Virginia secretary of education tells HU students to ‘rise up'

Daily Press
September 25, 2016

Virginia’s new secretary of education told Hampton University students on Sunday that if they want to do something about problems with race and intolerance, they need to put their phones down.

“Ignore for just an hour a day your phone, tablet, television and laptop,” said Dietra Trent, who was appointed by Gov. Terry McAuliffe this summer. “Ignore the constant updates from Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Snapchat. Take out the earbuds, switch off Spotify, iTunes, whatever. Instead, I just need you to just lean in and just live in the moment.”

Trent addressed a crowd of students, alumni and elected officials -- including Hampton Mayor Donnie Tuck and U.S. Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Newport News -- during Hampton University's annual fall convocation.

Special education in Virginia Beach largely ahead of the curve, audit finds
Virginian-Pilot
September 19, 2016

Special education in the city’s public schools is largely ahead of the curve, but the division still has some work to do, according to a consulting firm’s released recently audit.

The school system should expand training opportunities for staff, rethink the roles of special education teachers and review how caseloads are assigned, according to the report presented to the School Board during a workshop Tuesday night.

The audit also recommended the division consider creating specialized programs for students with autism and related disabilities, make sure staff has enough time to create individualized education programs for students with disabilities and create a system to validate all purchases made with money earmarked for special education.

Department of Education to Change Policies Over Principals and School Nurses
WVTF
September 22, 2016

Strapped for cash, some public schools in Virginia are operating without a principal or a nurse, but the state’s board of education met today to discuss requiring those jobs be filled.

Since 2008, Virginia’s schools have been hit hard by a lack of resources. Jim Livingston, president of the Virginia Education Association, says for some teachers it’s meant working double duty.

“We have secretaries and classroom teachers, quite frankly, who are being placed in a position of having to be medical providers, for which they receive no training.”

The current standards don’t require all schools to have a nurse, or even a full-time principal. Livingston says that’s because the Board knew school districts couldn’t necessarily afford them.

The reasons superintendents leave are diverse, of course.  Many may be nearing retirement - Armbruster found that 32.5% of those surveyed had more than 36 years in the education field already.  But younger leaders may depart for a new challenge, often in a larger school system.   Forthcoming research by Jason Grissom of Vanderbilt and Stephanie Andersen of Washington University in St. Louis found that in 215 cases studied in California, 45% of superintendents exited within 3 years in the role and those who moved to a new position migrated from rural districts to higher-paying and larger urban and suburban locations, sometimes seeing the smaller systems as "stepping stones" in their career. They also found that those candidates promoted from within the system tend to stay longer, but may focus more on preserving a status quo.  

With all of the energy, newspaper ink and resources dedicated to finding a top leader, one might assume that superintendents have a huge impact on performance.  But other research suggests this may not be the case.  A recent report from the Brookings Institute based on schools in Florida and North Carolina found the following:

• Student achievement does not improve with longevity of superintendent service within their districts.
  
• Hiring a new superintendent is not associated with higher student
  achievement.
  
• Superintendents account for a small fraction of a percent (0.3 percent) of
  student differences in achievement. This effect, while statistically significant, is orders of magnitude smaller than that associated with any other major component of the education system, including: measured
  and unmeasured student characteristics; teachers; schools; and districts.
  

The report concludes that in any major change in a school system's level of academic achievement "the superintendent is likely to be playing a part in an
ensemble performance in which the superintendent’s role could be filled successfully by many others. In the end, it is the system that promotes or hinders student achievement."

The public perception of the influence and impact of superintendent leadership that CEPI found in our 2002 Commonwealth Education Poll (see below) also shows a mixed picture.  A majority of the public thinks superintendents have "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of influence on overall school performance, but the superintendent role siginificantly trails others in being judged a top reason for better performance.

We're not sure whether such research should minimize the stress of the school boards looking to hire a new superintendent (obviously the public they represent feel its a key choice regardless), but such research is at least a caution on seeing it as the only or even most important decision they will make during their term.       

Keeping with the question of turnover, again this week we excerpt portions of Dr. Vacca's September Education Law newsletter below which looks at the California challenge against tenure protections for public school teachers.   

We hope you find this collection of analysis and insights useful.

Sincerely,

CEPI

Poll Snapshot - Impact of Superintendents

Excerpted from the September edition of CEPI's Education Law Newsletter.  This issue is written by Dr. Richard Vacca and looks at Vergara, et al. v. State of California, et al. (2016).  Read the full newsletter on our website.

Vergara, et al. v. State of California, et al. (2016)

Facts. Plaintiffs filed suit in Superior Court, Los Angeles County, against the State of California and several state officials seeking a court order declaring five sections of the California Education Code unconstitutional. The challenged provisions covered K-12 public school teacher tenure, dismissal, and the role of seniority in laying off teachers. In essence plaintiff students claimed, among other things, that the named statutes created an oversupply of “grossly ineffective” teachers inevitably having a negative effect on minority students “right to education.” Minority students, they said, were being provided with an education that was not basically equivalent to that being provided to more affluent and/or white peers. The Superior Court judge ruled in their favor. Defendants appealed the ruling. 

********

California Court of Appeals Review of Trial Court Evidence
The appellate court first restated plaintiff students’ contentions that:

1. the tenure statutes forced school districts to decide whether new, probationary teachers should be granted tenure before the teachers’ effectiveness could be determined,
2. the dismissal statute made it nearly impossible to dismiss poorly performing teachers, and
3. the reduction-in-force statute required school districts, in the event of layoffs, to terminate teachers based on seniority, regardless of their teaching effectiveness.

Two groups of students, alleging they were denied equal protection under the California Constitution by the challenged statutes, made up the plaintiff side in the case. Group 1 was a subset of the general student population. These plaintiffs claimed their “fundamental right to education” under the California Constitution was adversely impacted due to being assigned to “grossly ineffective teachers.” They claimed that they were disadvantaged because they received a lesser education than students not assigned to “grossly ineffective teachers.” Group 2 was made up of minority and economically disadvantaged students. They alleged that the schools predominantly serving them have more than their proportionate share of “grossly ineffective teachers” making assignment to such a teacher more likely for a poor and/or minority student.

The appellate court then quoted specific language from the California Constitution (Cal. Const., art. IX, sec. 5) requiring “[t]he legislature [to] provide a system of common schools.” Pursuant to that command, said the Court, the State is obligated to provide a “free public education.” The management and control of the public schools is a state matter, and local school districts, as agents of the state are responsible for implementation of educational programs and activities. The Legislature grants each school district the power to hire, assign, and dismiss teachers, fix compensation, accept resignations and transfer teachers.
The Court of Appeals next reviewed the language and requirements of the State’s tenure, dismissal, and reduction-in-force statutes. For example, requirements that:

1. a certified teacher serve a two complete consecutive year probationary period;
2. a probationary teacher must receive written notice on or before March 15 of the second consecutive year whether or not he/she will be reelected as a permanent employee;
3. written notice be given to a permanent certified teacher if the school district intends to dismiss him/her for unsatisfactory performance (specifying instances);
4. a certified teacher be given a 90 day period to attempt to correct his/her deficient behavior and overcome the grounds for dismissal; and
5. following the 90 days, if unsatisfactory performance has not been corrected, the district must file a written statement of the charges and give the teacher final written notice of the district’s intention to dismiss him/her. A teacher has another 30 days to request a hearing on the charges. The hearing would be conducted by a three member panel.

Regarding reductions-in-force, the statute in question contains exceptions to the seniority policy. For example, an exception to seniority exists where a junior certified teacher has special training and experience that senior certified teachers do not possess.

The Court of Appeals then undertook a thorough and detailed review of trial testimony leading up to the lower court’s decision. A brief summary of the evidence presented at trial follows.

Expert witnesses gave testimony regarding the impact of effective and ineffective teachers on student learning, assessment, and measurement of teaching effectiveness. The appellate court review also included the conclusions of expert witnesses that, while a host of factors including child poverty and safety affect student achievement, teachers nevertheless have a highly important and significant impact on student learning. Other expert witnesses questioned the short duration of the probationary period. In their opinion a period of three to five years might be superior to the current timeline. Evidence also was reviewed regarding the length of time and expenses associated with the teacher dismissal process, and how few ineffective teachers were dismissed statewide.

The appellate court reviewed plaintiff witness testimony claiming that ineffective teachers are often transferred into and concentrated in schools that predominantly serve minority and low income children. Witnesses testified - that ineffective teachers are often “shuffled around from school to school” often landing in schools serving poor and minority students; that “transfers often functioned as a mechanism for teacher removal;” that poorly performing teachers generally are removed from higher-income or higher-performing schools and placed in lower-income and lower-performing schools.

Plaintiffs also presented evidence that schools in school districts serving low income and minority students have higher proportions of inexperienced teachers and experience more layoffs— due to seniority-based reduction-in-force statutes. And, that teacher assignment decisions are often influenced by collective bargaining agreements.

Other experts testified at trial that in-school effects on student learning are generally overstated when compared to out-of-school effects. And that using student test scores as an indicator of teacher effectiveness is flawed.

Several witnesses called by defendants testified that the tenure and dismissal statutes actually protect teachers and provide job security. That the probationary period provides sufficient time to make reelection decisions. That the tenure system is not “passive.” That a large number of poorly performing teachers resign rather than go through the formal dismissal process. And, while societal conditions pose challenges to the assignment of teachers, some school districts attempt to assign strong teachers to the highest need schools in an effort to encourage highly effective teachers to migrate to those schools.