Year: 2005

Education for the 21st Century

Education for the 21st Century

Reading Time: 5 minutes

[box class=”grey_box”]An article in Council Quarterly, the Newsletter of the Council of Chief State School Officers, on states’ challenges to drive public education to meet the demands of an emerging economy.[/box]


We are well into the 21st century, yet our high schools remain organized on 20th century needs and expectations. CCSSO President David Driscoll (MA) issued a challenging question to his fellow chiefs in 2005: What can we do at the state level to ensure all of our children graduate from high school prepared to succeed in the 21st century?

Driscoll’s question is complex. It requires us to understand the recent fundamental shifts in our economy and devise a new way of educating all children to succeed in this new economy—an economy so new that we still barely understand it. It also requires us to understand the structures and patterns within the modern high school and how they hold us back from our new aspirations, and to see how the changes we posit to these structures and patterns cut against many of our deepest held beliefs about high school.

Finally, Driscoll challenges us to think hard about the opportunities and limitations that state education agencies (SEAs) have in supporting reform and the unique role that the state can play within a decentralized, yet highly standardized, system of education.

This challenge did not arise from a vacuum. Issues related to high school reform and 21st century expectations have been key themes for CCSSO’s membership meetings over the past several years. In 2003, under the direction of CCSSO President Mike Ward (NC), our priority theme was Seeing it Through. We studied high school reform at the 2003 Summer Institute (SI) and Annual Policy Forum (APF) where we had Ronald Heifetz of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government help us understand leadership challenges in high school redesign.

In 2004, under the leadership of President Ted Stilwill (IA), we opened our SI by looking at the underlying reasons for the changes we called for. Robert Reich, former secretary of labor and current professor of social and economic policy at Brandeis University, taught us about the structural changes to our economy and how knowing about them can help us change our role as educators. At the 2004 APF, David Gergen of Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government built on those lessons by providing a political context for thinking about the changing economy.

It was those conversations—and Thomas Friedman’s The World is Flat (2005)—that shaped our focus. We organized the 2005 SI on the premise that our expectations for student performance are too often inadequate and, therefore, we need to consider the following questions:

  • What do students really need to know and be able to do in the new economy?
  • What does learning theory tell us education must do to support them?

A NEW ECONOMY

Robert Reich taught us that at one time in our economy, work that was routinized and standardized could support a middle class. Routinized work helped factories flourish—and with them, factory workers. Over time however, that type of work has diminished due to globalization, technological advances, and demographic shifts. Instead of standardized tasks, workers must solve novel problems and compete against workers worldwide. Reich warns us that to prepare young people to succeed in this economy, we must provide them a different set of skills than the ones around which we have organized education.

The World is Flat extends Reich’s lessons, giving specificity to the economic shift. We understand better now than ever how the changing nature of the workforce creates new demands on our education system. Average workers must be able to innovate, think critically, solve novel problems, utilize technology, and communicate well. In this new economy, we still rely on our education system to deliver the promise of equal opportunity that is the hallmark of American democracy.

WHAT DOES LEARNING THEORY TELL US EDUCATION MUST DO TO SUPPORT STUDENTS?

At this year’s SI, John Bransford, professor at the University of Washington, connected the needs of the economy to instruction that “invite[s] innovation in order to work smarter and more efficiently (which makes learning more motivating, relevant, and effective).” He discussed how instruction that harnesses innovation and efficiency in learning requires student work that goes in cycles of action, feedback, and invention. Students become prepared to learn by inventing, testing, and refining. This leads to a new view of instructional expertise and has implications for assessment.

Bransford’s presentation was informed by research he and his colleagues reviewed in How People Learn: Bridging Research & Practice (1999), written by the National Research Council and edited by M. Suzanne Donovan, John D. Bransford, and James W. Pellegrino. Three key lessons about learning and teaching surfaced from the presentation:

  • Students come to the classroom with preconceptions about how the world works. If their initial understanding is not engaged, they may fail to grasp the new concepts and information that are taught, or they may learn them for purposes of a test, but revert to their preconceptions outside the classroom.
  • To develop competence in an area of inquiry, students must have a deep foundation of factual knowledge, understand facts and ideas in the context of a conceptual framework, and organize knowledge in ways that facilitate retrieval and application.
  • A “metacognitive” approach to instruction can help students learn to take control of their own learning by defining learning goals and monitoring their progress in achieving them.

Unfortunately, high schools by and large have not been designed around this understanding of learning.

WHAT IS THE STATE ROLE?

To answer this question, CCSSO once again engaged the Regional Educational Laboratories to help study emerging frameworks and priorities for high school change and proposals for federal, state, and local redesign. We identified four key state policy areas that can help improve high school student achievement: aligning and integrating systems, engaging stakeholders, building educator capacity, and evaluating results. Our investigations into the state role in high school redesign brought us right back to standards-based reform as an approach to state education policy.

At least two facts give us confidence that standards-based reform can bring success in the knowledge economy. First, we have seen improvements in educational outcomes at the elementary level, many of which can be tracked to standards-based reform. We are only now turning our focus to high school. It does not require a leap of faith to believe the tools of standards-based reform that helped in the elementary grades may get us to where we need to be at the high school level.

Second, using Heifetz’s terminology, much of our work in high school reform has been “technical” to date; we have only begun to identify the “adaptive” challenges. Technical challenges are those for which we have the knowledge, skills, information, and ability to solve. Adaptive challenges are those that require a change of heart. Adaptive leadership helps people to identify and address the changes that they resist, helps them through times of stress and disequilibrium toward better outcomes for all. If we pay attention to adaptive challenges in high school redesign, standards-based reform may yet provide the road map to success.

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

Many more speakers, facilitators, and program collaborators worked in conjunction with CCSSO’s membership and staff at the 2005 SI. CCSSO will rely on these leaders as we continue our redesign efforts. CCSSO is in the process of formalizing a statement on high school redesign and 21st century expectations. Formalizing that policy statement will be a key outcome of the 2005 APF and Business Meeting. In the meantime, the public can access background readings and handouts provided at the 2005 SI by going to www.ccsso.org/projects/Membership_Meetings/Summer_Institute.

Back to Top

Discussion Cases for the 2005 Council of Chief State School Officers Summer Institute

Discussion Cases for the 2005 Council of Chief State School Officers Summer Institute

Reading Time: < 1 minute

[box class=”grey_box”]Case briefs prepared for small-group work at CCSSO’s 2005 Summer Institute. The cases are built around nationwide challenges and individual states that have met those challenges with success. Included in this sampling are the following:[/box]

  • Aligning High School Exit with Post-Secondary Entrance/Placement Expectations in Oregon
  • Cultivating the Grassroots: Broad-Based Engagement through Community and Stakeholder Dialogue in Nebraska
  • Building Capacity to Support Students with Special Needs, with a Focus on Special Education Students in Ohio
  • Alternative and Multiple Measures of Student Performance in Rhode Island

Briefing Paper Series on Mathematical Literacy

Briefing Paper Series on Mathematical Literacy

Reading Time: 3 minutes

[box class=”grey_box”]A series of briefing papers that analyzes the imperatives and opportunities in critical areas of mathematics education. Prepared for the Council of Chief State School Officers and Texas Instruments, Incorporated.[/box]


Improving the mathematics skills of our citizenry has been a major concern for educators, policy makers, and the general public since long before Sputnik ushered in “new math.” With the most recent decade of education reform and the advent of “new-new math,” advances in mathematics research and education have led to both fruitful exchanges of ideas and challenging debates. Never before has it been so clear that mathematical literacy is vital for our nation’s economic growth, security, and civic progress. And never has the call to bring all children to high levels of mathematical literacy been sounded so forcefully. Yet, though our culture, our country, and our schools by and large expect all adults to be able to read, we do not expect all adults to be proficient in mathematics. (How often does someone utter, “I was never good at math,” only to be met with nods of understanding and compassion?) By and large, Americans accept the kinds of results that come from the widespread belief that not all children can learn mathematics beyond “arithmetic.”

Believing that all children can learn mathematics, and, indeed, that they must, the Council of Chief State School Officers and Texas Instruments Incorporated, have joined together in a partnership to respond to the clarity of purpose and urgency of mission felt in the states today around mathematics education. This partnership will investigate the influences on mathematics education and develop recommendations for effective state actions to lead to improved student performance in mathematics. This paper is the introduction to a series of papers designed to analyze the imperatives and opportunities in several critical areas of mathematics education. The papers will explore the depth and type of mathematical knowledge that students will need to be successful in today’s society; how that depth and type of mathematical knowledge is best taught and what this implies for schools and classrooms; and the conditions that need to be established to create this kind of teaching and learning in every classroom. Specific topics that will be addressed by this series include

  • The Imperative of Mathematical Literacy
  • Standards, Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment
  • Teacher Preparation and Professional Development
  • Teacher Recruitment, Assignment, and Retention
  • Opportunities for Support and Partnerships

In the first paper of this series, we made the case for why all students need to be literate in mathematics. High quality standards, curriculum, instruction, and assessment—the focus of this paper—is one set of tools necessary to improving mathematics achievement.

These briefing papers are developed specifically to be disseminated and used by those working to improve mathematics education. Permission is granted to reproduce and to quote items from the papers, as long as references to the authors and sponsoring organizations are provided. For this edition, the recommended citation would be: Stumbo, Circe, and Susan Follett Lusi, (September 2005), Standards-Based Foundations for Mathematics Education: Standards, Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment in Mathematics, (Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers and Texas Instruments).

Questions about this paper or the series may be directed to:
Michael DiMaggio
Council of Chief State School Officers
One Massachusetts Avenue, NW Suite 700
Washington, DC 20001.

This paper was originally published in May 2005. The section on Michigan’s standards was updated September 2005.

Back to Top


Library image (cc) D. Sharon Pruitt

High School Leadership: Preliminary Report

High School Leadership: Preliminary Report

Reading Time: 3 minutes

[box class=”grey_box”]A report introducing New Hampshire Vision for High Schools and representing stakeholder workshops, forums, and focus groups conducted throughout 2004 and 2005. Prepared for the State of New Hampshire Department of Education.[/box]


Introduction

Educators, education policy makers, and key stakeholders in New Hampshire are calling for improvements in the overall performance and completion rates of their high school students. This report introduces the New Hampshire Vision for High Schools and represents a compilation of a number of stakeholder workshops, forums, and focus groups that were convened throughout 2004 and early 2005. Over five hundred representatives of nearly every high school in the state and a wide array of stakeholder groups came together in these face-to-face events to offer their perspectives, hopes, and fears about high school in New Hampshire. The purpose of this report is to inform ongoing efforts to improve high schools in New Hampshire.

Why Be Concerned About High School in New Hampshire?

New Hampshire has a great deal that is going right related to its high schools. Graduation rates have increased steadily throughout the 20th century. New Hampshire’s business and community members have long supported its high schools as they endeavor to ensure quality educational outcomes for their students. New Hampshire’s citizens enjoy a relatively positive economic context—the lowest poverty rate in the nation, the fourth lowest unemployment rate, and the 7th highest per capita income. New Hampshire added over 65,000 new jobs between 1990 and 1996.

That said, New Hampshire’s stakeholders also recognize that the skills and knowledge needed to succeed are rapidly changing. Though graduation rates have increased throughout the 20th century, the high schools designed for the 20th century are not preparing students for success in the 21st. Over half of the jobs that New Hampshire added between 1990 and 1996 were for college-educated workers—and at least half of the projected new jobs in New Hampshire will also be for college graduates. Despite this reality, New Hampshire’s high school graduates are not as prepared for admission to college as they should be. Remediation rates among freshman entering college are significantly high. In addition, New Hampshire is 19th in the nation in the rate of postsecondary enrollments among high school graduations, thus relying on an in-migration of skilled workers to fill the most lucrative jobs.

High school graduates not planning to go to college immediately need more from their high school experience. As the American Diploma project states,

Successful preparation for both postsecondary education and employment requires learning the same rigorous English and mathematics content and skills. No longer do students planning to go to work after high school need a different and less rigorous curriculum than those planning to go to college.

No matter what the level of education that students complete, those with more education earn more than those with less. Yet, New Hampshire is 20th in the nation in its rate of high school completion. Even more telling, fifty-two percent of high school students feel only “somewhat prepared” to enter the workforce and twenty-two percent feel “unprepared,” while forty-five percent of employers feel students are only somewhat prepared and forty-five percent believe students are unprepared for work.

Awareness of these statistics coupled with an ongoing commitment to continuous improvement has spurred the New Hampshire impetus for creating a vision and a blueprint for high school improvement.

What Is Being Done?

The New Hampshire Department of Education convened a High School Leadership Team in 2004. With a small planning grant and technical assistance from the U.S. Department of Education, the leadership team developed a series of activities leading to the creation of a high school vision and blue print that can help to frame local high school improvement efforts. First among these activities was the engagement of education stakeholders.

The Leadership Team is comprised of a representative cross-section of New Hampshire stakeholders and advocates. Membership on the Leadership Team continues to expand as the effort gains momentum.”

The data and commentary compiled in this report will be used by the High School Leadership Team as they craft a vision statement for high schools in New Hampshire. The results of this report will also be shared with additional stakeholders at the March 2005 conference on Breaking Ranks II, which is being organized by the New Hampshire School Principals Association and the New Hampshire Department of Education.

Out of these many gatherings of concerned New Hampshire stakeholders, a vision for New Hampshire’s high schools is beginning to take shape. Future forums and reports will continue the process of clarification and engagement so that the resulting vision statement and initiatives can best support local efforts to improve high schools.

Continue reading by downloading the full report (PDF).

Back to Top

Library image (cc) Jonathan

Arizona HS Renewal & Improvement Initiative

Arizona HS Renewal & Improvement Initiative

Reading Time: 4 minutes

[box class=”grey_box”]A needs assessment for the context of improving Arizona’s high schools, based on Regional Focus Groups on High School Renewal and prepared for the Arizona Department of Education and the Arizona High School Renewal and Improvement Initiative State Team.[/box]


Introduction

Arizona is poised to usher in exciting renewal activities in its high schools, activities that will help to ensure all students in Arizona achieve to high levels and graduate from high school ready for college, work, and success in life. A broad cross-section of school, community, and governmental leaders are looking at the performance of Arizona’s high school students and are studying ways to improve the goals, organization, and results of Arizona’s high schools.

There are many reasons why Arizonans believe high school renewal so critical. Most significant are hopes that more and more of Arizona’s high school students ultimately will graduate and that they will graduate proficient in Arizona’s content and performance standards. Only 76.4% of students starting high school in the fall of 1998 graduated by spring 2003. 33.6% of Arizona’s Hispanic students did not graduate in five years, 37% of Native American students did not graduate; and 29.8% African American did not graduate in five years. Further, there is not general consensus that each of those students who did graduate was well prepared for a competitive economy or post-secondary education.

In an effort to ensure all of Arizona’s high school students achieve to the standards, the Arizona State Legislature recently authorized an assessment and accountability system, which requires all students to pass Arizona’s Instrument for Measuring the Standards, or the AIMS test, in order to graduate. The class of 2006 is the first class that will be required to pass AIMS to graduate. In the spring 2004 administration (the first opportunity the class of 2006 had to take the test, which was when they were sophomores), 59% of that class who took AIMS without accommodations passed the reading portion, 62% passed the writing portion, and 39% passed the mathematics portion of the AIMS assessment. In the fall 2004 administration, students were retested in areas where they underperformed. 36% of the class who took the reading “retest” passed, 46% of 11th graders who took the writing retest passed, and 22% of the class who took the mathematics retest passed.

Statewide concern that all students pass the AIMS test is creating conditions for real renewal to occur in Arizona’s high schools. Arizonans across the board are eager for change—and they are ready for a legitimate group of stakeholders to provide leadership in identifying strategies for renewal that schools, school districts, and communities can join together to undertake.

To help provide that leadership, the Arizona Department of Education convened a statewide team to study the high school context in Arizona and to develop action plans for high school renewal. After their first full meeting in the summer of 2004, the State Team determined they needed to conduct a needs assessment of stakeholders from across the state in order to determine the unique Arizona context for improving high school. In response, the Arizona Department of Education and WestEd joined to organize four Regional Focus Groups on High School Renewal. The Focus Groups were held October 14 in Yuma, October 15 in Tucson, October 18 in Flagstaff, and October 19 in Phoenix. The Focus Groups were convened to advise the Arizona High School Renewal and Improvement Initiative State Team on:

  • What matters most to the many diverse stakeholders unique to Arizona;
  • What are the expectations for student performance within the schools and the
    broader community;
  • What students need in order to be successful in high school;
  • What ideas for renewal hold promise or are at peril; and
  • How ready the schools and communities are to take on high school renewal
    initiatives.

One hundred and eleven stakeholders took part in the focus groups, representing a diverse array of interests, including those of students, parents, teachers, principals, administrators, elected officials, business and industry, higher education, and middle level education; charter schools, alternative schools, and regular comprehensive high schools; and urban, suburban, and rural schools. These stakeholders joined together to advise the AZHSRI State Team on the development and implementation of action plans for high school renewal. (A listing of participants in each of the four focus groups is included as Appendix 2.)

Questions were posed to each focus group in order to elicit their priorities, analyses, and ideas. In general, focus group participants felt the process captured their comments and were satisfied the goals of the focus groups were met. (See Appendix 4 for detailed evaluative data from the focus groups.) This report will be forwarded to each participant for their individual review.

Researchers analyzed the results and prepared the following recommendations for the AZHSRII State Team and the Arizona Department of Education. The AZHSRII State Team will be meeting February 2, 2005, to review these recommendations and the various initiatives underway in Arizona around high school renewal. At that meeting, the State Team will begin to develop a series of action plans to encourage state and local improvement efforts.

It is anticipated that additional data will be gathered at focus groups in communities that were under-represented in the regional sessions. In particular, one focus group will be organized within the Native American community. There is hope that a second focus group will be convened of high school students who have either dropped out, are at risk of dropping out, or who are in alternative high school programs.

Continue reading by downloading the full PDF.

Back to Top

Theme: Overlay by Kaira