ED 381 899

TITLE

INSTITUTIONPUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

11)1 N111 11 RI.

Ilk!, I AI I

DOCUMENT RESUME

EA 026 691

Rising to the Challenge: A New Agenda for CaliforniaSchools and Communities.Education Commission of the States, Denver, Colo.Mar 9550p.ECS Distribution Center, 707 17th Street, Suite 2700,Denver, CO 80202-3427 (Stock No. GP-95-3).Reports Evaluative/Feasibility (142)

MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.*Academic Achievement; *Decentralization; EducationalAssessment; Educational Change; EducationalImprovement; *Educational Quality; ElementarySecondary Education; Performance; Public Education;School Based Management; *School Restructuring;School Support; *State Standards'California

This document found that the California school systemmdn.iped tfl improve its efficiency and performance over the last

. Hilwp\,et, the system is stained to capacity and will have a411111, n11 time meeting upcoming challenges. It must be redesigned to

ihp responsibility for improving student achievement to theIp(,i 1 Ipvpl and replace the traditional school system with a new.1,111r,)pment based system of schools. The report recommends that1.1111flinid establish statewide cui riculum content and performanceiandaids, a statewide assessment procedure, an accountabilityvbtetil. and a deadline for school districts' redesign. To shift tohis new system, the state must change its focus from one of control

I . that of support. Suggestions are to focus on student achievement,reconnect schools and communities, and build a framework of supportor the new system. The latter can be accomplished if California

educators and policymakers improve the education and training ofschool staff; identify networks, partnerships, and other supportstructures; expand the education system's technological capacity;restore the strength and vitality of urban schools; and provideadequate and equitable funding. A timeline for the period 1995-2002is inclod,d. (LMI)

**********************************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document. it

******1.. 'citqciritic*****1':****************************V:iriciritic************1%***

C7N00

00

U S 0101111111111117 01 tOUCATIONON., ol I duclIonal flbearrh and Innwovement10( A IIONAI RESOURCES iINFORMATION

Ct HU F1E41(1INS dlOr um11.1 hall Wien reproduced asIlk sward I tom thy pil,t0r, Or of gen./ anonolonsimg ,i

I 1,1.not f hartwily hasp typo rrtad4p in improverpitHiu Imo clualtly

r00111 of oow or opmons owed .n documan' 40 not nor estivar ,eivarni off.c.I(li IlIonyainn or kyy-y4

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

RISINGTO THECHALLENGE

ANEWA NDA FOR

_LIFORNIA,$)Ns OOLS ANDcls

MMUNITIES

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

tir

RISINGTO THECHALLENGE

A new agendafor California

schools and

communities

EDUCATICOI MISSIONOF TIT eL:\FES

MARCH 1995

Copies of this book are available from the ECS Distribu-tion Center, 707 17th Street, Suite 2700, Denver, Colorado 80202-3427, 303-299-3692. Ask for No. GP-95-3.

Copyright 1995 by the Education Commission of theStates (ECS). All rights reserved.

ECS is a national, nonprofit, nonpartisan education policyorganization. Established 30 years ago by the nation's governors tohelp states attain and sustain a stronger role in improving educa-tion, ECS today is the only major education organization thatworks with policymakers and educators from all aspects of the edu-cation system. This distinction as an organization that cuts acrossroles and levels local, district, state, federal enables us to ana-lyze all sides of an issue and, more important, bring together peo-ple with diverse perspectives to work veith and learn from oneanother.

Each state and territory passes legislation to become amember of ECS. And each state or territory appoints, usuallythrough t1te Governor's office, seven ECS commissioners who rep-resent all segments of education.

Part of the work of the commission includes working withpolicymekers and educators in individual states comprehensive, bi-partisan, forward-looking strategies for improving their educationsystem.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Page II

CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

INTRODUCTION 5

FOCUS ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 13

RECONNECT SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITIES 17

BUILD A FRAMEWORK OF SUPPORT FOR THE NEW SYSTEM OF SCHOOLS 21

Improve the Education and Training of School Staff MembersIdentify Networks, Partnerships and Other Support Structures 28

Expand the Education System's Technological Capacity 31

Restore the Strength and Vitality of Urban Schools 33

Provide an Adequately and Equitably Funded Education System 36

CONCLUSION 41

TIMELINE 43

Page iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThe Education Commission of the States' (ECS)

California project was directed by Frank Newman, ECSPresident; Robert Palaich, ECS Director of Field Man-agement and Information Systems; and Ed Lyell, ProjectConsultant. Suzanne Weiss, Project Writer, and ECSstaff members Christie McElhinney, Gloria Zradicka,Sherry Freeland Walker, Anna West, Lyn Hesketh andElizabeth Holman assisted in the research, writing, edit-ing and production, as did staff members in the ECSClearinghouse, State Relations and Programs Divisions.

ECS would like to thank the hundreds of indi-viduals and representatives of organizations who tookthe time to meet with us and discuss their hopes for thefuture of public education in California. We are particu-larly grateful to the ECS California Commissioners,whose advice and assistance during the drafting of thisreport proved invaluable. Our thanks go to GovernorPete Wilson; Maureen Di Marco, Secretary of Child De-velopment and Education; Assemblywoman JuanitaMcDonald; former Senator Gary Hart; Maxine Frost,Board Member, Riverside Unified School District; StateSuperintendent of Public Instruction De lain Eastin; andalso her predecessor, Dave Dawson.

The following list provides examples of thegroups of people with whom ECS staff met over the pastyear. It is not exhaustive and does not include the indi-viduals we communicated with via telephone.

Organizations/Agencies:Association of California School Administrators

Association for the Improvement of SecondaryEducation

California Aerospace AllianceCalifornia Alliance of Pupil Service Organizations

California Assessment Collaborative

California Association of Manufacturers

California Business RoundtableCalifornia Commission on Teacher Credentialing

California Community Colleges System

California Chamber of Commerce

California County Superintendents Association Board

6

California Federation of Teachers

California Legislative Staff Senate and Assembly

California School Employees Association

California School Boards Association

California Postsecondary Education Commission

California State Board of Education

California State Department of Education

California State PTA

California Tomorrow

California Teachers' Association

Children Now

Ed Source

Educational Congress of California

Galef Institute

Governor's Office staff

LEARN Board

Los Angeles High School Division Pupil ServicesProfessionalsLos Angeles Senior High Schools Division Principals

The Management GroupMockler Hainan Strategic Education Services

PACE

Office of Child Development and Education

Schools for the Future

State Assembly Leadership and Selected EducationCommittee Members

State Senate Leadership and Selected EducationCommittee Members

The California State University System

United Teachers Los Angeles

United Public Employees AssociationUniversity of Southern California School of Educa-tion Board of Councilors

and selected school districts, schools and universityfaculty members

Cur

rent

Reg

ulat

ory

Sch

ool S

yste

m

Reg

ulat

edM

icro

man

aged

Legi

slat

edIs

olat

ed

Tra

nsiti

onto

New

Sys

tem

FO

CU

S O

NS

TU

DE

NT

AC

HIE

VE

ME

NT

RE

CO

NN

EC

T-

SC

HO

OLS

AN

DC

OM

MU

NIT

IES

L

Ent

erpr

ise

Pla

nsfo

r D

istr

icts

Cha

rter

s fo

r S

choo

ls

BU

ILD

FR

AM

EW

OR

KO

F S

UP

PO

RT

New

Ach

ieve

men

t-B

ased

Sys

tem

of S

choo

lsA

chie

vem

ent-

focu

sed

Loca

lly C

ontr

olle

dF

lexi

ble

Col

labo

rativ

e

(N

ew C

ode

----

-(

S

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe powerful forces transforming the world haveparticular potency in California. The Californiaeconomy is widely seen as the prototype of an

economy on the cutting edge of change. It is built aroundthose industries computers, software, aircraft, semi-conductors, entertainment that are leading the trans-formation. California looks like the emergingtechnological society, knowledge society or post-indus-trial society. Whatever we call it, California demands aworkforce with far greater intellectual skills, knowledgeand capacity.

California is also the harbinger of anotherchange that is transforming this country: its population isdiverse in every dimension. More than any other state,California must learn how to make a sophisticated econ-omy work with a population that represents a greater ar-ray of income levels, races and national origins than anywe have seen before. But such an economy requiresmuch greater skills from its citizens and cannot work if alarge percentage of its people cannot contribute effec-tively.

The changes that demand more effective educa-tion go well beyond the economy to changes in the na-ture of our democratic society. Just as greater intellectualskills, knowledge and capacity are important in the work-force, so are they in one's life as a citizen. The complexissues facing individuals as voters, as parents, as users ofthe health-care or legal systems, et cetera, demand amore sophisticated and better educated individual. Evenmore, the problems we face require greater citizen in-volvement.

As California closes in on the 21st Century, it iscoming out of a major recession. However, this recoveryis different from past economic recoveries. We believeCalifornia can look forward to renewed economicgrowth and a return to national leadership; however, itcannot expect a return to conditions that existed duringprevious recoveries when major increases in fundingwere available and the public favored heavy investmentin schools and the higher education system. While we be-lieve California needs to transform its education system

a transformation more fundamental than ever beforeattempted -- it must do so within more serious fiscalconstraints. Californians must be convinced that the taskcan be accomplished before they will be willing to pro-vide additional resources.

9

All of this points to the inescapable fact that thestate must have a different, more effective, moreachievement-oriented, more efficient education system.

These conditions led Governor Pete Wilson andother state leaders to request that the Education Commis-sion of the States examine California's public educationsystem. Over the past year, we met with policymakers,educators, board members, parents, university officialsand others who play a role in the education system. Weexamined census data, job-market trendr opinionpolls, media coverage, student achievement data andother statistics.

What we found is a school system that has man-aged to improve its efficiency and performance over thelast decade but which is now strained to capacity andwill have a difficult time meeting the challenges that lieahead.

More Than any other state, Californiamust learn how to make asophisticated economy work with apopulation that represents a greaterarray of income levels, races andnational origins than any we hove seenbefore.

Clearly, California's school system must be re-designed to shift the responsibility for improving studentachievement to the local level, where the stakes are high-est and where constructive chawge is most likely to oc-cur. We believe the California system must undergocomprehensive decentralization and deregulation, withthe traditional school system being replaced by a systemof schools, each focused on high achievement and pro-viding a safe and orderly environment for children in thecommunity. This will require profound changes in howschools are regulated, funded and held accountable forresults.

RecommendationsWe recommend that California create a new

achievement-based system of schools focused on im-proving individual and overall student achievement andincluding more reliable means of evaluating school, dis-trict and overall system performance.

Page 1

California should begin this change by buildingon the curriculum frameworks it has developed in eightacademic areas. These frameworks contain a vision ofthe skills and knowledge all students should have.

To build a new system of schools, we suggestCalifornia make these statements stronger and more ex-plicit by establishing statewide content and perform-ance standards defining what students should know andbe able to do at various points in their schooling.

Second, a new statewide assessment is neededto ensure that students are meeting the standards. How-ever, we strongly recommend that the new statewide as-sessment be used in conjunction with additional, diverseteaching and testing strategies at the local level.

Third, we recommend that a statewide account-ability system be developed to keep the public informedas to the progress toward these standards.

Finally, the state should set a deadline for allschool districts to redesign themselves around this newachievement-based school system and eliminate thecurrent regulatory system.

To shift to this new system, the state mustchange its focus from controlling schools and dis-tricts to supporting them. The new system should al-low schools and districts to make the decisionsnecessary to educate their students with minimal interfer-ence from the state. Local school boards must take onnew roles by offering choice and flexibility within theirdistrict and by engaging staff and community membersin discussions about moving into the new system. Thisnew system must be adequately and equitably funded,with teamwork, innovation and success recognized andrewarded, and with schools given the resources, toolsand incentives they need to create top-quality learningenvironments.

As a whole, these and other recommendationssummarized below form the framework for a CaliforniaMaster Plan for Public Education. It is essential to under-stand that these recommendat;ons are meant to be imple-mented in a comprehensive manner, as a Master Plan,not piecemeal. Isolated attempts at such reforms in thepast have brought limited success.

We recommend the Governor, Legislature andSuperintendent of Public Instruction appoint a bipartisanpanel to begin work on this Master Plan immediately,with the panel to submit its implementation proposals tothe Governor, Superintendent, State Board of Education,Legislature, local school boards and the public within ayear.

Our recommendations for the new achievementsystem fall inio three major areas:

I. Focus on Student Achievement. In additionto establishing statewide standards and redesigning thestate assessment program, we recommend the state move

Page 2

responsibility for improving student achievement toschools and districts. This process should include signifi-cant community involvement, regular reporting to thepublic, rewards for success and sanctions for poorschool performance.

II. Reconnect Schools and Communities. A lo-cally controlled education system must involve families,schools and communities as equal and essential partners.The local school board and superintendent should leadthe conversation about moving into the new achieve-ment system and designing the district's "EnterprisePlan" for doing so. We recommend that districts be al-lowed to move from the existing system and into thenew system when they are ready. The state should pro-vide districts with regulatory relief and autonomy, whilemaintaining safeguards to ensure that equity, safety, fis-cal responsibility and other matters of public interest aremaintained. Districts would have until the 2001-2 schoolyear to make the transition to the new system.

III. Build a Framework of Support for the NewSystem of Schools. In order for these recommendationsto be carried out, California needs a strong infrastructureof support for reform. The key elements of this infra-structure are:

The new system should allow schoolsand districts to make the decisionsnecessary to educate their studentswith minimal interference from thestate.

Make sure work in the schools arewell-prepared before they enter schools,participate in targeted professional developmentopportunities and have the tools and incentivesthey need to do their jobs well. We suggestCalifornia begin moving toward a competency-basedteacher education system that defines the skills,abilities and knowledge teachers should have whenthey graduate and which bases advancement ondemonstrated teaching ability. In addition, Californiashould decentralize the professional developmentprocess many opportunities are designed too faraway from the school, and too far in advance, to beuseful. The Master Plan Panel should give adviceregarding how to evaluate and approve professionaldevelopment opportunity suppliers and then allowschool staffs to draft their own strategies forprofessional development as they move into the newsystem.

10

Identify and strengthen networks, partnershipsand other support structures. Ideas must flow

across the system, from school to school andcommunity to community, as well as from the state to

the school and vice versa. To link people and ideas,

and to build professional ties, we recommend the

Master Plan Panel develop an inventory of state

networks working on education reform, partnerships

that work across agencies, those that focus on specific

subject areas, those involving businesses and others.

This inventory should assess each partner's capacity

to assist schools and provide information about thenetwork or partnership. The panel also may need to

develop incentives for schools and districts to

participate in networks and partnerships and should

offer a plan to blend federal funds to better address

needs c children, families and communities.

Expand the technological capacity of schools anddistricts. Although California has taken many steps

forward, including developing a statewide technology

master plan, efforts to implement the plan have beendisconnected, unfocused and underfunded. We

recommend that the Governor and Superintendent of

Public Instruction develop a technological action plan

to submit to the State Board of Education, localboards and the Legislature. This plan should focus on

expanding training opportunities for teachers,administrators, local school board members and

school staff; developing funding sources; promoting

the use of telecommunications; and distributing

technology in new ways.

Restore the strength of urban schools. TheGovernor and Legislature, in conjunction with theSuperintendent of Public Instruction, should appoint atask force to look at how to raise expectations forstudent achievement; redesign district structure andorganization to help urban schools work together and

support one another; strengthen the authority ofschool-site decisionmaking groups; and coordinateeducation, social, health and other services. This taskforce would work in conjunction with the Master Plan

Panel and others dealing with urban education.

Provide an adequately and equitably fundededucation system. In order to support the newachievement system, we recommend the developmentof a new school finance system that gives greatercontrol over resource allocation and, eventually,revenue raising to local schools and districts. Schoolsand districts should be allowed to spend funds as they

deem necessary to meet their students' needs, but, in

turn, must be accountable for student learning. Inaddition to finding new sources of funding fortechnology, the state needs to redesign its capitalimprovement process in order to ensure that schools

get built as needed to handle enrollment growth.

Californians have the ability and the desire

to dramatically improve the state's education system.We believe there are few issues that California's leader-ship and its people will come together on, issues in

which they will cease focusing on turf and forget their

political and personal differences. Vastly improving theopportunity for all children in California to receive the

best education possible must be one of those issues.

11 Page 3

INTRODUCTIONAt the request of Governor Pete Wilson and otherstate leaders, the Education Commission of theStates (ECS) last year set out to take a fresh and

forthright look at California's school system at a crucialpoint in its history on the threshold of a new century,facing new demands and new challenges, and undermounting pressure to improve.

ECS was asked to design a plan to build un andconnect school-reform efforts already under way in thestate, to bring new reform possibilities to the table and tosearch for common ground among the diverse groups ofpeople working to improve the quality and performanceof public education in California.

During the past year, ECS examined the state'seducation system from a variety of angles and perspec-tives. We met with legislative leaders, executive-branchofficials, other policymakers, state education profession-als and school board members. We studied the complexweb of federal, state and local laws and regulations thatgovern the K-12 system. We tracked and analyzed mediacoverage, and spent time with parents, classroom

teachers, business and community leaders, union offi-cials, university administrators and higher educationleaders, and social-service providers. We reviewed eco-nomic forecasts, census figures, job-market trends, pub-lic-opinion polls and student achievement indicators,and studied the recommendations of the several dozenpublic and private organizations that have issued reportson California's school system in the past 10 years.

The picture that emerged, in many ways, isheartening. Awash in new demands and operating undermany financial constraints, California's school systemnevertheless not only maintained but also improved itsperformance and efficiency over the past decade.

Fewer young people dropped out of school,more students went on to college, and the gap in achieve-ment between minority and nonminority youngsters nar-rowed. in addition, total expenditures for K-12education increased by $13.2 billion, although the combi-nation of substantial enrollment increases and inflationeroded the purchasing power of these additional funds.

California's public school system is improving ...

Graduationrate

The dropout rateamong 10th- to12th-graders isdown 34% since1986. This repre-sents 30.000 stu-dents a year whostay in school tograduate with theirclass.

Source: CaliforniaDepartment of Education.1994

SAT scores

The percentage ofstudents scoringabove 450 on theverbal section ofthe SAT has risen11% since 1984.and the percentagescoring above 500on the math sec-tion is up 26%.

Source: CaliforniaDepartment of Education.1994

Advancedcourses

The number of highschool studentstaking phystcs andchemistry has morethan doubled since1983, and thenumber takingadvanced math isup 67%.

Source: CaliforniaI )r partment of Education.1994

1('6.

Minoritystudentachievement

Fewer Latino, blackand Asian-American studentsare dropping out ofschool and ahigher number arecompleting acceler-ated courses andgoing on to college.

Source: CaliforniaDepartment of HigherEducation, 1994

Systemefficiency

California's K-12system operateswith 15% feweradministrators perteacher than it didin 1983, when theschool populationwas smaller (by 1.5million students)and the school yearshorter (by 17days).

Source: CaliforniaDepartment of Education.1994

Pam 5

Today, every level of the system shows encour-aging signs of renewal and reform. Schools and districtsare trying new ways of organizing and managing them-selves, of teaching and testing students, of reconnectingwith the communities they serve. Parents increasinglyare taking advantage of opportunities to get involved intheir children's eoucation, and neighborhood coalitions,employers, universities, and state and local policymakersare establishing themselves as significant new allies inthe schools' struggle to change and improve.

But if California's school system each year hasmanaged to work a little harder, run a little faster, spreaditself a little thinner, it appears to be approaching itsmaximum potential as presently designed. And, as thesnapshots on these pages show, the burdens and pres-sures that have strained the system to its limits over thepast few years could combine in the next decade to over-whelm it.

We believe California cannot afford to leave inplace a school system ill-equipped to cope with the chal-lenges that ne ahead.

Perceived as highly regulated and centralized,the existing system tends to undercut the sense ofpartnership, purpose and responsibility at the local level.

Rather than setting broad goals, defining needs and serv-ing as a source of ideas and support, the state still playsthe role of micromanager and watchdog. Although thestate's focus is moving from control to effectiveness,from status quo to innovation, from holding schools ac-countable for complying with rules and regulations toholding them accountable for what and how well stu-dents are learning, more movement in these directions isessential.

In such an environment, even well-conceived re-forms remain on the fringes, with little chance of coales-cing into a coherent force for change. Small wonder,then, that the ambitious policy initiatives California hasundertaken over the past decade have yielded such un-even results.

California's school system must be redesigned,but it cannot be redesigned piecemeal, from the topdown. We believe California must commit itself to aca-demic success for all students by shifting operating re-sponsibility for improving education quality to the locallevel, where constructive, lasting change is most likelyto occur. This does not mean that the state will turneverything over to the local level and then turn its back;under California's Constitution, the state has significant

... but it is not improving fast enough.Only a small percentage of California studentsperform to high academic standards

The writing skills of three in five California 10th-graders arc below alevel at which "writing is coherent, organized and developed."Nearly one-third of all 10th-graders score a level where "the readeronly occasionally rerognizes ideas and dimost never connectsthose ideas."Just 3% of the state's 8th-graders have "advanced" math skillsand nearly half arc rated "below basic" in math.

Soar., Callionila Learliolg AS41,111111111 S1,11.111 NW' .44111111111i AS11,411111111 11i Mutational hogresn. 111i4:1.

California employers give recent highschool graduates low marks in literacyand other critical Job-skill areas.

Pacific Bell reports that six out of 10 entry-level job applicants flunk tests geared to7th-grade levels.

In a recent survey of the state's largest firms,63% of California employers said that recenthigh school graduates applying for entry-leveljobs "lack a satisfactory education."

Source Coma II nn California Coninclilivenevi. 1992

Young people who leave school with low-level skills andabilities are no longer easily absorbed into the work force.

The percentage ofJobs in Californiarequiring no poet -high school educationor training has fallensharply, from 49% in1980 to 38% today.

The unemploymentrate among thestate's 16- to 19-year -olds went from13% in 1989 to 26%in 1993.

Although the dropoutrate has fallen,California remains42nd in the nation inthe percentage of stu-dents who graduate.At the current rate,California will add1.4 million highschool dropouts to itspopulation over thenext decade.

%mine Ninon of !allot 5uulrlu r Pail I Now 1093 I 111111111 11111 4111111111111 iininclill,enerii 111,12

Page 6

Latino and black students continue toscore significantly lower than whitestudents on standardized tests.Percent of California8th-graders whosemath skills are "belowbasic"

27%

66%74%

White Latinoe Nn111111n1 Marnatiwiii 01 I Om animal Iinsgtil, 1993

Black

responsibilities with respect to education. The state musttake the lead in creating an achievement-oriented systemby setting standards and developing assessments bywhich to gauge attainment of the standards.

The state has taken several steps toward majorchange, including support for school- and district-baseddecisionmaking, passage of the Charter Schools Act of1992 and the enactment of public-school choice, all ofwhich widen educational options for students and par-ents.

But these steps simply don't go ;4 cz,ough. Webelieve California's K-12 system must undergo compre-hensive decentralization and deregulation, with the tradi-tional school system giving way to a dynamic, versatilesystem of schools, each focused squarely on meeting theneeds of the community it serves. The objective is to cre-ate a sense of community stewardship: to restore thecrucial connections among families, schools and commu-nities; strengthen their ability to work together; and

significantly enlarge their responsibility for improvingeducational quality and student achievement.

Making the transition to a system based on localcontrol and stewardship will not work, however, withoutprofound changes in the way California schools are regu-lated, funded and held accountable for results. If the rec-ommendations proposed in this document are tosucceed, two things must happen: the political leadersmust refrain from addressing education problems in iso-lation from the big picture by introducing and passinglarge numbers of small, individual bills, and the stateeducation agency must take on a new role of support.

Nor will the new school system work without afocal point a clearly defined, widely shared commit-ment to ensuring that all of California's young people at-tend safe and orderly schools that focus on achievement,and that they leave school well prepared for living, work-ing and learning in a changing world.

Here, too, California has moved forward. Thecurriculum frameworks it has developed in math,

The fastest-growing segments of California's school-age population are the students whohistorically have been least successfully served in today's education system.

Off on thewrong footAccording to astatewide survey ofkindergarten teach-ers, one in threeCalifornia childrenenters school "notready to participatesuccessfully," andlacking even suchbasics as knowingtheir address or howto tie their shoes.

Source, Carnegie Foundation for ItoAdvancement of Teaching. 1990

Children inpovertyThe number ofCalifornia youngstersliving in poverty hasincreased 66% since1980. Today, one infour of the state'schildren lives inpoverty up fromone in seven in 1980.

Source: U S Census Bureau. 1993

Racial andethnic diversityBy the year 2000, twoin three California stu-dents will be Latino,black or Asian-American up fromone in two today.During the same peri-od, the white school-age population willdecrease 8%.

Source: Catilornia Department ofEducation. 19113

LanguagediversityThe percentage ofCalifornia studentswith limited proficien-cy in English hasmore than doubled inthe past 15 years, ris-ing from one in 10students in 1980 toone in five studentstoday.

Soure: California Department ofEducation. 1.393

School failurePoor and minority stu-dents are the leastlikely to thrive aca-demically and morethan twice as likely asnonminority studentsto:

Fall behind and haveto repeat a gradeRequire remedialinstruct ionDrop out of highschoolEnd up unemployed,on welfare or in jail.

sower cattiontitt Department tarAtteation. 111113

Californians are impatient for change, and want proof that the public investment in K-12education is paying of

61% 39%

61% of Californians believethe existing public schoolsystem "needs a majoroverhaul."Sourer PACE Poll. 1993

54%

U.S. CaliforniaPercentage of people whogive the public schools intheir community a grade of"A" or "13"Source PACE Poll. 19113 (m11;10.11. 1111:1

%Spe63ndTOMwisely

37%Spendmore

63% of Californians think thestate should "spend morewisely" on public education, asopposed to "spending more."source law Angeles rinses Poll. 11193

Improving public education

10 20 30 40 00

Improving public edationtops the list of issues Cali-fornians view as critical tothe state's future.Source. California Stale Utaversitv/Clum;snResearch Co , 1993, 1993

Page 7

science and six other academic areas embody a coherentvision of the skills and knowledge all students are ex-pected to learn and be able to apply.

But we believe California's commitment tohigher expectations for students, schools and communi-ties must be strengthened and made more explicit.

We recommend that California create a newachievement-based system of schools focused on im-proving individual and collective student achievementand including a more reliable means of evaluatingschool, district and overall system performance. Thisachievement-based system would include a set of stand-ards built around the existing curriculum frameworksand a new system of assessments.

In addition, to make the transition to this newsystem, the state must shift its management focus fromcontrolling schools and districts to supporting them. Itmust direct its energies toward building an adequatelyand equitably funded education system, one in whichteamwork, innovation and effective performance areboth recognized and rewarded and in which schoolshave the resources, tools and incentives they need totransform themselves into safe, stimulating learningenvironments for California's children.

Finally, for an undertaking of such scope andcomplexity to succeed, it must be supported by a com-prehensive, bipartisan policy and investment plan. De-centralization and deregulation, the implementation ofstandards and the development of crucial support struc-tures must be carried out in a coordinated fashion.

On the following pages, we offer a set of recom-mendations which, taken together, provide the frame-work for a California Master Plan for PublicEducation.

We see the Master Plan as the means for Califor-nia leaders to move beyond interest-group politics, turfbattles and partisan conflicts, and begin restoring the po-litical consensus that produced the important educationreforms of the past 10 years and allowed California toachieve success despite increasing challenges. We alsosee the Master Plan as the path to move beyond somesuccessful policies, programs and schools to a compre-hensive system that works for all schools and students.We believe the Master Plan provides an opportunity tobuild on California's gains and strengthen improvementefforts at every level of the system.

We recommend the Governor, Legislature andSuperintendent of Public Instruction appoint a bipartisan

f

A school system struggling with demands and new challenges ...California's K-12 system will experience enroll-ment surges through the end of the decade.

The "diversity gap" between the teaching forceand the student population continues.

California's K-12 enrollment, 1980-2000

1980 Imimml111 3.9 million1985 4.1 million1990 4.8 million1995 5.5 million`2000 IlmisommIlmemll 6.0 million'Source: California Department of Education. 1994

'Projected

'Ye of

1982

1992

2002

Source:Credentlallng.

students and teachers of Latino heritage

111.1_6% Teachers25%

Students36%*

46 %' 'Projected

California Department of Education. 1994; California Commission on Teacher1992 .

Not Just in urban areas, but throughout California, schools and other human-service agencies arestruggling under the burden of a needier, more troubled school-age population.

Poverty: Over the past 15 years, the numberof California children living in poverty hasrisen from 900,000 to 2.2 million. T epoverty rate is particularly high morethan 40% -- among black and Latino chil-dren.Source U S. Census Bureau. 1993

Teen births: California has experi-enced a 23% increase in the teenbirth rate since 1989. More than60,000 babies a year are born to moth-ers under the age of 19. One in eightbabies is born with signs of alcohol ordrug toxicity.Source California Ciepadmonl of Health Senores and California Bovernoes Office 1993

Page 8

Youth Violence: California has the second-highestjuvenile incarceration rate among the 50 states. Since1989, there has been a 59% increase in youth homi-cides. A total of 828 Californians under the age of

20 were murdered in 1991, the equivalent of 27classrooms of children.

Source. Caldotrea's Attorney General's Mao 1993

Security costs: Security and safety costs area new and rapidly growing financial burden for

California schools and districts. In the LosAngeles schools, nearly $25 million a yearenough to fund 500 new teaching positions isspent on metal detectors and other securitycosts.Source Legislative Budget Office 1994

15

panel to oversee the design and implementation of theMaster Plan for Public Education. Because this panelwill bear much of the responsibility for the success orfailure of the efforts we propose, its members must bechosen carefully. We suggest the panel have no morethan 15 members, representing all sides of the politicalspectrum, including Legislators and members of theState Board of Education, higher education governingboards, School-to-Career Task Force, business commu-nity and other citizens involved and/or interested ineducation reform. Many other people will participateon task forces working on various parts of this MasterPlan; who is chosen to participate will have a huge im-pact on the success of the efforts.

The Master Plan Panel should begin its workimmediately. Assuming California chooses to partici-pate in the federal Goals 2000 initiative, these fundsshould be used to support staff needs for the MasterPlan Panel. We recommend the Goals 2000 oversightgroup and the Master Plan Panel be one and the same,with the state using the flexibility provided by the fed-eral initiative to design the Master Plan. The panelshould have a January 1996 deadline for submitting its

proposed Master Plan to the Governor, Superintendent,Legislature, State Board of Education, local schoolboards and the public.

We envision the Master Plan Panel overseeingthe appointment and coordination of work for varioustask forces established to design and develop specificcomponents of the Master Plan. The panel must workclosely with the State Board of Education, the Depart-ment of Education and other key partners, drawing thediverse individuals and groups working to improveCalifornia's schools into the process including thehigher education community, whose involvement wesee as particularly crucial.

While our recommendations focus largely onthe K-12 system, it is not enough to fix elementary andsecondary schools and overlook changes needed in thehigher education system to fit with the changes in K-12education. Implications for higher education are men-tioned in various sections of this report and in thehigher education box on page 27.

Many of the tasks outlined in this report arecomplex and will take several years to complete. Asuggested timetable is included in the final section.

... is operating under enormous financial constraints.

Rapid enrollment growth and the recession have combined to drop California's ranking inper-pupil spending relative to other states.

Over the past decade, total spending for K-12 education has increased by $13.2 billion but this increase has just

barely kept pace with enrollment growth and inflation since 1984-85.

Other states less burdened by enrollment growth or recession have been able to increase their levels of per-pupilspending more rapidly than California. As a result, California's rank among the 50 states in per-pupil spending has

dropped from 20th (1984-85) to a projected 37th (1994-95).

In 1993-94, California's annual per-pupil expenditure of $4,872 was $858below the national average of $5,730, although its average teacher salaryremains among the top 10 in the nation.

California's classrooms are among the most crowded and its schools rankat or near the bottom rank of the 50 states in:

Students per computer

Students per librarian

Students per school nurse

Proposition 13 dramatically altered the state-local funding mix:local property taxes currently account for 36% of school fundingdown from 60% in 1978.

Source: Ca litornla Department of Education. 1994; Governor's Office for Child Development and Education. 1994.

National Education Association. 1994.

Page 9

We see the Master Plan Panel continuing itswork at least through early 1997. Thereafter, the panelshould be scaled down, but left in place long enough toensure sustained leadership through the early and middlestages of implementation. We recommend that the Legis-lature set up a joint education committee to review theMaster Plan when it is complete. in addition, we suggestthat the ECS California commissioners' network annu-ally convene key legislators, Governor's staff members,State Board members and the Superintendent of PublicInstruction to assess the progress and process of theMaster Plan.

Page 10

Throughout this report are examples of whatvarious entities in California and across the nation aredoing to address some of the issues discussed. The ef-forts to make dramatic changes are by no means limitedto those mentioned, and the examples are not intended asrecommendations of what California should do; rather,they are included to demonstrate what is being accom-plished in various locations.

The recommendations we offer will not solve allof the problems facing California's schools. But we be-lieve they will serve as a useful guide for moving aheadand creating the versatile, efficient and high-performingeducation system California needs to meet the chal-lenges that lie ahead.

17

CALIFORNIA MASTER PLANFOR PUBLIC EDUCATION

1/411krr wQN STUDENT

CHIEVEMENT

NOW LNifSCHOOLS ANDCOMMUNITIES

FRAME-

WORK OF SUPPORT F9R

NEW SYSTEM OF SCHOOLS

Page 12 is

FOCUS ON STUDENTACHIEVEMENT

Over the past decade, California has led the nation in efforts toreshape K-12 education around clearer, more challenging expecta-tions for students. What is needed now are clear, high expectations

for student achievement (i.e., standards) linked to the curriculum frameworksand tied to a new assessment system.

The curriculum frameworks California developed in math, science,English-language arts, history-social science, foreign language, health, tinearts and physical education embody a coherent vision of the knowledge,skills and abilities all students need in order to leave school well-preparedfor the world that awaits them. The frameworks have served as an Impetusfor change at the local level, providing schools and districts with a focalpoint for the coordinated redesign of how and what students are taught, andhow their learning progress is measured.

But the frameworks' full potential as a catalyst for systemwide im-provement is yet to be realized. Among parents, community leaders, employ-ers and the public at large, understanding and acceptance of the newapproaches to teaching and learning reflected in the frameworks remain lim-ited. Educators, on the other hand, generally embrace the new ideas, butmany teachers lack the training necessary to bring them to life in the class-room. And despite the enormous amount of time and energy California hasinvested in developing the frameworks over the past 10 years, it has yet tocome up with a reliable way of evaluating school and district progress toward implementing them.

Performance StandardsIn our view, California first of all must take the curriculum frame-

works a step further, establishing statewide standards that clearly definewhat all students are expected to know and be able to do at certain key pointsin their schooling. This is the first step toward creating an achievement-based system of schools.

We recommend state education officials take their initial ideas forstandards to members of the public, educators, policymakers, business andcommunity leaders, parents, students, higher education officials, home-schooling families, taxpayer groups, etc. These groups should have the op-portunity to react to those ideas and have state officials hear what theyexpect from their schools.

While the state has significant responsibility for education underCalifornia's Constituti -in and final decisions about common standards shouldrest with the state, standards must be developed with the understanding andinvolvement of members of local communities. Districts also should havethe option to create and incorporate additional standards and assessmentstrategies needed to meet community expectations.

Setting standards would strengthen and make more explicit Califor-nia's commitment to ensuring that all youngsters achieve at higher levelsthose who are currently at or above average as well as those who now experi-ence the least success in school. In addition, standards would provide Califor-nia with the means '.o better monitor and assess school, district and overall

Establishstatewidestandards forK-12 students.

Design a newstatewideassessmentsystem aroundthe newstandards.

Develop anaccountabilityprocess thatemphasizeslocalresponsibilityfor improvingstudentachievement.

Page 13

system performance, and thus more confidently make the shift to a fundingmodel that recognizes and rewards effort, initiative and improvement.

At the heart of an achievement-based system is the vision of stu-dents as active, engaged learners rather than a passive audience pittednot so much against one another as against established standards of excel-lence and mastery. Unlike "factory model" education, an achievement-basedsystem recognizes that children learn at different paces and in differentways; it has as its goal getting as many students as possible over the highbar, not weeding out weaker students and leaving them behind. In addition,schools in which students are actively engaged in learning have reportedfewer incidences of disruption and violence.

Shifting to standards requires teachers to broaden their repertoire ofinstructional skills and strategies, and diversify their methods of evaluatingwhat, and how well, students are learning. They must know how to designtests that challenge students to think critically, make connections and applywhat they've learned and, just as important, how to use such tests to meas-ure improvement, diagnose problems promptly and involve parents more ac-tively in assessing their child's learning progress.

Teaching the basics is embedded in teaching to higher standards;contrary to public perception, research shows that teaching higher-orderskills such as critical thinking is not incompatible with teaching the basics.Rather, basic skills form the foundation upon which higher skills arelearned. Higher standards mean higher expectations and greater account-ability for everyone involved in the educational process, more closelylinking what communities expect of schools, what schools expect of commu-nities, and what both expect of students.

We recommend that the Master Plan Panel, in conjunction with theState Board of Education, oversee the design and development of these state-wide standards for K-12 students in math, science, English-language arts,history-social science, foreign language, health, fine arts and physicaleducation.

The new standards should be based primarily, though not exclu-sively, on the state curriculum frameworks; they must reflect a focus notonly on academic skills but also workplace skills. To help ensure that theydo, the state's School-to-Career Task Force should be actively involved indeveloping the standards.

AssessmentsSecond, the Master Plan Panel should be responsible for coordinat-

ing the development of a new statewide assessment system.In designing the new system, California has the opportunity to build

on the work it has already done in the area of statewide assessment, and todraw on an array of other models and prototypes, including the content- andperformance-based assessments that have been developed and field-testedby such groups as New Standards and the California Assessment Collabora-tive; newly revamped commercial tests; and various state-developed mod-els, such as the Vermont Portfolio Assessment System. And, as in thestandards-setting process, it is essential that the Master Plan Pane, take itsideas for a statewide system of assessment to the public to receive input andfeedback.

However California's new statewide assessment program is de-signed or configured, it must be capable of producing reliable statisticalmeasures of individual and collective student performance, and of school

Page 14

and district progress toward implementing standards. We believe it is essen-tial that the new assessment system be in place within a year of the adoptionof statewide standards.

We strongly recommend, however, that California not create an as-sessment system in which evaluation of performance is based solely on thestate-administered test. The new system should both encourage and accom-modate the use of diverse teaching and testing strategies at the local level. Itmust provide schools and districts with the opportunity to demonstrate theirprogress toward improving student achievement using the assessmentmechanism best suited to their instructional program.

Therefore, we suggest that California supplement, and gradually ex-pand, its statewide assessment program by developing a list of additionalcontent- and performance-based tests deemed effective in evaluating studentlearning progress. Schools and districts can use the results from these teststo learn from one another and to compare their progress.

AccountabilityFinally, we recommend that the Master Plan Panel coordinate the

development of a statewide accountability system, the major elements ofwhich are:

Significant community involvement in the planning, monitoring andongoing evaluation of school and district improvement efforts.

Regular reporting to the public, at both the state and local levels, onschool and district progress toward improving educational quality andstudent achievement. Over time, these reports should includeachievement scores by categories of students, such as gender, incomelevel, limited-English proficiency and special needs, to ensure that thesestudents are being well-served.

Rewards for effective performance and sanctions for poor performance.Schools and districts that are energized, focused and making measurableprogress should be granted greater autonomy and financial control, suchas being entitled to retain savings generated by management innovations.On the other end, schools and districts that are unwilling or unable tomove ahead would be subject to sanctions mild at first but growingharsher if performance fails to improve. The box on page 16 details howKentucky is using this strategy to improve accountability.

Page 15

Rewards and ConsequencesThe 1990 Ker.`ucky Education Reform Act required the State Board ofEducation to establish an accountability system to reward schoolsthat improve, tnd define consequences for those that do not.

Financial rewards are distributed In the following way:

The State Board establishes a "threshold' level of improvement foreach school.

Improvement is measured over a two-year period in such areas asstudent achievement, attendance and dropout rates, grade reten-tion, and the percentage of students going on to college, militaryservice or the workplace.

Rewards go to schools that meet their improvement goals. In April1995, Kentucky will distribute more than $26 million in rewards toschools that made the largest gains in performance.

Schools that decline or fail to improve face progressive remedies andsanctions.

A school that fails to reach its threshold goals must prepare an im-provement plan.

A school that falls in this category after the next assessment is as-signed one or more Kentucky Distinguished Educators, who havethe authority to make extensive changes in school operation.

Failure to improve after the third assessment can result in theschool's being declared 'in crisis.° Certified staff are placed on pro-bation, and students' parents are notified of their right to transfertheir child to a "successful' school. The Distinguished Educator as-signed to the school makes recommendations to the superinten-dent as to the retention, dismissal or transfer of school staff. Thisprocess continues every six months until the State Board deter-mines the school is no longer in crisis.

If an entire district is declared "in crisis," the superintendent and localschool board are subject to dismissal, and the district is placed underthe management of one or more Kentucky Distinguished Educatorsassigned by the State Board of Education.

In addition to Kentucky, 20 other states have initiated some form ofacademic bankruptcy provisions. Although all of them face variouschallenges, the idea is spreading across the country.

RECONNECT SCHOOLSAND COMMUNITIES

California must build a public education system that relies on localcontrol and stewardship, one in which families, schools and commu-nities view themselves as equal and essential partners in the educa-

tion process, working together to help all students achieve at higher levels.If the new K-12 achievement system is to work, educators, parents,

business leaders, higher education officials, representatives of taxpayergroups, community members and others must be involved in responding tothe new standards.

We envision a process in which California school boards and theirsuperintendents lead the way in developing and putting forward a detailedplan for implementing school-by-school responses to the new statewidestandards. On the strength of this plan, districts will be allowed to becomeindependent from the existing system, as charter schools currently do.

The responsibility for determining whether school districts areready for this transition, of necessity, will rest with the state. But the state'sobjective must be to encourage and help districts move into the new system,not shut them out.

Nor should the process be rushed: we recommend school districtsbe given until the 2001-2 school year to make the transition.

In this way, we believe California can decentralize and deregulateits school system gradually but comprehensively, and in the manner mostlikely to produce constructive, lasting change.

Setting this process in motion, and sustaining its momentum, willbe an enormously complex task, requiring ingenuity, foresight and sustainedcommitment on the part of California leaders.

For the Master Plan Panel, the major areas of focus will be the de-sign and development of a new governance and regulatory framework and acomprehensive strategy for public outreach and engagement.

New Governance FrameworkThis streamlined regulatory framework, which would govern dis-

tricts moving into the new system, ncludes several components.

School districts should be challenged to redesign themselves around thestandards and provided with incentives to do so: greater autonomy andfreedom from regulation; technical assistance and support; and Nwardsfor initiative, effort and innovation.

Comprehensive regulatory relief and greater autonomy should be pro-vided in such areas as staffing, planning, budgeting, program design, pro-fessional development anu facilities management, rather than piecemealexemptions and waivers from existing rules, laws and policies.

A set of "safeguards" must be included to ensure that equity, safety, fis-cal responsibility and other matters of public interest are not compro-mised. Rather than painstakingly reviewing each item in the currentregulatory system and arguing out redundant or unnecessary provisions,we recommend starting the new system from scratch, with a process forarguing in needed safeguards in such areas as liability, transportation,

Design a newgovernanceframework fortheachievement-based system.

Design aprocess thatallows schooldistricts to movefrom theexisting schocisystem into thenew system.

Seta 2001-2school yeardeadline for alldistricts tomake thetransition to thenewachievementsystem.

Page 17

Raise the capon the numberof charterschools allowed.

Involve thepublic indecisions aboutimproving theeducationsystem.

Page 18

health standards, employee rights, recordkeeping, the handling of special-needs students and the use of categorical funds. The purpose of thesestreamlined safeguards is to allow aziults working in the education systemto keep their focus on student achievemoilt.

An application-and-review process for moving school districts into thenew system. The focal point of this process must be the specific goals,commitments and targets that school districts will be held accountable forin terms of improving student achievement.

We recommend that each district be required to put forward a detailedproposal what we call an Enterprise Plan for how each of itsschools intend to redesign curriculum, instruction, assessment andprofessional development around the new statewide standards; reportprogress toward their achievement goals for diverse groups of students;involve parents and community members in decisionmaking; integratetechnology into instruction, assessment, school management andnetworks that link like-minded educators; and use partnerships, networksand other support structures to strengthen improvement efforts.

An increase in the current cap on charter schools. This step is needed toaccommodate individual schools that are struggling under the constraintsof the existing system but whose district may not be ready for the moveto the new achievement-based system.

We believe the Charter Schools Act of 1992 should be revised to allowthe establishment of up to 500 charters, raising the current cap of 100.The responsibility for granting charters should continue to rest with localschool districts, although standards and assessment strategies used incharter schools must be consistent with those set statewide.

Public EngagementClearly, communicating effectively with the public is an essential

part of any and all reform efforts. California leaders must make a concertedand sustained effort to involve citizens in an ongoing discussion about Cali-fornia's present and future education needs. Citizens need to have a clearersense of what's at stake; they need to understand fully the deficiencies ofthe existing school system and the consequences of failing to address them.

Long accustomed to making decisions about schooling in isolation,policymakers and educators now must face the fact that many other peopleexpect to be essential partners in the education enterprise. People want infor-mation, they want an opportunity to express their concerns and interests,they want to know that their views are being listened to and considered andthat their taxes are being used wisely.

We believe that a key component of the California Master Plan isthe development of a public information and outreach plan. We recom-mend building on the work of Public Agenda, Children Now and the Califor-nia Congress of Parents, Teachers and Students, whose recent reports offer avariety of strategies for stimulating public interest, engagement and support.Among the key principles of this plan:

Address public concerns about change. How do we know our currentsystem is falling short? Why are some segments of the student populationserved less successfully than others? What has been learned over the pastdecade of reform that can help schools do a better job of educating kids?And what are the consequences of leaving the existing systemunchanged?

24

Use innovative strategies to bring people together to discuss thestate's present and future education needs. Include people outside thesystem, inside the system and those who identify themselves as critics.The public must be given opportunities, such as town hall meetings andinteractive media events, to share their views about education withpoliticians, community leaders, the media and their fellow citizens. Inparticular, we recommend that a series of regional hearings be held tostimulate public interest and involvement in the Master Plan.

Give people choices. Each choice must stem from a distinct diagnosis ofthe problem, reflect a core of widely shared values and suggest a specificcourse of action. The choices available must embrace all legitimatepoints of view in the debate, including those that are controversial.

Work to find common ground. When educators and policymakersinvite others to the table, they must do it sincerely and with theunderstanding that everyone has something valuable to contribute. Thesolutions arrived at will reflect diverse thinking and likely will be moreeffective and lasting than those imposed by one group without the inputof other groups.

Focus on students. None of our efforts matter unless they lead to morestudents achieving at much higher levels.

Pcge 20

Safety, Order and "the Basics"Public ConcernsAlthough most Americans favor holding students to higher standardsof achievement, they don't think standards alone will improveschools. In fact, the public believes this approach to school reformwill fail without attention to more bottom-line issues: safety, order andmastery of the basics," according to a recent report.

Education leaders seeking to engage the public in school improve-ment will be interested in these findings:

Most Americans believe too many public schools are not providingthe minimum prerequisites a safe, orderly environment and ef-fective teaching of the basks." Americans believe schools are sodisorderly and undisciplined that learning cannot take place. Andtheir concern about order has been joined by a new fear thatschools are violent and unsafe.

The public neither understands nor accepts the new teachingmethods that often accompany reform. Most Americans view withskepticism approaches such as focusing on math concepts ratherthan rote learning, eliminating student "tracking" and replacingstandardized tests with more "authentic" assessments.

Americans still trust teachers, principals and school boards tomake decisions about how to manage the schools but theirtrust is wavering.

Most Americans are not overly concerned about issues such assex education and multiculturalism, which have caused acrimoni-ous debate in many communities. However, they do want schoolsto teach some values, particularly honesty, truthfulness and the im-portance of being able to live together in harmony.

Americans believe learning can be fun and interesting and wantschools to help children enjoy their education and become moreconfident and self-assured.

(First Things First: What Americans Expect From the Public Schools,Public Agenda, 1994)

2.

AMMICIM

BUILD A FRAMFWORKOF SUPPORT FOR THENEW SYSTEM OF SCHOOLS

The first two components of our recommended agenda for Californiaarc aimed at focusing systemwide reform and giving it a grassrootsbase of action. The third component is the development of a stronger

infrastructure of support for reform, including:

Improve the Education and Training of School Staff Members. It is

critical that teachers, administrators and others who connect with studentson a daily basis receive top-notch, relevant training as they prepare towork in schools and throughout their career. School staffs should havemore flexibility and autonomy in planning how to improve studentachievement. In turn, they will be held accountable for studentperformance. This new accountability and the tough changes proposed inthis report require new skills for virtually every staff member.

Identify and Strengthen Networks, Partnerships and Other SupportStructures. The Master Plan should promote and nurturepartnership- building within the K-12 system, between the K-12 andpostsecondary systems, between public education and other human-service systems, and between the education system and businesscommunity. It should encourage connecting people and providing themwith links to education reform information and ideas.

Expand Technological Capacity. Leadership is needed to develop anaction plan that will improve California's educational technologycapacity. We view technology as essential in capturing the interest ofstudents in how and what they learn; increasing the organizational andinstructional leadership skills of teachers, administrators and others;providing greater access to local, regional and statewide school-reformnetworks; and preparing students for the workplace.

Attend to the Special Needs of Urban Schools and Districts. In manyurban areas, everyday issues are overwhelming poverty, violence,cultural differences, broken families, overcrowding, turf wars, patronage.State leaders must address these obstacles by raising expectations forstudent achievement in urban areas, where cynicism is high andexpectations are low. In addition, they need to look at strengtheningschool-community ties; granting decisionmaking and budget authority toschools; and coordinating education, health and social services.

Provide an Adequately and Equitably Funded Education System.Current state funding of schools in California is largely unrelated toimproving student achievement. In addition, a downturn in the state'seconomy over the past few years has eroded schools' purchasing power.To address these and other funding issues, we recommend that the MasterPlan Panel find ways to give schools and districts more control overraising and spending money; tie school finance to student achievement;identify new ways to fund capital improvements; focus dollars to be spent

Page 21

WYOMINGPreparationof Educators

The University ofWyoming has mademajor changes in Itsteacher educationprogram, including:

Sophomore andjunior educationmajors spend time Inschools.

The 12-week studentresidency wasincreased to 16weeks.

Teacher trainees areexposed to all levelsof the educationsystem, not just thelevel they think theywant to teach.

The State Departmentof Education reportsthat, as a result, fewerstudents fall than in thepast, and saysteachers trained underthis program are betterequipped to succeed.

Wyoming also ismoving toward acompetency-basedcertification process,Including the use ofportfolios to evaluateteachers.

Page 22

on professional development; invest in technology; and take advantage offederal initiatives that provide support and flexibility for state schoolreform efforts.

V Improve the Education and Trainingof School Staff Members

Creating a new system of schools will not occur unless people whowork in the schools acquire the skills and knowledge they need to work in anew teaching and learning environment. How well teachers, administrators,aides and other people working in schools are prepared to work with stu-dents; how much support, guidance and relevant training they receive; andhow well they are able to apply their training and knowledge to help all stu-dents are critical to improving the education system. Without effectiveschool staff members who can motivate students to learn and grow, reformefforts will be severely limited in their capacity to bring about real change.

Several issues affect how well school staff perform in the classroomand/or school, among them the quality of education they receive in state col-leges or universities, the types and quality of professional development op-portunities, and the flexibility provided in collective bargaining contracts andtenure laws.

Insist the K-12 and Postsecondary Systems WorkTogether To Redesign the Preparation of Educators

Most teacher and administrator education programs do not currentlyproduce graduates able to work in different school environments, contributeto a school-based planning and accountability system, participate in continu-ing personal and school renewal programs, and help all types of studentsachieve.

If K-12 education is to improve dramatically, California's collegesand universities must be sure that the teachers and administrators they trainare prepared to work in schools that are part of the new achievement system.To ensure that teachers and administrators understand the statewide stand-ards and assessment systems and know how to help all students reach thesestandards, the state should continue moving toward a competency-based cer-tification system. Such a system would define the skills, knowledge and abili-ties expected of current and future educators when they enter the schooldoor. Evaluation and advancement of teachers would be based on demon-strated teaching ability, subject-area knowledge and contribution to the de-sign and implementation of the school's component of a district's EnterprisePlan.

Schools and districts would serve as the training grounds in whichteacher and administrator education (and professional development) are rein-vented. Prospective teachers would have the opportunity to learn in environ-ments that encourage creativity, enlightened practice and a sense ofcollective purpose. Student teachers would benefit from the chance to serve ayear-long apprenticeship in one or two schools, supervised by a team of expe-rienced mentors. The state already has begun this process in its review ofteacher credentialing.

28

Decentralize Professional Developmentto the School and District Levels

In FY 1994-95, California spent around $106 million of state fundson professional development the ongoing education of teachers, princi-pals and superintendents to help them continue to grow, learn new skills andthereby improve student learning. Federal and district funds add consider-ably more money to the pot, as do out-of-pocket teacher and administratorexpenditures. However, too little of the time and money spent on profes-sional development in California is aligned with improving student learningor the way schools operate.

Because many schools lack a vision of what is needed to achieve stu-dent success, many educators lack direction in their selection of professionaldevelopment activities. Learning opportunities directly related to improvingstudent achievement often are not an important part of the culture at mostschools. Many professional development programs mandated by the districtare developed with little teacher input and feel to teachers like "one size"should fit all.

Even when educators decide to avail themselves of professionaldevelopment opportunities on their own, they receive little or no guidancefrom their school as to what courses would help improve their teaching. Thecourses available at local universities are designed so far in advance, and sofar away from local schools, that they often do not provide what individualteachers need to better serve their students.

Staff Development in CaliforniaA study of staff development in California found the state lacks a com-prehensive or consistent policy for meeting the continuing professional-growth needs of teachers and administrators.

Among the key findings:

Direct spending in professional development programs for teachersand administrators constitutes about 1.8% of the state's annual edu-cation funds.

An additional investment Is the financial obligation for salary increas-es that teachers receive by accumulating college course credits.

For every dollar spent on professional development, teachers con-tribute 60 cents in uncompensated time.

Most professional development programs are designed and admin-istered at the district level.

Professional development resources are used in ways that gener-ally reinforce traditional teaching methods and school structures.

Professional development rarely is evaluated in terms of its effectson teachers and students.

(Staff Development in California; Little, Gerritz, Stem, Guthrie, Kirstand March; Policy Analysis for California Education, 1987)

20

WASHINGTONProfessional

Development

Washington isexpanding professionalgrowth opportunities forschool staff members.

In some districts, allschool employees areeligible for retraining andprofessionaldevelopment programs,not just teachers.

For example, InEdmonds, teachers, busdrivers, cooks and othersupport personnelrecently attended aconference onyear-round schooling.

And in Seattle, teachersmay work on master'sdegrees at the schoolsite, Seattle CityUniversity offers coursesat a reduced rate, andmany teachers developthair own course ofstudy.

Page 23

Page 24

The use of professional development funds needs to be examined todetermine if California is getting effective professional development for itsinvestment. California must give teachers, administrators and other staff theskills and support they need to transform their schools into environmentswhere .amwork, initiative and innovation are promoted and used to im-prove individual and collective performance.

Five Key Principles of EffectiveProfessional DevelopmentA recent report that studied professional development in eight statesoffered the following principles for redesigning teacher-developmentprograms:

Effective professional development Is school based. Teachersmust be involved in the design and implementation of their ownprofessional development activities.

Effective professional development uses coaching and otherfollow-up procedures. Coaching by experts and peers givesteachers the opportunity to observe one another and provide feed-back and support, and has a lasting effect on teachers' behavior inthe classroom.

Effective professional development is collaborative. Collegialnetworks across the district, state or nation allow teachers to worktogether to improve teaching and learning.

Effective professional development is embedded in the dailylives of teachers. Continuous learning opportunities must be partof teachers' everyday lives and part of every school's institutionalpriorities.

Effective professional development focuses on student learn-ing and is evaluated at least In part on that basis. Unless stu-dent learning improves, professional development cannot beconsidered a complete success.

(Professional Development and Teacher Time, Indiana EducationPolicy Center, Indiana University, November 1994)

Equally important is the opportunity to work with peers. Educatorswho can decide with their colleagues what types of professional develop-ment opportunities the individual or group needs are likely to he more effec-tive in working with one another and students. Educators who work inisolation tend to stick with methods they are used to even if those meth-ods do not work very well.

The lack of telephones, computer links and opportunities to net-work with peers further isolates teachers and other staff and limits their abil-ity to learn and grow. An environment of collegiality and adequate time tocommunicate with peers about where the school is headed makes a tremen-dous difference in how educators respond to their students and in how stu-dents achieve. School hoard members, too, must be included in and

J0

provided with professional development opportunities. As site-based deci-sionmaking becomes more commonplace, local board members must betrained to work more as a resource to and supporter of schools and less as asupervisory body.

How to improve teaching and learning through professional devel-opment must be a continuous activity within schools, districts and commu-nities; it is not something that can be learned in an occasional workshop. Inthe end, no course or training session can compare with teachers, adminis-trators and other school staff regularly sitting down together to share ideasand problems, discuss new ways of doing things and evaluate results on anongoing basis. The regionally based California Subject Matter Projects, forexample, have been successful in creating such communities of discourse.

We recommend that the Master Plan Panel look at specific ways toimprove and expand professional development opportunities shown to im-prove student learning. California's School Personnel, Staff Developmentand Resource Center law, Chapter 3.1 of the Elementary and SecondaryEducation Code, moves the state toward achieving this goal. By calling forprofessional development to be designed by teachers, administrators andother staff who work with students, the legislation already has put in placethe essential step shifting such decisions to the school.

The new achievement system will strengthen he legislation by en-suring that teachers, administrators and other people involved in the schooldecide how their school will achieve locally established goals and priori-ties. This vision will help them select professional development activities.

Further, the panel should build on the accomplishments that re-sulted from the 1987 staff development study previously mentioned. Theseactivities include the California Subject Matter Projects, Regioial ResourceCenters, California School Leadership Academy and the BeginningTeacher Support and Assessment Program.

Each district moving to the new achievement system must includein its Enterprise Plan a list of school-level professional development needs,a strategy for meeting future professional development needs and specificson how teachers, administrators and staff will share what they learn withothers. Teachers will need professional development focused on implement-ing new state standards, curriculum frameworks and assessments. Assis-tance from networks and partnerships, especially partnerships with thehigher education community, can help staff glean new ideas aboutimproving student learning.

To help teachers get the professional development they need, theMaster Plan Panel should review, evaluate and catalogue groups offeringprofessional development, including universities and county boards, amongothers. This list would be part of the "Inventory of Networks, Partnershipsand Other Support Structures" (as noted in the Networks and Partnershipssection). Educators would not be limited to choosing from this list, butcould use it as a guide to availability and quality of programs.

We also recommend that the Master Plan Panel include a strategyfor dealing with the growing linguistic and cultural diversity of the state'sschool-age population. Like educator preparation programs, professional de-velopment opportunities should provide all teachers not just a smallcadre of bilingual teachers with training in teaching children from di-verse cultural backgrounds.

32

CALIFORNIACooperative Labor

Relations

The CaliforniaFoundation forImprovement ofEmployer-EmployeeRelations brings togetherkey decislonmakers inschool districts to learnnew approaches tonegotiations,problem-solving andcommunication.

The goal is to improveworking relationshipsand help participantsfunction moreeffectively as a team.

Page 26

Page 26

The plan also should provide for new ways to recruit more minoritycandidates into teaching, bring in professionals who want to teach as a sec-ond career and reassign teachers into areas of shortage. Broadening opportu-nities to bring people from a diversity of ethnic backgrounds and careersinto the teaching profession will enlarge California's supply of quality teach-ers. Pilot programs on the California State University and University of Cali-fornia campuses, for example, have successfully done this withparaprofessionals, whose ranks closely reflect the ethnic and social diversityof students. The California New Teacher Project also has been successful inrecruiting people with diverse backgrounds and career experiences andpreparing them to enter the teaching profession.

Build Greater Flexibility into the CollectiveBargaining Process

School staffs need the flexibility to decide for themselves how toput into place their plan for enhancing student achievement. They shouldhave the authority to change work rules and working agreements if needed.As noted throughout this report, school staffs will be held more accountablefor student learning as they are given more flexibility and authority to de-cide what their schools need. We believe this increased accountability willrequire teachers and administrators to perform at high levels, resulting inschool staffs policing themselves. How this will happen should be part of adistrict's Enterprise Plan. To make school-based decisionmaking more effec-tive, collective bargaining agreements need to provide more flexibility andautonomy for school staffs.

Higher Education Critical to ImprovingK-12 EducationGuided by the California Master Plan for Higher Education, the statehas made tremenaous progress over the past three decades inimproving its colleges and universities.

But California's changing economy, the increasing diversity of its popu-lation and the move to an achievement-based K-12 system dictate thatstate leaders take an in-depth look at a number of key postsecondaryeducation issues. Some of those issues education and professionaldevelopment of teachers and administrators, and school-college col-laboration are discussed elsewhere in this report. Other key issuesstate leaders need to address include, but are not limited to, thefollowing:

Higher education admissions policies and other critical linksbetween the K-12 and postsecondary systems. To link with pro-posed K-12 reforms, California colleges and universities need tomove away from the current emphasis on grade-point averages andSAT/ACT scores and accommodate new methods of assessing stu-dent learning, such as competency-based portfolios, exhibitions andother "authentic" assessments. California needs to ensure that ad-missions policies reflect new standards and competencies set forstudents and that students who learn in ways not reflected by SATsand grade averages have opportunities for a postsecondaryeducation.

The overall quality, efficiency and accessibility of the highereducation system. The Governor has proposed a change in bud-geting strategy that could improve quality in two major university sys-tems: California State University and the University of California. Hehas called for a four-year compact between the state and the univer-sity systems to cre9te budget stability and renew the state's Invest-ment in higher education. The proposal calls for reversing some ofthe financial losses the institutions have suffered In turn for a re-newed commitment to teaching, greater productivity and provision ofclasses that will enable students to achieve degrees in less time.

3 a

11110111111211111==

Page 27

OHIOBusiness

Involvement

When voters defeateda tax levy increase In1990, the CincinnatiBusiness Committeeconducted aperformance audit ofthe school system andrecommendedImprovements.

The committeesuggested ways toIncrease central officeefficiency, Improvecommunicationsbetween schools andthe central office, andImprove teachertraining.

Appointment of a newsuperintendent pavedthe way for athree-way partnershipamong the district, thebusiness communityand the teachers'union.

The result: the centraloffice was reorganized,and greater authoritygiven to schools; a pilot"cluster district" wasestablished to test newreform ideas; and aprofessionaldevelopmentacademy opened.

Page 28

Identify Networks, Partnershipsand Other Support Structures

As California leaders struggle to balance "top-down" and "bottom-up" policy approaches, they must not lose sight of the fact that reform isalso a horizontal process: good ideas flow across the system from school toschool, person to person, and community to community.

To date, many decisions about what reform efforts to undertakehave been made centrally, either statewide or districtwide. For example,California adopted a statewide bilingual education program that prescribedcertain strategies when alternative strategies would have been more appro-priate in some communities. And well-intentioned reform efforts have diedbecause parents were not brought in until decisions already were made.

This lack of communication and understanding between the stateand districts and between districts and school communities has increasedskepticism by parents, professionals and the larger community about stateofficials' ability to make appropriate decisions about what is needed in agiven community or for a given group of students.

Efforts to increase local control have proved difficult, however.Teachers, parents, administrators, students, policymakers, businesspeopleand other citizens struggle to find information about what is and is not work-ing in the education system. When they get the data, many people do notthink about sharing it or find it hard to do across the system. As a result,new education reform efforts that could help students achieve don't takehold or don't last. For example, changes advocated by a school principalmay collapse if the principal leaves the school and the rest of the commu-nity was not part of the process.

If school improvement is to succeed end continue, there must be bet-ter information, greater access to information and more involvement inschool improvement efforts by parents, students, employers, service provid-ers and other key players at the local level, and between the local and statelevels.

Inventory Networks and PartnershipsExpanding partnerships and networks that link teachers to teachers,

schools to schools, schools to communities and schools to other organiza-tions are essential if proposed reforms are to succeed.

We recommend the Master Plan Panel, in conjunction with theState Department of Education, take a close look at and develop an inven-tory of networks and partnerships working on education reform and other re-lated issues. These include networks of teachers, schools, districts andpostsecondary institutions focusing on such areas as student assessment, cur-riculum design, school restructuring, teacher preparation, professional devel-opment, technology-based education and school management.

Other networks worth examining include those focused on specificsubject areas, such as math, and innovative reform ideas both inside and out-side the state, such as California's elementary, middle and high school net-works, and the network of recipients of SB1274 school reform grants.Examples of networks outside the state include the New American SchoolsDevelopment Corporation designs, Accelerated Schools and many others.

These networks link people interested in similar reform strategiesand provide a wealth of information and support. They also can provideschool officials and community members information about the latest

3 .1

thinking on such issues as standards, curriculum and evidence that reformworks, and support schools trying to reform.

The Master Plan Panel also should look at partnerships betweenhigher education institutions and local K-I 2 schools and districts. A growingnumber of these partnerships in California and nationwide are playing a keyrcle in education reform by changing both K-12 and higher education. Theytend to be characterized by sharing facilities, faculties and responsibilitiesfor goal-setting, budgeting and planning, and by awarding dual highschool/college credits. The Master Plan Panel should encourage these typesof partnerships as a strategy for linking higher education and K-12 reforms.

Finally, the panel should review existing partnerships involvingschools and businesses, as well as partnerships that involve people from vari-ous agencies that serve children and families, such as health, education andsocial services (see "Work Cooperatively Across Agencies" and "LinkBusinesses to Reform Efforts" in this section).

Expand Access to Networks and PartnershipsOnce the inventory of the various partnerships and networks is com-

piled, the Master Plan Panel should review each network's capacity to assistand expand the number of schools served and respond to needs outlined inEnterprise Plans. It then should make the inventory including informationabout what works and why widely available to schools, health and socialservice agencies, community organizations, the business community,postsecondary institutions and others.

This list can serve as a guide to what is available and provide mod-els for additional partnerships and networks. The information should be regu-larly updated and made available in printed and electronic formats andthrough state, regional and local meetings.

The Master Plan Panel should develop an array of incentives andrecommend that schools and districts participate in at least one suchpartnership or effort as part of their Enterprise Plan.

Work Cooperatively Across AgenciesWorking across agencies is even more difficult than sharing ideas

across the education system. Inflexible, one-size-fits-all regulations thatmake it hard for various agencies to work cooperatively for the sake of chil-dren must be removed. When education, health and social service agencypersonnel work in isolation, duplication and waste result, and children andfamilies go unserved because there is no one agency or person responsiblefor looking after their needs.

An emerging role for pupil support personnel working in schoolspsychologists, nurses, counselors, etc. is to manage the relationships andconnections among related agencies that deal with children and families intheir schools.

We recommend that the Master Plan Panel review the recent reportsof Children Now, the California Congress of Parents, Teachers and Students,and California Tomorrow, which offer a variety of strategies for rebuildingfamily-school-community connections.

In addition, the Governor should strongly encourage the directors ofstate agencies serving children and families to actively participate in andbulk on existing partnerships, such as the California Partnerships for Com-prehensive, Integrated School-Linked Services. In turn, participating

NORTH CAROLINASchool-Community

Partnerships

Over the past twoyears, the NorthCarolina legislature haspassed a number ofInitiatives to strengthenthe ability of schoolsand communities towork together tocreate safer schools.These Initiatives providemore than $25 millionto:

Assist community-based programs thatprovide after-schoolactivities for at-riskyouth

Establish familyresource centers thatcoordinate servicesfor children andfamilies

Support programsthat encouragefamilies, schools andcommunities to worktogether to Improveschool safety

Hire additionalschool counselors,social workers andpsychologists, andreduce class size.

Page 29

Page 30

agencies should empower their staffs to take part in local discussions in or-der to form more effective local partnerships that address the needs of spe-cific communities.

The state also should explore ways to expand participation in pro-grams such as Healthy Start and Medi Cal Reimbursement.

Local- and state-level agencies and organizations not part of exist-ing partnerships should be inventoried to see what services they provide andwhat duplication occurs across agencies and sites. Those agencies and or-ganizations should be encouraged and assisted to form new or join existingpartnerships in order to serve citizens more efficiently and use taxpayers'money wisely.

Several existing efforts at the state and local levels, including theHealthy Start program and the work supported by AB 1741, allow selectedcounties to blend state fends across categorical lines. Under these programs,school districts have 57:' are flexibility in how and when they use pupil-serv-ices professionals and are able to provide multiple services at one location.This flexibility allows schools to better tailor services to meet the needs ofchildren and families.

In conjunction with this, the Master Plan Panel should consider sub-mitting a proposal to federal agencies that serve the needs of childrensuch as the Health and Human Services, Education and Labor Departments

and seek permission to blend federal funds across categorical lines as nec-essary to address the many needs of children, families and communities.

Link Businesses to Reform EffortsBusiness partnerships today are moving beyond supporting school

and district projects and programs to focusing on changing teaching andlearning environments and redesigning district and state systems. The goal isto enhance student achievement and to link education reform to workforcepreparation.

Examples of this generation of business partnerships include theCalifornia Business Roundtable, the work involving the Los Angeles Educa-tional Partnership and the Los Angeles Educational Alliance for Restructur-ing Now, and the local workforce partnerships that resulted from theIndustry Education Council of California project. Schools and districts needto build on such partnerships to benefit from their expertise and to ensurethat business representatives are included in efforts to better prepare studentsfor the workforce.

36

Expand the Education System'sTechnological Capacity

Over the past decade, considerable attention has been paid to improv-ing the technological capacity of California schools, including efforts to de-velop a statewide technology master plan. The urgency and importance ofintegrating technology into the state's public education system has beenpointed out in recent studies and reports from such groups as the CaliforniaBusiness Roundtable, the Council on California Competitiveness, the Califor-nia Teachers' Association and the State Workforce Literacy Task Force.

However, implementation efforts have been disconnected, unfocusedand hampered by a lack of funding. In fact, among the 50 states, Californiaranks near the bottom in the ratio of computers to students, and most of thestate's schools are not even wired to accommodate state-of-the-art tech-nology, such as high-speed Internet links and video teleconferencingcapabilities.

In addition to insufficient resources, the lack of incentives and sup-port for teachers to become knowledgeable about and comfortable with tech-nology poses a major roadblock. Technology simply is not part of the cultureof most schools.

Yet many of today's students are interested in and skilled at variousforms of technology. Without technology available in classrooms, studentsoften don't see the education they receive as interesting or relevant. Andwith today's workplace becoming increasingly high-tech, schools that don'tkeep up with technological developments are not adequately preparing stu-dents for the workplace.

Various technologies computer-based, video and teleconferenc-ing have the potential to improve school management, increase teacherproductivity and, in a school system struggling with rapid enrollmentgrowth, provide students with more individualized learning opportunitiesand a small-class environment. In addition, technology-based networks havethe potential to accelerate systemwide reform by linking innovative schoolsand practitioners at all levels of the education system.

Executive Leadership NeededWe believe the issue of education technology has been studied suffi-

ciently in California. What is needed now is executive leadership in order tomove forward. Therefore, we recommend that the Governor and Superinten-dent of Public Instruction jointly undertake a review of all the major technol-ogy initiatives and implementation strategies on the table, including therecent report of the Education Infrastructure Funding Forum. They should de-velop a specific action plan to be submitted to the Legislature and localschool boards. In this instance, we believe it is more appropriate for the Gov-ernor and Superintendent to take on this task than the Master Plan Panelsince multiple state agencies could be involved.

Some of the major issues the Governor and Superintendent need toaddress in this plan include:

Expanding training opportunities for teachers, administrators andother staff. Such opportunities would ensure that all school staff can usecomputer-based technology effectively and integrate it into curriculum,instruction, communications and management. Some safeguards should beput in place to ensure that these programs focus on how to use technology

NationalMathlIne

Twenty public televisionstations, including two inLos Angeles, areparticipating InMATHLINE, a new serviceaimed at improvingmiddle-school mathteachers' professionalskills and students' mathachievement.

The first phase ofMATHLINE, initiated In fall1994 by the PublicBroadcasting Service,has three components:

A series of 25 videosto help math teachersbroaden theirteaching skills andstrategies

Two nationalteleconferences forteachers

An on-line networklinking teachers with amaster teacher.

MATHLINE is beingdeveloped Incooperation with theNational Council ofTeachers ofMathematics, withsupport from theCarnegie Corporationand the AT&TFoundation,

Page 31

CALIFORNIATechnologyInfrastructure

Pacific Bell hascommitted $100 millionover the next two yearsto wire 8,600 Californiaschools, libraries andcommunity colleges forhigh-speed video, voiceand data transmissior.

The company haschallenged otherbusinesses to contribute.

In addition, theCalifornia Public UtilitiesCommission recently setaside $37 million from arate-payer settlementto strengtheneducationaltechnology andtelecommunicationsInfrastructure in publicschools.

Page 32

to improve administrative functions and teaching and learning practicesnot as a fancier means to achieve the same end or as expensive add-ons

to the old-style classroom.

Developing funding sources. New strategies should include federalfunds, utility surcharges and/or a statewide bond issue, and the creation ofpublic/private partnerships (leveraging the offers recently made by PacificBell, GTE and other major corporations). A component of the federalGoals 2000 legislation provides funding for state technology planning.Last year, the California Education Summit called for stepped-up effortsto develop funding sources other than the state budget to begin building atechnology infrastructure for public education, and we agree that the stateshould move ahead on this.

Distributing technology funds in new ways. These include such meansas matching state grants for school-, district- and community-basedtechnology implementation efforts once schools and districts have movedinto the new achievement system. Funding priority should be given toproposals that focus on integrating technology into curriculum, instructionand professional development; strengthening links to higher education;and expanding access to existing grade-level, subject-area andwhole-school restructuring networks. In addition, technical support andcoaching should be made available to schools and districts to help themdevelop their proposals.

35

V Restore the Strength and Vitalityof Urban Schools

California must give special attention to urban school districts,where the need for change and improvement is particularly urgent. Urbanschool districts provide some of the state's greatest challenges their popu-lations are most culturally, linguistically and economically diverse; needs aremost pressing; and politics most intense. In addition, the sheer size of mosturban districts prohibits central offices from being responsive to individualschools. In fact, many urban districts have come to represent the traditionalsystem at its most difficult.

Urban schools face considerable barriers in helping a troubled andneedy population. Most urban schools are cut off from their states and oftenfrom the communities they serve. Middle-class families are fleeing to thesuburbs. Urban/rural/suburban interests are polarized in the Legislature, mi-nority parents are alienated, and community involvement difficult to obtain.The sheer size and complexity of the problems all add up to make schoolssuch as those in Los Angeles, Oakland, San Francisco and San Diego evenMGR.' isolated from one another than schools in other districts.

The organization, structure and operational style of most urbanschool districts make it impossible for classroom successes to become therule rather than the exception. Urban school reform is often constrained andthwarted by district bureaucracy, collective bargaining, patronage and a chok-ing maze of legal and regulatory constraints. By and large, policies in Cali-fornia's urban districts, like those in many urban areas across the country,are driven by the needs of adults who work in the system, not by academicpriorities and the needs of students.

In addition, most urban schools hold low expectations for students.Many policymakers and citizens say they are losing hope for urban studentsand the public schools they attend. They are not sure these students canlearn; they are not confident these teachers can teach; they do not believe ur-ban school systems can change thoroughly enough or fast enough to turn thesituation around. As less is expected, less is achieved. As less is achieved,cynicism deepens about whether poor, minority children can achieve at highlevels and whether schools full of such children can perform at high levels.

The increasing violence among our young people tells us every daythat many urban students are not getting what they need to help them becomeproductive citizens. Each urban youth who commits an act of violence is an-other person who threatens the very core of our country and our states. IfCalifornia's urban schools do not improve dramatically, California's finan-cial future will continue to decline as these young people drain the state's so-cial welfare systems and give nothing back in return.

Such problems were recognized in the final report of the 1994 Cali-fornia Education Summit. The report noted "a compelling need to target re-sources and initiatives in schools and communities with large concentrationsof at-risk students." The adverse conditions in which so many urban childrengrow up must be acknowledged as significant harriers to learning, the reportsaid, "but they should not be used to excuse inadequate instructional pro-grams. California must be committed to quality education for all of itschildren."

3;1

CALIFORNIASchool Safety

Only 2-3% of Californiaeducators report a"very big" violenceproblem in theirschools, according to aNovember 1994 report.However, incidentsinvolving less seriousforms of violence, suchas bullying or pushing,occur frequently.

Crime rates inCalifornia schools havefluctuated over thepast several years.Property crimes,substance abuse, sexoffenses and thefthave decreased, butweapons possession,menacing and assaultshave increased, thereport said,

(Creating CaringRelationships to FosterAcademic Excellence,California Commissionon SchoolCredentialIng advisorypanel on schoolviolence)

Page 33

CALIFORNIADistrict

Restructuring

San Diego is working toestablish "schoolclusters" as the primaryunit of educationchange andImprovement,

Each cluster consists ofa senior high schooland its feederelementary andmiddle schools.

Cluster schools shareresources, planprofessionaldevelopmentopportunities and worktogether to ensurestudents have asmooth transition fromone school to another,

Page 34

We know that urban schools can be turned around and that they, inturn, can turn around the lives of young people. We know that young peoplewho are actively involved in their schools succeed and do not commit thecrime! that we read of so often.

Appoint a Special Urban Education Task ForceTo address the unique problems of urban schools, we recommend

that the Governor and Legislature, in conjunction with the State Superinten-dent, appoint an urban education task force to develop a comprehensivestrategy for restoring the strength and vitality of urban schools. We are sug-gesting a special task force because the problems of urban schools are too se-vere for the Master Plan Panel alone to address in addition to the otherproposals in this report. This task force should include representatives of theMaster Plan Panel, the School-To-Career Task Force and others involved inimproving urban education.

The task force should build on the work begun by the Assembly Se-lect Committee on Urban Education Quality in considering how the statecan work with urban schools to build a policy environment that encouragesthe spread of successful strategies and greater collaboration among serviceproviders in urban areas. Programs such as San Francisco's School Improve-ment Program, for example, and San Francisco State University's Step-to-College/Mission-to-College program integrate an academic focus withbroader community supports.

School-community collaborations that provide each student with anadult mentor and/or advocate (parent, teacher, pupil-services professional,Big Brother/Sister) also have proved to be effective. Organizations such asOne to One and Cities in Schools allow families, schools and communitiesto work together to create a web of activities to connect young people to oneanother, to adult role models and to their neighborhoods. The challenge is tomake these opportunities widely available throughout the state in order toserve a greater number of urban young people.

Raise Expectations for Student AchievementOne issue the task force must address is how to raise expectations

for student achievement in urban schools. Urban school systems must haveexpectations at least as high as any other school district's. Development ofstate standards and an assessment system tied to those standards are the firststeps in raising expectations for urban schools. Another critical componentis bringing urban schools into the proposed achievement system, where thefocus is on higher student achievement A third component is making surehigher expectations for urban schools are part of the state's public engage-ment effort.

Create Incentives for Urban Districts To Restructureand Decentralize

Moving into the new achievement-based system is critical for urbanschools. Increased flexibility and reduced supervision will allow them tostart with a clean slate in making decisions for their young people. Urbanschools above all others need flexibility in collective bargaining agreementsto give staff opportunities to redesign their working conditions as needed. Itis also critical for urban schools to join existing networks or form new onesthat can provide the support and encouragement they need.

40

The Master Plan Panel should ask the State Board of Education todefine for the state, and particularly for the work of the task force, what alarge urban district is. Schools in these districts then should be allowed towork together to create an Enterprise Plan for moving as a cluster into thenew achievement system. (Smaller districts will have to move as entire dis-tricts.)

Urban schools or groups of schools also should be encouraged towork together in new ways that enable them to better meet the academicneeds of their students. This includes consideration of such alternative or-ganizational structures as "feeder patterns," "pathways," "learning zones"and "clusters," in which school staffs with like-minded approaches or strate-gies work together to create a consistent learning environment and supportone another. Los Angeles is an example of an urban district working to im-plement such a cluster strategy.

Strengthen the Ability of Families and CommunitiesTo Work Together on Behalf of Children

This redesign of district structure and organization cannot be accom-plished without some decisionmaking and budget authority granted toschools. School-based governance groups should include administrators,teachers, pupil-service professionals, non-certified staff, parents, studentsand community members. This group should have the authority to shape acoherent teaching and learning environment for students, including joiningwhatever networks and/or partnerships they believe will help them meet stu-dents' needs. In order to carry out their responsibilities, the group needs ade-quate and understandable information on such topics as curriculum issues,school designs, state and district standards, and opportunities for cross-agency collaboration.

In addition, the group should have the authority to use a greater por-tion of the funds flowing to the school for investing in staff developmentand other school priorities (see the professional development portion of thesection, "Build a Framework of Support for the New System of Schools.")The Cross-City Campaign for Urban School Reform has found that shiftingdecisions in personnel, professional development, funding, purchasing, andteaching and learning to individtail schools puts the school in the driver'sseat and transforms central offices into service-oriented organizations.

Coordinate Education, Social, Healthand Other Services

Although dozens of programs provide a variety of services to youngpeople and their families, many families and children still fall through thecracks. The situation is particularly true in large cities where the enormousnumber of administrative procedures, eligibility and record-keeping require-ments result in a fragmented system. A coordinated effort is needed to bringtogether knowledge of what works, policies that create incentives for im-provement and political skills to get different organizations working to-gether for the benefit of young people.

91I Page 35

Change SpendingPatterns to Raise

Achievement

School finance expertAllan Odden is amongreformers who say a newapproach to funding andresource allocation Isneeded if studentperformance is toimprove.

"The message is not thatmoney doesn't matter.The message Is that theway money is usedmatters," he says.

Odden has identifiedseveral strategicinvestment areas,including:

Providing preventionrather, 'man remedialprograms

Rewarding teachers'competencies andknowledge rather thanonly training andexprience

Tutoring one-on-onerather than reducingclass size

Creating small,personal schools ratherthan large, Impersonalschools

Providing a strongacademic curriculumrather than lengthen-ing the school day oryear.

(Finance Brief, Consortiumfor Policy Research inEducation, 1994)

Page 36

Provide an Adequately andEquitably Funded Education System

Although funding comes last in this section, by no means do we con-sider it a less important issue. This section is last because we believe fund-ing decisions must come after decisions about what students need. InCalifornia and across the country, public school funding formulas often failto support those changes necessary to promote higher student achievement.In order to support the new achievement-based system, the funding systemin California must change.

Over the past decade, tough economic times and surging enroll-ments have resulted in levels of per-pupil education funding that barely havekept pace with inflation. During the same period, a dramatic increase oc-curred in the number of students and in the proportion of students who comefrom poor families or have limited English-speaking skills. This combina-tion of increased demands and limited resources has severely strained the ca-pacity of the state's education system to meet the needs of all students.

Even though California leaders anticipate an upturn in the state'seconomy, new dollars available for education will be needed to accommo-date increasing enrollment. An economic change for the better must be ac-companied by a thorough assessment of funding strategy.

Leaders at state, district and school levels need to redesign the fund-ing system to concentrate new dollars and reallocate existing funding on in-creasing student achievement. Present state and local funding priorities donot reflect what has proved to be effective in improving student achieve-ment. California cannot afford to leave in place a funding system focused oncompliance with ..--gulations, cost reimbursement, a one-size-fits-all philoso-phy and inputs such as the number of textbooks in a classroom. Rather, anew funding system must provide incentives for innovation, initiative andeffective performance.

The driving questions in a new funding system must be: "Whatworks best for students to help them reach high achievement levels andstandards'?" "What resources are needed and how should they be invested toensure student success'?" "How can taxpayers' money be used wisely and ef-ficiently?" It is unlikely that efforts to raise taxes for schools will be success-ful until these questions are answered to citizens' satisfaction.

Design Funding Policies that Supportthe New Achievement System

We recommend the Master Plan Panel design and submit to theLegislature a new funding formula that supports the achievement system.The formula should answer the following questions: Who will pay for educa-tion and with what taxes'? How will resources he invested in ways that im-prove student and system performance'? How can a greater share ofeducational resources end up in the classroom'? What are the costs of reform-ing education and schools'? I low will money he distributed in equitable andadequate ways'? How can resources he used more efficiently'? How canhigher education funding, especially that used for teacher preparatkm, helinked to the K-I2 system'!

The finance system should include hinds to motivate and rewardschools for innovation and effective strategies that result in improved student achievement.

4 '1

Give Schools and Districts More ControlOver Resource Allocation

The major recommendations of this report focus on transferringmore power and authority to individual districts and schools to decide whatstrategies to use to achieve state standards, what networks to join and howto invest professional development dollars. Therefore, the primary goal of anew school-finance system should be to give greater control over resourceallocation, and perhaps even revenue raising, to local schools and districts.Transferring revenue-raising power would require a thorough review ofstate tax and spending limitations to see what leeway exists and whatchanges ought to be made.

The panel also should look at restrictions on the use of various avail-able funds and the results of those restrictions. Categorical programs limitthe use of funds to certain activities or lead to unintended results such as stu-dents remaining in special-education classrooms too long because the schoolgets more money for special-education students. Because schoolwide re-structuring plans will address the needs of all students, the panel should de-termine if categorical funding limits can be relaxed or the number ofcategorical programs reduced.

As the state considers giving more control over funding to localschools and districts, it must take steps to ensure that the ability to raise lo-cal funds is equalized across districts. Any movement toward more localfunding must be coupled with provisions in the state finance system to en-sure no district loses funds because of an inability to raise money locally.

As part of gaining more control, districts and schools that move intothe new achievement-based system must be accountable for student learn-ing. The state should allow districts and schools to spend funds as they seefit to meet the needs of their students. The panel should consider a systemthat rewards schools which improve student achievement and places sanc-tions on those schools that fail to increase student achievement.

Districts and schools also should have the flexibility to move fundsamong expenditure categories and across fiscal years as needed, in accord-ance with prudent fiscal practices.

4 3

Page 38

New Approaches to School FundingAcross the nation, traditional school-funding models are giving way tonew approaches to financing and investing in public education.

Different states use various strategies. Here are two examples:

Minnesota is overhauling its school finance system to:

Reduce reliance on local property taxes and Increase the state'sshare of education funding

Link education funding to improvement

Encourage site-based management and budgeting, and reduce thenumber of state mandates

Eliminate referendum levies (supplemental school dollars approvedby voters).

Education financing will be reconfigured into core instruction aid (theamount needed to ensure students achieve basic goals), support serv-ices (counselors, social workers, etc.) and discretionary services (dis-trict administration, extracurricular activities and academic electives).

In Michigan, the school-funding system has been restructured alongdifferent lines.

To replace a $6 billion hole in the education budget when property taxrevenues for schools were eliminated, voters approved alternativerevenue-raising measures, including increasing the state sales andcigarette taxes and Imposing a real-estate transfer tax. They also ap-proved a 6-mill statewide property tax for homeowners (down from aprevious average of 37 mills) and a 24-mill business property tax.

Among other things, Michigan's new school-funding program:

Increases state funding for at-risk pupils

Ties increases in per-pupil funding to local districts' revenue-raisingability

Authorizes all K-12 districts to raise limited local-enrichment prop-erty taxes with voter approval

Allows districts to ask voters to approve taxes for building construc-tion, renovation and enrichment.

Focus Money Spent on Staff Preparationand Professional Development on the AcademicNeeds of Students

Currently, the state (through its K-12 and higher education sys-tems), local districts and individual staff members spend millions of dollarson teacher and administrator preparation and professional development thatis not linked to student achievement needs. If professional developmentneeds are decided on a school-by-school basis, as this report recommends,then schools should have authority to spend these funds as needed to helptheir staff engage in professional development activities that will most bene-fit students in their schools.The state role, as noted in the professionaldevelopment section, should be to identify effective programs.

4.4

Create a New Investment Strategy Focusingon Technology and Telecommunications

California also needs to create a new investment strategy focusingon technology and telecommunications. Financing details should be part ofthe technology plan brought forward by the Governor and the Superinten-dent of Public Instruction. Financing for technology does not have to comethrough the school finance system; it could be accomplished using a varietyof partnerships, funding sources and distribution formulas both inside andoutside the school funding system (see the technology section).

Redesign California's Capital Improvement ProgramThe Master Plan Panel also needs to address the issue of capital in-

vestment. Given increasing student population, the state and local communi-ties must work together to shorten the length of time it takes to fund andconstruct new school buildings that are conducive to the use of technologyand telecommunications-based resources. In a state that has such pressurefrom the sheer volume of students entering the education system and mov-ing between districts and schools, the present system severely limits the abil-ity of districts to provide the space they need to create effective learningenvironments.

Take Advantage of Federal Initiatives That ProvideSupport and Flexibility for School Reform

Finally, the Master Plan Panel should map a coordinated strategyfor taking advantage of new federal initiatives that provide funding, techni-cal assistance and other support for school reform and restructuring. For ex-ample:

The federal school-to-work initiative provides money for states toredesign career-preparation programs for high school students.

The new Chapter 1 reauthorization bill includes a development fund forcharter schools.

The new Chapter 1 goals include support for family-school-communitypartnerships.

Several new federal programs, including the National ScienceFoundation's Networking Infrastructure for Education and theTechnology in Learning Challenge, provide funding for technology andtechnology training.

Goals 20(X) provides funding over a five-year period to help statesredesign curriculum, assessment and professional development aroundstudent standards.

The state, districts and schools should not shy away from applyingfor federal funding, but instead should take advantage of the new flexibilityin federal opportunities and use them to meet their student-achievementgoals.

4Pap 39

CONCLUSIONWhat we've proposed in this report will beviewed by some as an exciting challenge,and perhaps by others as overwhelming.

Under the best of circumstances, we know it will be along-term, challenging undertaking. We also believethat now is the time for people to come together the

Governor, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Legisla-ture, State Board of Education, State Education Depart-ment, higher education leaders, local school boards,district and county superintendents, teachers, adminis-trators, pupil services professionals, non-certifiedschool staff, parents, students, community members,businesspeople and others to improve education forall children in California.

Now is the time to take action to improve Cali-fornia's education system because people are frustratedwith seeing so many children fall through the cracks inschools. They fear for the future as more and more chil-dren choose violence over productive lives. They aredismayed with the amount of money that goes into pub-lic education, often with dismal results. And they are in-creasingly intolerant of political bickering that yieldslittle improvement in schools.

Accordingly, throughout this report we haveset out a tight timeline for implementing the recommen-dations. We understand the strong likelihood that cir-cumstances will arise, which we cannot foresee, thatwill cause delays. Nonetheless, we end our recommen-dations by recapping the major areas of change to be ad-dressed, the general timeline we suggest for those tasksand the individuals and groups who need to work to-gether to achieve these improvements.

As the ECS team worked on this effort over thelast year with people from across the state, we wereasked by many why we would agree to take on a tasksuch as this during a time of such political polarizationin California. But even as we met with people of differ-ing political parties and beliefs about what should andshould not be changed to improve California's educa-tion system, we found agreement. More often than not,policymakers, educators, state and local board mem-bers, union representatives, parents, university officials,higher education leaders and others agreed on the needfor dramatically changing the current education system;deregulating and decentralizing the system; empower-ing local communities; involving the public throughoutthe change process; setting and measuring high aca-demic standards for all students, schools and districts

in essence, we found general agreement on our recom-mendations as a whole.

In short, California's education and politicalleaders have come together through ECS to writethis report. While they haven't agreed to each para-graph, they provided us with information, as well astheir ideas and hopes for the future of California'sschools. And while we were greatly encouraged by thehigh level of consensus, it seems many people werewilling to say things to us that they are not yet willingto say to one another.

With this in mind, we end our recommenda-tions with a note of both caution and optimism. Califor-nians need an issue around which its leadership andpeople can rally. They need one issue in which theywill not focus on turf but will forget their political andpersonal differences. Vastly improving the opportu-nity for all children in California to receive the besteducation possible must be that issue.

NOW is the time to take action toimprove California's educationsystem . .

As California turns to the next phase awayfrom discussion, analysis and drafting a plan to imple-menting a new achievement-based system of schoolsit will be important to know there is a base ofagreement. This base will get the state and its peoplepast the hurdles, beyond the differences and problems,to a new system that will serve California's studentswell in the future.

Californians now must sit down together anddetermine how to make their desires to improve theeducation system work. It will take strong, long-termpolitical leadership and the commitment of a wide ar-ray of individuals and groups to take these recommen-dations and turn them into policies that make adifference for students, teachers and communities.Nonetheless, the time for that commitment is now. Theprice of waiting for a better political climate, bettereconomic conditions or absolute agreement on the per-fect solution for California's schools is far too high.

46Page 41

TIMELINE 1995-2002

Master Plan Panel1995 Governor, Legislature and State Superintendent of Public Instruc-

tion (Superintendent) appoint members to serve on panel. MasterPlan Panel (Panel) begins work immediately.

1995 Beginning in 1995 and each year thereafter, the ECS Californiacommissioners' network will convene key legislators,Governor's staff members, Board and Superintendent to assessthe progress and process of the Master Plan.

1996 Panel submits Master Plan to Governor, Superintendent, StateBoard of Education (Board), Legislature, local school boards andpublic.

1997 Panel remains active at least through early 1997 and is left inplace long enough to ensure leadership through mid-stages ofimplementation of the Master Plan.

Focus on Student AchievementDevelop Standards1995 Panel, in conjunction with the Department of Education

(Department), draft model standards for education.

1995 Public discussions are held across state on standards.

1995 Panel presents standards to Governor, Superintendent, Board,Legislature and local school boards for adoption.

1996 New statewide standards established.

Develop Student Assessment System1995 Legislature and Governor pass legislation to fund development

of new statewide assessment system (including guidelines forsize and shape of assessment system).

95/96 Panel, in conjunction with Department, oversees development ofassessment system.

1996 Public discussions are held across state on assessment system

1996 Initial field testing of assessment system.

1997 New statewide assessment program established.

Develop Accountability System95/96 Panel proposes accountability system for schools and districts

ready to move into new achievement system.

1996 Governor, Superintendent, Hoard, Department, Legislature andlocal school hoards approve new accountability system.

1997 New accountability system established.

4

Page 44

Reconnect Schools and CommunitiesDesign Transition Process for Schools and Districts1995 Panel designs transition process for districts to move into new

achievement system, including requirements for districts'Enterprise Plans or school charters. Requirements relate toprofessional development, network memberships, how progresswill be measured and so on.

1995 Governor and Legislature agree to raise cap on charter schoolsand tie accountability for charter schools to the new statewidestandards and assessment.

95/96 Governor, Superintendent, Board, Legislature and local schoolboards review and adopt transition process. Board establishescriteria for moving to the new achievement system.

95/96 Governor, Superintendent and Board establish timespan for alldistricts to move to new achievement system.

2001-2 All districts have moved into new achievement-based system.

Stimulate Community Involvement1995 Panel designs policies that encourage and support local control.

1995 Governor, Superintendent and other state leaders begin a dialoguewith the public about new responsibilities communities have forstewardship of their schools under achievement-based system.

Build Support for the New Systemof SchoolsCreate Conditions Under Which Peoplein Schools Can Succeed1995 Panel drafts incentives for the K-12 and postsecondary systems

Ae to redesign teacher preparation programs. In this undertaking,Panel works with representatives of the K-12 and postsecondarysystems and with practitioners, networks and the CaliforniaTeacher Credentialing Commission.

1995 Panel, in conjunction with the California Teacher CredentialingCommission, develops a competency-based credentialing process.

199(, Panel submits new teacher credentialing and preparation proposalsto the Board and Legislature.

95/96 Panel reviews, evaluates and catalogues a diverse group ofprofessional development suppliers and widely disseminates theresulting inventory.

95/96 Panel develops a strategy to increase number and effectiveness ofminority and bilingual teachers in the system of schools.

95/96 Panel explores ways to introduce greater flexibility into thecollective bargaining process.

1996 Panel submits recommendations pertaining to collectivebargaining and other employer-employee relations to Board andLegislature.

4S

Identify and Strengthen Networks, Partnershipsand Support Structures95/96 Panel, in conjunction with Department, identifies, evaluates and

catalogues existing and potential networks and partnerships andwidely disseminates the resulting inventory.

95/96 If appropriate, Panel, in conjunction with the Governor,Superintendent and Board, develops and submits a proposal tofederal agencies to blend funds across categorical lines to givethe state greater flexibility in addressing the needs of children,families and communities.

1996 Panel develops incentives for schools and districts participatingin the new achievement system to take part in partnerships andnetworks.

1996 Panel submits network and partnership participation incentives toBoard and Legislature.

Expand Technological Capacity1995 Governor and Superintendent review all major technology

initiatives and implementation strategies and develop action planto expand technological capacity.

1995 Governor and Superintendent submit technology action plan toBoard, Legislature and local school boards for review, adoptionand implementation.

Attend to the Special Needs of Urban Schoolsand Districts1995 Panel requests from Board a definition of "large urban district"

to allow clusters of schools rather than an entire urban district tomove to new achievement system.

1995 Governor and Legislature, in conjunction with Superintendent,appoint a task force to work in conjunction with the Panel, theSchool-To-Career Task Force and others involved in improvingurban education to develop a comprehensive strategy forrestoring the strength and vitality of urban schools.

Provide an Adequately and Equitably FundedEducation System995 Panel should request from the Board a definition of "large urban

district" to allow clusters of schools rather than an entire urbandistrict to move to the new achievement system.

1996 Panel aligns the education funding system to match the newachievement-based system, which gives schools and districtsmore control over resource allocation, more closely ties schoolfinance to school improvement and student achievement, andaddresses the need for more buildings and capital improvements.

96/97 Panel submits new funding proposal to Governor, Superintendent,Board, Legislature and local school boards for review andadoption.

43Page 45

JEST COPY AVAILABLE

Education Commission of the States707 17th Street, Suite 2700

Denver, Colorado 80202-3427

D o