Bathing Cats: Fomenting Change in Education

1
Bathing Cats Fomenting Change in Education

• California Assessment Institute
• October 2001
• Dr.Charles A. Ratliff

2
A New Master Plan

• A new step There is no existing master plan
  that encompasses Pre-K to University
• A new approach Our proposal differs from the
  Master Plan for Higher Education in several ways
• A focus on Student Achievement
• Systemic, Comprehensive approach
• Long range vision, with Benchmarks
• System responsiveness to student needs

3
Vision for Master Plan

• California will develop and maintain a cohesive
  system of first-rate schools, colleges, and
  universities that prepares all students for
  transition to and success in the next level of
  education, the workforce, and general society,
  and that is responsive to the changing needs of
  the state and its people.

4
Guiding Principles

• Elementary and secondary school education is a
  fundamental right afforded to young people of the
  state of California. The State must ensure that
  every student has an opportunity to receive a
  high quality education taught by instructors
  competent in their discipline and in multiple
  instructional strategies.
• The responsibility for providing elementary and
  secondary education services should be shared
  between state and local communities.
  Responsibility can best be carried out through
  collaboration between and among schools,
  colleges, and universities, continuous
  information exchange, and partnerships across
  segmental boundaries.

5
The Context State Responsibilities

• Define what constitutes a high quality education.
• Establish a system to continuously improve
  student achievement and institutional
  performance.
• Provide adequate funding for a high quality
  education.

6
Three Cross-cutting Themes

• Ensuring a high quality education for all
  students the achievement gap.
• Building an effective accountability system for
  public education.
• Assembling a comprehensive information system to
  support continuous improvement.

7
Characteristics of High Quality Education

• Courses taught by qualified and enthusiastic
  teachers and faculty.
• Rigorous academic content.
• Supplemental support services responsive to
  student needs.
• Clean, safe and modern facilities.

8
Characteristics of High Quality Education

• Partnerships with families and communities to
  encourage student readiness and involvement.
• Administrative leadership that supports a culture
  of continuous improvement and student
  achievement.
• Adequate funding and expenditure flexibility.

9
Long Term Goal
By 2020, there will be no significant difference
in student achievement among identifiable
student groups.
10
Economically Disadvantaged Perform Significantly
Lower on SAT-9 (Grade 11)
Prepared by Los Angeles County Alliance for
Student Achievement (2001)
Source California Department of Education,
Standardized Testing and Reporting Program
(STAR), 2000 STAR Reports
11
Californias Challenge Closing the Achievement
Gap
Many Freshmen Must Take Remedial Courses 1995
Students Requiring Extensive Remediation
Graduate at Lower Rates
2000 by The Education Trust, Inc.
Source USDOE, NCES, PEQUIS, Remedial Education
at Higher Education Institutions in fall 1995
(1996), in The Condition ofEducation 1999, p. 88
Source Adelman, Cliff in Crosstalk. Vol 6 No.3,
Summer 1998.
12
What is Needed to Address the Achievement Gap?

• Modification of teacher and administrator
  preparation and professional development programs
  to align with academic standards.
• Multiple and timely assessment of student
  performance accompanied by appropriate
  interventions.
• Better integration of academic and workforce
  preparation courses to emphasize competencies.
• Contemporary texts and instructional support
  materials, aligned with content standards and
  competencies.

13
Building an Effective Accountability System for
Public Education
14
What is the Purpose of an Accountability System
in Education?

• To promote continuous improvement in student
  achievement and institutional performance.
• To provide public assurance of the quality of
  educational opportunities available to students.

15
Who Should be Accountable to Whom for What?

• It depends on the unit of analysis on who has
  been assigned what responsibilities and on what
  standards or expectations are in place.
• Public institutions are accountable to WASC for
  maintaining capacity to provide high quality
  educational experiences.
• Schools and college campuses are accountable to
  their respective governing boards for sound
  fiscal practices.

Isnt this enough?
16
What Does an Accountability System Require at the
State Level?

• A clear statement of standards and expectations
  to be met.
• Agreement on measures for assessing progress and
  a timetable for routinely reporting results.
• Clear delineation of responsibilities and
  authority.
• A series of consequences, positive and negative,
  that derive from assessment of institutional
  performance.

17
High Quality and Accountability Require that
Decisions be Informed by Data

• Identify promising models for effectively
  recruiting, training, assigning, and retaining
  competent teachers, faculty and administrators.
• Identify and replicate promising methods of
  assessing talent development with students to
  complement expertise in talent selection.
• Direct research expertise towards determining
  practices and strategies most effective in
  promoting achievement among different student
  groups.

18
Measuring Our Progress Data Collection and
Analysis

• Create a statewide database to provide the
  information necessary for continuous improvement
  for
• students, teachers, schools, districts, and
  state.
• evaluating the effectiveness of state educational
  policy.
• Collect information over time (longitudinal)
• A student centered, longitudinal database would
  require
• Unique student identifier
• Common definitions
• Central repository

19
Remaining Questions for Accountability in Higher
Education

• Can higher education faculty and leadership find
  the will to define competencies to be acquired
  rather than courses to be completed?
• What consequences can be defined that derive from
  an assessment of institutional performance?
• Should some portion of funding be linked to
  outcomes or to comparability among systems for
  comparable services?

20
Next Steps

• Completion of working group reports Dec. 2001
  to Jan. 2002.
• Preparation of draft Master Plan for public
  review spring 2002.
• Preparation of final Master Plan report Aug.
  2002.
• Preparation of implementing legislation Sept.
  2002 to Feb. 2003.

21
Joint Committee to Develop A Master Plan for
Education

• 1020 N Street, Suite 560
• Sacramento, CA. 95814
• 916-324-4983
• www.sen.ca.gov/masterplan