading
Question of the Week
Posted on 24. Nov, 2009 by admin.
In Portland Public Schools, budget cuts could hit home to students and parents. Up to five classroom days could be cut from the school calendar because of furlough days. Recent polling shows that 60 percent of Washington residents don’t believe our state is facing a budget crisis even though higher education and K-12 have been cut by 12 percent.
Should policymakers consider eliminating all-day kindergarten or cutting school days to help balance the budget?
Leave a comment below to join the discussion with other parents, educators and advocates.
