Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
55031685
label
Education [3]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
55031685
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Education [3]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the First Lady's Office (Clinton Administration)
Melanne Verveer's Subject Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
55031685
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
2068127-20130534S-090-011-2022
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
7384a4eb3c3a0875
ocrText
"Amer Reads "/reading hitas r
public prog
Imagine in 1999 what when like all given tests file
ger frehs newly involved
3/2 with peliods
Best perateies
Draft
Perce . In sevement
Some Things with better the other
26-
MEMORANDUM TO THE PRESIDENT
Recommended standards:
need
Best chaice make
FROM:
MICHAEL COHEN
services
SUBJECT:
MEETING ON NATIONAL STANDARDS works>
Realis Recovery
You will be meeting with a small group of experts (Marc Tucker, Diane Ravitch, E.D. Hirsch,
Rick Mills, Roy Romer, Hugh Price, Don Stewart) as well as Secretary Riley and Deputy
Secretary Smith, on national standards and tests on March 5. The purpose of the meeting is to
discuss a range of options about how to move this agenda forward. This memo should help to
prepare you for the meeting by summarizing the status of your proposal for 4th and 8th grade
standards and testing, and identifying additional actions to consider once that initiative is firmly
in place.
These additional steps are not yet fully developed. Because this will be a brainstorming meeting,
we expect addition ideas to develop. After this meeting, we will present with a decision memo
with specific options and recommendations.
(Frist Chance h Set an hand annoment)
I.
YOUR PLAN FOR NATIONAL STANDARDS AND NATIONAL TESTS IN 4TH
GRADE READING AND 8TH GRADE MATH
Summary of Plan
In your State of the Union Address you challenged every state to adopt high national standards
and by 1999, to test every 4th grader in reading and every 8th grader in math to make sure these
standards are met. These national tests will be:
o
Aligned with widely accepted national content standards. In 4th grade reading, the
test will be aligned with the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) reading
standards, developed through a consensus process involving reading specialists,
curriculum experts, state officials and others throughout the nation. In math, the test will
be aligned with the TIMSS international math standard agreed to by experts in 41
countries, including the U.S.. The TIMSS standards are also very highly consistent with
the national standards developed by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
o
Based on existing, widely accepted tests that will produce individual scores for
students and parents in terms of the national standards. The new tests will be based
on the existing NAEP and TIMSS tests, which are designed to be administered to samples
of students and produce national or state-level scores only. The new tests will provide
comparable scores for individual students, revealing how well individual students
perform relative to clear national or international performance standards
0
Developed by recognized test developers. The U.S. Department of Education will
contract with a test developer to create these tests. The contracting process will begin
shortly. The tests will be piloted in Spring 1998, and available for use in schools
throughout the country in the Spring of 1999.
Voluntary for use by states and local school districts. Use of these tests will not be
required as a condition of receiving federal program funds.
Licensed to test publishers and interested states and school districts. As a result of
this licensing agreement, the federal government will not be involved in administering or
scoring the tests, and the tests will be readily available.
0
Available to parents and students on the Internet once the tests have been
administered. Each year, after the tests have been administered, the test questions and
answers will be released publicly and placed on the Internet, so that parents can find out
whether their children are meeting national standards even if their state or district does
not use the tests.
0
The focal point for national efforts to prepare all students to reach the standards.
The point of the national standards and tests is to help improve, not just to measure,
student achievement. Between now and when the tests are first administered, there must
be a focused, sustained effort, and the local, state and national level, to prepare students
for these tests. America Reads is one component of such an effort.
We will provide you an overview of the implementation strategy for this initiative shortly.
Reactions To Date
The reactions to your plan have mainly been quite positive. The Washington Post, USA Today,
and many local and regional papers have expressed editorial support for this plan. As you know,
the Business Roundtable endorsed it the day after the State of the Union Address. Maryland has
already agreed to participate in the testing program, and Gov. Engler will announce his support
later this week. Diane Ravitch and Checker Finn wrote a very supportive op-ed piece in the
Washington Post last week (copy attached). We expect other education and business groups to
weigh in positively as their Spring meetings occur. In addition, informal conversations with state
and local education officials and business leaders around the country have been encouraging.
They welcome the tests, and believe you have found a way of defining the issue that avoids old
political battles. Based on conversations with a number of chief state school officers, I believe
that California, New York and South Carolina will commit to participate in the testing program
in the near future. A number of others are possible quickly as well.
Criticism of this plan has taken three forms. First, some have said that your plan goes too far.
For example, Gov. Thompson wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times, arguing that
standards should be left to the states and local communities. Second, some in the education
community have renewed the familiar argument that tests are not the solution to low
performance. Instead, they argue that additional funding, better teachers, safer and more caring
schools are what's needed. Third, some (e.g., David Broder, Robert Samuelson) have argued that
your plan does not go far enough, because it is limited to only two subjects and grade levels,
because it is not accompanied by significant new federal funding to prepare students to reach the
standards, or because you do not require students to pass tests in order to graduate from high
school or receive financial aid for college.
II. POSSIBLE NEXT STEPS
Your plan for national standards and tests in reading and math is a significant step forward,
especially in light of the controversy that has surrounded the standards movement in recent years.
The most important thing you can do to advance the standards movement is to continue to press
the case for every state to adopt these tests. This month, you will speak to legislatures in
Michigan and North Carolina; meet with the chief state school officers here in Washington; and
possibly appear with Delaine Eastin and a broad coalition of business, education, and labor
leaders to announce California's support for your testing plan. The Defense Department has
agreed to use the tests in the schools it runs in the U.S. and around the world; we are working to
arrange a public announcement for this in the next several weeks. In addition, the Education
Department will soon be prepared to announce the formation of an advisory committee to guide
the test development process.
We are off to a good start: if we can line up California, New York, and Michigan to support the
tests, a number of other states will follow suit. But we must not let up for a moment in this
crusade, and we must be especially careful not to propose any new measures that will undermine
state participation in the 4th and 8th grade tests because the most visible indicator of success or
failure will be the number of states that administer those tests in 1999.
Assuming that the testing initiative continues to gain support, it is not too early to consider what
else you can do to advance the standards movement and improve student achievement. The key
questions are whether to propose national standards and assessments in other grades or subjects
(and if so, in which), whether to leave these matters entirely to the states, or whether to adopt
some kind of intermediary position. In considering these questions you should consider what
steps make the most sense educationally, and also what steps will move the country forward
rather than reviving tired arguments. Below I lay out some basic approaches.
Approach 1: Lead a sustained national effort to prepare students to reach the 4th and 8th
grade standards.
Setting national standards and creating national tests is not an end in and of itself; it should be
the starting point for serious efforts throughout the country to prepare students to meet these
standards and thereby raise academic performance. The most important follow up to the plan
you have already announced is to lead a sustained effort to improve reading and math
performance even before the standards and tests go into effect. Your America Reads initiative, is
one significant element of this strategy, but there is more to be done. In reading, this includes
identifying and promoting effective instructional programs and teacher training programs,
especially through Title 1 and Goals 2000. And it involves a sustained effort to encourage
parents to read to their children on a regular basis.
A comparable effort is required in math. The TIMSS study highlights the need to undertake a
massive teacher retraining effort, and to challenge textbook publishers to create world class
textbooks. Employers and professionals, such as engineers and scientists, can be mobilized to
help by tutoring students, helping to train and support classroom teachers, assisting in developing
curriculum materials, and showing students how math concepts are used in the real world. We
have been working with OSTP, the Department of Education and the National Science
Foundation to develop a strategy for coordinating federal resources to improve teaching and
learning in math, and for systematically reaching out to the mathematical, scientific and technical
communities.
Pro's:
There is the more public support for a limited focus on the basics than there would be on
a broader proposal involving other subject areas (e.g., history).
This approach has the best chance of avoiding debilitating old debates about national
standards; by winning over Finn, Ravitch, Engler. et. al., we have begun to transform the
debate about national standards into a more productive one.
Succeeding at this effort will make it easier to push a more comprehensive approach
down the road; overloading it early on in the process with a more ambitious agenda may
rekindle old debates and slow down progress on this more limited approach.
The most important thing to do is to help kids meet the standards; by sticking with this
focused approach, we can spend scarce time and attention mobilizing resources to
actually improve, rather than simply measure, student achievement.
If we can succeed in significantly raising student performance in these grades and
subjects, achievement in other subjects and grades will also increase, because reading and
math are a foundation for other learning, and because we will have demonstrated for the
nation how to use standards and tests to boost achievement.
Con's:
Most of the arguments for national standards and tests in 4th and 8th grade reading and
math can be made for other subjects as well: for the most part, well-crafted national
standards will be more demanding than those set at the state and local level; we live in a
mobile and diverse society, and national standards provide a common foundation for all;
just as math is math regardless of where one lives, the same is essentially true of science,
geography, and writing.
Our limited focus on reading and math could unduly restrict attention in local schools to
these subjects, at the expense of science in elementary schools, history and literature in
middle schools, etc.
Our limited proposal may seem small and inconsequential (even though it is not); we may
be missing an opportunity to strike out more boldly.
As a strategic matter, we should recognize that whatever we ultimately accomplish will
be less than what we aim for. If we don't aim higher, we might not accomplish our
current proposal.
The following approaches are intended as possible additions to, not substitutes for, the
approach described above. We believe that none of them should be pursued publicly over
the next 4-6 months, or they are likely to undermine efforts to sign states up for
participation in the 4th and 8th grade testing initiative. (Peter Bredmah)
Approach 2: Highlight the best standards in other subject areas and grade levels, and urge
states to adopt them.
States, local school districts, and a host of national organizations (e.g, National Geographic
Society, New Standards, etc.) have developed standards in all academic subject areas. These vary
in rigor and quality. This is the right time in the national standards process to take stock of what
has been developed, identify the most challenging and useful sets of standards from among those
developed by states and national organizations, and urge all states to adopt the best standards and
assessments that are identified. This would result in an overall improvement in the level and
quality of state standards, and greater commonality -- though not necessarily strict uniformity --
in the standards among states. This 'bottom up" approach to national standards would also retain
a good deal of flexibility for states.
This approach will work best if the judgements about the quality of existing standards are made
by a nonfederal source. It will be politically very difficult for the Education Department to
undertake this task. While no national organization is ideally suited for this role, the best
candidate is ACHIEVE, the new entity established by the governors and business leaders after
the 1996 National Education Summit in Palisades. The mission of this organization, once it is
operationally, will be to assist states to develop and implement high quality academic standards
and tests. This approach, then involves reaching an agreement with the business leaders and
bipartisan group of governors that, together with them, you will urge states to adopt or adapt the
best standards identified by ACHIEVE.
Pro's:
By keeping the governors at the center of this approach, you will increase state
commitment to using the best standards and keep the approach a bipartisan one.
This approach can promote national consensus on what students should learn in various
subject areas based on the best standards that are available, and without raising the
specter of federal intrusion.
Con's:
ACHIEVE's capacity to do this work is untried. It has yet to hire an executive director or
staff, or conduct any work. In addition, ACHIEVE was established explicitly to focus on
state, rather than national standards, since the political atmosphere at the education
summit was very much in opposition to both national standards and federal involvement
in standards. It is not clear if the ACHIEVE governing board has the political room
needed to alter its mission as envisioned here.
Unless the governors and business leaders actually push states aggressively to coalesce
around a small number of high quality standards and assessments, this approach may
make a difference in only a small number of interested states, while the rest continue to
act independently.
Approach 3: Focus on High School Completion: Appoint a commission to figure out how
to get a good high school level test, appropriate for postsecondary education and
employment. The absence of a high school level test leaves the 4th and 8th grade proposal
seemingly incomplete. If standards are important, they are surely as important at the completion
of high school as they are at earlier transition points.
However, testing at the high school level poses far more difficult issues than at earlier grade
levels. There is no obvious 12th grade test to turn to, comparable to the 4th grade NAEP and 8th
grade TIMSS tests. (The SAT's are not appropriate because they are only taken by college-bound
students, and are not aligned with any curriculum standard.) It also is not clear what grade
level(s) would be most appropriate for testing; 12th grade represents high school completion, but
leaves students who do not meet the standards with no real second chances to improve. From
this perspective, 10th grade testing would be preferable, if testing were to be done at a single
grade level. Alternatively, a number of states, including Maryland and New York, are using a
series of end-of-course tests each year in high school, instead of a single test or battery of tests
administered at one time. Finally, any high school testing proposal inevitably will raise questions
about the consequences of student performance on these tests -- for high school graduation,
college admission, financial aid and employment.
We believe that the best way to approach the issue of high school testing would be to appoint a
commission, with significant representation from the higher education and employment
communities, as well as from others with a stake in the education system. The charge to the
commission would be to make recommendations about the desirability and uses of national
standards and testing for high school completion, and for recommendations on the design,
development and implementation of the system it envisions. Through its work, the commission
would be expected to build a consensus around the recommended approach.
Pro's
It is even more important to have some kind of high-school level national standards and
test than it is for 4th and 8th grade, because these standards determine what students will
learn before they enter the world of work or postsecondary learning.
High School level tests, if they are challenging, will have a profound effect on teaching,
curriculum, and learning throughout the K-12 system, since the entire system must be
oriented to helping students pass the tests.
A commission, with a clear charge, will be seen as serious and important. It will
demonstrate clear leadership, especially if its recommendations are bold and significant.
The high school level issues--including whether and/or how tests should be used for high
school graduation, employment and student financial aid--are significant, and could
benefit from sustained, visible national attention.
Con's
Precisely because high school standards and testing can have powerful effect throughout
the K-12 system, this proposal can provoke criticisms of a federal takeover of school
curriculum.
Appointing a commission may be seen as a way of dodging tough issues, rather than
asserting bold leadership.
The commission may recommend steps that will be highly controversial, or that you may
not wish to accept (e.g., require students to pass a national test in order to qualify for
federal financial aid).
file
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 4, 1997
MEETING ON EDUCATIONAL STANDARDS
DATE:
March 5, 1997
LOCATION: The Cabinet Room
TIME:
Briefing 1:00 pm - 1:10 pm
Event 1:10 pm - 2:10 pm
FROM:
Bruce Reed
Michael Cohen
I.
PURPOSE
To discuss several ways of advancing your agenda of national standards and tests.
II.
BACKGROUND
This is an opportunity to brainstorm with some of the leaders of the standards movement
on the best alternatives available to you. The purpose of this meeting is not to make any
final decisions on your strategy, however, it provides you with an opportunity to take into
account the recommendations of experts in the standards field when making your
decisions on this issue. In addition, this is a valuable opportunity to gain the support of
this important group for your education reform initiatives over the coming months.
Attached is an overview of your plan for national standards and testing in 4th grade
reading and 8th grade math, and a summary of reactions to date. As a follow up to this
meeting, we will provide you with a decision memo that incorporates the ideas discussed
by the participants.
III.
PARTICIPANTS
Briefing Participants:
The First Lady
Secretary Riley
Deputy Secretary Mike Smith
Erskine Bowles
Sylvia Mathews
Bruce Reed
Michael Cohen
Rahm Emanuel
Don Baer
62028
Event Participants:
The First Lady
Secretary Riley
Deputy Secretary Mike Smith
Erskine Bowles
Sylvia Mathews
Bruce Reed
Michael Cohen
Melanne Verveer
Rahm Emanuel
Don Baer
Diane Ravitch, Former Assistant Secretary of Education in the Bush Administration
Don Hirsch, Professor of English, University of Virginia, Director of the Core Knowledge
Project and author of The Schools We Need.
Governor Roy Romer
Don Stewart, President of the College Board
Richard Mills, Commissioner of Education for New York State
Hugh Price, President of the Urban League
Marc Tucker, President of the National Center on Education and the Economy
and Director of the New Standards Project.
Elaine Kamarek
IV.
PRESS PLAN
Closed Press.
V.
SEQUENCE OF EVENTS
Make brief opening remarks and then turn to each participant to speak.
VI.
REMARKS
Talking Points Attached.
Education Standards Meeting
Background on Non Administration Participants
Diane Ravitch
Former Assistant Secretary of Education Research and Improvement, Bush Administration
Diane is an enthusiastic supporter of your plan. She will argue that you remain focused on 4th grade
reading and 8th grade math, in order to maintain bipartisan support. She will also argue that if you
consider advancing a high school test, that you also consider requiring students to pass it in order
to be eligible for financial aid for higher education.
Richard Mills
New York State Commissioner of Education
Rick is also a strong supporter of your plan. He will argue that you use the bully pulpit, relentlessly,
to press states, communities, schools, teachers and parents to do everything necessary to prepare
students to meet the standards.
Hugh Price
President, Urban League
Hugh has been speaking forcefully about the need to make sure that students in urban schools are
held to high standards, and that leaders must work to remove the barriers that prevent students from
meeting these standards, including low expectations, lack of parental support, incompetent teachers,
and limited resources.
Marc Tucker
President, National Center on Education and the Economy and Director of New Standards Project
Mark will express support for your proposal, point out that it falls short of a comprehensive national
system of standards and examinations, and urge you to endorse his New Standards effort as an
example of the kind of system of standards others should adopt.
Roy Romer
Governor of Colorado
-RILE
Donald Stewart
President, College Board
Don will have ideas about how to create a meaningful national test for high school graduation.
E.D. (Don) Hirsch
Professor of English, University of Virginia and Director, Core Knowledge Project
Don has developed a set of detailed, grade-by-grade standards which are in use in a national network
of more than 400 schools. He will argue that, to be useful, national standards must be
grade-by-grade and specific.
EDUCATION STANDARDS MEETING
TALKING POINTS FOR THE PRESIDENT
I am pleased each of you could join me today for this discussion. The issue of national
standards is a topic I have spent many hours talking to almost everyone of you about,
sometimes going back quite a few years.
As you know, in my State of the Union Address I announced my initiative to create national
standards and individual level tests in 4th grade reading and 8th grade math. I have
challenged every state to implement these tests.
Today, I'd like your advice on three questions:
What do we need to do to get my proposal for fourth and eighth grade testing
implemented nationwide?
What do we need to do to help prepare kids to meet these standards in 1999?
What else should we do to keep the standards movement moving forward?
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 4, 1997
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
BRUCE REED
MICHAEL COHEN
SUBJECT:
YOUR PLAN FOR NATIONAL STANDARDS AND
NATIONAL TESTS IN 4TH GRADE READING AND 8TH
GRADE MATH
Summary of Plan
In your State of the Union Address you challenged every state to adopt high national
national standards and by 1999, to test every 4th grader in reading and every 8th grader in
math to make sure these standards are met. These national tests will be:
o
Aligned with widely accepted national content standards. In 4th grade reading,
the test will be aligned with the National Assessment of Education Progress
(NAEP) reading standards, developed through a consensus process involving
reading specialists, curriculum experts, state officials and others throughout the
nation. In math, the test will be aligned with the TIMSS international math
standard agreed to by experts in 41 countries, including the U.S.. The TIMSS
standards are also very highly consistent with the national standards developed by
the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
0
Based on existing, widely accepted tests that will produce individual scores
for students and parents in terms of the national standards. The new tests
will be based on the existing NAEP and TIMSS tests, which are designed to be
administered to samples of students and produce national or state-level scores
only. The new tests will provide comparable scores for individual students,
revealing how well individual students perform relative to clear national or
international performance standards
0
Developed by recognized test developers. The U.S. Department of Education
will contract with a test developer to create these tests. The contracting process
will begin shortly. The tests will be piloted in Spring 1998, and available for use in
schools throughout the country in the Spring of 1999.
0
Voluntary for use by states and local school districts. Use of these tests will
not be required as a condition of receiving federal program funds.
Licensed to test publishers and interested states and school districts. As a result
of this licensing agreement, the federal government will not be involved in
administering or scoring the tests, and the tests will be readily available.
0
Available to parents and students on the Internet once the tests have been
administered. Each year, after the tests have been administered, the test questions
and answers will be released publicly and placed on the Internet, so that parents can
find out whether their children are meeting national standards even if their state or
district does not use the tests.
The focal point for national efforts to prepare all students to reach the
standards. The point of the national standards and tests is to help improve, not just
to measure, student achievement. Between now and when the tests are first
administered, there must be a focused, sustained effort, and the local, state and
national level, to prepare students for these tests. America Reads is one component
of such an effort.
Reactions To Date
The reactions to your plan have mainly been quite positive. The Washington Post, USA
Today, and many local and regional papers have expressed editorial support for this plan.
As you know, the Business Roundtable endorsed it the day after the State of the Union
Address. Maryland has already agreed to participate in the testing program, and Gov. Engler
will announce his support later this week. Diane Ravitch and Checker Finn wrote a very
supportive op-ed piece in the Washington Post last week (copy attached). We expect other
education and business groups to weigh in positively as their Spring meetings occur. In
addition, informal conversations with state and local education officials and business leaders
around the country have been encouraging. They welcome the tests, and believe you have
found a way of defining the issue that avoids old political battles. Based on conversations
with a number of chief state school officers, I believe that California, New York and South
Carolina will commit to participate in the testing program in the near future. A number of
others are possible quickly as well.
Criticism of this plan has taken three forms. First, some have said that your plan goes too far.
For example, Gov. Thompson wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times, arguing that
standards should be left to the states and local communities. Second, some in the education
community have renewed the familiar argument that tests are not the solution to low
performance. Instead, they argue that additional funding, better teachers, safer and more
caring schools are what's needed. Third, some (e.g., David Broder, Robert Samuelson) have
argued that your plan does not go far enough, because it is limited to only two subjects and
grade levels, because it is not accompanied by significant new federal funding to prepare
students to reach the standards, or because you do not require students to pass tests in order
to graduate from high school or receive financial aid for college.
Summary
Your plan for national standards and tests in reading and math is a significant step forward,
especially in light of the controversy that has surrounded the standards movement in recent
years. The most important thing you can do to advance the standards movement is to
continue to press the case for every state to adopt these tests. This month, you will speak to
legislatures in Michigan and North Carolina; meet with the chief state school officers here in
Washington; and possibly appear with Delaine Eastin and a broad coalition of business,
education, and labor leaders to announce California's support for your testing plan. The
Defense Department has agreed to use the tests in the schools it runs in the U.S. and around
the world; we are working to arrange a public announcement for this in the next several
weeks. In addition, the Education Department will soon be prepared to announce the
formation of an advisory committee to guide the test development process.
We are off to a good start: if we can line up California, New York, and Michigan to support
the tests, a number of other states will follow suit. But we must not let up for a moment in
this crusade, and we must be especially careful not to propose any new measures that will
undermine state participation in the 4th and 8th grade tests --because the most visible
indicator of success or failure will be the number of states that administer those tests in 1999.
PAGE
2
1ST STORY of Level 1 printed in FULL format.
Copyright 1997 McClatchy Newspapers, Inc.
Sacramento Bee
February 28, 1997, METRO FINAL
SECTION: EDITORIALS; Pg. B7
LENGTH: 1374 words
HEADLINE: AMERICA NEEDS A NATIONAL PROGRAM OF STUDENT TESTING
BYLINE: Chester E. Finn Jr. and Diane Ravitch
BODY:
PRESIDENT CLINTON'S proposal for national testing makes sense. As former
assistant secretaries of the Department of Education in the Reagan and Bush
administrations, we urge Congress to support it.
When President Bush and Lamar Alexander suggested something similar, which
they called American Achievement Tests, congressional Democrats scoffed, and no
such bill was ever introduced.
And in 1992, when a bipartisan panel called the National Council on
Education Standards and Testing recommended a form of national testing, a
convoluted scheme that involved different tests based on common standards, the
idea was ignored by congressional leaders and attacked by prominent educators.
still, it was a good idea then, and it's a good one now.
In fact, Clinton's version of national testing is better than Bush's in these
important respects: It doesn't require any new standards or tests to be devised
and it does not hinge on dubious efforts to attach multiple tests to uniform
(nonexistent) standards.
The administration has figured out that the nation already has two excellent
tests that measure student achievement in reading and math, the most basic of
basic skills. Accordingly, the president has proposed that states and school
districts be permitted to use a respected national test for fourth-grade readin
and an equally admirable international test for eighth-grade mathematics.
Nobody is obliged to use these tests. The federal government will pay for th
first round of testing, and after that it's up to states and districts.
THEY CAN, however, embed the national tests into their own testing programs,
which virtually every jurisdiction has, and commercial publishers would be
licensed to offer them, a welcome form of "outsourcing" that would hold down
costs, bureaucracy and allegations of unfair government competition.
Most important, they're good tests, incorporating standards far more rigorou
than those most states now use.
The reading test is based on the National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP), which has been around almost three decades but has never been used by
districts or schools to report the progress of individual students. The NAEP
reading test is solid, multifaceted and has rigorous standards built into it.
PAGE
3
Sacramento Bee, February 28, 1997
For eighth-graders, the White House proposes to make available the math part
of the Third International Mathand Science Study (TIMSS), given to a
half-million youngsters in 41 countries. The standards are built into the
international comparisons. It's TIMSS results that enabled us to see that our
eighth-graders perform poorly in mathematics compared with their peers in many
other industrial countries.
Consider how powerful it will be for parents and teachers to compare the math
prowess of their eighth-graders in, say, Phoenix or Minneapolis, to the
performance of their peers in Korea and the Czech Republic. Consider the impact
of parents in Denver or Boston actually seeing how well their fourth-graders
read in relation to a national standard of proficiency.
According to every major poll, an overwhelming majority of the American
people want national standards and tests. Until now, there has been no way for
parents or public officials to get good information about how students are
doing.
Instead, they've been stuck with college entrance tests that are not
representative of the full population and that, in any case, aren't even
administered until the end of high school. Or they have had to settle for
"standardized" tests that yield spurious results about youngsters being "at or
above grade level, even though "grade level" is simply a statistical average,
not a true standard.
Only with such information can parents make wise choices among schools; can
parents and legislators appraise how well their school systems are doing; can
teachers and principals determine how effective their efforts are, and take
corrective action where needed.
To those worried about "local control," we say that these tests are a
yardstick, not a harness. They give the federal government no new powers. The
test results, in fact, will actually enhance local control by empowering
consumers, policy-makers and professionals to know what actions need to be taker
locally to improve education.
So important is national testing that it must be safeguarded from
politicization, a temptation sure to arise if the student results are as bleak
as everyone expects.
To prevent this possibility, responsibility for national testing should be
removed from the federal Education Department (and congressional committees) ano
placed under the control of an independent, nonpartisan body. Such an entity,
called the National Assessment Governing Board, already exists.
THE WHITE House's current plan to give control of national testing to the
Department of Education would, we think, be a big mistake. If Clinton will agre
to turn the program for national testing into an autonomous agency, akin to the
National Science Foundation (where the National Science Board sets policy) or
the National Transportation Safety Board, then Congress should endorse this par
of his education package. This proposal deserves their support.
Once upon a time it was even a Republican idea. Now it is a good American
idea.
PAGE 4
Sacramento Bee, February 28, 1997
GRAPHIC: BRINTON/Special to The Bee
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
LOAD-DATE: March 1, 1997
file
DRAFT
March 4, 1997
Note to Mike Smith
As requested, attached are the briefing materials that were promised to General
Becton on best practices" at the elementary and secondary school levels. We are
continuing to track down additional programs as well as data on costs and
effectiveness. We will send up a revised package as soon as we obtain the
additional information.
The attached set of materials contains information on:
Best Practices in Reading and Mathematics
Best Practices in Reading
- Success for All
- Reading Recovery
- Word Work
Best Practices in Mathematics
- Comprehensive School Mathematics Program
- Success Understanding Mathematics
- Connected Mathematics Project
Whole School Programs
New American Schools
- Modern Red School House
- ATLAS Communities
- National Alliance for Restructuring Education
Career Academies
Schools Within Schools
High Schools that Work (SREB initiative)
Reconstitution of Failing Schools or Districts
Ricky Takai
Val Plisko
cc:
A. Ginsburg
Best Practices in Reading and Mathematics
Best Practices in Reading
Elementary School Projects
Success for All
Overview: The philosophy of the Success for All program is based on research which links the
academic problems of children in their formative years, particularly retention or poorly developed
reading skills, to being at subsequent risk of dropping out of school. Success for All is designed to
ensure that children do not experience this initial failure and are able to reach the third grade with
adequate basic skills. Success for All is currently operating in 450 schools throughout the U.S. in 31
states.
Features of the Program: To fully implement Success for All, the sponsors recommend having a
full day preschool and kindergarten. These programs emphasize language development, readiness,
and self-concept. The children use the Peabody Language Development Kits and a program called
Story Telling and Retelling (STaR). In grades pre-k through 6, trained teacher tutors work with
students who are failing to keep up with their classmates in reading. The tutors are certified teachers
and work one-on-one with children for 20 minute periods outside of the regular reading program.
Priority for tutoring is given to first graders.
In addition to tutoring, daily 90-minute reading sessions are held with small homogeneous ability
groups. These sessions are conducted by a teacher trained in the use of the Success for All materials.
The kindergarten and first grade program emphasizes language skills, providing children with
phonetically regular mini-books which they read to each other in pairs. In the second through sixth
grade, students use basal readers, novels or anthologies but not workbooks. In these grades, the
reading program emphasizes cooperative learning activities built around partner reading, identification
of characters, settings, problems, and problem solutions in narratives. At all levels, students are
required to read books of their own choice for 20 minutes at home each evening. Students are
assessed every eight weeks to determine if alternative teaching strategies, changes in reading group
placement, or need for tutoring services is required.
Teachers are required to follow detailed manuals for most activities and receive three days of
instructional training in reading at the beginning of each school year. Further in-service sessions are
provided throughout the year to help teachers with classroom management, instructional pace, and
cooperative learning techniques. In addition, all preschool and kindergarten teachers receive training
in using the STaR and Peabody programs.
The two other major components of the program include the Family Support Team and the Success
for All facilitator. The Family Support Team is made up of a parent liaison, a counselor, and the
vice-principal who assists parents in ways they can aid in the success of their children in school. The
Facilitator works with the teachers in each school to help them implement the program.
Evidence of Success: Success for All has been evaluated in 23 sites in nine districts and eight states.
In all cases, the program has proven successful in improving students reading skills; in every district,
Success for All students learned significantly more than did matched control students. Spanish forms
are also available and have been successfully evaluated.
Costs: Program costs include materials, and extensive staff development. Staff development costs
include three full days of staff development for classroom teachers and 20 person days for program
staff to provide follow-up assistance to staff. These costs are estimated to be approximately $45,000.
The program also requires a facilitator and teacher tutors. The facilitator and teacher tutors are
usually drawn from existing teaching staff.
Contacts:
Robert Slavin or Nancy Madden
Center for Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students
The Johns Hopkins University
3505 North Charles Street
Baltimore, MD 21218
(410) 516-0274
Sites Using the Program:
El Vista Elementary School
450 El Vista Avenue
Modesto, CA 95355
(209) 575-4665
Principal: Jennifer Schindler
Lackland City Elementary School
101 Dumont
San Antonio, TX 78236
(210) 678-2946
Principal: Jerry Allen
P.S 159
2781 Pitkin Ave.
Brooklyn, NY
(718) 277-4828
Principal: Kathy Garibaldi
Poinciana Park Elementary School
6745 NW 23rd Avenue
Miami, FL. 33127
(305) 691-5640
Principal: Cynthia Clarke
Reading Recovery
Overview: Reading Recovery is an intensive early intervention program for first grade children
having difficulty with beginning reading. It was based on years of research in New Zealand. The
program is designed to promote good reading by teaching reading strategies before a pattern of failure
develops. The program includes procedures for teaching reading, a staff development program
directed by a specifically prepared "teacher leader," and a set of administrative systems that work
together for quality control. Currently, Reading Recovery programs can be found in 47 states in the
U.S.
Reading Recovery is not a packaged program; it relies heavily on training teachers to deliver highly
focused lessons in which students learn to monitor and correct their own reading and to use many
kinds of information (background experience, knowledge of language, letter-sound correspondence) as
they read.
To fully implement Reading Recovery, the district or school must have a person designated as teacher
leader. The responsibilities of the teacher leader are to design and implement the teacher training at
each site. To become a teacher leader requires a teacher to spend a full year being trained at one of
the Reading Recovery Training sites--in the United States, Ohio State University is a designated
training site. The teacher leader then trains Reading Recovery Teachers.
Features of the Program: In most cases, Reading Recovery teachers select the lowest achieving
students in the first grade to provide intensive one-on-one tutoring for 30 minutes each day. This
tutoring is in addition to regular classroom reading instruction. It includes both reading and writing
activities as well as strategies to develop children's thinking and reasoning skills. When the Reading
Recovery teacher considers the child has become a proficient independent reader, the treatment is
discontinued. This normally takes around 16 weeks. The success of individual programs is often
measured by the discontinuing rate.
Evidence of Success: Ohio State University collects and analyzes data from Reading Recovery sites
nationwide. The program is successful with most of its students. In 1995-96, 83 percent of the
students (59,266) in the program were "discontinued" from the program after 60 days. Students are
"discontinued" when they are judged to be independent readers. Eighty-six percent of the children
scored at or above average on reading tests at the end of the school year.
Costs: The primary costs are for the training required by the teacher leader (1 full academic year).
Additional costs include the periodic in-service that is required.
Contacts:
Gay Su Pinnell or Carol Lyons
Ohio State University
1929 Kenny Road
Columbus, OH 43210
(614) 292-7875
(614) 292-7879
Sites Using the Program:
Sutter School
5075 Daisy Ave
Long Beach Unified School District
Long Beach, CA 90805
(310) 984-5897
Contact person: Connie Williams
Word Work
Overview: Word Work is based on a framework that incorporates some of the most promising
features of both standard phonics and literary appreciation, while ensuring that students acquire skills
needed for independent reading and writing. This literature-based approach motivates students and
also assists them in developing or strengthening their decoding skills.
Features of the Program: Word Work is an integrated decoding-spelling program designed for
students from kindergarten through second grade. Instruction incorporates principles of social-
cognitive learning and is more student-centered than teacher-directed. A distinctive feature of the
program are the small-group problem solving activities which pose "real" problems to the students
with open-ended possibilities. The point is not only to find the correct answer, but to justify the
work. During group task exercises, teachers do not teach, but monitor and facilitate students
interactions and activities, and assessing students' skill and knowledge.
Word Work sessions are organized into Lesson Blocks, two-week segments allocated to a specific
curriculum element. A block typically begins with teacher-led small-group instruction on a practical
curriculum concept, and ends with teacher-led whole-class assessment. Between these activities, there
exist a variety of options, including whole-class, small-group, and individual activities, some teacher-
led reinforcement and review lessons. Typically, each instructional segment begins with a focused
lesson that takes a small amount of time in the morning hours, three or four days a week, dedicated
to the study of "words." There is generally 12-35 minutes allocated for this. Small groups are
sometimes used for direct instruction; three groups for 10 minutes each. Whole-class or small-group
activities take about 15-20 minutes. Overall, instruction focuses on letter-sound correspondences for
small amounts of time, leaving most of the school day for text-level reading and writing.
Evidence of Success: Although Word Work is still under development, pilot evaluations in a few
school sites indicate positive results. First grade students at Fruitvale Elementary School in Oakland
noticeably improved their scores on standardized tests and exceeded the performance of other schools
in the District. The Omaha Public Schools has also had success with Word Work. In Spring 1996,
the Reading Department of the Omaha Public Schools decided to implement Word Work for its
kindergarten students who were judged at-risk for first grade. Observations and teacher interviews
suggest that dramatic improvements were achieved for these students who showed gains in test scores
and in word and sentence reading. These effects seem to be sustained for the duration between the
end of the program and the beginning of first grade.
Contacts:
Robert Calfee
Stanford University
School of Education
Stanford, CA 94305-3096
(415) 723-8698
Sites Using the Program:
Fruitvale Elementary School
3200 Boston Avenue
Oakland, CA 94602
(510) 879-1170
Omaha Public Schools
3215 Cuming Street
Omaha, NE 68131
(402) 557-2002
Best Practices in Mathematics
Elementary School Projects
The Comprehensive School Mathematics Program (CSMP)
Overview: The Comprehensive School Mathematics Program (CSMP) is a complete, K-6
curriculum that makes mathematics accessible, understandable, and enjoyable. The program was
validated by the National Diffusion Network as effective with all types of learners, including
students who are at risk, bilingual, gifted and talented, and children with special needs.
Features of the Program: The approach underscores that students' mathematical understanding
is developed out of problem-solving contexts. CSMP's unique feature is the use of nonverbal
languages that give children immediate access to the mathematical ideas and methods that are
necessary to solve problems and to continually expand students' understanding of mathematical
concepts. Through these languages, the curriculum engages children immediately and naturally
with mathematics and its applications without cumbersome linguistic prerequisites. Tools such as
the Papy Minicomputer, the hand-held calculator, and various geometry tools are used extensively
throughout the curriculum to pose problems, explore concepts, develop skills, and define new
ideas. The curriculum emphasizes opportunities for students to use mathematics in a connected
way. For example, relationships and patterns are shown in number theory as well as in geometry,
probability, and logical reasoning.
Evidence of Success: Evaluations of CSMP show that CSMP students are better able than
comparable non-CSMP students to apply mathematics to new problem situations, specifically in
the areas of number patterns and representations, relational thinking, estimation, prediction, large
numbers, fractions, work problems, and mental arithmetic. CSMP students show a higher level of
enthusiasm and interest in math than do comparable students in more traditional programs.
Costs: The cost for a single teacher to use CSMP as the core math instructional program ranges
from $175 in Kindergarten to $450 in sixth grade. That fee includes the cost of a teacher's
manual, demonstration lessons, and student materials for 30 students. CSMP offers free
workshops to participating teachers at its headquarters in Colorado, but charges $200 a day plus
travel expenses to send a trainer to a school site to provide on-site workshops.
Contact:
Clare Heidema
Director, CSMP
2550 South Parker Road, Suite 500
Aurora, CO 80014
(303) 743-5520
Success Understanding Mathematics (SUM)
Overview: Success Understanding Mathematics (SUM) is a national professional development
program that focuses on increasing the mathematical achievement of elementary students by
training teachers to employ such practices as questioning, the use of manipulatives, and the
analysis of real-world problems. It began as an instructional program for Chapter 1 students in
Des Moines, Iowa, but is now run independently of the school district, with sites around the
country.
Features of the Program: The program's methods match the recommendations of the NCTM
Standards. Program characteristics include:
- A problem-solving approach
- Emphasis on reasoning, number sense, and operation sense
- Use of manipulatives by students to make connections between math concepts,
language, and written symbols
- The role of students to investigate, guess, check, reason, and discuss
- The role of teachers to pose real-world problems, and to guide student learning
by questioning
The program, which consists of two to three days of pre-implementation training and follow-up
training, presents teaching methods of investigation that can be used with any textbook. As
teachers themselves use manipulatives to explore and model problems, they become more alert to
possible variations in student thinking. Long before they are able to perform related computations
young children can join and separate sets of objects and share them fairly. They invent strategies
to answer their own questions.
Program components include teaching methods that can be used with any textbook, management
materials, and support for teachers. Publications include two strategy books with suggested
lessons and questions for teachers to use with their students, assessment inventories and inservice
materials.
Evidence of Success: Pretest and posttest data on a variety of mathematics achievement tests
between 1987 and 1990 upheld validation studies done in 1980 and 1985. After one year of SUM
instruction, students scored at significantly higher levels than would be expected by the test
norms. Supplementary evidence included teacher questionnaires which showed that the SUM
Program training was effective in influencing teachers to make the instructional changes
recommended by the NCTM Standards. Student attitude surveys showed that students
demonstrated positive attitudes toward mathematics.
Costs: The program charges $400 a day for the initial two- or three-day training session, plus
travel expenses for the trainer. The required materials cost $45 per teacher for a classroom set,
with an optional $60 for a popular set of problem-solving cards. Teachers often purchase
manipulatives from private vendors to supplement their instruction.
Contact:
Kathleen Bullington
4100 Aurora Avenue
Des Moines, Iowa 50310
(515) 278-0867
The Connected Mathematics Project (CMP)
Overview: The Connected Mathematics Project (CMP) is a mathematics curriculum
development effort funded by the National Science Foundation and based at Michigan State
University. The curriculum, which is still under development, consists of eight units in each of the
four middle grades (5-8). Each unit addresses a major mathematical concept, or cluster of related
concepts, using several "investigations" that the students solve. Instruction in basic math skills is
embedded in the context of solving problems.
Features of the Program: The instructional process for each unit consists of three phases:
Launch--The teacher introduces the problem and the key concepts that it
addresses, and reviews past material that students will need to apply to solve the
problem.
Explore--Students congregate in small groups to brainstorm ideas and solutions to
the problem.
Summarize--Students reassemble as a full class, with each small group presenting
its understanding of the problem and proposed solution strategies.
The curricular units strive to draw connections among various strands of mathematics, between
math and other disciplines, and between the conceptual and applied characteristics of
mathematics. Student assessment includes traditional tests and quizzes as well as journals,
projects, and student self-assessments. The Dale Seymour publishing company handles the large-
scale production of CMP materials.
Evidence of Success: During the first year of pilot testing, participating students' performance
on a subtest of the Iowa Test of Basic Skills did not decline and equaled the performance of a
control group. However, participating students significantly outperformed the control group on a
project-designed assessment that used open-ended items to measure their ability to reason and
solve problems.
In 1991, the Louis Armstrong Middle School in Queens, New York, was selected to serve as one
of the field-test sites for the Connected Mathematics Project. Louis Armstrong teachers received
both on-site and off-site instruction to learn about the Connected Mathematics Project. The
school sent the teachers to Michigan State University over the summer for intensive training.
Relying on its collaboration, the school also enlisted mathematics education professors from
Queens College to serve as mathematics specialists who would visit classrooms and work with
teachers as they implemented the project.
The results of the Louis Armstrong Middle School project have been positive. The California
Achievement Test (CAT-5), New York City version, was administered to all eighth-grade
students at Louis Armstrong in the spring of 1996. The 30 Connected Mathematics Project
students' scored between the 46th and the 99th percentile, with the median score in the 78th
percentile. The 123 students in non-Connected Mathematics Project classes' scored between the
16th and 98th percentile, with the median score in the 62nd percentile.
Costs: CMP is charging $300 per teacher for an upcoming five-day summer workshop to
introduce teachers to the curriculum; the fee does not include travel expenses. The CMP
teacher's guide costs $11.50, and student materials cost $4.75 per student.
Contact:
Glenda Lappan or William Fitzgerald
Project Directors
Connected Mathematics Project
Michigan State University
101 Wills House
East Lansing, Michigan 48824
(517) 432-2870
Whole School Programs
New American Schools
Modern Red School House
Overview: The Modern Red School House is one of the New American Schools designs
developed by the Hudson Institute in Indianapolis. Other partners include Arthur
Andersen & Company, the Educational Excellence Network, Morrison Institute for
Public Policy, Center for Effective Schools, and Advanced Systems. The Modern Red
School House design was piloted in four schools in Indiana and the Bronx, beginning in
1993. Since then it has begun to expand to schools in Memphis, Arizona, and Dade
County.
Features of the Program: The Modern Red School House model sets content standards in
core disciplines that all students are expected to master; the standards use the Advanced
Placement exams as their benchmark for what students should know and be able to do.
Each school establishes task forces on organization and finance, technology, community
involvement, curriculum, standards and assessment, and professional development.
Together, these task forces determine how the school will ensure that all students reach
the standards. The primary and intermediate curriculum is based on E.D. Hirsch's Core
Curriculum, and the high school curriculum is based on the Department of Education's
James Madison series. Schools are divided into three divisions rather than 12 grades. To
pass to the next division, students must pass performance-based Watershed Assessments
in the core content areas. Teachers at the pilot sites each received about 20 days of
professional development, beginning with a summer institute on the Modern Red
Schoolhouse design.
Evidence of Success: At the pilot sites, the percentage of students meeting essential skills on
state assessments rose in three of the four sites. The percentage of students at the pilot
site in the Bronx who mastered state objectives in reading and math nearly doubled, and
attendance improved dramatically, too.
Costs: The total cost for a school to implement the Modern Red Schoolhouse design
ranges from $90,000 to $150,000 over three years. That figure includes 20 days of
professional development for every teacher and, follow-up coaching, and consultations
with task forces and leadership teams. It does not include the potential costs of installing
new technology that supports the model's instructional program.
Contact:
Sally Kilgore
Hudson Institute
5395 Emerson Way
Indianapolis, IN 46226
(317) 549-4168
Sites Using the Program:
Hansberry Academy
Diana Caraciollo, Principal
Bronx, NY
(718) 542-5362
ATLAS Communities
Overview: Atlas Communities is one of the New American Schools designs. Partners on
the design team include the Coalition of Essential Schools (Ted Sizer), the School
Development Program (James Comer), Project Zero (Howard Gardner), and the
Education Development Center. The model was piloted in three schools in Norfolk,
Virginia, and then expanded to schools in Memphis, Dade County, Gorham (ME), and
Prince George's County (MD).
Features of the Program: ATLAS creates K-12 pathways, or groups of schools consisting of
a high school and its feeder schools, in an attempt to foster a seamless educational
experience for students. Across the pathways, teachers work together to create an
integrated and coherent curriculum and corresponding assessment strategies.
Representatives from each school in a pathway meet regularly on a management and
organizational team to promote collaboration in all areas affecting student learning. The
curriculum is based on essential questions dictated by largely students' interests.
Committees of school staff work to establish healthy learning environments within the
school and to enlist parents' and community members' help in fostering the development
of every child. Professional development opportunities include common planning time
for teachers on instructional teams and, electronic networks, and study teams.
Evidence of Success: A Title I ATLAS school in Prince George's County demonstrated
significant gains in reading achievement. Parent involvement and student motivation at
one of the pilot schools in Norfolk increased dramatically.
Costs: The fee for a single pathway consisting of 3-5 schools is $80,000 for the first year,
after which fees are renegotiated on an annual basis. The fee purchases a half-time
liaison from ATLAS, an intensive leadership institute for pathway teams, and delivery of
materials. It does not include the costs of installing technology to give teachers access to
ACE, the ATLAS Communities electronic network.
Contact:
ATLAS Communities
Education Development Center
55 Chapel St.
Newton, MA 02158
(617) 969-7100
www.edc.org/FSC/ATLAS
National Alliance for Restructuring Education
Overview: The National Alliance for Restructuring Education (NARE) is a partnership of
three states, four city school districts, and national organizations committed school
reform. It is also one of the New American Schools (NAS) design teams, although
NARE predated NAS. The model was piloted in five schools in Kentucky and
Washington. New sites have opened in New York, Arkansas, Pittsburgh, and San Diego.
Features of the Program: The keystone of NARE's model is the Certificate of Initial
Mastery (CIM). Modeled after Oregon's certificate of the same name, the CIM
acknowledges that students in about the 10th grade have demonstrated mastery of a set of
world-class standards. NARE has designed new standards and assessments that measure
progress toward those standards. It has also redesigned learning environments to ensure
that students have the opportunity to learn the content they need to earn the CIM. NARE
sponsors workshops for school personnel, a national conference for school leadership
teams, and on-site technical assistance.
Evidence of Success: Eighty-seven percent of NARE's Kentucky sites earned cash awards
from the state for exceeding the learning goals established by the state's assessment
system, compared with 37 percent of schools statewide.
Cost: Each member school pays about $9,000 to the Alliance for annual professional
development for an eight-member leadership team. The fee also includes materials and
supplies. In addition, schools pay $21,000 a year for on-site technical assistance, a
connection to NARE's electronic network, and participation in the national conference.
Finally, schools pay $30 per student in grades 4, 8, and 10 to administer the New
Standards reference examination and portfolio assessment system.
Contact:
Marc Tucker
National Alliance for Restructuring Education
700 Eleventh St. NW
Suite 750
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 783-3668
www.ncee.org
Career Academies
Overview: Career academies originated in Philadelphia in 1969 and began to appear in
California in the early 1980's. The academies target at-risk youth and were designed to combine
academic course work and vocational training through the "schools within a school" model.
Today over 100 career academies exist in the United States. Programs often partner with
national and local business, and are structured to prevent at-risk students from dropping out by
providing an academic curriculum focused around a particular industry or field of work.
Features of the Program: Admission to and retention in career academies is generally
dependent on meeting at least minimum academic qualifications. Many schools have more than
one academy within the same school, in order both to keep teacher-student ratios low and to
appeal to a broader body of student interests. Career academy curriculum focuses around
specific fields, which in the past have included public service, travel and tourism, finance, and
manufacturing science. The most important instructional aspect of the career academy model is
the integration of academic and career preparatory course work, which enables students at-risk of
dropping out of school to see the importance of their academic classes in the world of work.
Students take a core of academic classes which are integrated with vocational-technical classes
relevant to preparation for work in the academy's field, and receive workplace experience and
career counseling.
Students generally take a block schedule (i.e. fewer classes for extended periods) of integrated
academic and technical courses and move together from class to class, under the instruction of
the same set of teachers for their entire secondary careers (3-4 years). A reduction in overall
teaching load and the reduced student-teacher ratio in academy classes give teachers time to
prepare specialized instructional and ancillary activities for students; to monitor and consult on
student performance and attendance; to provide personal counseling, including referral to
community agencies; and to contact parent S as needed.
Most academies work closely with a business partner who provides advisory and technical
support, part-time and summer internship opportunities to students, field-trip opportunities,
equipment, and adult mentors to serve as role models for upperclassmen.
Evidence of Success: Data from the 45 state-funded California Partnership Academies during
the 1994-95 school year indicates the four year impact of the program on the cohort of students
graduating in 1995. Data indicated substantial gains in: the percentage of students with
attendance over 90% (from 63% prior to admission to 82% as seniors); grade point average (40%
had GPA's below 2.0 as freshman, 20% did as seniors); and credits earned (97% were earning
enough credits to make normal progress towards graduation as seniors). For more information
see the California Partnership Academies: 1994-95 Evaluation Report, by Charles Dayton
(California Department of Education).
Costs: Career academies can involve substantial start-up costs depending on the technical focus
of the academy. Some equipment is usually donated by business partners. The California
Partnership Academies spend about $750 to $1,000 per student per year in addition to regular
district per-pupil expenditures.
Contacts:
Heather Phillips
The National Academy Foundation
New York, NY
(212)420-8400
Susan Cummins-Tidyman, Consultant
California Department of Education
(510)942-3413
Sites Using the Program:
New York City Academy of Finance (11 Programs)
Murray Tandler
(718)935-3776
Academy of Travel and Tourism (3 Programs)
Dade County, FL
Ann Fields
(305)885-8127
Sequoia Union High School District
Redwood City, CA
Marilyn Raby, Director, Curriculum Services
(415)369-1411
Small Schools/Schools within Schools
Overview: The Small Schools movement developed in response to concerns about the large size
typical of urban secondary schools. Students in large urban high schools, particularly at-risk
students, often get lost in such institutions, and cannot receive the individual attention they need.
Moreover, large schools are often burdensome to manage effectively and make it difficult for
teachers to recognize and direct their teaching to the needs of individual students. The small
schools movement originated in New York's Central Park East schools 15 years ago and after
achieving dramatic results has since spread to Philadelphia, Seattle, Los Angeles, Chicago, and
other urban areas. Building on its past successes, New York has recently undertaken the creation
of approximately 50 additional small schools (carved out of larger schools) under the New York
Network for School Renewal, made possible by a $25 million challenge grant from
philanthropist Walter Annenberg.
Features of the Program: Small schools are most often formed by partitioning an existing
school into several "schools within schools" within the same building, rather than constructing
new facilities. Within a school, each sub-school typically serves no more 250-300 students, who
will take classes together and be taught by the same set of teachers for their entire secondary
school career. Decreasing the size of an individual student's school also establishes clearer lines
of accountability for parents. Not only do student have fewer teachers, they regularly have the
same teachers, whom parents can become much more familiar with.
Typically schools do not hire additional staff, and the school principal and administrative staff
continue to fulfill the same functions. "Schools" share the building's gym, auditorium and
library. Advocates of small schools stress, however, that the changes to the school must be more
than simply the creation of different administrative units. By teaching the same group of students
each year, teachers are able to become more familiar with their student's needs and are able to
develop longer-term instruction plans and goals. Teachers are responsible for the overall
academic plan of the "school" and spend more of their non-teaching time collaborating with
other teachers in their "school," as they work closely with the same students. (Most schools also
regularly set aside time for teachers to deal with issues affecting the larger school entity.)
To accommodate using the same set of teachers within each school, teachers teach several
subjects and in many cases, schools within schools also adopt block scheduling, in which
students take fewer classes, for longer periods of time, each semester. Classes may alternate
daily or by semester. Block scheduling has also been undertaken in many schools as a reform
separate from the small schools movement, and there is substantial evidence of its positive
impact on grades, attendance and SAT/ACT test scores. Extended (or block) classes expose
students to course material more intensively and in greater depth than typical classes, and allows
students to focus on fewer subjects at a time.
Evidence of Success: The success of the Central Park East schools (several schools within the
original school) has been widely documented. Ninety-five percent of Central Park East's
students, many of whom are low income, graduate from high school compared to 50% among
other school in that area. 90% of the Central Park east graduates go on to college.
Costs: Small schools created individually in new buildings can create substantial costs.
However, most small schools are formed by internal restructuring of existing schools into
"schools within schools" and does not necessarily engender new costs. Schools administered by
separate bodies (for example, a principal for each school within a given school) would require
hiring additional staff, though most schools do not follow this model.
Contacts:
Michael Klonsky
Small Schools Workshop
University of Illinois
(312)413-5882
Sites Using the Program:
Central Park East Secondary School
1573 Madison Ave.
New York, NY 10029
(212)860-8935
Paul Schwarz or David Smith
Chicago Vocational High School
Betty Green, Principal
(773)535-6100
Southern Regional Education Board, High Schools That Work
Overview: In 1987, the Southern Regional Educational Board (SREB), a partnership of states,
school systems, and school sites in 19 states, launched a project designed to change the future of
secondary school students in general and vocational programs of study. The consortium's High
Schools That Work program is designed to:
Increase the mathematics, science, and communication achievement of students in general
and vocational studies to the national average of all students by the year 2000; and
Combine the content of traditional college prep mathematics, science, and communication
courses with vocational studies by promoting the use of the following key practices.
Features of the Program: The main objective of the High Schools That Work initiative is to
strengthen the academic rigor of classes in the general and vocational programs. This is being
accomplished by:
Revising vocational courses to advance communication, mathematics, and science
competencies of students.
Revising academic courses to include applied learning strategies that enable students to
understand abstract concepts through solving concrete problems.
Requiring students in general and vocational programs to complete three courses in
mathematics and three in science, with at least two credits in each area equivalent in
content to courses offered in the college preparatory program. Students should also
complete at least four courses in a vocational major and two courses in related areas.
Providing guidance and counseling services that help students see the connection between
what they are learning in school and their goals beyond high school. Parents are involved
in the process of planning a high school program of study.
Participating in and using student assessment and program evaluation information to check
and improve the curriculum, instruction, school climate, and school organization and
management.
Evidence of Success: Evidence from eight of twenty-eight original pilot sites demonstrated that
high schools could succeed in dramatically raising the achievement of students completing
vocational programs to the national average in English, math, and science as measured by the
National Assessment of Educational Progress. Six of these sites had been among the lower-
achieving sites prior to instituting the key practices.
Contacts: The goal of the SREB-State Vocational Education Consortium is to establish a
network of High Schools That Work sites at individual schools or school systems. Schools or
systems interested in joining the network should contact:
Gene Bottoms, Consortium Director
State Vocational Education Consortium
Southern Regional Education Board
592 Tenth Street N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30318-5790
Sites Using the Program:
Central Vo-Tech
Three CT Circle
Drumright, OK 74030
(918) 352-2551
St. Mary's County Public Schools
Loveville, MD 20656
(301) 475-5511
Reconstitution of Failing Schools or Districts
Schools need to be held accountable for results. As Secretary Riley has asserted,
"we
cannot and must not tolerate failing schools. If a school is bad and can't be changed
reconstitute it or close it down." States, school districts, and communities need to be able to
intervene in schools that are not providing an adequate education for their students.
Reconstitution of schools is one way -- albeit a last resort measure -- to turn around low-
performing schools.
What is reconstitution?
Reconstitution of schools refers to the takeover (of daily operations, staffing, and all
decision-making) of a consistently low-performing school or district by a higher level
governing body. For example, a district could reconstitute a school or a State
education agency could reconstitute an entire district and its schools.
In order for schools or districts to be reconstituted, they need to have failed to meet
expectations over an extended period of time. Such sites have already been identified
as needing improvement, but have failed to make the improvement targets specified in
the corrective action plan.
The threat of reconstitution may be sufficient to cause schools to change. After being
identified as a low-performing school, Patterson High School in Maryland hired a new
principal, who handpicked several new teachers to lead the planning effort. The school's
improvement team developed a plan to increase student achievement by restructuring the
school day and the way instruction is delivered. In 1995-96, Patterson's attendance rate
rose from 69 percent to 77 percent, more students passed the Maryland Functional Test
required for graduation, and a greater percentage of seniors graduated than in prior years.
How do you do it?
Intervention needs to be based on an objective analysis of school performance and how
far it is from meeting State or locally-established performance targets. If performance
remains chronically low, the school would be required to develop and implement an
improvement or corrective action plan.
During the improvement process, the district or State would be responsible for making
resources available to the school, such as technical assistance and additional professional
development for teachers. The district or State would continually assess the school's
progress to determine if student performance is improving.
If improvement targets are not met and the school remains low-performing or declines
further, the district or State would have the authority to replace all school staff and have
the new staff develop an improvement plan. The district or State would also have veto
power over decisions made by newly hired school staff.
When the improvement targets are consistently being met over a several-year period by
the school or district, control and decision-making authority would be turned back over to
the school or district.
Alternatively, if a failing school is completely shut down, parents and the community
could be provided information about promising options for education programs that
worked in other places. Such options could include one of the program school designs
from the New American Schools Development Corporation (NASDC). The NASDC
design teams could help local teachers and parent plan for a new school, provide quality
training to teachers, and assess the progress of the school. This approach would reduce
the need for families and students to leave their own neighborhood or community to find
a good school and correct the deterioration of a troubled school in their neighborhood.
They could open an public charter school, created and managed by parents, teachers, and
the community.
State and Local Examples of Reconstitution
District Intervention in Failing Schools
San Francisco
Under its Comprehensive School Improvement Plan (CSIP), the San Francisco Unified School
District reconstitutes failing schools, replacing the entire staff with a new principal, teachers, and
support personnel. Under CSIP, the district places low-performing schools on a one-year
probationary period, during which they are expected to improve student performance. At the end
of that year, a team consisting of the superintendent, two assistants, and a former principal
review the school's test scores, attendance and suspension rates, student portfolios, improvement
plan, and other measures before selecting those that will be reconstituted. The Board of
Education must approve all decisions to reconstitute schools. All staff at reconstituted schools
are relocated to other schools, but they may reapply for their positions at the school. The Board
then hires a new principal, who is responsible for hiring a new teaching staff as well as janitorial
and cafeteria personnel. The new team must then put together an improvement plan to raise
student achievement and other outcomes. Since the beginning of CSIP in 1992, eight schools
have been reconstituted.
Recently CSIP and the broader 1982 desegregation consent decree agreement, which authorizes
both race-based assignment of students and reconstitution of failing schools have come under
attack. A lawsuit filed in federal court in January 1995 over the effects of the decree's race-based
system of classifying and assigning students on Chinese-American students, who currently are
the largest ethnic group in the district, has the potential to end CSIP if the court decides to throw
out the consent decree. It is unclear if or when the case will go to trial. A court decision could
have both positive and negative effects on teachers, administrators, and their unions because,
although the reconstitution process clearly causes upheaval and concern, the consent decree also
brings a lot of funding for paraprofessionals and other school improvements.
State Intervention in Failing Districts
New Jersey
New Jersey has seized control of three public school districts due to their failure or high level of
corruption. All school districts in the state are subject to a state monitoring procedure which
determines if the school district is meeting certain state standards in the areas of student
performance, curriculum development, professional development, condition of facilities, and
certification of teachers. If a district fails to meet a certain proportion of the standards, local
officials must develop a corrective action plan for the district, which is then evaluated by the
state Department of Education. If the plan is determined to be unsuccessful or inadequate, the
district goes through a compliance investigation. If this investigation determines that the district
is unable to meet the requirements set forth by the monitors, the Academic Bankruptcy Law
requires the state to take over control of the district. Based on this procedure, the state took over
Jersey City Schools in 1989, which failed to meet two-thirds of the state standards at that time;
Paterson Schools in 1991, which met only one-half of the state standards; and Newark Schools in
1995. According to the law, districts remain under state control for a minimum of five years.
When the state takes over a school district, the local school board, superintendent, and key
personnel under the superintendent are removed and replaced by a state-appointed
superintendent. This individual and other officials within the SEA become the policy body for
the district. This body helps the district create a new school board, which initially has no voting
power but, in year two of state control, can vote on curriculum matters; in year three, on legal
matters; and in year four on budgetary matters. However, while in office, the state-appointed
superintendent maintains veto power over all board decisions. After five years, the board can
regain control when the district can meet a certain proportion of the state standards required by
the monitoring procedure.
Recent data on student achievement at the three state operated school districts demonstrate that
the schools are making progress toward certification. Although the board recommended that
Jersey City Public Schools remain under state control for an additional year, its students showed
impressive across-the-board gains. Passage rates for eighth grade students in 1995-1996
improved to 77.4 percent on the reading section (a gain of 6.6 percent over 1994-1995); 76.5
percent on the writing section (a gain of 2.1 percent over the previous year); and 61.7 percent on
the mathematics section (a one-year gain of 9.5 percent). Gains were also impressive for
eleventh-grade students, 67.2 percent of whom passed the reading section (4.2 percent more than
the previous year); 79.2, or 10 percent more than last year, passed the writing section; and 71.4
percent, a 6.7 percent improvement, passed the mathematics section.
Student results for Paterson do not show as much growth as Jersey City, but they do indicate
improvement. Students posted gains in the reading and mathematics sections of the EWT, but
their scores remained unchanged on the writing section. Results of the high school test were also
inconsistent, but the reviewers noted signs of aggressive efforts at the local level to target
weaknesses and identify successful methods to improve them. Paterson's results are similar to
Jersey City's in that current fourth grade students who entered the district at the time of the state
takeover have demonstrated the greatest gains in achievement.
Ohio
In a highly controversial move, state officials took control of the Cleveland Public Schools in
March, 1995, after a federal judge declared the district to be "in a state of crisis." The court ruled
that internal dissension, management problems, and a crippling budget deficit had undermined
the district's ability to carry out its educational program. State officials were also called in to fill
a "leadership void" left by the departure of the district's superintendent and two top deputies.
The court also mentioned low student performance as a factor in the decision, although it was not
the primary factor. The district's new state-appointed superintendent, Dr. Richard Boyd, also a
state deputy superintendent, is working with a team of state and local administrators to manage
the district's daily operations and develop a reform plan.
Under the reform plan, entitled "A Blueprint for Change," principals, teachers, and parents have
more control over a local school's budget, curriculum, scheduling, and professional development
activities. The plan shifts the focus of the school board away from day-to-day operations and
toward setting student achievement goals and insuring sound financial practices for the district.
Eight "Fast Track" schools are piloting the increased decentralization. The district chose four
elementary schools, two middle schools, and 2 high schools from a group of applicant schools.
The eight schools met as school teams for six months to plan improvement efforts using small
planning grants provided by the Cleveland Foundation, and began implementing their new
programs this fall. The eight Fast Track schools will serve as models for 40 "Transformation"
schools, which will begin implementing changes next school year. Among the changes that the
Fast Track schools have instituted are extended school hours to encourage family involvement,
new grading systems, tutoring in basic skills by community volunteers, and expanded
professional development opportunities for teachers.
State Intervention in Failing Schools
Maryland
Based on student attendance rates and achievement on state assessments, schools in Maryland
can become eligible for reconstitution by the state. Once identified as low-performing schools,
school-based teams craft improvement plans that must be approved by the state. If schools fail to
adhere to their plans and if student outcomes do not improve, the state may choose to reconstitute
a school. Thirty-five Baltimore schools have been identified over the past three years, although
none have been reconstituted.
Schools can use the identification process as impetus to improve services to students. After
being identified as a low-performing school, Patterson High School hired a new principal, who
handpicked several new teachers to lead the planning effort. The school's improvement team
developed a plan to increase student achievement by restructuring the school day and the way
instruction is delivered. All students pursue courses of study that cater to their career goals while
preparing them for postsecondary education. In 1995-96, Patterson's attendance rate rose from
69 percent to 77 percent, more students passed the Maryland Functional Test required for
graduation, and a greater percentage of seniors graduated than in prior years.
Kentucky
Kentucky's school accountability program, passed as part of the Kentucky Education Reform Act
(KERA), holds schools accountable for helping their students achieve high standards. The
program is based on an accountability index that measures student achievement in five academic
areas and four non-academic areas (attendance, retention, dropout, and transition to the next level
of school or the job market). The assessment instruments that measure student achievement are
based on high standards for what students should know and be able to do developed by the state
with input from teachers and subject area specialists. Every two years, the state establishes a
target score for each school to reach based on its previous achievement. A school that exceeds
its target receives a cash reward whose distribution is determined by the school's faculty.
Schools not meeting their target must develop a school improvement plan. Schools whose index
score declines over two years must develop a school improvement plan and are assigned a
"distinguished educator" by the state to provide support and advice on improving student
performance. Schools that are continually in decline may, after an extended review, be taken
over by the state; teachers in the school may be subject to dismissal.
Based on 1996 results from the Kentucky Instructional Results Information System (KIRIS), 88
showed improvement but did not their improvement goals, another 88 schools have been labelled
"in decline," and nine have been placed in the "crisis" category. All of the schools in these three
categories are being assigned a "distinguished educator" for a two-year period to help them
develop and implement school improvement plans. Only if those plans do not generate
significant improvements in student performance will the schools be subject to a state takeover.