FOR RELEASE:
July 2, 2009 Contact: John White
Press Secretary
john.white@ed.gov
(202) 401-1576

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan today praised the National Education Association for its effort to improve the quality of the education workforce and challenged the union to reevaluate some of its policies on compensating teachers and offering them job protections.

Speaking at the NEA's annual convention in San Diego, Duncan said that the unions needed to relax contract rules to recruit, reward and retain highly effective educators, especially in low-performing schools in need of dramatic improvements.

"If we agree that the adults in these schools are failing these children then we have to find the right people and we can't let our rules and regulations get in the way," Duncan said. "Children have only one chance to get an education."

Specifically, Duncan asked the union to bargain for contracts that change rules creating a single salary schedule, offering seniority benefits, and protecting ineffective teachers who have tenure. Duncan also encouraged the union to include student achievement when evaluating teachers and deciding their compensation.

"Test scores alone should never drive evaluation, compensation or tenure decisions," Duncan said. "That would never make sense. But to remove student achievement entirely from evaluation is illogical and indefensible."

Duncan praised the NEA for its work to improve teacher quality in its advocacy for the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards and other professional development programs. Duncan noted that more than a thousand teachers earned certification from the national board during his seven years as CEO of Chicago public schools.

"I ask you to join President Obama and me in a new commitment to results that recognizes and rewards success in the classroom and is rooted in our common obligation to children," Duncan said.

The speech was the last in a series in which Duncan outlined the specific goals on the four policy initiatives states must address under the $5 billion Race to the Top Fund, a competitive grant program that will make grants to states leading the way in school reform.

Duncan's earlier speeches addressed the importance of using of data to inform instruction and education policy decisions, the imperative for world-class standards and assessments, and the need for charter school operators to join the effort to turn around low-performing schools.

Immediately after his speech, Duncan participated in a panel discussion, where he discussed the No Child Left Behind Act with 10 NEA members and heard comments from the NEA members in the audience. The event was the sixth stop on the secretary's "NCLB Listening and Learning Tour." He previously visited West Virginia, Michigan, Vermont, Montana and New Jersey.

Duncan and senior members of his team will continue traveling across the country to gather ideas on how to improve the NCLB and inform the Obama administration's proposal to reauthorize it.

Remarks of Arne Duncan to the National Education Association—Partners in Reform

FOR RELEASE:
July 2, 2009

Good morning. Thank you for having me and thank you for hosting one of our Listening and Learning events. We embarked on this tour to hear from people in classrooms and schools—people who are facing educational challenges and finding solutions.

I've now been to 22 states and dozens of communities. I've met with hundreds of teachers and principals, education support staff, students, parents, superintendents, college professors, higher education administrators, and community leaders.

Everyone I spoke with understands that the status quo is not good enough. They want to get better—they need to get better—and they're willing to work even harder. They just want to be part of the process and they want their voices to be heard.

So I look forward today to hearing your voices—hearing what you have to say—hearing your ideas for improving American education. I encourage you to think boldly and courageously—to challenge me, challenge yourselves, and challenge each other.

But we must be willing to do more than talk. We all must be willing to change. As I said recently, education reform isn't a table around which we all talk. It's a moving train and we all need to get on board.

I have had some compelling conversations with the NEA leadership and many of your members. I'm convinced that if everyone is on board this train—it will gain enough speed, momentum and direction to take public education to a new and better place.

In recent weeks, I have given a series of speeches about the four core reforms embodied in the Recovery Act leading up to the release of $5 billion dollars in competitive grants.

The first speech was about creating data systems that follow the progress of students from pre-K through college so teachers can better meet the needs of students and we can help identify teachers who are doing well or who are struggling.

The second speech was about adopting higher standards and creating high-quality assessments. I want to thank you for your support of higher standards. That's the kind of leadership we need on a whole range of issues.

The third speech was about turning around our most troubled schools. We proposed several models and invited everyone to be part of the solution: unions, charters, non-profits, for-profits, universities, states and districts.

I also challenged the audience of charter school operators and authorizers to get much more serious about accountability. They must not protect third-rate charters. Those schools need too close. Charter schools are public schools and they should be held to the same standards as everyone else.

Today is the last of my four speeches—and the focus today is on the quality of the education workforce—teachers, principals and education support professionals. I want to acknowledge some of the good things that we have done—and talk about some of the things we haven't done.

I came here today to challenge you to think differently about the role of unions in public education because—when thousands of schools are chronically failing and millions of children are dropping out each year—we all must think differently.

It's not enough to focus only on issues like job security, tenure, compensation, and evaluation. You must become full partners and leaders in education reform. You and I must be willing to change.

I know we won't all agree on everything—but I'm confident there will be more we agree with than not. It starts with our shared values.

We believe it is our moral obligation to give children the very best education possible. We believe every child can learn and every school can succeed. We believe teaching is a profession and good teachers and principals are essential to success.

Unlike many of you, my values and views on education were not shaped in the front of a classroom. In 1961 my mother began an after-school, inner-city tutoring program on the South Side of Chicago and raised my brother, sister and me as a part of her program.

That daily experience was an absolutely formative one for all three of us and we all tried to follow in her footsteps in various ways. It was work filled both with great heartbreak and also amazing triumph.

We experienced our share of early, violent deaths because of the community's chaos, and those experiences shape you and frankly scar you in ways that to this day are difficult to talk about.

But from the group of friends I grew up studying with and playing ball with, from one street corner at 46th and Greenwood, emerged literally a brain surgeon, a Hollywood movie star, one of my top administrators at the Chicago Public Schools, and one of IBM's international corporate leaders.

How did this happen? Because these children despite tremendous poverty, despite staggering neighborhood violence, despite challenges at home, had my mother and others in their lives who gave them real opportunities, real support and guidance over the years, and had the highest expectations for them. And because of that opportunity, their gifts and their talents, and their fierce desire to succeed, blossomed.

What I learned as a little boy, what continues to motivate my mother today 48 years after she began her work, are the same two values that motivate all of you.

It is a fundamental, unalterable belief that every child can learn, and a fundamental understanding of the tremendous urgency of our work. Simply put, we cannot wait because our children cannot wait.

I've met a thousand educators like my mother in schools all across America. I've seen them on an Indian reservation in Montana, in a West Virginia middle school, at a high school in Detroit and a charter school in Newark.

All of us remember educator or coach who changed our life. It stays with us forever. It sustains us, guides us and inspires us. They're the ones who commit those everyday acts of kindness and love and never ask for anything in return. They counsel troubled teens, take phone calls at night, and reach into their pockets for lunch money for children who are too ashamed to ask.

I've seen how much these educators want to be valued for their work and honored for what they are: dedicated, professional, compassionate, serious and responsible. These are the qualities of a great educator and we have millions of them all across America.

My next experience was with the I Have A Dream foundation—where we adopted a class of students and agreed to send them to college if they stayed in school. The previous class had a 67% dropout rate while we had an 87% graduation rate.

After that, I helped start a small new traditional neighborhood public school—the Ariel Academy. It wasn't a charter. It had union teachers and today it is one of the highest-performing public schools in Chicago—even though all of the kids come from poverty.

Finally, I spent seven years running the Chicago Public Schools—where I learned other important lessons. We set up 150 community schools open 12 hours a day offering classes to adults and students.

We paid teachers to work extra hours and many of them took on that responsibility because they were committed to the school's success. Schools must support the social and emotional needs of students and engage the whole family.

We also increased the number of National Board Certified teachers in Chicago to about 1200—from about a dozen when I started. We partnered with the Union and with the Chicago Public Education Fund—which is a group of business leaders. Together we grew NBC faster than anywhere else in the nation.

I am big believer in this program, but let's also be honest: school systems pay teachers billions of dollars more each year for earning PD credentials that do very little to improve the quality of teaching.

At the same time, many schools give nothing at all to the teachers who go the extra mile and make all the difference in students' lives. Excellence matters and we should honor it—fairly, transparently, and on terms teachers can embrace.

The President and I have both said repeatedly that we are not going to impose reform but rather work with teachers, principals, and unions to find what works. And that is what we did in Chicago. We enlisted the help of 24 of the best teachers in the system to design a pilot performance compensation system. We also sat down with the union and bargained it out.

It was based on classroom observation, whole school performance and individual classroom performance, measured in part by growth in student learning. The rewards and incentives for good performance went to every adult in the school—including custodians and cafeteria workers—not just the individual teachers.

Where you see high-performing schools—it's the culture—every adult taking responsibility and creating a culture of high expectations.

We're asking Congress for more money to develop compensation programs "with" you—and "for" you—not "to" you—programs that will put money in the pockets of your teachers and support personnel by recognizing and rewarding excellence.

So I begin our conversation today around some important areas of agreement: excellence in teaching, good professional development, school's open longer hours, and a shared responsibility for student success among all the adults in the school building.

But the President and I want to go further. I want to describe some tough challenges and ask you how we can work together to meet them. Let's start by talking about under-performing schools.

We don't need a study to tell us that chronically under-performing schools do not have the best principals and teachers. Experience tells us that failing schools usually have poor leadership—and poor leadership usually drives away good teachers.

Now often—we try replacing the leadership—and sometimes that works. We need to invest much more in principal leadership. We need to recruit and train the very best people possible because the job is hard and the cost of failure is too high.

Principals run multi-million dollar budgets, they hire, train and manage scores of people, and the best of them are also instructional leaders who are trained in classroom observation. It's a lot to ask of anyone—and we need 95,000 of them in America.

Great principals lead talented instructional teams that drive student performance and close achievement gaps. They deserve to be recognized and rewarded. But if they're not up to the job, they need to go.

Similarly, in struggling schools, we have tried boosting support for teaching staff and making other changes around curriculum, school day, etc.—and sometimes it has worked. I always favor more support, collaboration, mentoring and time on task.

But sometimes, despite our best efforts, these methods don't work. Today, America has about 5000 schools that continue to underperform year after year, despite our best efforts.

2,000 high schools produce half of the dropouts in the country. Their kids are years behind grade. They are perpetuating poverty and social failure. When it comes to these schools, we need to think differently. We need the courage to change.

We need to go into a room—states, districts, unions, administrators, foundations, think tanks, charters, non-profits, parents, and elected officials—lock the door—throw out the rule books—and start with a clean slate.

We need to be open and honest about the challenges and the barriers. If we agree that children need more time—then we must give it to them. If we agree that teachers need more support, then we must give it to them.

But if we agree that the adults in these schools are failing these children then we have to find the right people and we can't let our rules and regulations get in the way. Children have only one chance to get an education.

It's also not about charters or unions. Chicago has turnaround schools led by a businessman who uses union teachers and he's getting great results. So does Green Dot in Los Angeles.

But Mastery Charters in Philadelphia is a different turnaround model and we need that as well. There is so much urgency and so much need in under-performing schools that we can't impede successful models like these, regardless of governance structure.

The NEA has an honest and passionate leader in Dennis Van Roekel. He shares our sense of urgency. He has told me personally that he'll walk into any room with anyone to talk about how to turn schools around.

And that gives me hope. We're losing too many children today and incremental change won't save them. We need dramatic change.

And we can't continue to blame each other or blame the system. We are the system and it is up to us—you and me—to change it. So let's talk about that.

We created seniority rules that protect teachers from arbitrary and capricious management—and that's a good goal. But sometimes those rules place teachers in schools and communities where they won't succeed—and that's wrong.

We created tenure rules to make sure that a struggling teacher gets a fair opportunity to improve—and that's a good goal. But when an ineffective teacher gets a chance to improve and doesn't—and when the tenure system keeps that teacher in the classroom anyway—then the system is protecting jobs rather than children. That's not a good thing. We need to work together to change that.

I told the charter schools they need to police themselves or their progress will be stalled. I told the school boards that if they can't improve student achievement—they have a moral obligation to consider mayoral control.

And I'm telling you as well—that when inflexible seniority and rigid tenure rules that we designed put adults ahead of children—then we are not only putting kids at risk—we're putting the entire education system at risk. We're inviting the attack of parents and the public—and that is not good for any of us.

I believe that teacher unions are at a crossroads. These policies were created over the past century to protect the rights of teachers but they have produced an industrial factory model of education that treats all teachers like interchangeable widgets.

A recent report from the New Teacher Project found that almost all teachers are rated the same. Who in their right mind really believes that? We need to work together to change this.

Now let's talk about data. I understand that word can make people nervous but I see data first and foremost as a barometer. It tells us what is happening. Used properly, it can help teachers better understand the needs of their students. Too often, teachers don't have good data to inform instruction and help raise student achievement.

Data can also help identify and support teachers who are struggling. And it can help evaluate them. The problem is that some states prohibit linking student achievement and teacher effectiveness.

I understand that tests are far from perfect and that it is unfair to reduce the complex, nuanced work of teaching to a simple multiple choice exam. Test scores alone should never drive evaluation, compensation or tenure decisions. That would never make sense. But to remove student achievement entirely from evaluation is illogical and indefensible.

It's time we all admit that just as our testing system is deeply flawed—so is our teacher evaluation system—and the losers are not just the children. When great teachers are unrecognized and unrewarded—when struggling teachers are unsupported—and when failing teachers are unaddressed—the teaching profession is damaged.

We need to work together to fix this and I will meet you more than halfway. I will demand the same of every principal, administrator, school board member, elected official and parent. I ask only the same of you that I ask of myself and others.

The NEA has long history of reform on issues of health care, child advocacy, civil rights, and disabilities rights. And I don't begin to suggest that all teachers and unions are standing in the way of reform. I know many of your members and affiliates have been working on these issues. In Illinois for example—the IEA has led a 20-year effort to build labor-management partnerships around school improvement.

One of the leaders of that effort—Jo Anderson—has joined our team. He's here today and I thank him for his work.

I also want to acknowledge my general counsel Charlie Rose who was our labor lawyer in Illinois. Charlie told me—years ago—that the key to making progress on education reform begins with respect for the labor-management relationship.

I believe that and I salute union-management partnerships all across America that are working together to develop better hiring, compensation, evaluation and turnaround strategies. But we need to move faster and we need to go further.

America's teachers are yearning to be partners in reform and change. They want teaching to be a respected profession that has high standards for performance, rewards excellence, provides opportunities for advancement, and promotes real collaboration.

They are tired of being demonized, blamed, and disrespected. They want to get on the train. Let me share a powerful quote from your former President, Mary Hatwood Futrell:

"The education reform movement demands not only that we seize the opportunity, but that we embrace the responsibility that is ours. You and I must provide the leadership ... and share this responsibility with every parent and citizen who is concerned about safeguarding the sanctity and purpose of public education for all."

Taking her words to heart, our challenge is to make sure every child in America is learning from an effective teacher—no matter what it takes. So today, I ask you to join President Obama and me in a new commitment to results that recognizes and rewards success in the classroom and is rooted in our common obligation to children.

You've heard my voice—and I appreciate that. Now I want to hear your voices. I began my remarks with a personal story. I just want to close with one more:

Dr. Martin Luther King came to the West Side of Chicago in 1966 to protest housing discrimination. His powerful and inspiring message brought billions of dollars into that community for housing, job-training, and community development.

But when I took over the public schools in Chicago—35 years later—the children of North Lawndale were still desperately poor. You have to ask yourself why—after so much money and time—nothing had changed?

It's because they forgot to invest in the one thing with the power to transform lives. They forgot education. They put all of that money into bricks and mortar and social programs but they forgot to give the people the skills they need to help themselves.

President Obama learned that lesson and that's why the Recovery Act invests more than $100 billion dollars in education. I want to thank NEA for your support. That money is going into our classrooms to keep teachers teaching and kids learning—so we can educate our way to a better economy.

The President understands that the nation that out-teaches us today will out-compete us tomorrow. He understands that education is the foundation of our economic strategy and the only sure path to long-term economic strength.

That's why he wants America to produce the highest percentage of college graduates by the end of the next decade. This is our moon-shot. This is our call to action.

It is an economic imperative and a moral imperative. This is the civil rights issue of our generation—the fight for a quality education is about so much more than education. It's a fight for social justice. And he's counting on you to lead that fight.

There is simply no more important work in our society than education. The President understands that, parents understand that, America understands that. Now we—all of us together—must act on that understanding and move forward.

Thank you.

Labels: Duncan, teachers

posted by Patricia Lopez at 11:22 AM 0 comments Links to this post

By GARY MARTIN | Houston Chronicle
June 30, 2009

WASHINGTON — University of Texas System Chancellor Francisco Cigarroa told Latino leaders Tuesday that the lack of educational attainment, particularly for minorities, is “a gathering storm” that threatens America’s competitiveness.

With only three-fourths of U.S. teens graduating from high schools and only 39 percent of high school graduates entering college, the country is losing a competitive student pipeline for professions that include medicine and health care, the UT leader told the Latino Leaders Network.

“We can no longer risk complacency as we face a looming storm,” said Cigarroa, who was being honored as the 2009 Nambe Eagle Leadership Award recipient for his contributions to the Latino community and his achievements in medicine and academia. “We must ensure that the student pipeline remains wonderfully competitive, diverse, open and bountiful.”

The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that minorities are expected to comprise 54 percent of the overall student population in 2050, and Cigarroa said that more must be done to improve their opportunities in health care, medicine and other fields.

“It pays multiple dividends by helping students enter a profession and improving the availability of health care in a chronically underserved region,” he said.

A native of Laredo, Cigarroa reflected on his South Texas upbringing in his speech to 400 people at the Capital Hilton. He recalled leaving the mesquite and brush years ago to attend Yale University.

“The most difficult transition in my life was that transition from Laredo to Yale,” Cigarroa said to laughter from a crowd of lawmakers, public officials and students.

When he later left a medical residency at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore to take a position at the University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio, a colleague told Cigarroa he was “committing academic suicide.”

But Cigarroa later became president of the University of Texas Health Science Center, and was named chancellor of the entire University of Texas system in January.

Mickey Ibarra, founder and chairman of the Latino Leaders Network, said Cigarroa’s accomplishments in surgery and medical research “make him one of the foremost Latino medical leaders in the world.”

A pediatric and transplant surgeon, Cigarroa received a bachelor’s degree from Yale and his medical degree from the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

In 1997, he was part of a surgical team that split a donor liver for transplant into two recipients, the first time the procedure was performed in Texas.

Labels: higher education

posted by Patricia Lopez at 11:03 AM 0 comments Links to this post

Here's an update on LA's curricular tracking.

-Patricia

The provision in Louisiana puts the state in the center of a national debate about where to set the bar for high school graduation.

By Stacy Teicher Khadaroo | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
June 30, 2009

High-schoolers in Louisiana will soon be able to opt for a "career diploma" – taking some alternative courses instead of a full college-prep curriculum. The new path to graduation – expected to be signed into law by Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) in the coming days – bucks a trend in which many states are cranking up academic requirements.

The legislation puts the state in the center of a national debate about where to set the bar for high school graduation.

Advocates of the new diploma option say it will keep more struggling students in school and will prepare them for jobs, technical training, or community college. Critics doubt the curriculum will be strong enough to accomplish such goals and say it shortchanges students in the long run, given the projections that a large number of future jobs will require a college degree.

The impact may ultimately depend on how well the new option is implemented by school districts.

"Not all career-tech [education] is created equal," says Mary McNaught, chief of staff at Civic Enterprises, a public-policy group in Washington. "High-quality programs offer real skills that can be used in the workplace.... At other times, it is watering down standards, and kids who are put on that track don't [gain] the skills needed to compete in the technical arenas [or] in a 21st-century economy."

As a former judge who sent many high school dropouts to prison, state Sen. Robert Kostelka (R) sponsored the bill in hopes of inspiring students who are more interested in nuts and bolts than "Beowulf." As they enter high school, many "are finding less and less relevance to the normal college-prep curriculum and [want] technical training," he says. "It's really not lowering standards; it's just another pathway ... for those that can't go the harder, more rigorous path."

With the new measure, Louisiana will join roughly half the states in offering less demanding pathways for a diploma, says Michael Cohen, president of Achieve Inc., a Washington-based education-reform coalition. "What Louisiana has done is take a step backwards," he says.

In recent years, more than 20 states have "identified a rigorous core [curriculum] intended for all or nearly all kids," Mr. Cohen says. Louisiana had been one leader in that trend.

All along, Louisiana has offered some career and technical courses, but the new track will put more emphasis on them.

Educators are generally split on the issue: Fifty-nine percent of teachers and 41 percent of principals believe there should be separate tracks to allow students who are not college bound to get a diploma, according to a recent Civic Enterprises report.

Yet Louisiana has raised academic standards and graduation rates simultaneously, critics of the legislation, including the state superintendent of education, have pointed out. Among ninth-graders, for instance, the graduation rate rose from about 61 percent in 2001 to 66 percent in 2007, according to the state.

Supporters of the legislation offer another figure: Among seventh-graders, only about 54 percent graduate from high school, and many of them leave the system before ninth grade, says Keith Guice, president of the Louisiana State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.

Another controversial element of the new plan allows eighth-graders to score lower on state tests and still enter high school – as long as they get parental consent and participate in remediation and dropout-prevention programs. "This diploma, hopefully, is going to provide a second chance for many students who are on the dropout road," Mr. Guice says.

Labels: tracking

posted by Patricia Lopez at 10:56 AM 0 comments Links to this post

Inside Higher Ed
July 1, 2009

Most states don’t have systems in place to measure college students’ learning outcomes, and rare is the state that actually uses accountability data to drive policy decisions, a new report says.

Education Sector, a think tank promoting education reform, analyzed accountability systems across the nation and found varied results in its report, "Ready to Assemble: Grading State Higher Education Accountability Systems." The group’s survey determined that 38 states have little if any system for measuring learning outcomes, adding that 36 states have yet to develop a method for linking college funding to performance.

“Accountability isn’t just about gathering information; it’s about doing something useful with it,” said Kevin Carey, policy director for Education Sector.

“There’s a lot of innovation for states to learn from,” he added. “The bad news is I don’t think any state has put together a complete package.”

Education Sector measured states in 21 categories of accountability, analyzing any systems that might be in place to assess areas like affordability, degree production, research and scholarship. States that promote or require the use of assessment tools, and take steps to publicize the information, were given the highest marks. Those that had few tools for assessment and did little to spread information were graded lower.

Education Sector graded 50 states, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia on a three-grade scale. The highest grade, “best practice,” was given to 10 states with well developed reporting mechanisms. The second ranking, “in progress,” was given to 27 states that have less complete efforts underway. The lowest category, “needs improvement,” went to 13 states, D.C. and Puerto Rico, where little is being done in the way of accountability, according to Education Sector.

To assess the level of accountability, Education Sector examined whether states use new assessment tools like the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) or the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA). States have used these tools, developed by nonprofit organizations, in part to answer critics who say higher education hasn’t held itself accountable. Some fear that if colleges and universities don’t develop their own standards to measure effectiveness, federal standards could be implemented. Carey said he would not be interested in a large government accountability system akin to No Child Left Behind.

“Nobody I think wants a No Child Left Behind for higher education; we certainly don’t,” he said. “But if you’re not going to have direct regulation, which we don’t think we should have, then really accountability will only work if we create strong incentives. Incentives have to be tied to what institutions care about.”

In other words, states need to develop systems to reward colleges that show improvement in areas like student engagement, graduation rates and research production, Carey said.

While there is great room for improvement, there are some bright spots in the accountability universe, the report acknowledges. South Dakota, for instance, uses the Collegiate Assessment of Academic Progress (CAAP) -- developed by the makers of the ACT college-entrance examination -- to see if students are making satisfactory progress in their first two years of college. If students fail to meet standards three times, they are not permitted to re-enroll in state institutions. The provision affects about 2 percent of students each year, according to the report. While that may not sound like much, it's one of the few examples in the report of a state setting a data-driven standard that has consequences.

While several states use the NSSE, institutions vary when it comes to publicizing what students say about them. Vermont, which was ranked as a “needs improvement” state, puts the results of all 80 NSSE survey questions into a searchable database accessible to the public. While the state got high marks for transparency, Vermont could still be more proactive in informing the public about the performance of its institutions, the report said.

Even states that do a good job of collecting data often fall short when it comes to publicizing the findings, Carey said.

“The average student and parent can’t be expected to sift through mountains of PDF files and an obscure spreadsheet,” he said.

The states with the lowest grades were often cited for failing to compile information by race and gender, something many states do regularly. On the other hand, the report sought to find out which states collect less commonly used data. Only five states, for instance, were given the “best practice” designation for measuring the way colleges improve their community’s quality of life through arts and cultural programs. Connecticut, which was rated “best practice” in this category, is the only state to track the number of artistic and creative products attributable to state institutions, according to the report. The state keeps tabs on how many plays, compositions, paintings and other cultural contributions can be traced back to colleges and universities.

Overall Grades for States on Education Sector's Accountability Measures

Labels: higher education, measures of rediness

posted by Patricia Lopez at 10:53 AM 0 comments Links to this post

This is great news!

-Patricia

By Georgia Pabst | the Journal Sentinel
Posted: June 29, 2009

Some illegal immigrant high school graduates will be able to attend Wisconsin state universities by paying in-state tuition, under a provision in the two-year budget Gov. Jim Doyle signed into law Monday.

Wisconsin now becomes the 11th state to enact such a law.

To qualify, students would have to reside in the state for three years, graduate from a Wisconsin high school or earn an equivalency degree here.

The students would have to apply through the normal channels.

It's estimated from 400 to 650 illegal immigrants annually graduate from state high schools, but they must pay out-of-state tuition if they enroll in the state university system or technical colleges.

In-state tuition at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee is $7,576 a year in the 2008-'09 school year, compared with out-of-state tuition, which is $17,306.

State Rep. Pedro Colón (D-Milwaukee) first introduced the in-state college tuition measure in 1999, when he was new to the Assembly.

"I really think this gets us back on course with our brightest having more access to education," he said. "It's not a huge scholarship program, but an important step for more access to higher education than we had yesterday."

Immigrant advocates who have pushed for the measure attended the signing in Madison. Christine Neumann-Ortiz, director of Voces de la Frontera, an immigrant and worker rights organization, called it "a historic step forward in recognizing the civil rights of immigrants in the area of education."

Opponents such as state Sen. Glenn Grothman (R-West Band) criticized the provision.

Labels: immigration and education

posted by Patricia Lopez at 10:43 AM 0 comments Links to this post