tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post4119706418944669690..comments2024-03-28T23:38:22.511-07:00Comments on Seattle Schools Community Forum: Banda asks Duncan to allow SPS WaiverMelissa Westbrookhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17179994245880629080noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-53276176531203727052014-07-10T10:52:46.309-07:002014-07-10T10:52:46.309-07:00Charlie, I wouldn't call the teacher evaluatio...Charlie, I wouldn't call the teacher evaluation issue a "political issue." The DOE wrongly believes basing teacher evaluation on student test scores will increase student achievement. But that's a policy issue, not a political one.<br /><br />And let's look at Banda's points --- (1) The USDOE has already given Washington the authority, even without the waiver, to provide interventions on "Priority" and "Focus" schools. In other words, there is no need for a district waiver on this account.<br /><br />(2) There is no evidence that basing teacher/principal evaluation on student test scores improves student achievement. Besides, the district can do this without a waiver anyway.<br /><br />(3) As has been pointed out on this blog ad nauseum, the district rarely even utilizes its Title I set-aside and are able to allocate those funds into the district general fund. In other words, the 3,000 students to which he refers will continue to receive their support regardless of a district waiver. Why can't the district use funds they waste on their own "political issues" to support these 3,000 students, even without Title I set-aside funds?<br /><br />(4) The "school choice" issue is essentially the same as (3) above. The district, under NCLB (without a waiver), has to set aside a portion of their Title I funds for outside supplemental services and transportation to non-failing schools. Again, as has been pointed out, the district rarely uses these funds for this purpose. In other words, the district can provide support in neighborhood schools without the waiver.<br /><br />I would like to see the district not have to play a shell game with their Title I funds and not have to send the letters to parents regarding "failing" schools. I hope they get the waiver. But, the waiver is not necessary for the district to do the good work it claims it is doing in Banda's letter to the DOE. With that said, there is little to no chance the district is getting this waiver.<br /><br />--- swkAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-24610928162978402172014-07-10T10:24:15.297-07:002014-07-10T10:24:15.297-07:00The Department of Education allowed the waiver so ...The Department of Education allowed the waiver so students would get a more effective intervention than the one mandated by the law. They pull the waiver over some political issue, forcing the students into a less effective intervention. How does this serve students? This is a clear case of the DOE - let's face it, Arne Duncan - putting politics over students.Charlie Mashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17173903762962067277noreply@blogger.com