Post by dfx on Nov 29, 2010 13:54:07 GMT -5
This weekend I was once again walking the town trying to solicit resident feedback for our schools. Since several people have continued to ask me for my opinion regarding the related subjects of AYP testing and charter schools, I've decided to share it here to save me from having to rehash it several hundred times in a person-to-person format.
Truth be told the situation is somewhat complex (like most of life's decisions) so a few key items must be addressed in order to view my opinion in its proper context. Now I readily admit that I do not know everything about this subject, however here’s the information as I understand it...
**THIS IS MY PERSONAL OPINION AND DOES NOT REFLECT THAT OF ANYONE ELSE ON THE FREEHOLD BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION.**
BACKGROUND
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
This was first introduced in Congress by Congressman John Boehnor (R) in 2001 at the behest of newly-elected President Bush. It was sponsored in the Senate by Ted Kennedy (D). The goal of the bill was to establish measurable standards/benchmarks to improve individual test scores with the ultimate objective of the bill is for every school to achieve a 100% proficiency rating. In order to achieve this, all students – regardless of mental/physical disabilities or with limited English skills – must be able to pass certain benchmark criteria. If a school system does not meet this criteria, it will receive a reduced amount of Federal educational funding. As a result, special education spending has sky-rocketed in the past 9 years as more school districts are hiring teachers with specialized (and costly) certifications to help boost the testing scores of this demographic.
The systems design allows for the achievement of a 100% proficiency goal through a series a "step-goals" that culminates at 100%. For example the goal in 2004 may have been for schools to be at 40% proficiency, the goal for 2005 would be 48% proficiency, the goal for 2006 may have been 55% proficiency, and so on. The original date for 100% proficiency was supposed to be met a few years ago, however the high number of schools failing to reach the ever-increasing levels has forced this date to be pushed back several times. The latest 100% proficiency date is now scheduled for 2014. The yearly measurement (via standardized testing) for a school’s NCLB progress is called the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). If a school does not make AYP for two years, it must offer parents the choice to send their child to a non-failing school in the district, and after three years, must provide supplemental services, such as free tutoring or after-school assistance. After five years of not meeting AYP, the school must make dramatic changes to how the school is run (this could entail state-takeover).
It's important to note that testing criteria is not set by the Federal government, but rather is determined by each state. Some states – particularly those in the South and Midwest – have lowered their individual criteria benchmarks in order to boost their overall proficiency ratings and receive full Federal funding. Others tend to keep higher criteria benchmarks (though knowing they will most likely not pass proficiency standards) because they feel that standards shouldn’t be lowered. NJ falls into this latter category.
MY OPINION
This bill was a noble – but misguided – attempt to reach an unrealistic ideal. In my opinion there are many factors that will always prevent a school from attaining 100% proficiency levels. I think the fact that Congress has continued to "kick the can further down the road" as it relates to establishing & sticking to a final 100% proficiency date is a strong indicator that even they don't believe this ideal is achievable. The problem is that the issue is a political hot potato and NO politician wants to speak out against NCLB as they will most likely be labeled the "anti-education" President/Congressman/Senator.
Personally I believe that sometimes it doesn't matter how hard you try, a child cannot comprehend a certain subject within the timeframe of a single school year. (i.e. It may take longer than 9 months for a mentally disabled child to display a solid proficiency in algebra. It may take longer than 9 months for a new transfer student with very limited English skills to pass a standardized 4th grade AYP test without already having the background knowledge/experience of his/her fellow classmates. And sometimes kids just don't pay attention in school – I know, I was one of them.)
What's more, I'm not sure I agree with a punitive approach to Federal funding (i.e. if a school doesn't achieve AYP, it loses funding) since it may hasten staff layoffs in an already failing district – which in turn can further reduce a school's proficiency. I also don't think NJ should lower our testing criteria (i.e. make it easier) simply to boost our levels of Federal funding as it's our responsibility to prepare these kids for the future, no matter how tough it may be.
Charter Schools
The concept of a charter school was created as a public school alternative. These schools receive public monies but are not subject to the same rules/regulations that apply to traditional public schools. They are not permitted to charge admission, so their funding is typically a line-item of the surrounding public school district's budget. While a charter school's capacity is limited and does not require them to automatically take a child residing in its "home" district, the demographics of a charter school's student population is supposed to match its home district. (That said, typically charter schools are granted enrollment exceptions. Studies have already shown many instances of charter schools cutting programs or refusing the educate students with special needs so as to maintain their budget.)
One of the most popular arguments in support of charter schools is that increased competition will force public schools to improve and achieve higher AYP test scores. Supporters also argue that charter schools are more fiscally efficient and have higher graduation rates/test scores. (They attribute this to the fact that most charter schools are not unionized.)
MY OPINION
I have two fundamental/philosophical differences behind the concept of a charter school:
1. I believe any institutions utilizing public monies should be open for all members of the public
2. I believe all institutions utilizing public monies should be held accountable to the same basic standards
3. I believe NJ already has too many school districts and the creation of a bunch of one-off/one-school districts (each with their own full staffs) will only compound the problem
In addition, I have several concerns:
1. Charter schools have a track record of denying admission to special needs students (these students tend to cost significantly more to educate)
2. Charter schools are not mandated to match the student demographics of its surrounding district. (Some states – like NJ – do have laws requiring this, however they are lax, have loopholes as stated above, and are often ignored.)
3. Charter schools are allowed to maintain student body size limitations
4. Charter schools divert monies from public schools
Aside from my philosophical beliefs, personally I can't see how a charter school would foster any sort of positive competition in Freehold Borough. Charter schools are permitted to deny admission to a segment of the population (i.e. special needs) and limit the size of its student body. When these factors are compared side-by-side to a public school, a charter school will always look more attractive because they have the luxury of cherry-picking their student population. However my greatest fear is that the creation of a charter school in Freehold would create a 2-tier education system: a charter system for "normal" students and a public system for "everyone else". I don’t see this helping our little town, I see it dividing us further.
Dan x.
PS.
Food-for-thought: It is illegal to prevent workers in any trade from unionizing. That said, how long do people really think charter schools will find themselves union-free…?
**THIS IS MY PERSONAL OPINION AND DOES NOT REFLECT THAT OF ANYONE ELSE ON THE FREEHOLD BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION.**
Truth be told the situation is somewhat complex (like most of life's decisions) so a few key items must be addressed in order to view my opinion in its proper context. Now I readily admit that I do not know everything about this subject, however here’s the information as I understand it...
**THIS IS MY PERSONAL OPINION AND DOES NOT REFLECT THAT OF ANYONE ELSE ON THE FREEHOLD BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION.**
BACKGROUND
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
This was first introduced in Congress by Congressman John Boehnor (R) in 2001 at the behest of newly-elected President Bush. It was sponsored in the Senate by Ted Kennedy (D). The goal of the bill was to establish measurable standards/benchmarks to improve individual test scores with the ultimate objective of the bill is for every school to achieve a 100% proficiency rating. In order to achieve this, all students – regardless of mental/physical disabilities or with limited English skills – must be able to pass certain benchmark criteria. If a school system does not meet this criteria, it will receive a reduced amount of Federal educational funding. As a result, special education spending has sky-rocketed in the past 9 years as more school districts are hiring teachers with specialized (and costly) certifications to help boost the testing scores of this demographic.
The systems design allows for the achievement of a 100% proficiency goal through a series a "step-goals" that culminates at 100%. For example the goal in 2004 may have been for schools to be at 40% proficiency, the goal for 2005 would be 48% proficiency, the goal for 2006 may have been 55% proficiency, and so on. The original date for 100% proficiency was supposed to be met a few years ago, however the high number of schools failing to reach the ever-increasing levels has forced this date to be pushed back several times. The latest 100% proficiency date is now scheduled for 2014. The yearly measurement (via standardized testing) for a school’s NCLB progress is called the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). If a school does not make AYP for two years, it must offer parents the choice to send their child to a non-failing school in the district, and after three years, must provide supplemental services, such as free tutoring or after-school assistance. After five years of not meeting AYP, the school must make dramatic changes to how the school is run (this could entail state-takeover).
It's important to note that testing criteria is not set by the Federal government, but rather is determined by each state. Some states – particularly those in the South and Midwest – have lowered their individual criteria benchmarks in order to boost their overall proficiency ratings and receive full Federal funding. Others tend to keep higher criteria benchmarks (though knowing they will most likely not pass proficiency standards) because they feel that standards shouldn’t be lowered. NJ falls into this latter category.
MY OPINION
This bill was a noble – but misguided – attempt to reach an unrealistic ideal. In my opinion there are many factors that will always prevent a school from attaining 100% proficiency levels. I think the fact that Congress has continued to "kick the can further down the road" as it relates to establishing & sticking to a final 100% proficiency date is a strong indicator that even they don't believe this ideal is achievable. The problem is that the issue is a political hot potato and NO politician wants to speak out against NCLB as they will most likely be labeled the "anti-education" President/Congressman/Senator.
Personally I believe that sometimes it doesn't matter how hard you try, a child cannot comprehend a certain subject within the timeframe of a single school year. (i.e. It may take longer than 9 months for a mentally disabled child to display a solid proficiency in algebra. It may take longer than 9 months for a new transfer student with very limited English skills to pass a standardized 4th grade AYP test without already having the background knowledge/experience of his/her fellow classmates. And sometimes kids just don't pay attention in school – I know, I was one of them.)
What's more, I'm not sure I agree with a punitive approach to Federal funding (i.e. if a school doesn't achieve AYP, it loses funding) since it may hasten staff layoffs in an already failing district – which in turn can further reduce a school's proficiency. I also don't think NJ should lower our testing criteria (i.e. make it easier) simply to boost our levels of Federal funding as it's our responsibility to prepare these kids for the future, no matter how tough it may be.
Charter Schools
The concept of a charter school was created as a public school alternative. These schools receive public monies but are not subject to the same rules/regulations that apply to traditional public schools. They are not permitted to charge admission, so their funding is typically a line-item of the surrounding public school district's budget. While a charter school's capacity is limited and does not require them to automatically take a child residing in its "home" district, the demographics of a charter school's student population is supposed to match its home district. (That said, typically charter schools are granted enrollment exceptions. Studies have already shown many instances of charter schools cutting programs or refusing the educate students with special needs so as to maintain their budget.)
One of the most popular arguments in support of charter schools is that increased competition will force public schools to improve and achieve higher AYP test scores. Supporters also argue that charter schools are more fiscally efficient and have higher graduation rates/test scores. (They attribute this to the fact that most charter schools are not unionized.)
MY OPINION
I have two fundamental/philosophical differences behind the concept of a charter school:
1. I believe any institutions utilizing public monies should be open for all members of the public
2. I believe all institutions utilizing public monies should be held accountable to the same basic standards
3. I believe NJ already has too many school districts and the creation of a bunch of one-off/one-school districts (each with their own full staffs) will only compound the problem
In addition, I have several concerns:
1. Charter schools have a track record of denying admission to special needs students (these students tend to cost significantly more to educate)
2. Charter schools are not mandated to match the student demographics of its surrounding district. (Some states – like NJ – do have laws requiring this, however they are lax, have loopholes as stated above, and are often ignored.)
3. Charter schools are allowed to maintain student body size limitations
4. Charter schools divert monies from public schools
Aside from my philosophical beliefs, personally I can't see how a charter school would foster any sort of positive competition in Freehold Borough. Charter schools are permitted to deny admission to a segment of the population (i.e. special needs) and limit the size of its student body. When these factors are compared side-by-side to a public school, a charter school will always look more attractive because they have the luxury of cherry-picking their student population. However my greatest fear is that the creation of a charter school in Freehold would create a 2-tier education system: a charter system for "normal" students and a public system for "everyone else". I don’t see this helping our little town, I see it dividing us further.
Dan x.
PS.
Food-for-thought: It is illegal to prevent workers in any trade from unionizing. That said, how long do people really think charter schools will find themselves union-free…?
**THIS IS MY PERSONAL OPINION AND DOES NOT REFLECT THAT OF ANYONE ELSE ON THE FREEHOLD BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION.**
