Increasing parental engagement in education has been an important task for education policy makers. While it is unfortunate that some parents do not wish to become more involved, and may not know why they should be, those who do wish to be more engaged can learn how to get more involved. Parental involvement creates positive, visible change, sets an example that influences others to participate, and nurtures student success. Parental engagement is also a major component of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), the new national education law.
Local education agencies and schools should make parents and community stakeholders aware of public school board meetings to foster community engagement. Attending these meetings, allows community members to find out what their school district’s established goals are, how they intend to achieve those goals, the priorities of funding and budgeting plans, and what is included in the approved curriculum. These meetings also offer parents the opportunity to verbalize opinions, needs, questions, or concerns to the board and community. School board meetings should be safe spaces for honest dialogue, where parents feel comfortable to address their concerns and actively participate in the decision making that affects their children.
Back-to-school nights are also a great tool that can be used to increase parental engagement with educators. Schools can use back-to-school nights to communicate needs and ask parents for their assistance through volunteer opportunities that are cognizant of varying times of availability and skill set. As parents get more involved, they become more comfortable with the environment and are more likely to participate in future activities. This should be a goal for all schools.
Lastly, transparency is essential to building successful parent-teacher partnerships. Transparency is also an important aspect of ESSA. ESSA requires states and school districts to be more transparent, specifically with parents; mandating more detailed district report cards and a breakdown of data for all student groups. Parents should always know, if their student needs assistance or is excelling. Assigning homework that includes family input and inviting parents to view student presentations are other examples that may get parents engaged in their child’s education. More information, rather than less, is preferred when it comes to academic achievement.
Producing successful students requires patience, support and community partnership. Parental involvement is one of many things that help students overcome obstacles and it also gives students the extra push needed to be great. All parents are different, some are proactive; others need an invitation. It is the educators’ duty to invite them.
Learn more about the Every Student Succeeds Act at nnpa.org/essa.
Aiyana Thomas is a 17-year-old Baltimore City College High School student. She is a public speaker, youth advocate, and blogger. She enjoys using her voice for positive change. One day, she would like to own a business that contributes to the change she hopes to see; a change that begins with the improvement of education and the development of her community.
Last week, late nights, family road trips, and endless leisure came to an abrupt halt as children across the country headed back to school. This year, however, there is something else that requires adjustment besides early mornings and evening homework assignments. This year, a revised national education law goes into effect: the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). ESSA is the reauthorization of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) signed into law by Barack Obama in 2015.
ESEA included landmark legislation such as the Adult Education Act (1966), which provided funding for supplemental education centers and mandated educational programming even during “out-of-session” periods for isolated and rural areas; the Women’s Educational Equity Act, which protected women and girls from discrimination in education; ESEA also included protections for those who suffer from discrimination based on race, ethnicity, or disability. ESEA has been updated every five years since it was signed into law. The original intention of ESEA was to provide equal access to quality education, emphasize high standards and accountability, authorize funds for professional development, design effective instructional materials, provide supplemental education programs, and promote parental involvement.
Previous reauthorizations include the now infamous No Child Left Behind (NCLB), signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2001. ESSA replaces NCLB.
Education has been hailed the “new civil rights issue.” However, as we know, all too well, a law alone will not save us. The unanimous decision in Brown v. the Board of Education occurred in 1954; it was not until 1988 that school integration reached an all-time high with 45 percent of Black students attending majority-White schools. In 2003, a study by Harvard’s Civil Rights Project found that schools were more segregated in 2000 than in 1970 when busing for desegregation began. So we see, that laws alone will not fix decades of restricted access and rationed opportunity. We also can conclude that without a watchful eye we are bound to repeat history.
During an interview at the University of California Berkley on October 11, 1963, Malcolm X said that if the government, “really passed meaningful laws, it would not be necessary to pass any more laws. There are already enough laws on the law books to protect an American citizen. You only need additional laws when you are dealing with someone, who is not regarded as an American citizen.”
The goal of the 2015 reauthorization of ESEA is equity, but so was that the goal in 1965. A major component of both the 1965 ESEA and ESSA as the 2015 reauthorization is parental involvement. We must be the change we want to see. Laws are an opportunity to hold our leaders accountable. We must hold ourselves accountable for the academic success of our children. At the 1979 Amandla Festival in support of relief and humanitarian aid to Southern Africa, Dick Gregory, in his fifteen minute introduction of Bob Marley and Wailers, stated:
“We the decent people of this planet must stand up and say to the rest of them inhumane, cruel beast that we are not going to tolerate it no more. And then they’ll say, “what are you gon’ do about it?” If I don’t do nothing, but get out of my bed everyday and look myself in the face in the quietness of my living room and say, “I’m not gon’ tolerate it no more, I’m not gon’ tolerate it no more, I’m not gon’ tolerate it no more” that alone, when enough people stand doing it, is enough to win.”
So, let’s challenge ourselves this academic year to say, “we not gon’ tolerate it no more.” We are not going to tolerate inadequate resources, unqualified teachers, unresponsive school boards, and low academic standards. Let’s challenge our children to rise to the occasion. Let’s challenge ourselves to attend community meetings, to join the PTA, to check our children’s homework, and to make sure our children’s teachers know us by name.
Learn more about the Every Student Succeeds Act at nnpa.org/essa.
Lynette Monroe is a master’s student at Howard University. Her research area is public policy and national development. Ms. Monroe is the program assistant for the NNPA’s Every Student Succeeds Act Public Awareness Campaign. Follow Lynette Monroe on Twitter @_monroedoctrine.
Education must be governed by standards to achieve the learning goals that all parents seek for their children, said Dr. Reagan Flowers, a noted trailblazer in the field of STEM and the founder and CEO of Houston, Texas-based C-STEM Teacher and Student Support Services. C-STEM supports the engagement of pre-kindergarten to 12th grade students in hands-on, project-based learning experiences that expose them to workforce opportunities in related areas of Communication, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics.
“Through the history of public education, academic standards have evolved and have been governed by many [laws]. In our current reality, there are 44 states that have adopted Common Core State Standards (CCSS), 40 states with expressed interest in adopting the New Generation Science Standards, and six states including Texas following their own standards,” Flowers said.
In comparing “Common Core” to “State Standards,” there are some who might say there is no difference, she continued. Others point out that requirements are similar, but the wording of the guidelines is different.
“I would say that ‘Reading’ is ‘Reading,’ ‘Math’ is ‘Math,’ and ‘Science’ is ‘Science.’ [Common Core and State Standards] emphasize college and career readiness and there is overlap,” Flowers said.
As states struggle to implement the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), an ongoing and underlining debate pits Common Core standards versus State Standards, particularly as states are given the lion’s share of authority under ESSA.
“I see very little difference between Common Core and State Standards outside of 44 states speaking a common language about learning. In using Texas as an example, the difference between the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) and Common Core Math Standards is that TEKS requires students to learn personal finance,” Flowers said.
Flowers said that ESSA can’t be compared to Common Core standards or State Standards.
“ESSA is an act designed to enforce the adopted standards, whether they are ‘Common Core’ or ‘State Standards,’” she said, noting that in practical terms it makes more sense to compare ESSA to the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and, “from where I am sitting, there appears to be a big difference,” between ESSA and NCLB.
Flowers continued: “I see the biggest difference between ESSA and NCLB resting with the allowances and flexibility provided to states and schools with selecting student learning interventions and not being mandated to implement something that does not work with their student population. There is no one-size-fit-all answer to public education and that is what NCLB enforced and we can all see where that has landed us.”
States that have not adopted CCSS include Texas, Missouri, Nebraska, Virginia, Indiana and Kansas.
The Constitution has made it clear that states have control over their school systems, so Common Core standards aren’t federally mandated and each state does enjoy the option to adopt CCSS, standards that are indicators of college and career readiness that provide teachers, curriculum developers, and states significant flexibility.
Further, Common Core standards are research-based and internationally benchmarked, said Michelle Krumholz, the CEO of Evolved Educator, which develops easy-to-use software solutions to help teachers design and implement course instruction; according to Evolved Educator, this specialized course instruction drives sustainable growth in student achievement.
The greatest impact of ESSA concerning Common Core is that the federal government can no longer make a state’s adoption or maintenance of standards a funding incentive as NCLB and Race to the Top mandated, Krumholz said.
“In fact, the new law prohibits the federal government from encouraging the adoption of any particular set of standards—including Common Core,” said Krumholz. “The only requirements regarding standards existing now are that they have to be challenging—which states are left to interpret what is challenging, connected to college and career readiness, and that the assessment tool such as standardized tests, chosen by the state for accountability aligns with the selected state standards.”
In short, states have a lot of flexibility when it comes to implementing education standards, Krumholz said.
The Atlanta-based Skubes spends a lot of time analyzing the state standards for every state and the company has had plenty of experience with Common Core, said Bryan Wetzel, the COO of Skubes, which creates educational videos, quizzes and other resources for K-12 students and teachers.
“One of the little-known facts, and a deceptive fact at that, is that most states didn’t change from Common Core standards, they only erased the name Common Core from the title,” Wetzel said. “In many states, where politicians ran for office on getting rid of Common Core standards, they only changed the name and some of the nomenclature.”
One curriculum supervisor estimated that maybe three percent of the state standards have been rewritten or have been changed from Common Core, he said.
“ESSA is not a curriculum standard as much as it is rule for how federal money is spent and how it can be used,” said Wetzel. “It places more emphasis on research based solutions and/or tested interventions.”
How wide is the disconnect between the public and the current administration on what should and shouldn’t be done to strengthen our schools? According to the 2017 Phi Delta Kappa International (PDK) Poll of the Public’s Attitudes Toward the Public Schools, the gap is significant. A majority of Americans opposes using taxpayer funds to pay for private school tuition and supports a reduced role for standardized tests. An overwhelming percentage also want local school districts to provide “wraparound services” and favors increased funding to pay for them.
“These and other results suggest that some of the most prominent ideas that dominate current policy debates – from supporting vouchers to emphasizing high-stakes tests – are out of step with parents’ main concern: They want their children prepared for life and career after they complete high school,” said Joshua P. Starr, the chief executive officer of PDK International.
Where does a potential national expansion of private school vouchers fit in? Vouchers have never been a popular idea with the American public who have long recognized the danger of siphoning off money for public schools to pay for private school tuition. According to the PDK survey, by a margin of 52% to 39%, Americans oppose this idea, consistent with results from previous year’s polls.
Given the current spotlight on vouchers, PDK dug a little deeper on the issue this year, asking respondents if they supported using public funds to pay for religious private school tuition. Presented with this detail, opposition to vouchers surged to 61%.
According to the 2017 PDK survey, a majority of Americans oppose using public funds to pay for private schools. If the question is expanded to include religious schools as an option, opposition rises to 61 percent.
In addition, when told that a voucher system either could help public schools by making them compete or hurt them by reducing their funding, support for only funding public schools increases to 67%, compared to 26% support for vouchers – a 41-point gap.
Support for standardized testing as a measure of student success continues to decline. According to the poll, 42% see student performance on standardized tests as “highly important,” scoring significantly lower than art and music classes, extracurriculars, advanced academics, career-focused technology and engineering classes, and interpersonal skills. Only 6 % rated standardized tests as the “most important” factor in determining school quality.
The lack of confidence in standardized tests can be attributed to the public’s growing unease over the narrow path our schools have been forced to follow over the past 15 years. By overwhelming margins, Americans want schools to educate students more than just academically. Eighty-two percent of respondents support job or career skills classes – even if it means some students might spend less time on academics. The public believes it is highly important for schools to help students develop interpersonal skills, such as being cooperative, respectful of others, and problem-solving.
Large majorities also said schools should offer certificate or licensing programs that qualify students for employment upon graduation. Furthermore, 82% see technology and engineering classes as “extremely or very important” measures of school quality.
“Taken as a whole, the American public is saying it thinks public education has tilted too far in pushing or emphasizing academics to the detriment of vocational or career skills classes,” Starr added. “They support the academic mission but they also want local schools to position students for their working lives after school.”
Click to Enlarge
The PDK poll also reveals high level levels of support for “wraparound services,” such as health and after-school programs – a central tenet of the community school model that is taking root across the nation. Ninety-two percent favor after-school programs, and 87% support providing mental health services to students who can’t get this help outside of school.
Starr says it’s clear from the results that the public wants balance. “Americans want a course correction.”
Here are some additional highlights from the 2017 PDK International poll:
49% of Americans give their local public schools an A or B grade. Among public school parents, the approval increases to 62%.
70% of parents say they’d prefer to have their child in a racially diverse school, including equal numbers of whites and nonwhites. But the PDK survey notes that this may “reflect a socially desirable answer,” instead of a commitment to act or support policies that might decrease segregation. For example, very few parents say they would accept a longer commute for their children to attend a more diverse school.
61% of public school parents expect their child to attend college full time, while 22% expect a mix of part-time study and part-time work. Seven percent expect their child to seek a full-time job after high school.
This keynote address provided a high-level overview of major reauthorizations since the passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It focused on the key priorities of the new Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), looking particularly at accountability systems, school improvement, teacher and leader quality, data collection and reporting, educational technology, and regulation. Maureen Wentworth, Director of the Education Data and Information Systems of the Council of Chief State School Officers, gave this address at the 2016 Pennsylvania Department of Education Data Summit.
The content of these videos does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Institute of Education Sciences or the U.S. Department of Education, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which goes into full effect in the 2018–19 school year, rolled back much of the federal government’s big footprint in education policy, on everything from testing and teacher quality to low-performing schools. And it gave new leeway to states in calling the shots. ESSA’s goal is ensure that every student, regardless of race, income, disability, ethnicity, or proficiency in English, is ready for a fulfilling career, college, and life.
Gayle Pauley, Assistant Superintendent for Special Programs and Accountability at the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI), outlines Washington’s ESSA plan and how you can get involved.
Moderated by LEV communications director Arik Korman.
A little-noticed change in the country’s main federal education law could force many states to lower their high school graduation rates, a politically explosive move no state would relish.
Indiana is the first state to be caught in the crosshairs of the law’s new language, but other states are likely to be affected soon. The resulting debate could throw a sharp spotlight on a topic that’s been lurking in the wings: the wildly varying levels of accomplishment signified by a high school diploma.
“This is about to become a national issue,” said Phillip Lovell, the policy director of the Alliance for Excellent Education, an advocacy group that focuses on high school issues.
In Indiana, the state faces the prospect of having to lower its graduation rate from 89 percent to 76 percent, a move its state superintendent fears could harm its economy and reputation.
The state’s in a bind because it offers several types of high school diplomas, and some are easier to earn than others. Half of Indiana’s students earn the default college-prep diploma, known as the Core 40. Thirty-eight percent earn the Core 40 with honors, and 12 percent earn the “general” diploma, which has lesser requirements.
Diplomas with less-rigorous requirements are the target of new language in the Every Student Succeeds Act. The law requires states to calculate their graduation rates by including only “standard” diplomas awarded to a “preponderance” of students, or diplomas with tougher requirements.
For Indiana, that means the state might not be able to count its general diplomas. State officials are in talks with the U.S. Department of Education about that prospect. Indiana Superintendent of Schools Jennifer McCormick also reached out to Indiana’s congressional delegation for help, saying in a letter last month that the lower graduation rate will put Indiana “at a national disadvantage” and would “not reflect well upon our state and could negatively impact our economy.”
Officials from the federal Education Department declined to discuss how they would interpret the ESSA language. In an email to Education Week, a spokesman said only that the department would provide “technical assistance” to states as they complied with the law, and that states can consult federal guidance issued in January on the law’s graduation-rate provisions.
The preponderance language in ESSA is only now beginning to creep onto states’ radars. The exact number that could be affected isn’t clear, although a recent report found that 23 states offer multiple pathways to a diploma. Many states offer multiple types of high school diplomas, though most don’t track—or publicly report—how many students earn each type.
In Arkansas, two-thirds of students graduate with the state’s “smart core” diploma, and one-third earn its less-rigorous “core” diploma.
In New York state, 4 percent of graduates get a “local” diploma, which isn’t as rigorous as its “regents” and “advanced” diplomas. In Oregon, 3.7 percent of students earn a “modified” diploma, which is intended for students with a “demonstrated inability” to meet all the state’s academic expectations.
“The idea is to create a pathway toward a diploma for students with significant challenges,” Jennell Ives, a program specialist with Oregon’s department of education, explained in an email.
Diplomas that signify less-than-rigorous academic preparation, however, were the express target of the new requirement in ESSA. No such language was in the previous version of the law, the No Child Left Behind Act.
“We were trying to address concerns about those weaker diplomas, to put a signal in there to drive states to make sure that diplomas were really preparing students for success,” said a Senate aide who helped draft the Every Student Succeeds Act.
‘Make the Most Difference’
Advocates for lower-income and minority students, and those with disabilities, were key voices at the table when that section of the bill was being drafted. Those students tend to earn disproportionate shares of the lower-level diplomas.
“We wanted the language in ESSA to make the most difference for those students,” said Laura Kaloi, who participated in the talks on behalf of the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, a special-education advocacy group.
By inserting the preponderance language into ESSA, its authors pushed federal law into a new area: linking graduation rates to the quality of the diplomas, not just to how many diplomas are awarded.
A 2008 regulation broke new ground by requiring all states to calculate graduation rates the same way: by counting the proportion of entering freshmen who completed school four years later.
That regulation also ventured into new territory by tackling the related idea of which diplomas should be counted. It said states could count only “regular” diplomas, not alternative or equivalency credentials.
The concept of diploma quality was on policymakers’ minds as they sat down to write the accountability section of the Every Student Succeeds Act. There was “a lot of bipartisan agreement” that the idea of counting only regular diplomas should finally be written into federal law, the Senate aide said.
“You could see this as being about states that have to lower their graduation rates, or about trying to be honest about our graduation rates.”Phillip Lovell, Alliance for Excellent Education
“This is new. For a long time, federal officials have been focusing on graduation rates without caring what a diploma actually means,” said Michael Cohen, who was the assistant secretary of elementary and secondary education under President Bill Clinton and now heads Achieve, a group that has researched the wide variety in states’ diploma requirements.
Allowing states to report graduation rates based only on regular diplomas, and diplomas that require more rigorous study, is long overdue, according to Lovell of the Alliance for Excellent Education.
States could well feel the sting of public disapproval if they have to revise their graduation rates downward, but the resulting shift in message justifies the discomfort, he said.
“The statute calls for honesty,” he said. “We’re finally being honest about what a diploma means.”
But Lovell also worries that an unintended consequence of the law is that states could lower their regular-diploma requirements to keep their graduation-rate numbers high.
‘Perverse Incentives?’
Other consequences are already unfolding, showing up first in Indiana.
The state has long been recognized as a leader in getting students to complete college-prep courses of study: 88 percent take the four years of English and three years of math—through Algebra 2—that are widely viewed as a “college-ready” curricula.
Yet Indiana might have to pay the price of lowering its graduation rate because it chose not to require college-prep study for all. That situation strikes Cohen as creating “perverse incentives” for states to award less-rigorous diplomas to a “preponderance” of their students.
“States that do the best job of getting kids to take advanced coursework could be the ones at greatest risk under this policy,” he said. “They’ve succeeded their way into trouble.”
Lovell begs to differ. “You could see this as being about states that have to lower their graduation rates or about trying to be honest about our graduation rates,” he said. “Indiana is stepping up and being honest.”
Activists may differ on whether the preponderance requirements in ESSA are a step in the right direction. But they agree on another, more ironic truth, which is that the law will fall short of ensuring that all high school diplomas mean students are ready to do well in college.
Even among the many states that offer only one type of diploma, what students achieved to earn that diploma can vary wildly. Still, those states are unlikely to be affected by the preponderance requirement of ESSA, since all students earn the same diploma.
In Massachusetts, for instance, 77 percent of students complete a course of study that reflects the expectations of the University of Massachusetts. The rest finish high school with other assortments of courses. Yet all students earn the same diploma, said state education department spokeswoman Jacqueline Reis.
The same situation holds true in Maryland, where most students finish coursework geared to state university requirements, and the rest don’t, but all walk across the graduation stage with the same type of diploma.
In Oklahoma, students are automatically placed in the college-ready curriculum and remain there unless they opt into a less-rigorous one. But only the tougher course of study requires three years of math—through Algebra 2. And all Oklahoma students earn the same high school diploma, a state education department spokeswoman said.
Colorado is asking for more time to figure out how to meet federal requirements for giving students standardized tests while respecting the rights of parents who don’t want their children to take them.
In a letter Thursday, Commissioner Katy Anthes told the federal government that the state needs until October to reconsider how Colorado holds schools and districts accountable when they fail to meet federal requirements for student participation on state tests.
The federal education department earlier this month told state officials that Colorado’s approach of not penalizing schools that fall below the 95 percent participation threshold doesn’t align with the nation’s updated education law, the Every Student Succeeds Act.
The federal pushback came as part of the department’s formal review of states’ education plans that detail how they will comply with the new law. Colorado was one of the first states to submit its plan.
The reviews are being watched for clues of how the federal department under Education Secretary Betsy DeVos interprets a law that was intended to shift more decision-making to states.
Colorado was required to by Thursday either submit new language in its federally required education plan or ask for an extension. Officials chose the later.
“Because our board has a strong commitment to Colorado’s parental opt-out rights, it will need to carefully consider how best to address your concerns without designing a system that will be perceived by parents and educators as punitive,” Colorado Education Commissioner Katy Anthes said in the letter. “We are optimistic that the various interests here can be addressed in a manner that complies with ESSA and is in the best interest of Colorado students, parents, and educators.”
Colorado’s response follows a trip by one state official to Washington, D.C., to discuss the issue in person.
Alyssa Pearson, Colorado’s associate commissioner for accountability and performance, flew to the Capital Aug. 18 in an effort to better understand what changes the federal department is seeking from Colorado.
Pearson, in an interview with Chalkbeat, said the department made it clear: The first 5 percent of students at a school who do not take the test get a pass. However, any student who skips the tests beyond that line must be counted as non-proficient.
So if 10 percent of kids at a school opt out, the first 5 percent won’t count against a school. The remaining 5 percent must count as non-proficient, dragging down the school’s scores.
Pearson said federal officials will require Colorado to use this number it its school quality ratings. It can’t just be a number it submits to the U.S. education department and then ignores.
Schools and districts with large numbers of students who are labeled as non-proficient on state tests are likely to receive low quality ratings from the states. Schools that receive the lowest quality ratings for five years in a row are targeted for state intervention.
In Colorado, the largest volume of opt-outs involve mostly white and middle- and upper-class students at schools with traditionally high quality ratings.
“While we don’t know how the schools are performing today,” Pearson said, “historically schools with parental refusal rates have performed pretty well in the past.”
Before 2015 when the opt-out movement gained traction, nearly all Colorado schools met the federal testing requirement.
The prescribed changes to how Colorado calculates how many students are meeting proficiency could lead to more schools being identified as low-performing — even if they don’t need help.
“We raised that issue,” Pearson said. She added that federal officials recognized the dilemma and offered suggestions on how the state can separate schools with truly low academic performance and those with artificially deflated scores.
State officials will present a variety of options to the State Board of Education in September, Pearson said.
Those options include asking state lawmakers to rewrite the state’s school accountability system to fully comply with federal law, or running two accountability systems — one that follows state law and the other that follows federal law.
The board must sign off on any policy changes included in the state’s education plan. A decision is expected in October.
How wide is the disconnect between the public and the current administration on what should and shouldn’t be done to strengthen our schools? According to the 2017 Phi Delta Kappa International (PDK) 
