Wherewestand ospi
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Like this? Share it with your network

Share
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
402
On Slideshare
306
From Embeds
96
Number of Embeds
2

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 96

http://www.ortingschools.org 71
http://ortingschools.schoolwires.net 25

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. WHERE WE STANDEducation Reform and Funding in Washington State
  • 2. Where do we really stand? Today’s focus on improving education is welcome, but sometimes this debate can be misleading. • The truth is student achievement has improved in recent years, and the graduation rate is improving too. • Washington has made great progress on the major reforms many states are debating. • But our funding levels are inadequate, compared to other states, and fail to meet our constitutional obligation.Where We Stand | Education Reform Slide 2
  • 3. Current issues in education • Measuring student success: kindergarten readiness, 3rd grade reading, 8th grade math • Mandatory tests as part of graduation requirements • Implementation of Common Core State Standards • Charter schools • Improved evaluations: teachers and principals • State intervention in struggling schools • FundingWhere We Stand | Education Reform Slide 3
  • 4. MEASURING STUDENT SUCCESS
  • 5. Testing types • State testing: Measurement of Student Progress, High School Proficiency Exams, End-of-Course tests – Measure progress against the Essential Academic Learning Requirements. – Single point in time. – Also check of system and curriculum. • National Assessment of Educational Progress • AP/SAT/ACTWhere We Stand | Education Reform Slide 5
  • 6. State testing: Reading scores have risen since testing began 100 Percentage of students meeting standard 90 80 70 60 Gr. 4 50 Gr. 7 40 Gr. 10 30 20 10 0 98 00 02 04 06 08 10 12 Source: OSPI, School Report CardWhere We Stand | Education Reform Slide 6
  • 7. State testing: Math scores have risen since testing began 100 Percentage of students meeting standard 90 80 70 60 Gr. 4 50 Gr. 7 40 Gr. 10 30 20 10 0 98 00 02 04 06 08 10 12* * 2011 and 2012 scores are for Year 1 of End-of-Course exams Source: OSPI, School Report CardWhere We Stand | Education Reform Slide 7
  • 8. NAEP: 4th-grade reading Slightly above national average 230 225 220 Scale score 215 US Washington 210 205 200 94 98 02 03 05 07 09 11 Source: NAEPWhere We Stand | Education Reform Slide 8
  • 9. NAEP: 4th-grade math Slightly above national average 245 240 Scale score US Washington 235 230 03 05 07 09 11 Source: NAEPWhere We Stand | Education Reform Slide 9
  • 10. SAT results • In 2012, Washington tied for highest in nation for combined average score (1545), in states that test at least 45 percent of students (24 states + D.C.): – Highest in math (528) – Tied for second in writing (500) – Third in reading (517) • Washington has had highest combined average score in the nation for past 10 years, in states that test at least 50 percent of students. Source: College BoardWhere We Stand | Education Reform Slide 10
  • 11. SAT participation Students taking at least one SAT test 40000 • Increase of 17.9% from 2002 to 2012 38000 • For Hispanic 36000 students, 274% increase 34000 • For African-American 32000 students, 127% increase Source: College Board 30000 2002 2012 YearWhere We Stand | Education Reform Slide 11
  • 12. Graduation rates are increasing 85% Percentage of students graduating 80% 75% On-time Extended 70% 65% 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 Source: OSPI, Graduation and Dropout Statistics, published annuallyWhere We Stand | Education Reform Slide 14
  • 13. Conclusions • Washington scores better than average, nationally. • Washington’s students are learning. • Test scores are generally rising. • Graduation rates are improving. • But the opportunity gap remains too wide.Where We Stand | Education Reform Slide 15
  • 14. PROGRESS ONACCOUNTABILITY AND REFORM
  • 15. Graduation testing • Washington is one of 24 states that include testing as part of the graduation requirements: – One state (Washington) requires 5 exams to graduate. – Nine states require four. – Four states require three. – Nine states require two. – One state requires one.Where We Stand | Education Reform Slide 17
  • 16. Graduation testing • Washington students must pass five exams: – Reading and writing High School Proficiency Exams. – End-of-course tests in Algebra, Geometry and Science. • Superintendent Dorn is proposing three tests instead of five. Our state will still have some of the most rigorous graduation requirements in the nation.Where We Stand | Education Reform Slide 18
  • 17. Common Core State Standards • New standards in math and English language arts • State-led initiative • Developed by experts from all over the country • Emphasize deeper understanding over memorization • Supt. Dorn adopted in July 2011 • Standards rolled out to teachers in 2012-13Where We Stand | Education Reform Slide 19
  • 18. Smarter Balanced Assessment • Will test Common Core. • Piloting will occur in 2012-13 and 2013-14. • Testing will be entirely online. • All students in grades 3-8 and 11 will be assessed beginning in 2014-15. • 11th-grade tests will show how college and career ready students are.Where We Stand | Education Reform Slide 20
  • 19. Charter Schools: Initiative 1240 • Will establish up to 40 charter schools during a five-year period. • Requires that charter schools be free and open to all students. • Requires that funding be based on enrollment, just as with existing schools. • Gives Washington Charter School Commission the authority to approve charter schools.Where We Stand | Education Reform Slide 21
  • 20. Superintendent Dorn’s position • Initiative 1240 creates a governance structure that eliminates any public oversight via elected officials, including SPI. This is unconstitutional. • Superintendent Dorn is willing to work on changes to I-1240 to correct the flaws in governance and create public accountability for these new schools.Where We Stand | Education Reform Slide 22
  • 21. New legislation will increase accountability for student achievement • Bills passed in 2010 and 2012 change how teachers and principals are evaluated and how schools are held accountable: – 2010: SB 6696, a sweeping education reform bill – 2012: ESSB 5895 adds specificity to regulations outlined in SB 6696Where We Stand | Education Reform Slide 23
  • 22. SB 6696 • Part of our state’s Race to the Top application: – Revises evaluation criteria (not done in 25 years). – Requires four-tiered evaluations (most districts were doing two: “satisfactory” and “unsatisfactory”). – Increases the length of provisional contracts for new teachers to three years.Where We Stand | Education Reform Slide 24
  • 23. ESSB 5895 • Requires OSPI to identify up to three frameworks to support new evaluations. • Beginning in 2015–16, evaluations become one factor in personnel decisions. • Requires yearly evaluations. • Student growth data must be a “substantial factor” in evaluation.Where We Stand | Education Reform Slide 25
  • 24. State intervention in struggling schools • Recent legislation and federal grants have created additional support for struggling schools: – 2009: HB 2261 directed State Board of Education to create an accountability framework. – 2010: SB 6696 required OSPI to identify persistently lowest-achieving schools. • OSPI has provided active assistance to struggling schools.Where We Stand | Education Reform Slide 26
  • 25. Required Action Districts • Identified as having at least one persistently lowest-achieving school, low math/reading scores and not enough improvement. • Districts to get federal funds to help them implement an improvement model. • Every school identified as “failing” is required to implement a turnaround plan. The status quo does not ensure student success.Where We Stand | Education Reform Slide 27
  • 26. FUNDING
  • 27. Per-pupil funding Washington well below the national average Adjusted for regional cost differences 2008 2009 2010 1. Wyoming $17,114 1. Wyoming $18,068 1. Vermont $18,924 2. Vermont 17,050 2. Vermont 17,847 2. Wyoming 18,814 3. New Jersey 15,598 3. Alaska 16,147 3. D.C. 17,020 U.S. Average $11,223 U.S. Average $11,665 U.S. Average $11,824 40. Colorado $9,541 40. Florida $9,576 40. Florida $9,572 41. Mississippi 9,498 41. Oklahoma 9,369 41. Oklahoma 9,430 42. Oklahoma 9,137 42. Washington 9,329 42. Colorado 9,306 43. California 8,852 43. Colorado 9,155 43. Washington 9,145 44. Washington 8,722 44. North Carolina 9,024 44. Texas 8,882 Source: Education Week, Quality Counts, published every JanuaryWhere We Stand | Education Reform Slide 29
  • 28. Funding levels are unconstitutional • McCleary v. Washington – Decision released in January 2012. – Held that the State must fully fund basic education without the use of local levies. – Also held that the plans being developed by the Quality Education Council are the remedy. – Gives state until 2018 to come up with adequate funding solution.Where We Stand | Education Reform Slide 30
  • 29. 2013 PRIORITIES
  • 30. Supt. Dorn’s 2013 legislative priorities 1. Fund at least phase 1 of the QEC recommendations: full-day kindergarten, MSOC, transportation, lower class sizes in K–3. 2. Improve our student assessment system. 3. Fund OSPI recommendations for graduation success and teacher/principal evaluations. 4. Implement Common Core by hiring experts to assist teachers in understanding new English language arts standards.Where We Stand | Education Reform Slide 32
  • 31. Conclusion • We are moving forward on a number of education reform topics. • We know we have a lot of work to do, especially with opportunity gaps. “The key to our success is to fund education – without local funds – so all students have the opportunity for quality education in the 21st century.” – Randy DornWhere We Stand | Education Reform Slide 33