Emerging Themes from the Office of Civil Rights

I'm also sitting in the ELA general session with Russlyn Ali.  I agree that the information and the exchange of ideas in the room has addressed many important issues in education policy.

Here are a couple of hot topics:

Racial segregation in schools.  OCR is concerned about the comparabiility of resources between districts, especially in light of the fact that many racially isolated districts aren't providing key resources to students.  They are working to develop tools for schools that want to voluntarily integrate.  Secretary Ali commented that she believed diversity is a compelling interest and that integration in diverse environments is good for everyone.  She then cited research that kids from racial and ethnic groups generally do better in integrated schools than in racially isolated schools.  Questions from the audience asked about the benefits of neighborhood schools and about the negative effects of racially isolated housing patterns.  Secretary Ali said OCR is working with other federal agencies to address some of these issues.

Strong teachers.  The OCR is working to transform the idea of what makes a great teacher.  It is more than just credentials and a college degree.   The goal is to define strong teachers using student achievement as a factor.  Secretary Ali acknowledge that there were real contractual issues around this issue and that teacher collective baragining agreements would have to be examined in order to make this kind of change.  When a superintedent from the audience asked a question about incorporating a well-rounded approach to measuring student achievement, the Secretary said that OCR would support local districts in coming up with new measures that better capture the whole student experience.  We need a picture of student growth that measures the whole development of the child and tools that have multiple measures.  It is the OCR's position that the locality is the best place to decide what makes a strong teacher a strong teacher.  But the Secretary did call for the wall separating teacher and student data be removed and to make the tests much better, such as improving their focus on critical thinking.

Title IX.  Secretary Ali mentioned that access to STEM courses for girls could be protected by Title IX like athletics.  I haven't heard a lot about this issue, so this is something to look into.

There was a lot more then this, but these are only the highlights.  I agree with Justin that if you are interested in these issues, consider joining ELA and coming to next year's conference in Chicago.  In the meantime you can follow education law and policy issues in this blog and on the ELA website.

Comments

[Justin B.]

Thought the STEM thing under Title IX was a really interesting concept to be sure. That would dramatically expand the domain of Title IX, but on first glance I can see how the legal theory would operate.

Sorry for getting a bit passionate in your session. This is going to be an extremely interesting reauthorization. I wouldn't be surprised if after the law is passed, several attorney generals (perhaps 10 or more) file suit against it (like they did healthcare - except in this instance, I think they would have a much stronger case). I also wouldn't be surprised if some states just decide to opt out. We should probably take some over/under numbers on that. Well to do, generally conservative states like Utah and the Plains states could probably opt out immediately. And, if 1 southern state chooses to opt out (probably South Carolina) there might be a landslide. I would really have to see them, but I could see supporting these opt-outs and lawsuits. How can we feasibly saw we have a state system of education when Washington sets the curriculum, the teachers, choice policies, discipline policy, and all the traditional things such as special education ... then, insult to injury, refuses to pay the bill.

What drives me crazy is that I totally supported the legal usage of Race to the Top. That grant-making type use of federal power seems like the perfect usage of the Spending Power - and it had pretty good results with over 1/2 the states changing laws because of it. That treated states as real partners, set some broad goals. but still gave creativity in how to meet those. And, if states didn't like the policies, they didn't play, or get paid. Simple. Effective. Constitutional. Why mess with that?