document resume ed 427 416document resume ea 029 654 the progress of education reform 1998....

ED 427 416

TITLEINSTITUTIONPUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPEEDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

EA 029 654

The Progress of Education Reform 1998.Education Commission of the States, Denver, CO.1998-00-0049p.; For the 1996 report, see ED 402 653.Education Commission of the States, Distribution Center, 70717th Street, Suite 2700, Denver, CO 80202-3427 (Stock No.SI-98-5; $12.50 plus $4.25 postage and handling, prepaid).Information Analyses (070) Reports - Descriptive (141)MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.*Educational Change; Educational Improvement; *ElementarySecondary Education; Financial Policy; ProfessionalDevelopment; *Public Education; *Public Policy; PublicSchools; School Choice; Standards

This fourth annual report by the Education Commission of theStates (ECS) examines the status of efforts to improve the public educationsystem. Nine sections provide overviews of major trends in policy andpractice: (1) "Standards, Assessment and Accountability" explores thetransition over the last decade toward a standards-based system by examiningthe quality of content standards, student assessment, and promotingaccountability; (2) "School Finance and Facilities Funding" looks at the useof private-sector style data management and new approaches to assessingstatewide needs; (3) "Public School Choice" looks at vouchers, homeschooling, and charter schools as examples of market-style reforms; (4)

"Teacher Education and Professional Development" discusses state-wideinitiatives affecting all aspects of teaching and offers research-basedprinciples for improving professional development; (5) "Technology" considersthe pressures on educators to demonstrate that investments in technology andtelecommunications raise student achievement and improve the overall learningenvironment; (6) "Early Childhood Care and Education" focuses on statewideinitiatives aimed at promoting healthy development of infants, toddlers, andyoung children, and augmenting services to disadvantages children; (7)

"K-12/Postsecondary Collaboration" looks at how these two systems worktogether to improve student achievement and access to college; (8)

"Comprehensive School Reform" takes a critical look at whole-school reformand offers some lessons learned from New American Schools; and (9)"Governance" comments upon the current trend toward decentralization and theapplicability of state intervention when necessary. Contains relevantwebsites, telephone phone numbers, and ECS publications. (RIB)

********************************************************************************Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made

from the original document.********************************************************************************

EDUCATION

COMMISSION

OF THE STATES

I I

I I:

U S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)grs document has been reproduced as

received from the person or organizationoriginating it

0 Minor changes have been made toimprove reproduction quality

Points of view or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or policy

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS

BEEN GRANT BY

I

IP

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

1 2

EST COPY AVAILABLE

The Progressof EducationReform 1998

Education Commission of the States

707 17th Street, Suite 2700

Denver, CO 80202-3427

303-299-3600

fax: 303-296-8332

e-mail: [email protected]

www.ecs.org

EDUCATION

COMMISSION

OF THE STATES

ilt

4

I DLC STION

COMMISSION

The Progress of Education Reform 1998

Copies of this book are availablefor $12.50 plus postage and handlingfrom the ECS Distribution Center,707 17th Street, Suite 2700, Denver,CO 80202-3427, 303-299-3692. Askfor No. SI-98-5. ECS acceptsprepaid orders, MasterCard, Amer-ican Express and Visa. All sales arefinal.

ECS is pleased to have other orga-nizations or individuals share itsmaterials with their constituents.To request permission to excerptpart of this publication either inprint or electronically, please writeor fax Josie Canales, EducationCommission of the States, 707 17thStreet, Denver, CO 80202-3427; fax:303-296-8332.

© Copyright 1998 by the EducationCommission of the States (ECS). Allrights reserved.

The Education Commission of theStates is a nonprofit, nationwideinterstate compact formed in 1965to help governors, state legislators,state education officials and othersdevelop policies to improve thequality of education. The ECS officeis located in Denver, Colorado.

It is ECS policy to take affirmativeaction to prevent discrimination inits policies, programs and employ-ment practices.

Postage and handling charges ifyour order totals: Up to $10.00,$3.00; $10.01-$25.00, $4.25; $25.01-$50.00; $5.75; $50.01-$75.00, $8.50;$75.01-$100.00, $10.00; over$100.00, $12.00.

Generous discounts are availablefor bulk orders of single publica-tions. They are: 10-24 copies, 10%discount; 25-49 copies, 20% dis-count; 50-74 copies, 30% discount;75-99 copies, 40% discount; and100+, 50% discount.

5

Table of Contents

111

111

III

II

Executive Summary 1

Standards, Assessment & Accountability 4

School Finance & Facilities Funding 8

Public School Choice 12

Teacher Education & Professional Development . . 16

Technology 20

Early Childhood Care & Education 24

K-12/Postsecondary Collaboration 28

Comprehensive School Reform 32

Governance 36

For More Information 40



Acknowledgments

This publication, the fourth in a series of reports madepossible by a grant from GE Funds, represents a collabo-rative effort of the Education Commission of the States(ECS) staff, coordinated by Policy Analyst Ron Emersonand Writer-Editor Suzanne Weiss. Special thanks to theAnnenberg Foundation for its support of this project.

The following ECS staff members contributed to thepreparation of The Progress of Education Reform 1998Michael Allen, Jane Armstrong, Arleen Arnsparger,Sharmi Arora, Josie Cana les, Kathy Christie, Amy Cook,Lesley Dahlkemper, Mary Fulton, Kay McClenney, JulieO'Brian, Spud Van de Water, Sherry Freeland Walker, JillWeitz and Todd Ziebarth. Thanks also to EstherRodriguez of the State Higher Education ExecutiveOfficers.

The publication was designed by Square One.creative.

7

The Progress of Education Reform 1998 is the fourth annualreport by the Education Commission of the States (ECS)on the status of efforts to improve the quality and per-il formance of America's public education system.

III This year's report draws on a wide range of sources ofinformation, research and analysis to examine progress

III on various fronts. Sections provide overviews of majortrends in policy and practice; syntheses of recent

111 research and analysis; examples of what states aredoing; and references to reports, studies, articles,

III surveys and/or World Wide Web sites that will beuseful to policymakers interested in exploring various

III aspects of an issue in greater depth.

Here are some of the highlights of this year's report:

Standards, assessment and accountability.All but a handful of states have established academicstandards for students, and some have begunredesigning their assessment systems around thosestandards. But while setting clear expectations forstudents, and measuring whether or not students arereaching those expectations, are necessary, they areinsufficient to ensure improved learning. A gapremains between what students are learning, orfailing to learn, and what the other components in thesystem do to support that learning.

School finance and facilities funding.Creating a new school finance structure more alignedwith standards-based education reform is a crucialnext step for policymakers at the state and districtlevels. An important new tool in this effort is private-. sector-style data management, which can provide ameaningful basis for the analysis of the return on

111 education investments. In the area of facilitiesfunding, some states are trying new approaches, suchas assuming a larger share of the burden for schoolconstruction and renovation, and taking a more activerole in assessing statewide needs.

Public school choice.Most states have adopted choice programs thatfeature a mix of inter- and intradistrict enrollmentoptions, charter schools and home schooling. Severalstates also are experimenting with or consideringvouchers or tax credits on a limited basis. But whileinterest in and support for the idea of using market-style reforms to improve the performance of publicschools are growing, Americans remain closelydivided on the issue of whether to ope\n the educationsystem to all-out competition between.public schoolsand private schools.


k


Teacher education and professional development.In a growing number of states, the issue of how toimprove teacher quality has moved to the top of thereform agenda. States have undertaken a wide rangeof initiatives affecting all aspects of teaching frompreservice education and induction to evaluation,licensing, compensation and ongoing training. But,particularly in the area of teacher professional devel-opment, a significant gap continues between what isknown to be effective in improving teacher qualityand what is practiced at the school and district levels.

Technology.The presence of up-to-date technology and telecom-munications in America's schools continues toincrease dramatically. But as public spending onschool technology grows an estimated $5 billion ayear nationwide so does the pressure on educators,schools and districts to demonstrate that the invest-ment is paying off. What little research has been donesuggests that classroom technology can raise studentachievement and even improve the overall learningenvironment in schools but only when it is placedin the right hands and used in the right ways.

Early childhood care and education.Increased interest in neuroscience research and itsimplications for early childhood care and educationhas spawned a variety of state initiatives focused onpromoting the healthy development of infants, tod-dlers and young children. Some states are spendingmoney not only to augment early childhood servicesfor disadvantaged children, but, in some cases, toexpand them to include all children, regardless offamily income. But will state leaders many in stateswith budget surpluses be willing and able tosustain such initiatives over the long term?

K-12/postsecondary collaboration.Formal partnerships between K-12 schools and post-secondary institutions have emerged as a promisingnew approach to systemic reform. By workingtogether, the two systems may be able to accomplishwhat neither has been able to accomplish aloneduring the past decade of reform: significantlyimproved student achievement, better access to andpreparation for college, and increased financial pro-ductivity in both sectors.

Comprehensive school reform.As schools struggle to find new ways to help studentsachieve at higher levels, many are discarding the oldways in favor of approaches that focus on reorganiz-ing and revitalizing the entire school from the groundup. Currently, more than 3,000 schools across thenation are using such "whole" or "comprehensive"school reform designs, and that number is expected todouble over the next several years as the result ofnew federal legislation. Maximizing the potential ofthis approach to reform, however, will require carefulplanning and monitoring on the part of state and dis-trict policymakers.

Governance.The issue of education governance who makes whatdecisions and in what manner is receiving increasedattention from policymakers. The primary vehicles forgovernance reform continue to be school-based man-agement and other forms of decentralization, expand-ed public school choice, and state intervention in theoperation and management of chronically underper-forming schools and districts.

1EST COPY AU, 1 0The Progress of Education Reform 1998

The National Education Goals

Panel's analysis of the AFT, CBE and

Fordham Foundation reviews of

state content standards is available

online at www.negp.gov or by

calling 202-724-0015.

DUCATION

CONIMISSIO \

S1AFLS


Standards, Assessment& Accountability

After more than a decade of intensive efforts to improvepublic schools, most states are implementing a reformstrategy characterized by the following efforts:

Establishing high academic standards

Aligning curriculum, instructional materials andstrategies, assessment and teacher professional devel-opment with standards

Restructuring the systems that support teaching andlearning governance, accountability and finance soeducators, schools and districts have the capacityincentives and tools they need to help students learn tothe standards.

The transition to a standards-based system is an under-taking of enormous complexity, and progress varieswidely from state to state. A brief overview of somemajor issues states are grappling with on these threefronts follows.

Judging the Quality of Content Standards

Over the past decade, all but a handful of states haveestablished standards for students in English, science,mathematics, history and geography. In most states, stan-dards are the linchpin of large-scale reform initiativesaimed at upgrading curriculum and strengtheningaccountability.

Until recently, the quality of state content standards hadreceived little critical scrutiny. In 1995, the American Fed-eration of Teachers became the first organization toundertake a systematic, state-by-state evaluation ofcontent standards. Similar studies were conducted by theCouncil for Basic Education (CBE) in 1997, and theFordham Foundation in 1998.

While the methodology and specific findings of thesestudies have differed, all reach roughly the same conclu-sion, according to the University of Delaware's DouglasA. Archbald who recently reviewed the studies for theNational Education Goals Panel: A significant number ofstates have established standards that are models ofclarity and rigor, but a troubling large number of statecontent standards are vague, shapeless and "of inade-quate quality."

Several options are available to help states continuouslyevaluate and improve their content standards. Forexample, the Education Commission of the States, theCouncil of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) andseveral other organizations have formed the State Educa-

a

fion Improvement Partnership to offer assistance to statesinterested in assessing the quality and effectiveness oftheir standards.

Another growing source of assistance is Achieve, an inde-pendent, bipartisan organization created at the 1996National Education Summit. Achieve is focusing itsresources on helping states benchmark their academicstandards and assessments against the best in the countryand the world. Also, in collaboration with the Mid-Conti-nent Regional Educational Laboratory Achieve is servingas a national clearinghouse on standards, assessment,accountability and technology use.

As states continue to grapple with the challenges ofimplementing content standards, they also are under adeadline to develop performance standards, or proficien-cy levels, linked to their content standards. The Improv-ing America's Schools Act, federal legislation enacted in1994, links Title 1 activities to student proficiency on statestandards. States are required to develop and operate"comprehensive assessment systems" capable of report-ing student performance at three levels (proficient,advanced and partially proficient) and of assessingwhether individual students and school programs aremaking "adequate yearly progress."

Trends in Student Assessment

More and more states are diversifying their student-testing programs, blending traditional multiple-choiceformats with nontraditional assessments (short-answer,extended response and performance assessments). While45 states report using norm-referenced and/or criterion-referenced multiple-choice items as part of their stateassessment program, only six continue to rely exclusivelyon conventional multiple-choice tests.

"States are embracing new forms of assessment andlooking for ways to make them work," concludes a recentCCSSO report on state assessment trends. "In spite of thedifficulties states have experienced in implementing non-traditional assessment programs, it is clear that strictlytraditional programs are becoming uncommon, and thata blended assessment program will continue to be thepreferred model."

The CCSSO report noted that states' efforts to redesigntheir assessment programs have been slowed and insome cases stymied by time and cost constraints, tech-nical-quality issues and resistance to change on the partof parents, teachers and students.

12

For information about the State Educa-

tion Improvement Partnership, contact

Chris Pipho at ECS, 303-299-3604.

Information about Achieve, including its

national database on standards and

assessment, is available online at

www.achieve.org. Or visit the Mid-Con-

tinent Regional Educational Laboratory's

Web site at www.mcrel.org.

Trends in State Student Assessment

Programs is available for $10.95from the Council of Chief State School

Officers, Publications Department, One

Massachusetts Avenue NW, Suite 700,

Washington, DC 20001-1431.


How To Make the Link Between Stan-

dards, Assessments and Real Student

Achievement explores the essential role

of standards and assessments in

improving student learning. It is avail-able on the New American Schools

(NAS) Web site at www.naschools.org

or by calling NAS at 703-908-9500.

The Tools for Accountability Project,

part of the Annenberg Institute for

School Reform at Brown University,

collects, evaluates and disseminates

accountability strategies and materials.

Web site: www.aisr.brown.edu/tools

ECS' report, Designing and Implement-

ing Standards-Based Accountability

Systems, provides an in-depth look at

10 key policy issues involved in

designing and using standards-based

accountability systems. Copies of the

report (#AN-98-1) are available for $10

plus $3 postage and handling by

calling the ECS Distribution Center at

303-299-3692.


Standards, Assessment& Accountability

A number of states have created or are creating assess-ments that test students' knowledge of academic stan-dards. Seven states Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, NewMexico, North Carolina, South Carolina and West Vir-ginia require districts and schools to use state standardsand assessments as a factor in determining whether ele-mentary school students should be promoted into certaingrades. Twenty states have or plan to have high schoolgraduation exams aligned with their standards.

Another approach states are taking is to require remedia-tion for students who do not meet the standards. In Vir-ginia, for example, students who do not pass the stateassessment at the 9th-grade level do not receive a "litera-cy passport" and are required to participate in summerschool or after-school remediation programs. Ohiorequires districts to provide remediation for all 5thgraders who fail a 4th-grade assessment in one or morecore subjects. The state provides assistance, including alist of suggested intervention programs.

Using Standards to Promote Accountability

One of the most important lessons of the past decade ofschool reform is that setting clear expectations for stu-dents, and measuring whether or not students reachthose expectations, are necessary but insufficient toensure improved learning. A gap remains between whatstudents are learning, or failing to learn, and what thesystem does to support that learning.

A standards-led strategy creates an opportunity for deci-sions to be made differently. By providing better informa-tion about the desired results of schooling, this strategyallows decisionmakers at all levels from teachers tostate legislators to focus on how the choices they makecan increase student progress toward high academic stan-dards.

The challenge facing decisionmakers is how to use theinformation about student, school and system perfor-mance more effectively to do the following:

Document improved student learning

Improve teaching practice

Facilitate opportunities to learn from experimentationwith different types of schools

Establish an understandable public accountabilitysystem

Increase the efficiency of decisionmaking and the effec-tiveness of learning across education systems.

13

FOCUSING ON RESULTS:

THE TEXAS SCHOOL RATING SYSTEM

Texas assigns all its public schools an overallrating based on three criteria: dropout rates,attendance rates and the percentage of studentsin grades 3-8 and 10 passing each of thereading, writing and math portions of theannual Texas Assessment of Academic Skills(TAAS). The state considers the performance notonly of the school's entire student body, but alsoof three racial and economic subgroups. Theratings are "exemplary," "recognized," "accept-able" and "low performing."

Texas has the usual set of rewards and sanc-tions, from small cash awards for high ratings towholesale layoffs at the state's worst schools.But the accountability system's real powerseems to rest within the ratings themselves.Spotlighting the performance of individualschools and districts provides strong incentivesto deliver results, and, thus far, they have beenremarkable.

Since 1995, the number of Texas schools ranked"low performing" has fallen from 257 (4.3%) to57 (.09%), even though the bar has been raisedincrementally each year and the percentage ofstudents taking the state tests has gone up.During the same period, the number of schoolsranked "exemplary" rose from 67 to 683, and thenumber ranked as "recognized" increased from516 to 1,617.

Student achievement across the board and in allsubgroups has increased substantially, too. In1994, for example, barely half of all Texas stu-dents passed the TAAS math exam. By last year,the proportion had climbed to 80%. What'smore, the share of black and Hispanic childrenwho passed the test doubled during that time to64% and 72%, respectively.

ttThe Progress of Education Reform 1998

o

Educational Adequacy: Building an Ade-

quate School Finance System, a July

1998 report by the Education Partners

Project of the National Conference of

State Legislatures, is available online at

www.ncsl.org.


School Finance &Facilities Funding

School Finance: Equity and Adequacy

While equity issues have dominated the school financedebate for more than two decades, this debate increas-ingly is focusing on the question of adequacy as aprimary criterion in examining the effectiveness of stateschool finance systems.

A review of school finance litigation during the 1990sshows that courts are expanding their scrutiny offunding systems to include not only the principle ofequity, but also that of adequacy. In 1997 and 1998alone, courts in New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio andVermont invalidated their states' school finance systems,in each case ruling a minimum education is inadequateand, therefore, unconstitutional.

Although it is expected that adequacy increasingly willbe used as a criterion in evaluating state school financesystems, the term remains elusive in its definition andapplication. Many policymakers are uncertain about themeaning or basis of adequacy and how through policy

they can build a system that will withstand legal chal-lenge.

A recent report by the National Conference of StateLegislatures (NCSL) describes the building blocks ofan adequate school finance system as the following:(1) articulating education objectives for students, (2)identifying and acknowledging the education capacityneeded to accomplish those objectives and (3) support-ing that capacity with sufficient funding.

Such a system, the NCSL report said, requires an align-ment of education policies "that typically has not beenconsidered by state policymakers when making deci-sions about school finance." It requires policymakers to"think beyond the traditional political negotiationprocess about who gets how much money," the reportsaid, to building a funding system that is "driven byeducational objectives, an emphasis on effective prac-tices and the assurance of meaningful opportunity forevery student."

Maximizing the Return on Investment:Data-Driven Decisionmaking

With education resources unlikely to increase substan-tially and taxpayers demanding greater accountability, itis more important than ever to maximize the publicinvestment in the education system. Policymakers mustdo a better job of deciding which programs work andwhich do not and put more money into those that do.

1.5

Private-sector experience has demonstrated the poten-tial for using mformation to monitor, refine and sustainimprovement efforts over time The application of suchdata-management tools in the education arena mayprovide the missing link between the promise of currentreform efforts and measurable improvements in teach-ing and learning The key is transforming data intouseful information and providing it to educators andpolicymakers in a form that helps them see more clearlythe relationship between inputs and outcomes, recog-nize and understand trends, and assist them in makingtruly informed choices

For example

Longitudinal reports on the performance of studentswho attended a certain school, or who were taught bythe same teacher, can reveal gaps in the curriculumand strengths or weaknesses in instructionalstrategies

Classroom-level student performance data can help toidentify the most successful educators so they can beused more effectively to mentor new teachers orsupport other veteran teachers who need assistance.

Comparisons of student performance at one school tothat of other schools serving similar student popula-tions can help identify programs that are most effec-tive in serving different kinds of students.

Cross-district or cross-state data about student perfor-mance on specific learning objectives, or the distribu-tion of scores by grade level, may reveal curricular orprogram weaknesses that cut across entire districts orstates.

The combination of aggregated student performancedata with financial expenditure data provides a mean-ingful basis for analyzing the return on educationinvestments. Such an analysis can help the broader edu-cation community, including parents, legislators andbusiness leaders, understand their contribution to edu-cation in concrete terms and form the basis for moremeaningful relationships between public schools andthe communities they serve. By providing the means tomeasure the results of different allocation strategies, italso has the potential to increase substantially the effi-ciency of education expenditures.

Facilities Funding: Sharing the Burden

The condition of school facilities is declining nation-wide. Many schools are old and in need of renovation.

,v?116

A wide variety of information about

school finance, budgeting and resource

allocation is available on the Consortium

for Policy Research in Education (CPRE)

School Finance Program's Web site at

www.wcer.wisc.edu/cpre/finance/.


Copies of ECS' Making Better

Decisions About Funding School

Facilities are available for $6.50 each

by calling the ECS Distribution Center

at 303-299-3692. Order Publication

#PB-98-3, or visit the Information

Clearinghouse section of the ECS

Web site, www.ecs.org.


School Finance &Facilities Funding

Student enrollment shifts have triggered a need for newschool buildings and/or created a situation in whichbuildings are being used inefficiently. Education reforminitiatives, such as class-size reduction and technology,have put added pressure on states and school districtsto upgrade or expand school facilities.

Much of the declining physical condition of schools canbe attributed to the school and district practice of defer-ring maintenance. School districts with lower taxingabilities those with the least ability to pay for repairsoften have the highest levels of deferred maintenance.Compounding the problem, nearly 30% of all schoolbuildings in the United States are approaching the endof their useful life (approximately 50 years), and abouthalf are nearly three-quarters through it.

The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) estimated in1995 that $112 billion was needed at that time to meetthe nation's needs for repairing and upgrading schools.If the trend of deferring maintenance continues, theGAO report said, that amount likely will exceed $150billion by the year 2000.

School facilities may be funded through state or localsources or a combination of the two. The level and typeof support states provide varies dramatically muchmore so than for school operations. Some states, such asNorth Carolina, attempt to fund the building and reno-vation of school facilities fully, while others, such asLouisiana, provide no state aid for this purpose.

Increasingly, states and local communities are sharingthis responsibility, as in Delaware, where the state fundsat least 60% of the capital outlay and local districts payfor the remainder.

Recent court decisions in several states, includingArizona and Ohio, suggest a trend toward increasedstate involvement in facilities funding. These rulingsestablished that as part of their constitutional responsi-bility to provide a "thorough-and-uniform" education,states also must provide adequate school facilities.

17

aaa

a

a

REDESIGNING SCHOOL FINANCE

SYSTEMS TO SUPPORT REFORM

Creating a new school finance structure that ismore aligned with standards-based educationreform is an important next step for policymak-ers at the state and district levels. Researchshows making a shift from equity- to adequacy-based financing can help schools achieve thehigher performance necessary to raise studentachievement levels.

According to a recent analysis by the Consor-tium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE),this shift involves a number of changes in state-to-district financing. These changes include thefollowing:

A foundation program providing an adequatebase level of per-pupil revenues, sufficient forthe average school to teach the average childto high performance standards

Additional funds for students from low-income backgrounds, with disabilities orlimited English proficiency to support theextra services needed to have these studentslearn to high standards

Price adjustments to ensure equal purchasingpower of the education dollar across geo-graphical areas.

Changes also are required in district financingpolicies, including the following:

Formulas to budget the bulk of districtdollars to schools in a lump sum, so theycan deploy their resources to maximumadvantage

Changes in teacher compensation to includeknowledge- and skill-based elements inteacher salary schedules

School-based performance incentives thatreward teachers and schools for meeting orexceeding challenging performance-improve-ment targets.

18

Creating School Finance Policies That

Facilitate New Goals, a September 1998

CPRE policy brief, is available online at

www.upenn.edu/gse/cpre/ or by calling

215-573-0700.

FDIA \ I ICA

COMMISSION:

01 THE STATES


The U.S. Department of Education's

latest report on charter schools is avail-

able online at www.ed.gov/pubs/studies

or by calling 202-401-1576. A wide

variety of other information aboutcharter schools is available at

www.uscharterschools.org.

IN:CATIONCOMM ISSIO \

011111 STAT CS


Public School Choice

The school-choice movement continues to gain momen-tum, fueled by greater willingness on the part of electedofficials, policymakers and the public to considermarket-oriented approaches to education reform.School-choice proposals range from the fairly uncontro-versial idea of letting children transfer to other publicschools in their district to what may be the single mostdivisive topic in education today: vouchers for publicmoney that can be used to enroll children in privateschools.

Proponents of school choice contend that interdistrictenrollment, charter schools and other choice programswill bring about change and improvement by forcingpublic schools to compete for students, and by expand-ing and diversifying the range of educational opportuni-ties and environments available to students.

Critics of school choice, on the other hand, argue thatusing marketplace reforms in the education arena treatslearning as a commodity and has the potential to jeopar-dize the cherished American ideal of providing a qualityeducation to all children.

Whatever the pros and cons, the school-choice move-ment continues to gain ground. Since the late 1980s, forexample, 39 states and the District of Columbia haveenacted laws providing for some type of enrollmentchoice. In 13 of these states, families have the right tochoose not only from among the public schools in theirown district, but also from schools in any district in thestate, tuition free.

In a growing number of states, choice programs nowinclude a mix of inter- and intradistrict enrollmentoptions, charter schools and home schooling. Severalstates also are experimenting with or consideringvouchers or tax credits on a limited basis.

Charter Schools

Since 1991, when Minnesota passed the first charter-school legislation, 32 other states, the District ofColumbia and Puerto Rico have followed suit. Some 786charter schools are in operation across the United States,with a combined enrollment of 166,000 students. Anadditional 429 charter schools have been approved butare not yet in operation. President Clinton has called forquadrupling the number of charter schools by the year2002.

The dramatic growth of the charter-school movementhas spawned a wave of reports and studies tracking theprogress of this new brand of school reform. Among theearly findings are the following:

19

Demand for charter schools has grown, but theschools continue to face such obstacles as inadequatefacilities and a lack of start-up funds.

In the face of such obstacles, most charter schoolshave shown considerable staying power. Fewer thanone in 20 has closed voluntarily, merged with othersor been shut down.

While most charter schools are similar to their dis-tricts in the racial and economic backgrounds of theirstudents, about one-third are more likely to servepoor and minority students.

Charter schools operate in environments that affordvarying mixtures of autonomy, assistance andaccountability, and this mix is a strong influence onthe schools' abilities to create and sustain themselvesas learning communities.

Much of the research on charter schools is only nowgetting under way, and the most fundamental issuewhat impact charter schools have had on studentachievement and on public education as a wholeremains unclear.

What little research has been done so far suggests thatcharter schools can be both better and worse thanregular public schools. Recent studies by the Universityof Minnesota's Center for School Change and the Centerfor Education Reform documented improvements instudent achievement in a significant number of charterschools in 12 states. In some of these schools, studentsgained on average more than a year of academic growthannually.

On the other hand, a recently published analysis by U.S.News & World Report of charter schools in Arizona andMichigan which together account for nearly half of thetotal number of charters in the nation found that somecharter schools in those states were beset with signifi-cant problems, including weak curricula, below-qualityteaching, substandard buildings and financial abuses.

But only a handful of charter schools have had theircharters revoked or have gotten into some kind oftrouble that could lead to revocation, noted a recentreport by the Center for Education Reform. "A few badapples shouldn't sour the public on the promisingcharter school movement . . . and its potential for realinnovation and transformation of the school system,"the report concluded.

Copies of the 1998 report, Creating and

Sustaining Learning Communities: Early

Lessons from Charter Schools, are

available for $5 each from the Consor-

tium for Policy Research in Education.

Phone: 215-573-0700.

The Center for School Change report,

Making a Difference? Charter Schools,

Evaluation and Student Performance, can

be obtained by calling 612-626-1834.

The Center for Education Reform study,

Charter Schools: A Progress Report, as

well as The Charter School Workbook,

a comprehensive guide to the charter

movement, are available online at

www.edreform.com. Or phone

800-521-2118.

20

"The New Education Bazaar," an

in-depth look at charter schools in

Arizona and Michigan, was published in

the April 27, 1998, issue of U.S. News

& World Report, pp. 35-46.


0

The National Home Education Research

Institute collects and disseminates

information about home schooling.

Phone 503-364-1490 or visit the insti-

tute's Web site at www.nheri.org.


0 0 0

Vouchers

While there is growing interest in and support for theidea of using market forces to improve the performanceof public schools, Americans remain closely divided onthe issue of whether to open the education system to all-out competition between public schools and privateschools.

The latest Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of the Public'sAttitude Toward the Public Schools, released in August1998, showed a 50-50 split among survey respondentson the question of allowing students and parents tochoose a private school to attend at public expense. Butthe poll also showed that the gap between Americanswho oppose vouchers or tax credits and those whofavor them has narrowed considerably since 1993, whenopponents outnumbered supporters by roughly three toone.

Currently, Arizona, Iowa, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsinand Puerto Rico have either tax credit, tax deduction orvoucher programs, and limited voucher programs arebeing debated in Vermont and Pennsylvania. A tuitiontax-credit proposal on the November ballot in Colorado,however, was overwhelmingly rejected by voters, thesecond time a statewide voucher initiative has beendefeated there since 1993.

Home Schooling

In 1993, after years of court battles, it became legal in all50 states for parents to take charge of their children'seducation from kindergarten through college. Whilethere are no national statistics, researchers who studyhome schooling estimate that as many as 1.5 millionyoungsters are being taught at home a fivefoldincrease since 1988.

Nearly every state has a home-schooling coordinator,and some, such as Iowa and Washington, have estab-lished resource centers for parents. Several states alsohave adopted policies allowing home schoolers to usepublic school libraries and computer rooms, sign upfr certain courses or participate in extracurricularactivities.

While there are no reliable studies, advocates say homeschoolers generally do as well as other children on stan-dardized tests, and some are accepted into the most elitecolleges. In 1998, the average ACT score for home-schooled students was 23 (of 36), two points higher thanthe average for traditionally schooled students.

21

States with Charter School Laws

4 4; The Progress of Education Reform 1998

0

Copies of reports from the National

Commission on Teaching and

America's Future are available by

calling 888-492-1241. Or visit the

commission's Web site at

www.tc.columbia.edu/-teachcomm.


Teacher Education &Professional Development

The nation's classroom teachers face unprecedented chal-lenges, including the following:

Responding to the vigorous emphasis on higherstudent standards

Learning to teach with new and ever-evolvingtechnologies

Taking advantage of recent research on brain develop-ment and learning theory

Teaching successfully to an increasingly diversestudent population.

In a growing number of states, the issue of how to equipteachers better for these new challenges and newdemands has moved to the top of the reform agenda.

One of the most ambitious teacher-quality initiatives inthe nation is North Carolina's Excellent Schools Act of1997. This act increases salaries by an average of 33%over four years; creates a three-tiered, performance-basedlicensing system for initial, continuing and advanced cer-tification; establishes salary incentives for such things aspassing tenure review or obtaining National Board ofProfessional Teaching Standards certification; providesfunds to train and pay mentor teachers; and funds pro-fessional development tied to student standards.

North Carolina is one of 12 partner states working withthe National Commission on Teaching and America'sFuture to implement recommendations of the commis-sion's landmark 1997 report, What Matters Most: Teachingfor America's Future. These states are in the process ofcomprehensively redesigning programs and policiesaffecting all aspects of teaching recruitment, preserviceeducation, induction, licensing, evaluation, compensationand professional development.

"While there is a long way to go, important progress isbeing made," the commission observed in its 1998 follow-up report, Doing What Matters Most: Investing in QualityTeaching. Besides the widening array of state effortsfocused on improving teacher quality, the commissionnoted the recent passage of several federal initiatives pro-viding increased support for teacher recruitment andpreparation, and the emergence of higher levels of inter-est and support from a variety of national, state and localorganizations. "Americans seem ready to work on thisagenda," the report concluded.

Teacher Education

Improving the quality of postsecondary education pro-grams that prepare teachers is a high-stakes issue. This is

23

a

especially true in states actively involved in implement-ing academic standards for elementary and secondaryschools and their students. Schools that fail to reach stan-dards run the risk of losing autonomy or being shutdown. Students who are not successful may be held backa grade, denied a diploma or lose the opportunity tomove on to postsecondary education. Many schools arechanging curriculum and instruction to meet theseheightened expectations for student achievement andwill need teachers who can work effectively in thesechanged environments.

In a small but growing number of states, initiatives areunder way to establish stronger links between standardsfor what students should know and be able to do andstandards that set knowledge and performance expecta-tions for teachers. For example, in Colorado, Georgia,Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Ohio and Oregon, highereducation governing boards and state departments ofeducation are working collaboratively to redesignteacher-preparation programs around K-12 academicstandards.

A number of states are involved in national initiativesaimed at improving teacher education. For example, 41states have entered into partnerships with the NationalCouncil for the Accreditation of Teacher Education(NCATE). NCATE has developed standards requiringcolleges and universities to demonstrate how they areincorporating new knowledge about effective instruction-

"' al practice into teacher-preparation programs. Nation-wide, more than 500 teacher education institutions havereceived NCATE accreditation.

Recent data indicate that more new teachers are being1111 prepared in redesigned teacher education programs that

allow them to get a degree in their field while completingIII their training in education at the graduate level. Since

1991, the percentage of new teachers who were hired1111 with a master's degree has more than doubled, from 9%

to about 20%.

On the other hand, the number of newly hired teachersentering the field without adequate training has notdeclined. Since 1991, the percentage of new teachers whohad not completed license requirements in their mainassignment field has risen slightly, in fact, from 25% to27%.

Teacher Professional Development

Research over the past decade has produced a remark-'!" able level of consensus about effective professional

development for teachers (see sidebar on page 19).

2 4

A July 1998 report by the State Higher

Education Executive Officers, Preparing

Quality Teachers: Issues and Trends in

the States, presents an overview of

teacher education reform initiatives

across the states. Copies are available

by calling 303-299-3686.

MST COPY =MU


Policies and Programs for Professional

Development of Teachers: A 50-State

Profile is available from the Consortium

for Policy Research in Education

(CPRE) by calling 215-573-0700.

Or visit CPRE's Web site at

www.upenn.edu/gse/cpre/.

The U.S. Department of Education's

1998 report, Teacher Professional

Development in a Climate of Education-

al Reform, is available online at

www.ed.gov/pubs/EdReformStudies/SysReforms/littlel.html.


r r

0 0 r 0

But a significant gap continues to exist between thelessons of this research and programs and practices inschools and districts.

A 1996 50-state study by the Consortium for PolicyResearch in Education concluded professional develop-ment opportunities available in most of the nation'sschool districts have limited effects on teaching andstudent achievement. It cited the following reasons:

Weak links between inservice content and teachers'needs, one inservice activity and the next, inservicetraining and supervision, and teachers' work assign-ments and the professional development courses theytake.

The lack of high-quality learning experiences. Inserviceactivities typically lack intensity, are of short durationand seldom provide opportunities for observation,practice and feedback.

A lack of attention to teachers' subject-matter knowl-edge, especially that of elementary teachers.

A lack of follow-up to help teachers put what theylearn in inservice activities to good use in theirclassrooms.

The quality and availability of professional development 111

continues to vary widely across states. In Kentucky, forexample, more than 70% of teachers reported in 1996 thatthey had received specialized training in such areas asteaching methods, the uses of technology and studentassessment. By contrast, only one-third of teachers inArkansas and Nevada reported having had any opportu-nity to learn about technology. Only 10% of teachers inIllinois, New Mexico and Tennessee had had the chanceto spend more than one day studying their subject area.

There are, however, promising signs of progress. Manylocal leaders are rethinking schools' use of time to enableteachers to engage in learning activities of their own.Block scheduling to create common teacher planningtime or early-release days for students are among thechanges. In some districts, community volunteers havebeen trained to teach mini-units in an academic subject sothat teams of teachers can be released from their class-rooms to work together.

Teacher networks and school-university collaborativesare helping to promote new ways of thinking about pro-fessional development. Teachers' unions are starting toplay a larger role in advocating and providing for theirmembers' ongoing learning and development. And theInternet, with its capacity for creating connections andsharing ideas, has been a vital new resource in the effortto enhance teachers' knowledge and skills.

1111

25

IMPROVING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT:

RESEARCH-BASED PRINCIPLES

Current research suggests teacher professionaldevelopment activities that have the followingcharacteristics are more likely to be effectivethan those that lack them:

Based on analyses of the differences betweenactual student performance and establishedgoals and standards for student learning

Involve teachers in the identification of whatthey need to learn and in the development ofthe learning experiences in which they will beinvolved

Primarily school-based and built into the day-to-day work of teaching

Organized around collaborative problemsolving

Continuous and ongoing with support fromexternal sources that can provide necessaryresources and new perspectives

Incorporate evaluation of multiple sources ofinformation on student outcomes and on thevarious processes involved in implementingthe lessons learned through professionaldevelopment

Provide opportunities to understand thetheory underlying the knowledge and skillsbeing learned

Connected to a comprehensive changeprocess focused on improving studentlearning.

Source: National Partnership for Excellence andAccountability in Teaching, 1998.

26

The National Partnership for Excellence

and Accountability in Teaching's Web

site (www.npeat.org) offers research

findings, examples of effective practice

and an opportunity to participate in a

"National Dialogue on the Improvement

of Teaching."

LDLIC AT ON

COMMISSION

1,11 STATES


Technology in American Schools: Seven

Dimensions for Gauging Progress pro-

vides a framework of progress indica-

tors to help states chart their course

toward effective use of technology inschools. It is available online

(www.milkenexchange.org) or by calling

the Milken Exchange at 310-998-2825.


The presence of up-to-date technology and telecommu-nications in America's schools continues to increasedramatically. Today, three out of four classrooms haveat least one computer designated for instructional use,and 85% of the nation's schools are connected to theInternet.

But as public spending on school technology grows anestimated $5 billion a year nationwide so does thepressure on educators, schools and districts to demon-strate the investment is paying off.

"It is no longer enough for educators to simply report. . . a better student-to-computer ratio or an increase inthe number of wired classrooms," noted a recent analy-sis by the Milken Exchange on Education Technology."Policymakers want evidence that technology is beingused to improve student learning."

Assessing the value of education technology, however,is easier said than done. Most of the research done so farhas been anecdotal, small-scale and, in many cases,based on measures not everyone agrees are the rightones to use namely, standardized test scores. Suchtests do not reflect the full range of benefits students canget from using technology.

The Milken report urges a broader, more balancedapproach. It calls for a national research agenda focusedon identifying the "essential conditions" for maximiz-ing the potential of technology as a teaching and learn-ing tool. It also offers a set of indicators states can use,in the interim, to help assess their progress.

Student Achievement

What little systematic research has been done suggeststhat classroom technology can raise student achieve-ment and even improve the overall learning environ-ment in schools but only when it is placed in the righthands and used in the right ways. In fact, when used forthe wrong purposes, computers can do more harm thangood.

A newly published study by the Educational TestingService (ETS) in Princeton, New Jersey, found that whenused selectively by trained teachers, computers signifi-cantly enhanced the performance of middle school stu-dents in mathematics. But the study also found thevalue of computers in elementary school is far morelimited and that, when used primarily for drills andpractice at either level, computers can be counterpro-ductive.

27

The ETS report, published in Education Week's "Technol-ogy Counts '98" issue, is the first large-scale examina-tion of the link between computer use and studentachievement. The study draws on a national database ofstudent test scores, classroom computer use and otherinformation, including school climate. Among some ofETS' findings are the following:

Eighth-grade students whose teachers used comput-ers for "simulations and applications," rather thanfor "drill and practice," outperformed their peers.

Students whose teachers had professional develop-ment in computers outperformed by more thanone-third of a grade level students whose teachersdid not.

Students who spent more time on computers in111 school did not score higher than their peers; in fact,

they performed slightly worse.

"What matters most," the ETS study concluded, "arenot the machines and the wiring, but what teachers andstudents do with them."

Teacher Training and Technical Support

School systems seem to be paying greater attention tothe important role played by teacher training. Survey

111 results from the latest National Assessment of Educa-tional Progress (NAEP) show that 81% of the nation's

111 4th graders had teachers who had received professionaldevelopment with computers within the past five years.

1111 Among 8th graders, 76% had mathematics teachers whohad received such training within the past five years.

But while the vast majority of teachers have had some111 training in education technology, far fewer have had

training in more sophisticated uses of technology. Forty111 percent of teachers, for example, report having had no

formal training in using the Internet. And fewer than111 four in 10 schools report having either a full- or part-

time technology coordinator to make sure computers are111 maintained and updated, purchase new software and

provide technical support for teachers.

Thirty-eight states have technology requirements for

111teacher-preparation programs, but the requirementsvary widely in rigor. In Massachusetts, for example,schools of education are required only to help prospec-tive teachers learn to use "new technologies." In Idaho,education schools must assess whether teaching candi-dates are proficient in technology.

Education Week's "Technology Counts '98"

is available online at www.edweek.org. Or,

order a copy for $6 by calling 800-346-

1834. The 114-page report includes the

most recent national and state-by-state data

on technology access, capacity and use.

The Educational Testing Service's policy

report, Does It Compute? The Relation-

ship Between Educational Technology

and Student Achievement in Mathemat-

ics, is available online at

www.ets.org/research/pic.

The National Council for Accreditation

of Teacher Education's report,

Technology and the New Professional

Teacher, is available by calling

202-466-7496. Also available online

at www.ncate.org.


ECS' report, Harnessing Technology for

Teaching and Learning, is a resource

guide for policymakers on the issues of

teacher training, classroom methods

and materials, and infrastructure devel-

opment. It is available online at

www.ecs.org (see "chairman's report"

in the ECS section) or by calling the

ECS Distribution Center at 303-299-

3692. Ask for Publication #TH-98-2;

$9.50 plus $3 postage and handling.

For further information, visit the Math-line Web site at www.mathline.pbs.org

or Teach Net at www.teachnet.org.

Technology

National Education Technology Stan-

dards for Students is available from

the International Society for Technology

in Education, 480 Charnelton Street,

Eugene, OR 97401 or by calling

800-336-5191.

I DUCATION

COMMISSION

01 1111 s ns


States' approaches to professional development in tech-nology vary, too. While almost all states offer teachersopportunities for technology training, only Connecticut,New Hampshire and North Carolina require teachers toparticipate in such training as a condition for renewingtheir license.

One promising trend is the steady expansion of onlineprofessional development opportunities for teachers.These opportunities range from graduate-seminar stylecourses in specialized areas to more informal structures

networks, bulletin boards, help lines and resourcebanks.

As an example, more than 5,000 elementary, middle andhigh school teachers have signed up for Mathline, thelargest technology-based professional developmentprogram for teachers. Sponsored in part by the U.S.Department of Education, Mathline offers video lessons,printed lesson guides and online discussions facilitatedby experienced classroom teachers. Another example,TeachNet, a Web site maintained by Impact II theTeachers Network, includes 500 teacher-designed class-room projects across all subject areas and a bulletinboard with discussions on education policy and teacherleadership.

Technology Standards

Thirty-eight states have standards or graduationrequirements pertaining to technology. Some states 1111

focus on the technology skills students should acquire,while others emphasize the history of technology or itsrole in society. Many states include technology as astrand within the standards for some other subject, mostoften science.

a

North Carolina is the farthest along of any state inrequiring students to demonstrate technology skills.Beginning with the class of 2001, high school seniorswill have to pass an assessment of technology compe-tency before graduating.

The National Educational Technology Standards projectrecently released a suggested set of standards to be usedin assessing students' technology skills at various pointsin their schooling. The standards cover categories suchas basic operations and concepts, productivity, research,communication, problem solving and decisionmaking.

TECHNOLOGY: A VERSATILE TOOL FORREFORM AND IMPROVEMENT

In combination with standards and other educa-tion reforms, technology has the potential toplay a major role in transforming America'spublic education system.

Under the right conditions, technology can dothe following:

Accelerate, deepen and enrich the learn-ing process. The use of technology makes itpossible for students to learn the academicbasics with greater depth and understandingand to engage in learning practices that leadto new ways of thinking, constructing knowl-edge and communicating.

Strengthen teaching. Technology adds apowerful tool to teachers' repertoire, enablingthem to meet the individual needs, interestsand learning styles of students more effective-ly. Network technology also serves to breakdown teachers' isolation, allowing them toconnect with one another to exchange ideas,share resources and improve practice.

Improve communication. Technology canbe used to promote better communicationwithin schools, between teachers and parents,and between schools and communities.

Foster continuous improvement. Technolo-gy can be used to increase efficiency, stream-line administration and provide data toinform and enhance decisionmaking, resourceallocation and strategic planning.

:" 3eThe Progress of Education Reform 1998

The Families and Work Institute has

published a report, Rethinking the

Brain: New Insights into Early Develop-

ment, exploring key findings of recent

research on brain development.

The report is available online

(www.familiesandwork.org) or by

calling the institute's publications

office at 212-465-2044.


Early Childhood Care& Education

Increased interest in neuroscience research and its impli-cations for early childhood care and education havespawned a variety of state initiatives focused on pro-moting the healthy development of infants, toddlers andyoung children. Some states not only are augmentingearly childhood services for disadvantaged childrenthe population traditionally served by such programsbut, in some cases, expanding them to include all chil-dren, regardless of family income.

More than two dozen states in 1997 and 1998 bol- 111

stered funding for Head Start, prekindergarten andkindergarten programs, and several states beganmoving toward universal access to preschool for 4-and 5-year-olds.

In a growing number of states, efforts are under wayto develop a continuum of services for children underthe age of 5 hearing tests for newborns, parentcounseling, home-visiting services, expanded child-care subsidies or tax credits, and full-day, year-roundHead Start and other prekindergarten programs.

More than a dozen states have launched initiativesaimed at strengthening the quality and comprehen-siveness of child-care services for both preschool andschool-age children, including improved training andcompensation for child-care providers.

Policymakers' interest in early childhood initiatives has 111

been fueled by strong public support and by a steadystream of research findings on the influence of the first 111

few years of life on health, cognitive and emotionaldevelopment, social adjustment and economic self-suffi- 111

ciency. The rising interest in early childhood comes at atime when many states are experiencing budget sur- 1111

pluses, allowing more resources to be directed towardpublic programs for young children.

But states' expanding investment and growing involve-ment in early childhood programs have given rise to anumber of crucial questions. For example:

What should preschoolers be learning, and who isgoing to teach it to them?

As more attention shifts to child care and early educa-tion and their potential to prepare children better forschool, the responsibilities of teachers in those settingsare increasing gradually. But the salary and benefitsneeded to attract a highly trained workforce are not.Child-care workers, about 40% of whom have no morethan a high school diploma, make less than $14,000 ayear on average.

31

Moreover, state requirements governing the care andeducation of young children vary widely. Fewer than10% of the estimated 80,000 early childhood programsin the nation are accredited, and the ratio of children toteachers varies widely from 35-to-1 in some states tothe relatively few centers that follow the National Asso-ciation for the Education of Young Children's recom-mendation of 10-to-1.

Earlier this year, the National Research Council releaseda report recommending that day-care workers andpreschool teachers play a much larger role in early liter-acy. But the experts also acknowledge that those teach-ers are largely unprepared for the task. The report, Pre-venting Reading Difficulties in Young Children, urged moretraining for early childhood professionals in the funda-mental literacy activities that prepare young children forlearning.

What role should public schools play in serving theeducation needs of preschool-age children?

Most state initiatives to expand access to preschool callfor services to be offered through a mix of public andprivate providers, in a variety of settings private child-care centers, home-based programs, churches and publicschool classrooms.

A few states, however, are moving toward providingsuch services primarily through the public schoolsystem an approach that has stirred debate over issuessuch as cost, program design and equity. In California,for example, the education department's recent reportrecommending state-subsidized preschool for all 3- and4-year-olds within the next decade acknowledged thatsuch a program would "essentially add two full gradelevels to the public education system," at a cost ofroughly $5 billion a year.

There is concern, too, about states' readiness to movebeyond providing limited services for a targeted popu-lation low-income children to designing and imple-menting programs that are appropriate for childrenfrom a variety of backgrounds. Some critics of "univer-sal access" contend that states have neither theresources nor the expertise to sustain such initiativesand that publicly financed programs should continue tofocus on reaching children whose parents cannot affordprivate preschool.

f6\ Lvt,_

32

In Not By Chance: Creating an Early

Care and Education System for Ameri-

can Children, early childhood specialists

address ways to improve program

quality, the training of workers, regula-

tion, financing and governance. The

report is available from the Bush Center

in Child Development and Social Policy

at Yale University, 203-432-9931.

The National Research Council's report,

Preventing Reading Difficulties in

Young Children, is available online

(www.nap.edu) or by writing National

Academy Press, 2101 Constitution

Avenue NW, Box 285, Washington, DC

20055.


RAND's report, Investing in Our Chil-

dren: What We Know and Don't Know

About the Costs and Benefits of Early

Childhood Interventions, is available

from RAND Distribution Services for

$15. Phone: 310-451-7002. Fax: 310-

451-6915. E-mail: [email protected].

Early Childhood Care& Education

America's Children: Key National Indica-

tors of Well-Being/1998, the second

annual report of the Interagency Forum

on Child and Family Statistics, reviews

the overall status of the nation's chil-

dren by examining 23 key indicators.

The report is available online

(www.childstats.gov) or by contacting

the National Maternal Child Health

Clearinghouse at 703-356-1964.


Will early childhood programs that have provedeffective on a small scale yield similar benefitswhen implemented on a larger scale?

A mid-1998 report by RAND concluded that certainintervention programs can benefit disadvantaged chil-dren and, in the long run, save money in other govern-ment programs, such as welfare, criminal justice andspecial education.

But the RAND report cautioned policymakers againstjumping to the conclusion that such programs "willgenerate the same benefits and savings when imple-mented on a large scale." Nearly all of the model pro-grams evaluated to date, the report noted, "have beenundertaken in a more resource-intensive context than islikely to be achievable in full-scale programs."

The report's authors noted that while state investmentsin early childhood programs have been growing for thepast several years, "it is unclear what will happen tothese programs once the media spotlight moves on andbudgets tighten."

The report concluded that policymakers' ability to makewise decisions about the funding and structure of earlychildhood programs will depend on better evaluationand research focused on why programs work. "Then,when budgets tighten again and choices need to bemade, the value of these programs will be more clearlyunderstood," the report said.

It is worth noting the federal government is fundingseveral large research projects that will ultimatelyprovide more information about the kinds of programsthat best serve children in their earliest years, includinga longitudinal study by the U.S. Department of Educa-tion following 23,000 children in 1,000 schools fromkindergarten through 5th grade.

33

a

a

a

MEETING THE NEEDS OF PRESCHOOL-AGE

CHILDREN: WHAT STATES ARE DOING

New York plans to spend $500 million overthe next four years to implement its new uni-versal preschool program, which will eventu-ally be open to any 4-year-old in the state.

New Jersey is spending $288 million in 1998-

99 to provide half-day preschool for 4-year-olds and full-day kindergarten in 125 of thestate's most disadvantaged districts. Withinthose districts, the programs are open to anychild.

In Georgia, the first state to provide univer-sal access to preschool, nearly 63,000 4-year-olds are enrolled in the state's full-dayprekindergarten program.

Colorado has established a pilot program in12 communities providing a continuum ofservices child care, prekindergarten classes,parent education, health screening and nutri-tion services for disadvantaged childrenunder age 5.

West Virginia has created a Family ResourceNetwork in each of its 55 counties. Eachnetwork develops a countywide plan to makesupport services available to families at asingle intake point.

Several states including Delaware, Michi-gan, Nebraska, Tennessee and Vermonthave approved or are considering plans toextend health-insurance coverage to the chil-dren of families living in poverty.

In South Dakota, the state has establishedfive regional centers that provide ongoingtraining, consultation and resources for child-care providers.


A recent nationwide survey of state

policies on college admissions, student

preparation and remediation is available

for $15 from the State Higher Education

Executive Officers. Phone: 303-299-3686.


K-121PostsecondaryCollaboration

Greater communication and interaction between the K-12 and higher education systems is a critical componentof reform. By working together, K-12 schools and post-secondary institutions may be able to accomplish whatneither has been able to accomplish alone during thepast decade of reform: significantly improved studentachievement, better access to and preparation forcollege, and increased financial productivity in bothsectors.

College Admissions Policies

Over the past decade, concerns about students' prepara-tion for college have led many states to adopt statewideadmissions policies. These policies are based primarilyon high school coursework requirements and perfor-mance criteria, including ACT/SAT scores, high schoolgrade-point average and class rank. Currently, 28 stateshave statewide admissions requirements, and anothersix have some state- or system-level involvement insetting admissions policies.

During the 1990s, competency-based admissionsapproaches increased, largely motivated by K-12 schoolreform efforts, but also tied to the increasing number ofhome-schooled students and students in nontraditionalhigh schools. Eleven states are developing competency-based admissions policies, in most cases, not to replacetraditional admissions practices, but rather to comple-ment them.

While these initiatives are being developed in distinctivepolitical and governance environments, all share similarmotivations and many of the same goals. These includedoing a better job of communicating to high school stu-dents what will be expected of them in college, recog-nizing competencies achieved across a broad array ofsettings (including applied-learning experiences andtechnology-based instruction) and encouraging studentsto take more responsibility for assessing their own per-formance.

Preliminary work on these initiatives includes develop-ing competency standards in core academic areas, defin-ing and designing assessment measures, and creating acommon high school transcript to report studentoutcomes.

Two states Oregon and Washington plan to fullyimplement a competency-based admissions systemwithin the next decade. Several other states, includingWisconsin and Colorado, plan to use competency-basedadmissions in tandem with traditional systems that relyon test scores and high school grades.

Remediation Policies

A critical question in every state is how to bridge thegap between what students are expected to learn in highschool and what they must know and be able to do tosucceed in college. In some states, as many as 50% ofhigh school graduates going directly to college requireremedial help as new freshmen.

Postsecondary remediation traditionally has been dealtwith by institutions. Recently, however, state highereducation agencies and legislatures have becomeinvolved in addressing the remediation issue.

Much of this statewide interest stems from concernsabout costs. For students who have just graduated highschool (as opposed to adult students), remediation isseen as paying again for learning that should haveoccurred at the secondary level. On the other hand,remediation offers a second chance for students whomay not have had opportunities to participate in high-quality precollegiate courses.

The problem of college-level remediation has spawned awide array of state initiatives. Eleven states, forexample, recently completed major studies of remedialeducation policies and practices. Several states havegone so far as to place caps on the percent of universitystudents who can be admitted with remedial needs, toimpose limits on which institutions or system sectorscan offer remedial courses, and/or to limit the amountof public money that can be spent on remediation.

But such strategies are of questionable value, accordingto a recent report on statewide remediation policies bythe State Higher Education Executive Officers and ACTInc. "The main effect of these policies so far has been tomove underprepared students around in the system,treating a highly visible symptom of system failure butnot yet grappling with its root causes," the reportconcluded.

Many states have developed collaborative programsbetween secondary and postsecondary education aimedat raising the level of student preparation for college.The most common approaches are early outreach pro-grams, allowing high school students to take collegecourses for credit, providing feedback to high schoolson how their graduates perform in college, and bringinghigh school and college faculty together to work on cur-riculum and standards.

3 6

p.

. \Adria

Statewide Remedial Education Policies,

by Edward Crowe, is available from the

State Higher Education Executive Offi-

cers, 707 17th St., Suite 2700, Denver,

CO 80202; phone: 303-299-3686.

Free while supplies last.



K-121PostsecondaryCollaboration

K-16 Partnerships

K-16 partnerships have emerged as a promising newapproach to remedial education concerns. State leadershave begun to realize it is impossible to deal with theunderlying causes of remediation without a more sys-temic strategy involving both the K-12 and postsec-ondary systems.

Georgia, Maryland and Ohio are on the forefront ofreform in this area. All three states are pursuing policyand practice changes focused on improving students'access to and success in postsecondary education.Among the key components of these states' K-16 initia-tives are the following:

The establishment of formal partnership councils oralliances aimed at facilitating high-level cooperationacross education sectors

The comprehensive redesign of teacher education cur-ricula emphasizing academic disciplines, and theredesign of teacher certification and licensure require-ments based on clearly defined standards of whatteachers should know and be able to do

The creation of a continuum of student assessmentstrategies focused on early detection and remediationof education deficiencies

The establishment of stronger cross-system connec-tions in areas such as curriculum development anddata collection, analysis and reporting, and includinglinks between college admissions standards and highschool graduation requirements.

aaa

a

a

a

37

WHAT STATES ARE DOING: IMPROVING STUDENT

PREPARATION FOR COLLEGE

Georgia's Postsecondary Readiness Enrich-ment Program offers supplemental programsfor students in grades 7-12 that are designedto improve their access to and success inpostsecondary education. Programs includementoring, technology instruction, careerexploration and college visitation opportuni-ties for 7th graders.

In Arkansas, the Academic Challenge Schol-arship Program encourages high school stu-dents to take a full set of core academiccourses. Since its inception in 1991, studentenrollment in these courses has increasedfrom 40% to 73%. Remediation levels havedropped from 60% of recent high schoolgraduates needing postsecondary remedia-tion to 49%.

Maryland, North Carolina and Oklahomaprovide school districts and/or high schoolswith information on the college performanceof recent high school graduates, includinggrade-point averages and placement in reme-dial classes.

In New Mexico, the statewide Mathematics,Engineering and Science Achievement(MESA) program provides tutoring, counsel-ing and other assistance to minority middle-and high-school students interested in pursu-ing careers in those areas.


Catalogue of School Reform Models:

First Edition, developed by ECS and the

Northwest Regional Educational Labora-

tory, provides information on 26 whole-

school reform models and 18 skill- andcontent-based models. It is available on

the ECS Web site at www.ecs.org or at

www.nwrel.org/scpd/natspec/catalog/.


Comprehensive SchoolReform

As schools struggle to find new ways to help studentsachieve at higher levels, many are discarding traditionalapproaches in favor of strategies that focus on reorga-nizing and revitalizing the entire school from theground up. Some schools have turned to external part-ners for assistance in these efforts. These partners offerreform designs intended to improve all aspects of schooloperations curriculum and instruction, teacher train-ing, school management and resource use.

These "whole" or "comprehensive" school reforms arespreading rapidly. More than 2,100 schools are affiliatedwith either Robert Slavin's Success for All program,James Corner's School Development Project or HenryLevin's Accelerated Schools. Designs supported by NewAmerican Schools are used by more than 700 schools.

The number of schools embarked on such reforms islikely at least to double over the next several years as aresult of new federal legislation. The ComprehensiveSchool Reform Demonstration (CSRD) project, approvedlast year by Congress, provides schools with at least$50,000 to implement this kind of improvement strategy.Schools in all 50 states are eligible for the funding,which became available in July 1998. 111

The legislation allows schools to select from research-based, comprehensive school reform models or todevelop their own programs. The legislation identifiescriteria for what constitutes a comprehensive schoolreform model, but individual states have considerableleeway in determining which schools receive funding toimplement which reform models.

a

aa

3 9

Comprehensive school reform, and the CSRD programin particular, provides schools opportunities to makeuse of expert assistance to improve instruction. To maxi-mize the potential of design-based assistance, carefulplanning and monitoring are needed. State and districtpolicymakers have important roles to play in assuringwise matches and continuing productive relationshipsbetween schools and designs.

A recent Education Commission of the States (ECS)survey of national, state and district leaders identified anumber of concerns about making comprehensiveschool reform work. The primary concerns centeraround the following issues:

Financing/resource allocation. Much confusionexists at the state and local levels about what moniescan be used to support comprehensive school reformand what kinds of accounting practices are needed totrack the money.

Staff development. Education leaders at all levelsagree staff development is critical if reform efforts areto succeed, but districts and states typically spendlittle money on this function. Some states and districtshave tackled this issue with noteworthy results. Forexample, in Texas, the San Antonio IndependentSchool District was granted a state waiver to increasefrom two to 11 the number of days set aside for pro-fessional development and classroom preparationeach year.

District-level support. While research shows districtinvolvement is critical in guiding and supportingcomprehensive school reform, many states are notdemanding a district role in their applications. Thereare, however, exceptions. Illinois, for example, man-dates the district show how its resources will be usedto support whole-school improvement efforts. In NewYork, all applications for CSRD funds have both dis-trict- and building-level sections, and districts arerequired to identify what resources it will commit toensure the ongoing success of the reform program.

40

States and Districts and Comprehensive

School Reform, a policy brief examining

the roles and responsibilities of policy-

makers in helping schools implement

reform designs, is available from the

Consortium for Policy Research in

Education, 215-573-0700.

ECS has published three booklets

focused on various aspects of compre-

hensive school reform: Comprehensive

School Reform: Criteria and Questions

(#AN-98-2), Comprehensive School

Reform: Identifying Effective Models

(#AN-98-3) and Comprehensive School

Reform: Allocating Federal Funds (#AN-

98-4). The booklets are available on the

ECS Web site at www.ecs.org or may be

purchased for $7.50 plus $3 postage and

handling for all three by calling the ECS

Distribution Center at 303-299-3692.

Also available is Selecting School

Reform Models: A Reference Guide for

States (Publication #AN-98-5). Check the

ECS Web site or call 303-299-3692 to

order. Free while supplies last.


Organizations with Web sites devoted

to the Comprehensive School Reform

Demonstration project include the U.S.Department of Education

(www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/compreform);

ECS (www.ecs.org); the North Central

Regional Education Laboratory

(www.ncrel.org/csri); and the Southwest

Educational Development Laboratory

(www.sedl.org/csrd/resources.html).

[DUCATION

COMMISSION

STAFFS


Comprehensive SchoolReform

Evaluation. Many states and districts need assistancewith collecting and evaluating information about howeffective comprehensive school reform efforts are inimproving student achievement.

Best practices. Education and political leaders needmore information on what research shows as to whatworks and what does not work in various aspects ofcomprehensive school reform.

Standards. Comprehensive reform efforts mustincorporate, not be carried out apart from, state stan-dards, which have the backing of state legislators andeducation leaders in most states.

Business involvement. Because turnover in schoolor district leadership can derail reform efforts, theinvolvement of business leaders is critical to main-taining progress.

41

a

a

a

LESSONS LEARNED FROM NEW AMERICAN SCHOOLS

New American Schools (NAS) was establishedin 1991 to help schools transform themselvesinto high-performing organizations through theuse of comprehensive school designs. From 1995to 1997, NAS partnered with 10 school districtsto bring these designs to more than 30% of theirschools.

RAND assessed the implementation status of 40schools during that period. Among the findingsare the following:

Schools with staff that were well-informedabout designs, had a choice of designs andhad stable leadership showed the highestlevels of implementation.

Schools that worked with NAS design teams,which provided greater amounts of onsitesupport, were implementing reforms athigher levels.

Secondary schools progressed more slowlytoward implementation than elementaryschools.

Schools in districts with a supportive envi-ronment, no significant crises and a high pri-ority on the NAS efforts also progressed morerapidly.

The report concluded that design teams do notsuccessfully implement such efforts by them-selves; they must have school and districtsupport and cooperation. The environmentoffered by schools and districts, especiallyresources for investment and a high priority onthe effort, is crucial to successful implementa-tion.

For further information on NAS designs or acopy of the RAND report, contact NAS at 1000Wilson Blvd., Suite 2710, Arlington, VA 22209.Phone: 703-908-9500. Web site:www.naschools.org.


42

ECS has several governance publica-tions available, including State Consti-

tutions and Public Education Gover-

nance, available on the ECS Web site atwww.ecs.org.

The Leithwood-Menzies article, "Formsand Effects of School-Based Manage-ment: A Review," was published inEducational Policy (1998), p. 325.

unxATIONCO \ I \ 115510 \

oi STATLS


Governance

In a growing number of states and school districts, theissue of education governance who makes what deci-sions and in what manner is receiving increased atten-tion from policymakers.

Probably the longest-standing governance reform isschool-based management (SBM), a form of decentral-ization aimed at increasing the participation of parentsand teachers in school management and decisionmak-ing. Under SBM, some powers and functions tradition-ally held by states and central district offices are dele-gated to subdistricts or local schools.

Another tool states are using to increase the versatility,responsiveness and accountability of the educationsystem is charter schools and other forms of schoolchoice, which are discussed elsewhere in this report.

Finally, many states have adopted "academic bankrupt-cy" laws. These laws provide for state intervention inthe operation and management of chronically underper-forming schools or districts.

School-Based Management

A recently published article in Educational Policyreviewed 83 studies of school-based management toidentify variations and the effects of such variations onstudents and other key players.

The research by Kenneth Leithwood and Teresa Menziesfound that SBM usually takes one of four forms: admin-istrative control, professional control, communitycontrol or balanced control (with power shared amongschool professionals, parents and community members).A number of factors were found to influence the formthat SBM assumes in a given district, including: a schooldistrict's traditional way of doing business, studentdemographics, community perceptions about schoolsand leadership, and vision of superintendents andprincipals.

43

a

Among the major fmdings of the Leithwood-MenziesM report are the following points

There is virtually no firm, research-based knowledge111 about the direct or indirect effects of site-based man-

agement on student achievement The little researchthat has been done suggests the effects on studentsare just as likely to be negative as positive. There is"an awesome gap between the rhetoric and thereality" of SBM's contribution to improved studentlearning, the report concluded

NI There is "a lack of strong theoretical argument andempirical evidence" as to whether SBM improves thequality of teaching.

There are huge costs in principals' and teachers'time and effort to making SBM work, especially in

111the early stages of implementation.

Administrative-control SBM is the least likely toresult in fundamental change in schools and the rolesof those associated with schools.

Community-control SBM is the most likely to bringabout change in schools but requires the largestaccommodation by teachers and principals.

Professional-control SBM appears to have more posi-tive effects on the practices of teachers than eithera administrative- or community-control SBM.

State Interventions

In 1989, the New Jersey Board of Education took overgovernance of the Jersey City School District, the firstsuch intervention in a local school district deemed "aca-demically bankrupt." Since then, nearly a dozen stateshave taken similar actions, either taking over a districtor designating another entity (for example, a mayor) tomanage a district.


Academic Productivity of Chicago

Public Elementary Schools is available

by calling the Consortium on Chicago

School Research at 773-702-3364. Or

visit the consortium's Web site atwww.consortium-chicago.org.

I DLC \II() \COMMISSIO \

no 51 MS


Governance

Although there is little research on the effects of stateinterventions, they seem to have had more of an effecton central office activities than on classroom practices.One notable exception is Logan County, West Virginia,where the state intervention resulted in higher studenttest scores, better management and stronger communitysupport. The West Virginia Board of Education recentlydecided to intervene in another low-performing district,Mingo County, because of continuing budget deficits,low student achievement and a lack of leadership.

One of the most high-profile state interventionsoccurred in the Chicago public school system. In 1995,the Illinois legislature shifted control of the Chicagoschools to the city's mayor and charged him withappointing school board members, the board presidentand the district's chief executive officer.

According to a 1997 study by the University ofChicago's School of Education, these changes haveimproved managerial efficiency within the district. Morerecently, the Consortium on Chicago School Researchconcluded the 1995 governance change, in combinationwith earlier reforms, had brought about substantialimprovements in student achievement in a significantnumber of Chicago's public elementary schools.

a

45

SCHOOL GOVERNANCE: WHAT STATES ARE DOING

In 1998, a number of states and districts enactedpolicies affecting the governance of schools,including the following:

The Minnesota legislature abolished its stateboard of education.

In Ohio, the legislature shifted control of theCleveland Public Schools to the mayor andcharged him with appointing the schoolboard and a chief executive officer.

In Wisconsin, the Milwaukee Public Schoolsimplemented a new local school councilpolicy. The council's elected membershipmust include at least 51% parent representa-tion, at least one student (in middle and highschools), community representatives, staffmembers and the principal.

In Kentucky, the superintendent of educa-tion appointed three new members to theFloyd County school board. The board subse-quently voted to accept a state takeoverbecause of "educational malpractice" withinthe district.

Massachusetts officials intervened in theLawrence School District. The state enteredinto a joint selection process with the districtfor a new superintendent and opened anoffice within the district to oversee day-to-day operations and provide technical assis-tance to school administrators.


4 6

L MC A HUN

WM MISSION

011111 S FATLS

I TIN44


For More Information

Listed below are some other ECS publications dealingwith the topics discussed in this report.

"Technology: Key to Better Teaching and Learning,"State Education Leader, Vol. 15, No. 3, Fall 1997 looksat education technology and what place it plays inimproving student achievement. SEI-97-3, $8.00+ postage and handling (p&h).

The Progress of Education Reform: 1997 examines awide range of indicators of student performance,looks at trends in state education policy and at thegrowing though still meager base of research andevaluation focused on the effectiveness of variousreform strategies. SI-98-1, $12.50 + p&h.

A Policymakers' Guide to Education Reform Networksdiscusses the kinds of networks available, how theywork, and the benefits and services they offer.Includes a thumbnail sketch of some major educationreform network models. SI-97-11, $10.00 + p&h.

Education Accountability Systems in 50 States definesthe components of a performance-based educationaccountability system and then shows what eachstate's system looks like. SI-97-12, $7.50 + p&h.

A Policymaker's Guide to Incentives for Students, Teachersand Schools identifies elements for improving perfor-mance in a standards-based system; describes incen-tives for students, teachers and schools; and looks atimplications for policymakers. AN-97-5, $10.00 + p&h.

A Policymaker's Guide to Standards-Led Assessmentexamines the challenges of building consensus, assur-ing accurate measures, estimating costs, definingprogress, addressing legal challenges and buildingpublic support. (In conjunction with the NationalCenter for Research on Evaluation, Standards andStudent Testing). SI-97-3, $10.00 + p&h.

So You Have Standards . . . Now What? provides tipsand strategies on how to involve educators, the publicand parents in deciding on new forms of assessment.Includes public concerns and tips for meeting policyand communications challenges. SI-97-2, $10.00 + p&h.

See page ii for postage and handling information. To order,contact the ECS Distribution Center, 707 17th St., Suite 2700,Denver, CO 80202-3427; phone: 303-299-3692; fax: 303-296-8332;e-mail: [email protected].

aa

a

a.

0--

MEN

"41S1h,,

4 b BEST'COPY AVAILABLE

Education Commission of the States

707 17th Street, Suite 2700

Denver, CO 80202-3427

303-299-3600

fax: 303-296-8332

e-mail: [email protected]

www.ecs.org

EDUCATION

COMMISSION

OF THE STATES

At

IN

49

U.S. Department of EducationOffice of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)

National Library of Education (NLE)Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)

NOTICE

REPRODUCTION BASIS

®

ERIC

.017This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release(Blanket) form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing allor classes of documents from its source organization and, therefore,does not require a "Specific Document" Release form.

ul This document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission toreproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, maybe reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Release form(either "Specific Document" or "Blanket").

EFF-089 (9/97)

document resume ed 427 416document resume ea 029 654 the progress of education reform 1998....

Documents