For a few months there, I had a great source at the Delaware Department of Education. When Delaware MET went down at the end of 2015, there was a lot I didn’t publish about what was going on there. You will find out why shortly. I’m glad I trusted my gut and didn’t send Wilmington into chaos mode. The below emails, between Dave Morgan and myself, not only shed a lot of light on Delaware MET, but also the Delaware DOE itself. Different names are thrown around in these emails. Going back and reading these is always fun! The last email between Dave Morgan and myself is particularly enlightening given that DAPSS is finally under formal review. The incompetence at the DOE is plain to see in these emails. I wish I could have met Dave in person. I probably did but didn’t know about their secret alias with me. I’ve had a few suspicions over the years, but have been unable to prove it. Some parts of these emails I redacted for a few reasons. That’s my business! Continue reading “Untold Tales: Delaware DOE, Dave Morgan, & Three Days That Scared The Hell Out Of Me”
Penny Schwinn, the former Chief of Accountability at the Delaware Department of Education, is looking for a job in Massachusetts after a very controversial no-bid contract in Texas dealing with special education put her in the hot seat.
Schwinn serves as the Texas Education Association’s Deputy Commissioner of Academics. The Texas tribune reported in December that the TEA’s no-bid contract with SPEDx that cost the Lonestar State $2.2 million dollars. The purpose of the work done by SPEDx was to collect a huge amount of data on students with disabilities in the state. Advocates screamed foul and the contract ended. It also caused Texas to take a close look at no-bid contracts dealing with education. In Delaware, any contract over $50,000 must go out for bid. In Texas, it is $15,000. But Schwinn was instrumental in getting the contract. Now she is looking to leave Texas less than two years since she got the job, something an overwhelming amount of readers on this blog predicted.
In a pump and dump statement by the Education Commissioner’s office, they said the following:
In a statement Tuesday, TEA spokesperson DeEtta Culbertson said that Texas Education Commissioner Mike Morath was aware Schwinn was being considered for the Massachusetts job and that Schwinn’s “professional background and leadership reflects a distinguished career committed to schoolchildren.”
“Penny Schwinn continues to do an outstanding job at the Texas Education Agency and would be a tremendous leader for the state of Massachusetts,” Culbertson said.
The survivors of Hurricane Schwinn in Delaware feel for Texans. Schwinn came to Delaware in the Spring of 2014. Right from the get-go, she caused controversy. At a State Board of Education meeting, during a discussion about crime and violence affecting students in Wilmington, Schwinn said that wasn’t “necessarily a hurdle to overcome”. After that, she embarked on a crazy Priority Schools agenda involving schools in the Christina and Red Clay Consolidated school districts. The plans called for new leaders and firing half the staff in their buildings. After teachers, parents, and advocates screamed bloody murder, the plans changed drastically. The promised state funding for the plan was not what was originally promised. Many feel that fiasco led to former Delaware Secretary of Education Mark Murphy “resigning” from his post. In 2015, she led the horrible school report card creation which penalized schools for opt out numbers higher than 5%. Eventually, the Every Student Succeeds Act took care of that travesty. But by then, Schwinn flew off to Texas.
The ex-Broad fellows and Teach For America alumni continue to spread their not-so-magical woes from state to state. They leave their mark, do some damage, and leave when the going gets rough. And the cycle never ends. I hope Massachusetts doesn’t make the same mistakes Delaware and Texas did. Does Penny still own that charter school out in California?
For folks in Texas or Massachusetts who want to read more about Schwinn’s time in Delaware, please go here.
Delaware Governor John Carney released a statement about his meeting with the Christina School District Board of Education last evening. I felt obligated to give it the TC Redline Edition. In which I give a no-holds barred critique of Carney’s boneheaded idea.
Governor Carney to Christina Board: Let’s Partner to Improve Wilmington Schools
Date Posted: Tuesday, October 3rd, 2017
WILMINGTON, Del. – Governor John Carney on Tuesday met with the Christina Board of Education during a study session at Bancroft Elementary School to discuss a proposed partnership between the state and Christina School District to more effectively serve educators and students in Christina schools in the City of Wilmington.
I have to give kudos to Carney for actually attending and meeting with the Board. However, that does not excuse the backdoor closed meetings he had with two of their board members over the summer.
Governor John Carney
Full remarks to Christina School District Board of Education – October 3, 2017
*As prepared for delivery
Thank Rick Gregg, members of the Board, Principals, teachers, parents and others present.
Proper thing to do when you are in their house so to speak.
I’m here with Secretary of Education Susan Bunting and Dorrell Green. I appreciate the opportunity to address the Board in this workshop format.
They would be the ones to also be there. Was anyone else there? Perhaps your Education Policy Advisor, Jon Sheehan?
I’ve lived in this city for 30 years. And it’s always been clear to me that as goes the City of Wilmington, so goes our state.
I respect that Wilmington is the biggest city in the state and it is essentially the gateway to the rest of it, but the rest of the state has a lot to offer. Perhaps Wilmington wouldn’t be in the shape it is in if the state didn’t keep trying to put all its eggs in one basket when there are hundreds of others as well. We get you’ve lived in this city for 30 years. It’s all we heard from you when you were campaigning for Governor. But you had many years at a Federal level to do more for Wilmington. What did you do for Wilmington when you were in Congress?
Wilmington is our economic and cultural center. Its success in many ways will drive Delaware’s long-term success. And so we need a city that is safe, with strong neighborhoods and good schools. We’re working with Mayor Purzycki, legislators, members of city council, businesses and the community service agencies to achieve these goals.
And yet we continue to see murders and violent crimes constantly. All we hear from political leaders is “we’re working with…”. That doesn’t solve the problem. Action does and I have yet to see true action being taken to reduce those crimes and rampant drug use.
Our efforts have to start with improving our schools, and doing a better job educating city children.
No, your efforts have to start with improving the climate of Wilmington.
One of the first things I did when I took office was ask Secretary Bunting to visit Wilmington schools.
Which she did.
I joined her on some of these visits. And while we certainly saw dedicated teachers and principals, what we saw by and large was very discouraging.
Let me guess: you saw children with hygiene issues and worn clothing. You saw a look in their eyes you couldn’t really understand. It tugged at your heartstrings and thought, “I will be the one to fix this.”
And when the proficiency scores for these schools were released this summer, we saw that they fell well short of what’s acceptable.
Here we go… the test scores. For a flawed test. In most schools, anything below a 65% is failing. For Smarter Balanced, the whole state is failing. Is that the fault of teachers and students or the test itself. Don’t answer, we already know.
All of us, together, are responsible for doing better.
We can always do better, but don’t put the blame on all of us Governor Carney. The buck stops with you. While you inherited many of these issues from your predecessors, you are falling into the same traps.
It was pretty clear to us that Christina’s portion of the City schools – Bayard, Stubbs, Bancroft, Palmer, and Pulaski – are in the most need of help.
Was it only a year ago that the state refused to step in when Pulaski had all the mold issues? It is great that you visit these schools but what have you done to make life outside of these schools better? These are the schools with the highest concentrations of low-income and poverty students.
Already we have taken steps that, I believe, will help our efforts in all city schools.
And how many of those were created by you with no public input. How many of those efforts involved back-door secret meetings? Once again, don’t answer. We know the score.
We opened the Office of Innovation and Improvement at the Department of Education, to focus state energy on these and other high-needs schools.
Ah, yes. Your attempt at “reducing” the Delaware DOE. By making a satellite office in Wilmington.
We created an Opportunity Grants program that, while not funded at the level that I want, will help identify proven practices for serving disadvantaged students.
Don’t even get me started on that failure of a FY2018 budget Carney. You put aside a million bucks while cutting exponentially more. That does not serve disadvantaged students. It is a Band-Aid on an infected wound.
We put basic needs closets in Wilmington schools, so students can have access to hygiene products, school supplies, and winter clothing, in a dignified way.
Now this I do support and continue to do so.
We’ve reestablished the Family Services Cabinet Council to better coordinate services to families and children, and to address issues of poverty that are impeding the success of our city children.
Closed-door, non-public, back-door meetings. We have no idea what this council discusses. For something you like to scream from the rooftops about, we have no clue what they talk about. Put your money where your mouth is and make these meetings public. Otherwise, this is smoke and mirrors.
But we need to do much, much more, and that’s why I’m here today.
Every time the state tries to fix these issues, the problems get worse. I have to wonder if that is intentional.
We didn’t get here over night. And we could spend all day debating the reasons for how we got here. I know a lot of that history through my father who worked in the old Wilmington Public School District and through my many years in state government.
Yes, why debate how we got there. Because until you take a deep dive at those reasons, you will never understand. You can’t ignore things that come into schools. But I digress…
Some blame a lack of resources. Dysfunctional families. Inexperienced teachers. Weak leadership. Busing. Trauma in the home. Segregated neighborhoods. Too much testing. Not enough testing. Bad parenting. Education bureaucracy. Violence in the city.
I agree with some of these: a lack of resources, dysfunctional families, weak leadership (some from CSD in the past and definitely from the state), busing, trauma in the home, segregated neighborhoods, too much testing, bad parenting, education bureaucracy, violence in the city. I don’t see the inexperienced teachers (except for the TFAers who get their rush-job credentials in a matter of months) and not enough testing.
Over the last few years the Wilmington Education Improvement Commission (WEIC) did a comprehensive study of the challenges, and came up with a plan to make changes. We’ve incorporated many of their recommendations into what I’m about to discuss.
In other words, you are copying the work done from others for your own political benefit.
It’s clear to me that the most important thing we should do now is focus on making changes that will raise achievement levels for city children. That’s part of my responsibility as Governor, Dr. Bunting’s job as Secretary of Education and your jobs as school leaders and Christina Board members. We’re in this together.
Together? Are you kidding me? For months you’ve been circling the wagons and cherry-picking people to talk to about the “Christina problem”. Divide and conquer. That’s what I see. Not getting that warm and fuzzy feeling I felt at your inauguration Carney…
I’m here today, at the invitation of your Superintendent, because I want to partner with you to say “enough.” I believe it’s time to begin intensive efforts to get our teachers, principals and students what they need in the classroom.
Knowing Rick Gregg like I do, I believe he invited you because he was getting tired of your secret meetings and wanted to make it a public event so people can see what the hell you are up to. I think it’s high time Christina said “enough” with the endless interventions from the state that have been compete and utter failures.
To that end, I’m proposing that the State, Christina School District, and Christina Education Association form a partnership that focuses exclusively on Christina’s city schools.
You and your damn partnerships. Let’s be partners. Public-private partnerships. In other words, let’s do as much as we can behind closed doors and throw transparency out the window.
My vision is to spend the next few months talking as a group about what this partnership would look like, so that by the end of this calendar year we can sign a memorandum of understanding to work together to improve these city schools and the proficiency of the students. I want to be ready to put our new plans into effect by the start of the 2018 school year. This aligns with your Superintendent’s timetable for implementing change as well.
When I hear Memorandum of Understanding, I hear priority schools all over again. Who is your Penny Schwinn that is facilitating this? How much state money will be spent trying to craft this MOU for months? Cause I published all the emails where Schwinn painstakingly tried to make the MOU from the Fall of 2014. And that was based on Delaware’s clueless interpretation of their own ESEA Flexibility Waivers. Schwinn did everything she could to make sure it was six Wilmington schools within Christina and Red Clay. Definitely Markell’s biggest failure.
I think our partnership should address five main issues that I’ve heard over and over again as I’ve toured schools in Wilmington.
Who is telling you these things you’ve heard “over and over”? Let me guess: Senator Sokola, Rep. Jaques, Rodel, Atrne Alleyne, Michael Watson, Donna Johnson, Jon Sheehan, Kendall Massett, Greg Meece, etc.
First, principals need more control over key decisions in their schools. I would like to work with you to give principals the leadership tools they need and the flexibility and autonomy over structural areas such as staffing/hiring, school schedules, and programs. To give them the resources to implement extended learning time, and to create other school conditions necessary to best meet student needs. As part of this partnership, the Office of Innovation and Improvement would work with principals and our institutions of higher education to provide principals with high quality professional learning, coaching, and support. The Department of Education, using state resources, would assist Christina School District in training principals to better use observations to provide effective feedback that will elevate instruction.
Gee, that sounds an awful lot like the “empowerment zones” in Springfield, MA.
Second, educators in high-needs schools need more say in how resources are used. I plan to engage Christina’s city educators to ensure we are working in partnership with them, as they are on the ground every day working to improve student outcomes. I would like to work with you to empower teacher-leader teams at each school to partner with school administration on key decisions like working conditions, resource use, and school culture. The Office of Innovation and Improvement would work with our institutions of higher education and use the full expertise of the Department of Education to provide educators with professional learning that is relevant, consistent, and meaningful.
In other words, more useless programs through TFA, The Leader In Me, and other cash-cow Crackerjack box outfits that will happily take state money to “fix” the problems. And that “full expertise of the Department of Education”… are you serious? How many of these “experts” at the DOE have actually taught in these classrooms? How many came up the ranks from TFA or the charter world?
Third, we need to address the fact that student achievement rates at Christina’s Wilmington schools are among the lowest in the state. In partnership with DSEA and CEA, I want to create more flexibility for these schools to provide students with additional learning time, including vacation and weekend academies. Teachers would receive stipends for additional hours worked, supported by state funds and the redeployment of district resources. I would argue serious conversations, in partnership with the Christina Wilmington community, need to take place around building use. We are doing our students, educators, and taxpayers a disservice when we have half-empty school buildings — needlessly spreading resources thin.
Maybe if the state stopped intervening in Christina, stopped pumping up charter schools like they are the greatest thing since sliced bread, and stopped calling Christina a failure, those buildings wouldn’t be half full. The state created most of this mess by authorizing so many damn charters up there. This is where you are assuming DSEA and CEA are on board with your half-cocked plan. You are seriously messing with collective bargaining agreements here. Vacation and weekend academies? When do these kids get a break? Are you going to churn and burn them until they score proficient on the useless Smarter Balanced Assessment?
Fourth, we need a plan to address the significant trauma students in Wilmington experience outside the classroom. I’m proud of the work already underway between the Office of Innovation and Improvement, DSEA, the Office of the Child Advocate, and community leaders to train staff to create trauma-informed classrooms. We need to double down on those efforts. I have already directed the Family Services Cabinet Council to work with City leaders to implement the CDC report, including finding a way to share data across state agencies about students in need. That work is under way.
How about thanking the Christina teachers who spend every single day dealing with trauma first-hand? The ones who wash kids clothes, make sure they have food for the weekend, and help students deal with the latest murder that happened in their neighborhood? You are all about the kudos before anything happens while failing to properly thank those on the ground floor. And what will the closed-door Family Services Cabinet Council do with all this data that tells us what we have always known? Let’s get real Carney: until you fix the crime, violence, and rampant drug use in Wilmington, these problems will always exist. Until you find a way to desegregate the charter schools that cherry-pick students and put every single Delaware school back in balance with their local neighborhoods, these efforts will fail.
Finally, we need to build systems to create meaningful, sustained change in Christina’s Wilmington schools. As part of a partnership with you, the Family Services Cabinet Council would launch a two-generation network to support infants, toddlers and adults, with the goal of breaking the cycle of generational poverty. Additionally, we ought to convene higher education institutions and create a pipeline to develop teachers and leaders ready to enter into our Wilmington schools. These efforts cannot be a flash in the pan. We need to methodically build systems that will endure.
Are you saying the teachers in these schools aren’t ready? That they can’t handle the trauma they deal with every single day? There is nothing any higher education institution can do to adequately deal with these issues until the state takes an active hand in dealing with the issues coming into the classroom. And Wilmington City Council needs to get their heads out of their ass and deal with the corruption going on there before they enter into any “partnership”. Once again, make your beloved Family Services Cabinet Council public. This whole thing reeks of non-transparency and I’m getting sick of that.
Give principals a bigger say. Trust and support our teachers. Tackle low proficiency rates. Address trauma. Build systems. That’s what I propose we work on together.
You will never trust and support our teachers while they are under local control. Never. You want to mold them and cherry-pick them to serve the latest corporate education reform scheme. The best way to tackle low proficiency rates is to get rid of Smarter Balanced and stop judging schools, teachers, and districts based on meaningless and useless test scores. These misused and abused scores are just one of the reasons why I advocate parents opting their kids out of the state assessments. Addressing trauma is one thing but finding a way to actively eliminate it is the true hurdle and I don’t think you have the money, resources, or guts to do that. Working together doesn’t require a contract like an MOU. That is a gun to the head and we all know it. You are seriously overreaching here with your executive power here Carney and you need to slow your roll.
The partnership I’m proposing isn’t flashy. It’s not an education fad or sound bite. It’s about the nuts and bolts of educating children. It is a simple but intense effort to put the focus where I think it belongs — in the classroom.
This isn’t about kids at all. It’s about different ed reform companies lobbying through Jon Sheehan to get their latest programs or technology into the classroom. And you fell for it hook, line and sinker.
Frederick Douglass said that “it’s easier to build strong children than to repair broken men.” And that’s the choice we’re facing. We all have dreams for our children. But right now, we’re consigning far too many of our students to a life that no parent wants for their child. Every student we graduate who can’t do basic math or who can’t read or write, we’re sending into the world knowing he or she doesn’t have the tools to succeed. Doors are closing for these children before they even leave the third grade.
For the most part, the state created the conditions which led to these broken men. Through very racist laws and credos. The state allowed this to happen and now they want to rush in and save the day by fixing the schools. What about all these broken men? What are you doing to make restitution for the state’s absolute failure with them?
I believe, and I know you do too, that it would be immoral to let this situation continue this way.
Don’t speak for the Christina Board of Education Carney! It would be immoral for this board to give up local control so you can make education companies happy. How about you let Christina School District, under the leadership of Superintendent Rick Gregg and their elected Board of Education, do their thing. I like Gregg. I think he is the leader Christina needs. But your swooping in and undermining the hard work he has done is an insult at best.
So I’m asking you to form this partnership with us. Let’s take the next few months and work out the details. I’d like to hear your thoughts on what I’ve laid out, and on how you think we can work together.
I have to listen to the audio when it comes out today, but based upon reading the News Journal article on this last night by Jessica Bies, board member Liz Paige said it best:
Elizabeth Paige said the plan lacked specificity, but that she was willing to talk more as long as the state could guarantee they weren’t going to pull the infamous Charlie Brown football gag on Christina.
“We’re Charlie Brown and the football,” she said. “He has to prove he’s not Lucy.”
Don’t be fooled Mrs. Paige. He is most definitely Lucy!
Board member John Young gave Carney’s remarks at B+. I think he was being nice.
Harrie-Ellen Minnehan spoke the hard truth:
Harrie Ellen Minnehan said that students are often used as “political pawns” and that the plan sounded too much like just another in a long string of political solutions imposed on the education system but that have resulted in no gain whatsoever for students caught in a downward academic spiral.
The Christina Board of Education is at their best when they are fighting the latest state method of eroding local control. I saw this firsthand at the first Christina board meeting I went to in September of 2014. When they stood together and gave Markell’s priority schools idea a collective no thank you. I am hoping they do the same with this latest Markellian effort by Carney.
As for Dorrell Green, his quote in the News Journal is very concerning because it gives a good deal of insight into Carney’s plan:
“Do you feel you have the bandwidth or the internal capacity to see that plan through without our support?”
This was in response to Superintendent Gregg’s own plan to build up Christina. It as if Green was saying “You can’t do anything without the state helping out.” Which is exactly what the problem is here. The state interferes so much that it paralyzes the district. The state needs to do more on the side of fixing the crime and poverty in Wilmington. Let Christina deal with Christina. If the state wants to “partner” under forced coercion, that is bullying. Christina needs to enact a zero tolerance policy on state bullying. And just by using the word “bandwidth”, Green may have overplayed his hand. By using that particular word, he is suggesting Christina will get better by more corporate education reform double-speak education technology.
I have to give it to Carney. He has successfully learned how to play the field like Jack Markell did. He certainly has been busy trying to hand-select his pawns with this attempt. And yet he gave the farm away when he announced his trip to Springfield, MA on his public schedule. I didn’t see any of that in your speech. It’s like a super villain in a comic announcing their intentions before they even implement them. Look what I’m about to do. We see through you Carney. Stop listening to those around you who truly don’t have a clue about what is really going on. Otherwise you are just another Jack Markell. Be your own man, not a carbon-copy.
Don’t think for one minute that I don’t understand you Carney. I know about some of your antics with things lately. I know you hate my blog and will cast out those who support it. We both know exactly what I’m talking about. We know you have heard objections to this Christina scheme and totally ignored them. In fact, you punish those who don’t agree with you. You aren’t the person you put in front of the media. Who is the real John Carney? Time to take off the mask and reveal the true John Carney. We both know when this plan fails (and it will if implemented), the state will continue to blame Christina for their own failure and will embark on another scheme to “fix” the problem they create in the first place.
At the first official meeting for the Delaware Dept. of Education/Rodel created Guiding Coalition for Competency-Based Learning, an email went out to members to research an organization called Reinventing Schools. Theresa Bennett with the DOE sent the following email:
Bennett announces that a Kim Hanisch from the Reinventing Schools Coalition will be facilitating their meetings. The organization changed their name because of the initials, RISC, to Reinventing Schools. This group received their start-up funds from the Gates Foundation. A blog called Save Maine Schools gave a very detailed description of the man that runs Reinventing Schools, Dr. Joseph Marzano. I imagine Rodel and Reinventing Schools have a lot in common since they are both lovers of competency-based education and personalized learning in a digital classroom. Oddly enough, Reinventing Schools does not list Delaware in their map of schools and districts they work with. I guess non-profits don’t count as true education centers of learning! Save Maine Schools referred to Marzano as just another corporate education reform snake-oil salesman. His ideas, according to the article and commenters, were nothing new but repackaged to further this modern-day Competency-Based Education mixed with Personalized Learning in a digital environment.
As I mentioned in Part 1 of this series, a lot was going on in Delaware education at this time. The priority schools debacle was heating up. On the same day as this first meeting of the “Guiding Coalition”, the Christina and Red Clay Consolidated Boards of Education were holding meetings to decide their next steps with the Delaware DOE and Governor Markell. Red Clay indicated they would capitulate with the DOE, but Christina was defiant and insisted on writing their own Memorandum of Understanding with the DOE. The priority schools MOU called for the firing of half the teachers and each school had to get a new principal. As teachers and Delaware citizens seethed, a growing voice was calling for the resignation of Delaware Secretary of Education Mark Murphy and a new employee at the DOE named Penny Schwinn, who led the Accountability & Assessment department, soon became the most hated person in the Delaware education landscape. Many, including legislators, began wondering what the heck Delaware did with all the Race To The Top money and FOIAs started going out to the Delaware DOE.
As a result of this, the Wilmington Education Advisory Committee was born. Governor Markell issued an Executive Order to come up with recommendations on how to deal with the rising Wilmington education crisis. Bank of America Communications Chief and Former Chair of the Wilmington Metropolitan Urban League, Tony Allen, was chosen to lead the committee. Meanwhile, a certain blogger started talking about Delaware Opt Out more and more. All of these were easy distractions for those who were very worried about what was going on with Delaware education. Markell was taking a very hard stance on the priority schools. Nobody saw what was going in with the back-door and secret meetings of the Guiding Coalition.
The Rodel Foundation of Delaware was busy preparing for their next Vision Coalition annual conference. One of their guests at the conference was a company called 2Revolutions. I did not attend the conference, but I followed along on Twitter. I decided to look into this digital learning company and was shocked by what I found. Pretty much everything I am current writing about with Corporate Education Reform 2.0 is covered in that link. That was from almost two years ago. The next day I received an email from the Governor’s Advisory Council for Exceptional Citizens (GACEC):
This email contained a copy and paste from the Rodel Teacher Council for their “Performance Learning” blueprint which I included in an article I wrote on this. I was skeptical of Rodel based on everything I saw and read before that email from the GACEC. But this horrified me. It was obvious Rodel was facilitating the reinvention of Delaware education and nobody was paying attention. Changes were taking place. The Delaware DOE was not running the show. It was Rodel. I began to commit myself to finding out all I could about Rodel. It was Halloween and nothing horrified me more than what I wrote about that dark evening. I didn’t truly understand it all at that time. There was a lot going on. But this was the beginning of putting the puzzle pieces together. However, the upcoming General Election in Delaware would cause things to change in the Delaware General Assembly that would provide very big distractions for many.
As everyone prepared for a potential takeover of the Priority Schools, the Delaware DOE and Rodel continued their secret meetings. To be continued in Part 3: Rodel gets a surprise and a matter of civil rights…
This is the beginning of what I hope will be an ongoing feature of this blog. Below will be several groups of statements and facts. Two will be true and one will be a lie. It will be your job to guess or determine which is fact and which is fiction! Comment away!
*EastSide Charter School and Family Foundations Academy are blaming their Smarter Balanced scores on the fact their kids are not as computer literate as their peers in other schools
*Sussex Academy won’t be able to finish their pool because of mercury in the ground.
*Freire Charter School signed a Memorandum of Agreement with the Wilmington Police Department
*Brandywine Superintendent Dr. Mark Holodick was so happy their referendum passed he was seen doing cartwheels the next day.
*Academia Antonia Alonso wants no help from the Charter School Office at the Delaware DOE with their upcoming move to property at Odyssey Charter School.
*Howard High School of Technology suspended students who were in the bathroom the day of Amy’s death and kept suspending them for weeks on end without any form of due process.
*Charter School of Wilmington held a legislative breakfast.
*Charter School of Wilmington wants an audit inspection to be released that has been on hold since March.
*Charter School of Wilmington will be allowing 20% of all students with disabilities who applied this year to be admitted to the school in August.
*Early College High School parents are not happy about the school’s grading system since the school’s scores didn’t match up with Delaware State University’s grading system
*Penny Schwinn is coming back to the Delaware DOE.
*Dr. Lamont Browne mentioned my blog post about his resignation at a Family Foundations Academy board meeting.
*Family Foundations Academy held pep rallies prior to the school’s testing window for the upcoming Smarter Balanced Assessment to pump up kids.
*A Delaware State Representative recently had a Facebook post titled “State Representative Looking For Beaver”.
*The same State Representative found some beaver and had a barbecue.
On December 23rd, 2015, I found letters sent from the United States Department of Education sent to all the state DOEs about potential opt out penalties for the 2015-2016 year if schools went below the 95% participation rate. In response, I sent a very detailed Freedom of Information Act request to the US DOE. For the first time, you can view the entire response in its entirety. I wrote an article based on some key parts of the US DOE FOIA response last month.
Julie Glasier is the main contact person for Delaware at the US DOE. Many of these emails are in response to the Delaware School Success Framework which was met with stiff resistance last fall because of the opt out penalties against schools. Keep in mind that the US DOE put Delaware’s ESEA Flexibility Waiver Request in this set of emails twice (since I asked for all attachments), but there are key and vital emails that appear between those and after.
While the Monique Chism email below doesn’t really delve into anything Delaware specific, it is very interesting to see who is on the US DOE’s Ed Title I ListServ. These are emails that automatically go out to any of the participants who request to be on the list. There are several redactions based on emails going to gmail or yahoo accounts. As well, there are several emails going to outside education companies.
Of note in the below email between Penny Schwinn and Julie Glasier is the timing. Penny Schwinn’s last day at the Delaware DOE was January 6th…
I found the next set of emails to be very interesting. These are between Lindsay O’Mara and Ann Whalen:
|Ann Whalen||Elementary and Secondary Education||Senior Advisor to the Secretary, Delegated the Duties of the Assistant Secretary of Elementary and Secondary Education|
|Lindsay O’Mara||Communications and Outreach||Deputy Assistant Secretary for State and Local Engagement|
Lindsay O’Mara was the former Education Policy Advisor for Delaware Governor Jack Markell. She obtained a job at the US DOE, but I wasn’t aware of her title there until I just looked now. This link shows O’Mara was a political appointee but does not show who appointed her. What makes this email exchange very interesting is the redacted information. Was O’Mara sending work-related emails through a personal email account? Or was this part of her interview process with US DOE? If it was the latter, why would they include that in a FOIA request since it would have been a personal nature? If not, how many other state employees are conducting state business through personal emails? I have seen several Delaware DOE FOIA responses that don’t show any emails other than the state email address. Would they even know if their employees are using outside emails to conduct state business?
There you have it! There are little easter eggs all over these emails. If you see anything I haven’t touched on in the previous article linked above or this one, please let me know! Some takeaways I got from this is the fact there were NO emails sent from Arne Duncan, John King, Governor Markell, Mark Murphy or Secretary Godowsky.
I did find an official announcement from US DOE this morning regarding Lindsay O’Mara’s new job at US DOE:
Former Delaware Department of Education Chief of Accountability and Assessment Penny Schwinn finally landed a new job in Texas of all places. Her new title is the Deputy Commissioner for Academics in the Texas Education Agency. Aside from overseeing assessments and accountability, her new job will see her also cover standards and programs.
As part of a complete overhaul of the Texas Education Agency, Education Commissioner Mike Morath replaced many of the top posts at the Texas equivalent of the Delaware Department of Education. Morath’s role is equivalent to the Delaware Secretary of Education.
The Texas Tribune pointed out that out of the three positions Morath hired, three out of the five came from charter school backgrounds and only two were from Texas. This appeared to be an issue with the Texas State Teachers Association and several traditional school districts. It appears Delaware isn’t the only state that has our State Education Agency filled with charter/corporate education reformists. I will be the first to start a poll on how long Schwinn will stay in Texas.
When it comes to education, brokering deals isn’t Delaware Governor Jack Markell’s strong suit. His fumbling could have given the Christina priority schools major headaches larger than the ones they had.
In September, 2014, Governor Markell announced six priority schools in Wilmington, DE. Three in the Red Clay Consolidated School District and three in the Christina School District. Each school board had to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for each school. Red Clay signed their MOU a few months later while Christina fought the Delaware Department of Education every step of the way. By the end of February of 2015, the Christina School Board refused to sign the MOU and didn’t approve plans for the schools. When it looked like the Delaware DOE and then Secretary of Education Mark Murphy were going to take the schools from the district, Governor Markell brokered a plan between the district and the Delaware DOE.
As a result of the Wilmington Education Advisory Committee (WEAC) and their recommendation to turn the Christina schools in Wilmington to Red Clay, the priority school saga was on hold. The Christina Board voted in favor of the WEAC idea and Governor Markell brought both sides to the table. A new MOU detailed the WEAC recommendation and the Christina Board signed it. The MOU went to Secretary Murphy for signature. The tension ended. Or so we thought.
For seven months, the subject of the Christina priority schools was very quiet. WEAC became the Wilmington Education Improvement Commission through legislation. The commission started meeting in September of 2015 to craft the plans to eventually fold the Wilmington Christina schools into Red Clay. At the October meeting of the Delaware Education Support System (DESS), a representative asked about the Christina priority schools and what would happen to them if the redistricting plan fell apart. Delaware DOE Chief of Accountability and Assessment Penny Schwinn said that was a very good question and one they were hoping to get answers for soon.
The DOE was in transition. Secretary Murphy announced his resignation at the end of July. Acting Secretary of Education Dr. Steven Godowsky inherited the Christina priority schools. The DESS meeting was on October 5th. A month earlier, I wondered what would happen if the WEIC plan didn’t pass the State Board of Education or the Delaware General Assembly. Everyone assumed the deal Governor Markell brokered in March covered the Christina priority schools up until that point. But in FOIA’d emails never revealed to the public until now, the Delaware DOE truly didn’t know what Markell’s deal even meant. Behind the scenes, Schwinn emailed the United States Department of Education to get clarification on what the options were for the three schools seven months after “the deal”.
I find it astonishing Governor Markell never had the Delaware DOE check with the US DOE before the March deal. This is a man who prides himself on all things education. Instead, he made an executive decision without checking to see if it was even okay.
Nearly two weeks after Schwinn first posed the question to Julie Glasier, an Education Specialist at the US DOE, she received an answer:
As per the US DOE, the deal brokered by Markell wasn’t good enough. All of this led to what is known as “The Hissy Fit” at the December meeting of the Delaware State Board of Education meeting. The board minutes for this meeting tell one story, but reality was far different.
It was pointed out that the Christina School District schools are in the second year of planning as the Department has not received a plan. Dr. Gray voiced her dismay and concern that the district has failed to respond to the Department’s requests. Dr. Godowsky stated that it is the Department’s expectation that the district will submit their plan. It was also noted that the educators in that district are to be commended for helping their students achieve without the additional funding they could be receiving.
State Board President Dr. Teri Quinn Gray was visibly upset about the Christina School District priority schools. She acted as if the district made the deal back in March and just forgot about the schools. She was so angry she had to excuse herself from the State Board meeting to regain her composure. The very next day an astonishing revelation came out about what happened, or to be more concise, didn’t happen after the brokered meeting nine months earlier. Secretary Murphy never signed the MOU between the Christina priority schools and the Delaware DOE. Christina board members stated they were never told anything more had to be done with the schools during the pending WEIC redistricting proposal. Now the Delaware DOE wanted the district’s priority school plans.
While never officially confirmed, Murphy’s resignation was rumored to be a “resign now” due to issues with the funding for the three Red Clay priority schools. Emails released by this blog weeks before the Murphy announcement seemed to be the final straw for his Cabinet position in Delaware. Was Markell aware of Murphy’s other colossal error concerning the Christina priority schools?
This led to another explosion of sorts at the February State Board of Education meeting. The State Board voted no on the WEIC redistricting plan due to wording around funding and Christina having no priority school plans turned into the DOE. State Board member Pat Heffernan went on a tirade of his own about the three schools and how Christina failed them. At an emergency meeting of WEIC the next week, Christina Board President Harrie Ellen Minnehan told State Board President Dr. Gray she should apologize to Christina for the underhanded treatment they received from her. To date, Dr. Gray has not apologized to Christina.
Christina submitted the priority school plans to Secretary Godowsky and the State Board passed the WEIC redistricting plan last month. Godowsky notified the State Board the plans were enough for the DOE.
Several questions emerge from this year and a half story though. During the time of the priority schools announcement and the months following, many assumed the DOE wanted to take the schools. Myself included. But the stark reality is the DOE really didn’t have a clue what they were doing. Neither Governor Markell or the DOE bothered to check to see if the brokered deal was acceptable to the federal agency that mandated the priority schools in the first place. Granted, Delaware made up their own plans to decide which schools were “priority”, which wasn’t exactly without it’s own controversy.
I don’t believe ANY school should get a label based on standardized test scores. Period. Teachers should not fear for their jobs because of bogus tests. The way the Delaware DOE, the State Board of Education, and Governor Markell treated Christina during the five months after the announcement was shameful. Even worse was the false treatment from the State Board of Education last fall and this winter. Executive Director of the State Board of Education Donna Johnson serves as a liaison of sorts between the State Board of Education and the Delaware Department of Education. While not knowing for certain, I would have a very hard time believing Johnson was not aware of Schwinn’s emails to the US DOE and the fact that Secretary Murphy never signed the MOU. She could have cleared that up at the December State Board meeting, but she didn’t. If she did know of these events, she allowed Dr. Gray to behave the way she did. Even Godowsky seemed shocked at the appalling actions on Gray’s part.
The Delaware State Board of Education is appointed by the Delaware Governor. There are no public elections for the seven State Board of Education seats. Donna Gray sits on the DESS Advisory Committee. The WEIC redistricting plan awaits action from the Delaware 148th General Assembly. The three Christina priority schools are still in the district and they began the Smarter Balanced Assessment last month. The scores on these tests, like so many other Title I schools in Delaware, determine their fates to this day. Governor Markell believes the Smarter Balanced Assessment is the best test Delaware ever made.
This was originally on the Delaware blog Children & Educators First yesterday:
Earlier this week, C&E 1st posed the question: What’s Lindsey O’Mara got to do with it? Regarding the WEIC Commission, the State Board of Education, Priority Plans, and the Christina School District.
To get to the answer, I’ve scribed together several posts from Exceptional Delaware by Kevin Ohlandt. I give full credit to Kevin for ferreting out and documenting meeting after meeting related to the Gov and all his pawns. What I have tried to do is give the reader a sense that not one event is singular to the WEIC drama, not one event is special, and not one is organic. These meetings, who had what info, who stumbled, this was all pre-ordained by our self-aggrandizing Gov. Markell and his entitled political hacks.
Here’s your answer:
The Deal – https://exceptionaldelaware.wordpress.com/tag/the-deal/
According to Fred Polaski, the Christina Board of Education President, he and Superintendent Freeman Williams met with Lindsey O’Mara, the education advisor for Governor Markell, in hashing out an agreement over the three priority schools in their district. The Delaware Department of Education was there at the beginning of the meeting, and left soon after. More details as they emerge…
I’m not sure if this was at this meeting, before, or after, but apparently DOE Officer of Accountability Penny Schwinn told Christina she already has three assistant principals already in mind for the three priority schools during the “transition”.
The Christina Board is getting ready to vote on the decision to follow this plan, developed not by Christina and the DOE, but Christina and Governor Markell’s office.
The Christina Board passed the Markell/DOE plan (still waiting to find out whose plan it was), by a 4-1-2 vote. For those keeping track, the yes votes belonged to John Young, Elizabeth Paige, David Ressler and Fred Polaski. Harrie Minnehan voted no, and George Evans and Shirley Saffer abstained. The board also voted unanimously for a second referendum on May 27th.
This was buried in a blogpost last March on ExceptionalDelaware – a post that garnered no comments (rare!) However, this meeting has a far reaching impact. Let’s start with the attendees – O’Mara, representing the Governor, Penny Schwinn, on behalf of DOE, Superintendent Williams and Board Member Fred Polaski, for the Christina School District. Notably, Coach Murphy was absent. It’s been rumored that the Gov. ordered Murphy to stand down and lay low. You can find the plans that this covert team hammered out here:
To read the rest of this very interesting article, go here: http://elizabethscheinberg.blogspot.com/2016/02/omara-markell-coach-quinngrey-godowski.html
I am proud that my work in developing this system solicited the largest representative population of state stakeholders in the Department’s recent history, further providing for a product that held local ownership, recognizes and highlights the performance of each subgroup within the state from an absolute as well as growth mindset, and empowers parents and schools to best address each student’s needs.
In Florida, it is state law that anyone who applies for a Superintendent position gets to have their cover letter and resume posted publicly so everyone can see it. None other than Penny Schwinn, the recently departed DOE darling of accountability and assessment, applied for the Superintendent Position at Osceola County Public Schools. She actually applied for the job on September 22nd, so her departure was in the planning stages for some time. Let’s do the math: Schwinn applies in September, new Delaware Secretary of Education Godowsky comes aboard in October, word gets out about Schwinn’s departure in November, and she is gone from the DOE in early January. She only worked at the Delaware DOE for a year and a half folks!
The first time I saw her in action was at a State Board of Education meeting in August, 2014. When asked by an African-American State Board member about the impact of violence and local murders in the classroom, she responded by saying she didn’t think that was a hurdle to overcome. By the time Schwinn really got rolling, she became public enemy number one when she ran the “Priority Schools” initiative, a turnaround effort to force two school districts to kiss the DOE’s ass over six schools in downtown Wilmington, DE. Her communication style, when you really need information from her, is not one of her strong points.
Let’s not even get into her “largest representative population of state stakeholders in the Department’s recent history” victory lap. The highlight of that was her screwing over every single person on the Accountability Framework Working Group by convincing the Governor and Secretary Godowsky that harsh opt-out penalties should be used as a multiplier against a school’s proficiency ratings. She obviously knew this would cement her unpopularity in Delaware into iconic status, so she left Delaware after her hurricane of a year and a half. She was a wrecking ball, hired specifically to put things in place that made the Delaware DOE more nefarious than they already are.
Schwinn didn’t get the job, so Osceola County Public Schools can breathe a sigh of relief. But I have no idea who Deborah Pace is. From her experience, it looks she is homegrown but has a touch of education reform in her. In the meantime, please look at Schwinn’s cover letter, resume, and her responses to questions. Does this match with the Schwinn Delaware experienced for 18 months?
On Christmas Eve, Avi with Newsworks/WHYY published an article called “A year later, still no money for three Delaware ‘priority’ schools”. I found this article to be fascinating and revealing. Especially since it gave information that, apparently, the Christina Board of Education wasn’t even aware of. One thing is for certain: the Delaware Department of Education is gunning for the Christina School District and they don’t care who knows anymore.
Last year, the DOE labeled six Wilmington schools as priority schools based on standardized test scores. Three in Christina, and three in Red Clay. Red Clay submitted their Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), their plans for the schools, and received funds from the state for the initiative. Christina fought it tooth and nail in many intense board meetings. Finally, the Wilmington Education Advisory Committee released their recommendations for redistricting in Wilmington. The Christina Board signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the DOE giving a one-year pause on their priority schools and granting them a second planning year.
The Christina priority schools seemed like a dead issue until October of this year. At the Delaware Education State Support (DESS) meeting, a DSEA representative asked Penny Schwinn (Chief of Accountability at the DOE) what would happen to the three Christina priority schools if the redistricting effort fell through. Schwinn responded that had been a recent topic of conversation at the DOE. But as per several members of the Christina board of education, nobody from the DOE contacted them about the priority schools or even mentioned them until the State Board of Education meeting on December 17th.
Both Avi and I were present at this meeting and we both saw State Board President Dr. Teri Quinn Gray’s very bizarre behavior. Avi described it well in his article:
The issue surfaced publicly during last Thursday’s State Board of Education Meeting. In the middle of a presentation, board president Terri Quinn Gray grew so upset she rose from her chair and blurted, “I need to take a break.” She meant it literally. Gray grimaced, clutched her stomach, and walked out of the board meeting. The source of Gray’s discontent wasn’t charter schools or testing or redistricting in Wilmington. It was priority schools.
There were several contentious moments at this board meeting. But for Dr. Gray it was something that should have been a throwaway line during a presentation from Penny Schwinn’s Accountability department. The second Penny Schwinn mentioned Christina was on their 2nd planning year for their priority schools, Gray either was truly surprised or she was putting on a show for everyone to see and hear.
The State Board is presented with information for their meetings from Executive Director Donna Johnson. Most of the time, the information can be seen by the public on the State Board website. But sometimes, information isn’t seen until the day of the meeting. I truly don’t know if this applies to the actual State Board members or not. But based on attending one of their State Board retreats, I did see the information was available to them and not the public when it came to a presentation on the Smarter Balanced Assessment. Now whether they actually read this information or not ahead of time, or any of the information presented to them, cannot be determined.
During a late September 2014 Christina board meeting, Dr. Gray and fellow State Board member Gregory Coverdale gave public comment and pleaded with Christina to sign their MOU. The audience was filled with Christina board members, and Gray and Coverdale were booed and left when board member John Young was talking about how the DOE needs great leaders. As revealed in a FOIA of DOE emails a year ago, Donna Johnson accused Christina Board member John Young of giving a speech that was most likely written by State Rep. John Kowalko or State Senator Bryan Townsend. Both Gray and Johnson were hammering Christina at the State Board of Education. And we can’t forget Donna Johnson’s very bizarre and strange accusation leveled at the Christina School District last summer.
Based on the last link, I filed a complaint with the Delaware Department of Justice’s office of Civil Rights & Public Trust against Johnson. Over three and a half months later and I have not received an answer to that complaint. No one has contacted me to clarify any of the information about it. I did speak with Delaware Attorney General Matt Denn a week ago about the status of these complaints. He explained to me that the new office in the DOJ is still in the planning stages and they are still sorting out what they can and cannot do based on state code. He also said someone from that office would be contacting me in a few days. That never happened.
In my perception, this is a very personal amount of contention against Christina between Gray and Johnson. I do not think the State Board will approve the WEIC plan for the redistricting of Christina’s Wilmington Schools into Red Clay. I think they are reintroducing the Christina priority schools conversation to put us back to the exact same moment we were at a year ago where the State wants to take those schools and convert them into charter schools. The Delaware Met building is in the Christina School District. There is room in the Community Education building for another school, which is also in the current Christina School District.
The true disconnect here seems to also be taking place within the Christina School District itself. Acting Superintendent Bob Andrzejewski admitted to having conversation with the DOE about Christina priority schools earlier this month.
Andrzejewski, who started as acting superintendent on October 1, told NewsWorks/WHYY he didn’t know money was available for the three priority schools until early December. He said the district will submit sub-grant applications for each of the three school before the month ends. “It kind of surprised all of us when we heard come December that there was money available,” Andrzejewski said.
But this is something the Christina Board had no idea even came up until the State Board meeting on 12/17. And it doesn’t stop there, because Andrzejewski submitted an application for a grant without anyone on the Christina Board even knowing about it.
State and district officials say they’re working together and that both want the schools to receive money as soon as possible. As this article was being reported, a Christina spokesperson told NewsWorks/WHYY that grant applications for each of the three schools were sent to the Department of Education on December 23.
It sounds to me like Andrzejewski needs to get it together and actually speak with his board. The board hired him so he is beholden to informing them before anything like this is submitted to the DOE. Beyond that though, this shouldn’t even be a topic of conversation. The DOE should have given those funds to Christina once they had them available. Instead, they are pretending this is a big deal to give it a media push. Behind the scenes, they are just biding their time and waiting for the pushback from Christina so they can take the schools. And lest we forget, Schwinn herself said one of the consequences of Christina not agreeing to the DOE’s terms on the priority schools is making Christina a “high-risk district”. Imagine if the DOE could somehow take the whole district lock, stock and barrel?
Statewide Review of Educational Opportunities. Wilmington Education Improvement Commission Redistricting Plan. Christina Priority Schools. Delaware Met. All are here. Please listen. Please pay attention. Listen to the words that are said by our unelected Governor appointed State Board of Education. This meeting touched on most of the hot education issues of our state in one form or another. Then email your state legislator politely requesting legislation for our State Board of Education to be elected officials.
WEIC Public Comment: Part 2
Statewide Review of Educational Opportunities: Part 3
WEIC Presentation to State Board: Part 5
Christina Priority Schools (about 1/3rd of the way in), Update on Opt-Out Penalties via ESEA Waiver Request with US DOE: Part 6
Delaware Met (starts about 1/3rd of the way in for Del Met) and Charter Renewals: Part 7
You see this with state agencies about a year or so before a Governor moves on. People coming and going. But the latest batch of Personnel notes in the agenda for the State Board of Education next week as some things I already confirmed, one new hire, and one potential omission…
I already advised everyone Penny Schwinn was leaving. I found this out at the November State Board of Education meeting. I had heard about Shana Young leaving, but wasn’t able to officially confirm this. I also heard Ryan Reyna, who works under Penny Schwinn, was leaving as well but he is not on this list. The surprise for me was Chantel Janiszewski who is coming back on a Casual/Seasonal basis. I wrote about her exit last month from Academy of Dover and how it was because of Newark Charter School that it went down. It looks like you can go back home again though!
A year ago, if you asked anyone on the Christina School District Board of Education to name one person at the Delaware Department of Education, the first name that would have popped up was Penny Schwinn. Penny was the DOE face behind the priority schools in Red Clay and Christina. Penny is currently the Chief of Accountability and Performance at the DOE. When the Christina board had to pick two members to meet with the DOE, it was to meet Schwinn. After the Wilmington Education Advisory Committee announced their recommendations for redistricting in Wilmington, the DOE and Governor Markell backed off on Christina’s opposition to the priority schools. The Christina board passed a resolution supporting the recommendations of WEAC.
Schwinn fell off my radar until a couple months later when she announced to the State Board of Education the SAT was being aligned to the Common Core. I immediately jumped to the conclusion the SAT was being replaced by the Smarter Balanced Assessment. Many disagreed with me and told me I was wrong. But essentially, that is what they are doing. It won’t be the same test, but it will be more like SBAC than the previous SAT. As well, the talk concerning the Assessment Inventory project showed the DOE was already planning this long before Governor Markell first mentioned it in March.
In May, I was given several emails from a FOIA concerning the priority schools which showed Schwinn’s role in the whole planning stage. This gave a lot of insight into the whole debacle and how the DOE really didn’t know what the heck they were doing.
The subject of funding for the priority schools in Red Clay came up in a big way over the summer, as the DOE wasn’t giving the district their promised funding. While never confirmed, this led directly to Secretary of Education Mark Murphy’s ouster at the Delaware DOE.
In September, after months of waiting, Schwinn’s group released the Smarter Balanced Assessment results to Delaware. They had the results for quite a while before they were released which led to a lot of concern and speculation on my part as to why. The results really didn’t show any earth-shattering increases for Delaware students, but overall, most students did worse on SBAC than they had on DCAS>
While all of this was going on, Schwinn was meeting with several superintendents, district admins, a rep from DSEA and a rep from the Delaware PTA on the Delaware School Success Framework. The Accountability Framework Working Group was under the radar for most Delawareans until I accidentally found all their meeting notes and found the participation rate opt-out penalty. This led to feverish and frantic emails to Schwinn and several complaints I filed with the US DOE and the Delaware DOJ. As part of the US DOE mandated “school report card”, the US DOE gave “guidance” on the state’s new accountability systems.
Schwinn watched as the group unanimously voted to get rid of the participation rate penalty as a multiplier that would punish schools with high opt-out rates. Eventually, newly christened Secretary of Education Dr. Steven Godowsky blew off the group’s recommendations and the DOE submitted the harsh opt-out penalty to the US DOE as part of their ESEA Flexibility Waiver. Schwinn recommended, at the behest of Governor Markell, one of the toughest accountability systems for any state in the country.
As this was all coming to a head, Schwinn resigned from the Delaware DOE and is expected to leave by the end of this year. Schwinn’s year and a half tenure at the Department was certainly full of controversy and angst for many school districts. I am very curious where she will end up next…
When you have many district superintendents and administrators saying “Don’t do it!”, you would think the Delaware Department of Education, the State Board of Education, and Secretary Godowsky would listen. If you heard folks saying “opt-out is only going to get bigger,” you would think a voice of reason would go off in their heads. But no, this is Delaware. The state where King Markell reigns on high, telling all the little minions what they must do. Below are the minutes from the final (for now) Accountability Framework Working Group meeting last week. Interesting news about Jeff Klein from Appoquinimink buried in here as well….
Lord help me, I have transcribed the biggest part of the State Board of Education meeting from yesterday. Once again I am numb from hearing the State Board try to figure out what the hell they were even voting on. This is long, but there are very key and integral parts of this conversation which illuminate the State Board and Godowsky’s warped view of the whole opt-out penalty mess. This whole decision, and the bulk of the weight on the Delaware School Success Framework, is based on the Smarter Balanced Assessment. The State Board also discussed the DOE’s Annual Measurable Objectives, which caused a huge outcry yesterday among parents of students with disabilities. Here it is, but stay tuned at the end for a very special announcement with some, in my opinion, shocking news.
State Board audio transcription of the presentation on Delaware School Success Framework, 11/19/15
Delaware Secretary of Education Dr. Steven Godowsky
Dr. Teri Quinn Gray, President of State Board of Education
Board Members: Nina Bunting, Gregory Coverdale, Pat Heffernan, Barbara Rutt, (absent: Vice-President Jorge Melendez and board member Terry Whitaker)
Donna Johnson, Executive Director of the State Board of Education
Penny Schwinn, Chief Officer Accountability and Performance
Ryan Reyna, Officer of Accountability
Dr. Teri Gray: The next topic for us is the presentation of the Delaware School Success Framework and any other revisions to the ESEA flexibility request. Welcome. Please state your name for the record.
Penny Schwinn: Good afternoon, Penny Schwinn, Director of Assessment, Accountability, Performance and Evaluation.
Ryan Reyna: and Ryan Reyna, same office as Penny.
Schwinn: Well good afternoon. Glad to be here to present the final revisions to our ESEA Flexibility request. Today what we’ll be going over is the specific recommendations for the Delaware School Success Framework, or DSSF. The recommendations for the rating performance thresholds, in essence each category a (?) system, and our annual measurable objective. Just for a little bit of context, we have an approved ESEA Flexibility Waiver through the end of this school year, through 2016. We can extend that through the end of the 2017-2018 school year contingent upon the following: we need to submit an amended request to incorporate some of the final modifications to the DSSF, and we also need to demonstrate that the DSSF will allow Delaware to name the required number of priority, focus, and reward schools moving forward in the future. Again, just to be clear, we’ve already named our priority and our focus schools, we will not be naming anymore for at least three years as they move through that process but we still need to demonstrate that this system would do so. We also need to provide the technical documentation for the DSSF. We’ll be provided a Spring workbook, later, once that is approved, so that will let them know what the business rules and metrics will be. We are also requesting an approval and support from the State Board on the final annual measurable objectives, or AMOs.
So just to provide a very brief overview, I know you are probably getting sick of this graph, you’ve seen it so many times. But we have our DSSF and this is the whole system. So we haven Part A, and in essence that is the components that are rated. The versus proficiency, and that is the proficiency in ELA, Math, Science, and Social Studies. We also have growth in ELA and Math. And just to reiterate the points we brought up before. We have one of the most progressive growth measures in the country in terms of the weighting on our system in growth. So as a state we’ve taken a very strong philosophical stance to really prioritize growth in student achievement as opposed to proficiency which I think is exciting. Attendance, this is for elementary and middle school only, for school it is looking at on-track (to graduate) in 9th grade and again giving extra points for the catch-up work for those students who are in the bottom quartile in performance, catching up by the end of 9th grade. The 4, 5, and 6 year graduation rates, which is a big change for the state. And then finally, for elementary and middle schools we have growth to proficiency in ELA and Mathematics, for high school it is college and career preparation which we’ve spoken about includes more than just one test, it also looks at career and dual education etc.
Part B is the components that are presented. Transparently but not rated. Right now that is specifically to surveys, student and parent, teachers may be optional, some post-secondary outcomes, we also know that every school in the state outside of one has provided a narrative report. And in the future we’re hoping to include social and emotional learning.
So these are the recommendations that are outstanding for the DSSF. And again these are the Secretary’s recommendations of what we should move forward with in terms of final business rules and components. The AFWG (Accountability Framework Working Group) has not revised their recommendation from last month so I want to be clear about that. For the participation rates for 2015-2016’s accountability year which is based on the 2014-2015 data, essentially if a school falls below 95% participation rate, in either Math or ELA, the school will need to create a plan. That plan will be monitored by the Office of Assessment in terms of implementation. Moving forward, so starting 2016-2017, based on data from this school year, all schools will divide their participation rate by 95% and multiply that by the proficiency to generate an adjusted rate. What that allows for is both positive consequences, so if a school for example if a school is higher than 95% in essence they get bonus points for testing more of their students. Again, it is the same multiplier we will be applying to schools that fall below 95%. We are also reporting on disaggregated participation rates which is required federally. So I want to stop there to see if there are any questions before I move onto performance ratings. (No questions). Ok, great.
So for performance ratings, we have the aggregate performance so each metric area will get their own aggregated performance. We will not do an overall rating. We will have that information but it will not be presented on the PDF so that is consistent with what you saw last month and what we presented at the last retreat. It will be on a 5 star scale, based on the total points available and we’ll talk about what those cut points will be in a bit.
Gregory Coverdale: So I guess, to make a comparison, that’s why we’re dividing by 95%?
Schwinn: 95% is the threshold in terms of what our expectation is for participation. So we don’t want to do that out of 100% because if you get 96% you are above that level so 95 is our top point so in essence we are saying that as long as you are at 95% you get a 100% of the points, anything above that is extra credit. A positive consequence so to speak.
One of the things we did want to highlight, specifically, is just the number of schools who are increasing their ratings in terms of 3, 4, and 5 Star. We compared that to AYP (Annual Yearly Performance-created through No Child Left Behind). One of the things we looked at was in the AFWG, our working group, was to make sure that we weren’t just seeing the performance of schools specifically related to income, so what we looked at were the number of 3, 4, and 5 star schools that were Title I schools or had a large proportion of students who were low-income and what we found was that 52 of 124 elementary and middle schools were a 3, 4, or 5 star school under this system so we’re seeing that actually 42% of the schools are high-rated even when they have large proportions of low-income students. That is not consistent with what we’ve seen with AYP which is a lower percentage of students who did not meet AYP. So again, while we want to see more of our schools, and many of our schools perform at the highest levels, we see that this system more accurately represents the information, specifically the growth that a lot of our schools are seeing over time.
The last point we want to bring up before we move on is looking at the number of schools who would have dropped their ratings because of the participation rate. That was an outstanding question we had. I’ll look to Ryan (Reyna) to double-check on some of those specifics, but no school dropped a rating in the overall based on the participation rate multiplier (important note: they did not include high schools in this information, which would have shown schools like Conrad in Red Clay take a massive drop with their 40% participation rate in math). We did have one school that would have increased based on this multiplier.
Gray: Based on the 14-15 data?
Schwinn: Based on the 14-15 data, that’s right.
Reyna: Which is not in effect as you see on this slide. Hypothetical, as the board presented a question to us. So again, in confirmation of what Dr. Schwinn just said, overall no schools would have decreased their overall rating. One school actually did improve its overall rating as it was right on the cusp. In the area of academic achievement alone, there were three schools that improved their ratings and one school that decreased their rating, again, because it was sort of on the cusp of where the cut points are set and we will show you that in one slide.
Gray: So again, what we were trying to clarify with that question, we appreciate that follow-up, was that multiplier applies just to the proficiency component, not the overall rating.
Schwinn: Yes, it’s just the proficiency which is just one component of the overall. So we did see more schools having positive impacts based on the multiplier. We did want to provide that information as requested.
Reyna: 141 out of the 149 elementary schools increased as a result, would have increased as a result of this.
Gray: One question about the plan that’s in effect for this accountability year, right, so what happens if a school has to develop a plan, or a template for a plan? So what happens to the plan?
Schwinn: The school will be given a template. We are trying to keep it compacted based in the information we have shared earlier which is essentially: what was your participation rate, what were either your theories or proof that would constitute being below 95%, there’s a variety of reasons why that might have occurred. Then we ask the schools to break that down so we can really get to the heart of why students aren’t participating and we have them break that down by sub-groups so that we are sure we are all appropriately testing all our subgroup students and then from there that plan is submitted to our branch. The Office of Assessment specifically will be the ones following up on that. This is the first year the Office of Assessment staff will be visiting every single school in the state to help support how they will be giving assessments this year. We know there were a lot of things, a lot of questions that came up last year. We talked about that with the Smarter presentation so our office will actually be visiting every school and we’re doing monthly visits to every district in order to support that. So those schools that require a plan will have that direct support from our office.
Gray: And is the plan in effect? Just for the 14-15 year?
Schwinn: It’s a one year plan.
Coverdale: Is there some sort of matrix that categorizes why a student wouldn’t have taken the test?
Schwinn: That will be a part of the plan, and we’ll be happy to supply that to the board. You would be able to see the reasons assigned to each school where students didn’t participate and we will be doing that overall and by sub-group, for this year.
So looking at performance thresholds, I want to start with elementary and middle school. Again, this is the similar weights we submitted in draft form in the Spring submission and then brought back to you earlier in the Fall. But what you’ll essentially see is what the weights are for elementary and middle and the points assigned. We didn’t…the AFWG recommended a 500 point scale but we used that scale and essentially used the multipliers with the weighting provided to get straight point allocation. Ryan will talk a little bit about what the cut points will be so you’ll see that with elementary and middle, and then again with the high schools which is slightly different weights.
Reyna: So in setting the performance thresholds for each of the metric areas, again that’s where our focus is, not necessarily on the overall numerical score, the recommendation is that those metric thresholds, those performance thresholds, must be broken up equally across the five different categories to represent 1 through 5 stars. We would roll up those scores in terms of rounding. If a school is at 29 ½ for instance on academic achievement, they would be rounded up into the 2 star category so that we are recognizing that benefit, to a half point difference may not be a significant one. So the table at the bottom of the slide is an example of what those star ratings would be for elementary and middle school with the similar rating structure for high schools as well.
We also wanted to discuss the Annual Measurable Objectives, the AMOs, as has been required since NCLB. The US Department of Education, in the transition, recognizing the transition that many states made to ESEA adjustments has allowed states to reset their AMOs, create a new baseline. And so this process is one in which the US DOE has requested that we submit , our process for doing so as well as the actual AMOs by January of ’16. This is specifically for public transparency for being clear about what the state’s goals are and not necessarily as it has been in the past for determining whether or not a school met AYP or accountability.
Coverdale: How are the weights determined?
Reyna: Sure, this was the recommendation of the AFWG in how they would like to see, or how they believed, the different metrics should be weighted across the full system. So as Dr. Schwinn mentioned, there was a firm belief amongst the AFWG members that we should place the heaviest weight on growth and the growth metrics. And that weighting system is what was submitted in draft form in our March submission. And then after reviewing the data, the AFWG confirmed that they wanted to stick with these weights as a recommendation and we took the weights into a direct translation of that 100 point scale.
Coverdale: The growth is weighted higher on the high school level than it is on the elementary and middle school levels. I would think that might be reversed?
Reyna: So it is a good question. Growth directly is weighted higher at the high school level. But if you take into account growth to proficiency at the elementary and middle school, sort of, if you take that as another sort of growth measure, than it actually becomes more in elementary and middle. So you see a total of 60% growth metrics between elementary and middle, we have the growth category as well as college and career readiness category. And then high school we have growth, just the growth category. That’s 45%. So 60% growth metrics in elementary and middle, 45% in high school.
Schwinn: I want to reiterate this is the submission to US DOE in terms of what our proposal is. We’ve been on calls with them multiple times cause this is a very aggressive submission in terms of growth. But the AFWG felt strongly that these were the right weights. Though we are pushing pretty hard to make sure this gets approved as is. And we sent those weights in our proposal and didn’t get any pushback. They are waiting to see the full DSSF submission in terms of some of the data from Smarter Balanced and that stuff has come in so we can run some of the numbers with DCAS and Smarter. That being said, they are very aware this is our number one priority in terms of this system. The group felt incredibly strongly about weights and our responsibility to advocate for that as much as possible.
Reyna: As in previous submissions, the US DOE allowed for three different options for the process which a state would set its AMOs. Delaware has used #2 in its previous submissions and the recommendation is to stay with that. The process being, focused on decreasing the numbers of students who are non-proficient in six years. So that business rule would be allocated equally amongst those six years moving from a baseline to six years in the future as a way to close those gaps. And on the next slide, you will see what, using that process, what the draft targets would be for ELA, so movement in the state from approximately 50% to 75% by 2021. Also recognizing that some of our subgroups who start lower behind are required to make improvements at a faster pace just given the process. And you can see that visually in the next slide where you see, I know this is difficult to read, and I apologize, but you do see that some of the subgroups are starting further behind and are catching up to the rest of the state.
Donna Johnson: And this is the same methodology that was used before in our current ESEA flexibility? I went ahead and pulled up our existing AMOs to kind of look at them side by side and we set the baseline in 2011. And so now this is based on a baseline of 2015 scores? And using that same methodology moving forward?
Reyna: That’s correct.
Pat Heffernan: How close did we come to meeting it the first three years? My recollection, vaguely, is that we weren’t really, that these are pretty aggressive targets based on what we’ve been able to do.
Johnson: I think some subgroups…
Reyna: Some subgroups have not…
Schwinn: I think that they are certainly aggressive for those subgroups that are starting out low. Students with disabilities, for example, going from 19.3% to 59.6% is certainly incredibly aggressive. And I think that internally, and as a state we want to be rational and reasonable about what we would expect for students or schools to grow their students on an annual basis. If you look at other subgroups such as students either white, or Asian, there is much less growth that needs to occur. So I think it absolutely depends, but I think they are incredibly aggressive for some of our subgroups.
Reyna: The rule is, the calculation is going to consistently…
Heffernan: Right, yeah, yeah, yeah, sure, sure, and I mean , it’s certainly our stated goal, to increase those gaps and move them, bring them together. I just, I’m certainly not one for dropping the bar too low, but I don’t want to, get in a thing where, we know that the problem with 100% proficiency, right, is that everybody says “We can’t get that anyways, it’s all hooey”, so I, however we do this, however we monitor it, I don’t want us to get too discouraged because someone like, I don’t think…
Schwinn: I think we have a responsibility on that note to the supports provided to schools. So the state’s responsibility to provide supports specifically to those subgroups that have a tremendous amount of growth, and the districts the same, to be able to provide support to their schools. We’re not going to meet these goals if we don’t provide really targeted and comprehensive support to a lot of our subgroups. Cause there is a long way to go, especially since we have that new baseline with Smarter Balanced.
Johnson: Are there opportunities as we collect more data to revisit our AMOs based upon data and student performance?
Schwinn: We always have the opportunity to resubmit or submit amendments to this flex waiver. We also know that it is highly likely that the new ESEA bills that is going currently will be passed before the new year. Let’s call that 60-40. But there’s a good chance that could happen. That creates a lot of change, potentially, to how we address this. For now, this is consistent with what we’ve done in the past. We felt like it was probably the most appropriate way to move forward given a new assessment, and we also recognize that there may be opportunities, especially after the second year of Smarter Balanced, to revisit based on the data we get in year two.
Gray: I think it’s important, I think that, I guess, the methodology is as good as we can probably get it, but I think the consistency in terms of monitoring is “Are we making progress?” and the conversation should be on are we moving in that direction or not and the endgame is always for us to try to go back cause the baseline has been reset given that we are using the Smarter data versus where we were with the 2011 baseline, which I think is DSTP data. I’m sorry, DCAS data. The reality check there is that we had a higher baseline, actually, right? And we were probably giving, really, a falsehood in terms of where we really were actually at with students proficiency relative to where we want them to be for the college readiness perspective, right, so a 64% opposed to a 50.5% for all students, so that shift needs to be a reality check for us. The other piece is, this method does say that we will close the gaps, right? It’s not closed as in no gap, but we are closing the gaps. That is the intent. Cause I keep looking at almost by half in some cases. If you look at the white students versus African-American students it goes from 25.7% to I think 12.9% or something, so that in itself is a very appropriate goal for us to go for, it shouldn’t be any less than that. It shouldn’t be less than that.
Schwinn: We certainly always want to see gaps close because our lower performing sub groups are doing significantly better as opposed to seeing our highest performing subgroups doing either worse or (?) we want to get better.
Gray: And I think that formula allows for (? mumbles) I think the challenge, Ryan has given this to us a few times, is there enough methodology approach to say this is better. We have yet to figure that out. Maybe that’s a trust we need to try to bring in. But I think it’s a reasonable one, but I don’t think the goal should be any less, regardless of…
Heffernan: I hear you, and again, some of these make more sense than others. I just don’t want us to feel like, and to Dr. Gray’s point when she said, making progress or moving in the right direction, I don’t, I don’t buy that really. It’s not just getting a little bit better, we’ve gotta make appropriate, I, if we set something that’s impossible to reach its just discouraging.
Gray: And then the other piece that’s tied into monitoring. There are gonna be some individual schools and/or aggregate of schools, that will do much better than this. And I think we need to make sure we always highlight that relative to the aggregate. There will be some schools that we know, they have literally closed the gaps within their buildings, it’s not…
Heffernan: They’re not even here now…
Gray: I think that’s part of the conversation, it is possible, right? If one or two schools can do it, many schools can do it.
Heffernan: Right, I totally agree with that.
Coverdale: I just, big question is how do you close a gap without having more on the upper end, the echelon of, flat money? (not sure, Coverdale speaks very low and it is hard to hear him in the audience so the audio recording isn’t a shock). If one or two aren’t learning than it just become a perpetual gap.
Gray: I’ll let the experts speak on that.
Heffernan: Everybody has an upper trend on that graph. It’s just some are steeper slopes.
Schwinn: Yeah, so you’re going to have a steeper slope for those students who are currently lower performing, specifically, our students with disabilities, low-income, African-American, Hispanic-Latino, are starting at a much lower baseline so they are gonna be required to jump by 5,6, or 7 points each year as opposed to our Asian and white students who are gonna be required to jump 1 to 2 points each year.
Coverdale: So is there someone in the classroom saying “Hey, African-American student, this is what you’re gonna have to deal with?” Is there like an African-American student group? Do you know what I mean? That’s the kind of granular focus that we need to happen in order for some of this to come to fruition by 2021.
Schwinn: I think we are seeing with our districts, we just finished our end of year meetings with our districts, we are starting our middle of the year meetings with our districts, a lot of the conversation is really focused on how are you allocating your resources to really target those groups that need additional supports, and how as a state can we provide you with even more supports, whether that’s financial, or capacity, to target some of your lower performing subgroups. So those are ongoing conversations and what we’re seeing is a lot of districts are really looking at school level and even student level data around how to target more efficiently their dollars and resources.
Heffernan: But are we sending mixed messages? So that we looked at how we are splitting up the growth and weight, all those things, right, is the growth reflecting these slopes?
Schwinn: The growth on DCAS?
Heffernan: The growth targets that we’re giving people, growth proficiency and all those things, right, this isn’t growth proficiency, that’s not even growth, right? So on one hand we’re saying the school is growing, we’re going to give you credit for growth, but on the other hand we say these are what our system goals are for growth and I suspect that they’re not really aligned. You could give us a school that is doing reasonably well in growth targets and are not living up to this.
Schwinn: This is essentially improvement, right, so we’re looking at just a standard baseline improvement for something like an AMO, but I think when we’re looking at growth it’s a much more complex function. We’re taking into account prior test history, we’re looking specifically at cohorts of students, this is, essentially, we have to create a straight line of slope as we’re looking at an improvement from year to year as opposed to looking at aggregate growth.
Heffernan: But the cohorts are included in here, a successful cohort growth is much more based on our historical…which we’re not doing anywhere near this, so we would be exceeding our growth targets and coming nowhere near meeting our AMOs.
Schwinn: Yeah, I think it’s gonna vary pretty significantly by school, but I that is absolutely a possibility.
Johnson: The AMOs are something that we report for all subgroups but I did not see that the AMOs were specifically referenced in the DSSF. So this is a separate report than the DSSF.
Schwinn: Schools will not be rated based on this. This is something that we are required to publicly report, but they won’t have any of their ratings based on the DSSF impacted whether or not they meet these targets.
Heffernan: I guess the feds are making us do this, but I don’t really buy into it, and we’re not really growing on this goal. Because the whole system isn’t pointing towards this, we’re not driving this at all, it’s completely separate conversation, we did what we did, sort of, our growth targets are based on what we’ve always…, this is one of my big beefs. Our growth targets are what we’ve always done, right? My growth target would be based on, kids like me, how much did I grow, and how much did they grow last year, and if I grow that same amount, if I grow less than that same amount, than I can still easily meet the targets, right? But overall we’re saying that we gotta bring the targets, the bar, we would never, I just don’t think the system is geared towards producing these results.
Coverdale: (mumbling again) How would the growth trajectory for African-American students be different, and I’m in the same class as these whites, and Asians, and everyone else. I’m doing the same thing but I grow more, at a higher growth rate than everyone else.
Schwinn: I think that would get into some of the differentiation and instruction that teachers have to do and I think that teachers are, their job gets harder more and more every year, and things are being asked of our educators and they are doing a tremendous job in meeting the needs of individual students, but you’re right, there’s gonna be different growth expectations for different students in your class, and I think, I would say that we are happy to publish these targets, and separately say that we really stand behind the work of the AFWG in terms of really prioritizing growth in a more meaningful way than some of our subgroups formally…
Coverdale: (mumbling) by 2021…
Gray: I think the aggregate conversations are difficult, like this AMO one, and so, federal mandate or not, I think in the spirit of multiple measures, these should be trending in the same direction. From a growth to proficiency, or a DSSF perspective, centered around that, or these aggregates, but we look at this whole population of 130,000 kids, where with the DSSF were really targeting accountability in our schools in terms of that calculation.
Barbara Rutt: But I would say still, in this conversation and not to get philosophical, but when you talk about multiple students in one classroom this whole concept of personalized learning and how do we get out of that expectation gap. Cause we have evidence that the gap is closed at certain buildings and at certain at-risk schools so all of this is really possible. It’s just a matter of how you close the expectation gap as well as actually put the personalized learning into play, and how you give more ownership with that learning, or shared learning, at the student level. So I think that’s part of the conversation we’re struggling with and half of it is as much to do with policy as it is what is actually the relationship that is happening in the classroom. Cause we have buildings, we have gaps close, we have schools around this country where there are no gaps, right? So we know that it is possible even if we got these aggregate AMOs or whatever, we got the DSSF which is getting down to the next granular level, like this is what needs to happen at that more intimate level, we got class change, so it should all be going in an upward direction. As a pass point, it’s going to be very difficult for us to get our actual measures to line up with something at the Federal level cause its hard to serve millions of kids at the personalized level that you need to do, right? Versus what we would do in Delaware. So that’s where I am, and let me know if the measures are doing good. I think it’s really worth the conversation. They’re all doing that, even if…
Heffernan: The growth measures doing this, there’s no slope…
Gray: AMO? Is that what you’re looking at?
Heffernan: No, I’m talking about the growth of the DSSF. How about a zero slope, right? We’re talking about low growth targets or what we did last year, aren’t they?
Gray: No, I see why you’re confused.
Reyna: We moved away from the growth targets at the school level. Its focused on the aggregate of student growth , there’s no longer a target of other than growth to proficiency is are you…
Heffernan: Growth to proficiency, I got that, yeah
Reyna: The growth targets that are part of the teacher evaluation system are slightly different than the way in which growth is calculated on the DSSF and we plan to discuss that, I believe…
Johnson: Yeah, so we’re not looking at student growth target, as we used to look at when we had the DCAS broke down, but we are looking at that Spring to Spring growth model and looking at it as a school level growth rather than…
Heffernan: But what is the goal of growth?
Johnson: Then you’re looking at the aggregate of, you know, with the conditions around it, did it grow more than the expected growth value of ones like it, and that’s where we use multiple levels of data. That’s what you’re getting at, in terms of saying, are we seeing growth expectation based on multiple years of prior data, but we are looking at prior years of test data, not just prior years of that grade, which is what we have done before. Ryan can explain it much better.
Heffernan: I won’t , but I guess, if the target is going to be aggressive in some cases, but on the other hand I think, well, I’m looking specifically at students with disabilities so that’s…
Gray: I gotcha…
Heffernan: We don’t want the target to be what we’ve always done. But I think we understand we need continuous improvement. If we feed that correctly in there, if we align…I was just questioning that.
Gray: I agree with you. I think that students with disabilities has always been one of the painful, realistically “How are we going to figure out that one?” Not only realistic…
Heffernan: Not that we don’t need to do it. You’re not going to see anyone think we need to do it more than I do.
Gray: I think it’s also worthy, cause it’s confusing Ryan, around the growth targets, and I think I have it in my head, I think that’s really where we were a few cycles back? So we will always need to refresh our…
Reyna: Happy to do that…
Gray: Growth model.
Nina Bunting: Would you bring me up to date please, cause I wasn’t here in the Spring. I just have to ask if there are stakeholders out there that feel their recommendations have been dismissed, what about this plan addresses that? Have their recommendations been dismissed? Or have you actually addressed those recommendations and incorporated them into the plan? Because there are people who are very, very concerned.
Schwinn: Are you speaking specifically about the participation rate piece of the DSSF or the AMOs? I can address both actually.
Schwinn: Great. So one specifically, and I should have probably stated this earlier, the pieces on the AMOs have not gone to DESS, they will go to DESS, a lot of the changes made, will go to DESS in December. So they have not looked at that specifically. We are looking at this participation rate discussion. The recommendation of the AFWG has not changed. Their recommendation was to do a plan as a primary consequence. After discussion, and meeting at the retreat, from last month and this month, the recommendation of the Secretary is to use the mulitiplier. I want to be clear that was the recommendation of the AFWG. I know that in conversations we were looking at a multitude of input, and the recommendation put forth by Secretary Godowsky in terms of the participation rate. The AMOs are put forth by the State and we decided because it was a new assessment we should move forward with what has been consistent in prior years.
Reyna: The rest of the plan with all the rest of the DSSF is based on the recommendations of the AFWG.
Schwinn: And the refresher from the Spring, around what kind of stakeholder engagement has been, the other big conversation has been how do you represent the data? And one of the things we did, we did a series of focus groups that were facilitated by the University of Delaware, and then did a very brief, very fun, pick your framework that you like, the layout that you like. The feedback that we got was that people didn’t like the layout, any of the options. There were rocketships, and I think, grades, etc. So we went back and looked at stars and that’s how we got the star system which was a compromise on that. We have taken the majority of the feedback, especially from the AFWG, which has met over 16 times over the last 15 months…
Bunting: So you did take their recommendations?
Schwinn: We’ve taken a majority of their recommendations. I just want to be very specific that there were the recommendations that were on the previous slides where they wanted the plan as the consequence for participation rate. That was the recommendation, the recommendation in front of you is the multiplier. But we’ve definitely been…it’s been a lively and engaged group in terms of the recommendation, but the majority of the recommendations have been taken.
Heffernan: What that process was, the group made a recommendation and not a decision, just as often we do with the Secretary around charter schools or whatever it is, the groups come in, and at the end of the day somebody weighs multiple views …
Schwinn: And there are many groups who provide that input and feedback. The AFWG is the organized group that meets regularly but I certainly know that there are a variety of emails that have been sent to our Accountability email address and all that information is provided as part of the record.
Gray: Yeah, part of this conversation, I think we were 9-10 times on record having this discussion from the very first presentation, which was in March, April, I don’t recall, and much later in the year, so the DSSF component presented in the earlier charts, that kind of outline of A and B and the weights, that has not changed over time, and that came directly from the conversations. And the whole participation rate, which has been the most robust conversation, that did come back to us initially last April, May (it was March Dr. Gray), it may have been earlier, March, April, the participation rate. And then what came after was at the end of the AFWG conversations and that was probably the last, if not, one of the next to last sessions I was able to sit in around the conversation of having ratings, and the stars, that came out of that deal, and now we are at stars, versus having an overall rating, and the compromise around having stars as overall ratings, so that was the big one. And the participation rate, what we actually said in that conversation, and now with the recommendation from the Secretary, was that, you know, the participation rate really does, we wanted a balance of that conversation, so at 95%, left at 95% with the multiplier, we also asked for the upside of that, so if when were above 95%, they get the same upside, an uptick, so we really wanted that balance…
Heffernan: And more schools were given the uptick than the down…
Gray: More schools were given an uptick, cause we really did not want to have a conversation as a one-way consequence, the actual definition of consequence, positive and or negative, is actually the conversation…
Dr. Steven Godowsky: I want to make some comments. On November 17th, last Tuesday, we had a meeting of the AFWG to discuss the rationale for the modification of the plan so we did bring the group back to their 17th meeting to have that discussion. I also want to say that the AFWG did, in my opinion, settle on the most important measurable outcome, and that’s the whole idea of a rated growth. And that is probably the fairest to all schools, and the best measurement for a direct effect of teaching. That’s where we can make a difference and that’s where we have control over that. So I think they did absolutely the right thing on that. And so the fact that has the most value, it belongs there, in my opinion.
Gray: I agree, and I appreciate that, cause growth is where we think the conversation should be, you know, for struggling students and those that are excelling, if we have them in our midst of a K-12 place, we want to see growth. And you talked about, there couldn’t have been more alignment, between where the Board is, and the Secretary, and where the AFWG is on that.
Reyna: So last, and you have the Math targets. Similarly, it’s in process. Last piece is next steps. As Dr. Schwinn mentioned, we’ll be submitting, upon assent of the Board, so upon submitting final documentation to the US Department of Education next week, essentially before Thanksgiving, and then would wait for their response. Certainly our expectation is, there is a lot of transition at the US DOE right now and with the holidays coming, I don’t necessarily believe we would be able to get that before Christmas for instance, but sometime in the early 2016 timeline and then from there the commitment is, again, to update and resubmit Regulation 103 within sixty days of approval by the US Department of Education, with public comment, at which point would then come back to this Board for discussion and ultimately, action.
Gray: And when do we expect to hear back from US Ed?
Reyna: It would be great if it was before the end of the year, but likely, January, February timeline.
Schwinn: They committed to four weeks, but I don’t think that is taking into consideration that we’re going to have a new Secretary of Education (at the US DOE) there, so our expectation is sometime around the week of January 10th.
Johnson: And then once final approval is received, the Department would then begin re-revising Regulation 103 and we would have sixty days to promulgate those revisions and bring that back before the board for discussion and ultimate action.
Schwinn: Are there any questions?
Gray: So the Department of Education seeks approval of the ESEA Flexibility Waiver application revisions as outlined in this presentation. Is there a motion to approve DOE’s ESEA Flexibility application revisions?
Coverdale: So moved.
Gray: I do need a second.
Gray: Thank you. Any further questions or discussion?
Gray: All in favor, indicate by saying aye.
Gray, Heffernan, Coverdale Rutt: Aye.
Gray: Any opposed? (none) Abstentions?
Bunting: Abstention please.
Gray: Motion carries. Alright.
Johnson: Could we elect to do a roll call?
(roll call given, same result, Whitaker and Melendez absent)
And with that, the Delaware State Board of Education passed the opt-out penalty in the Delaware school report card. What makes this all very interesting is the fact that two of the participants in this whole conversation will not even be at the DOE by the end of the year. Two of the individuals are resigning from the DOE. Penny Schwinn and Ryan Reyna are leaving. A very important fact to make note of here is the timing on approval of this ESEA waiver application. The DOE can not submit Regulation 103 until they get approval from the US DOE on this. At that point, they have to redo Regulation 103 and it won’t be voted on by the State Board for at least sixty days. Which gives the 148th General Assembly more than enough time to override Governor Markell’s veto of House Bill 50! And with that, I will bid you good night. Stay tuned (literally) tomorrow for the most offbeat post of the year, possibly my lifetime. I know one person who will definitely want to see this!
I posted the whole document these pictures were in two posts ago, but upon reviewing the DOE’s five-year goals for growth in the Smarter Balanced Assesssment, I noticed the one group that is going to be driven hard to improve proficiency on the Smarter Balanced Assessment. Students With Disabilities. Dammit Jack, what the hell is wrong with you? You have NO idea what these kids are going through every single day. My guess is this is something you do not deal with or experience on a daily basis. I really think you may be insane. This isn’t right, and every single parent of a child with disabilities needs to email their legislator and ask them to impeach Delaware Governor Jack Markell based on an inability to perform his job functions.
Below are the growth targets for the next five years for the Smarter Balanced Assessment. They expect students with disabilities to jump up astronomically in the next five years which means the DOE will push teachers to push these students. Enough is enough.
Welcome to the Jack Markell world of Rigor and Grit for students with disabilities. This is not education. This is insanity. This is not aggressive, this is you just not getting it…
UPDATED: An earlier version of this article had an employee at the DOE named in it. I talked with this employee when I left the State Board of Education, and I understand she was just doing her job. She answers to her boss, and I totally get that. This is why I have changed this to her boss.
Matthew Albright with the News Journal wrote about the betrayal and backstabbing by Secretary Godowsky and the Delaware Department of Education yesterday. I have to wonder if that story would have come out two weeks from now had I not broken the news last night…
The whole article is chock full of lies as the REAL story is coming out. I’ll get to the REAL story shortly, but some points I want to make from the News Journal article.
That’s a harsher penalty for schools with low participation rates than a panel of administrators and teacher and parent advocates recommended.
Let’s take a good look at this. Because in the eyes of the DOE and the State Board of Education, the only voices that mattered in this charade were Donna Johnson, Penny Schwinn and Ryan Reyna. Johnson is the Executive Director of the State Board of Education, and she has been calling the shots in the House of Jack for far too long. She advises the State Board what to vote for, and she sits on these committees and work groups all the time. I won’t get too much into the machinations Johnson has been up to as some are still under investigation. But it is past time Donna Johnson was removed from power in the Townshend Building. As for Schwinn, she smiles a lot and talks the big talk, but I have no doubt she formed this work group for the sole purpose of making it look like the DOE gave a crap about stakeholder input. Reyna is the wild card, the guy who answers to Schwinn and does whatever she wants. All three of them- Johnson, Schwinn, and Reyna- have been giving false advice to not only the AFWG, but also to the State Board and Secretary of Godowsky.
State officials say the penalty is a fair way to make sure every student’s academic progress is considered when sizing up a school.
I’m calling bullshit on this one. The penalty is so the DOE can punish schools for a parent’s decision. And it is the DOE sizing up the schools and casting their judgments on them. And this is the infamous “Accountability 2.0” I wrote about earlier this year which came from an email at the DOE from 2013. The DOE has been planning this Delaware School Success Framework for years. The legislation they had to plan in April of 2015? That is Regulation 103. It got pushed back about six months, but make no mistake, it was all for this school report card crap. And implementation of the school report card? That takes place in the 2016-2017 school year.
The federal government requires states have an accountability system, and it requires that test results make up a significant part of the score. It also requires “consequences” for schools that fall below 95 percent participation on the state test.
Do some fact checking on this one Matt Albright! Did the Delaware DOE tell you that, or did you actually contact the US DOE for that information? In the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), it does state schools must have a report card. The ESEA was passed by Congress in 1965. It has been amended several times, but since President Obama came aboard, the Feds have played a heavy hand in education with non-regulatory guidance. Which is NOT Congressionally approved. The US DOE knows damn well what kind of game they are playing here.
The group recommended schools that fall below 95 percent should be required to submit a report explaining why that happened and how to improve participation – and should be ineligible to receive certain honors from the state.
Here is where the DOE’s argument falls apart. The day the Accountability Framework Working Group (AFWG) approved this unanimously, Penny Schwinn explained to the group that Governor Markell gave certain options as penalties for the participation rate. This was one of the options she proposed by the Governor. The very next day, at the DESS Advisory Group, Schwinn explained that she talked to Governor Markell the night before, after the last AFWG meeting, and he was okay with the group’s recommendation. So what changed in a month? Meanwhile, the trio of Schwinn, Reyna and Johnson have been telling folks schools will lose Federal funding if the participation rate goes below 95%. Which is an absolute lie.
And then the DOE’s Public Information Officer chimed in (who used to write for the News Journal):
“The state feels this is a fair proposal that takes into consideration participation, crediting schools that that work to ensure every child’s learning growth is considered,” May wrote.
Yes, the “that that” was in the article. When May says “the state”, who is she talking about? Donna Johnson? Ryan Reyna? Penny Schwinn? Jack Markell? Secretary Godowsky? The DOE and Governor Markell are not “the state”. “The state” is also made up of educators, parents, legislators and citizens. I’m sure if a vote was taken right now, the entirety of “the state” would not agree with this. First and foremost, it is bad policy, and second of all, it has Jack Markell’s stink all over it. This is his way of leaving his legacy of hate for any who would stand against him.
She also points out that parents would still be able to see the school’s unadjusted performance when they get their “report cards” in the mail or online, but the overall component that measures academic performance would be lowered.
This is the DOE’s way of saying “Hey, you parents who opted your kid out, look what you did. This is what it would have been had you not opted your kid out, but because you did this is causing your kid’s school to look bad”. It is a slap in the face of parents and their rights, and a kick in the back to the schools who aren’t allowed to encourage opt-out.
The Delaware State Education Association had a representative on the working group, and its president, Frederika Jenner, said the education union stood by its recommendation.
Really Frederika? You might want to talk to your director and your AFWG rep, cause I’m hearing talk coming out of the DOE that they both support this opt-out penalty. More on that one later.
State officials, however, maintain that the penalty isn’t related to opt out.
This is the biggest joke of them all. Participation rate IS based on opt-out. If it isn’t about opt-out, what the hell is it about? You are lying through your lying little teeth DOE. You lie when you don’t even have to. You are a Department of compulsive liars. Shame on you for abusing authority like this and lying to parents, students, educators and the citizens of Delaware. Shame on you! You all hate opt-out because you know it is the only mechanism left that can and will put a stop to all or your crafty plans.
As for Secretary Godowsky… if you honestly believe everything that has come out of the mouths of Johnson, Schwinn and Reyna, you are unfit to be the Delaware Secretary of Education. I know of many conversations you had today with things that are not even in this article in an effort to put a lid on this quickly. Where is the whole part about the Smarter Balanced Assessment going away for juniors because of the SAT which is being realigned to become SBAC Jr.? How about the part where the participation rate for the SAT is 100% because Delaware used Race To The Top funds to pay for that and paid for every high school junior to take it? But now those funds are gone? Buries that argument real quick! Or the part where certain people at DSEA and all the Superintendents of all the districts are behind this because of the very faulty SAT argument which only accounts for high school juniors? I’m also hearing those state superintendents were not happy at all about this total ignorance of the AFWG’s recommendations. So which is the real story Secretary Godowsky? The fabrication of lies in the News Journal, or what you are telling other folks? It sounds to me like you are lining up all the stakeholders and playing them against each other. Shifting blame and collaboration to appease the complaints you got today. Sorry Secretary Godowsky, I know you have your defenders, but all your effort and lip service to making the DOE better fell apart in a week once your were confirmed by the Delaware Senate.
And Jack. Jack Jack Jack… Don’t think you are just sliding out of this one. No way! Your dirty fingerprints are all over this one. We all know these underlings of yours don’t breathe sideways unless you give them your dictatorial stamp of approval. Once again, like you did when you came up with your rebuttals against opt-out and vetoed House Bill 50, you are disrespecting parents and their rights. You are allowing YOUR Department, your education governance system to LIE to the very people you are sworn to represent. You are not an honorable man. You are duplicitous and slimy. I have no doubt you will continue to destroy public education and Pompeii the whole thing before you leave office. This is your payback now. Your small, petty and vengeful payback against those who would dare to stand against the almighty Jack Markell. But you will lose on this one Jack. Make no mistake. This will be rectified and course corrected, and soon, you and your little regulation raiders will be gone and your legacy of shame will go down in the history of Delaware as one of the worst governorships the First State has ever seen.
Tomorrow at the Delaware State Board of Education meeting in Dover, DE, a presentation will be given on Delaware’s 2015 SAT performance and upcoming changes to the test in 2016. Last Spring, Chief Officer of Assessment and Accountability Penny Schwinn at the Delaware DOE advised the State Board the SAT was being aligned with Common Core. Some states have already dumped the state standardized assessment for 11th graders because of this.
Only two high schools in Delaware had over 50% of their students reach the “college ready” benchmark on the 2015 SATs. With alignment to the Common Core how will high school juniors perform next year? When I see terms like “personalized learning” and “problems grounded in real world contexts”, I think Common Core and all it’s education reform friends. Will we ever escape from the Common Core? January 2017 can’t get here fast enough and hopefully we will have a good Governor and a good President who can guide our state and country away from this insanity…