 |
 |
|
News Clips
– February 27 to STATE NATIONAL STATE Educational questions from the superintendent By Alan Leis,
Superintendent of The public debate
over issues related to the federal No Child Left Behind law
has recently been eclipsed by Gov. Blagojevich's call to restructure
the Illinois State Board of Education. As someone who is both
new to the superintendency and new to the state of Still, any newcomer
sees things in a different light. To that end, I have several
questions and observations about education in my new home state.
As always, my views in this column are my own; they may or may
not represent the views of the District 203 school board. Listening to
the public debate, I find myself wondering about the following: Whoever prevails,
how can the state education agency simultaneously save money
and improve service to our schools? No one loves a bureaucracy,
and the way the state education department is currently structured
is at best confusing. Still, it is probably no coincidence that
the level of service provided by state education personnel seemed
to decline as the work force in Is Do we have all
of our statewide educational priorities straight? One of my
biggest frustrations so far is the extent to which As a district
that was recently directed to get physicals for several 15-plus-year
instructional assistants (as a result of a state records review),
I wonder if getting those physicals at this point is as important
as more carefully screening new hires for out-of-state criminal
activity. And why do new
teacher or administrative hires in Illinois (such as myself)
have to pass multiple-choice tests in their work field, along
with reading, writing and math tests to stay employed, while
our high school students don't have to pass any such tests to
graduate? Why is there a massive state database into which reams
of individual professional development plans for teachers and
administrators have to be entered, but there is not yet any
state database of And then there
is that looming federal law, No Child Left Behind. While everyone
seems to acknowledge that the law has several problems that
need to be fixed, Officials find no easy remedies for 'No Child' ills By Susan Frick
Carlman, Sun Publications Staff Writer Officials based
in Biggert and
Department of Education official Ron Tomalis visited Although funding
from But they also
pointed out that paying for education is not "Education
is, and always should remain, a primary responsibility of the
state and local level," Biggert said. It's that balance
that currently is taking up the focus of regional officials.
An assortment of initiatives are addressing the reality that,
despite the legal requirement that the state fund at least 51
percent of the cost of public schooling, more than half of the
expense is borne by local property owners. In 2001-02, the state
footed just 32 percent of the bill, according to the Illinois
State Board of Education, while 7.3 percent of the revenue came
from the federal level. Despite its
small role in paying for education, the concept of the federal
government requiring students to meet uniform learning standards
is not new. Tomalis said the regulations reflected in the current
legislation originated during the Pushing performance As the earlier
mandate had done, No Child gave the states primary responsibility
for most implementation decisions. But it is more thorough,
and sets a 2014 deadline for all students to meet academic standards
if their schools are to continue receiving federal support. "One thing
that's different is performance. We must see improvement,"
Tomalis said. He also suggested
there is a philosophical shift in the present approach to improving
American education, evidenced in the names of the 1994 and 2002
federal acts. "Rhetoric
is very important. ...We've moved away from a focus on buildings
and institutions to a focus on children, which is where it should
be," Tomalis said. None of the
participants or other panelists disputed that claim, but numerous
administrators noted ways in which the No Child act has introduced
hurdles that they are finding virtually impossible to overcome.
Some also suggested that while the act has noble intentions
and has brought a new level of attention to the issue of accountability,
its mechanics and its emphasis on the testing instruments appear
misdirected. Some specifically
questioned the portion of the act that breaks students into
subgroups based on ethnicity, socioeconomic status, special
needs and other criteria. Joe Matula, superintendent in "It just
seems that the focus is all on the data, not on a plan to help
the kids," he said. Rich Duran,
superintendent of the Will County Regional Office of Education,
echoed the thought. While he commended the act's effect of compelling
schools to take a closer look at themselves — and to consider
variables such as high mobility — he charged that it places
undue importance on instruments to the exclusion of what's going
on in the classroom. "We keep
debating what percentage of kids must achieve, but we don't
talk about how," Duran said. Some of the
administrators also took the federal officials to task on the
portion of the act that governs the measure labeled Adequate
Yearly Progress. Panelist Phil Hansen, who was chief accountability
officer under Chicago schools chief Paul Vallas from 1995 to
2002 and now is consulting with the Illinois State Board of
Education, said setting a requirement that academic growth occur
at an annual rate of 7.5 percent was not realistic. "Children
are not widgets, so we can never assume that they will learn
in equal increments," Hansen said. Conclusions
also are difficult to draw on the basis of Adequate Yearly Progress
data, participants said. Hansen noted that three out of four
Several of those
at the meeting also said the consequences of the yearly progress
requirement seem punitive. When subgroups fall short of the
academic targets, the entire school can be tagged as failing
to meet the requirements — a phenomenon that is blamed for the
nearly 40 percent of The bottom line Gus Tomac, superintendent
of "The fact
remains the crisis is funding. ...That's just the bottom line,"
said Tomac, adding that his district's red ink is largely the
result of requirements that come from the federal level. "I
view No Child Left Behind as being one of those unfunded dictates." Tomalis countered
the assertion, reiterating that the federal government's monetary
function is to supplement other education funding sources. "What we
have funded is an accountability program that we believe will
lead to all children being proficient," he said. But others appeared
skeptical of that prospect as well. Mary Curley, superintendent
of Community Consolidated School District 181 in "I think
what you're hearing is that we support what you're doing ...
but we're truly struggling with the implementation," Curley
said. The outward
perception generated by the federal act is that "public
education is bad and we're going to fix it," she said,
noting that it addresses trouble spots encountered by small
groups of students, but overlooks the majority of areas in which
most districts are doing fine. "I think
it's a little myopic because we're really struggling, and I
would just like you to think about what you've heard here today,"
she said. Study
deals setback to governor's school plan Ray Long and
Molly Parker, SPRINGFIELD
-- A new report by the General Assembly's research arm concludes
the move by Gov. Rod Blagojevich to take over most functions
of the State Board of Education is inconsistent with the intent
of the framers of the 1970 Illinois Constitution. The report dealt
another political setback to Blagojevich only days before his
takeover proposal is to be brought for a hearing before the
full Senate on Wednesday as it meets in a rare committee of
the whole session. A recent Tribune poll also showed that Blagojevich,
who lashed out at the independent education board as a "Soviet-style
bureaucracy" in his State of the State address in January,
said he wanted to gut the agency and transfer its responsibilities
to a new Department of Education under his control. The new report,
written by the bipartisan Legislative Research Unit, concluded,
"It is safe to say that the proposal for a Department of
Education is inconsistent with the expressed intent of a majority
of the delegates" to the 1970 Constitutional Convention. Susan Lichtenstein,
Blagojevich's general counsel, maintained the governor's plan
is "constitutional, or he wouldn't have proposed it." The constitution
requires only that there be an elected or selected State Board
of Education and that the board appoint a chief state educational
officer, Lichtenstein said. "Everything
else that the board does is pursuant to statute--not the constitution,"
Lichtenstein said. The constitution gives the legislature permission
to decide what other duties the board should have, she said. Lichtenstein
said the governor's plan would preserve the board, but it "will
have a refined function" focused on making policy recommendations
and the studying of educational practices. State Sen. Miguel
del Valle (D-Chicago), who chairs the Senate Education Committee
and opposed Blagojevich's takeover, said the authors of the
constitution wanted a "Board of Education that would be
held accountable ... to both the General Assembly and the governor,
but that would be able to operate in an independent manner." Several former
delegates to the Constitutional Convention agreed that the governor's
takeover proposal would unravel their intent. "It probably
goes against the grain of the delegates who wrote it and voted
for it and ultimately the voters that ratified what they were
told was in the constitution," said Dawn Clark Netsch,
the former state comptroller, who was a convention delegate. Netsch said
she does not necessarily oppose the governor's plan but added
that "the constitution ought to be changed to reflect"
the new structure through an amendment brought before voters. Thomas Lyons,
a convention vice president and now chairman of the Cook County
Democratic Organization, said delegates established a quasi-independent
State Board of Education to insulate it from politics. If politics
and education were mingled too closely, Delegates established
the state board, which is appointed by the governor, to replace
what was then an elected state superintendent of public instruction,
whose office was long viewed as a patronage haven. "The intent
was to have a board that was ultimately responsible for the
oversight of all education in the state," Kamin said. "That
part of the executive power that had been vested in the superintendent
of public instruction would now be vested in the board and the
state's chief education officer." In general,
the history of Constitutional Convention debates on issues are
consulted "when there is something ambiguous in the language
you are trying to interpret," Lichtenstein said. "The
framers of the constitution could not have been clearer"
in the board section, she said. Del Valle said
he will ask Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan to render an opinion on
the constitutionality of the governor's proposal. "The governor
says he is not violating the state constitution," del Valle
said. "I say maybe he is technically correct, but what
this report says is his proposal clearly goes against the intent
of the framers of today's constitution." The legislative
report said convention delegates wanted the board and its superintendent
to set educational policy for local public schools, but that
expectation "would be frustrated by creating a Department
of Education with nearly all the substantive powers of the State
Board of Education." Delegates expected
the superintendent would have an "active leadership role
in local public education" even though his duties were
not defined in the constitution, the report said. The delegates
wanted the General Assembly to be able to control the policies
of the board "as it has done many times" by amending
state education laws, the report said. Michael Bakalis,
the last elected school superintendent who now chairs the governor's
Education Accountability Task Force, said he backed the 1970
convention's effort to establish the state board because he
believed it would "de-politicize education and it would
give education leadership." "That dream
was never fulfilled," Bakalis said. "That hope was
dashed. ... This is a new day. We need a new way." Gov’s
schools plan only adds up to good PR Gov. Rod Blagojevich
is either grossly irresponsible or remarkably clever when it
comes to education funding. It depends on whether you want a
governor to make tough choices or minimize his political exposure.
Blagojevich
proposed $400 million in new education spending for the fiscal
year beginning July 1. But the governor who wants to seize the
education bureaucracy from the State Board of Education didn’t
delineate how the money should be spent. Instead, he deferred
to the General Assembly to develop a plan. The appropriations
process ultimately involves the governor and the General Assembly,
so legislators would have their say in any case. But the budget
process in And while $400
million is a ton of money, it’s not enough to satisfy competing
education interests. It’s not even enough to cover the governor’s
wish list. The governor
wants the state to increase general state aid — money that flows
mostly to poor schools — to $5,665 per child. This requires
an increase of $250 per pupil during each of the four years
of Blagojevich’s term. Policy-makers
added $250 per pupil in the current fiscal year, raising the
foundation level to $4,810 per child. Increasing this aid another
$250 per pupil next fiscal year would cost about $400 million,
all the new money Blagojevich proposed. Then there are
so-called mandated categoricals, those state funds that reimburse
school districts for state-mandated services, such as special
education. Increasing reimbursement
to 100 percent would cost $128 million, according to House Democratic
analysts. The State Board of Education asked the state for $139
million more in the next fiscal year to fund these programs.
And there’s
early childhood education. The governor last year committed
to increase this spending $90 million over a three-year period.
The state managed $30 million more last spring. The next step
is another $30 million. There’s more.
The governor specifically proposed a host of new programs estimated
to cost $33.6 million: a book per month for each child in the
state from birth to age five ($9.6 million), more reading specialists
in schools ($15 million) and additional programs ($9 million).
That’s $591.6
million so far — $191.6 million more than the governor proposed
— and the education wish lists are not exhausted. “Obviously,
he’s not proposing enough money,” said Sen. Miguel del Valle,
D-Chicago, chairman of the Senate Education Committee. “By shifting
it over to us, we’re the ones who have to grapple with whether
we shortchange suburban school districts, hurt poorer school
districts or whether we don’t fund adequately or even fund his
initiatives for education reform.” By not committing
to specific programs, the governor released himself from liability
for whatever the Legislature can’t accomplish. If legislators
can’t reconcile competing education interests, the governor
can simply blame them for failing. On the other
hand, if they figure out how to make school districts from Blagojevich
knows exactly how to maximize favorable publicity for himself,
often at the expense of others. No
Child Left Behind impacts local schools Deb Fowlks Editor,
Just three days
after taking office in January 2001, George W. Bush announced
“No Child Left Behind” his framework for bipartisan education
reform. Bush described No Child Left Behind as “the cornerstone
of my Administration.” Less than a
year later passage of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB
Act) was secured. Under the NCLB
of 2001, states must improve the quality of their schools from
year to year. It is based on the goal that all children will
be proficient in reading and math by 2014. The percentage of
students proficient in reading and math must grow until the
schools reach 100 percent proficiency. In addition to meeting
the guidelines set forth by the federal government, schools
must also meet state standards as well. Superintendent
of Avon Schools, Alene Reuschel said NCLB is not entirely realistic,
“To say that every child in the Critics of the
law also argue that the way the federal grading system works
isn’t fair in some cases because it requires yearly progress
not just from a school, but from every subgroup of students,
including those with disabilities or ones who speak English
as a second language. Reuschel explained
NCLB takes high stakes testing to a new level, “Is there a place
for testing? Absolutely. Is there a place for standards? Absolutely,
absolutely. There should no longer be the big disparities as
there were maybe 50, 75 years ago between urban versus rural
schools. We’ve closed that gap. With media, technology, we’ve
closed that gap. But, it’s also fair to say that everybody deserves
a good, sound, basic education. But, what is that? Define that.
And, our state has.” According to
Legal Database.com, the No Child Left Behind Act has fallen
under much criticism since its passage, with particular focus
on inadequate funding. In 2002 through 2004, Congress authorized
between $26.4 billion and $32 billion to be spent on the No
Child Left Behind initiative. The president’s 2004 budge proposal
would underfund the act by $9 billion, leaving local communities
to make up the difference. Reuschel said,
“We’ve been underfunded for how long? I think the question is,
this is the age old dilemma. It’s all well and good to say....and
I’m not disputing that the intent or the spirit of the law is
necessarily bad. I think the methodology is flawed. And, I think
there’s a difference there. But, it’s no different than what
we have happening here in our own state. We have, for how long,
been underfunded? A classic example is transportation. We’re
supposed to get support for transportation. As of late we’ve
been getting 85 cents on the dollar. Now, wait a minute. It
says, we are supposed to be earmarked for certain funds at 100
percent, but we get 85 cents and we’re told we should be happy
because we’re getting 85 cents. Excuse me, we’re supposed to
get a dollar. What that forces us to do is take our local tax
money, that could be earmarked for a good program and we have
to take that 15 cents out of the dollar and pay to make those
bills up. So, then everybody gets hurt. When we think about
this unfunded mandate, I say, what did the federal government
do that they haven’t already seen in their counterparts, the
states. The question becomes, ‘Who has responsibility for education?’
And that’s a constitution issue that I’m not going to go into.”
Federal funding
aside, Black senators oppose gov's education plan Dave Mckinney,
Sun-Times The nine-member
Illinois Senate Black Caucus condemned the takeover attempt,
saying it fails to seek better ways to fund "We the
members of the Senate African-American caucus find it difficult,
if not impossible, to support any measure on education reform
that does not adequately address these critical concerns,"
a statement by the group said. "Until we first address
the issue of how we fund or rather do not fund our schools,
all other issues and conversations are superfluous and irrelevant." In January,
Blagojevich called the State Board of Education a "Soviet-style
bureaucracy" that wastes taxpayer dollars. In its place,
he called on lawmakers to allow him to create a new Department
of Education under his direct control. The governor
has said he won't entertain a major overhaul of the state's
school-funding system, heavily reliant on property taxes, until
lawmakers approve his takeover plan. The black caucus'
statement came on the eve of Mayor Daley's expected endorsement
of Blagojevich's plan and two days before the entire state Senate
meets to discuss the governor's proposal. "We're
wanting to give this governor suggestions on ways that could
better the education system and possibly not have to move so
drastically to create a department of education," said
Sen. Kimberly Lightford (D-Maywood), chairwoman of the Senate
caucus and a member of the Senate Education Committee. Bradley Tusk,
deputy governor under Blagojevich, reiterated voters will not
go for an income tax increase or other major revenue infusion
for schools without first knowing that the state's education
bureaucracy is credible and trustworthy. "The governor
has been very clear that if we don't show people there's more
accountability and money being spent more wisely, it'll be hard
to have a discussion about changing the funding formula,"
Tusk said. State tests to be moved up in 2005 Better analysis
of results sought Stephanie Banchero,
High school
juniors will take the state achievement exam nearly two months
earlier next year, a switch Illinois education officials say
is necessary to meet the demands of the No Child Left Behind
law. Illinois State
Board of Education officials said Monday that the private contractor
needs more time to score and analyze the exam if they are to
avoid last year's debacle of delayed test results and error-riddled
data. The results were so late that schools did not know they
had run afoul of federal guidelines until well into the school
year. "We want
schools to know where they stand before the start of the school
year," said board spokeswoman Karen Craven. "The only
way to do that is to give the test at an earlier date." But the decision
to rush the exam is not sitting well with some local educators,
who complain that an earlier test date will push down test scores
and seriously erode confidence in the state's already controversial
testing program. "We will
lose eight weeks of instruction time and that is no small matter,"
said Attila Weninger, director of curriculum for Lyons Township
High School District 204. "How can the state say this test
is based on 11 years of learning and then go and discount 20
percent of a school year? This will have a major negative effect
on test scores." Next year, 11th
graders will take the exam March 2-3. Elementary school students
will see their test date moved up by three weeks, to March 7. Craven said
pushing up the test dates would allow the state to get preliminary
results to districts by June 15 next year. Schools would then
have 45 days to make corrections. The state could have final
results to schools by mid-August, she said. But a group
of school officials in 30 districts in Cook, DuPage, Kane, In a letter
to state Supt. of Education Robert Schiller, the group said
analysis from one of their districts showed that ACT scores
rose dramatically after students were exposed to an additional
year of instruction. Based on that research, the group concluded
that moving the ACT back two months would result in a test score
decline of 0.4 to 0.5 points. "There's
clear evidence that giving the test earlier will harm our students,"
said Weninger. ACT officials
said there is no evidence to support such an assertion. "The test
is not so sensitive that it would pick up the difference of
an eight-week test date change," said Jon Erickson, ACT's
vice president of education services. "It's a long-range
test of skills, and eight weeks would probably not make any
difference in the results." Lynne Curry,
director of planning and performance for the state board, said
the agency consulted other researchers who agreed that a two-month
shift in testing dates would not affect test scores. Curry also
pointed out that the state pushed back the elementary test date
from February until April several years ago, with a negligible
change in test scores. "But the
superintendent has said that he is willing to consider a one-time
[statistical] adjustment if there is a dramatic decline in scores,"
Curry said. Under the law,
states must gather student achievement and test participation
rates by ethnic group, income level, special-education status
and English language proficiency. They also must collect data
on whether teachers are fully licensed, among other requirements.
The federal government uses the data to determine which schools
should be sanctioned, including which ones must allow students
to transfer out. Last year, David Griffith,
spokesman for the National Association of State Boards of Education,
said at least 10 states have moved up the testing dates. "States
have found themselves in a real balancing act, trying to get
test results back in time but still allowing schools as much
time as possible to prepare kids for the test," Griffith
said. "We are hearing a lot of grumbling because most states
set up their testing schedules long before No Child Left Behind,
and they based those schedules on when they thought kids would
be ready for the test." Blagojevich's education plan promising Stephanie Pace
The Illinois
Mathematics and 20 years ago.
We've done so through programs for IMSA students on campus and
through outreach programs that have benefited more than 40,000
other students and educators in schools throughout the state. Through the
years, in the face of enormous economic, technological and societal
change, it has become an ever more daunting challenge for all
communities and schools across our state to ensure the highest
standards of teaching and learning for every student. Because
of this, and as an institution dedicated to applying scientific
and business principles to education (questioning assumptions,
testing creative ideas for bottom-line impact, taking data-based
risks), we have paid close attention to Gov. Blagojevich's education
proposals. We are energized
by the governor's serious focus on and commitment to address
those educational challenges and needs so important to our state.
These include expanding reading instruction; increasing access
to high-quality programs and services for all students; adequately
and equitably funding our schools; and focusing the state's
resources on learning and on recruiting, preparing and retaining
a high-quality cadre of teachers. We also commend
the governor for his advancement of substantive strategies to
improve public education in Government agencies
that are responsive and supportive facilitators, problem solvers
and advocates raise a state and empower its people. We are excited
about a Department of Education designed to: Be a partner,
a facilitator, a creative problem solver, and an advocate, not
a gatekeeper and regulator; ensure resources are re-directed
to assist and support local efforts to improve student learning
while maintaining high levels of accountability; eliminate and
streamline unnecessary and burdensome processes and rules and
regulations that constrain and diminish professional judgment
and creativity; deliver greater quality and opportunity to the
"front lines of learning" - to students, teachers,
administrators, local boards of education, parents and communities;
and Capture efficiencies and increase productivity through sensible
restructuring and infrastructure consolidation and centralization. Such a department
would provide a structure and processes to advance the quality
and delivery of educational resources to all The governor
has created an Education Accountability Task Force on which
I am honored to serve. What is possible now? This must be the
question we commit ourselves to answering at this important
moment in our state's history. The proactive leadership and
direction the governor is providing and the results of thoughtful
stakeholder deliberations can have a long lasting and profound
impact on Stephanie Pace
Marshall, Ph.D. is the president of the Illinois Mathematics
and School spending disparity revealed But court ends
desegregation order Lori Olszewski
and Darnell Little, On the same
day a federal judge agreed to a two-year plan that could end
the Chicago Public Schools' 24-year-old desegregation agreement,
the school system released data showing it spends less money
on Latino students than on other groups. Predominantly
African-American elementary schools, for instance, spend 12
percent more per student than Latino ones, a difference that
is likely to add to complaints that Although per-pupil
spending cannot tell the whole story about a school's quality
of education, it is an important indicator. For example, the
spending for Latino students is lower because many attend overcrowded
schools. Crowding decreases per-pupil spending by spreading
overhead costs, such as principals, among more students. "One of
the biggest problems affecting Latino children is overcrowding,"
said Alonzo Rivas of the Mexican American Legal Defense and
Educational Fund. "This shows there are many remaining
issues of equity for these children." District officials
contend that spending is equitable "overall" and that
differences can be explained by factors such as school size. While the financial
data may fuel the public debate about equity, U.S. District
Court Judge Charles P. Kocoras' ruling on Monday indicates the
legal debate on desegregation is heading toward a close. Since 1980,
the district has been held to a voluntary, court-supervised
agreement to provide additional educational services for children
in racially isolated schools and to integrate to "the extent
practicable." Kocoras said
it could be argued that 24 years was more than enough time for
the school district to do what could be done to integrate its
schools. "Things
cannot go on forever. It is time for Big Brother to bow out,"
said Kocoras in remarks that he jokingly said he scratched out
on his kitchen table Sunday. A year ago Kocoras
had threatened to terminate the desegregation case even sooner
and questioned whether the integration plan was still relevant
in the face of the city's changed demographics. He said it would
be impossible to integrate the schools now that white students
make up less than 10 percent of the enrollment. School officials
argued they needed more time, and community groups, including
MALDEF, argued that As a result,
Kocoras agreed Monday to a school district plan that keeps things
basically the same until the end of the 2005-06 school year,
when the judge will consider whether the case should end. Meanwhile,
If Kocoras does
end the agreement, it could make it more difficult for Ruth Moscovitch,
general counsel for the Chicago Public Schools, said the magnet
admissions process would stay as it is until 2005-06 but she
could not say what would happen later. The school district
never admitted it segregated its students but entered into the
voluntary agreement in 1980 to avoid a lengthy legal battle
with the U.S. Justice Department. One of the most
visible results of the agreement is the magnet school system.
What little integration there is in the Chicago Public Schools
is concentrated in the magnets, where attendance is determined
by a lottery that calls for the student body to be 15 to 35
percent white. White students get a disproportionate share of
the highly sought-after magnet seats in order to meet those
goals, according to a Tribune analysis. Many parents
from low-income neighborhood schools believe the district spends
more money on the elite magnet schools and selective enrollment
schools, which screen students for academics. A consultant report
released in October raised similar questions. In an attempt
to head off such criticism and prepare for Monday's hearing,
school officials published the financial data on its Web site,
www.cps.k12.il.us. It had promised such data in the plan Kocoras
approved Monday. The spending
data allow the public to compare, for the first time, how much
each of the city's 600 schools spends per pupil. According to
the data, which the Tribune also analyzed, elementary schools
that are at least 70 percent African-American spend $5,556 per
student compared with $5,282 at white schools and $4,957 at
Hispanic schools. The trends are similar at the high school
level. Overall, average spending is $5,336 per pupil in the
elementaries and $6,980 per pupil in the high schools. The per-pupil
figures are based on instructional spending and do not include
construction and some other costs paid centrally, such as nurses,
janitors or food service workers. Despite the
differences, For example,
the elementary school with the highest per-pupil spending in
the city-- "This data
shows that discrepancies between racial groups are, for the
most part, minor," said Arne Duncan, chief executive officer
of the Chicago Public Schools, in a statement. The school district
also contends the data show it spends less per pupil at its
magnet and selective enrollment schools, as a group, than at
its neighborhood schools. A Tribune analysis,
however, found that different trends emerge when other comparisons
are made. For example, selective-enrollment elementaries such
as classical academies or gifted centers spend more per student
than the average elementary school. The spending
differences between individual schools can be major, even among
similar types of schools. For example, per-pupil spending at
the seven selective-enrollment high schools varies from a low
of $4,953 per student at Lane Tech, an integrated high school
on the North Side, to a high of $8,177 at King, a predominantly
black high school on the South Side. Lane is the city's largest
high school with 4,527 students, while King is in the bottom
third with 449 students. "This is
a big issue with parents," said Julie Woestehoff, director
of Parents United for Responsible Education. "It will certainly
add fuel to the fire." Some parents
were concerned that the data omits important information that
helps to evaluate a school. It shows Jones
College Prep spends $7,492 per pupil, the third highest among
the selective-enrollment high schools, after King and Walter
Payton. "But nothing
there shows that our students still don't have a gym on site,"
said Walter Paas, chairman of the Jones Local School Council.
So unless the weather is nice enough for students to go to a
park, physical education means reading health books in the classroom. School officials
said there will always be some spending differences among schools.
"Our goal is not to have a cookie-cutter approach at each
school," said Moscovitch. New
funding sought for schools Blagojevich
pushes for agency he can control By Mike Ramsey
and Adriana Colindres, Copley News Service, State Journal-Register His comments
in "Without
some of the things that we want, it will be very difficult for
us to support the governor's proposal," Sen. Rickey Hendon,
D-Chicago, said at a news conference. In "There
are several possibilities. But in my view, if you're going to
ask the taxpayers to be part of this discussion, first you've
got to show them that you're spending their money efficiently,"
Blagojevich said at an appearance with Chicago Mayor Richard
Daley, a fellow Democrat who endorsed his plan to create a Cabinet-level
Department of Education. Blagojevich
would not elaborate about the potential new funding sources. "We're
looking at a variety of different options, and it would be very
premature for me to throw that out there," he said. "When
you're in theoretical discussions about possible things ...
you look at those certain things that are interesting, certain
things that are a little bit controversial and all kinds of
things." Blagojevich
in January assailed the State Board of Education as a "Soviet-style
bureaucracy" that is inefficient and fails students. He
is scheduled to speak today to the Senate when it meets as a
committee-of-the-whole to consider his plan to replace the board,
which distributes school aid and monitors nearly 900 districts.
The constitutionally mandated agency would remain, downsized,
as a think tank. Daley generally
has been praised for improvements at "You know
the old saying, 'Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery,'"
Blagojevich said, referring to Daley. "If he can do it
in the city of Members of the
Senate Black Caucus say they're also disappointed Blagojevich
doesn't suggest a way to close the achievement gap between white
and black students. "If you
decide that you're going to take over the department but not
address these critical issues of funding, the academic gap and
all these other measures ... then are we really in a win-win
situation for education?" asked Sen. Kimberly Lightford,
D-Maywood, who chairs the caucus. Senate President
Emil Jones, D-Chicago, is a member of the caucus but was not
present at the Blagojevich's
proposed education budget for fiscal 2005, covering an annual
period beginning July 1, would increase school funding by $400
million. Gov
coyly hints at new source of school funds Fran Spielman,
Trying to turn
the tide in favor of his school takeover plan, Gov. Blagojevich
said Tuesday he's eyeing a "new funding source" that
would bolster state support for public schools and shift the
burden away from beleaguered property taxpayers. Blagojevich
refused to identify the revenue idea, except to say that the
discussion is "still in an incubator stage" and includes
"certain things that are interesting -- certain things
that are a little bit controversial." And he continued
to hold the carrot over the General Assembly. The governor said
once again he would not entertain a major overhaul of the state's
school funding until lawmakers approve his plan to take over
the State Board of Education. "If we're
going to have serious discussions about the inequities of the
funding formula, we have to have this kind of reform first because
the taxpayers have been burned way too many times in this state,"
Blagojevich said. In January,
Blagojevich used his annual State of the State address as a
forum to bash what he called the "Soviet-style bureaucracy"
of the state school board. In a move patterned
after Mayor Daley's 1995 takeover of the Chicago Public Schools,
he called on lawmakers to create a new Department of Education. On Tuesday,
Daley joined Blagojevich at Northside College Prep to shore
up support for the governor's plan on the eve of a pivotal hearing
by the entire Senate. "This is a bold move. ... I want
to compliment the governor," Daley said. The tease about
a new funding source for schools was an apparent attempt to
appease the Senate's black caucus. Earlier this week, the nine-member
bloc declared its opposition to the governor's plan on grounds
that it is "superfluous and irrelevant" until Blagojevich
finds a better way to fund The governor
has slammed the door on a tax swap -- higher income or sales
taxes in exchange for lower property taxes -- on the grounds
that it would violate his promise not to approve an across-the-board
tax increase. "There
are those who believe there's a way to incrementally increase
education funding. This is what we're doing [with a $400 million
increase in each of the last two years]. There's a third alternative.
There could be a new funding source." Daley
praises plan to replace education board Maura Kelly,
Associated Press, Daily Southtown Mayor Richard
Daley on Tuesday endorsed Gov. Rod Blagojevich's plan to overhaul
the state's education system, calling it a bold move that would
improve accountability. But black state
senators said the plan fails to address the most pressing needs
— raising test scores and increasing money for schools. Daley, appearing
at a "Some people
believe the current decentralized system keeps politics out
of education. In reality, it basically keeps accountability
out of education," Daley said. Daley gained
similar control over "He gave
the parents of Blagojevich
said he looked to Daley's takeover of the Daley replaced
the old city school board with a new board accountable to him,
and a new chief executive officer who answered to him and the
new board. Blagojevich has proposed dissolving the independent
State Board of Education, and what he calls its "old, Soviet-style
bureaucracy," and replacing it with a new Department of
Education under the governor's control. The Illinois
Senate Black Caucus says the governor's proposal falls short
and fails to find better ways to fund schools and increase test
scores for black and low-income students. "We don't
like what we see at this point," Sen. Donne Trotter (D-Chicago)
said Tuesday in Senate President
Emil Jones (D-Chicago) called a rare Committee of the Whole
meeting for Wednesday to give the entire Senate a chance to
discuss the governor's education proposal as a committee. Black
Caucus Chairwoman Kimberly Lightford, a Chicago Democrat, said
Jones, a caucus member, is aware of the caucus position but
did not specifically endorse it. Asked about
the caucus' opposition Tuesday, Blagojevich said: "We're
now beginning the legislative process. There will be all kinds
of discussion." "If they're
satisfied with the way things are ... then they ought to leave
the system the way it is," Blagojevich said. "But
if they share my concerns, if they're not satisfied as I'm not,
then I would urge them to take a look at what we're suggesting
and come on board." Lightford said
the governor's plan lacks specifics about taking on minority
and low-income students' lagging achievement test scores or
what many consider to be the unfairness the state school funding
system, which is heavily reliant on property taxes. But Blagojevich,
who said he would speak at Wednesday's committee meeting, contends
his idea is comprehensive and could save taxpayers $1 billion
to $1.4 billion that could be reinvested in education. He said the
system must be fixed before inequities in the school funding
formula can be addressed. Caucus members
on Tuesday questioned how committed Blagojevich is to taking
control of the educational system after the way he handled his
proposed funding increase in his budget proposal last month. The governor
said in his budget address that he has $396 million in new money
for schools, but he said he wanted lawmakers — whom he earlier
called "drunken sailors" in criticizing their spending
proclivity — to decide how to use the funds. "On one
hand, the governor has said, 'I want to take it under my leadership,'
but then, on the other hand, say, 'Let the legislators decide
how to do it,"' Lightford said. "Are you actually
taking control of education or, it's easier to have the drunken
sailors be the fall guy?" Governor's
education takeover gets key support, criticism, too Daley said that
establishing an independent state board of education may have
been intended to keep politics out of education, but it has
kept accountability out of education. Blagojevich
wants to dismantle the Illinois State Board of Education and
create an education department reporting to the governor. Supporters compared
the governor's plan to what happened in "He brought
in new resources, new people, new expertise, new accountability,
and new enthusiasm," Blagojevich said. "He gave the
parents of However, state
Sen. Kimberly Lightford, a Maywood Democrat and chairwoman of
the Senate's Black Caucus, said the city's schools have improved
at far too slow a pace. "It's very
slow. I just can't say that Her district
is 40 percent Lightford and
other minority lawmakers said the governor's plan fails to address
funding inadequacies and exactly how schools will improve if
he's in control. Unless such issues are addressed, they'll withhold
their support, she said. Education
reform divides senators Kurt Erickson.
As the Senate
prepares for a day-long hearing on the governor's plan, Republican
state Sen. Dan Rutherford of Chenoa said Tuesday he won't back
the proposal. In contrast,
state Sen. Bill Brady, R-Bloomington, spent part of Tuesday
meeting with Blagojevich to craft a strategy for today's rare
hearing. "I can't
see any reason why anyone wouldn't support this," said
Brady, who has stood with the Democratic governor in support
of his plan. Opponents argue
the plan doesn't fix the state's education-funding problems
and threatens local control of school districts, but supporters
say it will improve accountability. At The hearing
is only the fifth time since 1983 that the entire Senate has
convened as a committee. Blagojevich, state schools Superintendent
Robert Schiller and several school administrators are expected
to testify. The debate comes
as lawmakers and other top officials have begun taking sides
on the issue. On Tuesday,
the nine-member Illinois Senate Black Caucus announced it was
against the governor's proposal, saying it does little to fix
the way the state funds schools and doesn't address specific
ways to boost test scores. Chicago Mayor
Richard Daley, however, came out in support of Blagojevich's
plan, saying a similar takeover of Of particular
concern, "When you
see some of those things that I really cannot embrace, it scares
me what could possibly happen if he's in control," said
Rutherford, who earlier has supported similar efforts by past
Republican governors. Brady, meanwhile,
is among very few Republicans who are openly embracing Blagojevich's
plan. Although he would like to constitutionally abolish the
agency, he says Blagojevich's plan will accomplish similar goals
of increasing accountability. "The chief
elected officer of this state has the responsibility -- and
therefore should have the authority -- to manage the most important
issue, which is education," Brady said. Governor
defends his education plan About two dozen
testify at state Senate hearing Adriana Colindres,
State Capitol Bureau, State Journal-Register Appearing on
the Illinois Senate floor Wednesday, Gov. Rod Blagojevich defended
his proposal to gut the State Board of Education and replace
it with a new Department of Education under his control. The governor
first discussed the idea in January during his State of the
State address, when he described the agency as a "Soviet-style
bureaucracy." His proposal
received a mixed reception Wednesday from senators, with some
of them wondering whether the revamping would result in a better
education system. They peppered the Democratic governor with
questions for more than an hour. Blagojevich
led off a lineup of about two dozen people who testified at
a seven-hour hearing on Senate Bill 3000, the legislation that
would enact his educational restructuring plan. The hearing
was an unusual Senate "committee of the whole" meeting. To become law,
the bill will need to be passed by the House and Senate. It
has not yet come up for a vote. State School
Superintendent Robert Schiller spoke against the legislation,
calling it "neither good government nor good public policy." But Blagojevich
said it is needed because "we can do better." "Are you
satisfied with the state of education in "The state
is supposed to lead, provide guidance, establish rules and distribute
resources," he added. "And when the system is designed
in a way in which no one is accountable, no one's feet are held
to the fire, and no one is compelled to try new things, we're
not going to manage our schools as well as we could." Sen. Kimberly
Lightford, D-Maywood, asked Blagojevich what he proposes to
do to close the "achievement gap" of black students
performing worse than white students on achievement tests. "The way
to address this is to fundamentally reform the system,"
Blagojevich said. When Republican
Sen. Dan Cronin of He also invited
Cronin and others to share their ideas for shaping the new Department
of Education. Sen. Miguel
del Valle, a Chicago Democrat who chairs the Senate Education
Committee, said he has no doubts about Blagojevich's sincerity.
But he said he worries that a Department of Education under
the governor's control would be under political pressure to
"put the best possible face on the status of education
in the state of Schiller later
said he thought some of the governor's answers to senators'
questions were vague. "I do think
the senators were looking for specific answers, and those specific
answers weren't being given," he said. "He was just
spouting statistics with regard to reading scores and so forth
and not providing how, through Senate Bill 3000, that would
be changed or how school improvement would take place or how
you would close the achievement gap." Schiller and
some senators also raised questions about whether the Blagojevich
proposal is permissible under the state Constitution. "If it
is so critical to the governor that a change be made that the
State Board be abolished and education be directly under his
control without a board, then let's not do an end run around
the Constitution," Schiller said. Instead, he
said, But Blagojevich's
general counsel, Susan Lichtenstein, said his plan would meet
constitutional muster. Schiller also
said lawmakers should tackle other education-related issues,
such as funding, before dealing with the proposed restructuring. Some senators
suggested the governor and the existing State Board of Education
cooperate in trying to give kids a better education. Despite the
sparring that has occurred so far between the governor and the
State Board, Schiller said he thinks that can happen. "You always
work well together with people who have a common agenda, and
the common agenda is to serve children, serve the state and
to improve education," he said. Blagojevich
urges Senate to give him control of education system John O'Connor,
Associated Press Writer, SPRINGFIELD,
Ill. (AP) -- Testifying Wednesday before the state Senate, Gov.
Rod Blagojevich said his proposal to take control of the Illinois
education system is the only way to start making real improvements
for students. "Do we
do something to try to make our schools fundamentally better
or do we leave them the way they are?" the governor asked.
"That's the choice we all have to make." The Senate held
a rare meeting as a Committee of the Whole to review Blagojevich's
proposal to replace the semi-independent State Board of Education
with a new education agency under the governor's direct control. Skeptical senators
quizzed him on how the change would put more teachers into classrooms
or improve education in poor areas. "More accountability
will make it easier for us to direct those resources where they
should go," Blagojevich replied. The hearing
came a day after the nine-member Senate Black Caucus said it
would oppose the proposal unless Blagojevich addresses concerns
about putting more money into education and helping poor, minority
schools. "We don't
want a bureaucracy just to switch from one area to the other
without addressing the concerns that we have in educating children,"
said caucus Chairwoman Kimberly Lightford, a Chicago Democrat. But Blagojevich
also received a prominent endorsement for the idea Tuesday from
Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, who took control of the city's
schools in 1995 after winning state approval. Daley said a
cabinet-level Department of Education would make an elected
state leader answerable for student performance. Blagojevich
argues that he needs control of the education bureaucracy to
restore credibility and taxpayers' faith before they'll be willing
to listen to arguments for changing the school funding formula,
which relies heavily on local property taxes. The Senate Black
Caucus countered that funding and achievement gaps are too important
for lawmakers to wait until school management changes. Sen. Donne Trotter,
D-Chicago, said Blagojevich's proposed $396 million increase
for schools in next year's budget is not enough to help financially
and academically struggling schools. Blagojevich
contends his idea is comprehensive and could save taxpayers
$1 billion to $1.4 billion that could be reinvested in education. He said he looked
to Daley's takeover of the "He gave
the parents of Skeptical
Senate grills governor on school plan Some unleash
their frustrations By Ray Long
and Diane Rado, Tribune staff reporters. Tribune staff reporter
Molly Parker contributed to this report Blagojevich
defended himself in an extraordinary appearance before the full
Senate that provided lawmakers with a chance to unleash pent-up
frustrations with a governor who frequently derides them. Now,
however, he is asking them to trust him to oversee public schools
more effectively than the independent state Board of Education. Signaling widespread
skepticism about his school plan, both Republicans and Democrats
repeatedly demanded that Blagojevich explain how children would
actually be helped by his proposal to gut the board and cede
to him control of almost all its functions as well as a few
now run at the local level. "We don't
have substance," complained Sen. Dan Cronin (R-Elmhurst).
"All you're offering us is popular platitudes." At one point,
as Blagojevich agreed to stay longer than he had expected, he
exclaimed: "A lot of people want to get a piece of the
governor." He said later
he was joking. Even Senate
President Emil Jones (D-Chicago) questioned how Blagojevich
could guarantee the state's education apparatus would stay free
of political influence. "My concern
is the politicizing of educational funding and policy ... perhaps
not by your administration, but an administration that might
follow you that might put politics above the kids," Jones
told Blagojevich. Sen. Miguel
del Valle (D-Chicago), chairman of the Senate Education Committee,
said he worried a governor in charge of the state school bureaucracy
could manipulate test scores and financial data to "put
the best possible face on the status of education." Several lawmakers
contended the governor's plan ignores the critical problem of
funding inequities between wealthy and poor school districts. Last such session
was in '87 Blagojevich's
75-minute appearance before the Senate took on the aura of a
trial, with lawmakers repeatedly hammering at his intentions
and sincerity. The last time a governor appeared at a committee
hearing of the whole Senate was in 1987. During his State
of the State Address in January, Blagojevich proposed stripping
the nine-member board of most functions and turning them over
to a new Department of Education that would answer to him. In
addition, he sought to centralize under state control the purchasing
of supplies, school employee insurance and construction management,
powers now held by local districts. At that time,
the governor savaged the State Board of Education as a "Soviet-style
bureaucracy" accountable to no one and blamed it for problems
ranging from illiteracy to tainted school lunches. A recent Tribune/WGN-TV
poll found that Though he toned
down his rhetoric Wednesday, Blagojevich still asked lawmakers
to give him the power to fix an education system he said was
broken. "Ask yourself,"
Blagojevich said. "Do we do something to try to make our
schools fundamentally better? Or do we leave them the way they
are?" Testifying after
Blagojevich was state Schools Supt. Robert Schiller, who said
the changes the governor sought were so sweeping that they should
only be considered through a constitutional amendment considered
by voters. `Put it on the
ballot' "Put it
on the ballot in November 2004," Schiller said. "That
is the right way to do it--the honest way to do it." The most heated
exchange of the day came when lawmakers tried to get more detail
than Blagojevich was willing to give. In his State
of the State attack on the board, Blagojevich criticized the
agency for burying schools in 2,800 pages of regulations and
mandates. Referring to that, Cronin pressed Blagojevich to specify
which ones he would do away with. Blagojevich
said he would need more input from local school officials before
he could answer, Cronin shot back: "So you don't know which
mandates at this point in time? Is that a fair statement?" "No, I
wouldn't categorize it that way," the governor said. Sen. Kimberly
Lightford (D-Maywood), the chairman of the Senate's black caucus,
sought unsuccessfully to get the governor to explain how his
plan would address serious gaps in educational achievement between
white and minority students. Instead, the governor responded
by listing previously announced initiatives, such as giving
books to preschoolers and cutting administrative costs. Blagojevich
has sought to bolster his case by citing what he says is improvement
at the Chicago Public Schools since a 1995 school reform law
handed more control to Mayor Richard Daley. But lawmakers
questioned how well the reforms have worked because Blagojevich,
who voted as a legislator against the reform law he now praises,
conceded after the hearing he had made a mistake. "Had
I to do it over again, I would have clearly voted differently,"
he said. Senators
grill Blagojevich on education plans John O'Connor,
The Associated Press/Aurora Beacon News The first-term
Democrat argued that replacing the independent State Board of
Education with an agency under his control would restore credibility
and accountability to the system. "First
we have to get our house in order and make sure that the taxpayer
money that's being spent is spent where it belongs and that
we have a system where teachers can have more freedom to be
in the classroom to teach," Blagojevich said. He testified
for 75 minutes before a Senate Committee of the Whole, the first
such appearance by a governor since 1987 and only the fifth
such committee hearing in two decades. Senators from
both parties criticized the governor's plan as short on specifics,
harmful to local control of schools and contrary to the state
Constitution, which established an independent body to keep
politics out of education. "A Department
of Education that is under you is going to want to put the best
possible face on the status of education in the state of Illinois,"
Sen. Miguel del Valle, a Chicago Democrat and head of the Senate
Education Committee, told the governor. "There
will be political pressures to project the best light, and I
don't think that's in the best interest of the children of the
state of Blagojevich,
following two Republican governors who desired but failed to
reorganize school administration, pitched the idea in his He argues that
the state board is responsible for 2,800 pages of crushing administrative
rules that hinder learning. He also says taxpayers don't want
to take on the sticky issue of shifting school funding away
from property taxes because they don't trust the current state
system to spend their money responsibly. Blagojevich
earned praise for appearing at the hearing Wednesday.
Sen. Vince Demuzio, who is sponsoring legislation to
enact the governor's changes, said that worked to his advantage. "I see
some movement," said Demuzio, D-Carlinville. "The
governor got high marks from the members today for coming here
and testifying, taking his hits." Del Valle acknowledged
after the seven-hour hearing, which focused entirely on the
governor's education plan that some change in structure is inevitable,
but he said he hopes Blagojevich can work with legislators and
reach a compromise. While the governor
was testifying, lawmakers zeroed in with probing questions and
criticism that grew so one-sided the governor's supporters complained
it wasn't fair. It also revealed
the chasm between Blagojevich's office and the Senate that Blagojevich
must bridge to get the chamber's approval for his plan. When
minority Republicans complained that Blagojevich's staff hadn't
responded to questions about the plan, Blagojevich
couldn't specify which state regulations should be eliminated,
saying his department would work with schools, not strong-arm
them, on reducing red tape. Sen. Kimberly
Lightford, D-Maywood, said the governor's plan also says nothing
about funding inequities among Illinois' schools or how to close
learning gaps between whites and minorities, two issues the
Senate Black Caucus has called on the governor to address. Blagojevich
wasn't the only target Wednesday. The State Board
of Education, created by the 1970 Constitution, also came under
fire. Sen. Rickey Hendon, D-Chicago, suggested to
state schools Superintendent Robert Schiller that the board
had three decades to fix public education and had failed. Blagojevich
says his plan to take control of the education system would
not violate the state Constitution, which requires a State Board
of Education and a state superintendent — the state board and
superintendent would be kept on to study education, without
having any authority to take action. However, Malcolm
Kamin, who helped draft the Constitution's education article,
told the committee that delegates who wrote the document did
not intend for the governor to direct education policy. Blagojevich
defends education plan Matt Adrian,
Despite pleas
from lawmakers who wanted more details about the plan, Blagojevich
only repeated many of his earlier statements about the proposal. “If you believe
as I do that we can do better, that there is room for improvement,
that we need to do more than tinker at the edges, then I ask
you to join with us and support this change,” he said. He proposed
dissolving ISBE during his State of the State address earlier
this year, the governor tore into the agency calling it a ‘’Soviet-style
bureaucracy’’ that drowned educators in paperwork and regulations. The administration’s
reforms include creating a Department of education that would
be under the governor’s control. ISBE would still exist, but
it would be relegated to the role of policy think tank, Blagojevich
said. Many legislators
wanted more specifics on how these changes would be implemented
and if the reforms are really needed. “Everything
that we want done can be done with the state board we have now,”
said Sen. David Luechtefeld, R-Okawville. “I don’t see the necessity
for putting this under the governor. If we need to, we can do
it.” Sen. J. Bradley
Burzynski, R-Sycamore, said he was concerned that Blagojevich
had not consulted Senate Republicans about the new Department
of education although there are only 11 weeks remaining in the
session. Blagojevich
said Brenda Holmes, the administration’s education guru, is
meeting with individual legislators. Sen. Miguel
Del Valle, D-Chicago, who heads the Senate’s education Committee,
replied: “I don’t want you to feel bad, Sen. Burzynski. There
has been no communication with the chair of the Senate education
Committee either.” Sen. Dan Cronin,
R-Elmhurst, said Blagojevich has not provided any direction
to lawmakers, who will have to fashion the legislation making
the Department of education a reality. “‘We have to
deal with details and draft bills that have substance,” Cronin
said. “All you offer us is popular platitudes.” Cronin said
all legislators are left with is Blagojevich’s record which
includes voting against Chicago Public school reform — a proposal
that the governor now heralds — and voting against legislation
that allows school districts to opt out of burdensome mandates. Outside the
hearing room, Blagojevich admitted that stances he took on The Illinois
State Board of education was created during the 1970 Constitutional
Convention as an independent body.
However, the board still must get legislative approval
for its budget. State Superintendent
Robert Schiller said the proposal does not deal with the problems
facing schools, from funding to rehabilitating school buildings.
Instead, the policy strips constitutional powers from ISBE and
the superintendent, as well as giving the governor control over
the state teacher retirement fund, he said. “Where is the
sweeping change? It is not there,” he said. “Senate Bill 3000
is not good government or good policy.” He said the
board is willing to undertake many of the changes proposed by
the governor, such as removing archaic rules from the school
code. “We can do a
lot of the streamlining,” he said. “You need not change the
structure of the board to do that.” Building up
to Wednesday’s hearing, Blagojevich toured the state touting
his education proposal at local schools, even gaining support
from Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley. Critics of Blagojevich’s
plan say it dodges the issue of education’s dependence on property
taxes as the main source for local school funding. As a result,
school districts with a healthy property tax base can spend
more on education than areas with stagnating property values. Several blue-ribbon
education reform committees have suggested shifting the source
of school funding from property taxes to higher income taxes.
Blagojevich said the state cannot perform the swap until lawmakers
show they can spend the money responsibly. ‘’No matter
what else we do when it comes to education, unless we change
the system, unless we instill a culture of accountability, unless
we create a culture of innovation, the ongoing discussion on
how we funds schools will continue to ring hollow for the taxpayers,”
he said. The swap politically
would be unpalatable to the governor because he repeatedly has
promised to not raise the sales or income tax. Sara Hooker,
Daily Herald News With nearly
11 weeks remaining to act on the fate of the state board, the
Senate on Wednesday debated the governor's idea of creating
a Department of Education under his control. That plan would
move nearly all school policy decisions and a nearly $8 billion
budget away from the existing state education board. "Do we
do something to try to make our schools fundamentally better
or do we leave them the way they are?" Blagojevich said
in a rare appearance in the Senate chamber. "That's the
choice we all have to make." Blagojevich
maintains the move will increase accountability. But he did
not say how his idea will address lawmakers' concerns of student
achievement gaps in poorer schools and funding disparities between
rich and poor schools throughout the state. Lawmakers questioned
the governor for more than an hour regarding how his plan would
work. Some suburban
lawmakers were angered by the lack of detail. State Sen. Peter
Roskam, a Wheaton Republican, said switching from one bureaucracy
to another does nothing to improve education. "This government
by bumper-sticker phrases is getting tiresome. We hear about
these lofty ideas that sound wonderful. But when you ask for
details, all you get is silence or more platitudes," Roskam
said. State Superintendent
Robert Schiller said the switch the governor calls for won't
automatically increase accountability. He said state laws need
to be changed to do that. Schiller still contends the plan raises
constitutional concerns, but the Blagojevich administration
maintains there are no problems. The Illinois State Board of
Education was created by the 1970 state constitution. In making his
case for why the governor should control the state's schools,
Blagojevich has repeatedly pointed to the experience with However, state
Sen. Dan Cronin, an Elmhurst Republican, questioned why Blagojevich
voted against the Blagojevich
admitted his vote against the plan was a mistake. The Senate Black
Caucus also opposes the governor's plan, saying improvements
in But the governor
also had his supporters during the nearly seven hours of testimony.
Former state Superintendent Glenn "Max" McGee backed
the governor's plan, saying the state board needs to be cleaned
out. But he also said
the education department Blagojevich wants to create needs oversight
from lawmakers too. The
governor's current plan gives him unfettered ability to set
education policy with little to no outside input. McGee, now superintendent
in Governor makes
case for education changes Scott Miller,
The whole Senate
heard testimony from Gov. Rod Blagojevich, state school Superintendent
Robert Schiller and others arguing the pros and cons of transferring
the independent school board's powers to a state agency directly
under the governor's control. But many lawmakers
said they still want more information, particularly on regulations
and mandates the proposed agency would impose. "You come
to us today and ask us for our support, yet we don't have substance,"
said state Sen. Dan Cronin, R-Elmhurst. "But we as legislators,
we have to roll up our sleeves. We have to get our fingernails
dirty. We have to actually deal with details." Blagojevich
said he wanted legislators to provide those details based on
recommendations from local school administrators. "We want
to work with the local school districts," the governor
said. He said he wants to "streamline what they do and
give the teachers, principals and administrators room to run." The hearing
was called to discuss Blagojevich's plan to take control of
the state's education system, which he has likened to a "Soviet-style
bureaucracy." He says putting it under the governor's control
would bring more accountability. Schiller, however,
contends Blagojevich's plan is unconstitutional. "I just
cannot fathom how a legislator can consider a piece of legislation
that undermines the constitution, certain to be legally challenged
if enacted and which simply has no substance attached to it,"
Schiller said. State Sen. Bill
Brady, R-Bloomington, who is a co-sponsor of the governor's
plan, supports delaying legislative action on the proposal until
Blagojevich finishes meeting with local administrators and gives
lawmakers more details. Some opponents
said the governor is hypocritical, blaming the state board for
an excess of paperwork and mandates while he is proposing several
mandates himself. He has proposed giving free books to preschoolers
and requiring high school students to do community service. "These
aren't cooked up by the state Board of Education," said
state Sen. Dan Rutherford, R-Chenoa. "He hasn't said which
(mandates) he wants to get rid of, but he wants to add new ones. "It's kind
of hard for me to embrace a plan that creates new programs that
the state can't afford," Blagojevich
said, however, "I think we're doing a very good job in
tough times finding new money for education." The governor
has recommended $400 million in new school funding this year,
but has not detailed how that money will be distributed to the
state's 800-plus school districts. Some lawmakers
opposed to the governor's plan said the legislature's focus
should be on fixing inadequate school funding, not squabbling
over political control. "How do
we begin to address where some districts are receiving over
$18,000 per student, and some districts are only receiving a
little over $4,000?" asked state Sen. Kimberly Lightford,
D-Maywood. "I just did not clearly see, as I read over
your proposal, what you are proposing to do to close the gap." Accountability
must precede funding reform, Blagojevich said. "Recent
history in The legislation
is Senate Bill 3000. 100-plus
Jefferson Co. teachers ‘in limbo’ now have class Gregory R. Norfleet,
This “limbo”
refers to teachers who have graduated since 2000 under a new
state law that only issued them initial teaching certificates
rather than standard teaching certificates. Similar to getting
a permit before earning a driver’s license, the new law requires
those teachers to accumulate 60 “continuing professional development
units” over the next four years to earn their standard certificate. Half of those
CPDUs must take the form of so-called “X-strand” courses — courses
that make a teacher reflect on their own teaching practices. The problem
was that the new law did not also create any coursework specific
to getting X-strand CPDUs, and the few state universities which
had such classes are not in That being so,
the Hamilton-Jefferson Regional Office of Education this week
started offering two series of night classes to teachers throughout
the region. Regional Superintendent
Dr. P.E. Cross said one of the tricky parts about developing
the X-strand curriculum is finding the required nationally certified
teacher to teach it. There is only one in the two-county area:
Ann Garrett, chair of the Communication Arts Department at Garrett agreed
to take on the task, developing the curriculum herself. The
28 teachers enrolled in the Tuesday classes and the 15 in the
Thursday classes will have to cover the $60 cost themselves,
rather than their schools or the state. Without the
60 CPDUs, the teachers would be forced out of their jobs, said
Cross. “We thought
we were going to have to be forced to get emergency extensions,”
he said. Though most
of the 2000 graduates should get their 60 CPDU’s by the June
deadline, the ROE will have to file extensions for two or three
who could not take the class until fall, when it will be offered
again. “It puts a lot
of pressure on a beginning teacher,” said Cross. Garrett said
she knows of another nationally certified teacher in “I’ll be doing
it for them, too,” she said. The In Gov. Rod
Blagojevich’s State of the State address in February, he blamed
the Illinois State Board of Education for not setting up X-strand
courses earlier so 7,000 teachers statewide who graduated in
and after 2000 could keep their jobs. “And despite
a process that requires teachers to fill out nearly 100 forms,
the State Board has still failed to develop the programs that
beginning teachers need to receive their certification, leaving
7,000 hardworking teachers in bureaucratic limbo,” said the
governor. ISBE State Superintendent
Robert Schiller said the law did not direct the ISBE to create
the classes, but rather put the burden on the teachers to find
them. He notes that initial teaching certificates may be reinstated
for one year without penalty if they need more time. NATIONAL CDC says ads getting kids to play outside By Ira Dreyfuss,
Associated Press Writer, Its national
ad campaign, called VERB, encourages 9- to 13-year-olds to find
the action-word activities they like to do: skateboarding or
bike riding, for instance. The goal is to keep children from
picking up the dangerously slothful habits of their moms and
dads by steering them outside. The 9- and 10-year-olds
were active 4.3 times a week, according to the CDC's telephone
survey last year of 6,000 young people and parents. That's one
more time a week than the children had a year earlier, in 2002,
when the CDC took a baseline survey before launching the program. Pollsters asked
what these "tweens" had done in the past week that
was physically active. Playing video games didn't count, but
riding a bike did. The survey found
75 percent of tweens had heard of VERB, and the children who
knew more about the program were more active, said Janet Collins,
acting director of the CDC's Division of Adolescent and School
Health. Children most familiar with VERB were active 5.6 times
a week, she said. "I'm highly
encouraged, but we still have a way to go," Collins said. Between ages
9 and 13, the range in which the slide into inactivity begins,
team sports start to become more competitive, so less-gifted
children begin to be winnowed out. And after elementary school,
fewer children are required to have daily physical education
classes. To maintain
good health and reduce the chance of getting fat, the CDC recommends
children be moderately active for at least an hour a day. The survey did
not try to find out exactly how active the children were by
asking how much time they spent in their activities or assessing
how much energy they were using. Kids are not good judges of
that, Collins said, so their answers would not have been accurate. Because the
survey didn't ask, it can't tell if the kids played hard enough
to make them fitter or improve their health. But to a The CDC wants
young people to be at least moderately active for an hour a
day. But The ad campaign
did not seem to work for 11- to 13-year-olds, and they didn't
add to their play time. Collins said officials will have to
figure out what to do to change that. However, the
results for the younger tweens indicate the strategy of marketing
physical activity as a company markets products is working,
Collins said. "Our approach was to hire some of the best
kid marketers in the business and really draw on them for guidance,"
she said. "It's positioning physical activity as fun, cool
and social." By JAMES GLANZ,
New York Times, DARBY, Two hundred
people from Darby and surrounding There was nothing
particularly unusual about Mr. Brickley's message. For years,
opponents of evolutionary theory have been pressing their case,
with similar arguments, in statehouses and school systems around
the country. What was unusual was the response. Within days,
a group of parents, business people, teachers, students and
other residents mobilized to defend Refuting Mr.
Brickley's claims, Dr. Evans said, "took me one afternoon."
As soon as he had the information, it went to the rest of the
citizens' committee, and from there to the wider community. Partly because
of the contentious dynamics of an election year, partly because
of the coast-to-coast influence of the Discovery Institute,
local disputes on the teaching of evolution are simmering in
states from Some arise spontaneously,
in response to challenges like the one here. (The "We do
get a bit of a jump start, as you get more of these citizens'
groups building on previous experience," said Patricia
Princehouse, who teaches evolutionary biology at Case Western
Reserve University in Cleveland and who was a founder of the
group Ohio Citizens for Science. Some of the
groups take their leads from umbrella organizations like the
"The Dean
supporters are messianic in their zeal to change the world,"
she said. "We aren't. There's no salvation in evolution." Perhaps the
major reason for the outbreak of challenges to mainstream evolution
is the widespread influence and activism of the Discovery Institute,
said Paul R. Gross, an emeritus professor of life sciences at
the Among the institute's
signature claims is the theory of intelligent design: that certain
biochemical structures in cells are too complex to have been
a result of natural selection alone, and therefore must have
been designed by something or someone. Both sides agree
that there have been a remarkable number of challenges in recent
months to the way that evolution is taught in the schools. "We've
never seen this much activity at one time before," said
a Discovery spokesman, Rob Crowther, adding that much of the
activity had come about because many states were revising their
teaching standards. Dr. John West,
associate director of the institute's Center for Science and
Culture, said defenders of evolution want "to do anything
but actually talk about the science; that's their public relations
strategy." Whatever the
institute's precise role, the counterattack by the citizens
groups has been wide-ranging. In NEA
Seeks to Undo No Child Left Behind Fox News WASHINGTON —
The National Education Association (search), the largest teachers
union in the country, says that President Bush's vision for
educating American children could not be more out of focus. The NEA argues
that every aspect of the No Child Left Behind (search) law,
one of the biggest achievements in Bush's administration, almost
certainly will leave some behind. To prevent that, the NEA is
launching an aggressive lobbying effort to stop implementation
of the law, trying unsuccessfully so far to enlist states in
a lawsuit against the federal government. Supporters of
the law say the union opposes the measure because it sets up
new teacher qualifications as well as requires remedial work
for poorly performing students and an annual report card for
every public school in The NEA says
the goals are admirable, but the approach is too inflexible.
Pulling out
all the stops to get the law killed has angered Education Secretary
Rod Paige (search), who was forced to apologize Friday in a
Washington Post editorial for calling the NEA a terrorist group.
Paige wrote
that he wasn't referring to the vast majority of teachers, but
to union officials in Washington, whom he called obstructionist.
States
rebelling against new federal education rules Paul Foy, Associated
Press SALT LAKE CITY
- With Utah in the vanguard, about a dozen states are rebelling
against President Bush's centerpiece education law, the No Child
Left Behind Act, complaining it imposes costly new obligations
without providing the money to carry them out. The Republican-controlled
Utah House voted 64-8 last week not to comply with any provisions
for which the federal government has not supplied enough money.
The bill, which now goes to the Senate, represents the strongest
position yet taken by lawmakers around the country. Elsewhere, lawmakers
have passed or introduced legislation or nonbinding resolutions
challenging the 2002 law's tougher standards for student testing
and teacher credentials. Many legislators
are angry over what they see as a federal takeover of education
that leaves states to pay the bill. "We gradually
give up our state sovereignty when we accept our tax money back
into the state with strings attached to it," said Republican
state Rep. Margaret Dayton of Among other
things, the No Child Left Behind Act requires virtually all
students to test at their grade level for math and reading.
Schools that do not measure up for two years in a row have to
provide more tutoring or let students transfer to better schools. The law also
requires teachers to have a specialized training for every core
subject they cover. But some schools, such as those in rural
Opposition to
the No Child Left Behind Act has created some strange bedfellows,
uniting GOP conservatives who resent what they regard as federal
intrusion into a state area of responsibility; educators and
liberals who object to standardized tests and more stringent
teacher qualifications; and politicians from both parties who
resent unfunded mandates, or federal initiatives that are not
backed with enough money, in such areas as health care, welfare
and homeland security. The government
insists it is providing enough money to meet the requirements
of the law. But many states dispute that. William Mathis,
a local school superintendent and education finance professor
in Vermont, reviewed cost estimates drawn up by 18 states and
found that they need, on average, 28 percent more a year than
they are getting from the government to meet the law's requirements. Federal aid
to local school districts totals $32 billion a year, up from
$24 billion before No Child Left Behind was signed into law
in 2002. In David Shreve,
an education adviser to the National Conference of State Legislatures,
called the law an example of Congress passing a lofty piece
of legislation and leaving states and local educators with the
messy reality of trying to comply. "We can't
pass a law here and wave a magic wand and drop some fairy dust
and make it happen," Shreve said. Other states
protesting the law include: -Virginia, where
the GOP-controlled House of Delegates approved in a 98-1 vote
last month a resolution calling on Congress to exempt Virginia
without penalty from "the most sweeping intrusions into
state and local control of education in the history of the United
States." -Hawaii, where
lawmakers approved a resolution last year asking state education
administrators to consider giving up No Child Left Behind funding
until Congress provides more money. - New Hampshire,
where state officials are fighting the U.S. Education Department
over who pays for student testing after legislators reduced
state funding for testing to just $1. - - Vermont, which
passed a law last June prohibiting school districts from incurring
any costs under No Child Left Behind that are not paid for by
the federal government. So far, five At the 78-student
high school in Dongola, Ill., Superintendent William Mowser
said he will give up $16,000 in federal funds rather than grant
116 students' wish to attend a better school nine miles away
where they can learn Spanish and other specialties. That would
cost $230,000, he said. Federal officials
had put on a full-court press at the Utah Capitol, trying to
salvage support for the law, and warned the state it could lose
its annual federal education funding, or nearly $107 million. Ron Tomalis,
who oversees elementary and secondary education for the U.S.
Education Department, said the law provides enough money to
"The law
doesn't lack funding," agreed Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio,
chairman of the House Education & Workforce Committee. He
said the only thing lacking is will on the part of school districts.
Parents Urge
Senate Not to Vote on Special Education Law Parents and
education advocates across the Their worries
are deeply rooted in a history of many years of open discrimination
against students with disabilities. The U.S. House of Representatives
passed its draconian IDEA reauthorization bill (H.R. 1350) in
2003, even after every major parent and teacher group opposed
it. "H.R. 1350 literally turns the clock back 30 years,
to a time when children with disabilities were excluded from
our public schools and our public lives. This bill eliminates
critical provisions of the current law, provisions that enable
children with disabilities not only to enter our schoolhouse
doors, but also to actually stay in school. What's the point
of letting kids in, only to virtually guarantee that they'll
be thrown right back out again? Students will soon suffer these
consequences if the Senate passes its bill too," explains
Sandy Alperstein, a parent and attorney from According to
Tricia Luker, a parent and advocate for students with disabilities
in Many parents
are wondering why Congress is rewriting all of the IDEA legislation
when most of it is not required. As Debi Lewis, a West Virginia
parent and co-founder of an inclusion-oriented web site (www.psIDEA.org)
accurately points out, "There are two key points that parents
and advocates must remember and remind Congress at every opportunity.
The first is that the '97 amendments already entailed significant
compromise. The second is that Part B of the IDEA, where all
the damaging revisions lie, does not require reauthorization
at all. Congress needs to stop meddling with this finely tuned
section of IDEA and simply reauthorize those parts which require
it." Susan Ross,
a parent and activist for public education, agrees, "It
is clear that Congress just doesn't understand any of this at
all. They need to go back to the drawing board and do their
homework first. This IDEA reauthorization is rapidly destroying
the credibility of President Bush's entire education agenda,
not to mention the lifelong damage that both of these bills
stand to inflict on students." Parents have
every reason to be concerned. Decades of special education's
best practice procedures will soon be made unavailable to students
and teachers. "The Senate bill would eliminate some of
the basic protections for students, and change the required
individual education plans for each student by removing the
short term educational step-by-step goals that are so helpful
to both parents and teachers," according to Alperstein.
"Congress
says it's changing the law to reduce paperwork for teachers,
but teachers themselves say short term educational objectives
are critically important," says Bev Johns, chairperson
of the Illinois Special Education Coalition. "The U.S.
Department of Education in 2003 paid for the Study of Personnel
Needs in Special Education that surveyed special education teachers
all across the country. The SPeNSE Paperwork Substudy report
showed that short term student objectives are the 'most helpful
in educating their students' and the second most important part
of special education for teachers." Dave Wong, a
parent from What makes all
of this even more troubling for parents is that their due process
rights, the provisions that allow for parents to advocate and
hold schools accountable for promised actions, may be ripped
out from under them. "Both the House and Senate are looking
to dramatically tip the balance of power toward schools and
away from students and families. Parents thought that with the
No Child Left Behind Act they would be empowered to help hold
schools accountable. Looks like they meant it for some selected
kids, but not for the kids who may not be able to speak for
themselves and need parent advocacy the most," says Mike
Savory, an advocate and activist from Parents across
the nation feel so strongly about these issues that many have
joined forces in an effort to influence the upcoming elections.
Larry Greenstein is a founding member of the League of Special
Equation Voters of the United States, Inc. (www.SpEdVoters.org).
The league is planning March events in The U.S. Department
of Education web site (www.ed.gov/nolb) says that the No Child
Left Behind Act" gives parents and children a lifeline."
It also says that it "focuses on what works." However,
parents feel that none of this is true when it comes to students
with disabilities. They feel that their few viable lifelines
are being destroyed by Congress and that "what works"
for students with disabilities has never been a consideration
in the IDEA reauthorization process. "We hear
a lot of talk about aligning the IDEA with No Child Left Behind.
Could anything be more absurd? One law is all about individual
students, whereas the other is all about groups of students.
They're comparing apples to oranges," Lewis adds. "No
Child Left Behind is intended to improve educational outcomes.
I see absolutely nothing in either IDEA reauthorization bill
that can be reasonably expected to improve educational outcomes
for students with disabilities. Virtually every revision is
about administrative convenience, many to the detriment of the
students." State superintendents address flaws in NCLB By KRISTIN SMITH,
More than 100
superintendents from 14 counties across much of the state rallied
Monday at the The superintendents
also say they haven’t been given enough time or resources to
implement the new standards and are urging lawmakers to appropriate
more funding for federal educational programs, including NCLB.
"We recognize
the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 was motivated by a desire
to improve the education of children in our nation," states
the position paper, in part. "However, we deem it professional
malpractice not to point out these system flaws." The superintendents
have received full support from the Pennsylvania State Education
Association, an organization that represents 170,000 teachers,
school employees and health-care workers in the state. Those present
at Monday’s meeting, including seven superintendents from "It shouldn’t
be something that gets passed on to my taxpayers in Springfield.If
the federal government tells us to do something, they should
fully fund it," said Springfield superintendent, Dr. Joseph
O’Brien, who was one of the program’s presenters. The The district’s
456 special-education students represent more than 15 percent
of the total 3,366 students, a number O’Brien believes is comparable
throughout the county. One of the superintendents’
main concerns with NCLB is that it places too much emphasis
on standardized testing and discounts teaching methods individualized
to the student. "The requirement
that all (limited-English-proficient students) or all identified
special-education students be held to the same level of accountability
on standardized test performance as their English-speaking regular-education
student peers is simply unfair," said Dr. Michael J. Pladus,
superintendent of the School districts
that don’t meet the proficiency requirements set by NCLB are
subject to warnings and eventually students must be allowed
to transfer to another school or district if their original
school doesn’t meet the federal guidelines, a process those
at the meeting criticized as unfair, time-restrictive "punitive
damages" on schools. The issue was
raised last year when Chester Upland superintendent Dr. Dexter
L. Davis Sr. learned no school district in the county would
accept his district’s students who wanted to transfer from failing
schools. Every Chester Upland school had to offer students the
option to transfer because they fell short of proficiency standards
for two years. Under the NCLB
legislation, all students must perform at grade-level math and
reading by 2014. Monday’s meeting
and signing of the petition paper was more than just symbolic,
said Dr. Harry Jamison, executive director of the Delaware County
Intermediate Unit. "If you
don’t raise the issue, you’ll never be heard and certainly we’re
hopeful that we will be heard. And the fact that there were
some representatives in the audience showed the level of importance
of this issue and that’s encouraging," he said, referring
to representatives from local lawmakers, including U.S. Rep.
Curt Weldon, R-7, of Thornbury. While the educators
may have some valid points, the question of receiving additional
funds needs to be taken up at the state rather than the federal
level, said Weldon’s chief of staff, Mike Conallen, in a phone
interview Monday. "Their
concerns shouldn’t be addressed at Congress or the executive
branch, but in Conallen said
Promises to parents under education law AP, The No Child
Left Behind Act makes unprecedented promises to parents. Some
of those provisions affect all schools. The rest apply to the
93 percent of school districts and 50 percent of schools that
get Title I poverty aid. For all schools: --States must
publish report cards showing the math and English performance
of all students, breaking out results for all major racial and
ethnic groups, poor students, disabled students and limited-English
students. The report cards must include qualifications of teachers,
including a comparison of teachers in high-poverty and low-poverty
schools. --School districts
must notify parents if their child attends a "persistently
dangerous" school and give parents the choice to move their
child to a safer school in the district. --States must
report progress in ensuring that poor and minority students
are not disproportionately assigned to teachers who are inexperienced,
unqualified or out of field. --States must,
based on their tests, provide diagnostic reports for every student. --School districts
must notify parents at least annually about the timing of certain
activities and give parents a chance to opt their kids out.
Those activities include the collection of student information
to be used for many marketing purposes and any invasive physical
exam that is not considered an emergency or essential to protecting
public health. --School districts
must give any parent of a secondary school student the option
of requiring written consent before the student's information
is given to military recruiters. --States that
receive federal aid to help homeless children must seek to notify
parents or guardians of their rights. Those include the choice
of schools children are eligible to attend and a promise that
homeless children are not to be stigmatized by school personnel. Title I districts
must also: --Notify parents
of their right to transfer their child if the current school
has not made adequate yearly progress for two straight years.
Low-income parents must be offered tutoring for their child
if a school has not met progress goals for three years, and
districts must help parents get information about the qualifications
and services of tutors. --Inform parents
of children in Title I schools that they have the right to request
information about the qualifications of their children's teachers. --Give parents
of children with limited English skills a package of information
if Title I money is spent on programs for such students. That
includes details on how the child will be taught and how parents
can remove the child from the program and seek other options. Title I schools
must also: --Give parents
timely, clear notice if their child has been taught for at least
four straight weeks by a teacher who is not highly qualified. --Hold meetings
at convenient times for parents and give parents an explanation
of the school curriculum, the tests used and the achievement
levels students are expected to meet. Education law's
promises are enormous and elusive AP, Achievement
numbers by race, teacher qualifications, test explanations,
offers to transfer students from struggling or dangerous schools
-- the No Child Left Behind education law requires all of it
and more be provided to parents. In Carter's
case, she found that a high percentage of black students were
below grade level in reading and math. She is using the information
to rally black parents and lobby More personally,
she came to believe that her son was being held to lower standards
than other students because he has a medical condition that
affects his speech and hearing. She has demanded that those
expectations be raised. "We have
to know this law, we have to understand it, and we have to use
it," Carter said. "And then, collectively, we have
to go in and present the community's issues." No education
law has made more promises to parents. Its goal of getting all
students to grade level in reading and math is itself built
on this promise: Parents will get vast, timely, understandable
information about schools, and use it to make the best choices
for their kids. Yet as the second
full school year under the law winds down, many in education
say the parental provisions are potentially powerful, but too
enormous to deal with or too easy to sidestep while other aspects
of the law demand attention. As a result,
many parents who stand to gain do not know what they are missing.
Awareness campaigns "Unless
you really work in the field, you don't know how desperate parents
are," said Lisa Tait of Groups such
as Tait's are out to explain the law in churches, social service
centers and Boy Scout meetings. The National PTA, which fought
for the law's parental promises, is trying to inform constituents
about their rights. Many school districts are reaching out with
letters and advertisements, some geared for Spanish-speaking
adults. Federal officials
are campaigning, too. The Education
Department has given millions of dollars to promote school choices
to parents. With help from a private foundation, the department
created a Web site to make it easier for parents to get data
about their schools. The department plans to highlight school
districts that do a good job informing parents. "Our hope
is once districts see how this is done, they'll have a road
map to follow rather than give up and say, 'This is too complicated,
this is too burdensome to notify each and every parent,"'
said Nina Rees, the deputy undersecretary who oversees school
choice. Some observers
say the outreach efforts are scattershot at best. Frustrated parents "My impression
is not only are most communities doing a miserable job of giving
parents timely and clear information, but also that states are
doing next to nothing about monitoring it," said Chester
Finn Jr., president of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and
an assistant education secretary under President Reagan. "And
the feds are only monitoring it if and when somebody complains."
Maria Fenton
had reason to complain. The "I was
thoroughly frustrated with the process, frustrated with the
fact that I didn't know what to do, and feeling kind of humiliated
and embarrassed that I didn't know what to do," Fenton
said. "I take good care of my children, so I should know
how to navigate them through this mess. I couldn't." School officials
say they understand such concerns, but add they have valid ones
of their own. The law's parent provisions are complicated; some
affect all schools, some apply only in districts or schools
that get poverty aid. The task can
also be overwhelming and expensive. It can mean sending letters
home about unqualified teachers or reporting about bilingual
teaching methods or giving notice about invasive physical exams.
The law even says state tests should result in reports on the
individual academic needs of every student. When Bruce Hunter
of the American Association of School Administrators trained
superintendents about the parental notifications, his list took
up three full slides. "I could
just see their eyes glaze over," he said. "It was
too much." Enforcement
will improve as school districts learn the law, get better guidance
from School leaders
say the parental requirements of the law often fall behind other
priorities such as getting a highly qualified teacher in all
core classes or trying to figure out how a school can make enough
progress to avoid an unfavorable "needs improvement"
list. But Rees said
picking and choosing which provisions to follow is not a tactic
the department supports. "All of the pieces are important,"
she said, "and we're going to pay attention to all of them."
Schools, Facing Tight Budgets, Leave Gifted Programs
Behind By DIANA JEAN
SCHEMO, At school, Audrey
quickly grew bored as the teacher drilled letters and syllables
until her classmates caught on. She flourished, instead, in
a once-a-week class for gifted and talented children where she
could learn as fast as her nimble brain could take her. But in September,
Mountain Grove, a remote rural community in the Ozarks where
nearly three in four students live in poverty, eliminated all
of its programs for the district's 50 or so gifted children
like Audrey, who is 8 now. Struggling with shrinking revenues
and new federal mandates that focus on improving the test scores
of the lowest-achieving pupils, Mountain Grove and many other
school districts across the country have turned to cutting programs
for their most promising students. "Rural
districts like us, we've been literally bleeding to death,"
said Gary Tyrrell, assistant superintendent of the Under that kind
of a formula, programs for gifted and talented children have
become especially vulnerable. Unlike services
for disabled children, programs for gifted children have no
single federal agency to track them. A survey by the National
Association for Gifted Children found that 22 states did not
contribute toward the costs of programs for gifted children,
and five other states spent less than $250,000. Since that survey,
released in 2002, the outlook for programs for the gifted has
grown harsher. In The new federal
education law, known as No Child Left Behind, "has almost
taken gifted off the radar screen in terms of people being worried
about that group of learners," said Joyce L. Vantassel-Baska,
executive director of the Center for Gifted Education at the
"In a tight
budget environment," Ms. Vantassel-Baska said, "the
decisions made about what gets dropped or not funded tend to
disfavor the smaller programs." "There
are some mandates that you must do from the feds and the state,"
Mr. Tyrrell said, citing programs for disabled children as an
example. "Those will be the last to go." No Child Left
Behind is silent on the education of gifted children. Under
the law, schools must test students annually in reading and
math from third grade to eighth grade, and once in high school.
Schools receiving
federal antipoverty money must show that more students each
year are passing standardized tests or face expensive and progressively
more severe consequences. As long as students
pass the exams, the federal law offers no rewards for raising
the scores of high achievers, or punishment if their progress
lags. Federal
Law Is Questioned By Governors
Alan Richard
& Erik W. Robelen, Education Week Washington Many
of the nation's governors gathered here for their winter conference
called for changes to the No Child Left Behind Act or its regulations,
even as the Bush administration continued to defend its level
of cooperation with states under the law. Fifty state
and territorial governors attended the National Governors Association
conference, held Feb. 21-24. While the economy, homeland security,
and health care dominated much of the meeting, the governors
had plenty to say about the federal education law. The governors
met against a backdrop of rising discontent over the law among
state legislators of both parties, and complaints from top congressional
Democrats over how the administration is implementing it. The NGA will
shape its positions on the federal law based in part on discussions
from the conference. "We're going to have to be willing
to admit that there may be additional changes needed in the
future, and to this point, the [U.S. Education] Department has
been willing to make some of those changes," said Dane
Linn, the NGA's education director. "If we're not willing
to admit that more changes may be needed down the road, we run
the risk of not ensuring this legislation will meet its intended
goals." Some governors
had hoped to ask President Bush and Secretary of Education Rod
Paige directly for more flexibility under the No Child Left
Behind Act, and to discuss possible amendments to the law, during
a private meeting at the White House. Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano,
a Democrat, had even been tapped to raise the issue. They never got
that far. A highly publicized
comment made by Mr. Paige during the Feb. 23 meeting with the
governors, in which he called the National Education Association
a "terrorist organization," cut debate short. "Secretary
Paige talked about it, but the discussion suddenly ended after
he made his comment," said Gov. Bill Richardson of Mr. Paige later
apologized for the remark. ("Furor Lingers Over Paige's
Union Remark," this issue.) Aides said the
governors intended to raise concerns with the president and
Mr. Paige about Awaiting Consensus Idaho Gov. Dirk
Kempthorne, a Republican, defended the Bush administration's
handling of the law. "Are there details that need to be
worked out? Yes," he said. "Are we heading in the
right direction? Yes." Montana Gov.
Judy Martz, also a Republican, said her state's small schools
will struggle with the law's teacher-quality requirements. "I
don't think there's any consensus among the governors to support
an amendment" to the law, she added, however. "We
can't do an amendment until we know what we agree on." Gov. Mark Warner
of Virginia, a Democrat, said the law would fail if large numbers
of schools in his state and others did not meet federal standards
simply because some states require greater gains under the law
than others do. The federal
law allows states to follow their own standards in determining
whether schools are making "adequate yearly progress,"
the chief accountability measure under the law. But some federal
rules exceed what most states have required under their own
accountability systems. "In a sense,
it undermines the confidence people have in No Child Left Behind,
because the people know these schools are good schools,"
Gov. Warner said. Concerns on
Capitol Hill Governors weren't
the only ones in Congressional
Democrats who helped craft the No Child Left Behind law— a revised
version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, first
passed in 1965—met with Secretary Paige on Feb. 24 to voice
concerns about how the Bush administration has handled key implementation
issues. Sen. Edward
M. Kennedy of After the meeting
last week, Mr. Kennedy's spokesman, Jim Manley, said the senator
was still contemplating a corrective bill, but had not made
a final decision. Pressure appears
to be mounting from many quarters for easing some of the law's
demands. "I know
members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, are hearing
an uproar from educators and others when they go back home about
No Child Left Behind," said Joel Packer, who is coordinating
activities around the federal law for the NEA, which is seeking
changes in the legislation. State lawmakers
have expressed their concerns with the federal law in resolutions
or bills seeking relief from its mandates. In a letter
he gave to Democrats on the same day they met, Secretary Paige
defended the Department of Education's efforts to implement
the law, and described as "unfair" some of the assertions
made in the Democrats' letter. "In the
three years of this administration, the Department of Education
has transformed its relationship with both the states and local
school districts," he said. "The level of outreach
and cooperation extended to the states on a range of issues
has been unprecedented. And, unlike previous years, this administration
is actively enforcing the laws that have been passed by Congress
and signed by the president." Mr. Paige pointed
to recent policy changes the department has made to give states
more flexibility. Late last month, for example, the department
relaxed its policies on testing students with limited English
proficiency. ("Paige Softens Rules on English-Language
Learners," The secretary's
letter did not discuss many of the detailed concerns outlined
by Democrats. While some of those objections touch on issues
related to the law's accountability demands, the Democrats appeared
to stand by its core accountability requirements. Nonetheless,
Rep. George Miller of 'Common Sense' In an interview
during the governors' conference, meanwhile, former North Carolina
Gov. James B. Hunt Jr. said that momentum may be building for
changing the law. He was at the meeting to plug his governors'
leadership institute at the "Things
that aren't working, that don't make sense, are going to have
to change," said Mr. Hunt, an early champion of state accountability
systems, which helped lay the groundwork for the federal law.
"I think there's a lot of sentiment in that direction." Gov. Linda Lingle
of Gov. Gary Locke
of Washington, a Democrat, called the No Child Left Behind Act
a "very needed, well-intended law," but added that
he wants changes. "We need much more flexibility,"
he said, "and we need to fully fund it." "It is
so frightfully weak on resources," added Gov. Richardson
of Federal officials
countered last week that the Bush administration is providing
enough flexibility and funding for states to follow the law. Ron Tomalis,
a counselor to Secretary Paige, said many states have more flexibility
than they realize. "Sometimes when we sit down and show
the governors how much of the decisionmaking" lies with
them, he said, "it's more than a little bit of an eye-opener." "This president
has given more to K-12 public education in the last three years
than in the preceding eight years combined," he said. "It's
important that states ... look to see how it can and will complement
what they're doing." Federal
officials to ease limits on same-sex schools Ben Feller,
The Associated Press/Aurora Beacon News The Education
Department plans to change its enforcement of Title IX, the
landmark anti-discrimination law, to make it easier for districts
to create single-gender classes and schools. The move would
give local school leaders discretion to expand choices for parents,
whether that means a math class, a grade level or an entire
school designed for one gender. Critics say
there is no clear evidence and that single-gender learning doesn't
get students ready for an integrated world. Only about 91
of 91,000 public schools offer a form of same-sex education
now, including The Philadelphia High School for Girls, which
sends almost all of its graduates to college. "The environment
itself, I think it empowers girls," principal Geraldine
Myles said. "There is no ceiling to stop them from being
anything they want to be, in terms of gender. It just isn't
there, and, at their impressionable age, it probably makes a
difference." While opponents
predict the new federal plan will be a big blow to equal education
opportunity, department officials say there will be no easing
of protection against sexual discrimination. "We are
not advocating single-sex schools, and we are not advocating
single-sex classrooms," said Ken Marcus, who oversees civil
rights for the department. "We understand that coeducation
remains the norm in American public education and will continue
to be the norm. We are simply trying to ensure that educators
have flexibility to provide options." Since current
rules began in 1975, single-gender classes have been allowed
only in limited cases, such as gym classes involving contact
sports. The proposed regulations announced Wednesday would loosen
those restrictions considerably, allowing districts to create
single-gender classes to provide a "diversity" of
choices, or to meet the particular needs of students. Schools would
have to be "evenhanded," meaning they must treat boys
and girls equally in determining what courses to offer, and
single-gender enrollment must be voluntary. If a school
creates a single-gender class in a subject, it would not be
required to offer the other gender its own similar class, but
it would have to offer a coed version of it. The department's
plan also would make it easier to create entire single-gender
schools. Current rules
allow those schools, but only when a district creates a comparable
single-gender school for the other gender. That restriction
would disappear. Instead, districts would have the option of
demonstrating that their coed schools provide "substantially
equal" benefits to the excluded sex. Some call that
bad policy. "The notion
that you can have schools that are 'separate but less than equal'
is a new low in the understanding and protection of anti-discrimination
principles," said Jocelyn Samuels, vice president of education
and employment at the National Women's But school districts,
Marcus said, must truly show that excluded students get an education
that's substantially the same as those in same-sex classes. The department,
in responding to complaints or doing its own reviews, will consider
everything from textbooks to admissions criteria to ensure districts
don't play favorites with one gender. NBC 30 The resolution
passed asks Congress to grant waivers to states that have high
education standards and strong standardized test scores, and
give resources to schools with large numbers of low-performing
students. Lawmakers said
the act, which was designed to establish accountability for
poorly performing school districts, is unfair and is an unfunded
mandate designed to embarrass schools. The resolution
awaits action by the House.
Illinois State Board of Education |
