District Administration - April 2010 - (Page 21)

Standards Common Core Standards are Welcome— with Some Reservations SHORTLY AFTER THE NATION’S governors, state commissioners of education, school administrators and education experts proposed a draft of common core standards for K12 in English and math last month, major education groups were quick to respond. e National Education Association, the National School Boards Association and the Alliance for Excellent Education tout the new standards as promoting 21stcentury skills of collaborating, problem solving and critical thinking. “ is will be a Good Housekeeping seal of approval,” says Bob Wise, president of the Alliance for Excellent Education. “ is will say to businesses that want to relocate or parents considering where they might move, ‘ is district, this state adheres to the very rigorous standards recognized across the country.’ ” On March 10, the state-led eﬀort coordinated by the National Governors Association (NGA) Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Ofﬁcers (CCSSO) proposed the two drafts for math and English-language arts. the curricula and provide professional development for teachers. President Obama has recently proposed tying the common core standards adoption to Title I funding. Anne Bryant, NSBA executive director, says while NSBA and its delegates have supported the concepts of common core standards and implementing high standards, they have understood that such standards would not be “mandated as a condition for receiving federal education program funds.” e NEA also believes the common core standards could be improved if they were grouped in bands of grades, such as K3 (which New Zealand does), instead of by grade level, according to John Wilson, NEA executive director. “We think that when you just have standards by grade, you box yourself in according to the 20th-century model as opposed to the 21st-century model,” Wilson says. But he says that overall, teachers welcome this new set of standards in part because they narrow the list of standards necessary for students to reach in each grade.—Angela Pascopella U. S. D E P A R T M E N T OF E D U C A T I O N BR IEFINGS e standards are designed to hold all public school students from Maine to Oregon to the same math and English standards from kindergarten through high school, and they are designed to prepare such students for college and careers in the 21st century. So far, 48 states and the District of Columbia are signed on to take part in the initiative, with Kentucky already planning to adopt them. e draft documents are open to public comments until April 2. Revisions will be made within six weeks, whereupon the CCSSO and NGA Center for Best Practices will devise a ﬁnal set of standards. It will likely take up to three years for states to implement the new standards to align The New Blueprint: Four Areas of Reform ON MARCH 15, PRESIDENT OBAMA PRESENTED TO Congress “A Blueprint for Reform,” which seeks to reform No Child Left Behind through four main areas of improvement. Education professionals’ response to the Blueprint ranges extensively—many disagree with the plan and largely topdown approach to reformation, while recognizing the need for change. Changes in the Blueprint include: (1) Creating an emphasis on teacher and principal effectiveness; (2) Actively include parents and families in their children’s education; (3) Implementing college- and career-ready standards and developing improved assessments aligned with those standards; and (4) Provide funding, support and intervention for the lowest-performing schools. rates in addition to test scores, offers a menu of intervention options for lowperforming schools, provides ﬂexibility, and rewards and shows examples of exemplary districts by tying grant money to actual results. colle ge- A Blueprint for Reform The Reauthoriza tion of the Eleme ntary and Secon dary Education ents chers great tea ders and lea Act and care ea er-r ud dy st Accelerate achievement excellence raise the bar and reward Pros: Supporters of the Blueprint believe it is a vast improvement from NCLB because it holds schools accountable for graduation Cons: Many education professionals are disappointed with the Blueprint, believing it fails to outline how parents’ efforts in their child’s education will be supported, offers little ﬂexibility in how low-performing schools will be turned around, continues to rely on faulty assessments, has an over reliance on competitive grants, and relies too heavily on standardized testing creating a winnersand-losers scenario.—KeriLee Horan equity and opp ort unity promote innovation www.DistrictAdministration.com April 2010 21 http://www.DistrictAdministration.com

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of District Administration - April 2010

District Administration - April 2010
Contents
From the Editor
News Update
Health
Standards
District Profile
Administrator Profile
Conversations
Sports for Life
Reaching Digital Natives on Their Terms
RTI Goes Mainstream
Double Duty: Schools as Community Centers
Online Edge
Tech Disruptions
Product Focus
New Products
Student Counsel

District Administration - April 2010