"Very sweeping statements, very light on details. Details please? What does the bill contain that is counter to what Virginia is trying to do in the first place?"
The story I read has no more details, but I know of a few. These are certainly not all. Virginia has had its Standards of Learning in place for years now. Students are tested on certain benchmarks all year every year and they have to pass much larger tests in either three or four years (I think in 3rd, 5th, 8th and 11th grades -- in 3rd and 11th grades to make sure students are learning enough to move on soon, and in 5th and 8th to make sure they ARE ready to move on). Bush, however, seems to think that's not good enough and wants Virginia to test in some other years. Virginia's SOLs also provide a method for "grading" schools along with punishments for not making enough progress. Bush's plan wants the state to grade the schools using different benchmarks, some of which many people think make no sense at all. Virginia's system has been fine-tuned over several years and has been tailored to specifically suit Virginia, yet Bush thinks he knows better. And of course all of this costs tons of cash.
"So, are you saying you think the bill says that a school that is meeting the standards could be held at fault for not making adequate yearly progress toward the standards? Doesn't make sense."
I am not claiming to completely understand this one, but this is one of the sections of the bill that has drawn almost universal complaints. As I understand it, adequate yearly progress varies depending on the school. A school that starts out with a sterling record (let's say a very low number of fight per year), and then has a bad year can be found to not be making adequate progress. Meanwhile, a school with much worse record might pass muster because it improved. Still much worse than the first school, but it improved. You can imagine how much school systems are spending on record keeping for this -- money that could be used for educating.
"You follow that by saying that parents would force school systems to send their children to a school hours away when that school is no better or worse than their current school. Exactly why would the parents want to subject their children to the hours of travel for no apparent gain?"
Obviously I didn't explain this very well. No Child Left Behind decrees that children at a failing school MUST be offered the chance to go to a non-failing school -- one that is supposedly better, although that is often subjective. Parents can turn down this offer. In some areas, the non-failing school is a long ways away or is already jam packed and doesn't have space for more students.
Virginia has had its Standards of Learning in place for years now. Students are tested on certain benchmarks all year every year and they have to pass much larger tests in either three or four years (I think in 3rd, 5th, 8th and 11th grades -- in 3rd and 11th grades to make sure students are learning enough to move on soon, and in 5th and 8th to make sure they ARE ready to move on). Bush, however, seems to think that's not good enough and wants Virginia to test in some other years.
This doesn't sound much different than the testing currently done in Texas and the only change in testing my wife has made me aware of is the expansion of the subjects covered. Since testing creates a disruption in her workload, I would think she would make me aware of any other changes. A curious anomaly.
Bush's plan wants the state to grade the schools using different benchmarks, some of which many people think make no sense at all. Virginia's system has been fine-tuned over several years and has been tailored to specifically suit Virginia, yet Bush thinks he knows better. And of course all of this costs tons of cash.
This sounds like sensationalizing. Harmonizing benchmarks is not that difficult a task, happens all the time in the business world. If someone claims it costs tons of cash, you should take a closer look at their system productivity.
Considering the sum of Federal dollars in play, harmonizing bench marks on a national basis should contribute to a vastly improved accountability system.
I am not claiming to completely understand this one, but this is one of the sections of the bill that has drawn almost universal complaints. As I understand it, adequate yearly progress varies depending on the school. A school that starts out with a sterling record (let's say a very low number of fight per year), and then has a bad year can be found to not be making adequate progress. Meanwhile, a school with much worse record might pass muster because it improved. Still much worse than the first school, but it improved. You can imagine how much school systems are spending on record keeping for this -- money that could be used for educating.
The first problem I have here is the idea that a single year anomaly would negatively impact a schools status. I can't believe the details fall out that way.
The second is the money spent on documentation and record keeping. Since one of my areas of expertise is in process control, defining processes for maximized productivity and effectiveness, my wife and I often discuss the effect of documentation and record keeping in her school (one of the top rated districts in the state) on the process. Basically, they spend dollars to save dimes. Effective documentation does not cost money, it provides the information to save, save, save.