Comments on: Federal dollars, struggling schools and Oakland Unified’s dilemma

By: J.R.

J.R. — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 08:11:27 +0000

Steven,
That was one of my points, California’s standards are among the most rigorous in the country, even though we have by far the most English language learners.We also have the highest percentage per capita of title 1 children. We have teachers and students that do very well all things considered.

By: Steven Weinberg

Steven Weinberg — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 03:03:50 +0000

It is interesting that with all the talk from Arne Duncan about rigorous standards, one of the two states selected for Race to the Top, Tennessee, has the easiest tests in the nation according to the a comparison of state and NAEP scores by the U.S. Dept. of Ed. For example, in 8th grade English the lowest NAEP proficient score is 281. Only one state, South Carolina, has a proficiency score equal to that. California is 6th highest, with 261. Delaware, the other RTTT state, is 34th with 240 (lower than the NAEP Basic score of 243), but Tennessee shows up in last place with a score of 211, 70 points below the NAEP proficient level and 50 points below California. In other words, a student that Tennessee considers Proficient might test 32 points below what the NAEP considers Basic. Tennessee does just as poorly in 4th grade English and in 4th and 8th grade math.
Some Race.
Some Top.

By: David B. Cohen

David B. Cohen — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 23:09:31 +0000

It’s ironic that the turnaround model can identify these four factors that contribute to school success, and yet the whole approach involves undermining schools that might be trying to do just that. When your whole measurement of a school is test scores, and you don’t provide the necessary support or stability for school’s to make real progress, then it is such an insult to punish them for their failures and then require their replacements to do the exact things you failed to help the prior staff to do.

By: Steven Weinberg

Steven Weinberg — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 22:39:55 +0000

Thank you Former Oakland Teacher and Katy for looking into the limits on the transformation model. And thank you Sharon for the book recommendation and the information on the NEAP results.

By: TheTruthHurts

TheTruthHurts — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 22:14:31 +0000

@Sharon, I agree in part. OUSD should use talent from within, but “proven” talent. I don’t care about experience or even smart. Who has been successful at the goal and can show others how to do it? Find those teachers, praise them, elevate them, showcase their work and hopefully it can be duplicated. There are great teachers out there who would love to have their successes duplicated.

By: Katy Murphy

Katy Murphy — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 20:19:16 +0000

I concur with Former Oakland Teacher. Here is the response I got from the California Department of Education to Steve Weinberg’s question about the transformation model — and to Cranky Teacher’s question about the fact that schools don’t really know how much money they stand to gain or lose by making these interventions:

The transformation model is limited only in the following way for districts that wish to apply for School Improvement Grant funding and are among the lowest 5 percent of persistently lowest-achieving schools. For those districts that have nine or more schools, no more than half may use the transformation model.

There are no formulas for how much an individual school might receive within the $50,000 to $2,000,000 range of funding. The amount will be determined by each application and board approval.

By: livegreen

livegreen — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 19:50:37 +0000

Because our teachers in our schools are doing so well as it is…

If they’re already in our schools, using their experience, yet they already have all the solutions, how come our schools have so many problems?

By: Cranky Teacher

Cranky Teacher — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:45:54 +0000

Sharon, as usual, you provide a lot of thoughtful links and analysis to this site. Thank you.

By: Former Oakland Teacher

Former Oakland Teacher — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:37:34 +0000

Steve,

If a district has nine or more Tier I and Tier II schools, it may implement the transformation model in no more than 50 percent of those schools. Since Oakland only has 5 schools, it has no such restrictions. This is addressed in Question H-21 of the federal guidance, http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/faq.html

By: Sharon Higgins

Sharon Higgins — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:35:49 +0000

And speaking of useless reform attempts, in the Education Week news for today: “NAEP Reading Results Deemed Disappointing” [NAEP is an expensive national test which is considered the Gold Standard for measuring student progress]. Here are two excerpts:

Reading scores stayed flat for 4th graders and rose only slightly for 8th graders on the most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress, results that some find disappointing after many years of intensive attention to improving the reading skills of American students.

and

“What NAEP shows us over almost two decades is that in reading there have been only slight gains and no sustained trend of improvement,” Steven Paine, West Virginia’s commissioner of education and a member of the National Assessment Governing Board, which sets policy for NAEP, said in a statement. He called the news “disappointing” given the “considerable amount of effort” devoted to improving reading.

——

I’d say, when looking at the budget, we should hack off any unproven, commercial, and usually quite expensive programs that make grandiose claims to provide the “fix.” This district has a lot of smart, experienced teachers and should develop ways to tap into their body of knowledge instead.