One to One vs Assessment

Two different mandates, two very different objectives!

Originally published June 12th, 2016 in the Citrus County Chronicle

Beginning in the 2014-2015 fiscal year, the State Legislature required that each district school board shall use at least 50 percent of the annual allocation for the purchase of digital or electronic instructional materials. It also specified that these could not be classroom sets but rather take home materials. This began the requirement for a one device to one student (known as “one-to-one”). It is important to understand that while the State provided an allocation of funds for the curriculum materials (digital textbooks), it did not provide funds for the devices that the materials would need to run on.

The primary purpose of one-to-one is for the delivery of digital interactive textbooks. Tablet type devices offer the most versatile single device for students as it combines a book-like experience, while also giving students note-taking abilities, Microsoft Office (And Apple iWork) suites of tools, internet access, and multimedia capturing features all in one portable device that students can carry from class to class and location to location. One of the industry’s most leading tablets for its cost effectiveness and ease of large scale deployment is the iPad. This device has been a leader in successful digital classroom transition from print to digital curriculum. This particular device is an easy-to-use device for both the student and the teacher. Since teachers are now also being asked become classroom technology specialists, they need a device that is easy-to-use and that performs well without having to be a computer technician.  In addition, the device is one that is most engaging for today’s students. Keep in mind that the digital textbook mandate has not come with any funding for the device.  While districts have been struggling to fund the one-to-one mandate and provide professional development for teachers to transition the ever- changing curriculum, the State Legislature has continued to push for more and more high stakes assessments (tests that both continue to be punitive to students in regards to promotion and teacher evaluations that are tied to salary increases). A major push with high stakes assessments has been transitioning to Computer Based Testing (CBT). The State has mandated CBT each year and have made it such a priority that they have even provided funding to each district for computer testing devices to ensure that districts comply. Because of how the law and rules were written by the State, this funding comes with restrictions and can only be used for devices that will expand the number of assessment testing devices at each school.

The trouble is that, due to security logistics, the device used for one-to-one cannot also be used for assessment testing. Why? This has nothing to do with the type of device (tablet vs. laptop) being used but because an assessment device—no matter what type—must be “sanitized” for testing. This means the device has to be set up with very limited functions and have many of the functions disabled. This process is completely contrary to the expectations and benefits of a one-to-one device where students’ textbooks are loaded onto the device and the student customizes their device to provide them with a personalized learning tool. Until the technology exists so that a student can take their one-to-one device directly into an assessment and put their device in a type of approved “testing mode,” their devices cannot be used for the over 85 days of testing required by the State. Essentially, the State has given us two separate mandates which require two separate technology devices.

Many districts are struggling with this. Because Citrus county was proactive in planning for the one-to-one mandate, we have recognized this (imposed) limitation and have been using existing traditional computers for high stakes assessment testing in the form of portable labs. This year the State significantly increased the number of testing devices required. This is a monumental task to address. However, because our district this year repurposed older teacher laptops that are no longer being used in the classroom into mobile testing labs, we have been able to meet the mandate without having to use additional funds. Many other districts in the state of Florida have had to make a difficult choice: either meet the one-to-one mandate for transitioning from print to digital curriculum or meet the State’s CBT assessment mandate where the results from the assessments are used for student promotions and teacher required evaluations that impact a teacher’s salary increases.  Many have chosen the latter.

Because of this, these districts are having to forgo what is best for students by focusing on the CBT State Assessments rather than ensuring they have the most relevant curriculum. This issue isn’t going away anytime soon. The State is adding on more and more assessments each year. Yes, there have been changes in legislation to say that local districts can choose a limited number of yearly assessments, but the State still has mandated that the data from those assessments are completed and tied to teacher evaluations. Therefore, the assessments are still mandated by the State even if the lawmakers try to distance themselves from them.

Citrus School District’s one-to-one initiative is recognized around the state and nation as a model for digital curriculum delivery.  Hundreds of our teachers are now experts in teaching using digital curriculum delivery.  The United States Department of Education released a publication highlighting Citrus County School’s one-to-one technology initiatives (http://sites.ed.gov/progress/2014/11/florida-county-uses-technology-to-engage-students-and-innovate-in-the-classroom). Our educators Dan Koch and Zac Leonard were awarded PBS LEAD LearningMedia Digital Innovator and PBS Digital Innovator for Florida.

Why has Citrus School District been one of the most successful districts in implementing one-to-one? Because we have understood that at the center of the digital transition is the teacher! The teacher is the facilitator; the teacher is the captain the steers the classroom’s learning. It is the teacher that sets the expectation and assists the student who is using these necessary tools to expand their learning world. With these digital tools our teachers have learned themselves that their classrooms have no boundaries. One moment students are reading classic literature, the next, they are virtually visiting locations around the world referenced in that story, and the next they are typing an essay and sending it through their devices to the teacher. The teacher is then able to grade it and return it back to the student—all through the device. By prioritizing funding assessment technology and virtually abandoning the funding of one-to-one classroom curriculum, the State lawmakers have shown that it is more interested in measuring outcome over providing critical career and college curriculum needs.

One must ask: Why? What could possibly motivate funding assessment over classroom instruction? This has been a continual theme in the recent educational reform movement by the State Legislature. Each time school districts, teachers, parents, and community members have asked or demanded that the legislators listen to them on these so called “educational reforms”, we are ignored. When do we as a people say enough is enough?

I urge voters to pay careful attention to those that have made these legislative decisions and then criticized the local leaders and local teachers that have worked so hard to achieve so much for our students. What can be done? There MUST be a change in thinking that the only way learning is measured or obtained is by these State Assessments.  If some of the greatest academic countries in the world rely on teacher–developed tests instead of a barrage of state or national assessments, why can’t we?

Comments Off on One to One vs Assessment
Filed under: Blog Posts

School Board’s agreement on Y pool will save lives

“It’s about water safety for kids for the next 25 years!”

At yesterday’s school board meeting the School Board discussed our future capital needs. I would like to thank the many members of the public who attended and gave such positive support of our schools and the school board’s directions.  At the meeting it was also mentioned that some in the community have a misunderstanding about the Citrus County School Board’s agreement with the YMCA of Citrus County’s in regards to its new swimming pool. I would like to clear up that misunderstanding now.

Last year the Citrus County School Board approved a twenty-five year agreement for use of the Y’s pool facility for a total cost of $325,000 to the School Board.  There are two parts to the 25 year agreement. First, the YMCA agreed to take over the School Board’s elementary schools’ water safety swim program. Second, the school district would have use of the facility during the fall high school swim season for one of their high schools and for high school swim meets.

The water safety program has been a vital program that the School Board has offered in our elementary schools. The Florida Heath Department states,  “Florida had the highest unintentional drowning rate in the nation for the 1–4 year old age group with a drowning rate of 7.54 per 100,000 population. Florida had the second highest drowning rate in the nation for the 1–14 year old age group”. The Florida Department of Children & Families latest data shows that Children Drowning is the number one known cause of death in children in Florida.  Unfortunately during tough budget times the School Board has had to consider suspending this critical program.  Partnering with the Y meant our students would be assured of this program for the next 25 years.  In addition, it meant that with this agreement the district (and taxpayer) would save the approximately $750,000 this water safety swim program would cost to fund over the next 25 years.  This is a net savings of approximately $425,000 to our general fund.

High school swim teams in Citrus county have struggled to find facilities and practice time for their swimmers. While public high schools in Florida typically include facilities for sports like football, baseball/softball, basketball, and volleyball, they usually do not include pools for swim teams on campus.  School districts often work with their local Parks and Recreation, YMCAs, and community club houses to use their pools for practices and/or meets.  These arrangements are beneficial to the school swim teams and to the taxpayers as the schools now get the use of a facility without the high cost of developing and maintaining them. Currently Citrus High School uses the Whispering Pines Pools in Inverness.  Crystal River and Lecanto High Schools have been sharing the Bicentennial Pool in Crystal River.  This means that those two schools have had to share a small six lane pool for both practices and meets.  Beginning in the fall of 2016 Lecanto High School will use the YMCA pool as their daily practice pool.

It was implied at yesterday’s meetings that this decision to partner with the YMCA was made to personally benefit my own children.  I want to make it clear that my children are part of a year round club swim team that practices and will continue to practice out of the Bicentennial Pool in Crystal River and that this swim team competes at meets around the state of Florida.  My son, who is a rising Senior at Crystal River High School, also swims for the CRHS swim team that also practices and will continue to practice out of the Bicentennial Pool in Crystal River.  My wife, children and myself are not members of the YMCA.

I am and will continue to be a person who supports water safety and competitive swimming in Citrus County and I am supportive of ANYONE who is interested in furthering that.   I strongly believe that age group swimming builds a strong foundation for a lifetime of good physical and mental health by teaching time management, self-discipline, and healthy fitness habits.  I also believe that this agreement by the CCSB and the YMCA was a wise decision for taxpayers and more importantly, it was right for kids.

If anyone has any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Comments Off on School Board’s agreement on Y pool will save lives
Filed under: Blog Posts

“May thanks to the Citrus Chronicle for first publishing this column on Sunday, May 1st, 2016.”

New Co-Located Schools Law gets an F

Accountability and grading of schools in Florida is not new, dating back to the late 1990’s.  What is are some of the new laws on how these grades are calculated.  In general, all schools funded by the State of Florida either receive a grade from an A to F, or a rating. Most elementary schools receive a grade based on student performance and improvement on tests in English Language Arts, mathematics, and science.  This grading formula becomes more complex at the middle school level where additional subjects are included, such as Civics.  Added to this calculation is students’ performance on high school level classes and career/technical/vocational tests that lead to Industry Certification.  The high school grades are the most complicated because it includes students’ outcomes and improvement on multiple subject areas, accelerated course test results (Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate, dual enrollment, Industry Certification, etc.), and graduation rate.

Alternative schools and schools for students with severe cognitive disabilities DO NOT receive a grade but rather a rating that uses a completely different set of criteria and formulas.  Improvement for these schools is defined with the following ratings; Commendable, Maintaining, and Unsatisfactory.  Citrus County School District has three school sites that fit this category; CREST School, Renaissance Center, and MYcroSchool (a charter school).  There are also unique situations where schools such as these may not receive any grade or rating due to ineligible students.

Now imagine you have two of these schools that operate out of one building. One school, the Renaissance Center, on one side of the building deals with students who could be expelled but instead are given the opportunity to continue their studies in this alternate setting in hopes of turning around their lives so that they may return to their original school. The other school, MYcroSchool, on the other side of the building takes students who are dropouts and helps them finish the courses they need in order to receive their diploma. Due to the nature of these two schools neither school receives a grade from the Florida Department of Education but would instead receive a rating.  Both of these schools occupy the same building at the Rodger Weaver Educational Complex in Lecanto and both are successfully fulfilling their intended purpose. However, thanks to new Florida law “Co-Located schools” [F.S. 1008.34 (3) (a) (3)], these two schools may be required to receive an F grade.

What is Florida’s “Co-Located schools” law?  This law refers to two schools that are located in the same building. This new Florida law states; “If a collocated school does not earn a school grade or school improvement rating for the performance of its students, the student performance data of all schools operating at the same facility must be aggregated to develop a school grade that will be assigned to all schools at that location.” Or more simply put, if two schools are located in the same building, each school will receive the lesser of the lowest grade possible for both schools; in this case, an “F”.  It appears the initial purpose of this law was to ensure that schools did not try to “hide” poorly performing students at traditional schools and thus avoid being graded as an “F” school.

Even though the Renaissance Center and the MYcroSchool are successfully performing their missions and helping students and due to their mission WOULD NOT have received a school grade, under this law these two schools could earn an “F” grade for no other reason that they are located in the same building.

If these two schools were not located side-by-side in the same building, they would NOT earn a combined rating that most likely would be an “F”. They would not need to receive any grade, they would receive a rating.

Why is this an issue? Because of this law and the resulting F grade, Citrus County schools will likely lose our status as a High-Performing School district by the Florida Department of Education.  In order to be a High-Performing district the law states the district may not have any “district-operated school that earns a grade of ‘F’”. For MYcroSchool the effect could be far more devastating as two years of an “F” grade would by law result in the charter school being automatically closed and unable to open another charter school in Florida.

Our district sought relief from the Florida Department of Education by noting that the law’s intended purpose was being misapplied to our situation. We also assumed that Citrus County Schools must not be the only district in the state that was facing this issue as it is common to co-locate schools and share common spaces because it can be a lower operational cost to do so. In fact Florida law [F.S. 1002.33 (18) (e)] requires that school districts offer any available space to charter schools. The State said that other districts resolved the situation by simply revising the address of one of the schools. At a recent State training for school districts, the State explained the process for modifying the address for this very purpose. So one would think this matter could be easily resolved. WRONG!

There is another Florida law that appears to contradict the remedy of simply changing a school address. It indicates that the schools must be separated, and that the opportunity for an official different parcel address does not match requirements outlined in the state’s Florida Inventory Of School Houses (FISH) User’s Manual. (Page 44 states, “A structure that has the same floors, ceiling, walls, and is not separated from another structure by an open air space is considered one building.”)

The Florida Department of Education and Commissioner Stewart has been diligently trying to work with our School District to find a legal remedy but at this time there seems to be very few options and their hands tied.

At our School Board Special meeting and workshop this past Tuesday, April 26th, 2016, there was consensus by the school board members that if there was not a commonsense legal solution offered, that our only common sense remedy was to modify the address as suggested by the State.

By modifying the address neither of the two schools would receive an F grade.  By modifying the address the School District does risk violating the FISH User’s Manual. It is a risk I am willing to take to ensure that common sense is applied in the operations of our local school district.  I also believe it shows that the Citrus School district is trying to adhere to the spirit of the co-located law.

For me, this is another example of the State’s overreaching in governing our local school district and using the Florida School Accountability system punitively against our schools, teachers, and most importantly, our students. Nothing in this situation is about true accountability. None of this is what is best for our students. What taxpayers should also be concerned with is that none of this is based in laws that were decided locally for Citrus County’s students.

Thomas Kennedy is a School Board Member for Citrus County School District. Read his blog at http://www.thomastalks.org.

Comments Off on New Co-Located Schools Law gets an F
Filed under: Blog Posts