Summary: June 14, 2002

Day 10 Topic: Wrap-up

Rosemary Gunn introduced today's topic and posed several questions to elicit participants' opinions about the Draft Master Plan. Today's panelist is Virginia Strom-Martin, State Assemblywoman, Co-Vice Chair, K-12 Issues, Joint Committee to Develop a Master Plan for Education.

Note: Postings on today's topic that appeared on the Web site by 8:00 PM Pacific time are included in this summary.

• Assessment and Accountability (continued from Thursday). Can the state have an effective accountability system without assessment of students? If many parents opt out of having their children participate in testing, what impact will it have on this system? Would you say "reject statewide testing" - and if so, what alternatives can you suggest? Or would you say "keep the statewide testing program and improve it" - and if so, in what ways?

  • What is the difference between assessment and testing? Assessment is integrated and seamless with teaching, and informs the teaching in the moment, and over time. Watching and listening reveals more about what students know, understand and can do than a test. This 'front line' information about student learning needs to be factored into the state-wide assessment system.
  • Testing is useful and even necessary, but what is missing is a lucid explanation of what is being measured, how and for what purposes the data will be used. State-wide testing should be absolute - measuring how many goals, set by the state standards, are reached. Testing should replace 95% of the "compliance paperwork". The influence of testing pervades the classroom experience and detracts from the joy of learning. Streamline the many tests to avoid test burnout and encroachment on instruction time.
  • We need to find better ways to assess student learning so all children can show what they know and can do.
  • For student learning to increase, we need the type of assessment that informs instruction for the students in the classroom this year, rather than relying on a test at the end of the year which does not impact the learning opportunities for that child.
  • Several suggestions were made: broaden assessment and accountability to include the assessment done by classroom teachers on a daily, weekly, monthly basis. Acknowledge that standardized tests give limited information. Put more resources toward classroom assessments that impact and immediately improve/increase student learning. Incorporate long-range assessments (e.g., how do the children from a particular elementary school do in middle school?)
  • Teachers need to use a variety of assessment tools specific to the needs of individuals (e.g., state assessments, special education, bilingual, phonics, comprehension, English language learners).
  • The "testing craze" does not give a full and appropriate picture of student achievement, and moreover leaves leaving little time for learning to think critically, projects and hands-on activities across the curriculum. Concern was expressed about testing limited-English students through English language testing.
  • While a norm-referenced test is important to make that nationwide comparison, it is not the only way to make comparisons.
  • Effective use of instructional technology can and ought to provide assessments of both student and teacher competencies. However, such tools haven't yet been produced by vendors, and even if they exist, they haven't been piloted to determine if this benefit could be used statewide. It was suggested that the Plan promote R&D into nailing down "testing and evaluation".
  • If we view accountability as the department of public instruction as being accountable to the legislature, the state would be sending reams of helpful resource materials flowing to the classroom. This would be an alternative to the view that the schools are accountable to the department of public instruction and sending reams of reports to the state proving their compliance with state regulations.
  • If the current system (using school districts for local governance) is preserved, then teachers and principals should have a voice in choosing the board or at least be allowed to inform the public how the board is working to provide services in the classroom.
  • Accountability must be on the local level, measured by commitment and collaborative goal setting appropriate to the school or district, not mandated from a governmental entity, especially when we see the lobbying efforts that corporate texts and systems producers have on the selection of curricula.
  • Classroom assessments must have a legitimate role in accountability systems. These assessments, reported alongside the STAR exams, would provide a more complete picture of student achievement on the state content standards.
  • While state administered achievement tests measure performance, they have little value for instruction. This minimizes their usefulness in an accountability system that assumes information from tests will result in appropriate changes in instruction. The question is how do we make testing relevant to instruction so we can improve the quality of instruction? Some suggestions included creating multiple measures for the Academic Performance Index. School-wide proficiency assessments would be more meaningful because they would be based on actual instructional content.
  • Care and humility will increase the tendency to keep the Master Plan flexible. It's easy to build into standardized tests a too-narrow view of what being an educated person is. If we wish to educate for originality, leadership, and ability to criticize assumptions of the culture, standardized tests are of limited value.
  • Measuring achievement comes from a business-oriented model, and as such, may not measure one's capacity to become a Socrates or Jesus or Buddha. How does one measure one's preparation to become a contrarian or rabble-rouser who will keep the political climate lively and honest? The answer is to look at who has done poorly using the traditional measures, though even those results cannot be relied on.
  • To have meaningful tests, you need to measure what is being taught. Unfortunately many schools focus the curriculum to the test, rather than allowing student needs to drive the curriculum. Teachers need a variety of materials to reach all students. In addition to texts aligned with the standards, the state should also support purchasing supplemental teaching materials (e.g., library books) selected by districts to enhance learning.

• 1a. What areas from the draft Plan would you like to see kept in the final version, and, importantly, what is missing? These might be general areas or specific points.

  • There is a need for many versions, not a single plan. Rather than producing one product or outcome, the Plan can provide a continuum of guidelines offering multiple options for teaching and assessing diverse learners and educators.
  • The key weakness of the Master Plan draft is its abandonment of Career and Technical Education.
  • There needs to be an option for foreign language in elementary school.
  • It was suggested that Recommendation 38 be removed from the Plan in favor of a recommendation that a statewide discussion be undertaken in a spirit of collaboration by all stakeholders to develop a Master Plan for Adult Education in California. In addition to previous comments about adult education, participants mentioned the need for reciprocity for adult educators, the positive aspects of the administrative style of adult education, and blending community college/CSU/UC structures as the ultimate in reducing "redundant administrative structures."
  • Restrictions on class size reduction should be removed to allow for two classrooms of 30 students with three teachers - also a good way to work in new teachers.
  • Issues of learning disabilities (e.g., dyslexia) need to be addressed. We must provide funding for early assessment in kindergarten, early remediation, specialized tools, and staff training to encourage classroom accommodations. It was noted that the Plan deliberately did not mention learning disabilities because the Joint Committee wanted commitment to all rather than a categorical approach. While the Plan does mention early developmental assessment and assessment at critical transitions in the education system, subsequent drafts are likely to refer directly to learning disabilities and need for proper assessment throughout the education system.
  • Concern was expressed that there is only one elected official in the education governance system, and the Plan proposes to reduce that voice to data gathering and reporting. There needs to be an elected official whose only responsibility is education and meeting the needs of learners.
  • Recommendation 34 should be made stronger by recognizing the need for superintendents, particularly in the large urban districts, to be the chief strategist and executive officer of the school board.
  • We need to grow leaders among teachers and to pay them for doing work beyond their classroom duties.

• 1b. For the areas you see as essential to have in the Plan, who should be accountable for seeing that they are carried out properly?

  • There should be different pathways for students in high school. If there is a vocational track and a college track, who decides which students go on which track and what criteria would be used to decide?
  • The perception of vocational education as a second class track are deeply set and will take major energy to realign. School counselors, who are part of the key to this change, must be trained to advocate for this group.

• 2a. Should the Plan recommend replacing the "seat time" approach with one that links promotion to demonstrated mastery at a designated level of academic content? Why or why not?

  • A competency-based approach to learning is not as easy as it sounds: students must prove competencies with performance. It also involves more "paper work" for the teacher. However, it is a successful learning process and should be a choice.

• 2b. If you support more emphasis on demonstrated competencies, can you suggest how to avoid (a) lower expectations for different types of students and (b) making teachers' jobs even more difficult? Can you suggest technology, creative instructional approaches or other ways to consider? (No responses.)

• 2c. Some feel a competency-based approach to student promotion runs the risk of over-emphasizing cognitive development, overlooking issues of civility and transmitting values. Do you believe this approach can be reconciled with a goal of preparing students for being good and productive citizens?

  • Competency education, if we deal with equity issues, will raise the bar for every student to become a literate citizen. The pre K-16 curriculum needs to include (along with "core" subjects) health, history, social studies, civics, world geography, world literature, and multiple languages so students can understand and value other cultures, communicate with other cultures and help solve the problems that face all of us.

• 3. In what areas should the state accept or seek a role with respect to computers and Internet technologies?

  • Technology is a necessary and essential tool for education in the 21st century. It was noted that all students must have access to the internet in their classrooms and that technology must be integrated into all aspects of instruction. Classroom materials must include software, laser disks, and other technology that enhances student learning. Appropriate applications need to be available (e.g., electronic grade books, attendance, specialized coursework for science and math, art programs, publishing software).
  • When creating the funding model, the state must include technology as part of its base revenue for each student. The technology plan must provide for both teacher preparation and knowledgeable local support.

• 4a. How can Californians work with their elected and school officials to ensure that the Master Plan is implemented? What kind of commitment do you want from legislators regarding implementation of a final Master Plan?

  • Legislators and other policy-makers need to listen to those whom they expect to implement their policies. The Plan has provided that opportunity for feedback and discussion.

• 4b. Do you think the public has a role to play in developing the political will to put the Plan into effect?

• 4c. Do you think online dialogue and other forms of public input would make a difference in this process? What other mechanisms would you suggest?

  • The process is valuable: an opportunity to remind people of the principles of democracy and what it means to be an active citizen.
  • Several expressed enthusiasm but one participant was disappointed with the process. Dis-interest, or an open-minded neutral approach to deliberation and an honest effort to create a critical analysis of the Plan would have been preferable. Early in the dialogue, a statement generated the implicit presumption that the plan represents good policy. The process should have tested that presumption. To do that, the dialogue needed panelists who represented cogent opposing views.
  • It was noted that one assemblywoman has an education advisory committee that meets regularly to discuss education legislation. Other mechanisms for public input: a permanent website for continued dialogue, annual hearings, on-going communication, and California Voices 4 Children.
  • Three aspects of the Plan must not be compromised: the "Opportunity to Learn Standards", the restructured accountability system, and the "California Quality Education Model".
  • Next steps: The Joint Committee will review comments and use them as part of the basis for producing a second draft by mid July. Subsequent comments will be used to refine the draft for final consideration and adoption by the Joint Committee by the end of August. Following adoption, the final report will be released to the public and distributed to the legislature. The Joint Committee will summarize the comments and indicate how these suggestions influenced the final Plan. Implementation legislation will be drafted for the 2003-04 legislative session.

While this summary contains the highlights from the many ideas that were offered, far more comprehensive information may be found in the discussion archives. We highly recommend that you read the original postings to discover the full richness of the discussion. We suggest you chose the Thread viewing option.

Background summaries, daily topics, questions and background information are available from the Agenda page.

I welcome your comments on the summaries.

Sally Hedman
Reporter