Richland's Ford disapproves Zais's labels proposal

Superintendent Mick Zais's alternative to No Child Left Behind -- a waiver application that includes a proposal to label schools A through F for performance -- isn't collecting many supporters among veteran educators. In Richland County, school board member Vince Ford has become the latest to question the Zais model.

Richland One School Board member Vince Ford explains: "It's really about taking an adverse population of children black, white, male, female, those with special needs, those who speak a different language and every year you want to see those children make adequate yearly progress."

South Carolina's elementary and secondary education waiver basically outlines four principles for student achievement: All students must be college and career ready; there needs to be accountability for student success; effective instruction through teacher evaluations and reducing unnecessary duplication and paperwork.

"It's attainable," says Ford. "Some of the measures are tough but we all want a rigorous system."

Ford agrees that students should be held to higher standards. But he disagrees with how State Superintendent Mick Zais would label each school. They would be assigned grades A through F based on performance.

"If a community is labeled 'F' what is that going to for the children in that school?" questions Ford. "What is it going to do for housing prices? What is it going to do to try to recruit teachers to try to come to that school?"

Ford says identifying a school that needs improvement is fine, but the way it's done matters. Ford also thinks human and financial resources are needed in the schools.

Ford hits the nail on the head. We can hem and haw about policy matters 'til dark and dawn, but committing to provide quality education to every child takes resources, and until the resources are made available, it's all just a little bit of history repeating.

In fact, a reasonable person could conclude that all the time and effort spent on these policy questions is subterfuge, mere distraction from the core question: Do we, as a state, commit to providing quality public education to every child?

A proposal to exchange one bad school-labeling policy for another bad school-labeling policy is evidence that we don't.

"To put a label on it and then suggest things are going to get better, that's not going to happen and it's not only going to have an impact on that school but an impact on the larger community as well."

Ford says if the state superintendent accepts more federal money, pays teachers well and increases student expectations, then communities should see a better outcome.

"If we get a waiver, if we don't get it, if it doesn't change the attitude of those in a leadership position -- i.e., our state superintendent who won't even take money from the federal government."

And Ford hits another homer. Until we have an advocate in the position of state superintendent, South Carolina's 700,000 schoolchildren are at a supreme disadvantage.

Do I hear Ford for State Superintendent? Anyone?

A big point of contention: the waiver gives the state superintendent the right to put someone else in charge of a low-performing school, convert it to a charter school, or change the overall program structure.

Notice that none of the options reflect strengthening the public school from within. The only available options further dismantle public education as a viable system for South Carolina's public schoolchildren.

No wonder educators and parents aren't flocking to support Zais in his waiver application.

Aiken Standard: Time to leave NCLB

Agreed!

When the No Child Left Behind act was enacted 10 years ago it was heralded as a program to bring accountability to the country's education system. It set standards and measurement methods designed to reward achievement and punish failure.

But the program has flaws. For one, it ignores differences in favor of a one-size-fits-all method. And, success is all or nothing. If a school passes 16 of 17 objectives, the school fails.

So for a decade, teachers and administrators have been battling these cumbersome mandates. The result, too many schools, especially schools in poorer areas, have turned to teaching what it will take to pass the one-size-fits-all tests. It's even more distressing to know what's happened to many special needs students who are expected to stay on grade level despite their disabilities.

There have been some gains in academic achievement. But teachers are burdened by massive paperwork, and schoolchildren are unreasonably pressured to do well on standardized tests.

To be vindicated in one's lifetime is a supreme joy. Educators -- people who know their profession best -- HAVE been saying these things since 2002, to no avail. After a decade of being ground down, it is comfort -- cold comfort, but comfort -- to hear opinion-makers like newspaper editors finally reach the same conclusions.

When the Obama Administration opened the door for states to opt out of portions of the program, South Carolina Superintendent of Schools Mick Zais wisely raised his hand quickly to take advantage. Zais has made no secret of his abhorrence for federal intervention in public schools. He's turned down millions of dollars in federal money because it came with strings attached.

Tonight, State Department of Education officials will be in Aiken to explain the proposal for the state to opt out of some of the program. A waiver would change the assessment of student performance to a growth model so that increases in student achievement from year to year would become a larger part of the assessment process.

According to its drafted application, South Carolina would pilot its revamped teacher and principal evaluation systems in 2013-14 with schools that volunteer. It would expand statewide in 2014-15.

It includes replacing the all-or-nothing label of making progress with a grade, from A to F. It also adds a carrot to the accountability system: The highest-performing schools and those that show the biggest gains would get rewarded, with $5,000 going to finalists in each category and $10,000 going to the winners.

Out of one deep fryer and into another. If I interpret the Zais proposal correctly, he intends to operate his own little NCLB here in South Carolina using the federal education funding, with letter grades to boot.

At what point do we allow educators to govern education, rather than political ideologues and corporate profiteers?

If South Carolina gets the waiver, it will be up to Zais to make sure the methods used do improve the system are fair and do make a significant difference.

So much for that.

Turnout low for Zais's first public meeting on NCLB waivers

Here's one area where the state Superintendent of Education and the Obama administration apparently agree: Both want to be freed from the restrictions of the Bush administration's "No Child Left Behind." While Congress dawdles over the law's reauthorization, the Obama administration last year rolled out NCLB waiver options for states that wished to apply for them. Coincidentally, Superintendent Mick Zais has shown that he wants federal authorities to have as little influence -- and oversight -- over South Carolina's schools as possible, so an application for waivers from NCLB is one application that Zais is all too happy to send to Washington.

But, perhaps owing to Zais's lack of credibility on matters pertaining to strengthening and improving public schools, and on his responsiveness to public opinion generally, residents of Darlington reportedly reacted the first of Zais's 21 planned "public comment sessions" with a collective yawn. "About a dozen" attended the meeting, according to reporter Robert Sloan.

Good enough, as Zais himself neglected to attend. The superintendent sent instead his deputy, Charmeka Bosket, who previously worked as Governor Mark Sanford's third education advisor and for the state Chamber of Commerce's political action committee.

Interestingly, Bosket represented her superintendent's motives this way:

“We want to stress and emphasize at the stakeholder meetings that we are not trying to opt out of the No Child Left Behind program,” Bosket said. “We will not lose and federal funds by receiving these waivers. What we will gain is more flexibility to better serve our students. We want to stress that this process will not have a negative impact.”

Message: We like No Child Left Behind; we just want federal dollars without federal requirements.

Instead, Bosket explained, Zais has a better idea: Give schools letter grades according to his own grading system.

Under the Zais' plan, schools and districts would be given letter grades -- A, B, C, D or F -- based on their test scores, graduation rates and several other factors. Improvement in each of these areas and other categories would be recognized.

Just as Zais has never taught students in a public school classroom, I've never treated patients in a hospital. How might medical professionals react if I created, out of my own imagination, a plan to give letter grades to hospitals based on factors like how many patients died in them, and how many were cured of their ailments, and how much it cost to treat each patient? What about if I added a wheelchair-wheel-size criterion in my grading formula?

Indeed, I suspect the Zais Letter Grade Plan will go far with average education professionals across South Carolina. Imagine the size of that gradebook.

At least one of the dozen attendees at the Zais (without Zais) "public comment session" in Darlington was an educator. [Note: It is never a good idea to invite educators to attend public hearings on education issues; they tend to ask pertinent, logical questions and expect good, rational answers.] Sloan writes:

One question asked during the meeting came from a Darlington County teacher who asked about the cost of the program and whether teachers would get the necessary resources and instruction materials to implement the new plan. He cited the state’s present suspension on purchasing new textbooks and asked whether that suspension would be lifted.

“Without the proper resources, it will not help our kids,” he said. “We are being asked to do more and more with less and less.”

Bosket agreed with his assessment on the importance of cost and the need for proper materials in the classrooms. She said the suspension on buying text was driven by the poor economy and said that it is not likely the suspension will be lifted until the economy gets better.

My own translation: Yes, it is an expectation of this state and your elected employers that you will do more and more with less and less. This presentation was not designed to change that expectation, and you should not interpret this information as a proposal to lighten your burden. Do your work, and don't ask for more resources until the economy improves, which will allow more revenues to flow into the public treasury, which will allow lawmakers to give more of those revenues back to corporate entities in the form of tax breaks, incentives and loopholes. Only when corporate income tax is eliminated entirely, and then personal income tax eliminated, and then sales tax dramatically reduced, might we consider investing more of available resources in public schools, if public schools still exist then. We, as a state, cannot afford to invest more in the education of one another's children until that time.

Is there evidence to suggest that this translation is wrong?