Kentucky: Statewide implementation of response-to-intervention

Reading proficiently by 3rd grade or bust! That seems to be the rallying cry in many states in recent legislative sessions. While a number of states have taken the route of retaining students who do not read proficiently by the end of 3rd grade, research and experience make clear that early identification and intervention are absolutely critical if students are to become successful readers in the early grades--retention policy or no retention policy.

Kudos to Kentucky, where H.B. 69 was enacted Wednesday to require all districts to implement districtwide use of a response-to-intervention (RTI) system for students in grades K-3. The RTI system must be be for general, compensatory, and special education students, and must provide "interventions implemented with fidelity to scientifically based research" (like the "implemented with fidelity to..." rather than simply requiring interventions to incorporate scientifically based research, since interventions are not always implemented with fidelity!) Districts are to implement RTI systems over a few years, with reading and writing to be implemented by August 2013, math by August 2014, and behavior by August 2015.

Some of the other key components of this legislation:

• The department of education must make technical assistance and training available to all districts in implementing the RTI system districtwide
• Technical assistance must be designed to improve specified components critical to the quality and effectiveness of interventions
• The department must develop and maintain a Web-based resource, to provide ongoing support to teachers in all of the targeted areas--reading, writing, math, and behavior
• The department must encourage districts to use both state and federal funds as appropriate to implement the districtwide RTI system
• The department is not going this road alone. The legislation encourages the department to collaborate with postsecondary institutions on "technical assistance and training on current best practice interventions", and is required to collaborate with specified existing entities, including postsecondary teacher education programs, and state-supported centers focused on literacy development mathematics, and instructional discipline, "to ensure that teachers are prepared to utilize scientifically based interventions in reading, writing, mathematics, and behavior."
• This is no "set it and forget it" policy--there's a reporting component. By November 30, 2013, and each year thereafter, the department is required to report specified components to the interim joint committee on education, including "data on the effectiveness of interventions in improving student performance" in schools in the state.

The aforementioned ECS report makes clear that many retention policies focused on the early grades are likely to minimally impact their goal--widespread reading proficiency by the end of grade 3--without early identification of difficulties and prompt, appropriate interventions. Kentucky's new legislation provides a promising approach to ensuring early identification plus interventions, as the bill states, "matched to individual student strengths and needs."

Delaware: Excellent coordinated state STEM plan

While labor market projections have galvanized many policymakers and education stakeholders to call for improved STEM education and a better-prepared future STEM workforce, in many cases the efforts that have resulted to date seem to be disjointed across the P-20 spectrum and across affected stakeholders (business community, various agencies and state and local policymaking entities).

Delaware's STEM Council, created a little over a year ago by Governor Jack Markell, provides one model for a coordinated state-level approach across education sectors and stakeholders. The council's first annual report, released earlier this month, concisely articulates Delaware's current state of STEM affairs, as identified by six committees - (1) business collaboration and communication, (2) women and minorities, (3) public education (P-12 education), (4) program evaluation and monitoring, (5) higher education recommendations, and (6) an advisory committee (cutting across agencies and education sectors) - as well as recommendations for 2012 action for each. Pages 16 and 17 represent a bold move, providing a March 2012-March 2013 quarter-by-quarter timeline for the council to act on its various recommendations.

The council has clearly done its homework, both in terms of (1) what the state is and isn't doing in STEM education and STEM business/education collaboration, and (2) what the state can and should be doing. The council and report together provide a fantastic model for other states to consider as they seek to improve quality, access and coordination between P-12 and higher education and the private sector on this important issue.

Georgia: Cheaters never prosper - literally

Legislation recently sent to the governor's desk in Georgia is intended to hit teachers who cheat where it counts--in their wallets. Very likely in response to the 2011 Atlanta testing scandal that made national news, H.B. 692 provides that any teacher or other certified staff member's salary increase or bonus based on an evaluation that included student assessment results found to be falsified is to be automatically forfeited. And any amount of the bonus or salary increase that the staff member already received before the cheating came to light must be repaid in full.

While states have been taking various approaches to curb cheating by teachers and administrators on student tests, I don't recall seeing states go after the salary increases or bonuses that the good or improved test scores would eventually result in. It will be interesting to see if this approach catches on elsewhere--particularly as an increasing number of states seem to be looking into teacher pay for performance, including barring pay increases for teachers scoring in the lowest tier in teacher evaluation systems.

Kentucky: Taking concussion legislation to a new level

Over the last 2-3 years, the majority of states and the District of Columbia have enacted legislation to inform student athletes and parents about the nature and risk of concussions, and keep student athletes suspected of having sustained a concussion from returning to play until they've been given the all-clear from an appropriate medical professional. Some states have gone a step further, requiring coaches and other appropriate staff to receive training on identifying concussions.

However, legislation recently sent to the governor's desk in Kentucky is the first I've seen that addresses the fact that coaches and medical staff need to have a plan to act swiftly if the condition of a student who suffers a concussion begins to rapidly deteriorate--a particularly important policy component in rural areas, where the closest hospital or clinic may be a long, life-threatening drive away. Specifically, the legislation (again, pending governor's action as of this writing) directs the state board or department of education to adopt rules requiring each school with an interscholastic athletic program "to develop a venue-specific emergency action plan to deal with serious injuries and acute medical conditions in which" the patient's condition "may deteriorate rapidly. Each such plan must, among other components, "Include a delineation of role, methods of communication, available emergency equipment, and access to and plan for emergency transportation", be "posted conspicuously at all venues, and reviewed and rehearsed annually by all licensed athletic trainers, first responders, coaches, school nurses, athletic directors, and volunteers for interscholastic athletics."

To be clear, the safety plan doesn't single out concussion victims--it applies to any and all "serious injuries and acute medical conditions" for student athletes "in which the condition of the patient may deteriorate rapidly." The legislation has the potential not only to save lives, but reduce the potential severity of an injury--concussion or otherwise--if an injured student might have to travel a long distance to a hospital or clinic.

Arkansas, Tennessee and Georgia: Using end-of-course assessments to identify grade inflation

States are showing greater interest in transitioning to end-of-course assessments (EOCs) at the high school level, as identified in an ECS report released earlier this month. While many cite a common list of benefits of EOCs--holding students accountable for grade-level expectations, ensuring common, statewide, rigorous expectations for courses bearing the same name ("Algebra I") being among those most commonly noted--another benefit of EOCs is their potential to identify and address grade inflation.

Arkansas legislation establishes a process whereby districts, upon 30 days of a student's completion of a course with an EOC, must submit each student's name and course grade to the Division of Public School Accountability in the state department of education. The division is then responsible for matching each student's name with the student's score on the EOC, reporting to the district each student's EOC score matched with the student's letter grade in the course, and creating two reports--one indicating the percentage of students who earned a "B" in the course and who did not pass the EOC.

The legislation then requires the division to annually report to the legislature and the state board the name, address and superintendent of any high school in which more than 20% of students received a "B" or above on a course but did not pass the corresponding EOC on the first try. The report must also indicate the number of students per high school receiving at least a "B" in a course but who did not pass the corresponding EOC on the first try.

The department must then investigate the classroom practices of any district in which more than 20% of students earned a "B" or higher in a course but did not pass the EOC on the first try, and provide written recommendations to the superintendent and local board on "changes that would improve classroom instruction and student performance on" EOCs. (A.C.A. § 6-15-421)

Tennessee, meanwhile, requires that when a school's mean of teacher-assigned grades and mean of EOC scores are "significantly different as determined" by state board policy, "the school must develop and implement strategies in the School Improvement Plan to ameliorate such differences. Until such time that the State Department of Education recommends, based upon an appropriate statistical analysis, and the State Board of Education approves an acceptable measure of disparity, schools and school systems should consider differences between [10] and [15] or more points to be too large and develop and implement strategies through the School Improvement Plan to ameliorate such differences." (Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0520-01-03-.06 (2)(d))

While it is not clear that Georgia has a specific policy to identify grade inflation via its EOCs, the Governor's Office of Student Achievement did commission a report in 2008 to analyze how EOC results measured up against district grading practices. The comparison at the bottom of this chart of the percentage of students statewide who failed their EOC vs. students who failed the corresponding course is particularly telling. In Economics, for example, more than 35% of students failed the EOC, while less than 6% failed their economics course. In no subject area were there more students failing the course than failing the EOC, although the analysis suggests that did appear to be the case in isolated districts. The full set of reports from this analysis is at the bottom of this page.

Results such as these from Georgia reinforce the importance of including EOC scores as a portion of a student's final grade in a course. While everyone can have a bad day and perform poorly on a test--and consequently, EOC scores should not overshadow other factors in student final course grades--completely leaving EOC scores out of final course grades may open the doors for grade inflation, which by many accounts is on the rise in U.S. high schools. And the results from Georgia districts where there seemed to be a concentration of tough graders also point out the importance of identifying and reining in stringent grading practices, that may hurt students' chances of earning merit scholarships and college admission that take GPA into account.

Virginia: Making career-readiness count for high schools

Virginia recently enacted legislation intended to increase high schools' focus on getting CTE students truly career-ready. H.B. 642 directs the state board to adopt regulations requiring an adjustment of the formula for calculating high school accreditation (for schools that have met minimal accreditation requirements). The revised formula must add a minimum three-point increase to the completion index total points calculation for each student in a CTE program who earns a diploma along with an industry certification, industry pathway certification, state licensure, or occupational competency credential, when the certification/licensure/credential is approved by the state board as fulfilling the student-selected end-of-course assessment requirement for high school graduation.

Virginia has already taken great strides to ensure the quality and rigor of high school-level CTE programs. This latest policy action may create even greater incentives for CTE instructors to elevate their game, to bring students to a level of readiness to achieve certification/licensure/credential in their field, as well as motivate adults in schools to encourage greater numbers of CTE students to pursue certification/licensure/credential.

Foreign language: Issue to watch in 2012?

As a true believer in the benefits of learning a foreign language, I have been very excited by recent proposals and enactments to highlight K-12 foreign language instruction.

In his 2012 state of the state address, Delaware Governor Jack Markell declared that the First State will be moving forward with the World Language Expansion Initiative, creating partial immersion programs in 20 schools in which "students will spend half the school day learning in another language."

Foreign language has gotten a toehold as an accountability indicator with recently-enacted Illinois legislation that requires school accountability report cards to report on foreign language offerings (at the state superintendent's discretion, this indicator may also be included in district report cards).

Meanwhile, Louisiana legislation enacted in 2011 outlines criteria for "Certified Foreign Language Immersion Programs" and directs the state board to designate as as a certified program any foreign language immersion program that meets the criteria. The legislation makes clear that the purpose of the certification process is not only to put the Good Housekeeping seal of approval on high-quality programs, but to support schools and districts "in establishing and maintaining high quality, highly effective foreign language immersion programs." And in an October 2011 post I highlighted California legislation to create a State Seal of Biliteracy on high school diplomas and transcripts, the first such state-level initiative in the nation.

In a time when the Wall Street Journal is reporting on the growing demand for American workers who speak foreign languages (particularly Spanish and Chinese), and the expansion of online and blended learning programs has the potential to connect ever more students with learning experiences in foreign languages, let's hope that more states work in 2012 to increase student access to high-quality foreign language instruction.

New Hampshire: Making high school learning more meaningful via Expanded Learning Opportunities

President Obama's recent State of the Union address has unleashed a Pandora's box of questions related to the proposal for all states to raise their upper compulsory school age to 18. Many ask: Will simply requiring students to be in school have a meaningful effect? While there is some research suggesting that requiring students to stay in school until they are older has positive impacts, common sense also cries out that students need to feel that what they are learning in school has real implications for their post-high school educational and career directions.

An evaluation published last year suggests that a pilot New Hampshire voluntary program may be a template for other states to consider if they want more students to stay in high school AND feel their high school experience is preparing them for the world after graduation. Conducted by researchers at the University of Massachusetts' Donahue Institute, the study (executive summary here) found that while challenges existed, there were numerous positive outcomes for students participating in Extended Learning Opportunities (ELO), which allows students to earn high school credit via a variety of out-of-school learning experiences. (And perhaps it should be stated first that more than 1 in 3 of ELO participants "met one or more of the criteria for an underserved learner".)

While ELOs held students to rigorous expectations:

• Most students believed they learned more from their ELO than they would have through a traditional classroom experience. Faculty surveys also indicated that ELOs sparked students' academic interests.
• ELOs positively impacted "students’ awareness of skills they will need for the future, self-confidence, work readiness, and clarity about interests and goals"
• Students and teachers concurred that students in ELOs "became deeply knowledgeable about a specific topic area and learned new skills through their ELO, and that students were able to explain what they learned through the experience"
• Community partners (for example, a business at which a student completed an apprenticeship) were highly pleased with the ELO experience, with virtually all (98%) "indicating that their organization would consider leading another ELO."

However, the evaluation was of just four pilot high schools in the state. Meanwhile, some have pointed out that New Hampshire is not like many places in the U.S. Could ELOs work in a large urban district? In a larger state? What else (if anything) needs to be in place to transfer New Hampshire's success to jurisdictions serving larger numbers of English language learners, or low-income students?

North Carolina: Evaluation of online credit recovery

There's little research on the impact of online credit recovery programs so far. However, a recent North Carolina study does shed some light on teacher and student perceptions, as well as student success, in online credit recovery in that state.

While the report notes that "mastery rates" (successful completion of credit recovery) have been on the rise since the program's launch in 2008, fewer than 7 out of 10 students (67%) achieved mastery in summer 2010. Yet online credit recovery students seemed very pleased with the model, and identified specific approaches that supported their success. For example, students noted that teachers used various approaches to address the self-discipline issues that led many students to fail the course the first time around. Students also were very likely to agree or strongly agree on the presence of several key teaching quality indicators in their credit recovery programs:

• "'My teacher does a good job teaching in the online environment.' 93.7% of CR (credit recovery students) agree/strongly agree"
• "'My teacher provides timely and regular feedback on course assignments, assessments, and my progress.' 89.3% of CR agree/strongly agree"
• "'My teacher provides content and assignments that address students' different levels of understanding.' 80.8% of CR agree/strongly agree"
• "'My teacher provides or suggests strategies to help students succeed in this course.' 90.5% of CR agree/strongly agree"
  

Wow! The researchers also noted that credit recovery students were more likely than online general studies or honors students to agree/strongly agree on the presence of these teacher attributes in their courses. Would fewer students have been in credit recovery in the first place had their original teachers been creating a positive learning environment, providing student success strategies and differentiated instruction? Quite possibly. This study provides a toehold in the research on what students positively respond to in the online credit recovery environment.

ECS 12 for 2012 is here!

Yesterday, ECS released its 12 for 2012 report, identifying not necessarily the "hottest" or "biggest" issues of the year, but the issues that demand our attention as a nation and, if we act in a thoughtful and meaningful way, through which we have the potential to greatly improve public education in this country, from the earliest years through postsecondary. Of course, there are other critical issues that didn't make the list--improving high school graduation rates, improving college-readiness and transitions for traditionally underserved students, and improving state accountability systems, to name just a few--but we had to draw the line somewhere.

What are your thoughts? Where were we spot-on? Are there issues you feel do not meet the criteria that all 12 for '12 entries were expected to meet? Other criteria for inclusion we did not consider? Looking forward to receiving feedback, as there has already been talk about doing this again in 2013.

New York: Let's run schools more efficiently

State of the state season is upon us. One of the first governors to deliver a state of the state address was Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York. Among Governor Cuomo's proposals: appointing a bipartisan education commission to work with the legislature to recommend reforms in critical areas, including management efficiency.

Approaches already implemented in Virginia and Texas may provide food for thought for this proposed commission. Virginia legislation requires the department of planning and budget, upon a district's request, to initiate a review of the district's noninstructional expenditures. This review should identify opportunities to improve operational efficiencies and reduce costs for the division in such areas as overhead, human resources, procurement, facilities use and management, financial management, transportation, technology planning, and energy management. School districts must pay 25% of the cost of the review in the fiscal year following the completion of the final report.

Texas takes a slightly different approach. Legislation directs the comptroller to identify districts and campuses that use resource allocation practices that contribute to high academic achievement and cost-effective operations. In doing so, the comptroller must ensure resources are being used for instruction, and must evaluate the operating cost for each student and for each program, and the staffing cost for each student.

Using our most effective teachers more effectively

What would I recommend to a state leader who wants to broaden access to high-quality teachers across school systems? As noted in two reports from the organization Public Impact, increasing teacher recruitment and retention efforts will only get us so far. What is needed is a complete rethinking of the roles of the most effective teachers.

In 3X for All: Extending the Reach of Education's Best, and Opportunity at the Top, Emily Ayscue Hassel and Bryan Hassel propose that the top quartile of effective teachers should not limit their impact to the relatively small number of students assigned to them during the traditional classroom during the regular school day, during the regular school year. These most effective teachers should broaden their impact through three approaches:

• In-Person Reach Extension: More one-on-one in-person contact with students by reorganizing schools and teacher roles. One example of what this would look like would be a lead teacher overseeing "pods" of two or more classrooms with the help of other teachers.
• Remote Reach Extension: These most-effective teachers interact one-on-one with students, but by either asynchronous or real-time exchanges, either within the same building or across distances. The authors note that this can take the form of "e-mail exchanges, multiperson blogs or online discussion boards, and individualized feedback about work submitted online."
• Boundless Reach Extension: Delivered just via technology, and "boundless" considering the limitless number of students who can be impacted.
  

Great ideas all. Yet various policy barriers described in the reports limit the implementation of these approaches. Let's hope states address these obstacles in 2012 to bring the best teaching to many, many more students.

Wisconsin: "Vocational Diploma" under debate

There has been a lot of discussion in the press and the blogosphere about Wisconsin's Sept. 2011 Special Session S.B. 18, a proposal that would allow a high school student to substitute vocational courses for the 13 credits specified in statute. As indicated on the legislative Web site, the bill is supported by certain business interests, and opposed by Disability Rights Wisconsin and various membership groups representing educators.

I'll throw my hat in the ring and note that while many states are making efforts to engage CTE students in their high school experience, some states have been much more specific in what those approaches look like. A few examples:

• Virginia legislation calls for the state standards to be incorporated into CTE courses, as appropriate. Students may substitute a traditional academic end-of-course exam required for graduation with an industry certification or state licensure exam, again where appropriate. The legislation also directs the state board to "develop a plan for increasing the number of students receiving industry certification and state licensure as part of their career and technical education. The plan shall include an annual goal for school divisions. Where there is an accepted national industry certification for career and technical education instructional personnel and programs for automotive technology, such certification shall be mandatory. " The legislation also creates a division within the department of education to help districts incorporate these standards into local CTE curricula, provide professional development for CTE teachers, and elicit business and industry representatives' input on the "content and direction of career and technical education programs in the public schools".
• Alabama, Louisiana, Indiana, Ohio and Virginia have all created a diploma or endorsement (in the case of Alabama, two diplomas) that are designed specifically for CTE students who want to strut their stuff. These diploma options generally allow a student to substitute only a small number of specified credits with CTE credits; some states also require students to earn an industry credential.
  
• Numerous states allow students to substitute a CTE credit for traditional academic credit for completion of graduation requirements, provided the credit meets state-specified criteria. There are also various efforts afoot (Math in CTE, teacher certification provisions as two examples) to help ensure the rigor and quality of CTE programs.
  

"Last in, first out" employment policies on the way out in some states

I was recently asked how many states have done away with "last in, first out" policies--policies that require districts to make layoff or reduction-in-force decisions based on criteria other than seniority. It appears that 9 states--Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Utah--have adopted such provisions. With the exception of Arizona, which adopted its legislation in 2009, all these provisions were enacted in 2011.

In addition, in 2005 Arkansas enacted legislation that required districts to “have a written policy on reduction in force based upon objective criteria for a layoff and recall of employees.” However, the legislation does not define “objective criteria.”

How many states have anti-bullying policies?

All too often I am seeing incorrect information on the # of states with anti-bullying policies. 48 states and Guam have anti-bullying policies--46 states (and Guam) have established these through legislation, while two states--Hawaii and Montana--have policies only in administrative code.

However, as on so many other issues, simply saying that 48 states have anti-bullying policies is not particularly meaningful, as states vary widely on the level of detail in state policy. For example, some states simply require local boards to "address" bullying but do not explicitly prohibit bullying.

Bullying: How to define it in state policy?

The debate in Michigan over defining "bullying" in legislation has reached national attention, as a revision to language on the victim attributes that might lead to bullying would permit actions reflecting "a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction", according to a Detroit Free Press article.

While it's true that anti-bullying policies need to provide for a state or local definition of bullying--we can't prohibit what is not defined--developing a list of characteristics that may lead to bullying is not the only way to get there. Below are other approaches states have taken:

• Leaving the "particular characteristics" to model state policy or related local policies: Some legislatures have decided to leave to someone else the business of defining the victim characteristics that may lead to bullying. Alabama, for example, requires the department's model policy prohibiting harassment, violence and threats of violence to include “A procedure for the development of a nonexhaustive list of the specific personal characteristics of a student which may often lead to harassment.” The statute adds that based on experience, local boards may add--but not remove--characteristics from this list.
• Focusing on prohibited student actions rather than victim attributes: This is the approach many states have taken. Rather than trying to create even a nonexhaustive list of characteristics, legislation is silent on this point and instead describes the activities that constitute bullying, or environment that the bullying activity creates (i.e., gestures, or written, verbal or physical acts or threats that are severe, persistent or pervasive enough to create an intimidating, threatening or abusive educational environment for a student; acts that interfere with the learning environment).
• Leaving a role for local policy: In some cases, legislation defines prohibited student actions, then requires local boards to adopt local definitions of bullying that are at least as comprehensive as those adopted by the legislature (so local definitions may or may not get into the victim characteristics that may spur bullying). In other states, policy does not even define bullying, and leaves the definition of bullying entirely to local discretion.
• Making clear that the list of victim characteristics in legislation is not comprehensive: Colorado statute, for example, states, “Bullying is prohibited against any student for any reason, including but not limited to any such behavior that is directed toward a student on the basis of his or her academic performance; or against whom federal and state laws prohibit discrimination upon any of the bases described in 22-32-109(1)(ll)(I)”.

Watch for more details in a forthcoming ECS report on this issue.

STEM: Focus more on producing mid-level skill STEM workers

The STEM report released last month by Anthony Carnevale and his team at Georgetown's Center on Education and the Workforce notes, "The most obvious weaknesses in the American education
system relate to the production of workers, especially STEM workers, at the sub-baccalaureate level. ... More than half of American workers have not obtained any postsecondary certificate or
degree. Yet, American high schools offer very little career and technical education or any substantial on-ramps to postsecondary career and technical education. As a result, students
who don’t get career and technical preparation in high school and don’t succeed in the transition to postsecondary programs are left behind."

We are beginning to see some states develop programs to enhance the number of young adults with the types of skills and credentials the report talks about. A couple examples were adopted this year in the Texas legislature (yes, if you're not sick of hearing me talk about Texas yet you may be soon, as there is plenty to talk about with the numerous innovations they adopted in their 2011 legislative session). H.B. 2910 (see pages 3-5) creates the Texas Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (T-STEM) Challenge Scholarship program. Institutions eligible to participate are public junior colleges and public technical colleges that admit at least 50 students into a STEM program each year and develop partnerships with business and industry to identify local employment needs in STEM fields and provide part-time jobs for students in a STEM program.

Eligible students must have graduated high school with at least a 3.0 GPA in math and science courses (I wonder if this also applies to applied math and science courses--the legislation doesn't specify this) and agree to work up to 15 hours a week at a participating business. To keep the maximum two-year scholarship, a student must stay enrolled in a STEM program at the institution, maintain a minimum 3.0 GPA, keep up the ≤ 15 hours of work/week at the business, complete at least 80% of credits attempted each semester, and earn at least 30 credit hours each academic year. Institutions, to maintain their eligibility beginning with the 2nd year after program implementation, must show the higher education coordinating board that at least 70% of the T-STEM Challenge Scholarship graduates, within 3 months of graduation, are employed by a business in a STEM field or enrolled in upper-division courses leading to a 4-year degree in a STEM field.

The catch is that at least 50% of the scholarship funds must come from private funds. Will businesses pony up scholarship funds in a difficult economy, in hopes that students will pan out as employees? Or will businesses be fearful that students will jump ship and work for the company down the road after gaining two years of work experience during their degree program? It is intriguing, though, that the program does allow students to get their feet wet in a STEM field while they are still working toward their degree--so that they know whether the field is a fit for them before they complete their credential.

Interdistrict choice for bullying victims

I was asked last week how many states have open enrollment policies that allow students who have been bullied to transfer to another district. The answer? Texas requires, and California permits victims of bullying to transfer districts after a bullying victim's parent requests such a transfer, while both Texas and Georgia have provisions related to the transfer of bullies into other classrooms, districts or programs.

Texas statute specifies that, upon parental request, a student who has been bullied must be transferred to (1) another classroom at the campus to which the victim was assigned at the time the bullying occurred; or (2) a campus in the school district other than the campus to which the victim was assigned at the time the bullying occurred. The school district is not required to provide transportation to a transfer student under these circumstances.

California permits two or more district boards to enter into interdistrict transfer agreements. Per new provisions just enacted last month, effective July 2012 a student who has been a victim of bullying and who attends a district that has established a transfer agreement must be given priority for interdistrict attendance. If the student's district has not established an interdistrict transfer agreement, the student must be given additional consideration for the creation of an interdistrict attendance agreement.

Texas also allows a board of trustees to transfer the bully to either (1) another classroom at the campus to which the victim was assigned at the time the bullying occurred; or (2) a campus in the district other than the campus to which the victim was assigned at the time the bullying occurred, in consultation with a parent or other person with authority to act on behalf of the student who engaged in bullying.

In Georgia, a student in grades 6-12 found to have engaged in bullying 3 times in a school year must be transferred to an alternative school. As in Texas, the district is not responsible for transportation for a student sent to an alternative school under these circumstances.

California: State Seal of Biliteracy on High School Diplomas and Transcripts

Legislation recently enacted in California creates the State Seal of Biliteracy, creating a sort of honors diploma/endorsement for students capable of demonstrating that they can speak, read and write a language other than English (including American Sign language) at an advanced level.

While 17-some states have honors diplomas or endorsements students may earn by earning advanced credits, reaching benchmarks on state assessments, or meeting other state-set criteria, California is the first to create an honors endorsement based on a student's fluency in a second language. The first section of the legislation sets forth the advantages of fluency in a second language--and Rosetta Stone and many other providers can attest to the fact that it's only in adulthood that many people realize that skills in a second language can be mighty handy. I am eager to see how many students take California up on its offer on this diploma endorsement, and if we will see the idea take off in other states.

Texas: Creating an incubator for best practices

Unique legislation was enacted this session in Texas. S.B. 1557 creates the Texas High Performance Schools Consortium, intended to inform state leaders about approaches to improve student learning "through the development of innovative, next-generation learning standards and assessment and accountability systems." The consortium will be made up of no more than 20 "participants" who have applied and been selected by the commissioner of education based on their plan to improve instruction and learning. A participant may be either a charter school that has been awarded an exemplary distinction designation, or a district, or one or more campuses within a district.

The legislation identifies principles "for a next generation of higher performing public schools"--these include engaging students through digital learning, focusing on "high-priority standards", use of multiple assessments to keep various stakeholders informed on an ongoing basis on how well learning is occurring and what is being done to improve learning, and reliance on local control. The authors of the legislation don't want the wheel to be reinvented 20 times over through this project--consortium leaders are to gather periodically to, among other purposes, "build cross-district and cross-school support systems and training, and share best practices tools and processes." (Hopefully this knowledge exchange will be done on an ongoing basis via e-mail, a consortium Web presence, threaded discussions, etc.)

Applications must be submitted by June 2012, and participants must be selected by July 2012 (quick turnaround!). The consortium will begin operations by the start of the 2012-13 school year. I will look forward to seeing what innovative approaches the consortium participants implement, and to what degree these might be scaled up to district-wide and statewide implementation, both in and outside Texas. And what policy barriers, if any, might successful participants identify that states should address to ultimately enhance student performance?