Thursday, June 10, 2004

It's the last week of school, the Lowell school budget issue was resolved with some compromises on all sides, and everyone is looking forward to vacation. However, in New York City, the school district must use the next seven weeks to come up with a plan that will prevent the court system from taking over the schools (see today's New York Times, Op-Ed page, "Courting School Troubles").

The courts have already ruled that city children are not getting the "sound, basic education" promised in the state's constitution, but no plan to redress the situation has been forthcoming from the legislature. The Times editorial takes the position that in order
"to meet the court's demands, and to achieve basic fairness, Mr. Pataki and the legislative leaders must change the formula for dividing up state school aid... suburban legislators say their districts should be guaranteed exactly the same percentage of state aid in the future as they get now. But the state could never afford to pile a new education aid program on top of the existing one. The old formula is doomed, and the only real question is whether the legislators will have the courage to change it themselves rather than letting the court do it."

We in Massachusetts should pay attention what happens in Albany, because we have our own recent court case (Hancock vs Driscoll) which ruled that many children in our state (Lowell was one of the plaintiffs) are not getting the education to which they are entitled under our constitution.

Sunday, June 06, 2004

In today's Lowell Sun, Ann Connery Frantz has written an insightful piece about the Federal 'No Child Left Behind' act (NCLB) and how it conflicts with and undermines existing State initiatives (see "Education: Is the bar being set too high").

Part of the problem is our own Department of Education. Each state gets to set their own standard for how school districts shall be deemed to have made 'adequate yearly progress' under the federal law and our DOE chose an MCAS score of 240 and above (called proficient). A score of 220 and above is considered passing, a score of 240 is "equivalent to scoring in the 80th percentile across the nation." Massachusetts has set the bar very high by using an MCAS grade of proficient. No one is against higher standards, but NCLB demands that students improve on a rigid schedule from year to year or the school will be designated as under-performing, with severe financial penalties to follow. NCLB standards are so inflexible and unrealistic that it seems possible that every school in the nation will end up as under-performing.

Massachusetts has been a leader in the nation in education reform. Other states are simply setting a lower standard in order to avoid the pitfalls created by NCLB. Our DOE fell into the trap by believing the rhetoric instead of looking at the reality of this law. Trying to mesh existing standards with the new federal guidelines is going to set schools and students up to fail.