 |
Articles of Interest
|
State & Local Policy
Virginia Governor Questions Out-of-State Admissions
Inside Higher Ed
August 3, 2015 Virginia
Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a Democrat, used a radio show last week to question the way public universities are admitting out-of-state applicants. On WTOP's "Ask the Governor," he answered a question about whether Virginia residents should be worried about in state-applicants being rejected in favor of those from out of state, he said “absolutely, and not only worried, it’s just factual.” He added: "Some [schools] are a third to 40 percent out-of-staters because they pay so much more tuition, and that’s how they balance their budgets, so yes they should be concerned and that’s something we need to look at."
Data from the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia show that while Virginia's competitive universities are admitting substantial numbers of out-of-staters, the admission rate is significantly higher for those from Virginia. At the University of Virginia, 1,214 of those who started last fall were from out of state, compared to 2,537 from Virginia. The admit rate for Virginians was 44 percent while that for out-of-state applicants was 23 percent.
Back-to-school pep rally in Va. Beach hypes new school year
The Virginian-Pilot
August 2, 2015
Leading a pep rally for learning, Adolph Brown made two things clear to parents and students Saturday: Education starts at home, and just because you mess up doesn't mean you give up.
The event was meant to get students excited about going back to school and help them see education as the gateway to success. In his speech at the Virginia Beach Convention Center, Brown talked about growing up in a single-parent home in Virginia Beach.
Virginia business, government, education leaders tackle job creation
Roanoke Times
July 28, 2015
Virginia leaders are continuing their push to create more state-financed incentives to promote job and overall economic growth.
Business, education and government leaders were in various parts of the state Tuesday, including Blacksburg, to announce the launch of an initiative called GO Virginia, a campaign crafted by the Virginia Business Higher Education Council and the Council on Virginia’s Future.
The initiative plans to use financial incentives to encourage private and public leaders, regardless of where they live, to work together.
Pell Grants, which are needs-based grants for low-income and working students, can currently only be applied to programs that are more than 600 clock hours or at least 15 weeks in length.
Federal Policy
Early prosocial behavior good predictor of kids' future
Science Daily
July 29, 2015
Kindergarteners' social-emotional skills are a significant predictor of their future education, employment and criminal activity, among other outcomes, according to Penn State researchers.
In a study spanning nearly 20 years, kindergarten teachers were surveyed on their students' social competence. Once the kindergarteners reached their 20s, researchers followed up to see how the students were faring, socially and occupationally. Students demonstrating better prosocial behavior were more likely to have graduated college, to be gainfully employed and to not have been arrested than students with lesser prosocial skills.
Same-Sex Marriage: What the Obergefell Decision Means for School Districts
National School Boards Association
July 30, 2015
FAQs for school systems and employees on the United States Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage.
Sixty percent of public schools in the United States offering International Baccalaureate diplomas in the 2012-13 school year received federal Title I money to support education for students in povery, according to a new study by the IB group based on federal and internal data. That's a 46 percent increase since the 2009-10 school year. Moreover, 46 percent of IB-participating schools were considered "schoolwide" Title I programs serving 40 percent or more low-income students.
|
|
Where did Congress leave ESEA reauthorization before going on vacation?
Congress adjourned for its traditional August recess on July 29th - they'll be back in Washington right after Labor Day when they'll pick up a number of tricky legislative issues. Among those is potentially reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). A recent survey of insiders by Whiteboard Advisers found that almost half thought the ESEA bill would be signed into law before the end of 2015, a marked increase in optimism compared to April.
Part of this optimism is no doubt due to the fact that both houses of Congress passed a version of reauthorization in the last month and the two bills now go to conference committee. But there are still areas of serious difference. Several major education associations weighed in with a joint letter encouraging Congress to keep momentum going.
Education Week recently reviewed some of the main issues that could still derail the legislation and also provided a side-by-side comparison of the bills currently on the table. Another compilation of the similarities and differences can be found over at the Public Charters website. We hope they're helpful in keeping track of the multifaceted debate.
In line with these topics, our poll snapshot takes a look back to our 2005-2006 poll, conducted shortly before the last reauthorization of the ESEA (No Child Left Behind) was set to expire. We asked whether the increased federal involvement with NCLB would help, hurt or make no difference in school performance.
Finally, we just wanted to encourage participation in the Virginia Dept. of Education's 16 question survey for parents and members of the public on what people want to see on the department's report card on school performance. The outreach effort recently got affirmation from the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star editorial board.
Sincerely,
CEPI
|
Poll Snapshot: Did people think No Child Left Behind would improve school performance?
The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (also called No Child Left Behind when the Bush administration and Congress updated the Act in 2002) is a major legislative task currently before Congress with numerous parties feeling some elements need to be fixed.
Given the sense that some aspects of NCLB were less than helpful when viewed in hindsight, it's interesting to look back at what the impressions of it were in its first years of implementation.
In 2005, we asked the following question:
“In the past, state and local governments oversaw most decisions related to the schools. The federal government in Washington has passed a law called the No Child Left Behind Act that increases the federal government's role in decisions about the schools. Do you think the federal government's involvement in the schools will help, hurt, or make no difference in school performance?”
The chart below summarizes the responses:
 |
|
Several interesting differences are worth pointing out. First, a strong plurality thought the new focus would help school performance. But the differences between whites and non-whites, as well as between age groups, are striking. Very few non-whites (8%) thought NCLB and increased federal involvement would hurt school performance while 60% thought it would help. Whites were more mixed with 42% seeing it as helpful and 27% saying it would hurt.
Larger divides exist between the youngest and oldest cohorts, and this same demographic difference is likely also reflected in the division between those who had children in public school (51% thought it would help) at the time of the poll and those who did not (only 22% thought federal involvement would be helpful).
(To read the full results of the poll, visit our website. Question 14 is cited above on the likely impact of increased federal involvement on school performance - topline results are on page 12 of the 2005 poll with breakouts on page 28.)
|
Educational Accountability and Malpractice
Excerpted from Dr. Vacca's January 2003 Education Law Newsletter
"A capstone event in the educational accountability movement came in January, 2002, when President George W. Bush signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-110). This new and broad-based federal law requires, among other things, that students in low performing “failing” schools (as measured by standardized test results) be given an opportunity to transfer to a higher performing “successful” school (with free transportation provided by the local school district). The law also requires that school officials inform parents of teachers in their child’s school who are not qualified to teach what they are teaching.
Thus, in the new millennium, public pressure is on state and local school officials to accomplish three accountability-driven objectives. First, to ensure taxpayers that all dollars earmarked for public education are being wisely spent. Second, to demonstrate a positive return (expressed in terms of student academic progress) on the growing financial investment made in this nation’s future citizens. Third, to show that quality control measures are in place in every school, holding school officials, administrators, and teachers directly accountable for student achievement or the lack thereof.
It must be emphasized, however, that accountability is not a simple concept. It is a multifaceted process involving reporting, analyzing, explaining, justifying, and taking responsibility for results. While contemporary public school systems are well into the reporting and analyzing dimensions, and the explaining and justifying activities are now underway, the last piece of the accountability puzzle, responsibility for results (expressed in terms of student academic outcomes) has most recently become the focus of a national debate.
Emerging Issues
Who is directly responsible when students fail to achieve acceptable scores on statewide student academic competency tests (local school boards, superintendents, building principals, classroom teachers, parents, or students)? Who is at fault when an entire school system, or a particular school in a school system, fails to meet state-mandated accreditation standards? Will parents of “failing students” in “failing schools” go to court seeking remedy? Will litigating parents allege that school officials and staff have “failed in their duty” or “breached their responsibility” to provide students with an adequate (basic, minimal) education? Will dissatisfied parents charge local school officials and staff with “educational malpractice?” What will the courts say? Currently it is unclear as to any definite answers to these questions; however, one can reexamine past case law from various states and speculate.
Case Law
In the late 1970’s, two state court decisions (one from California and one from New York) gained considerable attention in the education community. In the California case, Peter W. v San Francisco Unified School District (1976), a high school graduate went to court seeking damages from his former school system for what he alleged was “inadequate instruction.” His inability to read and write, he said, was caused by the negligence of his teachers. Ruling in favor of the school system, the court focused on the complexities of fixing fault where a student has “failed to learn.” In the court’s view, “Unlike the activity of the highway or the marketplace, classroom methodology affords no readily acceptable standards of care, or cause, or injury. The science of pedagogy itself is fraught with different and conflicting theories of how or what a child should be taught…. [T]he achievement of literacy in the schools, or its failure, are influenced by a host of factors which affect the pupil subjectively, from outside the formal teaching process, and beyond the control of its ministers.”
In the New York case, Donohue v Copiaque (1979), an unemployed, eighteen-year old, former student and his parents brought a “failure to educate” claim against a public school system. The young man could neither read menus nor take the written portion of test for a driver’s license, and his mother had to help him fill out job applications. The parents claimed that school officials (1) should have provided their son with special help (in the lower grades), (2) should not have promoted their son from grade to grade, (3) should have advised them of their son’s reading problem, and (4) should have provided appropriate personnel and facilities to respond to their son’s needs. The court ruled in favor of the school system, because there was no precedent for holding public school officials liable for “failure to educate a student.”
To read the full newsletter, visit our website.
|
|
