Summary: June 4, 2002

Day 2 Topic: Student Learning

Moderators Helie and Ford introduced today's topic and panelists and posed several questions to elicit participants'--including students'--opinions about Student Learning.

Panelist Oakes asked participants to discuss how to hold firm to the ambitious recommendations in the draft plan, even in the face of considerable political pressure to water them down. The focus of the Student Learning Working Group education policies was on learners and learning.

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

1. What is the school environment needed for a quality education? Does this apply equally to K-12 and postsecondary education? Is the statement in the draft Master Plan sufficient?

   • The Plan describes a quality education environment in terms of qualified and inspiring teachers; a rigorous curriculum; participation in California's public universities; current textbooks, technology and instructional materials; learning support services; quality administrators; an educational culture that is inviting, safe, and places a high value on student achievement and teaching excellence; and a safe, well-maintained physical plant.
   • Panelist Vasconcellos encouraged discussants to bear in mind that children arrive in this world "wired for learning". Participants underscored their belief that, rather than stuff children's heads with information, we need to develop their skills to seek out and critically evaluate information.
   • Many participants debated the issue of quality education: to value the amount of knowledge a student possesses or the student's ability to think through and resolve problems.
   • Participants expressed opinions about multiple intelligences and learning styles, students' ability to construct knowledge from their own experiences, students' innate instinct for learning, the importance of family involvement, academic success of home-schooled children.
   • Concerns about the costs of school reform and "un-funded mandates" were noted.
   • Other topics discussed in some detail were: the need for qualified, certified teachers; hiring standards; professional development; testing; effective use tested teaching strategies; needs of culturally and linguistically diverse students; student-counselor ratio; special needs students; class size; the school calendar (length of school day and year); shared parent-child learning; alternative learning; mandatory/optional kindergarten; full-day kindergarten; kindergarten readiness; role models and mentors who possess positive human factor characteristics; science curriculum; norm-referenced tests.
   • Panelist James noted that setting the standards and defining the quality for K-12 education is the shared province of the K-12 system and higher education.
   • The need to review the research and then plan education programs based real information and needs at each of the child's development levels was expressed.
   • Important aspects of a positive learning environment relate to school culture (e.g., positive teacher/student relationships, absence of fear).

2. Proposed: schools should help students keep their options open by maintaining common programs and expectations for all. Do you agree or disagree? Should there be an "opt out" provision? How can the "rigorous and challenging" curriculum in the draft Plan simultaneously meet the needs of both students who plan to enter the workforce directly and students who plan to enroll in a college or university? How can vocational/career preparation best be integrated into a challenging curriculum?

   • Although most students have two options at high school graduation--work or college--for some this is not a genuine choice because of unfortunate course choices. To keep options open, the Plan says schools must offer programs that provide students an opportunity to qualify for admission to California's public postsecondary institutions and, simultaneously, to qualify for a job in the workforce.
   • The plan calls for developing "Opportunity to Learn Standards" that specify what government agencies must provide for all schools: educational essentials (i.e., qualified teachers, curriculum aligned with the state's standards, enough texts and materials, clean and safe learning environments etc.).
   • The master plan also restructures the accountability system to make the adults answerable to children and communities. The independently elected state superintendent would become the accountability watchdog, providing the public with the information it needs to hold adults accountable.
   • Participants discussed the benefits and pitfalls of a "single curriculum". Panelist Oakes remarked that the question was about not limiting students' choices or chances after high school. Some expressed concern about how a "rigorous and challenging", "single curriculum" would leave out the needs of students who are not entering college or university immediately after high school. These students attempting to enter the "workforce" learn quickly that better jobs demand skills not taught in high school or in higher education, thus they are left to compete for unskilled jobs.
   • One participant noted that it is idealistic to assume that one curriculum will serve everyone. We don't want a public education system that keeps students who desire advanced content from having access to it.
   • Participants raised other subjects for consideration: teacher shortages, compensation costs, options to "opt out" and "opt back in", self-paced and individualized programs, need for counselors, different learning modalities, student-driven orientation, adult education, ending the status quo, education in the juvenile detention system and correctional system, learning support at key transition points in the education process.
   • Participants indicated an interest in options and funding for both college prep courses and technical and vocational courses.
   • It is important that K-12 curriculum be set in conjunction with post secondary education, but not by it.

3. How can an assessment system help target resources to the students who need them most? Will the recommendations in the Plan help to meet California's expectations for student achievement?

   • The draft Plan asserts that the state should monitor all levels of the educational system (student, education personnel, school, district, state education agencies, legislature, and governor), using indicators that measure the effectiveness of each level (PreK-16) in meeting its responsibilities. This should enable the public to "hold policymakers and governing bodies accountable for providing the commitment, policy mechanisms, resources, and conditions necessary to a high-quality system of education, as well as to hold schools, educators, and students accountable for the outcomes that result."
   • Information is needed about all schools, not just those that are low-performing. We need to address assessments that target areas for remediation and learning
   • The assessment system must be truly diagnostic, rather than judgmental.
   • We need to find various ways to measure students, teachers, and administrators. Accountability implies something is going to happen if they don't meet the goal.
   • We need to teach kids to think, not take tests. Accountability for this should be measured in a multiple of ways, not just by a test.

While this summary contains the highlights from participants' comments, far more comprehensive information may be found in the individual postings.

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

Wednesday, June 5th will focus on Emerging Modes.

I welcome your comments on the summaries.

Sally Hedman
Reporter