James P. Testerman, Vice-President

PennsylvaniaState Education Association

EPLC outline for comments for 3/14/06

Strengths:

  • Recognition by policy makers that not all children have equal access to the same quality of an education. Zip code matters. Recognition that money does make a difference in the resources and programs offered.
  • Recognition that we can do more to educate America’s neediest children.
  • Disaggregated data on subgroups forces educational systems to tailor their instruction and interventions to meet the needs of previously hidden groups of children.
  • Forcing a dialogue about school effectiveness and school reform at the district and building level.
  • Extra help directed at children who need extra help
  • Recognition that every child deserves a properly trained and certified teacher.

Weaknesses:

  • Accountability
  • 2014 is an unrealistic goal for having all students reach proficiency-college ready
  • calculation of AYP-does not recognize progress being made and over-identifies “failing” schools due to sub-group dynamics and formula
  • if one sub group fails then the whole school fails
  • plans are not uniform from state to state and technical aspects of tests have not been proven to be valid or reliable
  • Narrowing of the curriculum-what is not tested is not being taught. Schools are squeezing out the arts to make more time in the day for reading and math instruction since those are the two that count for AYP.
  • No recognition of the complexity of instruction and assessment as it relates to special education and LEP students
  • School Improvement
  • Too much stick and not enough carrot—too punitive
  • No differentiation between those who did not make AYP and those who were close to making AYP
  • School choice occurs before Supplemental Education Services
  • SES providers are not screened and quality is not assessed
  • Staff Quality
  • No real plan to address staffing low performing schools which are typically schools located in high poverty areas (urban and rural)
  • Paraprofessional quality-bar raised but no resources to meet the salaries required to attract and retain more educated staff
  • The notion of Highly Qualified discounts the rigorous certification process in PA and restricts a district’s ability to staff middle schools, alternative education programs, and special education programs.
  • Currently debating whether or not someone successfully teaching and being evaluated for the past 20 years at the elementary level is HQ
  • DOE woefully late in picking apart PA’s HQ plan
  • Funding
  • Policy makers recognized that money matters in the quality of education, suggested funding levels, and ignored them when passing budgets but are not ignoring the expectation that all children must be college ready by 2014 and are not backing off of the sanctions. Current Gap is $27 billion
  • Without these funds we cannot
  • Lower class size
  • Hire reading and math specialists
  • Create meaningful induction and mentoring programs
  • Provide resources to enrich the learning environment such as up to date textbooks, technology, professional development, etc.

Changes:

  • Eliminate sanctions and replace with support systems such as enhanced comprehensive technical assistance from state and federal agencies in developing and revising improvement plans and reward good plans with $$
  • Address the problems with assessment regarding LEP students and waive requirements unless a state has the resources to develop native language tests.
  • Require that states prove the validity of their tests for their intended high stakes uses as required by the Standards of Educational and Psychological Measurement.
  • Include cut scores calculation as well
  • Provide that AYP be determined by multiple measures of assessment which should include samples of student work collected over time.
  • IEP team shall determine the appropriate assessment for students with disabilities. Parents have a strong voice here.
  • Provide that DOE have a transparent system of displaying to all stakeholders which waivers have been granted to states.
  • Realistic timelines for implementing and showing systemic progress.
  • Require that funding from local, state, and federal sources are sufficient to provide:
  • Quality programs and services that meet the full range of all children’s needs so that they come to school every day ready to learn.
  • High expectations and standards with a rigorous and comprehensive curriculum for all students.
  • Quality conditions for teaching and life-long learning.
  • A qualified, caring, diverse, and stable staff.
  • Appropriate accountability and shared responsibility
  • Parental, family, and community involvement and engagement
  • Adequate, equitable, and stable funding.