My Son
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
Thursday, May 9, 2013
Missouri budget will increase education funding | ksdk.com
Missouri budget will increase education funding | ksdk.com
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) - Missouri public schools and universities will be getting a funding increase under an agreement by legislative budget
negotiators.
negotiators.A group of House and Senate members decided Tuesday to provide a $25 million funding increase to public colleges and universities based on whether they have met performance criteria such as student graduation rates. That's less than the $34 million increase sought by Gov. Jay Nixon but more than the House had approved earlier this year.
and universities based on whether they have met performance criteria such as student graduation rates. That's less than the $34 million increase sought by Gov. Jay Nixon but more than the House had approved earlier this year.The budget also includes $10 million for the University of Missouri medical school to expand a residency program at the Cox Health system in Springfield.
Public school districts would get a $66 million increase to their $3 billion of core funding - the same amount Nixon recommended.
Monday, May 6, 2013
Kate Casas: The Sky Isn't Falling on Public Education
Kate Casas: The Sky Isn't Falling on Public Education
Follow
When I was in kindergarten, my class put on a Mother's Day rendition of the play Henny Penny for our mothers, grandmothers, and other adoring fans. Almost three decades later I entered the education reform community and have been reliving scenes from this fable ever since. Only in this grown-up version instead of Henny Penny, Cocky Locky, Ducky Lucky, and Goosey Loosey confusing an acorn falling from a tree for a falling sky, it is the varying factions paid to protect the education status quo who are confusing an attempt to authentically engage parents, evaluate teachers partially on student progress and expand high quality education options with a falling sky.
Take for example the current, though almost over, Missouri Legislative Session. In late January Representative Kathryn Swan (R-Cape Girardeau) filed legislation to require that the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) issue a simplified school report card that would identify all schools as having received an A, B, C, D, or F.
Anyone without a Masters in Education who has tried to understand Missouri's current school report card would appreciate why a new one is needed. The lobbyists representing the teacher unions, administrators, school boards, and others assigned to protect the current system went pleading to legislators and editorial boards that if this bill became law, the sky would fall. They claimed that once a transparent school report card was implemented the first thing to fall from the sky would be a voucher system, then teachers and students with exceptionally low morale would come tumbling after, followed closely behind would be plummeting real estate values. Lastly they told legislators they would need to find much bigger umbrellas to protect themselves from the hoards of parents falling from the sky onto the Capitol grounds while advocating for expanded school choice.
Unfortunately for all those who spread the message to policy makers that the sky would fall if parents really knew how schools were doing, the real numbers tell a different story. This preliminary information, obtained from DESE through an open records request, reveals that about 75 percent of schools in Missouri would get an A or a B under the proposed legislation and that less than 15 percent of Missouri's 2000+ schools would be deemed failing.
Likewise, when reformers and legislators have proposed teacher evaluations be based in part on student academic growth, the education establishment's reaction has been paramount to Henny Penny's. For example, in Missouri an American Federation of Teachers Local 420 representative told the Senate Education Committee that if we altered teacher evaluations and then "...fired all the bad teachers in places like Saint Louis..." we would have "tons" classrooms with no certified teacher. However, in a New York Times article on March 31, 2013 it was reported that changing evaluations only resulted in a small increase in the number of teachers rated below effective. These findings support what education reformers in Missouri have been saying -- we don't want to change evaluations so that the sky will fall on Missouri's teachers. We want to change evaluations to begin measuring and providing meaningful feedback to educators about the only thing that really matters, student academic growth.
Lastly, the screams to duck and cover because the sky is going to crush us all are at their most shrill when someone dare suggest children should have access to more high quality education options. To see examples of this you again need not look beyond Jefferson City, Missouri. This year, Representative Dwight Scharnhorst (R-Saint Louis County) and Representative Jay Barnes(R-Jefferson City) each are offering modest proposals to provide educational opportunities to unique learners. Scharnhorst offered HB458 that would provide a scholarship tax credits to children on the autism spectrum. Barnes offered HB470 to allow enrollment in a virtual school program for no more than 1.75 percent of Missouri K-12 students. These two bills combined would affect an incredibly small number of children in an enormously positive way.
To no one's surprise when these two bills started moving through the Missouri House Elementary and Secondary Education Committee first the administrators association began running through the Capitol hallways and sending emails shouting that the sky was falling. They were followed closely by the teacher unions who went along with them yelling about the falling sky without question. Eventually the school board association and cooperating school districts of both Kansas City and St. Louis went along with the others. They were all chanting in panicked tones to legislators that if they give permission to parents of autistic children to send their child to a school better equipped to educate them that the sky would fall and crush the entire $7 billion public education system in Missouri.
Once again, the evidence that such panic is not only unnecessary but also in many ways a deliberate attempt to mislead, is strong. Idaho, Wisconsin, Florida, Michigan, and Virginia all have virtual school options and yet the sky did not fall on their still strong traditional public school systems. Likewise, Utah, Arizona, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Georgia have scholarship tax credits for children with special needs and in each of those states the sky is still firmly in place.
At the end of Henny Penny, all the barnyard animals are so desperate to get to the King to warn him of the falling sky that they believe Foxy Loxy when she tells them she knows a short cut. Sadly for them, they follow Foxy into her lair where she presumably eats them. The barnyard animals' ridiculous panic about the falling sky blinds them from the actually dangerous fox. This is also not much different than what is happening with in the factions of the education establishment. Their fear of change is blinding them from the real danger -- they are becoming stagnant and unable to meet the changing needs of America's parents and students. I would hate to see our public school system meet the same fate as Henny Penny and the bunch. Maybe soon one of them will look up and see the "dangers" are actually just acorns.
Dear Colleague letter from Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Seth M. Galanter
Dear Colleague letter from Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Seth M. Galanter
Dear Colleague Letter
The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in the United States Department of Education (Department) is responsible for enforcing Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, disability, or age by recipients of Federal financial assistance (recipient(s)) from the Department.1Although a significant portion of the complaints filed with OCR in recent years have included retaliation claims, OCR has never before issued public guidance on this important subject. The purpose of this letter is to remind school districts, postsecondary institutions, and other recipients that retaliation is also a violation of Federal law.2 This letter seeks to clarify the basic principles of retaliation law and to describe OCR’s methods of enforcement.
The ability of individuals to oppose discriminatory practices, and to participate in OCR investigations and other proceedings, is critical to ensuring equal educational opportunity in accordance with Federal civil rights laws. Discriminatory practices are often only raised and remedied when students, parents, teachers, coaches, and others can report such practices to school administrators without the fear of retaliation. Individuals should be commended when they raise concerns about compliance with the Federal civil rights laws, not punished for doing so.
The Federal civil rights laws make it unlawful to retaliate against an individual for the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured by these laws.3 If, for example, an individual brings concerns about possible civil rights problems to a school’s attention, it is unlawful for the school to retaliate against that individual for doing so. It is also unlawful to retaliate against an individual because he or she made a complaint, testified, or participated in any manner in an OCR investigation or proceeding. Thus, once a student, parent, teacher, coach, or other individual complains formally or informally to a school about a potential civil rights violation or participates in an OCR investigation or proceeding, the recipient is prohibited from retaliating (including intimidating, threatening, coercing, or in any way discriminating against the individual) because of the individual’s complaint or participation. OCR will continue to vigorously enforce this prohibition against retaliation.
If OCR finds that a recipient retaliated in violation of the civil rights laws, OCR will seek the recipient’s voluntary commitments through a resolution agreement to take specific measures to remedy the identified noncompliance.4Such a resolution agreement must be designed both to ensure that the individual who was retaliated against receives redress and to ensure that the recipient complies with the prohibition against retaliation in the future. OCR will determine which remedies, including monetary relief, are appropriate based on the facts presented in each specific case.
Steps OCR could require a recipient to take to ensure compliance in the future include, but are not limited to:
OCR is available to provide technical assistance to entities that request assistance in complying with the prohibition against retaliation or any other aspect of the civil rights laws OCR enforces. Please visithttp://wdcrobcolp01.ed.gov/CFAPPS/OCR/contactus.cfm to contact the OCR regional office that serves your state or territory.
Thank you for your help in ensuring that America’s educational institutions are free from retaliation so that concerns about equal educational opportunity can be openly raised and addressed.
1 OCR enforces Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (Age Act), and the Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act (Boy Scouts Act). OCR also shares enforcement responsibilities with the Department of Justice for Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Title II), which prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in state and local government services, programs and activities, regardless of whether they receive Federal financial assistance.
2 The Federal courts have repeatedly affirmed that retaliation is a violation of the Federal civil rights laws enforced by OCR. See, e.g., Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education, 544 U.S. 167 (2005); Peters v. Jenney, 327 F.3d 307, 320-21 (4th Cir. 2003); Weeks v. Harden Mfg. Corp., 291 F.3d 1307, 1311 (11th Cir. 2002).
3 See 34 C.F.R. § 100.7(e) (Title VI); 34 C.F.R. § 106.71 (Title IX) (incorporating 34 C.F.R. §100.7(e) by reference); 34 C.F.R. § 104.61 (Section 504) (incorporating 34 C.F.R. §100.7(e) by reference); and 34 C.F.R. §108.9 (Boy Scouts Act) (incorporating 34 C.F.R. §100.7(e) by reference). Title II and the Age Act have similar regulatory language. See 28 C.F.R. § 35.134 (Title II); and 34 C.F.R. § 110.34 (Age Act).
4 See OCR’s Case Processing Manual for more information about resolution agreements, available at http://www.ed.gov/ocr/docs/ocrcpm.html.
5 See 34 C.F.R. § 100.8.
Dear Colleague Letter
THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
April 24, 2013
Dear Colleague:The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in the United States Department of Education (Department) is responsible for enforcing Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, disability, or age by recipients of Federal financial assistance (recipient(s)) from the Department.1Although a significant portion of the complaints filed with OCR in recent years have included retaliation claims, OCR has never before issued public guidance on this important subject. The purpose of this letter is to remind school districts, postsecondary institutions, and other recipients that retaliation is also a violation of Federal law.2 This letter seeks to clarify the basic principles of retaliation law and to describe OCR’s methods of enforcement.
The ability of individuals to oppose discriminatory practices, and to participate in OCR investigations and other proceedings, is critical to ensuring equal educational opportunity in accordance with Federal civil rights laws. Discriminatory practices are often only raised and remedied when students, parents, teachers, coaches, and others can report such practices to school administrators without the fear of retaliation. Individuals should be commended when they raise concerns about compliance with the Federal civil rights laws, not punished for doing so.
The Federal civil rights laws make it unlawful to retaliate against an individual for the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured by these laws.3 If, for example, an individual brings concerns about possible civil rights problems to a school’s attention, it is unlawful for the school to retaliate against that individual for doing so. It is also unlawful to retaliate against an individual because he or she made a complaint, testified, or participated in any manner in an OCR investigation or proceeding. Thus, once a student, parent, teacher, coach, or other individual complains formally or informally to a school about a potential civil rights violation or participates in an OCR investigation or proceeding, the recipient is prohibited from retaliating (including intimidating, threatening, coercing, or in any way discriminating against the individual) because of the individual’s complaint or participation. OCR will continue to vigorously enforce this prohibition against retaliation.
If OCR finds that a recipient retaliated in violation of the civil rights laws, OCR will seek the recipient’s voluntary commitments through a resolution agreement to take specific measures to remedy the identified noncompliance.4Such a resolution agreement must be designed both to ensure that the individual who was retaliated against receives redress and to ensure that the recipient complies with the prohibition against retaliation in the future. OCR will determine which remedies, including monetary relief, are appropriate based on the facts presented in each specific case.
Steps OCR could require a recipient to take to ensure compliance in the future include, but are not limited to:
- training for employees about the prohibition against retaliation and ways to avoid engaging in retaliation;
- adopting a communications strategy for ensuring that information concerning retaliation is continually being conveyed to employees, which may include incorporating the prohibition against retaliation into relevant policies and procedures; and
- implementing a public outreach strategy to reassure the public that the recipient is committed to complying with the prohibition against retaliation.
OCR is available to provide technical assistance to entities that request assistance in complying with the prohibition against retaliation or any other aspect of the civil rights laws OCR enforces. Please visithttp://wdcrobcolp01.ed.gov/CFAPPS/OCR/contactus.cfm to contact the OCR regional office that serves your state or territory.
Thank you for your help in ensuring that America’s educational institutions are free from retaliation so that concerns about equal educational opportunity can be openly raised and addressed.
| Sincerely, | |
| /s/ | |
| Seth M. Galanter Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights | |
1 OCR enforces Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (Age Act), and the Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act (Boy Scouts Act). OCR also shares enforcement responsibilities with the Department of Justice for Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Title II), which prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in state and local government services, programs and activities, regardless of whether they receive Federal financial assistance.
2 The Federal courts have repeatedly affirmed that retaliation is a violation of the Federal civil rights laws enforced by OCR. See, e.g., Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education, 544 U.S. 167 (2005); Peters v. Jenney, 327 F.3d 307, 320-21 (4th Cir. 2003); Weeks v. Harden Mfg. Corp., 291 F.3d 1307, 1311 (11th Cir. 2002).
3 See 34 C.F.R. § 100.7(e) (Title VI); 34 C.F.R. § 106.71 (Title IX) (incorporating 34 C.F.R. §100.7(e) by reference); 34 C.F.R. § 104.61 (Section 504) (incorporating 34 C.F.R. §100.7(e) by reference); and 34 C.F.R. §108.9 (Boy Scouts Act) (incorporating 34 C.F.R. §100.7(e) by reference). Title II and the Age Act have similar regulatory language. See 28 C.F.R. § 35.134 (Title II); and 34 C.F.R. § 110.34 (Age Act).
4 See OCR’s Case Processing Manual for more information about resolution agreements, available at http://www.ed.gov/ocr/docs/ocrcpm.html.
5 See 34 C.F.R. § 100.8.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)