Beacon of Hope helps LCS seniors apply to Virginia colleges, universities

The News & Advance
November 18, 2016

Seniors in Lynchburg City Schools had the chance to jump-start their futures this week with free applications to Virginia’s 24 two-year and 33 independent colleges and 15 public universities.

Between E.C. Glass and Heritage high schools, more than 1,000 college applications were turned in by 585 seniors at the two schools, according to Beacon of Hope Executive Director Laura Hamilton.

This is the fourth year Beacon of Hope, a Lynchburg-based nonprofit that encourages students to pursue post-secondary education, has organized Virginia College Application Week events.

“The idea is that you remove some of the barriers that keep kids from even applying,” Hamilton said.

Virginia College Application Week is part of The 1-2-3Go! initiative co-sponsored by the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia and the Educational Credit Management Corporation, which aims to help students find colleges, submit applications and complete the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) to help students and their families learn about aid available to pay for college.

Perrigan ready to takes reins as Bristol VA Superintendent of Schools
NBC 5 (WCYS)
November 22, 2016

Keith Perrigan, selected as Bristol, Virginia's next school superintendent, has more than 22 years experience in public education.

He'll leave as Norton superintendent and begin in Bristol in January.

Perrigan has worked before as a school principal in Bristol, as well as in Washington County, Virginia.

He says experience guides his priorities, which include stopping the trend to teach to the test.

Regardless, we wish you a safe and happy Thanksgiving! 

Sincerely,

CEPI

Excerpted from the November edition of CEPI's Education Law Newsletter.  This issue is written by Dr. Richard Vacca and looks at Cook, et al. v. Bennett, et al. (11th Cir. 2015).  Read the full newsletter on our website.

Teacher Effectiveness and Student Learning: In Search of a Standard
As public education moved into the 1970s, the traditional form of judicial review persisted in deciding teacher dismissal cases where issues of teacher instructional competence, or the lack thereof, and student learning, were involved. Lacking specific standards of review to apply, judges focused on two aspects of each case.
First, they looked to see if school system policies and procedures were followed. Second they ascertained if the actions taken by school officials were supported by sufficient data. (Vacca and Bosher, 2012) Judges had to be convinced that summative employment decisions were based on valid and reliable criteria—criteria directly related to teacher on-the-job performance and effectiveness. In other words, when challenged in court, school officials had to demonstrate that a rational relationship existed between the school district’s teacher evaluation system and a primary goal of improving classroom instruction.

Era of Transition and Change
A small number of state court decisions referred to as “educational malpractice” cases were decided in the mid-1970s. In these cases former student plaintiffs unsuccessfully claimed that a causal connection existed between “negligent instruction,” or “inadequate instruction,” or “instructional negligence,” or “negligent teaching” and their “failure to learn.”

Judges hearing this non-traditional type of negligence claim lacked meaningful standards to apply. The following judicial statement was typical: “the science of pedagogy itself is fraught with different and conflicting theories of how and what a child should be taught….” Moreover, said the court, “[s]ubstantial professional authority attests that the 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.” Peter W. v. San Francisco Unified School District (Cal. App. 1976)

While, as a general rule, courts continue to view claims of poor academic performance as nonactionable, Sain v. Cedar Rapids Community School District (Iowa, 2001), the educational malpractice cases did raise important questions that school officials still ponder. Is there a causal connection between teacher instructional competence and effectiveness, or lack thereof, and levels of student learning outcomes and academic achievement? Is there a manageable and non-hypothetical standard for courts to apply? If there is such a standard, what is it?

The 1970s also marked a time when statewide student academic competency testing programs were enacted. It was during this period that the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld the dismissal of a classroom teacher whose students did poorly on standardized academic achievement tests. A significant factor in favor of school officials was that the improvement of student test scores was a primary objective of the school district and this teacher did not produce the results expected of her. Scheelhaase v. Woodbury (8th Cir. 1973) In my view, while Scheelaase is but one case from one jurisdiction, it was significant that a federal appellate court had accepted the use of statewide student academic test scores and improvement of student performance on these tests as criteria to apply when judging classroom teacher competence and effectiveness.

More than four decades ago, in Scheelhaase (1973), did the Eighth Circuit plant the seeds for a new standard of review? Would it come to pass that statewide testing standards and student achievement levels on these tests would serve as major criteria in measuring classroom teacher instructional effectiveness? Had the die been cast?

Cook, et al. v. Bennett, et al. (11th Cir. 2015)
Recently, I reviewed a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in which teachers challenged a newly implemented state system of teacher performance evaluation. Student academic achievement test scores were included.

Facts
In 2011, the Florida legislature enacted the Student Success Act (SSA). The new law established new requirements for public school teacher’s performance evaluations. The SSA provided that at least 50 percent of a performance evaluation must be based on data and indicators of student growth assessed annually by statewide assessments.

A formula to measure individual student learning growth on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) was adopted by Florida’s Commissioner of Education. The formula was called the FCAT value-added model (FCAT VAM)-which is based on students’ FCAT scores in English and mathematics and accounts for a host of predictor variables (such as a student’s prior test scores, attendance, and disability status). The FACT VAM outputs a teacher’s component which measures an individual teacher’s effect on student score, and a common school component which measures the potential impact of factors that are part of the school’s environment, such as the principal or the neighborhood. A teacher’s final evaluation score is calculated by adding the teacher component score with 50 percent of the common school component score.

********

Policy Implications
Valuable information can be gleaned from the Eleventh Circuit Court’s rationale reviewed above. What follow are suggestions to keep in mind as local school officials reexamine existing teacher evaluation policies and consider the adoption of new ones—especially where states are moving in the direction of requiring the inclusion of statewide student academic testing results (outcomes) as criteria in evaluating teacher “instructional effectiveness.”

Local school system policies must make it clear that:

• Teacher evaluations and job performance assessments are directly related to the measurement of teacher on-the-job effectiveness in meeting the school system’s goal of improving student academic growth and proficiency.
• Teacher evaluations and on-the-job performance assessments include valid and reliable criteria for making judgments regarding on-the-job performance and instructional effectiveness.
• Teacher evaluation and on-the-job measurement procedures are rationally related to the specific purpose of judging teacher instructional effectiveness in carrying out the school systems goal of improving student academic growth and proficiency.
• Teacher evaluation and on-the-job assessments are intended as developmental and not punitive.