s*5
2 楼
刚刚收到一封Email。大家可能会有兴趣。
--------------------
RE: Possible Changes to No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)
FYI - This just in from my colleague, Greg LaMore at the Ottawa County
Intermediate School District in Holland, Michigan. I am rushing this out to
all of you because the impact could be huge on curriculum and high stakes
testing issues if these changes are made.
NCLB no more? The Senate Drafts its Own ESEA
Its looks like the much maligned title of the nation’s largest and most
comprehensive education law “No Child Left Behind” might soon be gone, and
along with it many of that law’s most controversial components. Last week,
the Senate Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee voted 15-7 to pass
NCLB’s replacement bill, named the Elementary and Secondary Education
Amendments Act out of Committee and to the floor.
Committee Fireworks
Agreement did not come easily, however, most notably because of disagreement
from the junior Senator from Kentucky, Rand Paul. Senator Paul filed the
most amendments of anyone to the bill – 74, and two hours into the first
day of debate, he shut down the proceeding invoking a technical Senate rule.
Debate continued the next day, and by mid morning, Senator Paul reached an
agreement with the Committee’s leadership to allow the Committee to move
forward. Basically, he withdrew all but 7 of his Amendments and the
Committee agreed to hold a hearing on ESEA before the bill went to the floor.
Overview
So what is in the new bill? Well, it eliminates Adequate Yearly Progress (
AYP) and thus also eliminates the need for states to meet certain ever
increasing yearly performance targets, also known as Annual Measurable
Objectives (AMO’s). Instead, every state must demonstrate its schools are
making “continuous improvement.” The definition of continuous improvement
is left up to the state. States will still have to administer assessments to
students in grades 3-8 and once between grades 10-12. States will also
still have to disaggregate the data by subgroup, one of which must be
students with disabilities.
While 95% of schools will no longer be under federal scrutiny or subject to
federal consequences, the bottom 5% of schools will continue to face
sanctions. Namely, parents will retain the right to move their students from
these schools and place them in better performing ones, and low performing
schools will have to adopt an improvement model –one of which the state may
design and implement, if the Secretary of Education approves it.
Testing and HQT
CEC and its members worked with many coalition partners throughout the last
year, but especially in the last 2 weeks, to shape the bill and ensure it
appropriately addressed the needs of children and youth with disabilities,
those with gifts and talents and the professionals who serve them. You can
read CEC's thoughts on the bill here. Two main issues of debate included
testing of students with disabilities and highly qualified provisions for
special education teachers.
As for testing, Senator Isakson introduced an amendment, which CEC along
with several other groups including the National Association of State
Directors of Special Education (NASDSE), and the National School Board
Association (NSBA) opposed. This amendment would have allowed states to
offer alternate and modified assessments to any number of students with
disabilities. While CEC recognizes and calls for assessments that are
appropriate for students with disabilities and allow them to demonstrate
what they know, states have had difficulty designing systems for modified
assessments and have done so at great cost. Indeed, only 3 of these tests
have been approved by the U.S. Department of Education, despite millions of
dollars spent. Moreover, the Committee’s bill already allowed states to
administer an alternate assessment aligned to alternate content and
achievement standards for any student with significant cognitive
disabilities.
This is in line with current practice throughout the nation. All but a few
states are participating in the Race to the Top Assessment consortia, which
are designing new assessments that include formative and summative features,
computer adaptive elements and are based on the common core standards –
now adopted by 34 states. These assessments will be available in the 2014
school year.
Highly Qualified Teachers
There was also much debate about the de-emphasis of NCLB’s definition of
Highly Qualified Teachers (HQT). CEC supported two amendments sponsored by
Senator Sanders (I-VT) which would have added provisions ensuring that any
teacher who entered the profession through an alternative route to
certification program must be supervised by an experienced teacher and
offered support until fully certified. These amendments failed however, and
thus current NCLB HQT provisions remain. Unfortunately, these requirements
failed. HQT remains but is lessened somewhat by a definition which provides
greater latitude for states. Highly Qualified requirements and how these
impact special education were the subject of much debate, however, CEC will
continue to monitor this and ensure the Committee is fully informed about
the needs of special educators as the bill moves to the floor.
Gifted
CEC was also pleased that an amendment which --would continue support for
the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, specifically
continue research activities at the Institute for Education Sciences (IES)
focused on the gifted and talented and administer demonstration grants
through IES focusing on elementary and secondary programs for the gifted and
talented – Passed! This was introduced by Senators Blumenthal (D-CT),
Mikulski (D-MD) and Casey (D-PA). CEC and its partner the National
Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) have been trying for some while to
increase federal support for gifted and talented education, specifically
through the introduction of the TALENT Act. While CEC was upset that this
bill did not more broadly include the provisions of the TALENT Act, the
preservation of the strong components of the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and
Talented program is essential for moving the ball forward on gifted and
talented education in this nation and CEC will continue to seek support for
this provision as the bill moves through Congress.
What happens next?
The next thing that will happen is that the Senate HELP Committee will hold
a hearing on November 8, to comply with the agreement struck with Senator
Paul. Then, the bill will have to move to the Floor for a full vote by the
Senate. Timing will be an issue however as the Super committee is set to
release its recommendations on November 23. Still, Senators Alexander and
Harkin both have stated they would like to have a floor vote before the
December holidays.
To read more about CEC’s thoughts on this bill – see CEC's letter on the
bipartisan managers amendment here.
Greg La More
Assist. Supt. for Special Needs
Ottawa Area ISD
877-702-8600 x 4030
g*****[email protected]
--------------------
RE: Possible Changes to No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)
FYI - This just in from my colleague, Greg LaMore at the Ottawa County
Intermediate School District in Holland, Michigan. I am rushing this out to
all of you because the impact could be huge on curriculum and high stakes
testing issues if these changes are made.
NCLB no more? The Senate Drafts its Own ESEA
Its looks like the much maligned title of the nation’s largest and most
comprehensive education law “No Child Left Behind” might soon be gone, and
along with it many of that law’s most controversial components. Last week,
the Senate Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee voted 15-7 to pass
NCLB’s replacement bill, named the Elementary and Secondary Education
Amendments Act out of Committee and to the floor.
Committee Fireworks
Agreement did not come easily, however, most notably because of disagreement
from the junior Senator from Kentucky, Rand Paul. Senator Paul filed the
most amendments of anyone to the bill – 74, and two hours into the first
day of debate, he shut down the proceeding invoking a technical Senate rule.
Debate continued the next day, and by mid morning, Senator Paul reached an
agreement with the Committee’s leadership to allow the Committee to move
forward. Basically, he withdrew all but 7 of his Amendments and the
Committee agreed to hold a hearing on ESEA before the bill went to the floor.
Overview
So what is in the new bill? Well, it eliminates Adequate Yearly Progress (
AYP) and thus also eliminates the need for states to meet certain ever
increasing yearly performance targets, also known as Annual Measurable
Objectives (AMO’s). Instead, every state must demonstrate its schools are
making “continuous improvement.” The definition of continuous improvement
is left up to the state. States will still have to administer assessments to
students in grades 3-8 and once between grades 10-12. States will also
still have to disaggregate the data by subgroup, one of which must be
students with disabilities.
While 95% of schools will no longer be under federal scrutiny or subject to
federal consequences, the bottom 5% of schools will continue to face
sanctions. Namely, parents will retain the right to move their students from
these schools and place them in better performing ones, and low performing
schools will have to adopt an improvement model –one of which the state may
design and implement, if the Secretary of Education approves it.
Testing and HQT
CEC and its members worked with many coalition partners throughout the last
year, but especially in the last 2 weeks, to shape the bill and ensure it
appropriately addressed the needs of children and youth with disabilities,
those with gifts and talents and the professionals who serve them. You can
read CEC's thoughts on the bill here. Two main issues of debate included
testing of students with disabilities and highly qualified provisions for
special education teachers.
As for testing, Senator Isakson introduced an amendment, which CEC along
with several other groups including the National Association of State
Directors of Special Education (NASDSE), and the National School Board
Association (NSBA) opposed. This amendment would have allowed states to
offer alternate and modified assessments to any number of students with
disabilities. While CEC recognizes and calls for assessments that are
appropriate for students with disabilities and allow them to demonstrate
what they know, states have had difficulty designing systems for modified
assessments and have done so at great cost. Indeed, only 3 of these tests
have been approved by the U.S. Department of Education, despite millions of
dollars spent. Moreover, the Committee’s bill already allowed states to
administer an alternate assessment aligned to alternate content and
achievement standards for any student with significant cognitive
disabilities.
This is in line with current practice throughout the nation. All but a few
states are participating in the Race to the Top Assessment consortia, which
are designing new assessments that include formative and summative features,
computer adaptive elements and are based on the common core standards –
now adopted by 34 states. These assessments will be available in the 2014
school year.
Highly Qualified Teachers
There was also much debate about the de-emphasis of NCLB’s definition of
Highly Qualified Teachers (HQT). CEC supported two amendments sponsored by
Senator Sanders (I-VT) which would have added provisions ensuring that any
teacher who entered the profession through an alternative route to
certification program must be supervised by an experienced teacher and
offered support until fully certified. These amendments failed however, and
thus current NCLB HQT provisions remain. Unfortunately, these requirements
failed. HQT remains but is lessened somewhat by a definition which provides
greater latitude for states. Highly Qualified requirements and how these
impact special education were the subject of much debate, however, CEC will
continue to monitor this and ensure the Committee is fully informed about
the needs of special educators as the bill moves to the floor.
Gifted
CEC was also pleased that an amendment which --would continue support for
the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, specifically
continue research activities at the Institute for Education Sciences (IES)
focused on the gifted and talented and administer demonstration grants
through IES focusing on elementary and secondary programs for the gifted and
talented – Passed! This was introduced by Senators Blumenthal (D-CT),
Mikulski (D-MD) and Casey (D-PA). CEC and its partner the National
Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) have been trying for some while to
increase federal support for gifted and talented education, specifically
through the introduction of the TALENT Act. While CEC was upset that this
bill did not more broadly include the provisions of the TALENT Act, the
preservation of the strong components of the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and
Talented program is essential for moving the ball forward on gifted and
talented education in this nation and CEC will continue to seek support for
this provision as the bill moves through Congress.
What happens next?
The next thing that will happen is that the Senate HELP Committee will hold
a hearing on November 8, to comply with the agreement struck with Senator
Paul. Then, the bill will have to move to the Floor for a full vote by the
Senate. Timing will be an issue however as the Super committee is set to
release its recommendations on November 23. Still, Senators Alexander and
Harkin both have stated they would like to have a floor vote before the
December holidays.
To read more about CEC’s thoughts on this bill – see CEC's letter on the
bipartisan managers amendment here.
Greg La More
Assist. Supt. for Special Needs
Ottawa Area ISD
877-702-8600 x 4030
g*****[email protected]
B*g
3 楼
问是不是clear，只说FP readable and processed，肿么办？
另外电话服务时间是EST 8am-8pm
另外电话服务时间是EST 8am-8pm
d*f
4 楼
【 以下文字转载自 Physics 讨论区 】
发信人: tyhj (tyhj), 信区: Physics
标 题: 和REFEREE 讨论转行, 得到如下回复， 是啥意思
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Mon Oct 4 18:11:21 2010, 美东)
Finally, the paper ends with a question to the referee, asking for an
opinion
concerning going to a graduate school to study FINANCE. This question,
I guess,
is not supposed to appear in the printed version, so I suggest to
remove it from
the next version of the paper. In response to this question, I have to
say that I do
not have enough information, based only on the paper I read, to give
any advice.
Perhaps a better person to ask for advice would be her postdoctoral
mentor. Nevertheless, if the author would like some more feedback
from me, I would suggest to her to write a separate letter and ask the
editor to
forward it to me. In this case, with the editor's permission, I will be
happy to
send my reply to the journal so that it could be anonymously forwarded
back to
the author.
发信人: tyhj (tyhj), 信区: Physics
标 题: 和REFEREE 讨论转行, 得到如下回复， 是啥意思
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Mon Oct 4 18:11:21 2010, 美东)
Finally, the paper ends with a question to the referee, asking for an
opinion
concerning going to a graduate school to study FINANCE. This question,
I guess,
is not supposed to appear in the printed version, so I suggest to
remove it from
the next version of the paper. In response to this question, I have to
say that I do
not have enough information, based only on the paper I read, to give
any advice.
Perhaps a better person to ask for advice would be her postdoctoral
mentor. Nevertheless, if the author would like some more feedback
from me, I would suggest to her to write a separate letter and ask the
editor to
forward it to me. In this case, with the editor's permission, I will be
happy to
send my reply to the journal so that it could be anonymously forwarded
back to
the author.
f*u
5 楼
发包子呗
是FBI的电话？
是FBI的电话？
i*2
6 楼
你这个帖子,
让PD比你早一年,
RD比你早俩礼拜,
但还木有FPnotice的,
情何以堪哪情何以堪!
让PD比你早一年,
RD比你早俩礼拜,
但还木有FPnotice的,
情何以堪哪情何以堪!
f*u
7 楼
你PD是07年的？
【在 i****2 的大作中提到】
: 你这个帖子,
: 让PD比你早一年,
: RD比你早俩礼拜,
: 但还木有FPnotice的,
: 情何以堪哪情何以堪!
【在 i****2 的大作中提到】
: 你这个帖子,
: 让PD比你早一年,
: RD比你早俩礼拜,
: 但还木有FPnotice的,
: 情何以堪哪情何以堪!
t*r
8 楼
这就可以了。
i*2
9 楼
i knew beijing has 2009 pd.
me, 2008.
【在 f*********u 的大作中提到】
: 你PD是07年的？
me, 2008.
【在 f*********u 的大作中提到】
: 你PD是07年的？
B*g
10 楼
这到底是过了没过？304-625-5590
【在 f*********u 的大作中提到】
: 发包子呗
: 是FBI的电话？
【在 f*********u 的大作中提到】
: 发包子呗
: 是FBI的电话？
u*o
11 楼
打完指纹还要打电话？
B*g
12 楼
是说过了吗？
【在 t**********r 的大作中提到】
: 这就可以了。
【在 t**********r 的大作中提到】
: 这就可以了。
B*g
13 楼
没事打着玩儿呗
【在 u**o 的大作中提到】
: 打完指纹还要打电话？
【在 u**o 的大作中提到】
: 打完指纹还要打电话？
s*n
14 楼
no. it is only for FP. you still need to go through background check. You
can't check the status on that.
【在 B*****g 的大作中提到】
: 没事打着玩儿呗
can't check the status on that.
【在 B*****g 的大作中提到】
: 没事打着玩儿呗
a*a
15 楼
恭喜，发包子。
m*a
16 楼
我也打了那个电话，就是过了的意思。
包子。
包子。
b*u
17 楼
包子。
[发表自未名空间手机版 - m.mitbbs.com]
[发表自未名空间手机版 - m.mitbbs.com]
b*i
18 楼
号码是多少？为什么要打电话？
【在 B*****g 的大作中提到】
: 问是不是clear，只说FP readable and processed，肿么办？
: 另外电话服务时间是EST 8am-8pm
【在 B*****g 的大作中提到】
: 问是不是clear，只说FP readable and processed，肿么办？
: 另外电话服务时间是EST 8am-8pm
相关阅读