The final federal guidelines for Race To The Top (RTTT) have been released. RTTT is a $4.3 billion competitive grant program designed to bring about education reforms and innovation that impact student achievement. Given the amount of money at stake and the scarcity of resources in the recession, every state, including Delaware will be competing hard to win a grant.
Four areas must be addressed in the grant application: Standards and Assessments, Data Systems to Support Instruction, Great Teachers and Leaders, and Turning Around Struggling Schools.
A draft of the guidelines were open for public comment. More than 1,600 such comments were received including those of the National Education Association. Meanwhile at the state level in Delaware, the Department of Education is busy putting together a strategic plan that compliments the federal RTTT. DSEA has given Secretary Lowery a position paper on RTTT in an effort to influence the DOE plan.
Some of the key areas of the just released guidelines that were closely watched by NEA are as follows:
*States must not have any barriers to linking student achievement or growth to teachers and principals. Delaware has no such barrier. NEA was against this linking of student achievement to specific educators.
*The new language for defining highly effective teachers requires multiple measures, provided student growth is a significant measure. This is a positive change from a direction of having student achievement measured by standardized tests as the primary component of evaluations. In Delaware, student achievement is only one of five equally weighted components of teacher evaluation.
*The new regulations state that teacher and principal evaluation systems should be designed and developed with teacher and principal involvement.
*Definitions of student achievement have been expanded to include other measures beyond a single test.
*According to the guidelines, states should not have laws adverse to charter schools, but state laws should monitor charter authorizers and should monitor charter student populations for comparison to public school populations.
Stay tuned for much more on RTTT.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
US House Health Care Bill
As promised, here is a quick look at the US House version of health care reform. Please keep in mind that the Senate will pass a version and then the two bills will go to a conference committee to be reconciled and back to both chambers for a vote on final passage. In other words, what you see today is a long way from law.
Some Key Points of the Legislation with Comment:
Health Insurance Exchange
This refers to a "marketplace" that allows for comparison shopping among insurance providers. The exchange would also administer the affordability credits provided in the legislation.
Public Insurance Option
Within the health insurance exchange would be an option to purchase a public plan in areas where just one or two carriers dominate the market. This is a much watered down version of the public option than originally discussed. The first version of a public option would have been offered anywhere in the nation, not just in the areas with few insurers. The first version would have provided insurance for a massive group of around 129 million Americans. The current version allows for about 6 million Americans to buy a public plan.
This area is of major concern because a comprehensive public option was our best hope of controlling health care cost inflation. When a plan has 129 million consumers, it can dictate to the market what it will and will not pay for various procedures and drugs. A plan with 6 million is not likely to have much market leverage. Moreover, a small public option could simply turn into a high risk pool which will eventually price itself out of existence.
Guaranteed Coverage and other Insurance Reforms
This is probably the best part of the bill. Insurance companies would no longer be allowed to exclude people from coverage for pre-existing conditions. Equally important, insurers would no longer be able to base premiums on health status, but only on age, geography, and family size.
Sliding Scale Affordability Credits
These are credits to help low and moderate income individuals and families purchase insurance. Medicaid will still exist for very low income people and the credits will start just above that level and continue up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level ($43K for an individual and $88K for a family of four).
One negative aspect of this program is that federal tax dollars (public) will flow to (private) for-profit insurance companies. This is not what happens with Medicaid for example, because Medicaid is the insurer and directly pays the health providers without the middlemen of the insurance industry taking a cut. This is why Medicaid has an administrative cost of about 2 or 3 cents for every dollar of heath care delivered as opposed to private insurers whose overhead is around 25 cents to 27 cents for every dollar of care delivered.
Expands Medicaid
Individuals and families with incomes at or below 133% of the federal poverty level will be covered. The expansion will be fully federally financed to avoid stressing state budgets.
Improves Medicare
The current "donut hole" in the Part D drug program will be eliminated helping seniors with their prescription drug costs. Cost sharing for preventive services has been eliminated. Physician payments have been improved. Also, improvements in the delivery system have been made.
Individual Responsibility
Once all reforms and affordability credits are in place, individuals must obtain health insurance. Failure to buy insurance will result in a penalty of 2.5% of adjusted gross income.
This is very controversial. Private, for-profit insurance companies will now reap billions from all Americans forced to buy their products. Without cost controls, what is to stop the insurance industry from charging exorbitant rates?
Employer Responsibility
Employers will chose between providing coverage for employees or paying 8% of their payroll into a health fund. Small businesses with payrolls under $500,000 are exempt from the requirement. Above $500k, businesses begin to pay on a sliding scale that maxes with the 8% for those over $750k in payroll.
In conclusion, this legislation still needs work, and it is a long, long, way from being a truly progressive health care reform bill.
Some Key Points of the Legislation with Comment:
Health Insurance Exchange
This refers to a "marketplace" that allows for comparison shopping among insurance providers. The exchange would also administer the affordability credits provided in the legislation.
Public Insurance Option
Within the health insurance exchange would be an option to purchase a public plan in areas where just one or two carriers dominate the market. This is a much watered down version of the public option than originally discussed. The first version of a public option would have been offered anywhere in the nation, not just in the areas with few insurers. The first version would have provided insurance for a massive group of around 129 million Americans. The current version allows for about 6 million Americans to buy a public plan.
This area is of major concern because a comprehensive public option was our best hope of controlling health care cost inflation. When a plan has 129 million consumers, it can dictate to the market what it will and will not pay for various procedures and drugs. A plan with 6 million is not likely to have much market leverage. Moreover, a small public option could simply turn into a high risk pool which will eventually price itself out of existence.
Guaranteed Coverage and other Insurance Reforms
This is probably the best part of the bill. Insurance companies would no longer be allowed to exclude people from coverage for pre-existing conditions. Equally important, insurers would no longer be able to base premiums on health status, but only on age, geography, and family size.
Sliding Scale Affordability Credits
These are credits to help low and moderate income individuals and families purchase insurance. Medicaid will still exist for very low income people and the credits will start just above that level and continue up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level ($43K for an individual and $88K for a family of four).
One negative aspect of this program is that federal tax dollars (public) will flow to (private) for-profit insurance companies. This is not what happens with Medicaid for example, because Medicaid is the insurer and directly pays the health providers without the middlemen of the insurance industry taking a cut. This is why Medicaid has an administrative cost of about 2 or 3 cents for every dollar of heath care delivered as opposed to private insurers whose overhead is around 25 cents to 27 cents for every dollar of care delivered.
Expands Medicaid
Individuals and families with incomes at or below 133% of the federal poverty level will be covered. The expansion will be fully federally financed to avoid stressing state budgets.
Improves Medicare
The current "donut hole" in the Part D drug program will be eliminated helping seniors with their prescription drug costs. Cost sharing for preventive services has been eliminated. Physician payments have been improved. Also, improvements in the delivery system have been made.
Individual Responsibility
Once all reforms and affordability credits are in place, individuals must obtain health insurance. Failure to buy insurance will result in a penalty of 2.5% of adjusted gross income.
This is very controversial. Private, for-profit insurance companies will now reap billions from all Americans forced to buy their products. Without cost controls, what is to stop the insurance industry from charging exorbitant rates?
Employer Responsibility
Employers will chose between providing coverage for employees or paying 8% of their payroll into a health fund. Small businesses with payrolls under $500,000 are exempt from the requirement. Above $500k, businesses begin to pay on a sliding scale that maxes with the 8% for those over $750k in payroll.
In conclusion, this legislation still needs work, and it is a long, long, way from being a truly progressive health care reform bill.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Federal Health Legislation Moves Forward
Legislation for a national health care plan moved forward last Saturday night
(11/7/09)when the US House passed their version of reform.
Why is DSEA closely watching the national health care debate? We are hoping for meaningful reform of health care because our health benefits are in a precarious situation. Last year, education employees' health care premium increased 50%. With health care inflation running close to 9% a year, the increase may not be the last one we will experience. Moreover, because of new federal regulation, states must now account for the projected health costs of their retirees in something called, Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB). Delaware's OPEB liability is now over $5 billion. If the state ever gets truly serious about funding OPEB, we could see less money for everything else, in an age when there is already less money for everything else.
This blog will give an analysis of the House health bill tomorrow.
(11/7/09)when the US House passed their version of reform.
Why is DSEA closely watching the national health care debate? We are hoping for meaningful reform of health care because our health benefits are in a precarious situation. Last year, education employees' health care premium increased 50%. With health care inflation running close to 9% a year, the increase may not be the last one we will experience. Moreover, because of new federal regulation, states must now account for the projected health costs of their retirees in something called, Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB). Delaware's OPEB liability is now over $5 billion. If the state ever gets truly serious about funding OPEB, we could see less money for everything else, in an age when there is already less money for everything else.
This blog will give an analysis of the House health bill tomorrow.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Pygmalion Today
The October 28, 2009 edition of "Education Week" has an interesting article by Joanne Yatvin titled "Rediscovering the 'Pygmalion Effect' in American Schools". Yatvin is a professor at Portland State University in Oregon, and a former school principal.
The article recalls research from more than 40 years ago on the impact of teacher expectations on student performance. As you may recall "Pygmalion" is a Greek myth about a sculptor who creates a statue of his ideal woman. Pygmalion treats his creation like a real person and gives her the name, "Galatea". Eventually, Galatea comes to life and "happily ever after" follows. Researchers Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson chose to call their book, "Pygmalion in the Classroom".
In the experiment teachers were told a new test had been developed that could predict which students would show an academic spurt in performance. Teachers were given the names of the students that were soon to blossom. In truth, the group of predicted achievers were a randomly selected group. This group of students was tested at the end of a year and again two years later. The students showed significant intellectual and academic performance gains in both years.
Subsequent research confirmed that an educator's expectations concerning a student has a positive impact on his/her achievement.
However, Joanne Yatvin contends this positive concept has been corrupted in the current environment: "The discrepancy between the Pygmalion researchers' concept of high expectations and that of today's reformers stems from the multiple meanings of the word 'expectation'. To the researchers, it meant the power of belief to influence the behavior of others. To the reformers, it means the power of authority to exact compliance from underlings."
The abuse of "expectations" has negatively changed the entire school environment according to Yatvin. "Schools are meant to be wellsprings of vigor, interest, exploration, growth, and illumination. Rigor, the word so often used by reformers to describe what schools should emphasize, is more properly the companion of harshness, inflexibility, and oppression. It is time to change the current conception of high expectations back to its original meaning."
As this blog has often lamented, in the pursuit of accountability we are killing off all that is creative, good, and enjoyable about educating and being educated. Or as William Wordsworth said, "Our meddling intellect mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things. We murder to disect."
The article recalls research from more than 40 years ago on the impact of teacher expectations on student performance. As you may recall "Pygmalion" is a Greek myth about a sculptor who creates a statue of his ideal woman. Pygmalion treats his creation like a real person and gives her the name, "Galatea". Eventually, Galatea comes to life and "happily ever after" follows. Researchers Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson chose to call their book, "Pygmalion in the Classroom".
In the experiment teachers were told a new test had been developed that could predict which students would show an academic spurt in performance. Teachers were given the names of the students that were soon to blossom. In truth, the group of predicted achievers were a randomly selected group. This group of students was tested at the end of a year and again two years later. The students showed significant intellectual and academic performance gains in both years.
Subsequent research confirmed that an educator's expectations concerning a student has a positive impact on his/her achievement.
However, Joanne Yatvin contends this positive concept has been corrupted in the current environment: "The discrepancy between the Pygmalion researchers' concept of high expectations and that of today's reformers stems from the multiple meanings of the word 'expectation'. To the researchers, it meant the power of belief to influence the behavior of others. To the reformers, it means the power of authority to exact compliance from underlings."
The abuse of "expectations" has negatively changed the entire school environment according to Yatvin. "Schools are meant to be wellsprings of vigor, interest, exploration, growth, and illumination. Rigor, the word so often used by reformers to describe what schools should emphasize, is more properly the companion of harshness, inflexibility, and oppression. It is time to change the current conception of high expectations back to its original meaning."
As this blog has often lamented, in the pursuit of accountability we are killing off all that is creative, good, and enjoyable about educating and being educated. Or as William Wordsworth said, "Our meddling intellect mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things. We murder to disect."
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Dubious Need for more STEM Graduates
Educators, as well as policy makers all over the United States should come to know the names, and work of two research professors: Hal Salzman is a professor of public policy from Rutgers. Dr.Lindsay Lowell is from Georgetown University and the Director of Policy Studies for the Institute of International Migration.
For the last couple of years these two professors have been wrestling with an assumption driving US education policy. It goes something like this: US high-tech corporations are not able to find enough science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) graduates to supply their employment needs. This forces corporations to move jobs offshore or to utilize the Guest Worker Program to bring in foreign STEM workers.
Salzman and Lowell decided to do something US policy makers did not do. They decided not to trust anecdotes as evidence. The academics began researching the supply of STEM graduates. After a couple of studies on the issue, the researches decided to use longitudinal data sets covering a 30 year period of time to determine what has really been happening with STEM. Today, this report has become public and provides support for the previous research from the pair.
I will save you from a 53 page read of "Steady as She Goes? Three Generations of Students through the Science and Engineering Pipeline" (Also the previous paper by the authors,"Into the Eye of the Storm: Assessing the Evidence on Science and Engineering Education, Quality and Workforce Demand") with some key points from all the work:
*US colleges and universities are still graduating as many STEM as they were in the 1970s.
*Supply is not the problem. US universities have graduated about three times more STEM than were employed in the science fields.
*There is a trend of the top quintile of STEM to choose other fields, possibly because pay and other employment conditions are no longer competitive.
* To reiterate with a quote from Dr. Lowell, "...there is no evidence of a long-term decline in the proportion of American students with the relevant training and qualifications to pursue STEM jobs."
Unfortunately, this modest common sense conclusion, now backed by significant research may not make headlines, let alone policy changes; but it should. Think about it...we have based an significant part of our national education policy off erroneous assumption.
We assumed that corporations could not get enough quality STEM graduates. We assumed they went offshore in pursuit of ability. More irritating and insulting was the assumption that not only was there a STEM shortage, but that the shortage was due to poor public schools and poor teachers.
It now appears that US corporations have once again taken the nation down the wrong path. There is no STEM shortage. US corporations pursued cheap STEM workers offshore the same way a generation earlier they pursued cheap manufacturing workers offshore.
Teachers are not responsible for workers failing to be "globally competitive". Corporations are making a choice not to employee US graduates that has little to do with their education.
For the last couple of years these two professors have been wrestling with an assumption driving US education policy. It goes something like this: US high-tech corporations are not able to find enough science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) graduates to supply their employment needs. This forces corporations to move jobs offshore or to utilize the Guest Worker Program to bring in foreign STEM workers.
Salzman and Lowell decided to do something US policy makers did not do. They decided not to trust anecdotes as evidence. The academics began researching the supply of STEM graduates. After a couple of studies on the issue, the researches decided to use longitudinal data sets covering a 30 year period of time to determine what has really been happening with STEM. Today, this report has become public and provides support for the previous research from the pair.
I will save you from a 53 page read of "Steady as She Goes? Three Generations of Students through the Science and Engineering Pipeline" (Also the previous paper by the authors,"Into the Eye of the Storm: Assessing the Evidence on Science and Engineering Education, Quality and Workforce Demand") with some key points from all the work:
*US colleges and universities are still graduating as many STEM as they were in the 1970s.
*Supply is not the problem. US universities have graduated about three times more STEM than were employed in the science fields.
*There is a trend of the top quintile of STEM to choose other fields, possibly because pay and other employment conditions are no longer competitive.
* To reiterate with a quote from Dr. Lowell, "...there is no evidence of a long-term decline in the proportion of American students with the relevant training and qualifications to pursue STEM jobs."
Unfortunately, this modest common sense conclusion, now backed by significant research may not make headlines, let alone policy changes; but it should. Think about it...we have based an significant part of our national education policy off erroneous assumption.
We assumed that corporations could not get enough quality STEM graduates. We assumed they went offshore in pursuit of ability. More irritating and insulting was the assumption that not only was there a STEM shortage, but that the shortage was due to poor public schools and poor teachers.
It now appears that US corporations have once again taken the nation down the wrong path. There is no STEM shortage. US corporations pursued cheap STEM workers offshore the same way a generation earlier they pursued cheap manufacturing workers offshore.
Teachers are not responsible for workers failing to be "globally competitive". Corporations are making a choice not to employee US graduates that has little to do with their education.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
STEM Study
I had the privilege to be on a conference call today previewing new research out of Rutgers. The two primary researchers are professors Hal Salzman and Lindsay Lowell. The study is a 30 year longitudinal look at science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) graduates. The research looks at what happens to the graduates. Do they enter STEM career fields?
The conventional "wisdom" has been that the United States does not graduate enough qualified STEM people and this forces corporations to go offshore for employees. Many powerful interests then take this assumption another step forward and blame educators for not preparing children to enter college with STEM majors and careers in mind. US educators are not producing globally competitive students under this scenario.
The report is under embargoed until tomorrow. I will write a follow up blog giving details of the findings on Wednesday. Suffice it to say that once again educators have been blamed for a situation not of their making. Furthermore, we have education policy being made on anecdotal evidence that does not stand up to deep dive analysis.
The conventional "wisdom" has been that the United States does not graduate enough qualified STEM people and this forces corporations to go offshore for employees. Many powerful interests then take this assumption another step forward and blame educators for not preparing children to enter college with STEM majors and careers in mind. US educators are not producing globally competitive students under this scenario.
The report is under embargoed until tomorrow. I will write a follow up blog giving details of the findings on Wednesday. Suffice it to say that once again educators have been blamed for a situation not of their making. Furthermore, we have education policy being made on anecdotal evidence that does not stand up to deep dive analysis.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Mark Your Calendar
It's not too early to mark your calendars for State Representative John Kowalko's fundraiser. Kowalko will have a fundraiser ($25 suggested contribution)on Friday, November 13th, 6:00PM at the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Newark (Wila Road).
John Kowalko is a special friend to educators. Last year, Representative John Kowalko was the first elected representative to begin the discussion of substantial, and sustainable revenue. He believes that a strong public sector, of which public education is at the heart, is essential to a 21st Century economy. This conviction led him to take a firm and out front stand with educators and other state employees against the salary cut.
John Kowalko is passionate on issues such as education, the economy and the environment, but he never sacrifices thoughtfulness in the heat of debate. We look forward to having such a quality ally at our side in the next legislative session.
John Kowalko is a special friend to educators. Last year, Representative John Kowalko was the first elected representative to begin the discussion of substantial, and sustainable revenue. He believes that a strong public sector, of which public education is at the heart, is essential to a 21st Century economy. This conviction led him to take a firm and out front stand with educators and other state employees against the salary cut.
John Kowalko is passionate on issues such as education, the economy and the environment, but he never sacrifices thoughtfulness in the heat of debate. We look forward to having such a quality ally at our side in the next legislative session.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
