Saturday, July 10, 2010
NEA Delegates Representative Assembly 2010
The delegates at the NEA 2010 Representative Assembly listens to Diane Ravitch's Speech. Ravitch is a beacon of hope. An activists and public education change agent. As public change agents we have to stand up for better working conditions, and for the freedom to collaborate with our colleagues and to be autonomous within our own classrooms. http://www.nea.org/grants/40241.htm#
Friday, June 18, 2010
Common Core Standards New Development
California established its current academic content standards in English language arts and math in 1997. A new initiative is raising the question of whether it is time for the state to re-examine these standards.
What is the Common Core State Standards Initiative?
The Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI) is an effort to establish a set of K–12 academic content standards in English language arts and math that multiple states can adopt. Content standards are expectations of what students should know and be able to do. (For example, California's current math standards call for fourth graders to understand that rectangles that have the same perimeter can have different areas.) If a state adopts the Common Core standards, it is expected to adopt them verbatim, and they are to comprise at least 85% of a state's standards in English and math.
The initiative is led by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State Schools Officers. The two organizations have brought together scores of curriculum specialists and content experts from all over the country (and a few people from other countries) to work on the standards.
The initiative appears to be supported by grants from foundations, plus funds from the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices. A list of specific sources of funding for this initiative is not yet available from the Common Core State Standards Initiative website.
A total of 48 states (all but Texas and Alaska), plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands have signed on as participants in the process--but participation does not necessarily mean that a state will adopt the standards.
What problem is it trying to solve?
Some see the current variety of content standards among states as a "crazy patchwork," with many states having learning expectations that lack rigor, specificity, and focus. Supporters see the CCSSI as an opportunity for states to establish a common set of rich, challenging, specific, high-priority learning expectations. The intent is to create education systems throughout the country that will help all students graduate from high school ready for college or a career and make the United States more competitive in the global economy.
Proponents of the initiative acknowledge that standards alone will not accomplish that goal. They hope the new standards will form a basis upon which states would then build systems of aligned curriculum, assessments, teacher training and preparation, and teacher and student supports.
Some people are downright skeptical of the Common Core initiative. As evidenced by previous efforts to establish common standards, forging a consensus around what content to include is difficult. Furthermore, some question the wisdom of standardization when students vary widely in their needs, goals, and abilities.
How might the initiative affect California?
Now that the Common Core has been finalized, California, like all other states, can choose to adopt it as the centerpiece of content standards in English language arts (ELA) and math. In January 2010, California enacted legislation requiring the creation of a commission of 21 members, a majority of whom were to be K–12 teachers, to develop proposed standards in ELA and math, with the Common Core making up at least 85% of the standards. The commission has until July 15, 2010 to put forward its proposal, and the State Board of Education (SBE) has until August 2, 2010 to accept or reject the proposal. This deadline conforms to a target date expressed in the Race to the Top (RTT), a federal competitive grant program that promotes reform in several areas, including standards and assessments. (Adopting common standards represents 20 points out of 500 in the RTT application process, and the maximum potential grant for California is about $700 million over four years. To put that amount in context, California's total funding for K–12 education in 2009-10 alone was $66 billion.)
If the board accepts the commission's proposal, the superintendent of public instruction and SBE must present to the governor and Legislature a plan and schedule for implementing the Common Core. If, on the other hand, the board rejects the proposal, California would continue with its current content standards.
What factors will the State Board of Education and California's elected leaders consider?
In deciding whether to accept the commission's proposal, the board will need to consider several questions:
Are the Common Core standards better than California's existing, highly-rated standards, and based on what evidence?
In particular, how does the Common Core treat Algebra I, which California encourages be taught in eighth grade? And how does the Common Core treat Algebra II, which California students must successfully complete to be eligible for the state's public universities?
Should the state endorse one set of expectations for all high school graduates, as the Common Core calls for, or continue having varying sets of requirements depending on students' postsecondary plans?
Can California afford to implement the standards and how would it do so? Would the state actually realize cost savings from implementing common standards and assessments, as Common Core supporters claim?
Can California afford not to participate if the vast majority of other states implement these common standards?
What is the Common Core State Standards Initiative?
The Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI) is an effort to establish a set of K–12 academic content standards in English language arts and math that multiple states can adopt. Content standards are expectations of what students should know and be able to do. (For example, California's current math standards call for fourth graders to understand that rectangles that have the same perimeter can have different areas.) If a state adopts the Common Core standards, it is expected to adopt them verbatim, and they are to comprise at least 85% of a state's standards in English and math.
The initiative is led by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State Schools Officers. The two organizations have brought together scores of curriculum specialists and content experts from all over the country (and a few people from other countries) to work on the standards.
The initiative appears to be supported by grants from foundations, plus funds from the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices. A list of specific sources of funding for this initiative is not yet available from the Common Core State Standards Initiative website.
A total of 48 states (all but Texas and Alaska), plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands have signed on as participants in the process--but participation does not necessarily mean that a state will adopt the standards.
What problem is it trying to solve?
Some see the current variety of content standards among states as a "crazy patchwork," with many states having learning expectations that lack rigor, specificity, and focus. Supporters see the CCSSI as an opportunity for states to establish a common set of rich, challenging, specific, high-priority learning expectations. The intent is to create education systems throughout the country that will help all students graduate from high school ready for college or a career and make the United States more competitive in the global economy.
Proponents of the initiative acknowledge that standards alone will not accomplish that goal. They hope the new standards will form a basis upon which states would then build systems of aligned curriculum, assessments, teacher training and preparation, and teacher and student supports.
Some people are downright skeptical of the Common Core initiative. As evidenced by previous efforts to establish common standards, forging a consensus around what content to include is difficult. Furthermore, some question the wisdom of standardization when students vary widely in their needs, goals, and abilities.
How might the initiative affect California?
Now that the Common Core has been finalized, California, like all other states, can choose to adopt it as the centerpiece of content standards in English language arts (ELA) and math. In January 2010, California enacted legislation requiring the creation of a commission of 21 members, a majority of whom were to be K–12 teachers, to develop proposed standards in ELA and math, with the Common Core making up at least 85% of the standards. The commission has until July 15, 2010 to put forward its proposal, and the State Board of Education (SBE) has until August 2, 2010 to accept or reject the proposal. This deadline conforms to a target date expressed in the Race to the Top (RTT), a federal competitive grant program that promotes reform in several areas, including standards and assessments. (Adopting common standards represents 20 points out of 500 in the RTT application process, and the maximum potential grant for California is about $700 million over four years. To put that amount in context, California's total funding for K–12 education in 2009-10 alone was $66 billion.)
If the board accepts the commission's proposal, the superintendent of public instruction and SBE must present to the governor and Legislature a plan and schedule for implementing the Common Core. If, on the other hand, the board rejects the proposal, California would continue with its current content standards.
What factors will the State Board of Education and California's elected leaders consider?
In deciding whether to accept the commission's proposal, the board will need to consider several questions:
Are the Common Core standards better than California's existing, highly-rated standards, and based on what evidence?
In particular, how does the Common Core treat Algebra I, which California encourages be taught in eighth grade? And how does the Common Core treat Algebra II, which California students must successfully complete to be eligible for the state's public universities?
Should the state endorse one set of expectations for all high school graduates, as the Common Core calls for, or continue having varying sets of requirements depending on students' postsecondary plans?
Can California afford to implement the standards and how would it do so? Would the state actually realize cost savings from implementing common standards and assessments, as Common Core supporters claim?
Can California afford not to participate if the vast majority of other states implement these common standards?
Saturday, March 20, 2010
OEA Leader Gerson On Jerry Brown Support For Privatization & Union Busting
OEA Bargaining Team member provides information and history about charters in Oakland School District. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1QqePaO-DA
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
ON MARCH 4, Start the DAY for Students
STAND UP FOR SCHOOLS AND CALIFORNIA'S FUTURE
The UTR Leadership has encouraged teachers to Stand Up for Schools on March 4th in El Cerrito & Hercules.
What about the heart of this school district, Richmond & San Pablo?
STAND UP FOR CHANGE ON MARCH 4TH
Join teachers from Stege, Grant, Dover, Chavez, Lake, Coronado, Riverside, Washington, King, Verde, Peres, Lincoln, Bayview, Helms MS, De Jean MS, Gompers HS, Kennedy HS, and Richmond HS
6:30-7:30 AM Cutting & San Pablo Avenue, Richmond
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
OAKLAND TEACHERS VOTE ONE-DAY-STRIKE
Oakland teachers vote for one-day strike-Vote To Back March 4 Action Strike For Public Educationhttp://www.ibabuzz.com/education/2010/01/20/oakland-teachers-vote-for-one-day-strike/
Oakland teachers vote for one-day strike
By Katy MurphyWednesday, January 20th, 2010 at 8:56 pm in OEA, OUSD central office, teachers, union contract.
Hundreds of Oakland teachers union members who turned out to a meeting tonight voted to authorize its leadership to call a strike, once it’s legal.
The vote: 726 yes, 45 no.
The Oakland Education Association represents about 2,800 employees, including teachers, counselors and librarians, according to its Web site. If you round up to 800 participants (and if the 2,800 figure is accurate), voter participation comes to about 29 percent.
“It’s a real clear message to the bargaining team that they have the support of the membership,” said union President Betty Olson-Jones.
As I wrote in an earlier blog post, this doesn’t mean there will be a strike, and it could be weeks before the union can take such an action. But Olson-Jones has said she’s not optimistic the district will offer teachers a raise; the district’s chief financial officer has projected a deficit of nearly $40 million for 2010-11.
Next week, we learn more about how the new superintendent plans to make those cuts.
http://oaklandea.com/2010/01/21/oakland-teachers-reject-district-offer-authorize-strike/
Oakland Teachers Reject District Offer, Authorize Strike!
Thanks to all who came out to this afternoon’s OEA membership meeting! Despite the rain, we had a turnout of nearly 800 members, who responded enthusiastically to the information provided by the Bargaining Team and President and voted accordingly. Final tallies of votes taken:
Motion #1: “The OEA Membership confirms the position of the OEA Bargaining Team to reject the last OUSD contract proposal.” By voice vote, the vote was unanimous in favor of rejecting the District’s last offer.
Motion #2: “The OEA Membership authorizes the OEA Executive Board or Rep Council to call work actions up to and including a one day strike to resolve the current contract dispute. A membership meeting will be held following any strike to consider further actions.”
Yes: 726 No: 45 Total: 771 94% Yes
Motion #3: “The OEA Membership supports action(s) in solidarity with the March 4, 2010 Statewide Action in Support of Public Education.”
Yes: 689 No: 51 Abstentions: 31 89% Yes
=
Oakland teachers vote for one-day strike
By Katy MurphyWednesday, January 20th, 2010 at 8:56 pm in OEA, OUSD central office, teachers, union contract.
Hundreds of Oakland teachers union members who turned out to a meeting tonight voted to authorize its leadership to call a strike, once it’s legal.
The vote: 726 yes, 45 no.
The Oakland Education Association represents about 2,800 employees, including teachers, counselors and librarians, according to its Web site. If you round up to 800 participants (and if the 2,800 figure is accurate), voter participation comes to about 29 percent.
“It’s a real clear message to the bargaining team that they have the support of the membership,” said union President Betty Olson-Jones.
As I wrote in an earlier blog post, this doesn’t mean there will be a strike, and it could be weeks before the union can take such an action. But Olson-Jones has said she’s not optimistic the district will offer teachers a raise; the district’s chief financial officer has projected a deficit of nearly $40 million for 2010-11.
Next week, we learn more about how the new superintendent plans to make those cuts.
http://oaklandea.com/2010/01/21/oakland-teachers-reject-district-offer-authorize-strike/
Oakland Teachers Reject District Offer, Authorize Strike!
Thanks to all who came out to this afternoon’s OEA membership meeting! Despite the rain, we had a turnout of nearly 800 members, who responded enthusiastically to the information provided by the Bargaining Team and President and voted accordingly. Final tallies of votes taken:
Motion #1: “The OEA Membership confirms the position of the OEA Bargaining Team to reject the last OUSD contract proposal.” By voice vote, the vote was unanimous in favor of rejecting the District’s last offer.
Motion #2: “The OEA Membership authorizes the OEA Executive Board or Rep Council to call work actions up to and including a one day strike to resolve the current contract dispute. A membership meeting will be held following any strike to consider further actions.”
Yes: 726 No: 45 Total: 771 94% Yes
Motion #3: “The OEA Membership supports action(s) in solidarity with the March 4, 2010 Statewide Action in Support of Public Education.”
Yes: 689 No: 51 Abstentions: 31 89% Yes
=
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Richmond Education Forum
Richmond Education Forum
Defense Of Public Education and Lessons of Privatization
Defense Of Public Education and Lessons of Privatization
Tuesday January 12, 2010 7:00 PM
Richmond Public Library Community Room
325 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA
Public education faces a massive attack from layoffs of teachers, closure of entire schools, cutback on supplies and the drive to privatize entire schools districts as was
proposed by the CTA in Richmond. Panelists from the Oakland Education Association OEA, the United Teachers of Richmond and there will be a report
on the experiences of charters and privatization in the state including the Green Dot schools.
Panelists:
Mary Flanagan, UTR School Delegate
Diane Brown, UTR rank and filer
Eduardo Martinez, UTR rank and file
Craig Gordon, OEA Executive Board
Cecily Myart-Cruz, UTLA West Area Chair-NEA
Sponsored by
Progressive Teachers, United Teachers of Richmond
510-501-7347
http://progressiveteachersrichmond.blogspot.com/
United Public Workers For Action UPWA.info
(415)867-0628
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
