Many of us in the Arts are faced with difficult financial situations that are very disheartening. As the Director of Fine Arts for the Hamilton City Schools, it would be easy to be swept away with negativity as the district cut millions of dollars from the budget in the last year. However, I have come to the realization that these are bittersweet times in Hamilton and I need to focus more on the sweet than on the bitter.
Let’s start with the bitter… This past year my district of over 9,400 students cut a third of the elementary Music teachers and a fourth of the elementary Art teachers. My administrative position has been cut in half and I now teach elementary Strings in the afternoons. Salaries for all certified staff are frozen for three years. All supplemental contracts have been reduced. In addition, departmental and building budgets have been slashed.
Now for the sweet… I work for a School Board and Administration that is very supportive of the Arts. Through creative scheduling, we still have elementary Art and Music, including Band and Orchestra programs. All eight of our elementary buildings are brand new with dedicated instructional areas designed specifically for, and by, the Fine Arts staff. (No more “Art-on-a-Cart”!) Our Band, Orchestra, Choral (including three show choirs), Drama, Visual Art, and Dance programs are growing larger and stronger due to a very dedicated staff. I would say that’s not bad for a district with over 70% of students qualifying for Free/Reduced Lunch!
My hope is that we will soon be seeing the light at the end of proverbial tunnel, so we can continue to make the Arts a strong foundation for all students. Until then, let’s focus on the positive, including the difference we make in students’ lives.
Director of Fine Arts, Hamilton City Schools
Ohio Alliance for Arts Education Board Member
129th Ohio General Assembly: The Ohio House and Senate will not hold sessions this week. Some committees are meeting, but not the House and Senate education committees.
Redistricting Referendum Can Go Forward: The Ohio Supreme Court issued a 7-0 decision on October 14, 2011 allowing the coalition Ohioans for Fair Districts to place a referendum on the ballot regarding the new congressional redistricting plan approved by the Ohio General Assembly on September 26, 2011 (HB319- Huffman). Supporters of the new redistricting plan believed that the law could not be challenge, because it included an appropriation, making it not subject to a referendum. The Court disagreed, and stated that the appropriation included in the law was not for current expenses of state government or state institutions. The decision is available.
Early Childhood Education: Governor Kasich issued an executive order on October 14, 2011 establishing the Early Education and Development Innovation Committee to offer advice on ways to improve kindergarten readiness. The committee will consist of five members appointed by Governor Kasich and include two members from the business community; one member from philanthropy; a member with a background in research; and a member with experience in children’s health care.
The executive order also establishes the position of Early Education and Development Officer, who will work with the governor and his Office of 21st Century Education on a kindergarten readiness assessment process.
The Early Childhood Development Officer will work with state agencies to -define and measure kindergarten readiness, and develop and implement a comprehensive kindergarten readiness assessment process that determines the extent to which children entering school are ready for kindergarten. The results will be reported publicly and used as the basis for early childhood system improvements.
- break-down silos that exist between agencies and programs to ensure that all government support to high-need children is coordinated, streamlined, and effective.
- improve system performance.
The executive order is available.
ODE/BOR Alignment Project: The Ohio Department of Education and the Board of Regents will host beginning this week regional meetings to present information about the Ohio’s High School and Higher Education Alignment Project. The purpose of the project is to bring together high school and higher education faculty to align K-12 and higher education expectations and develop a seamless transition for students into postsecondary education.
Over the next three years, participants will have the opportunity to develop and implement regional partnerships among high schools and higher education institutions that will:
- Align curriculum in English and mathematics to positively impact remediation rates
- Align teacher preparation programs to meet Ohio’s new rigorous content standards, and
- Provide on-going data exchange through partnerships between high schools and higher education institutions to promote greater student mobility and college success.
More information about this project is available.
October 18, 2011: Jefferson High School (Jefferson) 9:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
October 24, 2011: Eastridge Professional Development Center (Cleveland-Valley View), 9-11:30 a.m. or 1-3:30 p.m.
October 17, 2011: Mid-Ohio Education Service Center (Mansfield), 1-3:30 p.m.
October 18, 2011: Ohio Center for Autism and Low Incidence (Columbus), 9-11:30 a.m. or 1-3:30 p.m.
October 17, 2011: Ohio University Regional Campus (Zanesville), 1-3:30 p.m.
October 18, 2011: University of Rio Grande (Rio Grande), 9-11:30 a.m.
or 1-3:30 p.m.
October 17, 2011: Wapakoneta High School (Wapakoneta), 9-11:30 a.m.
October 18, 2011: Northwest Ohio Educational Service Center (Archbold), 1-3:30 p.m.
October 17, 2011: Receptions Banquet Center (Cincinnati-Fairfield), 9-11:30 a.m.
October 18, 2011: The Mandalay (Dayton)
News from Washington, D.C.
Senate ESEA Proposal Released: Senator Tom Harkin, chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee and Ranking Member of the Committee Senator Mike Enzi released on October 11, 2011 a bipartisan draft of proposed legislation to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), referred to as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). The mark-up of the bill is scheduled for this week.
The proposed bill revamps NCLB in a number of critical areas (listed below) and codifies some of President Obama’s education reform initiatives, including Race to Top, Investing in Innovation, and Promise Neighborhood programs.
The following is a summary of the components included in the proposed legislation. The summary was prepared from the draft bill, available here and articles available from Education Week (see here) and an analysis of the bill by the National Association for Music Education, available here.
Accountability: The proposal eliminates the Adequate Yearly Progress targets for 2013-2014. A new accountability system would be created and require states to ensure that students were making “continuous improvement”. The proposal establishes the definition of Adequate Student Growth as a rate of growth that allows a student to be on-track for college and career readiness in three years, or one year’s worth of progress. Achievement targets for groups and subgroups of students would be eliminated. States would be encouraged, but not required to use individual student growth as an indicator in their accountability systems. States would be required to send their accountability plans to the U.S. DOE for approval.
Data: An accountability report card would be issued for states, districts, and schools. The report would include data about student achievement, students’ progress towards English language proficiency, the percentage of students not tested or tested using alternative assessments, graduation rates, college enrollment, and college remediation rates. Statewide NAEP results in 4th and 8th grade would also be included so that state results can be compared to national measures of academic achievement.
Standards: To eliminate remediation, states would be required to adopt academic standards in reading and math that are aligned with college and career-ready expectations.
Assessments: States would be required to test students in reading and math annually from 3rd-8th grade and once in high school, but states could choose to use one summative assessment or a series of tests throughout the school year. Assessment results for students would still be disaggregated among student subgroups, but used to measure individual student achievement and individual student growth.
School Improvement: States would be required to identify 5 percent of high schools and 5 percent of other schools (which will be known as Achievement Gap Schools) with the largest performance gaps between student subgroups, and must improve these schools within three years. States that fail to improve these schools could lose a competitive edge when applying for grant funding such as Race to the Top. Requirements to provide students in low achieving schools a choice to move to another school or receive tutoring are not included in the proposal.
States would also be required to identify 5 percent of high schools and 5 percent of all other schools with low academic achievement or growth and low graduation rates. These schools would be known as Persistently Low-Achieving Schools and would be required to implement more intensive interventions similar to the four options recommended in the School Improvement Grant program. One new option has been added: Under the restart option, schools could choose to convert to a charter school or become a magnet school. Schools that opt for the “whole school” turnaround option would have to partner with an organization that has successfully improved schools.
The top 5 percent of high performing schools, such as “Blue Ribbon Schools”, would receive awards, such as more autonomy, funding flexibility, and additional funding.
The proposal includes a new competitive grant program, Pathways to College, to improve low-achieving high schools and middle schools that are not identified as Persistently Low-Achieving or Achievement Gap Schools.
Teachers: States would be required to use student assessment results, classroom observations, and other factors to determine teacher and principal effectiveness, and implement an evaluation system for teachers and principals within five years. The evaluation systems must designate at least four levels of teacher effectiveness, but would not be required to use student growth measures.
States would be required to report the distribution of teachers based on their effectiveness, and link teacher effectiveness back to teacher preparation programs. States would also have to show that effective teachers were equitably distributed throughout the state among schools with high poverty and high numbers of minority students.
School Finance: Districts would be required to show that state and local per pupil expenditures, including teacher salaries, in Title I schools is no less than state and local per pupil expenditures in non-Title I schools.
Arts Education: The arts remain a core academic subject under the Harkin-Enzi proposal, but Arts in Education is incorporated into Title IV of the bill, which eliminates a designated line-item for arts education. States are allowed to develop and implement standards in all subject areas, including the arts. Emphasis is placed on a well-rounded education, but how this provision would be implemented to increase student access to arts education is not clear.
More information will be available about the proposed bill this week.
Texas School Districts File School Funding Lawsuit: According to an article in the San Antonio Express News entitled “Schools Sue State Over Funding” by Gary Scharrer (October 12, 2011) the Texas Taxpayer & Student Fairness Coalition, representing 150 Texas school districts, parents, and taxpayers, filed a lawsuit in the Travis County District Court on October 10, 2011 against the state of Texas. The lawsuit alleges that the state’s school funding system is unfair, inefficient, and unconstitutional. The coalition cites state lawmakers’ indifference to education and cutting more than $4 billion for schools in the last state budget. Another group of school districts is also planning to file a lawsuit. More information about the lawsuit is available or visit http://www.equitycenter.org/
News from the ODE:
Changes for Ohio Teacher of the Year: A new timeline and application have been developed for the Ohio Teacher of the Year (OTOY) program, and will be available on the OTOY website in January 2012. The OTOY application form is being revised to include additional measures aligned with current teaching standards. The OTOY selection process Web page has details here.
ODE Will Request NCLB Waiver: The Ohio Department of Education has submitted a letter of intent to apply for a waiver from certain provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act from the U.S. Department of Education. According to Superintendent of Public Instruction Stan Heffner, the ODE will file a formal application by February 2012 after consulting with stakeholders.
According to an article in Education Week (“Majority of States Say They’ll Seek Waivers Under NCLB by Michele McNeil, October 14, 2011), 17 states are applying for waivers in November 2011, and 20 states will apply by February 2012.
Update on the Ohio Teacher Evaluation Pilot Project: The Ohio Department of Education reported last week that 139 community schools and school districts have agreed to participate in a pilot project to implement a teacher evaluation system based on the Ohio Teacher Evaluation Framework. The State Board of Education approved an intent to adopt resolution regarding the framework on October 10, 2011.
Ohio educators have been engaged in the development of new teacher and principal evaluation systems for several years. The Educator Standards Board and the State Board of Education developed educator standards for teachers and principals in 2005, and later adopted standards for superintendents and treasurers. The Ohio Educator Standards Board was directed in 2009 (HB1 of the Strickland administration) to recommend a model teacher/principal evaluation system, and the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System (OTES) was created.
Recent legislation (129-HB 153) requires the State Board of Education to adopt a framework for evaluating teachers by December 31, 2011, and mandates that boards of education in consultation with teachers, adopt a standards-based teacher evaluation policy that aligns to the framework for the evaluation of teachers developed under section 3319.112 ORC by the July 1, 2013. Districts and community schools participating in Ohio’s Race to the Top grant will also implement teacher and principal evaluation systems that are aligned to the state model.
The Ohio Teacher Evaluation System (OTES) is designed to assess the performance of Ohio teachers in the areas of goal-setting, which would make-up 10 percent of a teacher’s evaluation; assessment of teacher performance (30 percent); communication and professional development (10 percent); and student growth measures (50 percent of a teacher’s evaluation). Teachers would receive a summative score that would correlate to a rating of accomplished, proficient, developing, or ineffective.
The schools and school districts participating in the training include 17 charter schools, three Educational Service Centers, two vocational schools, nine exempted village school districts, 40 city school districts (including Cincinnati, Columbus, Akron, Toledo), and 64 local schools.
Participating schools can choose their own model, either the OTES model components or a local evaluation system aligned to the OTES framework, and may choose to conduct those pilots with or without locally developed student growth measures.
According to HB153, 50 percent of a teacher’s evaluation must be based on student growth measures, but the ODE is continuing to work on that part of the model. Schools participating in the pilot project have the option of including their own measures as they test out the model.
More information about the Ohio Teacher Evaluation Framework and Ohio Teacher Evaluation Model is available.
State Board of Education: The State Board of Education, Debe Terhar president, held a business meeting/retreat on October 9-11, 2011 at the Ohio School for the Deaf, 500 Morse Road, Columbus, OH.
SUNDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2011
The Executive, Achievement, and Capacity committees, and Select Committee on Urban Education met on October 9, 2011.
The Executive Committee, chaired by Deb Terhar, received a presentation on student achievement and Ohio’s rating system for school districts (the Local Report Card) by Board member Tom Gunlock. According to Mr. Gunlock, the presentation was made available by the Ohio Association for Gifted Children.
The presentation shows that although student achievement has improved in Ohio, Ohio’s accountability system often masks the actual achievement of students for some schools/districts, and as a result does not provide the public with the facts to ensure that all students in the state achieve at the highest levels.
For example, the number of school districts that are rated excellent/excellent with distinction has increased to 352, but some of these districts have achieved this status as a result of certain adjustments in the rating system rather than actual student achievement. When the ratings of some excellent school districts are examined more closely 53 excellent school districts met expected value added growth in all grades 4-8 in both math and reading, but 41 did not meet expected value added growth. There were 47 school districts in which value added growth in math fell below expectations and 36 school districts in which value added growth fell below expectations in reading.
The presentation also shows that when compared with other measures of student achievement such as ACT scores, number of honors diplomas awarded, college remediation rates, or number of gifted students served, the students in some excellent/excellent with distinction school districts are not achieving at the highest levels.
ACT scores range from 1-36 and the average statewide ACT score in Ohio was 21.8. However, ACT scores for school districts rated excellent with distinction ranged from 20-26; ACT scores for excellent districts ranged from 18-26; and ACT scores for effective school districts ranged from 16-23.
Under 10 percent of students in excellent school districts received an honors diploma and for the class of 2009 43 percent of students in excellent/excellent with distinction were required to take remedial classes in college.
Between 1991-1999 opportunities for gifted students in schools was consistent, and then services for gifted students decreased so that in 2009-10 19 percent of identified gifted students were being served. From 2007-2010 gifted services were reduced in 348 school districts, and 52 school districts do not offer gifted services.
220 school districts rated excellent serve less than 20 percent of gifted students; 85 districts rated excellent provided no services for gifted students; and 205 excellent school districts decreased services for gifted students in the past three years.
According to Mr. Gunlock, Ohio should “…create an accountability system that is accurate, is fair, and accounts for all students; utilize metrics that are less easily manipulated, set high expectations, include measures that go beyond mere proficiency; eliminate disincentives for providing appropriate learning experiences for students who are above proficient; make information about ratings understandable and useful to parents and the general public…”
Members of the Executive Committee approved a motion to assign this issue to the Achievement Committee to review, and further requested that the information be reviewed by the Ohio Department of Education staff, and include information about charter schools.
The Capacity committee, chaired by Tom Gunlock, addressed the following:
- Amended and approved a resolution of intent to adopt Rules 3301-101-10-13 for the Jon Peterson Special Education Scholarship program. An amendment was made to change the word “encouraged” to “shall” regarding the involvement of private providers in the evaluation of Individual Education Plans. The rules also reflect the suggestions made in September to require providers to demonstrate fiscal soundness, modeled after the autism scholarship program, and require services to be located and provided in Ohio.
- Amended and approved a resolution of intent to adopt Rules 3301-44-03 for Post Secondary Enrollment Options. The rules were amended to allow students to participate in more than one college at a time.
- Received a presentation about standards for drop-out recovery schools from Joni Huffman, Director of the Office of Community Schools. 129-HB153 requires the State Board of Education to adopt standards for dropout recovery schools by July 1, 2012. Dropout recovery schools are defined as any community school that enrolls more than half of their students ages 16-21 in a dropout recovery program. There are 350 community schools in Ohio and 74 community schools are considered dropout recovery schools. More than half of these schools (53 percent) are rated in academic emergency and watch, and are exempt from closure, because they have a waiver as a dropout recovery school. These schools serve 15,000 students.
The presentation reviewed the history of the development of standards for dropout recovery schools. The State Board of Education approved “Standards for Dropout Recovery Schools” in 2008, but these standards were never approved by the General Assembly. These standards were based on three measures: completion; academic growth; and sustained student enrollment.
A proposed timeline for adopting the new standards was presented to the committee. The Office of Community Schools will be working with stakeholders to develop recommendations for standards, and return to the Capacity Committee in January 2012 to present a draft. The recommendations will be presented to the full board in March 2012, and adopted in April 2012. The timeline will enable the General Assembly to consider them before its June 2012 recess.
- Approved a resolution of intent to adopt the Praxis II tests and qualifying scores for persons seeking a license in audiology.
- Approved a resolution to adopt the Ohio Teacher Evaluation Framework.
The presentation included information about the number of school districts and community schools (139) that have agreed to participate in the pilot program to implement the framework and a teacher evaluation model, and provide feedback to improve the model.
The State Board of Education is required to adopt a teacher evaluation framework by December 31, 2011, and all local boards of education are required to adopt a teacher evaluation policy by July 1, 2013. (But, the policy does not have to go into effect for non Race to the Top Schools until after the current contract with teachers expires.) This requirement does not apply to community schools that are not participating in Race to the Top.
The policy must include an annual review of teachers based on four levels of achievement (accomplished, proficient, developing, and ineffective), and must be used to inform decisions about teachers. (If a teacher is rated accomplished, he/she does not have to be rated every year.)
The proposed Ohio Teacher Evaluation Framework is composed of the following factors that will determine the teacher’s rating:
Student Growth – 50 percent (The ODE continues to work on the details of this component.) Teacher Performance – 30 percent Communication – 10 percent Goal Setting – 10 percent Summative Rating (The ODE continues to work on the details of this component.)
The ODE is currently developing the student growth measure component of the framework, but has identified the following details so far:
- Teachers with value-added growth measures available. These are teachers who are teaching subject matter that is currently assessed and has a growth measure. ODE is working on expanding the grades for which value-added data is available so that more teachers will fall into the first category.
- Teachers teaching subjects in which the ODE can identify a list of student assessments that are approved to be used as a growth measure. This list will be available before next summer so that school districts can review the list to see if the assessments on the list are appropriate for them.
- All other teachers. Most teachers fit into this category. This means that measuring student growth will need to be done at the district level, but school districts will need guidance, so that there is consistency across the state.
Timeline: The State Board of Education is required to adopt the Ohio Teacher Evaluation Framework by December 31, 2011. From February – May 2012 the ODE will share information with districts through webinars and by June 2012 provide full training for participating districts in the pilot.
The Achievement Committee, chaired by Angela Bennett -Tabled until November 2011 a resolution of intent to adopt a Physical Education and Wellness Measure for the 2012-13 Local Report Card required through 128- SB210, Healthy Choices. The measure won’t affect the rating on the report card.
Approved a resolution of intent to amend Rule 3301-41-01, Ohio High School Equivalency Diploma. The rules were amended to align with HB153.
Approved a resolution of intent to adopt a performance indicator for gifted students. The State Board of Education is required, upon the recommendation of the superintendent, to establish a performance indicator reflecting the level of services provided to, and the performance of, students identified as gifted under Chapter 3324 of the Revised Code by December 31, 2011. The indicator will be used for information purposes only, and will not be factored into the overall rating of a school district. (Community schools are not included, because they are not required in law to identify or serve gifted students. However, some community schools offer programs for gifted students and have a special focus on gifted students.)
HB153 also directs the Ohio Department of Education to create a new system for ranking schools and school districts, including a ranking based on the performance of, and opportunities provided to, gifted students. The ODE is working to develop a management tool to make available more accountability data on gifted students and services and a summative gifted indicator that will convey the quality and performance of gifted education.
Received a presentation from Shasheen Phillips, Senior Executive Director, Center for Curriculum and Assessment, about the implementation of the Ohio Common Core Standards and the status of professional development for teachers.
Received a presentation from Superintendent Heffner about re-evaluating Ohio’s Accountability System.
Select Committee on Urban Education chaired by Joe Farmer -Discussed and prepared for the urban panel at the OSBA 2011 Capital Conference, which will be held in November 2011.
MONDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2011
On Monday, October 10, 2011 the State Board convened its business meeting at 8:15 AM and called for an executive session. Following the executive session the State Board considered for approval the report and recommendations of the Superintendent of Public Instruction; considered new business, and adjourned. The resolutions that the State Board considered are included below.
The State Board of Education then held a retreat in which members discussed the following questions:
- What is the policy role of the State Board among the Governor, Legislature, and local school boards?
- What two or three policy priorities will the State Board of Education focus upon for the next 12 months?
- How will the State Board of Education hold the Ohio Department of Education accountable through periodic evaluations of the effectiveness of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction?
Superintendent of Public Instruction Stan Heffner opened the discussion by reviewing the questions and challenging Board members to distinguish what the State Board has to do; how the work of the State Board is accomplished; and why the work should be done, or the policy purpose of the work. He encouraged the Board to put more emphasis on the why, and identify two or three topics that the State Board could focus on to significantly change education in Ohio. For example, currently the State Board is working on college and career readiness; common core standards; educator evaluations; the role of technology in education systems; and a new accountability system. And, Ohio’s education system, which consists of traditional public schools, charter schools, voucher programs, STEM schools, and career-technical schools, lacks a coherent and articulate vision for quality. What is the leadership role of the Board regarding these policy issues?
Board members then continued with group discussion about these issues and developed recommendations.
Resolutions considered by the State Board of Education at their October 2011 Meeting
#4 Referred back to the Capacity Committee: A Resolution of Intent to Amend Rules 3301-11-01, 3301-11-02, 3301-11-03 AND 3301-11-07 of the Administrative Code regarding the Educational Choice Scholarship Pilot Program. (VOLUME 2, PAGE 11)
#5 Referred back to the Capacity Committee: A Resolution of Intent to Amend Rules 3301-24-18 of the Administrative Code Entitled Resident Educator License. (VOLUME 2, PAGE 21)
#6 Approved a Resolution of Intent to Amend Rule 3301-41-01 of the Administrative Code entitled Standard for Issuing an Ohio High School Equivalence Diploma (VOLUME 2, PAGE 29)
#7 Approved a Resolution of Intent to Amend Rules 3301-44-03 of the Administrative Code entitled Post Secondary Enrollment Options. (VOLUME 2, PAGE 33)
#8 Approved a Resolution of Intent to Adopt Rules 3301-101-01 TO
3301-101-13 of the Administrative Code regarding the Jon Peterson Special Needs Scholarship Program. (VOLUME 2, PAGE 39)
#9 Approved a Resolution of Intent to Rescind Rules 3301-104-01 through 3301-104-03 of the Administrative Code regarding Expenditures for Pupil Instruction for Internet – or – Computer-based Community Schools (VOLUME 2, PAGE 65)
#10 Referred back to the Achievement Committee: A Resolution of Intent to Adopt A Physical Education and Wellness Measure for the
2012-2013 Local Report Card an Beyond. (VOLUME 2, PAGE 71)
#11 Approved a Resolution of Intent to Adopt The Ohio Teacher Evaluation System (OTES) Framework (VOLUME 2, PAGE 75) Amended the resolution to request testimony from the those schools and districts participating in the pilot study; require the Capacity Committee to re-evaluate the OTES in the spring of 2012 and participate in the development of the 50 percent student growth measures.
#14 Approved a Resolution to Rescind and Adopt Rule 3301-24-04 of the Administrative Code entitled Entry Year. (VOLUME 3, PAGE 1)
#15 Approved a Motion to Appoint Cynthia Johnson as Superintendent for the Ohio State School for the Blind.
#16 Approved a Motion to Appoint William J. Zelei as the Associate Superintendent for the Division of Accountability and Quality Schools. This Division will oversee school choice, career technical education, the transformation of the Local Report Card and the new ranking system, school improvement, and the new focus on continuous improvement for all schools. The Superintendent, Deputy Superintendent, and two new Associate Superintendents will form the policy team of the ODE.
#17 Approved a Resolution to delegate to the Superintendent of Public Instruction the responsibility to appoint a hearing examiner to act as the State Board of Education’s designee to conduct community school enrollment payment hearings. This is not a 119 hearing, but an informal hearing. The State Board would then receive the recommendation for the Board to decide.
#18 Approved a Resolution to accept the recommendation not to appeal the decision of the Court of Common Pleas in the Mansfield City School District Board of Education vs. the State Board of Education.
#19 New Business: The President of the Board, Debe Terhar, responded to a request made last month for information about the statutory obligations of the State Board of Education regarding the Ohio State School for the Deaf and the Ohio State School for the Blind. President Terhar will work with Superintendent Heffner to inform the State Board of Education about the issues confronting the state schools for the deaf and blind on a regular basis.
#20 Approved a motion to table indefinitely a request that the State Board of Education direct Board Leadership and the Superintendent of Public Instruction to enter into discussions with the director of the National Association of State Boards of Education about options available to reduce the cost of membership, and report back to the State Board of Education by November 15, 2011.
NCCAS Requests Candidates for Writing Teams: The National Coalition for Core Arts Standards (NCCAS) is seeking teams of 10 content experts in the areas of dance, media/digital arts, music, theatre, and visual arts to help develop the next generation of voluntary Arts Standards.
NCCAS is committed to developing the next generation standards that will build on the foundation created by the 1994 document (and the 2005 dance standards), support the 21st-century needs of students and teachers, help ensure that all students are college and career ready, and affirm the place of arts education in a balanced core curriculum.
Each discipline writing team will include a balance of members across specific areas of expertise, geography, diversity and experience.
The application process will close October 27, 2011 at midnight eastern time. No applications will be accepted after that date.
Writers will be chosen by each of the content discipline organizations from the pool of applicants and contacted directly by NCCAS.
For more information about NCCAS and the arts standards project go to http://nccas.wikispaces.com/
NAfME Call for Proposals: The National Association for Music Education Council of Music Program Leaders (NCMPL) is seeking proposals for the Music Program Leaders Academy at the 2012 Music Education Week “Leadership for Music Education 2.0”. The 2012 Music Education Week events will take place on June 22-26, 2012 in Baltimore, MD at the Baltimore Convention Center and the Baltimore Marriott Inner Harbor at Camden Yards, with the exception of Kennedy Center concerts and the Public Policy Institute in Washington, DC.
Members of the NCMPL are invited to submit proposals by November 18, 2011 in the following areas:
- Professional learning communities
- Formative assessment
- Growth measures for student music achievement
- Professional development partnerships
- Increased student empowerment
- Revised arts standards
Proposals must be sent electronically to email@example.com
If accepted, presenters must register for and attend the conference, and must be members of NAfME at the time of application and dates of the conference.
More details, including criteria for selection are available.