Achieving Educational Excellence:

The Agenda for the First Decade of the Twenty-first Century

by Shirley McCune

 

Context

Americans, especially the citizens of Washington State, place great value on education. Education has and continues to play a "different and politically more important role than in other countries," because it deals with a challenge that remains a part of the American experience-- becoming a nation, becoming a state, and becoming a strong, knowledge-based society where the good life and well-being of all citizens is achieved. The United States has looked to education for solving all kinds of problems-- economic, social, and political. Decade after decade we have staged some of our most momentous national dramas in schoolyards and classrooms.

As we initiate the twenty-first century, education again is at the core of our national and state dramas. The nation and the states have moved through three cycles that occur about every 80 to 100 years. These cycles were evident after World War II. The high cycle (1945–1960) was a time of strong institutions and the apex of the Industrial Age. An Awareness Cycle (1960–1980) followed where society's values were questioned, and we observed a shift of personal revolution and morality. The third cycle, the Unraveling (1980–2000), was a time of the weakening of institutions and a general climate of uncertainty and apprehension. The next twenty years has been labeled the crisis period when events will change the way we look at the world and restructure our institutions, society, and cultures.

The cycles are evident in the history of education. The 1954 Brown versus the Board of Education signaled a new era for America's schools-- one of desegregation and equity, which were the major themes of the 1960s–1970s. The 1983 Task Force Report on Education sounded a second alarm-- that of varied systems of education for affluent and poor students and a more basic concern about the overall quality of education and our capability for preparing large proportions of our population to meet the changed and changing requirements of the twenty-first century.

Frustration, finger pointing, and incomplete reform efforts have characterized the past twenty years. The next cycle, especially the next ten years or the period from 2000–2010 is critical because it will be the time that we will build on reform frameworks now in place and begin the difficult and serious work of restructuring America's schools to meet the needs of all students as well as the requirements of the twenty-first century.

The following outlines the progress that has been made to date, the learnings which have resulted from research, initial implementation, and experience, and an agenda outline of actions and resources needed for effective, successful leadership, and policy to achieve the goals for educational reform.

---

Current Status of Educational Reform

The educational reform model outlined in Washington ESHB 1209 established a challenging and ambitious reform effort. The reform tools to be developed and implemented included the following:

• Challenging State Academic Standards

The Washington educational goals and challenging state standards or the Essential Academic Learning Requirements (EALRs) have been developed, and they are well known and accepted by most state educational stakeholders.

• Grade-level Benchmarks

Benchmarks that specify expected grade-level performances required for various grades have been completed and disseminated throughout the state. Some districts have used these to refine the scope and sequence of their curriculum while others have not had the time or resources to do this in an in-depth manner.

• Development of a Washington State Assessment System

Much effort has gone into the development of a state assessment system that could inform educators about school programs and classroom strengths and assess where improvements are needed. The system is especially useful in that it provides norm-based tests to compare Washington students with students in other states as well as more challenging assessments such as the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL), which is closely aligned with the Washington EALRs.

• Development of an Accountability System

An initial reading goals accountability system was developed and is in place, and a comprehensive accountability system is being developed. The Washington reform components preceded the national Goals 2000 efforts. They reflected the thinking in 1993. Assumptions underlying this system included the following:

• That the primary classroom task was to develop challenging standards that teachers would be able to use in changing curriculum and instructional practices with little effort.
• That the organizational structures of the school could easily be adapted to meet the needs of a challenging curriculum, e.g., large classes, a nine month year, 180 days of instruction, etc.
• That districts and schools would have the capacity for transforming themselves to meet the educational reform requirements as they simultaneously dealt with class size, special needs students, new instructional methods, use of technology, etc.

In short, educational reform did not take the multiple variables needed for success into consideration. When we think of systems, we did not use a comprehensive systems approach. The illustration below outlines the components of educational systems at the school/district levels.

 

Educational reform changed the outputs or expectations for student learning and the assessments for measuring progress toward challenging standards but did not consider the importance of the inputs (the need for renewed curriculum, available resources, the school year, class size, etc.), the varying environments (mobility, second-language learners, etc.), the leadership styles in schools and classrooms (controlling, empowering, or freeing), or the processes needed (professional development, extended instructional skills, parent and community support, etc.).

Our understandings of the missing components or conditions have grown not only from educational reform experience but also from the continuing economic, social, demographic, and societal changes and our understandings of the requirements of the twenty-first century.

The task of leadership is to help people understand the problems they are facing and provide the support needed to help them take the risks that will be needed to adapt and restructure education to meet changing needs and changing conditions. The transitions that must be made to adapt to a new era of needs, norms, and requirements is a form of culture shock. The primary characteristics of culture shock are uncertainty and a situation where, often, behaviors that were punished in the past are now rewarded, and behaviors that were rewarded in the past are now punished.

The restructuring of schools requires not just educators but also business, social, and political leaders to come to terms with three basic understandings. 

• Learning Matters

Learning matters, not simply because it leads individuals to better jobs or produces national wealth, but because it enriches the human spirit, the quality of life, social health, and remains a cornerstone of a democratic society. Learning matters throughout our lifetimes-- during the earliest years of toddlers and infants through the continuous learning of adults throughout their life spans.

• Transforming Schools

Transforming schools to meet the needs of individuals and society is a primary state responsibility. In a knowledge society, developing human capital or the knowledge, capability, and skills of a state's citizens is a priority that requires a collaborative effort of all state agencies and federal, state, and community resources.

• State Policy, Legislation, and Allocation of Resources

State policy, legislation, and allocation of resources are the tools by which transition and adaptation and restructuring takes place. Today's educational system often reflects a patchwork of programs to meet fragmented needs rather than a well thought out framework with adequate flexibility to meet local needs. State leaders are needed to (1) create awareness and understanding, (2) move away from actions that create fear and resentment, (3) develop a vision and plan for the state's role over the next decade, (4) develop actions and programs that both encourage risk taking and maintain the importance of results and student performance, (5) provide support for the capacity building that is needed, and (6) reinforce and celebrate the progress made to date.

In spite of the problems of an incomplete design for educational reform, much progress has been made. Washington educators and citizens have gained a new level of awareness and understanding of the importance and difficulties of school reform, student learning and achievement have increased, and school programs and organizations are improving. These incremental gains, however, are not likely to be sustained or "scaled up" to desirable levels without an unprecedented effort of restructuring schools.

---

Directions for Restructuring

Restructuring is a complex process that requires:

• New ways of thinking
• New ways of relating and collaborating
• New ways of behaving
• New skills and competencies
• New ways of learning
• New ways of leading
• New ways of using resources

Restructuring does not mean throwing out all of the past but rather changing emphases and the ways we look at the world and people. Examples of some shifts in emphasis are outlined below:

Current Role Emphasis	New Role Emphasis
School district compliance	School district leadership
School district monitoring	School district technical assistance
Documentation	Facilitation
Reaction to needs	Collaborative identification of needs
Emphasis on Quantity	Emphasis on Quality
Cooperation	Collaboration
Contracts for services	Partnerships for services
Technological competence	Technology driven leadership
Bureaucracy	Ad hoc crazy
Project/program centered	Systems centered
Program staff	Competent teams-- leadership, curriculum and instruction, and management

Some of the characteristics of restructuring include the following:

• Restructuring should begin with an educative and study process that leads to vision.

• Restructuring moves to a comprehensive planning process that requires time.

• Restructuring efforts are likely to be enhanced by the involvement of outside persons providing technical assistance, consultation, and facilitation.

• Restructuring should be both bottom up and top down.

• Restructuring should result in changes in the roles, responsibilities, and reward systems of educators.

---

Toward an Agenda for Educational Excellence

It is understood that a comprehensive agenda for educational excellence cannot be achieved immediately, nor could it be implemented easily in terms of availability of time, capacity development, and resources. Rather, it should be viewed as a phased in plan to take place over the decade. In a sense it provides potential goal areas for the decade.

The agenda is not meant to be prescriptive for every school, nor is it mandatory. It is a checklist to encourage thinking and prioritization of these and other items. Items are grouped under the headings of vision access, organizational changes, professional development, state capacity building, and preservice preparation. Many of the goals are overlapping and interdependent.

Goal 1-- Setting a New Vision for Schools and Preparing for Implementation

A commission or task force consisting of practicing educators, researchers, community agencies, business persons, and citizens should be appointed and charged with an examination of ways that schools should be restructured to meet the needs of all students in meeting the requirements of the twenty-first century. The focus of the commission should be on learning, growth and development including the health, developmental, social, and psychological needs of children and youth as well as their academic needs.

This process should be repeated at district and local levels to encourage a meaningful visioning process at each level. Decision makers will use the state vision to guide state legislation and policy; model a process for districts, schools, teachers, and administrators; and develop realistic plans.

Provide a one-year in-depth capacity building program for educational service districts (ESDs), the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI), and district and higher education staff to prepare them to facilitate and provide technical assistance and consultation for the restructuring effort.

Survey districts and schools that have developed restructuring plans and programs and publish the models they have used with an evaluation of strengths and weaknesses.

Goals 2-- Implementation of Restructuring

Reorganize schools to fit their visions and missions. Areas where schools/districts may need to be reorganized include the following:

Early Childhood Education

The improvement of learning and development in early childhood is an essential component of an educational agenda for the next decade. Research has documented the importance of the early year's stimulation and sound development experiences when children are biologically primed for learning. Studies have shown that high quality preschool experiences boosts later achievement and social adjustment, reduces the likelihood of retention or placement in special education, and increases the changes of graduation from high school.

In Washington several needs become evident. These include the following:

• Support a full day kindergarten for all students.

• Develop an early childhood education system (3–5 years old).

• Require and provide ongoing training for preschool personnel.

• Develop a comprehensive system of the fragmentation of current programs, including the consolidation of early childhood programs and adult education programs in OSPI and the appropriate inclusion of private schools to receive selected services.

Mobility

Mobility of students is a major problem in a number of Washington schools. Schools and community agencies need to make every effort to provide services for these children. Examples of such programs include the following:

• Development of a state virtual system to follow the students and supplement their learning. Such a system would enable schools to diagnose learning needs and reduce gaps in learning as well as provide access to independent learning.

• Provide before-and-after school and summer programs for struggling students.

• Coordinate with and increase family literacy and adult education programs.

Use of Time

Perhaps one of the more obvious problems in educational reform efforts is a lack of consideration of time limitations. We assume that all students learn in the same ways, at the same rates, in every subject area. We seem to be looking at yesterday's calendar, which will not work for today's students. The importance of time is similarly disregarded in the lack of time for school staff to upgrade their knowledge and improve programs. Examples of needed actions are the following:

• Compilation of models and development of regional cadres to implement training programs dealing with successful models for using time more effectively, e.g., longer school year; year round schools; ten week sessions followed by a week of teacher training and planning; extended school days to include breakfast, recreation day care, tutoring and enrichment; 12 week on and 15 day off multi-track schedule; before and after school programs; Saturday school programs; assignment of students to same team of teachers for two or more years; and increased academic time for middle and high school students.

• Extension of support for professional development and planning to ten days per year. Later extension of support for the school year should move to 210 days with a minimum of ten days planning and professional development time.

Structural Changes

There are a number of basic district, school, and classroom changes that would support increased student learning and achievement. Examples of these programs include the following:

• Providing principals with greater decision making regarding budgets, staff, and programs and provide technical assistance and support from the district.

• Creation of instructional coaches who are well-trained, capable staff to work with teachers and administrators at the school level.

• Provision of electronic assisted decision making and management programs for principals, other administrators, and teachers.

• Targeted class size reduction for Grades K–3.

• Refurbishing old schools and providing adequate equipment, materials, and learning tools (including electronic technologies).

Goal 3-- Professional Development

The most critical priority for education is to develop and support effective professional development of administrators and teachers. Basic design flaws of educational reform efforts were (1) the lack of realization of need for in-depth and continuous updating of administrators and teachers, (2) lack of understanding of the required role and culture changes needed to implement educational reform, and (3) the lack of understanding of the mismatch between teacher and administrator preparation programs and the realities of teaching and managing/leading districts and schools.

A myth remains that world-class academic performance can be attained in a system without significant restructuring of organizations and redefinition of roles and capabilities. The extent of the problem varies by districts and schools, but a general pattern of needs for improved teaching and learning programs is found in affluent and poor schools. Access to quality teaching will be the primary civil rights and "opportunities to learn" issues in the next ten years.

Part of the solution to the problem is found in the provision of more time for professional development at the district and school level. An even more critical problem is that of finding effective professional development programs. Current staff development is fragmented, often not related to the realities of the position, and not provided in sufficient depth for the development of skills for implementation. Examples of actions that could be taken are the following:

• Continuous development of OSPI, ESD, district, and higher education staff as part of a professional development academy.

• Development of effective technical assistance, consultative, and coaching models and materials.

• Development of an effective program consultation/audit process that would include district, ESD, OSPI, and higher education staff to observe programs and provide feedback.

• Study and clarification of the roles and training needs of paraprofessionals working in schools and early childhood education programs.

• Development of administrators and teachers academies to identify professional development needs, procure relevant programs, accredit programs for levels of mastery, and serve as advocates for improving professional expertise.

• Development of a coherent plan for systematic staff development that moves from basics to more difficult skills. These should recognize that you couldn't expect idealistic conceptions of teaching, learning, and freedom from schools that can't do basic things well.

• Development of a web-enabled professional development system.

Goal 4-- Capacity Building System

Development of a capacity building system will require careful planning and coordination of the various groups of educational stakeholders. Four of the most important groups that must come together and develop their own capacities are (1) educational professional development staff (ESD, OSPI, district, school, and higher education), (2) administrators, (3) teachers, and (4) paraprofessionals. This needs to begin with the professional development providers who never meet together to learn and discuss professional development and capacity building.

• Funds need to be made available for a planned, systematic, comprehensive development of state capacity developers.

Goal 5-- Preservice Preparation

The gap between preservice preparation and the realities of the classroom are well known. Much of the work to reduce this gap must be initiated by higher education institutions, but the K–12 community could do much. Examples of actions that could be taken are the following:

• Provide an "exchange" program for K–12 personnel to teach in preservice programs for a year and university personnel to teach in a school. While few would opt for this initially, the learning and symbolic linking of the two communities would be significant.

• Involve quality higher education personnel in professional development and district technical assistance, consultative/audits.

• Implement a yearly summit of higher education and K–12 personnel to review new research and identify the implications for K–12 programs.

• Provide incentives for higher education staff to adapt and work with districts and schools.

Goal 6-- Expand Use of Technology

The completion of the K–20 technology system has provided Washington with a unique system for learning. Although much of the initial infrastructure is now in place, several large-scale tasks remain to be put in place. These include the following:

• Development of a state-of-the-art web site that can provide data for decision support and an effective professional development system.
• Development of professional development and training to:
• Provide teachers and administrators with basic computer use and navigational skills.
• Provide quality curriculum professional development with computer enriched learning opportunities.
• Provide administrators and policy makers with information, visualization, and templates that can support data based decision making.

Goal 7-- Increase parent and Community Involvement

A strong link is needed between home, school, and community in order to make a difference in the lives of students. Schools must again be viewed as the hub of the neighborhood or community. It should be a place where adult education, extended student services, and family literacy activities take place on a regular basis. Schools need to begin to see families as part of their client groups. Meaningful ways of involving parents in their children's education need to be in place.

Goal 8-- Community Outreach

The community learning environment includes more than the school. It is the totality of health, recreational, social and cultural activities available to students in the larger community. When teachers and administrators reach out to build collaborations and effective working relationships with these services, the motivation for learning is enhanced. Schools need to consider the needs for extended services such as early childhood education, after school enrichment, counseling services, or other activities and provide such services in collaboration with other community agencies and groups.

Schools have to make the determination of (1) the priority actions or needs that need to be addressed, (2) they ways they might be addressed, and (3) how they can initiate and/or provide needed services.

Restructuring will lead to new models of the ways schools can meet the diverse needs of children and youth in their communities and how all students can be provided with the learnings needed for every child.

---

About the Author

Dr. Shirley D. McCune is Educational Liaison at the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction for the State of Washington. She has a background in educational research, program management and state policy and was formerly President of Learning Trends in Washington D.C., Senior Director of the Mid-continental Regional Educational Laboratory in Colorado, and Director of the State Services Division of the Education Commission of the States.  She has also taught on K-12 through university levels. (360) 753-2593, e-mail smccune@ospi.wednet.edu.

---

Copyright © October 2000 New Horizons for Learning, all rights reserved.
http://www.newhorizons.org
E-mail: info@newhorizons.org

For permission to redistribute, please go to:
New Horizons for Learning Copyright and Permission Information