Parent Strike: What Is It? How Can I Help? What If I Can’t Come?

Source: Parent Strike: What Is It? How Can I Help? What If I Can’t Come?

Advertisements

25 responses to “Parent Strike: What Is It? How Can I Help? What If I Can’t Come?

  1. lastDEconservative

    Still stinging after this fellow with the damp matchstick chastised me for scanning unbearably long posts/videos instead of performing detailed reviews, pen and note pad in hand, I scanned his diatribe herein linked.

    Of all the observations I have made or will make about denizen KO, wannabe firestarter, what follows shows me that, agree with him or not (not, for the record, 99 44/100% of the time), I must give the dude kudos for knowing his audience — which is the first rule of public speaking, or writing to an audience — to bring an audience in.

    Watch this. KO knows to whom he speaks. KO knows his people. He said to them,

    “Paint REFUSE THE TEST on your car (with temporary paint)”

    Now I know a lot of denizens are saying, “What?” Sorry, this comment is not for you. It’s for MY audience of able discerners, the awake, the willing and able. Enjoy.

    Like

  2. Publius e decere

    Rather than paint private property or deface public property, how ’bout he use a simple pictorial message?

    Like

  3. Publius e decere

    The Strike was a bust. Seven people turned out. The three or four “leaders” among them might want to reconsider their public media approach by 1. combing their hair, 2. wearing collared shirts, and 3. getting current students and their parents to side along.

    Of course it was a bust. Because everyone knows that we must measure in order to address. Ostriches excepted.

    “Take the test.”.
    — Publius Delawarius, 2015 A.D.

    Like

  4. Publius, experiments have a purpose; to support or to refute a hypothesis. You make a claim, gather and analyze data, and make a conclusion. At what point does your experiment end, and you write your conclusion? My impression is that many wish to continue to gather data until it tells them what they want it to say, as opposed to what it has said, over and over and over again. I offer this. Read the charts. The 14 years of NCLB data is conclusive. End the testing now and act on the data we have, before the child entering Kindergarten this year starts college.

    Like

    • Publius e decere

      Let’s first actually act on the data while we still collect it. We will only know where to act if we measure what we want.

      Like

  5. Publius e decere

    Just in case everyone needs a refresher on ESEA:
    http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg2.html#sec1111
    Subpart 1 — Basic Program Requirements
    SEC. 1111. STATE PLANS.
    … (b) ACADEMIC STANDARDS, ACADEMIC ASSESSMENTS, AND ACCOUNTABILITY-
    …… (3) ACADEMIC ASSESSMENTS-
    ……… (C) REQUIREMENTS- Such assessments shall—
    ………… (ix) provide for—
    …………… (I) the participation in such assessments of all students;

    “All” means all. No opt-out. In order to capture the data on test-truants the state and its LEAs report %-participation. No special treatment for ostriches.

    Publius

    Like

    • kilroysdelaware

      You are citing Title 1 section 1111 and the opt out question is directed the state and schools. In the big picture the state and schools could lose Title1funding. HOWEVER, not all school are Title 1 funded.In a nut shell you support thissection in Title 1 / ESEA but yet don’t support the outcry Red Clay and the state were allow to wavie under NCLB Wavier, Title ! Section 1118 that gave “Title 1 Parents” unique voice whereas, the law requires Title ! parents to be included in design and review of Title 1 programing. Title 1 parents were not included in the Teachfor America, Race to The Top, Common Core Standards and The Smarter Balanced Assesment decsions.The were feed the Kool Aid after the fact. In my opinion NCLB aka ESEA has been defaced tosupport theWall Street agenda. Also,under the NCLB Wavier is gone the provisions of SES /20% set aside. Also, Title 1 School Choice not to be confused with Delaware’s law School Choice which was to inculde federal $$$ for Title 1 Choice Transportation. HOWEVER,at the edn of the day , federal provisions within Title 1 are not broad federal outside the scope of NCLB. It does not forbid opt out state laws whereas parents make the call. However, can limit part or all Title1 “grant” fundding. And do remember not all public schools are Title 1 funded same goes with charters.Infact some of schoolwith low % poverty who gets near nothing coiuld save money and increase instuctional time if they didn’t have toparticapte in state testing mandated by NCLB / Title 1. Duncan and Markell manipulates NCLB vis NCLB Waviers tosupport their agenda at the same time reudces tge voice and rights of Title 1 parents and imposes rules that apply to Title ! funded programs on all parents

      Like

  6. Publius e decere

    Oh wait, it gets even more specific when it comes to reports:
    http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg2.html#sec1111
    Subpart 1 — Basic Program Requirements
    SEC. 1111. STATE PLANS.
    … (b) ACADEMIC STANDARDS, ACADEMIC ASSESSMENTS, AND ACCOUNTABILITY-
    …… (3) ACADEMIC ASSESSMENTS-
    ……… (C) REQUIREMENTS- Such assessments shall—
    ………… (ix) provide for—
    …………… (I) the participation in such assessments of all students;
    … (h) REPORTS-
    …… (1) ANNUAL STATE REPORT CARD-
    ……… (C) REQUIRED INFORMATION- The State shall include in its annual State report card—
    ………… (i) information, in the aggregate, on student achievement at each proficiency level on the State academic assessments described in subsection (b)(3) (disaggregated by race, ethnicity, gender, disability status, migrant status, English proficiency, and status as economically disadvantaged, except that such disaggregation shall not be required in a case in which the number of students in a category is insufficient to yield statistically reliable information or the results would reveal personally identifiable information about an individual student);
    ………… (iii) the percentage of students not tested (disaggregated by the same categories and subject to the same exception described in clause (i));

    “Shall” include. No opt-out. In order to capture the data on test-truants the state and its LEAs report %-participation. No special treatment for ostriches.

    Publius Redux

    Like

  7. So LEAs report it. No problem. The question is whether the school/administration/teacher should be held accountable/graded for a test-truant student. Of course they shouldn’t.

    Like

    • Publius e decere

      I “might” consider agreeing, so long as schools and districts and legislatures do not pass opt-out policies with the imprimatur of “law”, and provided that their individual employees and/or actors do not materially promote (whether outside of public view or otherwise) an opt-out culture.

      This, by the way, appears to be the Governor’s clear agenda in veto-ing that saccharine opt-out initiative. It is one thing for individuals to decide on their own, but with state (or state agency) endorsement there is no choice but for the Feds but to call foul and withhold the conditional funds accordingly. The Governor did the responsible thing.

      The Legislature should do the same responsible thing and stand down. To override the veto is to put at risk the federal funds we receive today (without, by the way, a reduction in federal taxes). All for a pointy-headed and wrong-headed protest over reasonable standards and assessment thereof.

      “take the test”
      Publius Delawarius 2015 A.D.

      Like

  8. CSW turning over board members: http://charterschool.org/aboutus/boardofdirectors/downloads/agenda/092215agenda.pdf

    Time for fresh ideas. Less ideology and more evidence.

    Like

  9. John – how many board members have turned over since Joey Wise was first hired?

    Like

  10. about 10 . Merlet, Hutchinson, Durr, Evans, Anderson,Mackenzie, Mullin, Reed, Backus, Scheinberg

    Like

    • 10 people. That’s a lot of “fresh ideas” that haven’t changed much.

      Like

    • Publius e decere

      Not such fresh ideas. In all of that time they have established no true magnet schools and have authorized no charter schools. Nor have they made any large progress toward true site accountability at a building level. Just heavier doctrinnaire (and sometimes maudlin) focus on one outdated centralized model for public schools. As a result they have seen steadily declining enrollments for a decade, with distinct outsized cohort defections after elementary school and again after middle school. Their public has spoken by choicing out of the legacy and also by supporting good alternative “state, but in-district” charters like Aspira and Newark Charter. Then the county and University thought leaders piled on through the WEAC and discharged the district from Wilmington. Seems like a consensus across the board.

      Christina recently made a sensible move — as an interim superintendent, they hired Bob Andrezewski to run things. On this choice they went straight to the right answer. Hopefully they can follow this nascent momentum and assess their entire paradigm, listeining to their choicing-out public as much or more than they have been listening to their vocal ostriches.

      Christina needs to get a 21st century public education system underway before they shrink to irrelevance.

      Publius

      Like

    • lastDEconservative

      “Christina needs to get a 21st century public education system underway before they shrink to irrelevance.”

      Would you settle for a dusty 20th century system?

      Like

    • It’s not “fresh” ideas that are needed. What’s needed are rationally effective ideas.

      Admitting one has a “problem”, for CSD, is the real challenge. The deniers and deflectors seem to run the district. Tell Jea street if he doesn’t like how he’s treated , SHOVE IT.

      Like

    • Not such fresh ideas. In all of that time they have established no true magnet schools and have authorized no charter schools.

      Charters are not part of the solution, they are part of the problem. Same goes for standalone magnet schools. Honors programs and magnet programs need to be built inside traditional district schools, anybody who is willing to do the work can be transferred down the hall instead of across the county.

      Nor have they made any large progress toward true site accountability at a building level.

      By “accountability ” I suppose you mean “Test, punish, extinguish.” No thanks.

      Like

    • Publius e decere

      Site accountability means not only achievement outcomes it also means cost effectiveness. Give each building the exact same dollars per student for each regular student, the exact same dollars for each baseic special ed student, the same dollars per student for each intense special ed student — etc. Then let the building leader decide whether she would rather enlist fewer high-paid teachers with larger class sizes, or enlist greater numbers of lower paid teachers with smaller classes, or enlist lower-paid teachers and more supporting staff in classroom or even in the fron office.. Then each building would be on the same transparent dollar resource level and we could truly judge the schools effectiveness in delivering value for our public investment

      Today we get student achievement results by school and that is information the public deserves and has the right to act on. By restructuring the opaque and misleading and dusty-20th-century system we have regarding units and replacing it as above with transparent dollars, the public would then also get the transparency of knowing if the public cost of any particular level of achievement is cost-effective.

      Publius

      Like

    • Give each building the exact same dollars per student for each regular student, the exact same dollars for each baseic special ed student, the same dollars per student for each intense special ed student — etc. Then let the building leader decide whether she would rather enlist fewer high-paid teachers with larger class sizes, or enlist greater numbers of lower paid teachers with smaller classes, or enlist lower-paid teachers and more supporting staff in classroom or even in the fron office.

      Aides and paras yes, “lower-paid teachers” no thanks.

      Your scheme also ignores the fixed costs of supporting programs and classes necessary for equity. To actually fill the achievement gap, disadvantaged students need their schools to have a full range of honors programs, music, sports, arts, and extra-curricular science programs. And because they are disadvantaged, the students will need extra support to make use of those programs. And we must be willing to keep those programs running even if initially usage does not justify the program. Students need to be bathed in enrichment and academic opportunity just like your children and mine. Then we can talk about apples-to-apples comparisons.

      Like

    • Publius e decere

      Let’s first see how the money is being spent today. Dollars per school. No diversionary jargon about units, resources, supports, “bathing in enrichment” and more soft avoidance. Report the dollars spent in each school and divide by the number of students in that school with consideration for the current weighting for regular (20), basic (8), intensive and complex. Let’s see where we are right now before we start turning the dials. Once we see where we are we can discuss why the dollars are skewed the way they are (if they are), and who should bear the responsibility for changing the skew (if it exists).

      Publius

      Like