Last update: June 26, 2016
Since the 192 pages of ESSA regulations were
posted recently for public comment, FairTest, AFT/NEA, and Diane Ravitch have
been pretending that the regulations do not uphold and, otherwise, overstep the
intent of the 1000+ page federal statute that comprises ESSA. No doubt
all these parties who are complicit in supporting this awful legislation would
like to pretend that the awful regulations somehow disguise the good intent of
ESSA. Nothing could be further from the
truth. The regulations are remarkably
consistent with what the ESSA demands.
FairTest is presently posting on numerous groups
to urge individuals and organizations to comment on the ESSA regulations. And if you don’t have time to read the regs,
just use their comments. Right?
Well, I took the time to read the Regulations
AND the ESSA, upon which the regs are based.
FairTest is simply trying to cover their ass for supporting ESSA’s
continued assault on public schools.
But, hey, what could they do? After all, the corporate Democrats knew what
kind of education policy they would support—the same one that Wall Street
supports and that the Republicans support.
FairTest’s analysis is all smoke and mirrors. See below FairTest recommendations in italics
with my responses following.
The
DoE must remove or thoroughly revise five draft regulations:
_DoE
draft regulation 200.15_ would require states to lower the ranking of any
school that does not test 95% of its students or to identify it as needing
“targeted support.” No such mandate exists in ESSA. This provision violates
statutory language that ESSA does not override “a State or local law regarding
the decision of a parent to not have the parent’s child participate in the
academic assessments.” This regulation appears designed primarily to undermine
resistance to the overuse and misuse of standardized exams.
The
federal requirement for 95 percent participation was clearly stated in ESSA
multiple times. Here is just one (p. 36):
‘‘(E)
ANNUAL MEASUREMENT OF ACHIEVEMENT .—(i)
Annually
measure the achievement of not less than 95
percent
of all students, and 95 percent of all students
in
each subgroup of students, who are enrolled in public
schools
on the assessments described under subsection
(b)(2)(v)(I).
Here is what the ESSA says with regard to opting out:
At the beginning of each school year, a local educational agency that receives funds under this part shall notify the parents of each student attending any school receiving funds under this part that the parents may request, and the local educational agency will provide the parents on request (and in a timely manner), information regarding any State or local educational agency policy regarding student participation in any assessments mandated by section 1111(b)(2) and by the State or local educational agency, which shall include a policy, procedure, or parental right to opt the child out of such assessment, where applicable (p. 56).
Notice that there is nothing here that "permits" states to do anything other than to report information to parents about existing state law or local policy, and there is nothing here that allows state law or local regulations to overule or take precedent over the federal law, ESSA.
NPE and FairTest are stuck with the policy they supported, which doubles down for another generation on the same loser policies that have decimated public education in the U. S. No amount of wheedling or pretending is going change that, and no amount of appealing is going to change the next Clinton's priorities if elected.
NPE and FairTest are stuck with the policy they supported, which doubles down for another generation on the same loser policies that have decimated public education in the U. S. No amount of wheedling or pretending is going change that, and no amount of appealing is going to change the next Clinton's priorities if elected.
When
ESSA became the law of the land, California and Utah were the only states with
opt-out provisions in state statutes.
_Recommendation:_
DoE should simply restate ESSA language allowing the right to opt out as well
as its requirements that states test 95% of students in identified grades and
factor low participation rates into their accountability systems.
Alternatively, DoE could write no regulation at all. In either case, states
should decide how to implement this provision.
ESSA
contains no such provision to opt out.
This is simply wishful thinking or a crass attempt to pretend that there
is an opt out provision in ESSA.
_DoE
draft regulation 200.18_ transforms ESSA’s requirement for “meaningful
differentiation” among schools into a mandate that states create “at least
three distinct levels of school performance” for each indicator. ESSA requires
states to identify their lowest performing five percent of schools as well as
those in which “subgroups” of students are doing particularly poorly. Neither
provision necessitates creation of three or more levels. This proposal serves
no educationally useful purpose. Several states have indicated they oppose this
provision because it obscures rather than enhances their ability to precisely
identify problems and misleads the public. This draft regulation would pressure
schools to focus on tests to avoid being placed in a lower level. Performance
levels are also another way to attack schools in which large numbers of parents
opt out, as discussed above.
This is incorrect, period. See pp. 22-23 of ESSA, which speaks clearly
on the necessity of three levels of achievement for standards:
(A) IN GENERAL.—Each State, in the plan it files
under
subsection (a), shall provide an assurance that the
State
has adopted challenging academic content standards
and
aligned
academic achievement standards (referred to in
this
Act as ‘challenging State academic standards’), which
achievement
standards shall include not less than 3 levels
of
achievement, that will be used by the State, its local
educational
agencies, and its schools to carry out this part.
A
State shall not be required to submit such challenging
State
academic standards to the Secretary.
_DoE
draft regulation 200.18_ also mandates that states combine multiple indicators
into a single “summative” score for each school. As Rep. John Kline, chair of
the House Education Committee, pointed out, ESSA includes no such requirement.
Summative scores are simplistically reductive and opaque. They encourage the
flawed school grading schemes promoted by diehard NCLB defenders.
_Recommendation:_
DoE should drop this draft regulation. It should allow states to decide how to
use their indicators to identify schools and whether to report a single score.
Even better, the DoE should encourage states to drop their use of levels.
John
Kline is misinformed or lying or engaged in political posturing, and so
FairTest. On pp. 25-26 of ESSA, we find
that states have two options: a single test or multiple assessments that result
in “a single summative score:”
ACADEMIC ASSESSMENTS.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Each State plan shall demonstrate
that the State educational agency, in consultation
with
local educational agencies, has implemented a set of
high quality
student academic assessments in mathematics,
reading or language arts, and science. The State
retains
the right to implement such assessments in any other
subject chosen by the State.
‘‘(B) REQUIREMENTS.—The assessments under
subparagraph
(A) shall—
.
. .
‘‘(viii)
at the State’s discretion—
‘‘(I)
be administered through a single
summative
assessment; or
‘‘(II)
be administered through multiple statewide
interim
assessments during the course of the
academic
year that result in a single summative
score
that provides valid, reliable, and transparent
information
on student achievement or growth;
_DoE
draft regulation 200.18_ further proposes that a state’s academic indicators
together carry “much greater” weight than its “school quality” (non-academic)
indicators. Members of Congress differ as to the intent of the relevant ESSA
passage. Some say it simply means more than 50%, while others claim it implies
much more than 50%. The phrase “much greater” is likely to push states to
minimize the weight of non-academic factors in order to win plan approval from
DOE, especially since the overall tone of the draft regulations emphasizes
testing.
_Recommendation:
_The regulations should state that the academic indicators must count for more
than 50% of the weighting in how a state identifies schools needing support.
No
comment.
_DoE
draft regulation 200.18_ also exceeds limits ESSA placed on DoE actions
regarding state accountability plans.
Too
vague for comment.
_DoE
draft regulation 200.19_ would require states to use 2016-17 data to select schools
for “support and improvement” in 2017-18. This leaves states barely a year for
implementation, too little time to overhaul accountability systems. It will
have the harmful consequence of encouraging states to keep using a narrow set
of test-based indicators and to select only one additional “non-academic”
indicator.
_Recommendation:_
The regulations should allow states to use 2017-18 data to identify schools for
2018-19. This change is entirely consistent with ESSA’s language.
On
the contrary, the language of ESSA is clear as to when the first bottom 5
percent list of “failing schools” has to be submitted in 2017-2018. From p. 36:
D)
IDENTIFICATION OF SCHOOLS .—Based on the
system
of meaningful differentiation described in subparagraph
(C),
establish a State-determined methodology to
identify—
‘‘(i)
beginning with school year 2017–2018, and
at
least once every three school years thereafter, one
statewide
category of schools for comprehensive support
and
improvement, as described in subsection
(d)(1),
which shall include—
‘‘(I)
not less than the lowest-performing 5 percent
of
all schools receiving funds under this part
in
the State;
‘‘(II)
all public high schools in the State failing
to
graduate one third or more of their students;
and
‘‘(III)
public schools in the State described
under
subsection (d)(3)(A)(i)(II); and
‘‘(ii)
at the discretion of the State,
additional statewide
categories
of schools.
Lastly,
we are concerned that an additional effect of these unwarranted regulations
will be to unhelpfully constrain states that choose to participate in ESSA’s
“innovative assessment” program.
ESSA
allows up to 7 states to develop these “innovative assessments.” FairTest would like to pretend that the Feds
meant to give states the opportunity to embrace authentic assessments such as
portfolios. Nothing could be further
from the truth. Written as it was by the
corporate foundations, ESSA wants any “innovative” assessments (and
instruction) to be computer-based and online.
From p. 84:
‘‘(a)
INNOVATIVE ASSESSMENT SYSTEM
DEFINED .—The term
‘innovative
assessment system’ means a system of assessments
that
may include—
‘‘(1)
competency-based assessments, instructionally
embedded
assessments, interim assessments, cumulative year-end
assessments,
or performance-based assessments that combine
into
an annual summative determination for a student,
which
may be administered through computer adaptive assessments;
and
‘‘(2)
assessments that validate when students are ready
to
demonstrate mastery or proficiency and allow for differentiated
student
support based on individual learning needs.
nice
ReplyDelete