\doc\web\99\17\nyplan.txt Date sent: Thu, 06 Jan 2000 15:47:39 -0500 From: Joan Battey Subject: More Info/School Takeovers, PART ONE TO ALL: Ref. postings on Iowa info re: Hornbeck '90's plan to usurp local control of schools under the guise of ensuring improvement on test scores, on the Baltimore plan to take over poorly-performing schools (Hornbeck's former districts): I "remember" that Hornbeck was involved in pushing New York toward many NCEE-type reforms which were going in nationwide, but I cannot come up with researchable proof of this at the moment. What is important is that Mario Cuomo (also NCEE-tied) "commissioned" a task force on NYS Educational Structure, Policies and Practices which issued its delayed report in limited numbers of copies in December 1993. I have referenced it many times since then on our loop and elsewhere, because no matter what turns up in the way of education and/or health care, etc., references to current "command and control society" news, almost all of it turns out to have been either delineated or hinted at in the Mario Cuomo 1993 "Putting Children First" task force report -- that caused such a minor tempest in Albany that they soon began damage control and made some minor revisions. (Copies of the report which had been helpfully offered, suddenly became "all gone" once it was known that they were going to people who pointed out to some reporters and columnists some of the outrageous proposals in the report. Regarding school takeovers, it was all in NYS as well as Iowa -- but with little communication among non-educrats, it took a long time for people nationwide to begin noticing they were not alone in finding the plans in their schools. This may be long, but it should be noted how the past is prologue to everything that has come along -- and the Baltimore innovative plans to take over poorly-performing schools is only part of the latest phase -- and likely the final phase in likely taking over all schools from local control. (Somewhere in past plans was stated the phasing out of school boards...) It may seem that this extraction from the New York 1993 report is overly long and takes a while to reach the paragraphs quoting plans to take over underperforming schools, but the drumbeat of case-building in the extracted sections of an overall, all-encompassing task force report, shows how carefully the SYSTEM was to be built, and how much the SYSTEM was the message, not the education. All the following, except any extraneous comments in brackets [] is from the 1993 NYS Putting Children First. Emphasis may be added by putting some words in capital letters here: [Extracted material concerns school takeover implications only, not complete excerpts of sections of the report referred to]: SYSTEMIC STATE Reform: New York State should develop a MULTI-YEAR ACTION AGENDA to support SYSTEMIC school reform, encompassing the PRINCIPLES of A New Compact For Learning. [A New Compact for Learning was the name of the first testing of the waters in NYS, regarding Goals 2000-type education. The name has been changed several times, all the principles have been retained, and others have been added. All states have experienced the same succession of re-naming, retaining agenda series of "innovative reforms."] New York State NEEDS a plan to accomplish SYSTEMIC STATE reform. The Compact is ONLY THE BEGINNING. The Regents cannot progress towards the GOALS of the Compact without ONGOING COORDINATION AND SUPPORT from the Executive and the Legislature. The ISSUES involved in school reform are COMPLEX and TRANSCEND THE SCOPE OF THE REGENTS AUTHORITY. For example, the Regents ALONE cannot accomplish the COORDINATED DELIVERY of health and social services that children need IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO LEARN. In order to ALIGN resources and POLICY with school REFORM, the Commission recommends that the Executive and the Legislature adopt a COMPREHENSIVE PLAN in support of school reform. The PLAN should START by defining the knowledge, skills, and CIVIC VALUES that children need to assume the responsibilities of our democratic society and BECOME ECONOMICALLY PRODUCTIVE. It should identify BARRIERS to achieving these goals and SET TIMEFRAMES for state and local GOVERNMENT to overcome them. Accountability and AUTHORITY need to be ALIGNED to attain the DESIRED OUTCOMES. Further on: To support SYSTEMIC STATE reform, New York State MUST RETHINK HOW EDUCATION IS GOVERNED and foster an effective interrelationship between local educators, REGIONAL SERVICES, State Education Department and OTHER AGENCIES that provide support services to children. NO SINGLE POLICY AND NO ONE CONSTITUENCY will be ENOUGH TO TRANSFORM THE SYSTEM AS A WHOLE. A NEW system of governance that empowers THOSE CLOSEST TO CHILDREN with the decision-making authority to affect change is required. [In the newest reform plans, those closest to children is becoming far from parents, and closer to agencies, regional services, etc.] [Further]: Accountability for Student Outcomes In order to give MEANING to STATE goals for what children should know and BE ABLE TO DO, accountability for high quality student OUTCOMES must be a joint responsibility for the STATE and its local school districts. New York State must provide the RESOURCES, support and AUTHORITY necessary for local school districts to DEVELOP and ASSESS high standards for student performances. . . .As the state moves toward SYSTEMIC REFORM.. . .To be ACCOUNTABLE for student PERFORMANCE, STATE policy makers and local practitioners must FIRST set STANDARDS for PERFORMANCE that are linked to high quality curriculum, instruction and ASSESSMENT. The State Education Department has ALREADY proposed a system that will REDESIGN the current curriculum and ASSESSMENT SYSTEM to include curriculum frameworks and PERFORMANCE BASED ASSESSMENT.. . .Educators and local school districts NEED to ACQUIRE the knowledge, skills and technology to INITIATE this reform, AS PLANNED, BY THE YEAR 2000. [Next paragraph describes how new frameworks have been providing guidelines and applications in several states, including Calif., TX, Conn and Colo.] As the PHILOSOPHY and KNOWLEDGE in curriculum DEVELOPMENT HAS CHANGED, so has the basic premise of ASSESSMENT as a measure of student performance.. . .Assessment that best meets the needs of students is linked to a DAY-TO-DAY EVALUATION of their knowledge and PROBLEM-SOLVING SKILLS. Testing INDIVIDUAL STUDENTS at the local level should inform, PRESCRIBE and improve teaching practice. By ALIGNING CURRICULUM WITH the MEANINGFUL ASSESSMENT OF CONTENT, knowledge application and thinking skills, teachers are ABLE TO ADJUST INSTRUCTION TO MEET THE NEEDS OF A DIVERSE STUDENT POPULATION. [Next refers to state reforms in VT, Calif., Conn., KY, Maryland and Ariz., the NY State Curriculum and ASSESSMENT COUNCIL proposing a NEW DIRECTION FOR TESTING..Two districts in the state were cited as already implementing.] New York needs an EFFECTIVE curriculum and TESTING program that both informs THE PRACTICE OF TEACHING and MONITORS school and program quality.. . . Ineffective and inefficient tests and testing PRACTICES should be eliminated or REPLACED. [The report then goes on to discuss how LONGITUDINAL studies are needed, so they could go over data on children over the past 12 years....] . . .In REVAMPING ITS ASSESSMENT practices, NY State must also be cognizant of the NEED to collect LONGITUDINAL INFORMATION ON STUDENT POPULATIONS and performance. Superintendents have expressed concerns that the adoption of performance-based testing should not ignore collection of longitudinal data required to examine TRENDS in education. [Next lengthy paragraph describes how the efficacy of the SYSTEM depends on ability of educators to question results vis-a-vis discrepancies among indicators' linking of resources to test results, etc.. .] If testing is to drive the funding of programs, then the fairness of the test AS IT APPLIES TO DIVERSE POPULATIONS is crucial. If instead a VARIETY of INDICATORS are used to EQUALIZE EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES, then testing, not within its inherent limitations, has a role in providing information that is consistent. WHILE performance-based assessment and sampling techniques may hold promise for THE FUTURE, many educators lack the technology and TRAINING to IMPLEMENT THIS PROPOSED PLAN. If the state is to improve accountability for student outcomes, RESOURCES must be allocated so that BOTH THE STATE and local PRACTITIONERS can LEARN TO USE curriculum frameworks and DEVELOP APPROPRIATE NEW ASSESSMENT PRACTICES. Continued in PART TWO Date sent: Thu, 06 Jan 2000 17:06:26 -0500 From: Joan Battey Subject: PART TWO/School Takeover Plans Part Two of the excerpts from a section of the NYS 1993 Task Force Report, Putting Children First, Educational Structures, Policies and Practices. At the beginning of the section quoted in Part One, were key buried sentences in the introduction, ahead of material quoted in Part One. These sentences should be brought in here as the intent builds beyond the explanations of the need to change assessments. As in Part One, all material which follows is directly quoted from the report. Words capitalized are done for emphasis here, any personal comments are in brackets [] GOVERNANCE and Accountability [Note use of word "governance" which appears all through Our Global Neighborhood, the UN Report] "As reform efforts in New York State and ACROSS THE NATION INTENSIFY, it has become increasingly clear to the Commission that SYSTEMIC CHANGE requires more than "quick fix" policies and fragmented programs directed at the SYMPTOMS of educational failure. Instead, solutions must FUNDAMENTALLY OVERHAUL the INFRASTRUCTURES that support and SHAPE EDUCATION. [This may give a clue as to why opposing education reform a piece at a time was never intended to be successful?] A New Compact for Learning [NYS first released version of reform] has questioned the EFFICACY of existing state and local relationships.. ..the involvement of the entire community in restrucuring and revitalizing schools, does NOT COMPORT WELL with EXISTING STATE GOVERNANCE and the lack of COLLABORATIVE MECHANISMS. FRAGMENTED authority and multiple short-term and often CONFLICTING POLICY GOALS provide little support for school improvement. SYSTEMIC REFORM, based on INNOVATION AND COLLABORATION, MUST INVOLVE THE POLICY-MAKERS AS WELL AS AGENCIES WITH A STAKE IN THE WELL-BEING OF CHILDREN. [Now read this next!:] The STATE cannot be CREDIBLE in this endeavor without TRANSFORMING ITS ORIENTATION TOWARDS GOVERNANCE. [Think about that -- the state changing its orientation towards governance. No local control ...] ....To accomplish the tasks outlined in this Report, we must RETHINK STATE GOVERNANCE. [The next quoted material is almost laughable. Reminds one that the devil is reputed to quote scripture for his own use...] New York State should eliminate statewide group-administered tests PRIOR TO THIRD GRADE. The Commission observed that many elementary schools have already begun to move toward ASSESSMENT PRACTICES which are tailored to the NEEDS OF YOUNG CHILDREN. Many schools have adopted qualitative-style report cards, IN WHICH teachers describe students UNIQUE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES, rather than assign them letter or number grades. These same schools, however, continue to administer standardized tests to large groups of children each spring beginning in kindergarten. Not only is this testing STRESSFUL FOR CHILDREN, IT CONSUMES CONSIDERABLE TIME WHEN CHILDREN COULD OTHERWISE BE ENGAGED IN INSTRUCTIONAL ACTIVITIES. [!!!] [It goes on to explain how such testing is recognized as inappropriate, less reliable at that age, and USED TO PLACE CHILDREN IN AN INFORMAL TRACKING SYSTEM IN WHICH EXPECTATIONS ARE RAISED OR LOWERED FOR INDIVIDUAL CHILDREN. Says such testing has been eliminated in Oregon, PA, Utah, Minnesota and Idaho.] [Section on meeting Special Needs of Children lays groundwork for inserting factors of race, language, tracking, socioeconomic status, emotional differences, as justifying the need for replacing the then current system as being insensitive..] ...In order to be successful, students WILL REQUIRE schools and EDUCATIONAL SUPPORTS SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT than those in the past. [Goes on with references to funding and referrals needed. Large following section focuses on varieties of special needs and how to provide them with a "student focused model of service delivery."] [Note next "buried" reference to justify changing standards -- all the while educrats were denying global and workforce agendas in the schools in 1993] As standards change to meet the NEEDS OF A GLOBAL ECONOMY and the WORKFORCE OF THE FUTURE, we must be cognizant of the EFFECTS of higher standards on "all students." High standards for all students means providing the SUPPORT REQUIRED to improve instruction; ENHANCING THE EQUITY in RESOURCES between the HAVES and the HAVE NOTS'; and bridging the gaps in EXPERIENCE and learning made wide by ECONOMIC, CULTURAL AND COGNITIVE BARRIERS. We can CONTINUE TO DO THIS BY PIGEONHOLING STUDENTS in CATEGORICAL BOXES, RESTRICTED BY PROGRAM MANDATES, OR we can commit our resoures toward a responsive continuum of services that is flexible in serving ALL THOSE IN NEED. In creating new models for special education [which includes many, many categories], restrictions on funds, certification and program need to be examined...Students who have been excluded...because schools are UNWILLING OR UNABLE TO ADAPT TO THEIR DIVERSE NEEDS, are victims not beneficiaries of special programs. ...[Syracuse and Johnson City, NY districts were praised for having already developed models increasing appropriate access to regular education programs. Hmmm. Could this early earning of brownie points for developing all needed appropriate access for special ed students have any connection with the inexplicable influx of many non-English speaking immigrants to Upstate NY, specifically in large numbers in Johnson City schools?] Support and Reward School Improvement and Innovation [This outlines recommendations to pass out rewards to teachers, students, schools and school districts; and the need for ADDITIONAL incentives for quality and creation of NEW models.. Among the new models needed is what appears to be another devil-quoting scripture technique, based on the staggering number of Upstate New York Schools in 1999 which either have shoved through or are demanding revotes to shove through huge centralized schools -- see next quote!] The STATE should establish a grant program to support the development or adaptation of model school program designs. The goal of this program should be to foster SMALLER, MORE INDIVIDUALIZED AND CARING LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS that allow stuents to learn, and aply knowledge to real world problems through INTEGRATED curriculum. The program should encourage COLLABORATIONS with education, BUSINESS, CULTURAL AND SCIENTIFIC INSTITUTIONS to provide enrichment programs for students. Grant applicants should be encouraged to develop innovative school GOVERNANCE models that support collaborative and flexible work rules focused on the instructional needs of the children. State mandates that interfere SHOULD BE WAIVED. [Now, keep on reading, it IS building...] INCENTIVES FOR PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT SHULD BE VIEWED AS A PROCESS OF MOVING A DISTRICT TO THE NEXT LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE. [Goes on to recommend extended school times and school years, integrating health and social services AT THE SCHOOL SITE, for students AND FAMILIES, eliminating class periods, graded classrooms; adding team teaching, peer mentoring, adult mentoring, small team/group model schools, gifted programs, youth apprenticeships OR OTHER SCHOOL TO WORK MODELS; new curriculum geared to CULTURALLY DIVERSE THEMES, and, perhaps in a throw-away-later offer, recommends developing voluntary intra- and inter-district public school choice plans to give parents and students freedom to choose among schools with different emphases.] [Next could have foreshadowed the tighter monitoring and control to come:] Developing new programs which integrate technology into the curriculum, instruction and STUDENT ASSESSMENT PRACTICES of school districts. [They then covered recommended funding for Magnet Schools, rewards for Distinguished Education programs. CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO SCHOOLS WHICH SHOW CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT IN PERFORMANCE, PARTICULARLY THOSE WITH A HISTORY OF POOR PERFORMANCE. New York at that time recommended that the Board of Regents choose the schools, from those which SELF-NOMINATED themselves, and they recommended that each district chosen should receive a state award of $25,000 to be used at the discretion of the school to enhance its programs and instruction. Next they moved on to describe how meeting criteria would be moved on next to flexibility, via waiving of the mandates which brought them to the distinguished award category for achievement! It was compared to the SOUTH CAROLINA DEREGULATORY PROGRAM, which WOULD BE PARTICULARLY USEFUL TO CREATE NEW MODELS OF EFFECTIVE PRACTICE. The report also recommended setting up a Distinguished EducaTOR program, with $10,000 awards to each of up to 10 educators per year.] Accountability for School Performance The role of the State Education Department in assuring accountability in education IS NOT CONFINED TO ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT PERFORMANCE. Assuring accountability also REQUIRES AN EVALUATION OF SCHOOL PERFORMANCE BASED ON DELIVERY STANDARDS. Thomas Sobol, [then] Commissioner of Education, [affiliated with NCEE], states "we have schools which despite all we can do under CURRENT LAW, year after year, just fail the kids for whom we are responsible. We can hold people up to the public and try to encourage them but we can't DIRECT." New York State Must Provide An Evaluation System for School Districts That Supports Improvement At The Local Level Evaluating SCHOOL DISTRICT PERFORMANCE requires examining a VARIETY of factors that contribute to quality programs. Under State regulation, school districts are required to complete COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT REPORTS (CAR) and DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH MANDATES through School Improvement Reviews. This process merely requires a district to self-report its current status. UNFORTUNATELY, this type of evaluation has not been enough to improve schools quality in many districts. In 1992 NY State developed a program to support and strengthen schools through School Quality Review (SQR). This effort, STILL IN THE PILOT PHASE, REPRESENTS A FOUR-YEAR COLLABORATION BETWEEN THE BRITISH MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND THE CARNEGIE FOUNDATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF TEACHING. The SQR is intended to produce the following OUTCOMES: * An ANNUAL school self review and an ONGOING "CULTURE OF REVIEW" OR SELF EXAMINATION WITHIN A SCHOOL; * Increase student achievement through improving the quality of teaching and learning; and * To FOSTER PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR SCHOOLS BY INCREASING CONFIDENCE IN THEM. The School Quality Review program will be tested in 150 schools across the state between '93 and '96. Upon completion of the pilot phase, the PROCESS is expected to be made available to ALL PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS. In 1996, a five-year cycle will begin; one fifth of the districts will be evaluated annually. [Guess which ones, and how they were to be chosen??] SED envisions the review team will include peer and public representation, and be COLLABORATIVELY MANAGED BY BOCES AND SED. [Note: BOCES was formerly the Vo-Tech branch of education and was so almost phased out by attrition that it was almost eliminated about this time. Since then, following all recommendations in the 1993 task force report, BOCES is well on the way to being THE governing branch of education in New York State.] An EXPANDED SQR and accreditation program COULD BE a new VEHICLE FOR PROMOTING ON-SITE IMPROVEMENT PLANNING and enhancing school quality. [Goes on to promote help by the process to improve local schools find out how to improve and to "help" them plan EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT SOLUTIONS.] The focus of the SQR program is to encourge a "strategic planning" approach to school district EVALUATION. [Like TQM, and ISO 9000, and world-class accreditation??] School DISTRICTS, like students, would be REQUIRED to develop portfolios. School District Portfolios may include a variety of accountability indicators which measure the effectiveness of schools and districts in addressing the UNIQUE AND CHANGING NEEDS of their community. {They] should support a COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW of district needs, current LEVELS of performance and PLANS FOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT. This program should also CONSOLIDATE many of the COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT FUNCTIONS CURRENTLY CONDUCTED BY SED AND REGIONAL FIELD SERVICE TEAMS. School administrators suggested to the Commission that a coordinated approach to oversight and self-review would allow for problem-solving at the local level and prevent the inefficient use of administrators and SED time caused by unrelated compliance reviews and visitations. KENTUCKY, NEW JERSEY, WASHINGTON AND SOUTH CAROLINA all provide differential treatment and flexibility to districts based on performance. Performance-based ACCREDITATION SYSTEMS should require that a variety of OUTCOME MEASURES be used to determine SCHOOL QUALITY. Districts should be rewarded, supported OR SANCTIONED. Districts SHOULD NOT BE JUDGED ON ABSOLUTE LEVELS OF PERFORMANCE, BUT RATHER BY THE VALUE ADDED TO SCHOOL QUALITY IN THAT UNIQUE SCHOOL CONTEXT. This approach encouraged districts at ALL levels of performance to IMPROVE THEIR CURRENT PRACTICE. New York State Should Develop a Continuum of INTERVENTION for school districts, LEADING TO SCHOOL CLOSURE FOR DYSFUNCTIONAL SCHOOLS. No effective remedies exist for chronic school failure. Absent such remedies, the compulsory education law, coupled with LOCAL DISTRICT ATTENDANCE ZONES, will continue to penalize certain students by consigning them to poorly performing schools which accept and tolerate failure indefinitely. While rewards for school district performance and the support of local initiative are crucial for ENCOURAGING CHANGE, an INTERVENTION PLAN IS ALSO NECESSARY. [Goes on to describe the then current Schools Under Registration Review -- SURR. They describe how it was geared to encourage development of restruction based on other schools' approved models, with suggested inclusions of parent involvement, etc.] To date [1993] the SURR program only affects a small percentage of the low performing schools or districts...level of state authority has been limited... In contrast, Kentucky's Schools-in-Crisis program and New Jersey's Five-year program offer differential strategies for school improvement. These programs provide a continuum of INCREASED AUTHORITY for the Commissioner of Education to INTERVENE with schools and districts that demonstrate persistent and declining performance. [by what definition?] ALTHOUGH TAKEOVER PROGRAMS REPRESENT A LAST RESORT OPTION, A CONTINUUM OF STATE INTERVENTION FOR DEFICIENT SCHOOLS SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED. This continuum should include prescriptions for REQUIRED INTERVENTIONS such as technical support, reallocation of funds necessary to implement the plan, ON-SITE TRAINING and specific recommendations for improving professional PRACTICE. Choice in alternative programs for students and ON-SITE INTERVENTION WITH A LOCAL BOARD OF EDUCATION MAY ALSO BE REQUIRED. The continued inability to improve SHOULD RESULT IN THE REMOVAL OF ADMINISTRATORS, AND ULTIMATELY THE CLOSURE OF THE SCHOOL. State INTERVENTION PLANNING should also include a PROCESS for community involvement [which parts of the community?], parent participation [appointed? volunteer?] AND REGIONAL EXPERTISE [what experts?] TO REBUILD THE SCHOOL COMMUNITY. [All the above lengthy extractions should give clues to national influences, the gradual planning toward the end-outcome of state governance increasing, of schools being mandated for not only meeting standards, but continually improving regardless of achievements. Everything throughout the 1993 report reveals how thoroughly the reform movements were planned -- and also reveals that grounding in academics was not of any concern to those who brought forth the report. Process, Systems, Reporting, Assessment, Diversity, -- Money, Jobs-- Governance] Joan Battey