|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issues & Research » Education » Meeting Summaries: 2006 Annual Meeting
|
Go 12951
|
|
|
NCSL Standing Committee on Education
Session Summaries
NCSL Annual Meeting
Nashville, Tennessee
August 15-18, 2006
Tuesday
Attracting Students to Math and Science
Early Childhood Education
Update on the No Child Left Behind Act
Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) Issues
The ABC's of K-12 Education Funding
Data Driven Decision-Making: Using Data to Inform Policymakers and School Leaders
Wednesday
Conversations on School Leadership
Policy Options for Supporting Highly Qualified and Highly Effective Teachers
Higher Education on the Edge
Changing the Odds for Youth
Keeping Kids in School: Recent Efforts to Imrove High School Outcomes
Thursday
Increasing Latino Participation and Success in College
School Finance Hot Topics
Are Boys Falling Behind Academically?
Friday
Educating Students for the 21st Century: Challenges for State Policy and Policymaking
Facilitator: Heather Grinager, National Conference of State Legislatures, Colorado
Speakers: Eleanor Babco- Co-Project Director of Professional Science Masters Initiatives, Council of Graduate Schools, Washington, D.C.
Dr. Saeed Foroudastan- MS-PS Program Director, Middle Tennessee State University
The presenters discussed the benefits of the Professional Science Masters Degree (PSM) to address the emerging need for high-level professionals in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). PSM programs are attractive to many students because, unlike doctoral studies, they prepare graduates for work in industry rather than academia. In fact, the majority of PSM programs require a "hands-on" intensive industrial internship rather than a traditional thesis to graduate. Graduates also take business and information technology course which allow them to better "communicate between the realms of science and business." Another attractive feature for students is the high salary range for the two-year PSM degree compared to five or more years for a doctorate. States have also become interested in PSM degrees because these graduates tend to be less mobile then Ph. D. recipients.
There are currently 53 PSM degree programs at 22 institutions. In the last three years PSM programs have enrolled more than 3,400 students and graduated more than 1,200. Approximately 51 percent of PSM students are women and 85 percent U.S. citizens. In 2005, 54 percent of the PSM degrees were awarded to women compared to only a 43 percent share for women of other natural science degrees.
For handouts from the session or more information about PSM degrees please contact Heather Grinager in the Denver office.
Resources: Eleanor Babco  PDF Version
Saeed Foroudastan PSF Version
Presiding: Senator Bob Plymale, West Virginia
Senator Bill Hardiman, Michigan
Speakers: Christina Martin-Firvida, National Women’s Law Center, D.C.
Stephen Goldsmith, Daniel Paul Professor of Government, Kennedy School of Government, Massachusetts
This combined session of the Education Committee and the Human Services and Welfare Committee explored state action on early childhood education (ECE), the federal logjam of Head Start legislation, and the NCSL policy on ECE.
Senator Bob Plymale described how West Virginia is planning to implement kindergarten for 4-year-olds by 2012. Because over 62 percent of WV children receive Title I funds, they require early intervention efforts, and while West Virginia faces challenges in serving rural and underserved areas, they also plan to become stronger on their birth-3 policies.
Christina Martin-Firvida articulated why federal reauthorization is stalled in Congress. Funding is nonexistent due to other national priorities and there are philosophical tensions, including how to certify teachers, state control, how much accountability is needed, and whether 4-year-olds should be tested. The recent Deficit Reduction Act did unlock some federal funding for the Child Care Development Block Grant (CCDBG), which is not for ECE but for child care.
Steven Goldsmith described how a state can set up a good Pre-K system. States should recognize that ECE cannot be “divorced” from child care and seek to form networks of providers. While there is a political demand for Pre-K investment, there is even stronger demand to have parental choice. When parents pick their child’s school, they stay more involved. There is evidence that children from the most difficult backgrounds gain the most from quality ECE, although it’s not understood why academic gains seem to dissipate over time.
The committees voted to reauthorize NCSL’s ECE policy. There was discussion over a new provision in the policy that would allow NCSL staff to advocate for state control and flexibility and avoiding unfunded mandates if the federal government becomes involved in Pre-K. Committee members questioned whether the language should be included since the fed’s already fund Head Start. The language was included with an amendment.
Presiding: Representative Kory Holdaway, Utah
Speakers: Tom Horne, Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction
Henry Johnson, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C.
Michael Petrilli, Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, Washington, D.C.
Allan Taylor, Connecticut State Board of Education
With the Elementary and Secondary Education Act up for reauthorization in 2007, NCLB remains as controversial as ever. Does NCLB need fine tuning or an overhaul? Some 'conservatives' urge national standards and a national test to fix the federal law while some 'progressives' recommend comprehensive changes. Others want to repeal the law and re-think the federal role in K-12 education.
Michael Petrilli built the case for national testing and national standards. He argued that national standards would be the only way to get Washington out of micromanaging education. Petrilli pointed out that NCLB was built on previous laws and the success of a few leading states coming out of the standards-based reform. The imminent deadline presented by NCLB provides states with a sense of urgency. Some states, including Missouri and South Carolina, have already set high standards. In the face of increasing demands set by NCLB, there is pressure for these and other states to lower their standards in a effort to comply with the federal law. Mr. Petrilli pointed out that the comparisons of state and national standards are often confusing and yield different results. In conclusion, Mr. Petrilli presented three options: retreat from NCLB, continue with the status quo or get states to accept a new type of federalism ~ a national standard.
Tom Horne spoke of Arizona's struggle with implementing the English-language learners (ELL) and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) provisions under NCLB. Their state standards were reversed by the U.S. Department of Education after initially being approved. Consequently, Arizona filed a lawsuit. Mr. Horne suggested that the standards laid out in NCLB are more rigid and less rational than Arizona's state standards. Mr. Horne advocates for greater flexibility. In the 2007 reauthorization of NCLB, Mr. Horne would like to see a system that refers to the states, a value-added model to access proficiency and provisions for ELL and students with special needs.
Henry Johnson expressed that it is in the nation's best interest to ensure that all students, regardless of race, ethnicity and socioeconomic background, receive a quality education. The department lacks the authority to develop a national test and Congress has expressed no interest in doing so. Mr. Johnson suggested that NCLB has driven improvements and accountability into education and he highlighted the need for access, equity and outcomes.
Allen Taylor posed that no one can challenge the intent of NCLB and believes NCLB has polarized individuals into those who want to save public education and those who want to privatize education. He does not advocate for national standards and would like to see a multitude of revisions in the 2007 reauthorization of NCLB. He believes NCLB has led states to lower their standards and accept mediocrity. He suggests we focus on highly qualified experienced teachers and value-added assessments.
Science, Technology, Engineering and Math Issues
Moderator: Margaret Dayton, Utah
Speaker: Bill Bates, Council on Competitiveness, Washington, DC
Bill Bates from the Council on Competitiveness spoke of their commitment to Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) initiatives in response to the need for United States citizens to remain innovative in the global economy. When the Council was formed by John Hewlett approximately 20 years ago, the business and education systems were responding to Japan's economic gains. Today, other countries are of concern specifically China, Brazil, and India. Mr. Bates presented an overview of the myths and realities of China's gains and competitive growth. Although polls indicate that many U.S. citizens feel that China has already overtaken the U.S. as the biggest economic power, this is not true. In addition, per capita, the U.S. has more engineers than China and a larger overall pool of engineers with skills deemed suitable for employment. Thus, the goal with regards to education is to continue to educate students with the skills needed to innovate in the current economic environment. Several reports have been issued by national groups including Innovate America, a report by the Council, which provides suggestions for promoting innovation in order to remain competitive. All reports have these common themes - investing in long-term research and providing incentives for research and development activities in the U.S. through taxation policies. But, additionally, they strongly emphasize the prominence of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) in education.
Despite the agreed importance of STEM, the U.S. falls short in factors that measure student success in these areas. Globally, U.S. students rank low in math and additionally, there is a continued test performance gap in minority students. Polls indicate that most people (56 percent) feel that high schools aren't doing a good job teaching STEM courses but 62 percent believe that teaching STEM is the most important or as important as teaching other issues. Nevertheless, parents tend not to encourage their children toward courses and careers in science.
Mr. Bates discussed several ways that states and regions can support innovation including linking industry with academic institutions. At the federal level several teaching policies are being promoted including: more certifications for STEM teachers, creating incentives to recruit and retain quality STEM teachers, involving private sector in education planning, promoting retired related-industry workers to teach in schools, and increasing funding for basic research. Several pieces of relevant federal legislation are underway but their eventual passage is uncertain.
Mr. Bates recognizes that real change can not be driven solely by federal directives; states and localities have a leading role in STEM education. The Council will issue a report later this year, Competitiveness Index 2006, that assess countries' relative competitiveness based on a broad range of data. Mr. Bates indicated that while the measures indicate a mixed profile for the U.S., overall, the country is currently faring well.
Resources: Bill Bates Powerpoint
Presiding: Ethel Detch, Office of Research and Education Accountability, Tennessee
Speakers: John Morgan, Comptroller’s Office, Tennessee
Barbara Hinton, Legislative Post Audit, Kansas
Steven Hendrickson, Bureau of State Audits, California
John Morgan opened this session by addressing the “student pipeline” and the various education disparities that exist across the states in regard to educational funding. He provided statistics to prove the growing income gaps and the negative impacts they have on the way certain schools are funded in a system that relies too heavily on property taxes. Mr. Morgan made the assertion that “education is not a local issue, it is a state and even a federal issue”, and believes that the inequities in education funding are a result of an ineffective governmental structure that allows for insufficient resources at both the state and local level. Mr. Morgan feels that political leaders do not share the goals the public does, which results in fragmented and ineffective strategies for addressing educational funding.
Barbara Hinton identified two different and commonly used models of funding schools: input-based models and output-based models. Input-based models ask the question, “what would it take to provide the education mandated by state statute and reasonable costs?” Output-based models ask “what ought it cost to meet the standards we set?” She emphasized the need to abandon both models by using data from a study that determined the differences in needs among various student populations. This study yielded information saying that poor students in urban areas performed worse than poor students in rural areas. Using this data, Barbara inferred that the various needs of at-risk students cause schools that are equally funded to provide inequitable educations to at-risk students. These student differences present a difference in need that must be addressed when determining funding, which is currently not done by either model. After identifying the extra costs associated with teaching at-risk students, she concluded that both input and output models of funding leave schools in a state like Kansas, under-funded by at least three million dollars. She clearly emphasized throughout her presentation the need for districts to create a criteria for identifying at-risk students and that states adopt a way of providing the necessary funding for teaching at-risk populations like those in poor urban areas.
Steven Hendrickson from the Bureau of Audits in California discussed the improvements California's Fiscal Crisis Team were able to make in regard to some school districts in fiscal crisis. The crisis team was created in 1992 after a district filed for bankruptcy. The crisis team is an independent statewide resource that can intervene by assessing the district’s problems and providing management advice and by establishing a recovery plan. In addition to the establishment of the Fiscal Crisis Team, several other reforms helped to better track the financial situations of all schools. County offices, as a result, became the responsible party for monitoring the fiscal activities of each of their school districts. In 2004, after five districts had been helped, three of those districts that followed all or most of the Fiscal Crisis Team's recommendations were improving financially. One district in particular that was helped, the Oakland Unified School District, has been able to repay a $20 million loan in eight years. Mr. Hendrickson believes that tracking a district's financial activities before trouble strikes is the key to successful intervention.
Presiding: Mark Maddox, Tennessee
Speakers: Ann Duffy, Leadership Institute for School Improvement, Georgia
Mary Reel, Department of Education, Tennessee
Peter Winograd, Department of Finance and Administration, New Mexico
Ann Duffy introduced the link between strong school leadership and data driven decision-making. Principals need skills in data analysis and data management in order to understand the data that drives adequate yearly progress (AYP) and other performance variables. In addition, effective school leaders understand how to use data to improve student learning and growth. The mission of the Leadership Institute for School Improvement is to equip, support, and inspire Georgia principals to promote higher levels of student achievement. Ms. Duffy indicated that school leaders drive student achievement by building strong, distributed leadership teams, and by aligning organizational systems toward the goal of student achievement. Within that context, school leaders assume leadership roles in multiple areas including data analysis, curriculum, and process improvement.
Ms. Duffy discussed the use of a balanced scorecard with multiple measures of school success including, for example, student achievement, stakeholder (i.e. parents) perspective, and measures of technology use and budgets. A major source of data in Georgia is the on-line statewide accountability system, which includes school-based and district-based data. She provided several examples of how state-level policy actions could support data driven decision-making, including linking data various systems, providing statewide balance scorecards, and facilitating the creation of value-added student achievement data.
Mary Reel provided the context for the creation of Tennessee's nationally-recognized data system. State legislators have recently tripled the amount of funding for education, accompanied by a mandate for accountability. Tennessee has introduced a value-added model of measuring student progress that analyses the change in student achievement scores over the course of a year. Data is available through a state website with restricted access for student-level data and may be sorted in a number of ways including performance category (i.e. "proficient" schools and students), and outcomes for subgroups and combinations of subgroups (i.e. Hispanic males). Importantly, students can be identified by their performance (i.e. all students at-risk) so that individualized plans with appropriate resources can be developed. The variable of time is a critical feature of this system as the history of a student's performance can be used to analyze a slowing in student gains over time. Ms. Reel indicated the biggest issues with the system are the quality of data entered and the ability of the database to interface with other statewide data systems.
Peter Winograd summarized the recent major education reforms passed by the New Mexico Legislature. Legislation passed in 2003 included the implementation of standards, assessment and accountability systems and instituted a 3-tier teacher licensure classification with pay linked to teacher qualifications. New Mexico has emphasized system continuity from pre-school through grade 20 with a major area of emphasis on the transition between high school and college. Several roadblocks to the effective use of data include the lack of understanding about AYP calculations, the lack of preparation and professional development in data analysis, the lack of time to analyze data, and ill-timed data release that doesn't allow principals and teachers to utilize data findings with their students during the school year. Mr. Winograd indicated that the biggest challenges to meeting AYP in New Mexico was the progress of the special education and English language learner populations. The Wallace Foundation currently is conducting a multi-state survey to better understand principals' use of accountability data and barriers to effective use. New Mexico has created a data-based decision-making website to help direct teachers and school leaders to evidence-based instruction for various sub-populations of students and make administrators aware of related professional development opportunities.
Mr. Winograd spoke of challenges and related state initiatives to support data driven decision-making. Challenges include data quality and accountability, difficulty estimating the total cost of state education reform, the recruitment and retention of highly qualified teachers, and effective response to schools in need of improvement. The state has implemented policy to target several of these areas including the creation of the state's children's budget for all youth-related state programs and initiatives, initiating a statewide survey of professional development, and efforts to improve budget estimation and data quality.
Conversations on School Leadership
Moderator: Jane Best, National Conference of State Legislatures, Colorado
Speakers: Ann Duffy, Leadership Institute for School Improvement, Georgia
Peter Winograd, Office of Education Accountability at the Department of Finance and Administration, New Mexico
Strong principals and superintendents are vital to closing the achievement gap and strengthening schools and districts. Research repeatedly demonstrates that strong school leadership influences both teaching quality and student success. This session provided an opportunity for legislators and staff to share ideas and pose questions to national experts on cultivating school leadership across the nation. The speakers agreed on a fundamental message: we need to look differently at the responsibilities of school principals. We need to think about principals more as CEO's of their schools who need the skills needed to create high performing systems. In this era of accountability, school leaders need a core business knowledge to help drive adults and students to perform at high levels. However, this different view creates a whole new set of policy challenges for states. The speakers described how two states -- Georgia and New Mexico -- have approached these challenges.
Georgia has carefully designed a system of leadership academies to recruit and train current and aspiring principals. The state has found that 50 percent of their current principals are on a second career or able to retire -- so they have a huge recruitment challenge. But, the state has also found that only 5 percent of new hires are coming from outside the region. Schools and districts are more likely to hire someone they are already familiar with -- so Georgia is experimenting with "grow your own" programs that build programs to identify promising local talent. In Georgia, they are redesigning the certification structure, sunsetting all plans and programs, and reframing professional development so that it is part of on going work -- not in addition to current responsibilities. All leaders lead from a position of strength, but all skills don't translate to high performing leaders. The state leaders considered the gaps in what was needed and what was in place. The result was the Georgia Leadership Institute which has survived even among significant state political and educational turnover, in large part because of the active network of statewide P-16 groups and the business community.
In New Mexico there has been huge turnover and huge pressures on accountability coming from NCLB. Teacher salaries have increased in New Mexico, further discouraging people from choosing the principal profession. New Mexico has come to understand that leadership matters most in schools that need it the most and schools can't be turned around without good leadership. The state's 1999 Education Reform Act, clearly sets the framework for education reform to be focused on student achievement and on using money effectively, has helped guide the thinking about investing in school leadership. The state has focused on trying to find ways to enhance the "accountability literacy" of principals. Principals need to know how to use data -- to analyze their school performance, to evaluate teachers, and to present it to the public. They now have the data and know what to do with it.
Presiding: Senator Jim Argue, Arkansas
Speakers: Dara Barlin, New Teacher Center, New York
Liam Goldrick, New Teacher Center, Wisconsin
Representative Kory Holdaway, Utah
Representative William Thompson, South Dakota
Legislators and representatives from the New Teacher Center discussed cutting edge policy approaches that work to create and support both highly qualified and highly effective teachers. Though many different approaches were mentioned overall, panel members and the audience agreed that comprehensive support for teachers is necessary.
Dara Barlin stated that improving teaching quality would have to be a “multi-tiered” system. This system would have to include ways for teachers to engage in constant learning and professional development. Veteran teachers in this system would be welcomed and required to mentor new teachers. She suggested that legislators require and fund induction programs that would provide formative assessment, individualized support and advanced content for newly-credentialed, beginning teachers. California Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment and Connecticut Beginning Education Support and Training programs are currently seeing successful outcomes with the induction approach. Ms. Barlin emphasized the fact that regardless of the outcomes seen in the first year with induction programs, to see their full potential they must be sustained for at least two years. Overall, she claims that teacher policy cannot be about credentials only, career-long professional development and guidance is necessary to increase the efficacy of teachers everywhere. It was agreed that induction was necessary and that better K-12 alignment with higher education was also a necessary component of successful induction. In New Mexico there is a model of alignment that is used to partner small schools so that teachers can be shared between schools and districts. Mr. Goldrick proposed that legislatures work together with higher education institutions to make sure graduation requirements completely align with teaching requirements. Overall, it was agreed that more effective policies need to be implemented in regard to training, recruiting and retaining teachers but that training must be sustained throughout a teacher’s career.
Representative Holdaway, having spent over twenty five years in a classroom, emphasized the need to support teachers and make careers in education more appealing. With all of his experience and qualifications Holdaway is still not considered a “highly qualified” teacher under the criteria of NCLB. He highly supports more opportunities for alternative certification teachers. This is one way in which policymakers can make teaching careers more appealing as is it lessens the huge burden of traditional routes to teacher certification. Holdaway also emphasized the need for higher education to play a more critical role in training and recruiting teachers.
Representative Thompson feels that more teachers are needed in a classroom and that team teaching is highly important especially for newer teachers. Mr. Thompson made the point that policymakers must stop viewing education as an expense and rather as an investment in students and in the economy. The best teachers and enough teachers are the key to effectively educating students.
Presiding: John Dole, West Virginia
Panelists: Lara Couturier, Brown University, Rhode Island
F. King Alexander, National Higher Education Expert, Cal State University, Long Beach
Sidney McPhee, Middle Tennessee State University
John Peterson, University of Tennessee
Shirley Raines, University of Memphis, Tennessee
Representative Rob Kreibich, Wisconsin, NCSL Blue Ribbon Commission on Higher Education
Representative Denise Merrill, Connecticut, NCSL Blue Ribbon Commission on Higher Education
In a joint session with the Budget and Revenue Committee each panelist shared their unique perspectives on the current state of higher education and what the future holds. The panel included legislators, university presidents, as well as nationally recognized experts in higher education. The discussion began with a presentation by Lara Couturier, which focused on the changing relationship between states and their public institutions. Ms. Couturier described an environment of increased competition between institutions, diminishing state fiscal support, and a changing policymaking environment. Following Ms. Couturier was King Alexander who continued the discussion by highlighting how vastly different each state's higher education needs were. The discussion then moved to statements from the university presidents sitting on the panel who shared their thoughts on the situations facing their various institutions. Before opening up the session to questions, Representatives Kreibich and Merrill described their experience as co-chairs of NCSL's Blue Ribbon Commission on Higher Education. They gave a preview of what they expect to be released in the Commission's upcoming recommendations to be released in November of 2006.
Resource: Lara Couturier
Presiding: Thaddeus Ferber, Forum for Youth Investment, Washington, D.C
Speakers: Everette Hill, New Mexico Forum for Youth in Community
Senator Jamie Woodson, Tennessee
Senator Katie Stine, Kentucky
Asset-based policies focus on the positive outcome of prevention and positive youth development rather than deficit-based approaches that identify a problem area and then build solutions. Senator Stine discussed Kentucky’s Ready by 21 Challenge which is a way of taking an inventory of state services. Kentucky started to “change the way they do business” by starting with the child and aligning policies and resources to focus on the complete positive development of the child. Four key platforms of this transformation included: aligning policies and resources, engaging youth, improving/coordinating systems and services, families and community and increasing the demand for more and better supports.
Everette Hill identified one of the ways that New Mexico is working to align and coordinate their state's resources for youth. The New Mexico Forum for Youth in Community is a public/private partnership that serves as an intermediary focusing on promoting positive youth development practices and principles throughout the state. The goal of the partnership is to prepare young adults for the workforce and life. This partnership offers capacity building, systems alignment, training, and technical assistance to youth serving organizations and youth development practitioners. In addition, NMFYC provides a forum for communication between policymakers, funders and the practice community with the goal of improving services and strengthening programming for youth.
Senator Jamie Woodsen of Tennessee spoke about her states’ efforts to better serve youth by funding after-school programs with unclaimed funds from the Tennessee State Lottery, this program is called LEAP (Lottery for Education: After School Programs). As provided under TCA 49-6-702, one hundred percent (100%) of monies constituting an unclaimed prize shall is deposited into an after school account for the purpose of administering a system of competitive grants and technical assistance for eligible organizations providing after school educational programs within Tennessee. The overall goal of LEAP is to provide Tennessee students with academic enrichment opportunities that reinforce and complement the regular academic program. More information can be found at Tennessee Lottery: Where the Money Goes.
Presiding: Julie Pelegrin, Office of Legislative Legal Services, Colorado
Speakers: Michael Cohen, Achieve Inc., Washington, D.C.
Representative Luke Messer, Indiana
Representative Jack Hoogendyk, Michigan
Delegate Ana Sol Gutierrez, Maryland
Michael Cohen addressed the ways in which drop-out rates are commonly tracked, which in his opinion are often flawed. He feels that in order to address the nation’s “drop-out crisis” policymakers need to change the way dropouts are calculated. Cohen believes that to better track dropouts and better serve students before they dropout, a nationwide tracking system should be implemented and should include attendance, credits, and grades for each student. With this information readily available to all teachers and new schools that students encounter, patterns could be easily tracked and early interventions could be made for students who need them.
Representative Messer agreed with Cohen’s claim that better dropout tracking was necessary and spoke about Indiana’s CORE 40 curriculum. He believes that the key to decreasing dropout rates is to improve the high school experience for students. CORE 40 is a curriculum that prepares students for college and workforce success. Along with the CORE 40 curriculum, Messer spoke about several state policies that are helping Indiana to lessen their drop-out rates including a policy that requires a student to have parent and principal approval to withdraw from school, a policy that takes away a teen’s drivers license or work permit if they drop out without parent or principal permission before they are 18. A policy called the School Flex Program allows a student to build his/her school schedule according to their personal needs. This program allows a student a full day of credit for any of several school and employment combinations. It allows youth who are ready to be in college or vocational school to do so while simultaneously earning high school credit. This type of curriculum reform allows students flexible options for obtaining a high school diploma without feeling bored or under-challenged.
Representative Jack Hoogendyk agreed that uniformity in standards is important for preparing all students equally and adequately. He spoke about Michigan’s legislation that established graduation requirements for the entire state called the Michigan Merit Core. Mr. Hoogendyk sits on Michigan’s newly formed Education Subcommittee on Curriculum Standards which is responsible for monitoring the progress of the Department of Education’s revised curriculum. He believes that the new standards taught with excellence, balance and impartiality will prepare students in Michigan to compete in tomorrow’s economy.
Ana Sol Gutierrez’ presentation was focused on encouraging states to carefully collect data so as to accurately report dropout rates. Delegate Gutierrez believes that dropout rates in Maryland have been widely overstated; that this is also true of nationwide reports. Delegate Gutierrez discussed her legislation to codify the standard 4-year cohort formula adopted by the National Governors Association in its Compact on Graduation Rates. She believes that this formula for measuring dropouts is more accurate than others commonly used and encouraged other state legislatures to adopt and codify a common formula.
Facilitator: Representative Dora Olivo, Texas
Presenters:
This session was an overview of the Engaging Latino Communities for Education (ENLACE) program in Santa Ana, California. The city of Santa Ana is the "most Latino city" (over 100,000 people) in the U.S. with 76.1 percent of the population Latino. The presenters explained how the ENLACE program uses strategic partnerships with families, community organizations, K-12 schools, and higher education institutions to increase the college participation and completion rates of Latino students in Santa Ana. In particular, the Padres Promotores (Parent Promoters) program has made a significant impact by using Latino cultural norms to empower parents to take an active role in their child's education. Also discussed were some policy ideas for Latino college-going rates that included: increasing curriculum rigor, offering in-state tuition for undocumented students, and improving community college to university transfers.
Moderator: John Myers, Augenblick, Palaich and Associates, Colorado
Panelists: Chester Finn, Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, Washington, D.C.
Senator Jim Argue, Arkansas
Senator Mark Takai, Hawaii
Senator John Vratil, Kansas
Senator Royce West, Texas
Examined at this session were trends and issues in K-12 education finance including the "65 Percent Solution," the Weighted Student Formula (WSF) and education adequacy litigation. Chester Finn started the session talking about WSF, including what it is, why it's needed, the issues and challenges and the current state of WSF. Additional in-depth information on WSF can be found in the Fordham Foundation's "Fund the Child" report published in June 2006.
Senator John Vratil spoke about their longstanding school finance lawsuit which was filled in 1999. In June of 2005, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled the school funding formula was not adequate and ordered the state to more than double the school funding appropriated in April for the 2005-2006 school year. In addition, Governor Sebelius and the Kansas legislature adopted the 65 Percent Solution as a "public policy goal," though local districts are not required to implement.
Senator Royce West from Texas talked about his state's former "Robin Hood" funding system, which equalized school funding by dispersing local property taxes from wealthy districts to low-income districts. Since the Texas Supreme Court struck down the state's school finance formula, the Legislature revamped their taxes and funding system to reflect greater access and equalized funding. Governor Rick Perry signed an executive order mandating the adoption of the 65 percent rule and the Texas Education Agency made it effective by releasing its version of the rule which will become effective August 13, 2006. Over a three-year phase-in period, districts will be required to spend at least 55 percent of their operating budgets on instructional costs in 2006-07, 60 percent in 2007-08, and 65 percent in 2008-09 to receive full credit under this indicator in the state's rating system. In addition, the rule also uses the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) definition of classroom vs. non-classroom expenses.
Senator Jim Argue spoke about his state's 1992 court ruling that focused on equity and adequacy. The legislature increased school funding by 30 percent and created a new categorical funding formula at the district level. The categorical formula takes into account several factors including students who qualify for the free and reduced lunch program. He also addressed the challenge of consolidating school districts in the state.
While talking about Hawaii's school funding formula, Senator Mark Takai noted that Hawaii is unique in that they are a single district state. With the enactment of a weighted student formula in 2004, Act 51 (HB 1791), Hawaii became the first state to implement a school-based weighted student funding formula statewide. Similar to systems adopted in some large-city school districts, the formula is based on three principles. First, per-pupil funding is based on each child's specific needs, assigning more funds to students who are considered more costly to teach. Second, funding follows each child to whatever public school that child attends. Third, principals must have control over their school's budget. The per-student base amount is approximately $4,000 with the weights including extra money for low-income students, for those studying English as a second language, and for mobile students, such as children of military personnel. The new formula is controversial, as many small schools will lose funding and school principals' control of budgets remains limited by other constraints. In addition, the new funding system does not address students in high-end special education services, or teacher flexibility.
Resources: Chester Finn PowerPoint
Are Boys Falling Behind Academically?
Presiding: Representative Greg Porter, Indiana
Speakers: Michael Holzman, Schott Foundation for Public Education, Massachusetts
Sara Mead, Education Sector, Washington, D.C.
Deborah Santiago, ¡Excelencia in Education!, Washington, D.C.
The speakers at this session addressed the issue of gender and student achievement. Based on the 2003-2004 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data, Dr. Michael Holtzman of the Schott Foundation highlighted the 6 percent student achievement gap in grades 9-12 between boys and girls, with females outscoring their male counterparts. Gender achievement gaps vary by state, with the largest gaps seen in the southern states. Black and Hispanic males are falling behind at higher percentages than their white and Asian cohorts. In addition, data shows that the gender gap increases as the black student body increases. Dr. Holtzman concluded that the dire academic achievement of boys is related to the functionality and quality of public education systems.
Based on national data, Sara Mead remarked that boys are improving on many educational measures, including elementary reading and math, middle school math and the number of men enrolled in college and graduating with degrees, but girls are improving faster. She suggested that the racial/ethnic and economic gaps are larger than the gender gaps. Ms. Mead provided several possible explanations for the gender gaps, while also pointing out their caveats. Additional research was among her several recommendations.
Deborah Santiago spoke about the achievement of Latino boys. She pointed out that Latinos boys are our future workforce and human capital. They make up the second largest racial/ethnic group; they are the youngest racial/ethic group and they inhabit the lowest levels of educational achievement. Overall, Hispanics have lower educational achievement than other ethnic groups. Latino male achievement is lower than that of males in other racial/ethnic groups. Latino students 25 years of age and older show similar achievement levels by gender, while Hispanic boys under the age of 25 show lower academic achievement than Hispanic girls. Latino males are much more likely to drop out of high school. College enrollment for Latino males has increased over time, while college enrollment for Latinas has increased more rapidly. The lower academic achievement gaps from Latino males can be contributed to low expectations, lower academic preparation in K-12, lack of role models, lack of information and higher opportunity costs. Ms. Santiago urged legislators to commission research, be aware of economic trade-offs, inform the polis of the achievement gaps and develop state-wide action plans of "intentionally."
Resources: HolzmanPowerPoint PDF Version
SantiagoPowerPoint PDF Version
Speakers: Dr. Marcelo Suarez-Orozco, Steinhardt School of Education, New York
Ken Kay, President, Partnership for 21st Century Skills
Senator Robert Plymale, West Virginia
Succeeding in the global economy demands that states respond to the challenges of international competition, demographic change and technological challenges. This session examined new strategies in K-12 and higher education to meet the demands of the 21st century.
Dr. Suarez-Orozco is a prominent scholar on the effects of globalization. He suggested that globalization isn't new -- we're hardly the first generation to experience it. It occurs in history around the movement of capital, the movement of information, economic opportunities, and cultural shifts. However, what's different is the rate of change and the depth of change. And, the education system is not well adjusting. He argues that millions of students are in schools that will not teach them anything about getting by in a 21st century world.
The United States tends to primarily feel the impacts of globalization by immigration. For example, in California, 1,444 immigrants arrive daily -- only 14 of whom are white. He suggests that immigration is not just something that's happening to the United States -- immigration is happening all over the world -- all regions in the world are being impacted by immigration. Which should work to bring the people of the world together -- because all our communities are becoming more diverse. The skills for the 21st century are higher order skills, requiring expert thinking, problem solving, and solving problems that don't have rule-based solutions. The 21st century will value managing complexity, collaboration, tolerance of diverse individuals, working in groups. Knowledge becomes obsolete very fast. But people will continue to live in local communities that are interconnected.
Ken Kay is president of the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, a partnership of education, technology and business groups who are attempting to not only define the skills necessary for 21st century education but design a framework for teaching and assessing those skills. The fundamental question is how you take the issue of globalization and a changing world and develop a political framework for dealing with education. Education must be focused on producing 21st century citizens and workers. Globalization has changed the magnitude of competition -- for example, there are 25 million skilled workers in Japan, but 300 million in China and India.
NCLB focuses on a 20th Century model. It defines core subjects and then designs assessment to measure learning in those subjects. A 21st century model adds life skills -- such as leadership, productivity, adaptability, ethics, interpersonal skills, critical thinking, creativity -- to the core subjects. It doesn't mean you teach each subject separately -- but the life skills are incorporated into each of the core subjects.
An example would be: rather that ask students to memorize what is the capital of Nebraska, we should ask students to think about WHY Lincoln is the capital of Nebraska. This demands geography, political, historical, and critical thinking skills. The Partnership has several very useful documents available for educators and policymakers that suggest specific examples of 21st Century skills at http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/.
Ken suggested the following ideas for legislators interested in advocating for a 21st Century Skills model:
- It requires major high profile state leadership
- Align the state education system with the state economic development strategy
- Develop broad consensus and shared vision
- On-going Professional development in 21st century skills. Teachers need to be retrained -- business knows that change requires new training of personnel
- Standards and curriculum aligned with 21st century skills
- 21st Century assessments that don't just test content, but also cross-cutting learning
- An effective communication strategy
- An aggressive implementation strategy
Senator Robert Plymale, chair of the Senate Education Committee in West Virginia, has been a leader in his state to push for 21st century education reform. He believes that one of the most important strategies is convincing all the key policy players to think about this in terms of state economic development. West Virginia is putting in place: multiple professional development opportunities -- such as on-line options and NBPTS credentialing. Senator Plymale argues that teachers are absolutely key to this movement; developing rigorous content standards that emphasize 21st century skills, such as global awareness, economic literacy, information/communication/technology skills, civic literacy; developing district partnerships and focusing on enhancing STEM initiatives.
Resources: Ken Kay PowerPoint
Plymale PowerPoint
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NCSLFeedback
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|