Citing widespread confusion about the potential use of PARCC exam results in a punitive manner against students in the near future, a coalition of organizations has filed an open records request with every school district in the state to obtain information about any plans they have to use the test for grading or graduation purposes before 2021.
In various public comments, state Commissioner of Education Ken Wagner has indicated that, in order to provide time for schools to give students necessary support services, he does not believe schools should use PARCC as a high stakes test determining a student’s graduation eligibility until 2021. However, he has refused to revise current R.I. Department of Education policies that give school districts the power to incorporate PARCC scores into students’ grades and to use the test as a high stakes graduation requirement as early as next year. This month, for example, notwithstanding the Commissioner’s comments, Cranston parents were advised that PARCC scores would be a graduation requirement for the Class of 2020.
The confusion and mixed messages are generating anxiety among some parents and students similar to what occurred with PARCC’s predecessor, the NECAP. Today’s open records requests to school districts – filed by the ACLU of Rhode Island with the support of more than a half-dozen other organizations – are designed to determine which school districts have discussed using PARCC before 2021 as a graduation requirement or a grading tool, and to publicize the information to parents who may be perplexed by the conflicting messages being sent by RIDE and who wish to object to the premature use of the test results in such a manner.
Cranston parent and Parents Across RI (PARI) Advisory Committee member Debbie Flitman said today: “RIDE officials are misleading parents and students about the use of the PARCC assessments as a graduation requirement. I recently attended a meeting where RIDE officials told participants that PARCC testing is not a graduation requirement for the classes of 2016-2020. Based on this information, I was under the impression that this was a statewide directive. Confusion set in when I attended a Class of 2020 Orientation at Cranston High School West, where students and parents were told PARCC testing is a graduation requirement. When I pushed officials further, I learned that RIDE regulations allow school districts to use PARCC testing as a graduation requirement if they so choose. Why isn’t RIDE being upfront with this information at their meetings?”
Rick Richards, a former employee in the Department of Education’s office of testing, stated: “With school districts free to use or not use PARCC results to punish students, it will matter more than ever where you live. This approach has the potential of deepening disadvantages already embedded in the state’s educational system.”
ACLU of RI executive director Steven Brown said: “It is unfortunate that RIDE is giving school districts open-ended authority to use PARCC results so soon without any need to demonstrate that they have provided necessary support services to the students who will be adversely affected. This is very poor public policy and an abdication of responsibility on RIDE’s part. It is particularly unfortunate that we, rather than RIDE, must find out exactly what is going on across the state.”
Tracy Ramos from Parents Across RI, said: “Parents and students deserve clear information about the use of PARCC tests. The Commissioner’s recent comments indicate that schools shouldn’t be focused on test scores. This request will help clarify for parents what’s really happening in our districts.”
Under the Access to Public Records Act, school districts have 10 business days to respond to the request. The organizations joining the ACLU in support of the request for the documents included RITELL, Young Voices, Providence Student Union, RI Disability Law Center, Coalition to Defend Public Education, Parents Across RI, Youth Pride Inc, Tides Family Services.
A copy of the open records request is available here: http://riaclu.org/images/uploads/PARCC_Open_Records_Request_022416.pdf
]]>
The law seems quite clear when RIGL 11-47-60 (a) states that, “No person shall have in his or her possession any kind of firearm or other weapons on school grounds.” But there is a curious exception. Under RIGL 11-47-11 it is stated that a person with a concealed carry permit (CCP) may carry their weapon “everywhere.” Presumably, this means schools.
Which law takes precedence?
Attorney Julia Wyman with the Rhode Island Coalition Against Gun Violence (RICAGV) asked the Rhode Island Attorney General’s office and the Rhode Island Department of Education for clarification, but neither party could “figure out which law prevails,” she said.
The Department of Education has no regulatory authority, and therefore does not have the power to decide on this issue. As a result, legislation is going to be introduced to the General Assembly this year that seeks to clear up any ambiguity in the law, banning weapons from schools, even for those with a CCP.
As it stands now, anyone with a concealed carry permit may bring weapons into schools.
Rhode Island is one of only 18 states that allow guns to be brought in schools, according to a report by NBC News last year. Most of the 18 states on the list require that school officials give permission to bring the weapons into the schools, leaving Rhode Island one of only 5 states in which people may bring guns into schools without the knowledge of police or school officials.
The danger is obvious. In September of last year a teacher in Utah shot herself in the leg when her weapon discharged in class. In Idaho a “state university instructor was wounded in the foot after a concealed handgun in the person’s pocket discharged during a chemistry lab session with students in the room.” In each case, say news reports, the teachers had concealed carry permits.
Though some may argue that since Newtown, some teachers should be armed in the event that children need to be protected from intruders, depending on randomly armed, untrained teachers with CCPs is not a policy. Good policy needs to be vetted and debated so that the full implications might be considered. Policies such as this need to be done right and can’t simply be instituted by taking advantage of defects in a law written decades ago.
The General Assembly has an opportunity to correct this oversight, and should do so this year.
The idea that Rhode Island’s government is good at picking business winners and losers is bankrupt—even setting aside 38 Studios. While cutting taxes and offering incentives may draw corporations, they flee when publicly funded freebies are withdrawn or lowballed by another state (see Bank of America, the “Superman” building, Metlife and CVS’s recent rumblings).
Here are three paradigms to transform our small state into a powerful commerce engine.
Environment is our advantage
Landscape is our natural resource, and it draws tourism. It’s taken 40 years to fix much of the industrial pollution. Putting the DEM’s environmental permitting in the hands of business interests is like asking the fox to watch the henhouse. Give DEM and local governments the ability and resources to maintain and improve our children’s environment.
Additionally, public transportation systems are crucial to 21st century viability. Borrowing money to fund road construction is insufficient. We must replace RIPTA’s funding formula so that bus, trolley and future light rail services can expand to meet growing demand, save energy and reduce CO2 emissions.
Invest in small, innovative and exportable
Providence isn’t just the Creative Capitol; the entire State of Rhode Island is an innovation magnet. Many of our artisans are small independent businesses that don’t show up on the economic radar.
More energy can be directed to encouraging, supporting and streamlining small and micro businesses, diversifying our portfolio.
At the same time, a new “Commerce Concierge” can be created to serve as a single point of contact to navigate the rocky waters of permitting and regulation, and then report back on roadblocks with proposed fixes.
Finally, promoting our “brand” as an international arts center will increase income at home as we export premium-designed work and draw tourists who will watch us create.
Improve public education, smartly
No educated person wants to send their child to a bad school. Not everyone can pay for private schools.
Instead of resisting the fact that we have so many school districts, let’s leverage it. Give local districts the power and the funding to choose how to best improve themselves. All schools need advanced tracks and most schools need supportive tracks. While standardized testing has identified flaws, it is not a panacea for correction. Allow teachers to adjust classes to suit the needs and abilities of their students. We also need to accept that growing up in poverty undermines education, and experiment with innovation to give everyone the opportunity to learn and succeed.
“Hey Mr. Buffet! I just heard about a beautiful place that’s filled with creative energy and has great schools… It’s called Rhode Island.”
]]>
Barry Hinckley might think the polls predicting his political demise are flawed, but according to Occam’s Razor – the theory that the simplest reason is probably the correct one – no conspiracy theory or professional blunder needs to have occurred in order to explain his poor performance among likely voters.
The simplest theory as to why poll respondents didn’t give Hinckley very high marks is because his ideas are out of step with what Rhode Islanders want.
He’s a supporter of Paul Ryan’s draconian budget proposal, which would bleed Medicare dry and privatize social security.
And if that isn’t out-of-step enough for you, consider his recent statement on WJAR’s Sunday morning News Conference show that he “would abolish the Department of Education.”
Rhode Islanders don’t want that to happen!
The state gets about $230 million a year in federal funds from the Department of Education, or about 12 percent of its overall education dollars, according to Elliot Krieger, a spokesman for the state Department of Education. Both Providence and Central Falls get about 20 percent of their public education budgets from the federal government, he added.
“Federal funds pay for many initiatives, most notably Title I (aid to high-poverty schools and districts), Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (funds for students with disabilities, in both public and nonpublic schools), and school nutrition programs (some of which comes from the Dept. of Agriculture),” Krieger said in an email.
Elimination of the Department of Education would be a disaster, though some of Hinckley’s disinterested out-of-state donors who don’t care what happens to Rhode Island might not mind if our children don’t have access to good schools.
And, it should be pointed out, that Barry Hinckley is well within his rights to run for Senate under the mantle of representing the elite rather than the Ocean State.
But he’s applying faulty reasoning when he suggests polls depicting his unpopularity are indicative of anything other than exactly that. Indeed, logical practically dictates that someone who espouses such views wouldn’t poll well here, where we place a high value on retirement security, medical care for the elderly and a quality public education for our kids.
]]>Do charter schools have to teach all kids in the community equally? As they find them, as they are? This blog post from Wait, What in Connecticut, looking at the enrollment data of several charter schools, including Achievement First schools, argues no.
Perhaps most disturbing of all is the fact that despite Connecticut’s urban areas having significant numbers of students coming from non-English speaking homes, charter schools have somehow managed to create learning environments in which virtually NONE OF THE STUDENTS who come from non-English speaking households end up in their schools.
As educators and policy makers know, one of the most significant challenges to educational achievement is language barriers particularly a problem when students take their homework (which is written in English) home to non-English speaking households. Greater parental engagement in their children’s education is hard enough, but when the students are learning in a language that is not spoken at home it makes it virtually impossible to generate significant parental involvement.
In Bridgeport 40% of the students go home to a non-English speaking home. That percentage increases to 44.7% in Hartford and in New Haven the percent of students coming from non-English speaking homes is 28.6%
In Connecticut, charter schools are required to ensure equal access to their schools. Efforts must be made to recruit students from all racial and ethnic backgrounds and admission tests can’t be used. In fact, entrance decisions must include a blind lottery system. So that said, compare the percentage of students from non-English speaking homes with the numbers the charter school have reported to the State Department of Education:
School (% students from non-English speaking homes)
Bridgeport Public Schools (40%)
Achievement First – Bridgeport Academy (0.6%)
The Bridge Academy (14.9%)
New Beginnings (0%)
Park City Prep (0%)
HartfordPublic Schools (44.7% )
Achievement First – Hartford (0%)
Jumoke (0%)
New HavenPublic Schools (28.6%)
Achievement First – Amistad (0%)
Achievement First – Elm City Prep (0%)
Common Ground School (4.6%)
Highville Charter (0%)
The data is certainly unsettling. If Connecticut’s publically funded charter schools are supposed to be equally accessible to all and up to 4 in 10 students from those areas come from non-English speaking households then it is pretty unbelievable and completely unconscionable that almost no charter school students come from non-English speaking households.This follows along the lines of scholarly reports that have looked at whether charter schools are recreating the conditions of segregation. As the LA Times reported:
The trend toward segregation was especially notable for African American students. Nationally, 70% of black charter students attend schools where at least 90% of students are minorities. That’s double the figure for traditional public schools. The typical black charter-school student attends a campus where nearly three in four students also are black, researchers with the Civil Rights Project at UCLA said Thursday.
The other researchers also focused on economic segregation, looking at private companies that manage schools, in most cases charters. The enrollments at most of these campuses exacerbated income extremes, they concluded. Charters tended to serve higher-income students or lower-income students. Charters also were likely to serve fewer disabled students and fewer English learners.Because nothing says Progressive like Segregationist policies!