This link has been bookmarked by 3 people . It was first bookmarked on 11 Apr 2008, by Doug Noon.
-
18 Dec 08
-
First, a new law would establish that the primary purpose of federal funding is to facilitate school improvement. This would replace test-based accountability as the primary approach, though accountability for improvement processes and ultimately for results would be part of the structure.
-
Second, the law would recognize that the heart of improvement is school-based collaboration among educators to build their capacity to serve all children well. Thus, a significant share of Title I funds, particularly for schoolwide programs, would be allocated to pay for time for educators to work together on curriculum, instruction, assessment, evaluating student needs and how to meet them, and related core activities. That is, federal funds would be used to help schools become communities of learners, both adults and students. A portion of those funds could be used by the local educators to employ outside expertise.
-
Fourth, the federal government would fund a series of ancillary activities all aimed at supporting this core approach. That can include developing new curricula or assessments, creating banks of useful performance assessment tasks, and developing opportunity-to-learn indexes that reveal the degree of equity in key components of learning (faculty, libraries, buildings, technology) and in the communities that schools serve.
-
-
11 Apr 08
Doug NoonIn addition to pushing for more funding, educators, civil rights groups, parents and communities must unite on a few key principles for structuring the version of ESEA that will replace NCLB.
-
First, a new law would establish that the primary purpose of federal funding is to facilitate school improvement.
-
Second, the law would recognize that the heart of improvement is school-based collaboration among educators to build their capacity to serve all children well.
-
Third, Title I funding would be used to strengthen the capacity of districts and states to assist schools, which should be their main function.
-
Fourth, the federal government would fund a series of ancillary activities all aimed at supporting this core approach. That can include developing new curricula or assessments, creating banks of useful performance assessment tasks, and developing opportunity-to-learn indexes
-
Fifth, the federal government would support more extensive research.
-
Lastly, a new law would restructure accountability. Title I schools should be expected to develop, implement, evaluate, and revise improvement plans.
-
It makes locally controlled improvement efforts central, thereby empowering those who actually teach. It removes the educationally destructive focus on high-stakes testing, while retaining meaningful accountability.
-
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.