|
 |
|
||
|
In addition to those series already correlated to states' standards, we're now currently in the process of redesigning and aligning our reading comprehension and mathematics test prep workbooks to your state's standards, making them even better for your test preparation needs. NEW! Extended, Informative Teacher's Introductions NEW! Introductory Guided Practice Section for Each Grade Level in Reading Comprehension NOW! Questions are formatted and phrased to mirror the actual state test, giving your students better familiarity with what they can expect to see on their state exam. Request FREE REVIEW COPIES Today!! Visit this link: http://www.qworkbooks.com/samplerequest.html EDUCATION NEWS AND SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THE EDUCATION RESEARCH REPORT While you can still read full-text versions of our back issues from April 2006–January 2007 for free (http://www.queuenews.com/EduResearchRpt.html), you must now subscribe for access to new full-text versions, including the articles in this issue. An annual subscription is available for $145. And as an added bonus, you'll continue to automatically receive your state's e-newsletter, a $48 value, for free!! These newsletters will be published by AICE, Inc. an affiliate of Queue, Inc. Call 800-232-2224 to place your order with a credit card. Once you have subscribed, you will be emailed the protected URL for the full-text version of the Education Research Report. Details can be found here: http://www.queuenews.com/subsstate.html For back issues of this newsletter, as well as current and back issues of our state newsletters and U.S. Education News, please go to our NEWLY-REDESIGNED website: http://www.queuenews.com/ Florida Department of Education Estimates a Shortage of Nearly 22,000 Teachers …The Florida Department of Education estimates a shortage of nearly 22,000 teachers for the 2007-08 school year, or 12 percent of the total estimated classroom work force of about 180,000. In Duval County, 1,200 to 1,500 new teachers, who start at $35,200 with a bachelor's degree, are hired each year, specifically for shortages in middle and elementary schools, and in critical shortage areas like math, science and exceptional student education, Byrd said. Teacher salaries go as high as $67,566 for experienced educators with doctorate degrees. ….Many of those positions will be filled by the start of the school year, but not all by those certified to teach in the subject areas… According to data from the Florida Department of Education's Office of Evaluation and Reporting, 10.7 percent of new hires in fall 2004 were not certified in the appropriate field. That was an improvement from fall 2002, when 15.8 percent of new hires were not certified in the subjects they were hired to teach, but the number is still high. FDOE data showed that on the first day of the 2006-07 school year, there were more than 1,900 vacancies. The year before, there were about 2,100 first-day vacancies. Anywhere from 42,000 to 50,000 new students enroll in Florida's schools each year, according to FDOE officials, which means at least 3,000 new teachers are needed to accommodate growth alone. The Class Size Amendment and growing number of retiring or resigning teachers exacerbates the need. The number of teachers in Florida leaving the profession in a year increased by about 31 percent from 11,000 in the 1998-99 school year to more than 14,500 in the 2003-04 school year, according to the FDOE. Also, one-fifth of teachers were born before 1950 and another fifth were born from 1951 to 1958, so at least 40 percent of teachers have reached retirement age or will do so by 2015. The FDOE will continue to use recruitment techniques it has found to be effective, including the Great Florida Teach-In, Web-based recruitment, local job fairs and outreach to military spouses… Through the Critical Teacher Shortage Tuition Reimbursement Program, the state helps teachers pay for undergraduate or graduate course work that leads to certification in a critical shortage area. In Florida, those areas are math, science, reading, foreign language, English for speakers of other languages and exceptional student education. Teachers can receive up to $78 per credit hour, with a maximum of $2,808 for up to 36 credit hours. The Critical Teacher Shortage Student Loan Forgiveness Program helps teachers repay loans for schooling to obtain certification in a critical area. Teachers can receive up to $2,500 for undergraduate school loans and $5,000 for graduate school loans. Florida offers two types of certification, professional and temporary. Professional certification is valid for five years and is renewable. It requires a bachelor's degree, subject area mastery and mastery of professional preparation and education competence. The temporary certification only requires a bachelor's degree and subject area mastery, but is valid for three years and is nonrenewable. Temporary certification is awarded in hopes teachers will work on their professional certification during that time. Through Florida's Alternative Certification Program, teachers who qualify for temporary certification can complete educational competence courses through distance learning and peer mentoring…. To read the complete article: Florida Ranks 27th in the Nation for Teacher Pay Teacher Pay Is Insufficient To Meet Rising Debt, Housing Costs in Many Areas Florida ranked 27th in the nation for its average teacher salary in 2004-05, according to the American Federation of Teachers’ (AFT) annual teacher salary survey. Nationally, anemic teacher salary growth continues to lag behind inflation and precludes many teachers from finding affordable housing and paying off student loans. The average teacher salary in Florida for the 2004-05 school year was $43,095, up 2.6 percent from the previous year. Florida was ranked 20th in the nation for beginning teacher salary, at $33,427, an increase of 2.7 percent from 2004. The average teacher salary nationally in 2004-05 was $47,602, a 2.2 percent increase from the previous year. This falls short of the rate of inflation for that year, which was 3.4 percent. Between 2003 and 2005, the buying power of the average teacher salary has decreased by almost $800. The 2005 salary survey also examines the impact of rising housing costs and student loan debt payments on teachers in America’s 50 largest cities. The study concludes that the incomes of mid-career teachers in these cities will limit them to purchasing lower-priced homes. In cities such as Seattle, Oakland, Los Angeles and San Francisco, many career teachers will never be able to realize the middle-class dream of home ownership. Other states in the Southeast region ranked in the AFT survey as follows: Georgia was ranked 18th in the nation, at $46,437; Virginia was 20th, at $45,377; North Carolina was 24th, at $43,343; South Carolina was 28th, at $42,189; Tennessee was 29th, at $42,076; Arkansas was 30th, at $41,489; Kentucky was 31st, at $41,075; Louisiana was 42nd, at $39,022; West Virginia was 44th, at $38,404; Mississippi was 45th, at $38,212; and Alabama was 46th, at $38,186. Connecticut had the highest average teacher salary, at $57,760, while South Dakota reported the lowest, at $34,039.Technology Report Card – Florida Ranks High Technology Counts 2007, a joint project of Education Week and the Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, tracks data from the 50 states and the District of Columbia in several critical areas of technology policy and practice: access, use, and capacity. The report assigns grades to the states for their performance in those three categories. State grades are not comparable with those in last year’s report because of changes in two access indicators and improvements in the scoring for indicators related to teacher and administrator licensure. Florida’s excellent scores: Access to technology B To see the full Florida report: http://www.edweek.org/media/ew/tc/2007/FL_STR2007.pdf Charter Schools: Missing the Grade Florida is home to more than 300 charter schools – public schools funded by your tax dollars but run by groups, such as cities, nonprofits or management companies. Some operators are steeped in education experience, while others have no academic credentials. Many charter schools enjoy good reputations. But scores of them continue getting education dollars despite records of low student achievement and financial mismanagement. A yearlong investigation by the Orlando Sentinel found that the state's lack of oversight has allowed students to fail academically and charter operators to profit from their relationships with the schools. This series looks at student performance, charter-school spending and what the state is doing – or not doing – to hold the campuses accountable. Orlando Sentinel reporters Vicki McClure and Mary Shanklin have spent a year investigating the educational and financial operations of Florida's charter schools and how well these independently operated public schools are meeting the needs of school children. Starting with student-test data from the annual Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test and reports compiled for the federal No Child Left Behind law, the newspaper compiled an extensive database of academic performance for graded and ungraded schools statewide. The team also reviewed hundreds of audits submitted by charters to the state, illustrating their financial arrangements and spending priorities. Combined with demographic information provided by the state Department of Education, the database gave the reporters a picture of how charters compare with their conventional counterparts in the public-school system. The reporters visited schools, met teachers and talked with school administrators and parents. Their dozens of interviews included discussions with lawmakers, state officials and members of a new statewide panel that will oversee charters. Part I: Part II Parts III and IV Impact of Florida Abstinence Education Program: None A recent study of four abstinence education programs, conducted by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., finds that the programs had no effect on the sexual abstinence of youth. But it also finds that youth in these programs were no more likely to have unprotected sex, a concern that has been raised by some critics of these programs. The study, conducted for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, was authorized by Congress in 1997 to evaluate the effectiveness of programs funded under Title V, Section 510 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Nationwide, more than 700 Title V, Section 510 programs receive up to $50 million annually from the federal government in order to teach youth about abstinence from sexual activity outside of marriage. Additional funding from state matching block grants brings annual spending for Title V, Section 510 sexual abstinence education programs to $87.5 million. The study found that youth in the four evaluated programs were no more likely than youth not in the programs to have abstained from sex in the four to six years after they began participating in the study. Youth in both groups who reported having had sex also had similar numbers of sexual partners and had initiated sex at the same average age. Contrary to concerns raised by some critics of federal funding for abstinence education, however, youth in the abstinence education programs were no more likely to have engaged in unprotected sex than youth who did not participate in the programs. “This is the first study of multi-year abstinence programs, and it is one of the few that has tracked its sample members for as long as six years,” notes Christopher Trenholm, the project director and a senior researcher at Mathematica. “The study finds that the sexual abstinence of students in four programs selected for the study was much the same as that of students who did not participate in these programs.” Methodology The study used the most rigorous, scientifically based approach to measure the impacts of the programs. Much like a clinical trial in medicine, this approach compares outcomes for two statistically equivalent groups—a program group and a control group—created by random assignment (similar to a lottery). Youth in the program group were eligible to receive the abstinence education program services, while those in the control group were not, and received only the usual health, family life, and sex education services available in their schools and communities. When coupled with sufficiently large sample sizes, longitudinal surveys conducted by independent data collectors, and appropriate statistical methods, this design is able to produce highly credible estimates of the impacts of the programs being studied. Youth were enrolled in the study sample over three consecutive school years, from fall 1999 through fall 2001, and randomly assigned within schools to either the program or the control group. The results in this report are based on a survey given to 2,057 youth in 2005 and 2006, roughly four to six years after they began participating in the study; 1,209 had participated in one of the Title V, Section 510 abstinence education programs and 848 had been assigned to the control group. By the time the last follow-up survey was completed, youth had entered their mid to late teens, permitting the researchers to reliably measure program impacts on teen sexual activity and other risk behaviors. The four programs studied include My Choice, My Future! in Powhatan County, Virginia; ReCapturing the Vision in Miami, Florida; Teens in Control in Clarksdale, Mississippi; and Families United to Prevent Teen Pregnancy in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. These four programs were chosen because they had well implemented and replicable programs and were willing and able to take part in a rigorous evaluation The report, “Impacts of Four Title V, Section 510 Abstinence Education Programs,” is available here: FCAT Lies, Paid Cheerleaders, and Florida's Economic Demise by Robert R. Lange, Retired If you believe the FCAT and A+ plan glamour stories issued by Florida's gubernatorial press office, their paid cheerleaders, and the Florida Department of Education, be prepared to be disabused. The facts and data collected by the Fl. Lake Mary, FL -- October 16, 2006 -- If you believe the FCAT and A+ plan glamour stories issued by Florida’s gubernatorial press office, their paid cheerleaders, and the Florida Department of Education, be prepared to be disabused. The facts and data collected by the Fl. DOE itself belie the distortions and twisted interpretations created by persons who have pledged to promote the conservative agenda of big business and selected wealthy fiscal donors. Educational improvement has become a major political issue. It will impact the life-long productivity of existing students and affect the political futures of many state officials. The importance of education reform has caused public-office holders to hire agencies with known political connections to produce reports that distort reality. Those reports are more like cheer-leader chants than scholarly efforts. The cheering agents include the Manhattan Institute, the Koret Task Force of the Hoover Institution and the newly formed Foundation for Florida’s Future. The truth can be found through an understanding of the FCAT and how such standardized or norm-referenced tests are created and scored. The bottom line can be found in reports of the impact of inappropriate use of the FCAT on school curricula, student learning, school dropout rates, and the eventual educational decline of Florida’s young workforce. The FCAT What is the nature of the FCAT? It is a norm-referenced test that best serves to rank order Florida public school students by their ability to answer a limited set of questions. The FCAT Handbook – A Resource for Educators -- is a 125+ page document that provides an overview of the test development and some guidance in the use of test results. As a test instrument, the FCAT has merit and has received national recognition for its good technical qualities. But its use as the primary criterion for major judgments and decisions about students, schools, teachers and school administrators violates most of the ethical and technical guidelines provided in the Code of Professional Responsibilities in Educational Measurement created by National Council on Measurement in Education and recommendations of the Board on Testing and Assessment - Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education – National Research Council. Contrary to the frequent claims of the Florida Department of Education, the FCAT is not a criterion-referenced test nor is it a diagnostic test. The FCAT cannot be used to help educators identify specific students strengths and weaknesses or to plan child-appropriate lessons. The test items cover only a part of what students are expected to learn. There are too few items on any specific skill to be useful for instructional planning. Teachers, students, and parents don’t see student responses and have no legal opportunities to review copies of the test. Too often, the editors and writers of regional newspapers have either blindly or purposively printed the distorted and politically motivated messages about education in Florida, the FCAT, and student achievement. Few newspaper editors or their reporters have a sufficient knowledge of the technical aspects of measurement and statistical processes to identify or challenge the distortions. A major FCAT lie – grade retention helps students catch-up or get ahead. One of the most destructive, life altering and arguably criminal lies being told to Florida students, parents, and educators is that grade-level retention of students who fall behind helps the students catch-up and become better learners in subsequent years. Three papers have been written about the effect of Florida’s law that now mandates grade retentions for grade-three students who score at level one on the FCAT reading assessment. The reports are based on data provided by the Florida Department of Education. The data are as good as is available but slightly flawed. However, the meanings assigned to the data are distortions that violate the statistical standards presented in most all measurement and statistical reference materials. The authors of the first report (dated December, 2004 and available from the Manhattan Institute) examined scores of students retained in grade 3 at the end of the 2002-2003 school year. The second report (dated Spring 2006 and available from the Florida Department of Education) is a spruced-up version of the first report. The third report (dated September, 2006 and available from the Manhattan Institute) is based on 2005 scores and is a two year follow-up of part of the students studied in the first report. In all three reports, contrary to the author’s claims, the results closely match the results of the large number of studies on the impact of grade retention that have been reported over the past 50 years. A second or third year in grade 3 resulted in trivial or very small improvements when compared to nearly similar students who were promoted. Most of the grade-three students retained in 2003 were still behind most of their younger grade peers one year and two years later. The technical details: compared to similar students who were promoted in the previous year, retained students reading scores gained less them 5 percentile points or an effect size of less then .07. All statistical reference materials refer to those gains as trivial. The authors of the first two reports painted those gains as indicating substantial improvements that would permit those students to get ahead, -- a scandalous distortion of the truth. Although students’ FCAT math scores were not the reason for retention, improvements in math were also examined. Gains in math scores for retained students were a bit larger but were still at the level statistical standards call very small to moderate. Perhaps, the somewhat larger math gains were was due to over-learning of skills already achieved. The authors of the third report (September, 2006 and based on 2005 scores) used a slightly different methodology but found similar results and made similar distorted claims about the benefits of grade retention. They also failed to note that during the 2003-2004 school year 734 students were required to spend a third year in grade three or that 1,116 students were kept in grade three for a third time during 2004-2005. Another flaw of the Manhattan institute reports was the authors’ assumption that the developmental scale scores from the FCAT could be equated across grade levels. They assumed that a score of 600 on the grade-three test indicated the same level of ability as a score of 600 on the grade-four test. Chapter 6 of the FCAT Handbook – A Resource for Educators provided a warning against that assumption. The Drop-Out Rate Lie National organizations that attempt to monitor school drop-out rates for every state have reported Florida’s dropout rate as the highest of all 50 states. The Fl. DOE uses their own method of calculation in order to make the facts look less harmful. The Florida DOE data reveal the pattern in the state. Students who were two or more years older then their grade peers seldom stay in school beyond grade nine or grade ten. Not counting students with disabilities, during 2003-2004 the numbers of Florida students 2 or more years older than grade peers were: 17,332 for grade 8; 41,048 for grade 9; 23,693 for grade 10; 13,478 for grade 11; and 2,539 for grade 12. The number of lost students during high school was similar for the next year. In the 2004-2005 school year the numbers of students two or more years older than grade peers were: 16,848 for grade 8; 32,745 for grade 9; 21,728 for grade 10, 14,310 for grade 11, and 2,239 for grade 12. The 1999 U.S. Department of Education published the policy document “Taking Responsibility for Ending Social Promotion”. The policy has been wrongly changed to “Ending Social Promotion” by politicians in Florida and other states to encourage marked increases in grade-level retention. In truth, the Federal policy statement strongly discouraged the use of retention as a school improvement strategy. Numerous alternative interventions were suggested, including smaller class sizes, and longer school years. The 2005 Statistical Brief on Florida Non-Promotions by grade level from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004 identified the marked increase in Florida’s non-promotions during 2002-2003. Researchers have established what Florida parents know. Reduced class size permits teachers to use more effective interventions for improving student achievement. Grade retention imparts a life-long academic and social suffocation to most youth. Key leaders of Florida’s conservative movement have done their best to distort the reality of the positive potential of reduced class size. Smaller classes coupled with instruction matched to student needs produce some of the most positive results. It reduces school failure and lowers the rate of school drop-outs. Test Score Improvement and Real Learning Average FCAT scores for Florida elementary school students have increased a bit in the past few years. The questions is: Do the slightly higher FCAT scores indicate a true improvement in student learning? The answer to that question is not easy to document. When the limited content of the FCAT became the focus of the major part of the school instruction, called teaching to the test, scores improved a bit. But at what was the cost to total learning? What parts of a full curriculum were replaced with endless test drill and practice? The lost or reduced components of school curricula included: Physical Education – students became less healthy and local Heart Associations asked for funding to run exercise programs for kids; science – the new science part of the FCAT will now require a redirection of school time; music and art – student interest in school and ability to find joy in the arts disappeared; social science and history – loss of an understanding of how society became what it is today; problem solving and cooperative group work – major skills desired by most employers in the world of work and needed for gainful employment. The lost learning has begun to become evident as FCAT victims finish high school and seek admission to colleges and universities. Only slightly over half of Florida youth now graduate from high school. For those who do graduate, SAT scores have declined and their ability to be admitted to the most prestigious post-high-school institutions has declined. Grade 3 Reading Scores The Foundation for Florida’s Future, a new entity described below has highlighted some data that seems a bit suspicious. They noted that in Spring, 2006 only 25% of Florida’s grade 3 students scored at levels 1 and 2 or below grade level on FCAT reading. In 2001, 43% of grade 3 students had reading scored classified at levels 1 and 2. In 2002, it was 42% with 23% of the total at level 1 and subject to retention. The rates in level 1 and 2 in 2003, 2004 and 2005 were 38%, 35% and 32% respectively. Of the 18% reduction from 2001 to 2006, the year-by-year reductions, in order, were 2%, 3%, 3%, 3%, and 7%. What could have caused the overall and sudden 7% reduction in the number of students reading below grade level from 2005 to 2006? There are four components to the answer. First, schools did a better and better job of teaching reading. Second, Fl. DOE data show that larger numbers of students were retained in grades K-2, a strategy that helped improve school grades because it helped produce higher average scores for grade-3 students. Third, as any test is used from year to year with only a few items changed each year, there has always been a natural increase in scores caused by “test corruption”, the so called “Lake Wobegone Effect”, or “test score creep”. The gradual increase has been documented for all norm referenced tests. Fourth, there is some suspicion, based on 2006 oral reports of test scorers, that Fl. DOE staff modified the scoring guides in order to help increase test scores. All four of those elements could have had some part in the improved scores. School Grades and Teacher Bonuses The number of Florida schools given A and B grades has increased and the count of schools with D and F grades has declined. What does that mean? First, reading has improved to some extent, a good thing. But few people know how the secret grading formulas have been manipulated. The grading system has changed frequently, often yearly, so that no true pattern of improvement is possible. As noted above, student scores on norm referenced tests have no validity as a measure of school quality. The rankings of schools by average test scores is a nearly perfect match with rankings by the average household incomes of students’ families. Parents with moderate or higher household incomes have more time and resources to provide their children with many more life experiences that assist children with school learning. In an attempt to reward teachers’ efforts, Florida established a bonus program for high performing schools. The bonus plan has increased the staffing problems for schools serving students from lower-income families. As noted during the Seminole County School Board meeting during the week of Oct. 9, 2006, schools serving poorer students have very high annual teacher turnover rates. Because those schools cannot retain teachers, there is a loss of continuity and school commitment. When school board members were asked to approve an incentive program of $500 annually for a teacher retention program, board members noted that $500 might not be effective. Teachers could move to a school serving high-income families and receive a state bonus of $1,000 to $1,500 annually. Prior attempts to use teacher bonus programs to help improve student learning in Florida and other states have always been found to be counter-productive. Although it is good to improve teacher salaries in order to attract and keep good teachers, a general increase in teacher salaries and bonuses for teaching in schools serving low income families could be more effective. Many people seem to agree, but political considerations have kept that type of plan from being initiated and maintained. Paid Cheerleaders Florida residents have seen ads and reports on T.V. and in newspapers that proclaim the benefits of the A+ plan for education and the benefits of grade-3 retentions. What about those reports and who produced them? The two members of education division of the Manhattan Institute wrote reports on grade-3 retention. They were housed in Florida. The Manhattan Institute is a conservative think tank funded by big business and the wealthy. Their openly stated objective is to advance the conservative agenda by publishing position statements and conducting research or policy analysis studies in an attempt to insert the conservative agenda into federal and state policies. The three reports on the impact of mandated grade-3 retentions described above represent the bias and distortions that result. The authors of the three reports are now located within the College of Education at the University of Arkansas in a new department purchased by a $20 million gift from the Walton Foundation and related donators. It seems that the goal of the new department is to support the conservative agenda. They support efforts to establish new for-profit private schools that are exempted from accountability and an increased use of voucher programs that use public education dollars for those schools. A second group of authors produced a nearly 300-page document praising the components of the Florida A+ plan for school improvement. The authors are members of the Koret Task Force on K-12 Education of the Hoover Institute located at Stanford, California. Governor Bush hired the well-known conservative-minded group to produce a policy assessment of his education improvement efforts. To no one’s surprise, the report praised his efforts. As noted by social scientists, when decision makers have made up their minds and stake their reputations on past decisions, no honest report is acceptable. One might wonder if the report could have been written without knowledge of the facts of school-life in Florida. The third group is new, the Foundation for Florida’s Future. The foundation was established by Jeb Bush with donations from big corporations and wealthy friends. Its purposes are yet to be made public, but one of its first acts was to publicly support the Bush A+ plan for education. The foundation published statements about data that appear positive but were contaminated with the slanted interpretations described above. Bush’s new foundation is clearly a political organization that is, in part, tied to the longer-term reputation of Mr. Bush as a successful education-governor. Their success will be based on public opinion of Mr. Bush’s education improvement efforts that have become less and less popular with Florida’s parents and voters. Florida deserves honest studies of its efforts to improve education under the A+ plan and the federal NO Child Left Behind law. It is of little value to rely on paid cheerleaders as they dance about with a roll of dollars in one fist and an A+ pompom in the other fist. The editors of the Orlando Sentinel, the Ledger from Polk county and similar conservative regional newspapers have a history of publishing stories containing the distorted facts about the impact of the FCAT and the A+ plan. They continue to attempt to persuade their readers to support the twisted perceptions of the meaning of FCAT scores and the use of average scores for assigning grades to schools. The Florida Department of Education has used copies of the stories as appendices to some of the Department’s reports. Many Florida parents and other residents now believe that the A+ plan has done more damage to public education and the future of current school-age children then could be done by any foreign nation. Perhaps they are correct. The enemy with the most lethal weapons of educational mass destruction my already be among us clothed in “Here to Help You” dress. Florida’s Economic Demise The economic future of any state or nation is partly tied to the quality of its education programs. The ability to compete in the world economy requires a constant flow of well-educated people into the workforce. It is clear that Florida has needed to improve its education system if it is to compete with other states and nations. The question is: how to best improve learning for every student? The July 27,2006 United States Government Accounting Office written Testimony before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce described efforts by the 50 states to measure and assess student academic growth (GAO-06-948T). Only two states have developed methods that attempt an assessment of year-to-year progress of individual children that takes into account each child’s estimated potential. Tennessee’s method was described in limited detail. For the most part, states have had serious problems in validly assessing student’s year-to-year academic progress. The key to long-term education improvement is to meet the learning needs of every child. Slower learning students must be rewarded, not punished, when they do their best and achieve at an optimal level for their ability. More development is needed create measurement and instructional methods that help achieve that goal. Educators currently have many research-based strategies that are effective, but more strategies are needed. If Florida is to succeed in worldwide economic competition, it must become more than a state depending on a service and vacation industry supported by low-wage workers. The state must use its education dollars wisely. According to Fl. DOE reports, in every year since the 2002-2003 school year, approximately 100,000 K- 8 students were not promoted. At the current cost per student year of approximately $7,000, the lost years cost Florida approximately $700 million dollars annually. A similar number of students were not promoted each year in grades 9 to 12. Most of those students reach the age at which they drop out of school and become an economic drain on the state. The combined K-8 and high school costs of over a billion dollars per year associated with grade retention could be better spent on learning interventions that have been demonstrated to be effective. Small class sizes and innovative technologies that help teachers meet the needs of most all children do exist. The fiscal cost to Florida tax payers is much greater than the costs of wasted school years. Retention is known to reduce the long-term academic achievement of most retained students. Over-aged k-8 students tend to have high rates of disruptive and antisocial behaviors that heavily contribute to an increased risk of youth and adult criminal behavior. Crime costs in two ways. There are economic and life style costs for crime victims and high costs of prisons. Florida’s prison systems are currently overcrowded and plan to become much larger as the impact of punitive school policies lead to a need for more prison space. It is sad that state leaders prefer spending extra dollars on prisons rather than spending increased dollars on education programs that can help every student attain an optimal level of learning. Perhaps Florida’s moneyed power brokers believe that large numbers of school dropouts will provide them with a large source of low salaried workers. An alternative explanation of Florida’s policies is a desire to use vouchers to switch students from public schools to for-profit private schools that have no accountability requirement. It may be wise to “Follow the money” to see who intends to fiscally benefit.Miami-Dade School District Honored for Significant Gains in Student Achievement - Former Winner Returns to Competition for First Time - Five urban school districts are finalists for this year’s Broad Prize for Urban Education, an annual $1 million award given to honor urban school districts making the greatest progress in raising student achievement nationwide. This year’s five finalists are:
The Broad (pronounced “brode”) Prize for Urban Education honors urban school districts that demonstrate the greatest overall performance and improvement in student achievement while reducing achievement gaps among ethnic groups and between high- and low-income students. The winner of The Broad Prize, to be announced on Tuesday, Sept. 18, at the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C., will receive $500,000 in scholarships for graduating seniors. Each of the four finalist districts will receive $125,000 in scholarships. “After decades of decline, American public education continues to struggle compared with other industrialized nations, yet these five urban school districts have proven that with hard work, it is possible to raise student achievement in our inner cities,” said Eli Broad, founder of The Broad Foundation. “Other urban districts nationwide can learn a great deal from what is working in these five districts.” For the first time since the Prize began in 2002, a former winning district has returned to the competition as a finalist: Long Beach Unified School District, Calif., which won The Broad Prize in 2003. Under the rules of the competition, a winning district is not eligible for three years following its win, making this year the first year that Long Beach has again been eligible. “Every year, The Broad Prize highlights urban school districts whose commitment to raising achievement for all students is helping more children reach and realize their potential,” said U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings. “These districts are proving that every child, regardless of race, income, or zip code can learn and achieve to high standards. By shining the spotlight on such worthy examples, The Broad Prize helps show that progress in our most challenging, inner city schools is not only possible but already occurring all across the nation.” Past winners include: Boston Public Schools, 2006 This is the third consecutive year that the New York City Department of Education has been a finalist and the second year in a row for both Miami-Dade County Public Schools and Bridgeport Public Schools. This year, 100 of the largest urban school districts nationwide were eligible for The Broad Prize. The five finalist districts were selected based on a rigorous national review of data compiled and analyzed by MPR Associates, Inc., a leading national education research consulting firm. A review board of 14 prominent educational leaders evaluated the data and selected five finalist districts that stood out among large urban districts in areas such as:
Over the next two months, teams of educational researchers and practitioners will conduct site visits in each finalist district to gather qualitative information, interview district administrators, conduct focus groups with teachers and principals, and observe classrooms. The teams will also talk to parents, community leaders, school board members and union representatives. A selection jury of 14 prominent individuals nationwide from business, industry, education and public service will then review both the performance data and the qualitative site visit reports to choose the winning school district. For more information about The Broad Prize, this year’s finalists and the review board, please visit www.broadprize.org. |
|||
