Federal Lawmakers Urge Secretary Cardona to Let States Cancel Tests
Trouble is brewing in Democratic paradise, especially when it comes to those annual student tests states are required to administer.
A group of congressional Democrats from the House and the Senate have written to U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona trying to persuade him to let states nix standardized tests, despite the Biden administration’s decision last month not to consider requests to do so.
In addition, the lawmakers say the U.S. Department of Education should focus on other ways to support students and educators during the pandemic.
“Taken together, it becomes clear that this pandemic has exacerbated many of the existing inequities in our public education system,” the letter says. “As such, our response should not begin with reassessing the situation, but rather with providing the resources schools need to safely reopen and address the learning loss from the past year.”
The pushback from fellow Democrats shows that the Biden Education Department’s decision to grant states waivers from accountability requirements under federal law, but not to allow them to simply cancel mandated standardized exams, remains a controversial issue in the president’s political coalition. The two national teachers’ unions—ardent Biden supporters—expressed disappointment in the Feb. 22 guidance that included that decision.
Republicans in Congress have also expressed skepticism about the value of the state exams this year: the burden they could place on schools, the validity of test scores, the logistics of giving tests in person, among other issues.
However, the department, several prominent education groups, and others have highlighted the importance of the exams to assess the needs of schools and students, even if accountability requirements won’t apply this school year.
“We believe the purpose of state assessments this year should be to provide information to parents, educators, and the public about student performance and to help target resources and supports—not for accountability,” said department spokeswoman Kelly S. Leon.
Calif. Dangles Extra Money Before Districts to Encourage Officials to Reopen Schools
If the stick doesn’t work, let’s try the carrot. That seems to be the philosophy behind California lawmakers’ latest attempt to get students back into schools.
Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the $6.6 billion legislative measure aimed at pressuring school districts to return students to the classroom before the end of the school year.
The law does not order districts to resume in-person instruction and it does not say parents must send their children back to the classroom.
Instead, the state will dangle $2 billion before cash-strapped school boards, offering them a share of that money only if they offer in-person instruction.
“We need to get the schools reopened. And I know it’s hard, but today we are providing powerful tools for schools to move in this direction,” said state Sen. Scott Wiener, a Democrat, who pleaded with his San Francisco district to accept the money and offer in-person instruction.
Indeed, San Francisco recently came to an agreement with its teachers’ union and planned on reopening for elementary students.
In Los Angeles, the district and teachers’ union also came to a tentative deal that would allow a partial reopening of campuses.
Nearly every lawmaker voted for the bill, but many did so reluctantly, arguing it’s too weak.
The bill does not say how much time students should spend in the classroom, prompting fears some districts might have students return for just one day a week. And while the bill requires most elementary grades to return to the classroom to get the money, it does not require all middle and high school grades to return this year.
Senate Republicans tried to amend the bill to say schools must offer at least three days per week of in-person learning, but Democrats rejected it.
“The truth is (this bill) doesn’t do anything to reopen our schools,” said Scott Wilk, the GOP leader in the Senate, who voted for the bill along with most other Republicans.
The measure also includes $4.6 billion aimed at helping students catch up after a year of learning from home.
Cyberattacks on School Districts Soared During the COVID-19 Pandemic in 2020
Cyberattacks on districts surged by a whopping 18 percent in calendar year 2020, likely because of the greater reliance on classroom technology during the pandemic, says a report released last week by the K12 Security Information Exchange and the K-12 Cybersecurity Resource Center.
Just over 400 cyberattacks were publicly disclosed last calendar year, compared with 348 in 2019, the report found. That amounts to more than two per school day.
Districts largely failed the “stress test of the resiliency and security of the K-12 educational technology ecosystem,” the report concludes. “The evidence suggests that in rapidly shifting to remote learning, school districts not only exposed themselves to greater cybersecurity risks but were also less able to mitigate the impact of the cyber incidents they experienced.”
In addition to the usual cyberattacks—denial of service, ransomware, phishing, and data breaches—a brand-new type of cyberattack was introduced: invasions. “Class invasions,” also known as “Zoom raids” or “Zoom bombing,” included unauthorized people disrupting online classes, often with hate speech, sexual or shocking images, videos, or threats.
So-called “meeting invasions” used similar tactics and mostly targeted PTA meetings, school board meetings, virtual open houses, and other events drawing relatively larger groups of people. And “email invasions” typically entailed breaking into district email servers and using them to send hate speech, distressing images, and other inappropriate content to those on district email lists.
The pandemic may be a big part of the reason for the spike in cyberattacks, the report says. That’s because schools dramatically increased their use of technology beginning last spring, by handing out thousands of new devices, using new platforms without a lot of training for teachers, allowing educators to use free apps that hadn’t been scrutinized for privacy and security factors, and the like.
What’s more, IT staff may have used new remote-access tools to keep teachers and students connected, creating more opportunities for hackers to get into district networks. And students and teachers who did return to school may have brought back devices that were used on less-than-secure home networks.
Supreme Court Backs Suits Seeking Nominal Damages
One longtime avenue for school districts and colleges to circumvent legal challenges has now been closed off to them.
The U.S. Supreme Court last week ruled that a request for nominal damages of as little as $1 can keep a lawsuit opposing a government policy alive even when the agency drops that policy.
The 8-1 decision came in a case brought by two community college students who had sought to express their religious faith on campus. They ran afoul of the policy of Georgia Gwinnett College that sharply limited First Amendment activity to a small “free-speech zone.”
When the students sued, the college quickly dropped the restrictions and sought to toss out the students’ lawsuit as moot. Two lower courts ruled for the college, essentially holding that their plea for a court order to end the policy was no longer necessary and that nominal damages would have no practical effect on the situation.
Writing for the majority in Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, Justice Clarence Thomas said that an award of nominal damages can by itself redress, or rectify, a legal injury.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. was the lone dissenter. “If nominal damages can preserve a live controversy, then federal courts will be required to give advisory opinions whenever a plaintiff tacks on a request for a dollar,” Roberts said.
Many lawsuits are filed against school districts by students and parents challenging a policy or practice, only to have the district change the policy or the student graduate before he or she achieves any “prospective” court action, such as a court injunction to end an unconstitutional policy.
USDA Extends Waivers for Free Meal Service
Hunger does not end just because the school year does.
In recognition of that, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has extended waivers for some school meal rules through Sept. 30, giving schools more flexibility to feed hungry children through the summer and into next school year.
Schools have relied on the waivers, which give them greater flexibility in how and when they serve meals, since the pandemic forced the first broad closures in March of last year.
The federal agency has extended the waivers several times as schools’ operations and students’ lives continue to be upended by COVID-19. Before the USDA announced the extension last week, the waivers were set to expire June 30.
The waivers cover several areas. They allow schools and community programs to serve free meals under the summer food program in all areas. That program is usually restricted to areas that meet certain poverty thresholds.
Schools also will be permitted to serve meals outside of typical mealtimes and group settings, allowing for “grab and go” options that families can take home during remote learning or when it is not safe to eat in a group setting.
And lastly, the waivers allow parents to pick up one or more meals for their children, even if the children aren’t present.
The School Nutrition Association, which represents school food professionals around the country, has advocated extending meal waivers even further into the fall in anticipation of continued remote learning for some families.