Listed on the Federal Register for Friday, August 23, 2013
Title I-Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged
A Proposed Rule by the Education Department
The Secretary proposes to amend the regulations governing Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA) (the “Title I regulations”), to no longer authorize a State, in satisfying ESEA accountability requirements, to define modified academic achievement standards and develop alternate assessments based on those modified academic achievement standards. These proposed amendments would permit, as a transitional measure and for a limited period of time, States that administered alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards in the 2012-13 school year to continue to administer alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards and include the results in adequate yearly progress (AYP) calculations, subject to limitations on the number of proficient scores that may be counted for AYP purposes. These proposed amendments also would apply to accountability determinations made by eligible States that receive “ESEA flexibility” and have requested a waiver of making AYP determinations.
The comment period for this proposal ends October 7, 2012.
It seems that those states that did not immediately jump on the Race to the Top bandwagon in order to secure funding for their failing LEA’s are being given even more leeway in adhering to federal education requirements.
This is yet another reason for New York State residents to demand that the legislature repeal State law regarding the institution and instruction of Common Core curriculum.
As reported by Diane Ravitch, the Gesell Institute of Human Development Statement on the Common Core Standards Initiative March 18, 2010 states, “The core standards being proposed by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers are off the mark for our youngest learners. . . The proposed standards for Kindergarten through grade 3 are inappropriate and unrealistic. Policy must be set based on hard data and not on unrealistic goals surrounding test scores.”
When leaders in education enact policy that is contrary to our children’s educational health, it is time to elect more knowledgeable leaders.
Join the Movement to Save Our Children!