In the category of giving credit where credit is due, Governor Rendell should be applauded for his vetoes of SB 1247 and HB 1438, legislation that would have restricted the authority of school districts to appeal real estate assessments.
In his veto statement, the governor correctly noted that when some properties are "under-assessed" that only serves to raise the taxes on everyone else. (File that under "there is no such thing as a free lunch.")
The real solution, of course – also duly noted by the governor - would be to pass legislation that would mandate regular county-wide assessments, perhaps once every ten years. That would eliminate the inequity that builds up in the system when assessments are not performed for decades on end.
Subscribe To SchoolBoardBlogger
Posts
All Comments
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Curriculum and 21st century skills
I was personally thrilled by Monday's board work session on curriculum development with Jay McTighe, who has worked with State College for a number of years.
I have long believed that the district was ahead of the curve with its list of "characteristics of a State High graduate" that so closely parallels the 21st century skills that are such a large part of the national education conversation.
While this list has informed the work of the district’s faculty for over a decade, Mr. McTighe challenged the district to be more intentional, and explicit, in tying these characteristics to our curriculum, and finding ways to measure whether we have succeeded. While some of the things on this list are easier to measure than others, just asking the question (to give one example) “what does ‘a responsible steward of the environment’ look like?” is a good place to start.
From the conversations I heard, there is a general recognition that by focusing on these “higher order” skills, we will continue to be successful on standardized test scores (as we heard about later in the meeting.) That vision appears to be shared around the table.
FYI, the list:
• a responsible and involved citizen
• a clear and effective communicator
• a competent problem solver who thinks critically and creatively
• a productive individual who works independently and collaboratively
• one who demonstrates respects for self and others in an increasingly diverse society
• a user of evolving technologies
• a knowledgeable practitioner of wellness behaviors
• an informed consumer and effective manager of personal and family resources
• a responsible steward of the environment
• a participant in the arts
I have long believed that the district was ahead of the curve with its list of "characteristics of a State High graduate" that so closely parallels the 21st century skills that are such a large part of the national education conversation.
While this list has informed the work of the district’s faculty for over a decade, Mr. McTighe challenged the district to be more intentional, and explicit, in tying these characteristics to our curriculum, and finding ways to measure whether we have succeeded. While some of the things on this list are easier to measure than others, just asking the question (to give one example) “what does ‘a responsible steward of the environment’ look like?” is a good place to start.
From the conversations I heard, there is a general recognition that by focusing on these “higher order” skills, we will continue to be successful on standardized test scores (as we heard about later in the meeting.) That vision appears to be shared around the table.
FYI, the list:
• a responsible and involved citizen
• a clear and effective communicator
• a competent problem solver who thinks critically and creatively
• a productive individual who works independently and collaboratively
• one who demonstrates respects for self and others in an increasingly diverse society
• a user of evolving technologies
• a knowledgeable practitioner of wellness behaviors
• an informed consumer and effective manager of personal and family resources
• a responsible steward of the environment
• a participant in the arts
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
School climate
"School climate" was the subject of Jonathan Cohen's keynote address at July's PSBA educational symposium in Gettysburg.
Defined most broadly, school climate refers to the environment that makes possible, enhances, or hinders learning by students. At the physical level, this is about proper lighting, adequate air ventilation and classroom acoustics, in addition to safety.
But typically, it refers to social and emotional safety, the result of a complex interaction of the school's rules, norms and values; teaching practices; and the quality of interpersonal relationships with teachers and peers.
Does everyone is the school - students, teachers and administrators - feel a responsibility to contribute to the physical, social and educational environment of the school? Does everyone have the opportunity to do so? Does everyone feel respected and valued?
The greatest barrier to learning is fear - when your brain is in a state of fear, new, complex learning is next to impossible. The degree to which students (and teachers, for that matter) feel "safe" is a critical component of the learning environment.
An illustration to which I expect most readers can relate: does every student feel emotionally safe enough to raise one's hand to say "I don't understand; could you explain that again?" What can teachers do to create that environment? (An idea to consider: what if teachers had their students practice saying those words? Once a day - or as necessary - have each student in the class raise his or her hand and say, "I don't understand” – or some variation - until it begins to feel normal for every student. Just a thought.)
Recent research on school climate has established the connection between positive school climate and academic achievement, as well as teacher retention.
Obviously, measuring school climate is not a simple as a PSSA score, but the significance of its impact on how well students learn makes a compelling case for developing a mechanism that tells school officials and the public how well they're doing.
Defined most broadly, school climate refers to the environment that makes possible, enhances, or hinders learning by students. At the physical level, this is about proper lighting, adequate air ventilation and classroom acoustics, in addition to safety.
But typically, it refers to social and emotional safety, the result of a complex interaction of the school's rules, norms and values; teaching practices; and the quality of interpersonal relationships with teachers and peers.
Does everyone is the school - students, teachers and administrators - feel a responsibility to contribute to the physical, social and educational environment of the school? Does everyone have the opportunity to do so? Does everyone feel respected and valued?
The greatest barrier to learning is fear - when your brain is in a state of fear, new, complex learning is next to impossible. The degree to which students (and teachers, for that matter) feel "safe" is a critical component of the learning environment.
An illustration to which I expect most readers can relate: does every student feel emotionally safe enough to raise one's hand to say "I don't understand; could you explain that again?" What can teachers do to create that environment? (An idea to consider: what if teachers had their students practice saying those words? Once a day - or as necessary - have each student in the class raise his or her hand and say, "I don't understand” – or some variation - until it begins to feel normal for every student. Just a thought.)
Recent research on school climate has established the connection between positive school climate and academic achievement, as well as teacher retention.
Obviously, measuring school climate is not a simple as a PSSA score, but the significance of its impact on how well students learn makes a compelling case for developing a mechanism that tells school officials and the public how well they're doing.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Legislative update, part 2
The other significant issue addressed last week was, of course, the governor's proposal for state-wide Graduation Competency Assessments. The good news is that the GCA initiative has been postponed for a year, but like Jason from "Friday the 13th", I'm certain that we've not seen the end of it.
Over the last few weeks, the House Education Committee voted 22-1 to send a letter to the State Board of Education asking them to "re-evaluate" their proposal; the Senate Education Committee voted 11-1 to prevent the State Board from adopting the proposal without authorization of the General Assembly.; and the full Senate passed that bill by a vote of 48-2. 48-2! The governor, however, does not appear discouraged.
But what got my attention was how the story was covered in the press. According to the AP, opponents of the proposal are primarily concerned with the loss of "local policy making authority."
Frankly, this is typical (lazy?) reporting that frames every political issue as a turf war. Personally, I could care less about the loss of local authority - if I thought that the state had come up with a good idea to improve education, I would be all for it.
So here's the heart of the argument: it seems to me that if you are going to put this much weight on a high-stakes test, you would want to make sure that the test actually measures what it's supposed to - but there is absolutely no evidence that a standardized, fill-in-the-bubble test is a reliable and accurate measurement of whether an individual student has learned - and is able to apply - the material that is being tested.
And - this really disturbs me - there has been no public discussion over what that material should be! How was it decided that every high school student needs to know algebra, but not statistics; geometry, but not probability; chemistry, but not astronomy?
Here's a radical, but perhaps more honest idea. When I picture the set of skills that every high school student ought to have, what I see actually lines up pretty well with our 8th grade curriculum. (When business leaders talk about the lack of "basic skills", this is what they're actually talking about.) If the state wants to implement an assessment of these skills, as an addition to local high school graduation requirements, I'm all for it.
Here's something else the state board could do: take a good look at schools that are successful, and give some thought as to how what they do could be replicated state-wide.
Over the last few weeks, the House Education Committee voted 22-1 to send a letter to the State Board of Education asking them to "re-evaluate" their proposal; the Senate Education Committee voted 11-1 to prevent the State Board from adopting the proposal without authorization of the General Assembly.; and the full Senate passed that bill by a vote of 48-2. 48-2! The governor, however, does not appear discouraged.
But what got my attention was how the story was covered in the press. According to the AP, opponents of the proposal are primarily concerned with the loss of "local policy making authority."
Frankly, this is typical (lazy?) reporting that frames every political issue as a turf war. Personally, I could care less about the loss of local authority - if I thought that the state had come up with a good idea to improve education, I would be all for it.
So here's the heart of the argument: it seems to me that if you are going to put this much weight on a high-stakes test, you would want to make sure that the test actually measures what it's supposed to - but there is absolutely no evidence that a standardized, fill-in-the-bubble test is a reliable and accurate measurement of whether an individual student has learned - and is able to apply - the material that is being tested.
And - this really disturbs me - there has been no public discussion over what that material should be! How was it decided that every high school student needs to know algebra, but not statistics; geometry, but not probability; chemistry, but not astronomy?
Here's a radical, but perhaps more honest idea. When I picture the set of skills that every high school student ought to have, what I see actually lines up pretty well with our 8th grade curriculum. (When business leaders talk about the lack of "basic skills", this is what they're actually talking about.) If the state wants to implement an assessment of these skills, as an addition to local high school graduation requirements, I'm all for it.
Here's something else the state board could do: take a good look at schools that are successful, and give some thought as to how what they do could be replicated state-wide.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Legislative update
The fact that the state budget (almost) passed on time last week is unfortunately noteworthy. But this budget represents a significant step towards state-wide educational equity, so one ought not to complain.
The legislature did well by expanding the governor's proposed minimum increase (for "wealthier" districts) of 1.5%, since local school districts, including State College, had already built the standard 2% increase into their budgets.
However, by raising the minimum to 3% (resulting in a "windfall" for State College of about $90,000) it seems to me that they missed the point - which was, after all, to begin to address the issue of how widely financial resources vary for schools across the state.
What the state giveth, however, the state also taketh away. The smaller increase in special education funding (from 3.1% to 1.7%) will cost State College about $98,000 - but since we only budgeted for 2%, the actual shortfall is about $11,000. (Note: according to PDE, that number is actually $28,000. And - the state increased it's reimbursement for charter school costs from 25% of costs to 28%. This will result in a $174,000 increase for State College, due to our high charter school expenses.)
Also, funding for the governor's Classrooms of the Future grant was cut in half. It's too soon to know whether that will affect the next phase of State College's laptop initiative.
The legislature did well by expanding the governor's proposed minimum increase (for "wealthier" districts) of 1.5%, since local school districts, including State College, had already built the standard 2% increase into their budgets.
However, by raising the minimum to 3% (resulting in a "windfall" for State College of about $90,000) it seems to me that they missed the point - which was, after all, to begin to address the issue of how widely financial resources vary for schools across the state.
What the state giveth, however, the state also taketh away. The smaller increase in special education funding (from 3.1% to 1.7%) will cost State College about $98,000 - but since we only budgeted for 2%, the actual shortfall is about $11,000. (Note: according to PDE, that number is actually $28,000. And - the state increased it's reimbursement for charter school costs from 25% of costs to 28%. This will result in a $174,000 increase for State College, due to our high charter school expenses.)
Also, funding for the governor's Classrooms of the Future grant was cut in half. It's too soon to know whether that will affect the next phase of State College's laptop initiative.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)