Poorest Schools Face Deepest Cuts from Sequestration

Without a last-minute deal by lawmakers  across-the-board reductions in funding to every federal agency -- known as sequestration --  will happen Friday. While public schools wouldn't see most of the cuts take effect until the new fiscal year on July 1, education officials at the local, state and federal levels are warning of dire consequences for programs and services that assist the most vulnerable students.

Talking with reporters last week, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan estimated that $725 million in Title I funds, earmarked for schools serving the largest populations of poor students,  is on the chopping block. Additionally, states could lose close to $600 million in special education funding. On Face the Nation over the weekend, Duncan said 40,000 teachers could lose their jobs. (The cuts would also be significant at the higher education level, with public colleges and universities losing money in a wide range of areas including financial aid and research.)

Some critics of the nation's public school system contend that there's plenty of money to meet students' needs, and that what's already allocated isn't spent wisely enough. The conservative nonprofit Heritage Foundation contends that sequestration won't hurt education, arguing that "Washington has not spent federal taxpayer money judiciously on education. Real education reform would save billions of dollars, while improving children’s educational opportunities by empowering states and parents." (Politico is also pushing back on whether the overall effect of sequestration would be as dire as the White House contends.)

But at the same time, there's also a case that can be made that the question of equity should be part of the debate over sequestration's potential impact. 

Nationally, federal dollars account for about 12 percent of a local school district's operation budget. Not surprisingly, that figure is higher in states like Alabama than it is in Connecticut. That means if sequestration happens, schools serving less affluent communities in states that are more reliant on federal dollars will be hit the hardest. If you take a look at a report from the American Association of School Administrators, it's clear the sting could be much more painful for Louisiana and Mississippi than it would be for New Jersey or Vermont. And in states like Mississippi and Idaho, more than half of the school districts get at least 20 percent of their budgets from the feds.

The administrators' association asked its members how many districts were planning ahead for the cuts -- just over half of them said they already had plans in place for the new fiscal year. Others said were waiting to see if a last-minute deal would be brokered. Eventually, it would be up to individual states to figure out how they might make up for those missing dollars: Some might opt to cut staff, while others could increase class sizes. But with personnel costs accounting for the vast majority of a district's budget (from about 65 percent to over 92 percent, depending on the school and how those costs are categorized), administrators can only get so far by trimming bus services for high schoolers, canceling band or eliminating programs for gifted students. At some point, shedding jobs becomes necessary.

So what's next? As Politics K-12 blogger Alyson Klein notes in her first-rate FAQ sheet on the issue, there's no shortage of questions. We don't know whether certain federal funding streams for schools could end up exempt, how quickly the dollars would dry up for programs like  Head Start, or how the cuts would be carried out at the state and local level. But we do know that as the clock ticks down to Friday's deadline, time is running out for lawmakers to come up with the answers.

Have a question, comment or concern for the Educated Reporter? Email EWA public editor Emily Richmond at erichmond@ewa.org. Follow her on Twitter: @EWAEmily.

Who Decides What's Off the Record?

To do their jobs, education reporters on the federal beat depend on access to congressional staffers. But what happens when those staffers want anonymity while discussing policy at a public forum? I asked two reporters – Libby Nelson of Inside Higher Ed and Eric Kelderman of The Chronicle of Higher Education – to explain why they’re pushing back against what they contend is an unreasonable expectation.

When you read Nelson's and Kelderman's pieces at EdMedia Commons, you'll learn they were both attending public forums with hundreds of other people  – some of whom were tweeting the content. While those other people might not have been journalists, it's impossible to deny that the information was being widely spread. And the non-journalists in the audience had no professional ethical dilemma to keep them from even considering abiding by the unusual request.

To change the demanded level of openness once a public meeting is underway seems an awful lot like inviting someone to a baseball game and then expecting them to play cricket. It's fairly certain the game won't go very well for anyone. A meeting that is publicized as open (and to which journalists have been expressly invited) can't suddenly become private.

Off-the-record conversations are an essential element of a reporter's toolbox, and it's one that's typically used only when there's no other way to reasonably obtain critical information. It also requires a prior understanding between the reporter and the source as to what the rules will be. To demand that reporters guarantee anonymity to speakers at a public meeting isn't a fair demand to make -- whether playing baseball, cricket, or any other game. 

Have a question, comment or concern for the Educated Reporter? Email EWA public editor Emily Richmond at erichmond@ewa.org. Follow her on Twitter: @EWAEmily.

New MetLife Survey: Teacher Job Satisfaction Hits 25-Year Low

A new survey paints a troubling portrait of the American educator: Teacher job satisfaction has hit its lowest point in a quarter of a century, and 75 percent of principals believe their jobs have become too complex.

The findings are part of the MetLife Survey of the American Teacher: Challenges for School Leadership. Conducted annually since 1984, the survey polled representative sampling of 1,000 teachers and 500 principals in K-12 schools across the country.

Only 39 percent of teachers described themselves as very satisfied with their jobs on the latest survey. That’s a 23-percentage point plummet since 2008, and a drop of five percentage points just over the past year. Factors contributing to lower job satisfaction included working in schools where the budgets, opportunities for professional development, and time for collaboration with colleagues have all been sent to the chopping block.

Stress levels are also up, with half of all teachers describing themselves as under great stress several days per week, compared with a third of teachers in 1985.

“This news is disappointing but sadly, there are no surprises here. Teacher job satisfaction will continue to free fall as long as budgets are slashed,” said Dennis Van Roekel, president of the National Education Association. “Educators are doing everything they can to provide the best education possible for their students, but the rug just keeps getting pulled out from under them.”

Dana Markow, vice president of Harris Interactive – which oversees the MetLife survey –  says while it might seem logical to place much of the blame for the drop in job satisfaction on the recession, there’s more at work here. Here’s what Markow told me (read the full interview here):

“Factors other than simple economic pressures may have a role, such as the support they receive from school leadership and their colleagues. Teachers with higher job satisfaction are more likely to rate the job their principal is doing as excellent and to rate the other teachers in their schools as excellent, and they’re less likely to say their time to collaborate with other teachers has decreased.”

Teachers in the survey were significantly less likely to get a rating of “excellent” from their principals and peers if they worked at a school with a large population of students from low-income families. The excellent ratings ranged from 48-51 percent at the poorer campuses, compared with 73-75 percent at school serving more affluent student populations. That lines up with criticism from advocacy groups such as the Education Trust, which contends that the neediest students often get the weakest teachers.

Ed Trust “has long been concerned about our most vulnerable students – those from low-income families and students of color -- are not getting access to the same quality of teaching as their more affluent peers,” said Sarah Almy, the organization’s director of teacher quality.

So what’s the solution? The way to get more effective teachers into higher-poverty schools “is making those schools places good teachers want to go and stay,” Almy told me. “Some of the reasons why teachers are dissatisfied (on the survey) relate to opportunities for leadership and collaboration -- things we know are really important, and things that high-poverty and low-performing schools can and should be addressing."

I had to wonder what the low job-satisfaction numbers might mean for the pipeline that turns classroom teachers into school leaders. But Markow says that based on the survey, job satisfaction doesn’t appear to be a dominant factor in a teacher’s decision to become a principal. As for the principals, while there’s been a decline in job satisfaction for them as well – to 59 percent from 68 percent in 2008 -- there wasn’t a corresponding jump in the percentage who said they were planning to leave to the profession.

(For more on the pipeline issue, check out my interview with Jody Spiro, director of educational leadership for the Wallace Foundation, regarding their new report on the hallmarks of effective principals. There was also an interesting panel discussion recently at the American Enterprise Institute on “Cagebusting Leadership.”)

As for the majority of the surveyed principals – 77 percent – believing they were prepared well for their responsibilities, Spiro called that finding “important – and perhaps surprising.” In an emailed response to a request for comment, Spiro said that:

“The quality of preparation programs for principals seems to be improving, many based on research-based principles of what makes such programs effective. There is still a long way to go to improve the quality of these programs throughout the country, but this feedback from principals is a good start.”

This year’s survey also contained new questions about the Common Core State Standards, which are being put in place in 46 states. About half of all teachers and four out of every 10 principals say they’re very confident they can successfully implement the new standards. But at the same time, a much smaller percentage of educators – ranging from 17 to 24 percent – believe the new standards actually will improve learning, or make students better prepared for the rigors of college or the workforce.

Markow of Harris Interactive said she’s interested to see “if those confidence levels will perhaps be tempered by the reality of the actual implementation. I think some of it is perhaps a ‘show me’ situation – they’ll have more confidence if they see results.”

While many of the survey’s findings could be characterized as negatives, there are some silver linings. Markow said there are some positive associations between high quality school leadership and strong student achievement. Teachers who rated their principals as “excellent” were also more likely to report that their students were performing at least at grade level in reading, writing and math. The same teachers were also less likely to say it was challenging for their school to maintain an adequate supply of effective teachers, to help struggling students, or to engage parents and the wider community. And that, says Markow, is “very good news.”

Have a question, comment or concern for the Educated Reporter? Email EWA public editor Emily Richmond at erichmond@ewa.org. Follow her on Twitter: @EWAEmily.

Students, Teachers Push Back Against High-Stakes Testing

While it's become a common refrain for students, teachers and parents to complain that too much time is spent preparing for – and administering – standardized tests in public schools, the level of dissatisfaction is arguably reaching previously unheard decibels.

In what’s believed to be the first such example of a campus-wide testing boycott, teachers at Garfield High School in Seattle are refused to administer a state-mandated exam to their students. The teachers contend that the Measures of Academic Progress test doesn’t match what students are supposed to be learning, and therefore amounts to little more than an expensive waste – of both instructional time and district dollars.

One of the organizers of the student protests of the test is Caitlin Chambers, a senior at Garfield High School, who shared her views in an opinion piece with Cross Cuts, a local news site:

“Students have no incentive to take the test seriously. There’s no state-wide graduation requirement for passing the MAP … The test wastes valuable class time, pulling 805 students out of class for 320 minutes each, according to statistics compiled by Garfield teachers. It also wastes $480,000 every year, money that could be put to far better use in the classroom for textbooks, lab supplies, and general class materials.”

The Garfield teachers have the backing of the National Education Association, with the labor union’s President Dennis Van Roekel calling them “heroic.” (For more on the Garfield protest, check out the Seattle Times’ first-rate reporting.) The Chicago Teachers Union voiced its support for their colleagues in Seattle and launched its own campaign against an overabundance of high-stakes tests.

In Providence, a coalition of high school students traveled to the state capital to deliver a letter to Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee, criticizing the use of the New England Common Assessment Program exam as a requirement for graduation.

In an opinion piece written by three Rhode Island high schoolers, published online by the Providence Journal, the students contend that:

“… Making the NECAP a graduation requirement does not improve the quality of the teaching we receive. It does not strengthen social services so we get the support we need. It does not make our curriculum more relevant and engaging. It does not provide us adequate supplies and textbooks. It does not give us more electives or guidance councilors or college advising or extracurriculars or smaller class sizes or affordable transportation to school. In other words, this policy does not, in any way, actually support our schools to help us succeed.”

To press their case about 50 determined -- and apparently theatrically inclined -- students, costumed in  ghoulish makeup and torn clothing, marched to the state's Department of Education in Providence. "To take away the diploma is to take away our life, to make us undead," Cauldierre McKay, a Classical High School student, told the Journal. "That's why we're here today...dressed as the zombies that this policy will turn so many of us into."

But while some states are grappling with public demands to scale back the number of tests used in schools and the stakes attached to them  -- such as what’s unfolding in Texas, for example --others are actually in the midst of adding new assessments aimed at improving both the quality of instruction and individual student achievement. In Louisiana, not only are schools adding end-of-course assessments, but students will now also be required to take the ACT college entrance exam. And as the Hechinger Report notes, teachers in subject areas that were previously exempt from the statewide testing system will now see their job evaluations tied to student test scores.

In Oklahoma, the weight attached to the high-stakes exams has been steadily increasing since the implementation of No Child Left Behind more than decade ago. The high-stakes tests are now used to determine a student’s eligibility to graduate, and are also a factor in teacher evaluations.

Additionally, with Oklahoma’s new assessment schedule, students will have to take two tests – reading and writing – at the same time. That requirement has teachers worried, especially because the writing test is already considered so difficult that it reportedly reduces some students to tears.

Jelana Mosely, an eighth-grade teacher in Ardmore, Okla., said she preferred when the writing test was given on its own in February, and she then had time to prepare her students for the reading test in April. The new schedule doesn’t benefit students, Mosely told the Daily Ardmoreite.

“You don’t play football and basketball all year around,” she told the local newspaper. “You play football, then basketball, so athletes can focus on one then the other.”

In a number of states, educators are watching closely to find out what the new Common Core State Standards will mean for the number of tests students have to take each year. So far, 46 states have signed on to Common Core, and the new assessments will be rolled out over the next two academic years. But it’s not clear whether those Common Core assessments will only supplement – rather than replace – existing tests, especially those used as high school exit exams to determine whether a student graduates.

The surge in anti-testing sentiment isn’t surprising, said Robert Schaeffer, public education director of Fair Test, a national advocacy organization. When it comes to what Schaeffer called “high-stakes testing overkill,” the message from students, parents and educators is “enough is enough.”

The pressure on policymakers to reduce substantially the amount of instructional time devoted to test preparation and test-taking is expected to increase in the coming months, in part because of concerns about the additional burden of the new Common Core assessments. The battles are not just about cutting back on the volume of tests, Schaeffer told me, but also about ending the “arbitrary, politically driven consequences attached to them.” As an alternative, assessment reformers want schools to use “multiple measures based primarily on the real academic work students do -- not flawed, snapshots that largely rely on filling in bubble forms,” Schaeffer said.

While the majority of states have received waivers from NCLB’s toughest provisions, they are still required to track student progress. And at least for now, that means high-stakes tests. As education policymakers and educators are learning already, striking the balance between unnecessary testing and high-quality assessments isn’t easy to do. It’s even tougher when those exams are being used not just to guide classroom instruction for students but to measure the effectiveness of individual teachers, a school’s quality, or the progress of an entire state.

Have a question, comment or concern for the Educated Reporter? Email EWA public editor Emily Richmond at erichmond@ewa.org. Follow her on Twitter: @EWAEmily.

Presidents Day: Would Lincoln or Washington Approve of Closing Schools?

In honor of Presidents Day today, here's an updated version of my post from the previous holiday. 

The third Monday in February is better known for its association with good deals on sleeper sofas and sedans than for the presidential birthday supposedly being commemorated. For millions of American schoolchildren, it’s also a day off from class.

The official name of the federal holiday is Washington’s Birthday, although the nation’s first president was born on Feb. 22. However, the date is widely referred to as Presidents Day, and many states use it to recognize the Feb. 12 birthday of Abraham Lincoln, as well. Earlier this month, Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Virginia, reintroduced legislation that would move the holiday to the first president's actual birthday.

The intent is "to honor his legacy, and in doing so call upon schools across the nation to focus on Washington as the soldier, legislator, and president who shepherded our young nation through war, political turmoil, rebellion and expansion as no other single individual was capable of doing," Wolf said in a statement.

Given that school districts across the country have cut instructional days to make up for budget shortfalls, and educators are continually be told to add more to the K-12 curriculum without also adding more time, a question comes to mind: How might George Washington and Abraham Lincoln respond to classes being canceled in commemoration of their birthdays?

Renowned Lincoln scholar Harold Holzer, who served as director Steven Spielberg's film consultant, said the 16th president probably would have been “absolutely appalled” to know his birthday was associated with a day off from school.

“His great quote was 'Work, work, work is the main thing,'” said Holzer, chairman of the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Foundation. “This was a man who always regretted his own lack of educational opportunities. He was for week-long, month-long, year-long and lifelong learning.”

Indeed, Lincoln’s first-ever political statement -- published by a local newspaper when he sought a seat in the Illinois General Assembly -- included these words:  “Upon the subject of education, not presuming to dictate any plan or system respecting it, I can only say that I view it as the most important subject which we as a people can be engaged in.”

Lincoln's path as a self-taught man, with almost no formal schooling, is well known. He was an incessant reader, realizing that books would open doors not only to knowledge but also to opportunity. In a speech to the Wisconsin Agricultural Society in 1859, Lincoln proclaimed that “a capacity, and taste, for reading, gives access to whatever has already been discovered by others … it is the key, or one of the keys, to the already solved problems. And not only so. It gives a relish, and facility, for successfully pursuing the (yet) unsolved ones.” 

At the same time, Lincoln knew that despite his best efforts to learn independently he still lacked the academic credentials carried by many of his peers, said Holzer, whose most recent book is "Emancipating Lincoln: The Proclamation in Text, Context and Memory." When Lincoln and other freshmen lawmakers arrived in Congress, they were asked to fill out a detailed biographical questionnaire. In the section asking for specifics about his education, Holzer said, Lincoln simply wrote one word: “Defective.” 

As for the first president, he would probably see some value in a brief respite from studying, said historian and University of Virginia Prof. Edward G. Lengel, the author of the 2011 book “Inventing George Washington.”

In 1797, Washington received a letter from his step-grandson asking if he should take a break from his books at Princeton to attend a ball commemorating the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. In his reply, Lengel said, Washington suggested that if it was the tradition to attend the ball, “I see no reason why you should have avoided it."

However, that advice should be viewed within the broader context of the significant emphasis Washington placed on learning, Lengel said. 

Washington affirmed “the importance of diligence in studies, maintaining a constant and consistent schedule, and not being distracted by idle amusements or bad company,” Lengel said. “If he thought time off was getting excessive, that students were not paying attention to their course of studies, he certainly would have been opposed to it.”

Like Lincoln, Washington’s life circumstances kept him from formal schooling, and it was a deficit he struggled to overcome. As a result, he was even more keenly aware of the value of education to both to the individual, and to the Republic.

“He believed education was critically important,” said Lengel, who is editor in chief of the Papers of George Washington project at the University of Virginia. “In order for the citizenry to be active, and to have a positive influence on the nation, they had to be well educated.” 

Have a question, comment or concern for the Educated Reporter? Email EWA public editor Emily Richmond at erichmond@ewa.org. Follow her on Twitter: @EWAEmily.

Update: White House Shares Details of Early Learning Plans

Here's some of the fine print (courtesy of Politics K-12) on President Obama's proposal to significantly expand the nation's preschool opportunities. Also, Eduwonk Andrew Rotherham explains why the proposal faces "an uphill climb," and gives a well-deserved shout-out to Education Week's Sara Mead.

You should also check out Salon editor-at-large Joan Walsh's take. She argues that universal preschool should be a "no-brainer," given that when it's done right the benefits to individual children, families, and the wider community can be substantial. From Walsh's well-balanced piece:

The very fact that preschool proposals seem like the answer to so many social problems has led to a vexing outcome: they can be derailed by questions about costs, goals and turf, thus solving no problems at all. They are often oversold (the president may be making that mistake already.) “Can universal preschool solve all our problems?” a National Journal headline blared Thursday morning (a dumb headline on a smart piece). Of course, the answer is no – but done the right way, it can solve some of them.

Education blogger Alexander Russo compiled  some interesting takes on the preschool debate, including an unexpected angle. Education reporter Joy Resmovits' new blog is up and running at the Huffington Post, if your bookmark bar is looking a little sparse. She also tackles the preschool initiative.

For more on where early learning stands nationally, as well as the latest research and coverage, check out EWA's Story Starters online resource.

Have a question, comment or concern for the Educated Reporter? Email EWA public editor Emily Richmond at erichmond@ewa.org. Follow her on Twitter: @EWAEmily.

State of the Union: President's Push for More Early Learning

*This post has been updated.

As predicted, President Obama's State of the Union address contained a wealth of education initiatives, including a new grant program aimed at ensuring high schools turn out 21st century career-ready graduates, and a call for universal preschool for every child. (Education Week's Politics K-12 blog has the full breakdown.)

The president's plan drew high marks from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, which partners with community organizations nationwide to improve access to early learning.

“We are pleased that the Obama administration understands the importance of investing in our nation’s youngest and most vulnerable children,” Carla D. Thompson, vice president for program strategy at the foundation, said in a statement this morning. “By expanding funding to include the vital early years, we are better equipped to break the persistent cycle of poverty and help families reach their full potential.”

However Michael Petrilli, executive vice president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, offered a skeptical reaction to the preschool plan over at the National Review:

"The major federal effort in pre-K — the 45 year-old Head Start program — has been found again and again and again to have few long-term benefits for participants. Any gains fade out by the third grade. A reasonable question is whether that’s the fault of Head Start or the fault of our dysfunctional public-education system. But there’s little reason for confidence that new federal spending in pre-K, if it looks anything like Head Start, will lead to better results for poor and middle-class children."

This is not a new fight. Check out Time Magazine's Kayla Webley "The Preschool Wars" and "Rethinking Pre-K." Also, over at Slate, Melinda Wenner Moyer contends "If you're reading this article, your kid probably doesn't need preschool."

As part of his early learning initiatives, the president also called for more states to add full-day kindergarten, which is currently mandated only in 10 states and the District of Columbia. 

Back in 2007, when the Nevada Legislature was debating whether to require full-day kindergarten, I took a close look at the available research. The greatest benefits to full-day kindergarten seemed to be for minority children and those growing up in poverty, who were more likely to otherwise arrive unprepared for first grade. But the gains trickled off unless those full-day kindergarten students continued to receive the tailored instructional programs and services they needed as they advanced into the higher grades. 

Here's how I summed up the data at the time: "Full-day kindergarten may be a springboard to academic success, but it's apparently of little use if students are diving into an empty pool." (I'm interested to find out what more recent studies show.)

During the State of the Union, Politics K-12 tweeted this query: Is the president's push for universal preschool "an aspirational goal or a real fleshed out proposal?" The response from the U.S. Department of Education's official Twitter feed suggests it's the latter:  "Since early learners were already in bed by #SOTU's start, POTUS is saving #earlyed detail for daytime Thurs in Atlanta."

Have a question, comment or concern for the Educated Reporter? Email EWA public editor Emily Richmond at erichmond@ewa.org. Follow her on Twitter: @EWAEmily.

Senate Discusses NCLB Waivers: What's Next For Federal Education Policy?

If you're looking for background on the important Senate hearing on the NCLB waivers, and what might be next for education reform efforts at the federal level, start with Motoko Rich's news analysis for the New York Times. It's a solid primer on the backbone of the waivers, the controversy, and the criticism.

Then jump over to Education Week's Politics K-12 blog. I can't say enough about the thoughtful work of co-bloggers Alyson Klein and Michele McNeil, who consistently manage to make the complexities of federal policy readable and, perhaps most importantly, help readers understand why it matters. (Here's Klein's well-detailed overview of the Senate hearing.)

As Joy Resmovits noted over at the Huffington Post, critics of the waivers testifying at the Senate hearing included  someone who has been of President Obama's staunchest allies on the reform front -- Kati Haycock of the Education Trust. I wrote last week about the organization's new report, detailing its perspective that the waivers are actually a step back for equity among historically under-served student populations.

Be sure to also check out McNeil's Five Unanswered Questions on the NCLB Waiver Implementation. It's probably too much to hope for a sequel to U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan's testimony. But I certainly hope someone at least takes a crack at answering No. 3. I'd also like to point out that No. 4 on the list -- whether  new accountability systems can survive the backlash if student test scores suddenly take a nose-dive isn't -- isn't limited to the NCLB waivers. As I mentioned in a prior blog post, it's also a very real concern for the forthcoming assessments attached to the new Common Core State Standards.

Have a question, comment or concern for the Educated Reporter? Email EWA public editor Emily Richmond at erichmond@ewa.org. Follow her on Twitter: @EWAEmily.

Under the Microscope: Examining STEM Education

I'm at the University of Maryland-Baltimore County today for EWA's seminar for journalists on STEM education. This is a front-burner issue nationally, as politicians and policymakers contend the nation's global competitiveness depends on steering more students successfully into science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields.

We have a jam-packed agenda, including discussion of the implementation of the new Common Core State Standards and Next Generation Science Standards, and the pipeline problem of getting students from classroom to career. I'm particularly interested to hear from Scott Jaschik of Inside Higher Ed and Eric Robelen of Education Week about what reporters need to know when delving into these key issues.

I'm also going to get the opportunity to interview Jake Scott, a math teacher at Montgomery Blair High School, who's soared into the national spotlight for his creative and innovative approach of combining rapping with instruction. We're also hosting the first-ever EWA Student Science Fair, with kids coming from campuses and after-school programs to share their robots, research, and big ideas.

I'll be sharing highlights from today's seminar with you in upcoming posts. In the meantime, you can read what I've written about girls and STEM, as well as a possible simple solution for growing student participation across the board.

Have a question, comment or concern for the Educated Reporter? Email EWA public editor Emily Richmond at erichmond@ewa.org. Follow her on Twitter: @EWAEmily.

NCLB Waivers: Lessons From The Early States

U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan will testify today before the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions about the flexibility waivers he's issued to states from some of the more onerous provisions of No Child Left Behind.

The hearing is expected shed some light on how states are implementing the provisions of the waivers, which allowed them to drop some of the stricter mandates related to testing in exchange for using alternative means of accountability. States had to agree to a number of provisions, including use student testing data as a factor in evaluating teacher job performance, and to focus their efforts on reforming the lowest-performing campuses. States must also have a plan in place for extending learning time for students. (For more on this issue, check out a recent report from the Center for American Progress detailing a “troubling lack of detail” as to how the states receiving the first round of waivers planned to comply with the extended learning time requirement.)

As I've mentioned previously, the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is years overdue. For now, the waivers represent the closest thing we've seen to an actual blueprint for replacing NCLB. The Education Trust today released state-by-state analysis of the waivers, and determined the accountability plans for several states could actually hurt opportunity for historically under-served student populations.

From the Ed Trust's president Kati Haycock, who will testify at today's Senate hearing:

“When it became clear that Congress couldn’t reach agreement on a long-overdue reauthorization of the law, we understood the consequences of not granting some kind of flexibility,” Haycock said in a statement. “But supporting the concept of a waiver process is very different from supporting how that process moved forward or the final agreements that resulted. In the end, while some states showed real courage in the effort to move the needle on school improvement, far too many were allowed to create systems that weaken the civil rights commitments of federal law.”

For another perspective, Washington Post education blogger Valerie Strauss earlier posted a letter from a coalition in New Jersey concerned about inequities in the new accountability system when it came to minority students and those from low-income families.

And while we're talking federal policy, you should also check out Education Week's Politics K-12 blog for the latest on sequestration and the fiscal cliff, including President Obama's call to Congress to keep those potentially devastating cuts from happening.

Have a question, comment or concern for the Educated Reporter? Email EWA public editor Emily Richmond at erichmond@ewa.org. Follow her on Twitter: @EWAEmily.

Digital Learning Day: Classroom Technology That's Making a Difference

Today is the second annual Digital Learning Day, intended to highlight the best practices and brightest ideas for incorporating technology effectively into the nation's classrooms.

The event is spearheaded by the Alliance for Excellent Education, a nonprofit organization created by former West Virginia Gov. Bob Wise. Last year, more than 15,000 teachers and 1.7 million students took part in related activities. Today, luminaries including U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan will be participating in activities at the Newseum in Washington, D.C. The events will be live-streamed, and will also feature profiles of students, teachers, schools and districts that are using classroom technology in creative -- and effective -- ways.

Additionally, at 11:30 a.m. Eastern time, the alliance will host an online chat with Gov. Wise and a panel of education experts: John Merrow of PBS' Learning Matters; Greg Toppo, education reporter for USA Today; Kim Sharp, an instructional medial coordinator for the Klein Independent School District in Texas. Jill Barshay, an editor with the Hechinger Report, will serve as moderator. Details of how to participate in the chat can be found here.

For more on digital learning, check out my prior posts here and here. You can also visit EWA's Story Starters page for a wealth of background on Classroom Technology, including the latest reporting. You might also want to stop by the research site for KnowledgeWorks, one of the sponsors of Digital Learning Day.

Have a question, comment or concern for the Educated Reporter? Email EWA public editor Emily Richmond at erichmond@ewa.org. Follow her on Twitter: @EWAEmily.

From Battlefield to Classroom: Veterans Head for Higher Education

James Dao of the New York Times has a fascinating story about active-duty troops and veterans taking advantage of federal tuition assistance for higher education, often in unusually challenging circumstances.

From Dao's story, here's the scene at a U.S. military airfield in Afghanistan moments after humanities class' discussion of Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" was interrupted by a rocket attack:

The students, most of them uniformed troops, repaired to a cramped bunker where a few continued discussing the book. There, they waited for an hour until the all-clear sounded. Class was over. “We’ve been through so many of those that you grow callous to it,” Chief Warrant Officer Justin Hutchinson recalled via Skype. “For most of us, it was like a cigarette break.”

As the U.S. accelerates its withdrawal from the battlefield, more troops are going to be returning home to pick up the threads of their "regular" lives. For many of them, exchanging "soldier' for "student" can be a tough transition. A 2012 study by the American Council on Education found veterans struggle both academically and financially in college. On the upside, the council found substantially more colleges and universities had added programs and services tailored for veterans than when the study was first conducted in 2009.

At the same time, I also want to call your attention to a 2011 study which found that when veterans had sufficient wraparound support, they actually had higher GPA's and a better retention rate than their civilian peers. (Inside Higher Ed reporter Elizabeth Murphy has a solid overview of the study.)

There's been some first-rate reporting on this issue in recent months, including a piece in the Chronicle of Higher Education on the push at elite colleges to enroll more veterans. You can read Libby Sander's work here.  For more on this issue, including concerns among some critics that some for-profit colleges are potentially taking unfair advantage of soldiers-turned-students, check out my post from Veterans Day.

Have a question, comment or concern for the Educated Reporter? Email EWA public editor Emily Richmond at erichmond@ewa.org. Follow her on Twitter: @EWAEmily.