Georgia's ESSA Draft Plan
Just last night a Tweet popped up on my phone from the Principal's Center at GSU which caught my eye. Georgia is working on a new ESSA plan for the state. I was immediately intrigued, as we have been discussing this in our curriculum class, and began doing a little researching of my own.
To begin, the Georgia Department of Education provides very clear comparisons of the current and proposed draft on this site: http://www.gadoe.org/External-Affairs-and-Policy/communications/Pages/ESSA.aspx
However, once I started reading and trying to derive the meaning, I began questioning if I shouldn't research further from sources other than those which are proposing the plan. Of course, I understand that all perspectives and feedback on the plan may be tainted with agendas from advocacy groups, potential impact on individual school districts and the political climate. My goal was to look for multiple sources which have published feedback but I was only able to find one.
https://www.advocacyinstitute.org/ESSA/StatePlanAnalysis/GA.FirstDraftESSAPlan.NDSC.AI.Analysis-6-21-17.pdf
Within this document, there are many critiques of the plan. As I would expect, because the document is published by a special education advocacy group, multiple critiques are centered around the changes in subgroup accountability, as well as the language used for inclusive teaching and educating teachers on inclusive practices. I found it interesting that the National Down Syndrome Conference and the National Advocacy Institute which published the document pointed out that only one person from a disability advocacy group served on the board which drafted the plan. Additionally, the number of students needed within a subgroup for scores to be considered has changed within the draft. 40 students would be required to participate in assessments before there is an impact on the achievement scores of the school. These advocacy groups contend that this could lead to schools discouraging students from taking state assessments, and instead allow alternative assessments which are harder to standardize and use as measurement for student growth as they are often individualized. A third critique is that proficiency rates have been adjusted to decrease expectations for subgroups. They argue this should not occur and subgroups should be held accountable for the same achievement rates. Another interesting point they raise is that targeted schools can get off the TSI list if they show growth in subgroups instead of no longer meeting the entrance criteria. They argue this would allow schools to exit without oversight which could lead to subgroups not meeting criteria, instead floundering in growth measurements and never achieving the standards others are held accountable for.
As I said, I realize this critique comes from an advocacy group and may be tainted but I think it's worth exploring to gain a different perspective from that which is presented by the Georgia DOE. I'm interested to hear feedback as it rolls in and see how the draft is changed to address the concerns of the people. What are your thoughts? There are many changes, most of which would allow more flexibility in measurement and CCRPI. Chime in, future leaders.....this new ESSA plan will be the one under which we lead.
To begin, the Georgia Department of Education provides very clear comparisons of the current and proposed draft on this site: http://www.gadoe.org/External-Affairs-and-Policy/communications/Pages/ESSA.aspx
However, once I started reading and trying to derive the meaning, I began questioning if I shouldn't research further from sources other than those which are proposing the plan. Of course, I understand that all perspectives and feedback on the plan may be tainted with agendas from advocacy groups, potential impact on individual school districts and the political climate. My goal was to look for multiple sources which have published feedback but I was only able to find one.
https://www.advocacyinstitute.org/ESSA/StatePlanAnalysis/GA.FirstDraftESSAPlan.NDSC.AI.Analysis-6-21-17.pdf
Within this document, there are many critiques of the plan. As I would expect, because the document is published by a special education advocacy group, multiple critiques are centered around the changes in subgroup accountability, as well as the language used for inclusive teaching and educating teachers on inclusive practices. I found it interesting that the National Down Syndrome Conference and the National Advocacy Institute which published the document pointed out that only one person from a disability advocacy group served on the board which drafted the plan. Additionally, the number of students needed within a subgroup for scores to be considered has changed within the draft. 40 students would be required to participate in assessments before there is an impact on the achievement scores of the school. These advocacy groups contend that this could lead to schools discouraging students from taking state assessments, and instead allow alternative assessments which are harder to standardize and use as measurement for student growth as they are often individualized. A third critique is that proficiency rates have been adjusted to decrease expectations for subgroups. They argue this should not occur and subgroups should be held accountable for the same achievement rates. Another interesting point they raise is that targeted schools can get off the TSI list if they show growth in subgroups instead of no longer meeting the entrance criteria. They argue this would allow schools to exit without oversight which could lead to subgroups not meeting criteria, instead floundering in growth measurements and never achieving the standards others are held accountable for.
As I said, I realize this critique comes from an advocacy group and may be tainted but I think it's worth exploring to gain a different perspective from that which is presented by the Georgia DOE. I'm interested to hear feedback as it rolls in and see how the draft is changed to address the concerns of the people. What are your thoughts? There are many changes, most of which would allow more flexibility in measurement and CCRPI. Chime in, future leaders.....this new ESSA plan will be the one under which we lead.
Comments
Post a Comment