My Son

My Son

Sunday, March 31, 2013

Teacher Stands In Place OF the Parent When The Child Is Sent To The Public Schools

Jeff Grisamore Not: Teacher Stands In Place OF the Parent When The Child Is Sent To The Public Schools


Teacher Stands In Place OF the Parent When The Child Is Sent To The Public Schools

Teachers Stands In Place OF The Parent When The Child Is Sent To The Public Schools
http://plms.leesummit.k12.mo.us/handbook/handbook07.pdf

POLICIES CONCERNING ORDER AND DISCIPLINE

The law provides teachers with considerable authority over the control and education of the child, once the parent sends his child to the public schools. The authority of the teacher is given by law and is not delegated by the parent. Authority is granted to the teacher by the state as an essential part of teacher responsibility. The teacher stands in place of the parent when the child is under the teacherʼs supervision and care.

Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/kansas-city/1761615-lees-summit-school-district-really-good-2.html#ixzz2P8FJQ7bw

Teacher Stands In Place OF the Parent When The Child Is Sent To The Public Schools

Jeff Grisamore Not: Teacher Stands In Place OF the Parent When The Child Is Sent To The Public Schools


Teacher Stands In Place OF the Parent When The Child Is Sent To The Public Schools

Teachers Stands In Place OF The Parent When The Child Is Sent To The Public Schools
http://plms.leesummit.k12.mo.us/handbook/handbook07.pdf

POLICIES CONCERNING ORDER AND DISCIPLINE

The law provides teachers with considerable authority over the control and education of the child, once the parent sends his child to the public schools. The authority of the teacher is given by law and is not delegated by the parent. Authority is granted to the teacher by the state as an essential part of teacher responsibility. The teacher stands in place of the parent when the child is under the teacherʼs supervision and care.

Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/kansas-city/1761615-lees-summit-school-district-really-good-2.html#ixzz2P8FJQ7bw

www.childrenseducationalliance-mo.org/policy-perspectives

www.childrenseducationalliance-mo.org/policy-perspectives


Policy Perspectives with the Children’s Education Alliance of Missouri is an education reform podcast that will feature topics central to the need for education reform in Missouri. It will feature experts on accountability and transparency, teacher quality, and parental choice. To suggest topics or guests for our podcast please send us suggestions on FaceBook or tweet us at @ceamofficial.
8. Policy Perspectives (3/26/2013): Three things every parent of a special learner should know before attending an IEP meeting.
Click HERE to listen…Legal Services of Eastern Missouri attorney Pat Mobley who works with LSEM’s Children’s Legal Alliance talks about his work with special needs learners and the IEP process with CEAM’s Peter Franzen and Lisa Clancy.
7. Policy Perspectives (3/13/2013): Legislative Update
Click HERE to listen…Listen as CEAM State Policy Director Kate Casas discusses A-F school report card ratings and other education reforms being considered by the Missouri legislature.
6. Policy Perspectives (1/26/2013): Meet CEAM’s new field director, Lorna Kurdi, as she discusses her motivation for being part of the education reform movement in this interview with Peter Franzen.
Click HERE to listen…
5. Policy Perspectives (12/06/2012): Interview with Representative Steve Cookson
Click HERE to listen…
Peter Franzen and Kate Casas interview Representative Steve Cookson.
4. Policy Perspectives (11/13/2012): Interview with Amanda Henry
Click HERE to listen…
Teach for America – St. Louis alumnus Amanda Henry talks about the importance of making teacher evaluation a meaningful and instructive process that helps parents and school leaders understand the effectiveness of classroom teachers by using the “value-added” model.
3. Policy Perspectives (10/24/2012): Mike Malone discusses South City Prep’s finances.Click HERE to listen…Peter Franzen, Kate Casas, and Mike Malone, Founder and School Leader at South City Prep, discuss the Missouri State Board of Education’s declaration that South City Prep is financially distressed.
2. Policy Perspectives (10/18/2012): CEAM Position on St. Louis Public Schools Accreditation Status.Click HERE to listen…Kate Casas and Peter Franzen discuss CEAM’s position on the reclassification of Saint Louis Public Schools.
1. Policy Perspectives (10/12/2012): Meet the CEAM Staff-
Click HERE to listen…
The Children’s Education Alliance of Missouri staff discuss their background and passion for education reform.

Thursday, March 28, 2013

Teachers Should Never Bully Their Students! - The Autism Site

Teachers Should Never Bully Their Students! - The Autism Site

District refutes looting allegations - Gate House

District refutes looting allegations - Gate House


An allegation that a former school board action "looted" $1 million from the teacher's insurance fund came up during a discussion of Camdenton's salary schedule.
During the public comment portion of a Camdenton Board of Education meeting on Wednesday, teachers spoke on behalf of veteran teachers who felt their wages aren't competitive.
One of those teachers, Camdenton football coach Jeff Shore, told school board members that he felt it was a “situation where the teachers feel like a million dollars was taken out of that account and then in turn their insurance goes up. At best it creates a distrust among the teachers and the board."
Shore is the husband of Stacy Shore, who has used the Lake Watch Dog display name in the past. The anonymous Lake Watchdog website is where the allegation of the "looting" of $1 million from the teachers’ insurance fund surfaced.
Shore said that although teachers questioned the move by the board in 2007, they did not get a response. To this day, he claimed, there has been no response.
In a strongly worded and detailed explanation provided at the request of the Lake Sun, four members who were serving on the school board in 2007 addressed the allegations.
According to the members, there was indeed a transfer of $1 million from the insurance fund to the general operating fund. However, they said there was nothing illegal or covert about the move and that the transfer did not negatively affect the teachers’ insurance fund. They went on to say that the money transferred was not earmarked for any one particular project or payment.
John Blair, former president along with Wayne Compton, who served as treasurer at the time, Susan Leslie and Danny Drover said the funds were moved only after the district checked with the state to make certain no rules were being violated.
The Teacher’s Insurance Plan
The Camdenton health insurance plan has been a self-funded plan since July  2000.  This means the school district is responsible to pay for all participant health insurance claims incurred and allowed by the plan document. 
At the same time, the school district also must pay for re-insurance to protect itself for large claims above a certain amount, and for efficient payment of claims by a “third party administrator”, a.k.a. TPA, to insure compliance with HIPPA and other privacy matters.
The board annually calculates a monthly contribution amount per participant for different levels of participation in an amount projected to cover actuarial estimated claims, health network fees and TPA fees. That amount does not include any overhead, broker commission, or built in profit that is included in the premiums charged by an outside insurance company indemnity plan.
According to Blair, the monthly contribution for health insurance is considered a board paid fringe benefit, and the school district paid 100% of the certified employees’ individual premium.  This employee contribution amount is not taxable to the employee under IRC Code section 125.  However, the contributions paid yearly qualify for credit toward retirement benefits in addition to other paid employee wages.  This benefit increases a retiree’s monthly retirement benefit. 
He said it is much like social security withholdings, the employee pays ½ and the employer pays ½ .  The school district is obligated by state statutes to remit its portion of the retirement contribution on this health benefit which ranged from 10.5 % in 2001 to 14.5% in 2013 for certified staff (teachers and administrators)  and 5% to 6.86% for classified staff (cooks, janitors, secretaries, and para-professionals).
The computed monthly contribution did not include any amount to cover the district’s portion of the retirement contribution or the additional administrative time necessary for the district’s employees to deal with additional administrative costs attributable to a self-funded plan when compared to an indemnity plan, he said.
All district retirement contributions for both certified and classified employees were paid from the General Fund through June 30, 2005.  Thereafter, all district classified retirement contributions continued to be paid from the general fund while the certified matching contributions were paid from the teachers fund. 
Blair said transfers from the general fund to the teachers fund were made in several years to cover any shortfall in the teachers fund.
To facilitate the bookkeeping process, monthly contributions were deposited in a separate bank account.  Claims were also paid from this same bank account.  This bank account is not a separate fund like debt service or capital projects, but rather part of the operating funds, Blair said.
 If the contributions by the district were not adequate to cover the claims, then the district would be obligated to make up the difference regardless of how much had been budgeted and paid into this account. In fact claims, could have been paid from the main district bank account without any monthly transfers to a separate account. 
Moving the funds
Sometime in early 2007 the balance in the separate claims account was approaching  $3,500,000.   Discussion occurred among the administrative team and board members concerning this excessive balance.  The TPA advised the board that adequate reserves were three months of claims.  The $3,500,00 represented about 18 months of claims. 
Blair said it became apparent that just the district’s portion of retirement contributions alone that had been paid from the general fund on the past years’ contributions substantially exceeded $1,000,000.   A decision was made to transfer this amount back to the general fund from this separate bank account. 
The legality of this transfer was cleared by the superintendent with the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education and the district’s outside auditors, he said.
According to the information provided by the former school board members, the money was then moved to the general fund. At the same time, money was moved to capital projects. This occurs every year. The money was transferred into the general account at the end of the 2006-07 fiscal year and it was then included in the next year’s budget.
The money, from the district funded insurance account, was not earmarked for any one particular project or payment.

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

Congress Rewrites IDEA Funding Rule - Disability Scoop

Jeff Grisamore Not: Congress Rewrites IDEA Funding Rule - Disability Scoop


A small change tucked inside a government spending bill this month may have big implications for special education.
Lawmakers included language clarifying the penalties that states may face if they fail to adequately fund education programs for students with disabilities. The issue has become significant in recent years as states struggled financially in the recession and some sought to cut education spending.
Under federal law, special education funding must be maintained or increased from one year to the next. If states fail to meet what’s known as “maintenance of effort” without obtaining a waiver from the U.S. Department of Education, they can lose out on future federal dollars.
At least two states — South Carolina and Kansas — got into trouble in recent years for slashing their special education budgets without federal approval. As a result, they faced permanent reductions in their allocations from the Department of Education.
Now, Congress has clarified that any penalties assessed for failing to meet maintenance of effort should only apply for the year or years that the requirement is not met. Moreover, any funds that are taken away from states for being out of compliance will not automatically return to the federal coffers, but instead can be redistributed to other states that follow the rules as bonus special education dollars.
“Without this language, these funds for special education and related services would lapse and be unavailable for the children with disabilities they are intended to serve,” said Michael Yudin, acting assistant secretary for the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services at the Department of Education, in a statement.
The change, which was proposed by the Obama administration, had broad support on Capitol Hill, congressional staffers say.
The move is also winning props from state leaders. Mick Zais, South Carolina’s superintendent of education, had been among the most vocal in pressing for a policy change after his state faced over $36 million in what he called an “absurd perpetual penalty.”
“This is a victory for students with disabilities in South Carolina and across the nation,” Zais said of the congressional action.

Jeff Grisamore Not: Kate Casas: Why I Want to Protect Great Teachers

Jeff Grisamore Not: Kate Casas: Why I Want to Protect Great Teachers


Why I Want to Protect Great Teachers

Posted: 03/26/2013 10:46 am


My third grade teacher was fabulous; in fact, in my 20 years of education I had a lot of really wonderful teachers. However, it is Mrs. Mason who inspired me to take on the challenging work of reforming the way teachers are evaluated, compensated, hired and retained.

Before being in Mrs. Mason's class I didn't hate school, but I didn't want anyone to notice me while I was there. I was terrified that my teachers were going to call on me; I might have to answer a question and worse yet that I would get it wrong. Mrs. Mason had a way of coxing me out of my shell, getting me to answer questions, and even taught me that raising my hand was a risk worth taking.
I will never forget the day she assigned us famous women to study for women's history month. When she assigned me Carol Burnett for my report, she whispered in my ear that she had given me Carol Burnett because I was important enough to have people listen to me the way they listened to Ms. Burnett. To this day, when my natural tendency to be an introvert rears its head and I want to hide in my office instead of make the hard phone call or go to the difficult meeting, I can hear Mrs. Mason whispering to me, telling me to be confident because I have value to add.
Having spent years in the classroom, I now realize that Mrs. Mason must have been doing this kind of thing for each student fortunate enough to be in one of her classes. She clearly knew that for me to be a successful student and adult I would need confidence and the ability to make myself be heard. These "soft skills" she taught me served me well throughout my long career as a student and now in my professional and personal life.
When my organization, the Children's Education Council of Missouri, decided to endorse theTeachGreat.org Initiative Petition that, when passed, will reform teacher evaluations, tenure, and seniority-based layoffs, it was the possibility of protecting and elevating the profession for educators like Mrs. Mason that won me over. Every student deserves a teacher who, like Mrs. Mason, can look at the 25 faces sitting in the desks in front of them and know what each one needs to be successful and most importantly, how to get it for them.
CECM is supporting the TeachGreat.org Initiative Petition because it will move Missouri one step closer to recognizing the teachers who are doing for Missouri's students what Mrs. Mason did for my classmates and me. I know change is hard, I know teachers and administrators, and maybe even some parents are concerned about overhauling a system that has been in place for decades, but I also know that our current system is broken. Missouri's educators and students deserve a system of accountability that rewards educators who can meet every child where they are and move them forward.

Maryland PTA Supports SB 691

www.mdpta.org/documents/approvedtestimonySB691.pdf



Maryland PTA represents nearly 200,000 members in over 970 public schools, with the
mission of advocating on behalf of children and youth in the schools, in the community,
and before governmental bodies and other organizations that make decisions affecting
children. Maryland PTA is comprised of families, students, teachers, administrators, and
business and community leaders devoted to the educational success of children in
Maryland. As the state’s oldest and largest child advocacy organization, PTA is a
powerful voice for all children, a relevant resource for families, schools and communities
and a strong advocate for public education.

Maryland PTA wants to thank the committee for considering legislation that would place
the burden of proof on school systems in due process hearings for our children with
disabilities. We fully support Senate Bill 691 as it will help our most vulnerable families 
as well as our teachers in supporting children with special needs.

Maryland PTA believes the burden of proof should be placed on the party who has the 
greater access and resources, as well as the legal obligation to provide the services in 
dispute. School districts create the Individualized Education Program (IEP), their 
employees work daily with the child, and they employ both legal and educational experts. 
On the rare occasion when mediation fails, the school district is most able to provide the
documentation already in hand, to facilitate teacher and educational expert witnesses, and
to bear the legal burden.

Parents of children with disabilities, on the other hand, are more likely to be low income, 
less educated, and already overburdened with the challenges their child faces. Many are 
unaware of the responsibilities of meeting the current burden of proof. Several cases in 
Maryland over the years have seen school districts successfully move for judgment 
without presenting any evidence because a parent, attempting to represent themselves, 
failed to understand the legal requirements of burden of proof. As a result, the merits of 
the case are not even considered and a child’s needs may go unmet.


This legislation would support our families and our teachers. It very simply requires on
rare occasions that the school district prove the IEP they created meets the requirements
of a free appropriate public education as required under the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA). Your favorable vote on this bill will indicate the state’s
expectation that our school districts are accountable and must stand behind their own
practices in serving our neediest children.

One of PTA's Purposes is "to secure adequate laws for the care and protection of children
and youth," and SB 691 supports that purpose.

For the reasons stated, Maryland PTA encourages your support of SB 691.

Testimony submitted on behalf of Maryland PTA
Rita Lowman, President



Special ed ‘burden of proof’ bill likely to die today in Maryland Senate - The Washington Post

Jeff Grisamore Not: Special ed ‘burden of proof’ bill likely to die today in Maryland Senate - The Washington Post


Special ed ‘burden of proof’ bill likely to die today in Maryland Senate

Maryland state Sen. Karen Montgomery (D-Montgomery) said she will continue to advocate for reform that would make it easier for parents to dispute their children’s special education learning plans even though the bill she introduced this legislative session effectively died Monday.
Some parents in Maryland were advocating for Montgomery’s Senate Bill 691, which would have shifted the burden of proof in special due process cases to school systems.

Senate Bill 691 was a crossover with House Bill 1286, which Del. Aisha Braveboy (D-Prince George’s) pulled on Saturday, Montgomery’s staff said.
“The Senate doesn’t want this bill to die, but if we send the bill back over [to the House], they will vote it down,” Montgomery said. “This is a worthwhile bill.”
Advocates of the bill wanted school systems to defend the Individual Education Programs in due process legal disputes by default, saying it would help parents who don’t always have the resources to hire attorneys and experts to dispute their children’s education plans.
But opponents of the bill said it was unnecessary because complaints are often resolved in mediation or before they go to a due process hearing. They also said placing the burden of proof on school systems would increase adversarial relationships between families and special education administrators
.

Graphing Evaluation Data – A Skill All Parents Must Master

Graphing Evaluation Data – A Skill All Parents Must Master

Monday, March 25, 2013

Civil-rights reviews focus on several school districts, state | Education | The Seattle Times

Civil-rights reviews focus on several school districts, state | Education | The Seattle Times


Civil-rights reviews focus on several school districts, state

Five civil-rights reviews are under way in Washington school districts — two in Seattle Public Schools, one in the Lake Washington School District, one in Yakima and one statewide probe related to Title IX.
Seattle Times education reporter
Along with investigating Seattle Public Schools’ record on student discipline, the U.S. Department of Education has four other civil-rights reviews under way in Washington schools.
Seattle is the focus of two of the probes — the investigation into whether black students are disciplined more frequently and more harshly than white students, which came to light two weeks ago, plus a second review that focuses on students learning English.
Federal officials also say they are looking at programs for English-language learners in the Lake Washington School District and at anti-harassment policies and practices in the Yakima School District, plus what appears to be a statewide review related to gender issues in athletics.
All five reviews were initiated by the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, as part of a four-year-old push by the Obama administration to more aggressively enforce civil-rights laws covering public schools.
The education department does not discuss why it chooses specific school districts to investigate, but a spokesman said that in general, it initiates reviews on issues that “are particularly acute or national in scope.”
In Yakima and Lake Washington, school officials said they got the impression that they were randomly chosen for what amounted to a routine audit.
They said their districts submitted information requested by the Office of Civil Rights more than a year ago, and have not yet heard what federal officials concluded, or even whether the reviews are completed.
In Seattle, a spokeswoman said district officials have no sense of why their district is under review.
While black and other minority students have long been disciplined at a higher rate than whites and Asians in Seattle schools, it’s not clear whether the problem is worse here than in many other school districts across the state and nation.
In nearly every state
From 2009 through the end of last year, the civil-rights office has launched about 100 civil-rights investigations involving at least one school district in nearly every state.
Those investigations, known as compliance reviews, are just part of the office’s caseload, most of which stems from complaints filed by parents or community members.
The department’s proactive efforts have won praise from those who say there was a drought of education civil-rights cases under the previous administration.
Finally, the Department of Education is back in the business of protecting the civil rights of children who attend public schools,” said Judith Browne Dianis, co-director of the Advancement Project, a national civil-rights organization based in Washington, D.C.
Browne Dianis defended the education department’s decision to press school districts to change policies and practices that have discriminatory outcomes, regardless of whether officials intended to discriminate.
But the department also has been criticized by others who feel it is overreaching.
Civil-rights laws are important and should be enforced, said Roger Clegg, who worked as a top civil-rights lawyer at the Justice Department under Presidents Bush and Reagan. But Clegg said that the Obama administration’s focus on data, especially in discipline, may cause school districts to stop punishing students who deserve it in order to get their numbers right.
The education department, he said, “risks finding school districts in violation of the law when they have not treated anybody differently on the basis of race.”
Apparently all ongoing
In Washington state, the investigation into racial disparities in discipline in Seattle Public Schools, launched in mid-2012, is the most recent of the five proactive reviews under way.
It doesn’t appear that any of the five have yet concluded.
Jim Bradshaw, the education department spokesman, said Monday and again on Tuesday that he could not get an answer to that and several other questions until later this week.
Few details were available about each review, although education department officials have said they seek to ensure students aren’t disciplined more harshly based on their race, and that limited proficiency in English is not an obstacle to learning.
In Seattle, the review of services for students learning English appears to have started in 2009.
A spokeswoman said that information she received from the education department also indicated that federal officials are looking at whether the district discriminated against some students when it closed several schools a number of years ago. The department seemed to have concerns about minority students and those learning English.
In the Lake Washington School District, spokeswoman Kathryn Reith said school officials received a letter in September 2010 saying their district had been selected for one of several compliance reviews involving English-language services.
The district’s understanding, she said, was that it was chosen because its students speak so many languages — anywhere from 70 to 90, depending on the year. About 5.5 percent of students don’t speak English as their first language, she said.
The civil-rights office asked the district for a lot of information, such as what services it offers students learning English, how it identifies those who need services, and how it communicates with their parents.
Federal officials also have interviewed district administrators and teachers, she said.
The Yakima School District received its letter in February 2011, which asked for 21 different types of data, much of it having to do with policies and practices about discrimination and harassment on the basis or race, color, national origin, gender or disability, said Assistant Superintendent Jack Irion.
Irion said he and other staff members ended up sending boxes of materials to federal officials — everything from student handbooks to two-and-a-half years worth of data on disciplinary incidents.
The person with information about the statewide athletics review was not available, according to a spokesman for the state’s education department.
Federal education officials have been quoted as saying that they prefer to reach voluntary agreements on changes, and that has happened in at least a handful of school districts in other states, including Oakland, Boston and Los Angeles.
In the Oakland case, which involved discipline, Russlyn Ali, then assistant secretary for civil rights, said in a news release that the agreement to overhaul the discipline system was unprecedented and a model she hoped to see repeated across the country.
Linda Shaw: 206-464-2359 or lshaw@seattletimes.com. On Twitter @LShawST

dese.mo.gov/divadm/finance/topicsandprocedures/documents/sf-AAttendanceReporting.pdf

dese.mo.gov/divadm/finance/topicsandprocedures/documents/sf-AAttendanceReporting.pdf


Homebound
A student who by necessity requires instruction to be provided at home may be counted for full attendance if the
student has received a minimum of 5 hours of instruction per week by a certificated teacher. If the instruction is
below 5 hours then the student’s attendance is only based on actual hours of instruction (such as 4 hours of
instruction is only counted as 4 hours of attendance, the remaining hours are reported as hours of absence).
A student who requires instruction to be provided at home because of physician approved medical reasons or who
has been suspended from school and has an IEP may be enrolled full time in MoVIP as an alternative to the above
referenced format.
• If a qualified homebound student is served using a MoVIP state-funded seat, the district
receives the 15% of the state aid per weighted average daily attendance the student would
have generated as outlined in statute.
• If a district is paying MoVIP tuition to serve a qualified homebound student full-time, the
student may be counted for full-time attendance.
• Any other students who are receiving instruction at home through MoVIP for reasons other
than the two referenced in the second paragraph of this Homebound section will be counted
for full attendance if they receive 5 hours of instruction per week by a certificated teacher.
If the instruction is below 5 hours then the student’s attendance is only based on actual
hours of instruction (such as 4 hours of instruction is only counted as 4 hours of attendance).
Note – Student time spent on virtual education courses outside the school day cannot
count for attendance hours except for qualified home-bound students as
outlined above.

Missouri lawmakers introduce legislation to halt Common Core Standards | Newsmagazine Network

Missouri lawmakers introduce legislation to halt Common Core Standards | Newsmagazine Network


As public school districts across the state rush to align their curricula with the new Common Core State Standards they must have in place by 2014-15, state legislators are fighting to put on the brakes.
Rep. Kurt Bahr, R-O’Fallon, is the sponsor of House Bill 616, which would prohibit the Missouri State Board of Education from adopting the new standards and nullify all actions up to this point to implement them. Sen. John Lamping, R-Ladue, is sponsoring an identical piece of legislation, Senate Bill 210, in the Missouri Senate.
Bahr said he has three objections to the new standards: the process by which the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) adopted them, the cost and the logistics of getting the state’s 500-plus school districts ready to administer the standards’ requisite online assessments.
“What people don’t realize is it’s not the traditional No. 2 pencil and fill-in-the-bubble type of test,” said Bahr. “This is online testing.”
The Missouri Constitution gives DESE the right to establish standards, and Bahr does not dispute this, but he said DESE adopted the standards before securing the funds to implement them.
“The problem is every school in Missouri has to have the bandwidth, the Internet capability, for entire classes to be online at the same time. And that is, for a lot of areas, a massive capital improvement that we do not have the funds for,” he said.
Bahr said the House of Representatives has the “power of the purse,” and DESE usurped this power.
“DESE cannot create a bill and then hand it to the General Assembly and say, ‘Pay it.’ That is unconstitutional,” said Bahr. “So their adoption of standards is permissible. Their adoption of online assessments, which will be very expensive to implement, is unconstitutional unless we, the General Assembly, authorize it.”
Bahr said he has no idea how much implementing the new standards will cost, but he said DESE applied for $389 million in federal Race to the Top funds in 2009 – and he uses this as a barometer to gauge how much the new standards might cost.
“I see that and say,’ OK, well even if they’re only half right, we’re looking at nearly $200 million,’” said Bahr.
DESE spokeswoman, Sarah Potter, disputed those numbers and said the cost of implementing the new standards “has very little to do with Race to the Top” funds.
“Everything that we’ve done so far with Common Core has been done with our existing budget,” said Potter. “And what the districts have done is just to take whatever money they were spending on their professional development before and spend it on retraining teachers to teach the Common Core State Standards.”
Potter said that more than 200 districts are “pro Common Core” and well on their way to aligning their curricula to the new standards and training their teachers to teach them.
“For them to stop at this point would be such a waste of money and a waste of time,” Potter said.
She added that putting the brakes on the new standards would be a step backwards for public education.
“And that’s the last thing that our education system needs is to move backward and to waste time and money in implementing some really wonderful standards – some things that are really making an amazing difference in this state for education,” said Potter.
As for the cost of implementing the new standards, Potter said DESE is waiting for the results of a survey being conducted by Smarter Balanced, the state-led consortium designing the online assessments, to determine how ready the state’s schools are to administer the new online tests. She said she expects to have the results of that survey in the next month or two.
“Once we know exactly what we need, we will develop a plan and we will seek an appropriation, if necessary, to equip every school appropriately,” said Potter. “But we just don’t know what the extent of the need is at this point.”
“Are the standards better? Will the students be better in the long run? Maybe. But in the short run, we can’t afford it,” he said.
House Bill 616 passed out of the Committee on Downsizing State Government on March 14. Next, it will go to the Rules Committee before being debated on the House floor. Currently it is not on the calendar.

Saturday, March 23, 2013

Downtown St. Louis school lied about attendance : News

Downtown St. Louis school lied about attendance : News

2012 Digital Learning Report Card | Digital Learning Now

2012 Digital Learning Report Card | Digital Learning Now


  • Overall Score

    F

  • 1. Student Eligibility

    F

  • 2. Student Access

    A

  • 3. Personalized Learning

    C

  • 4. Advancement

    C

  • 5. Quality Content

    D

  • 6. Quality Instruction

    C+

  • 7. Quality Choices

    F

  • 8. Assessment and Accountability

    F

  • 9. Funding

    F

  • 10. Delivery

    F