Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE

F

TOLICDf QBKI‘ET

 

NATIONWIDE INFLUENCES ON
CALIFORNIA EDUCATION POLICY

by Michael W. Kirst

The good news is that academic achievement
among California's public school students is
improving. The bad news is that it still has far
further to go before being able to meet so—called
“world class standards.” More troublesome yet,
the state presently is beset by a complex web of
troubling conditions which severely threaten
continued education reform.

Dramatically increasing enrollments, declin-
ing real revenues, and debilitating political issues
are combining to distract from a concentrated
state effort to improve California’s schools.
Each of these conditions, as well as student
performance, is itself the subject of a subsequent
chapter in this report. However, here we wish to
bring to the reader's attention another develop—
ment which, while not currently on the front
burner of policy consideration in California, we
believe will become increasingly important in the
future.

We refer to building public visibility and
political consensus around national strategies for
accelerating education reform. The following
section describes these multiple national strat-
egies, and the individuals and institutions
responsible for them.

The message here is not that California's
public education system is about to be sub—
ordinated to a monolithic national reform effort.
Such is a remote if not impossible idea.

 

ICSL,
\JC6
No.3 June 1992

However, the following national reform pro-
posals are establishing a new evolving context in
which California policymakers and educators
must operate. The previously mentioned dis-
ractions of enrollment growth, resource decline
and political disruption are presently preventing
these national reform strategies from exerting
substantial influence in California. However, we
predict that in time, the policy environment will
evolve to the point that these ideas will be con-
sidered far more intensely.

NATIONAL EDUCATION REFORM
STRATEGIES

For more than 350 years the hallmark of
United States education has been local and state
control. But in the past few years there has been
a dramatic increase in nationwide initiatives for
education policy. These initiatives may take
many more years to become concrete, but by the
end of the 1990s they are likely to have a major
impact on states and localities across the United
States.

Given the slow economic growth in most
states, there will be few additional resources
available for state education initiatives during
most of the 1990s. Consequently, the period
1991—1995 will likely witness a larger portion of
nationwide initiatives and a smaller complement
of new state programs that were the hallmark of
the 19805. This turnabout represents a major
contrast from the decade of the 19803 when state-
level leadership (especially between 1983 and
1987) produced large—scale reform packages in

. v
P

PACE is a non—partisan university-based education
research center, directed by James W. Guthrie,
UC Berkeley; Michael W. Kirst, Stanford University;
and Allan R. Odden, USC. Julia E. Koppich,
UC Berkeley, is the Deputy Director.

44 states and a net increase in education

expenditures of 30 ercent in real terms for the
decade. INSTI UTE OF GOVERNMENTAL

STUOIES LIEBCE'ARY
JAN 2 6 201.7
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

 

 

 

 

Nationwide Influences on California Education Policy

The key concept here is nationwide influence
as contrasted with federal government policies.
Few prognosticators predict a large array of
mandated federal policies, or substantial
increases in federal aid. (Federal aid currently
accounts for only 5 percent of total education
expenditures.) The federal government’s role
will be more indirect, through supporting
research and development and systematically
reportng pupil outcomes.

For example, by the end of the 19905, the
U.S. likely will have nationwide curriculum
standards and subject matter frameworks, though
not a detailed national curriculum. Currently,
nationwide policy is all around us—the
Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), American
College Test (ACT), school accreditation
agencies such as the North Central Association of
Schools and Colleges, and organizations such as
the Education Commission of the States (ECS),
the College Entrance Examination Board, and the
National Collegiate Athletic Association. These
policy-setting organizations do not represent a
specific group or cross-section of education
employees and they possess sufficient legitimacy
to recommend or manage nationwide policies.

Many of the new 19905 political devel-
opments arise from the perception about the
alleged dismal status of K—12 education stan-
dards as indicated by the following:

1 . Current state and local standards for pupil
achievement and teacher performance are
lacking in rigor and do not provide uniform
pupil outcome data crucially needed for
interstate or local comparisons.

2 . Commonly used multiple choice tests are
excessively oriented to low-level basic skills
that inappropriately emphasize single right
answers. Moreover, the proclivity of local
education agencies is to choose commercial
tests that do not adequately emphasize
analysis, statistical inference, mathematical
problem-solving, hands-on science,
synthesis, expository writing, and complex
reading. Many widely available standardized
tests, such as the California Test of Basic
Skills, and Stanford or Metropolitan
Achievement Tests are not geared to the high
curricular standards of our economic
competitors in Europe and Asia. Since the

United States is involved in worldwide
economic competition, solely local control of
tests and curriculum is a luxury the U.S. can
no longer afford.

3 . Since the commonly used standardized
multiple choice tests are at such a low level,
the parents and general public receive a
“phony story” that exaggerates what U.S.
pupils know and can do today compared to
prior decades or to students in other nations.
The “Lake Woebegone effect” becomes the
reality.

4 . U.S. tests and exams often do not contain
“high stakes” for the pupils who take them.
Few employers look at transcripts of high
school graduates, and state assessments are
not used for college entrance. The SAT is
not aligned with the high school curriculum
and alleges to measure “aptitude” rather than
achievement.

As will be seen, a coalition of nationwide
leaders has concluded that national subject matter
curricular standards that meet world-class
benchmarks are needed. This coalition contends
that a nationwide exam system should be
developed and aligned to these world class
standards in five core subjects—English,
mathematics, science, social studies, and foreign
languages. Moreover, the exams should be
reported for individual students, and “high
stakes” decisions should be based largely on
student performance. Specifically, contends this
group of leaders, employers should utilize the
national exams when hiring high school
graduates, and universities should consider
national exam scores as well as high school
grades. Further, these national initiatives need to
be part of a state systemic reform strategy that
revamps staff development and teacher training
so that it is compatible with the national curricular
standards.

California policy contained most of the
elements of systemic reform by the late 19803.
The state’s curriculum frameworks, for example,
widely are acknowledged to be leading California
toward “world class,” or at least model national
curricular, standards. However, since the
19803, the state has repealed its pupil assessment
program and failed to invest adequately in staff
development. Consequently, few teachers are

able to implement curriculum frameworks, and
measurements of student achievement are spotty
at best.

SPECIFIC COMPONENTS OF A FUTURE
NATIONWIDE STRATEGY

Several emerging and evolving components
of a nationwide education strategy are described
below. Some of the elements are compatible
with one another. Others seemingly are in
conflict. At least a portion of the policy debates
around these issues will involve a process of
sorting out, streamlining, combining, and
perhaps eliminating strategies that currently are
receiving national attention.

National Education Goals Panel

The National Education Goals Panel (NEGP)
resulted from the 1989 Charlottesville Summit of
the president and the nation's governors. That
summit produced the six national education
goals. In 1992, the NEGP will be broadened to
include members of Congress and public
members, as well as representative governors
and members of the Executive branch.
(Congressional members were not included
immediately after the 1989 summit and
Congressional Democrats want education to
broaden the structure and functions of NEGP.)
The National Governors Association (NGA) has
been unusually active in elaborating and meas-
uring the national goals. NGA also is playing a
major role in the annual reports which describe
U.S. progress toward meeting the goals.

National Education Goals

1 . Readiness for School

By the year 2000, all children in America will
start school ready to learn.

2 . High School Completion

By the year 2000, the high school graduation
rate will increase to at least 90 percent.

Nationwide Influences on California Education Policy

3 . Student Achievement and Citizenship

By the year 2000, American students will
leave grades four, eight, and twelve having
demonstrated competency in challenging
subject matter including English, mathe-
matics, science, history, and geography; and
every school in America will ensure that all
students learn to use their minds well, so they
may be prepared for responsible citizenship,
further learning, and productive employment
in our modern economy.

4 . Science and Mathematics

By the year 2000, U.S. students will be first
in the world in science and mathematics
achievement.

5 . Adult Literacy and Lifelong Learning

By the year 2000, every adult American will
be literate and will possess the knowledge
and skills necessary to compete in a global
economy and exercise the rights and
responsibilities of citizenship.

6 . Safe, Disciplined, and Drug-Free Schools

By the year 2000, every school in America
will be free of drugs and violence and will
offer a disciplined environment
conducive to learning.

National standards, specifically, are contained in
Goals 3 and 4:

0 American students will leave grades four,
eight and twelve having demonstrated com-
petency in challenging subject matter includ-
ing English, mathematics, science, history,
and geography; and every school in America
will ensure that all students learn to use their
minds well, so that they may be prepared for
responsible citizenship, further learning, and
productive employment in our modern
economy.

0 U.S. students will be first in the world in
science and mathematics achievement.

Nationwide Influences on California Education Policy

National Council for Education
Standards and Testing

The National Council for Education
Standards and Testing (NCEST) was created by
Congress in 1991. The purpose of NCEST, a
thirty-member bipartisan board co—chaired by the
same governors that are leaders in National
Education Goals Panel, is to decide the feasibility
and desirability of national standards and
assessments. The NCEST board represents is a
good example of the emerging national coalition.
Among its members are Governor Carroll A.
Campbell, Jr. (R) South Carolina; Governor Roy
Romer (D) Colorado; Gordon Ambach,
Executive Director, Council of Chief State
School Officers; U.S. Senator Jeff Bingaman (D)
New Mexico, Committee on Labor and Human
Resources; Iris Carl, National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics; Lynne V. Cheney,
Executive Director, National Endowment for the
Humanities; Ramon C. Cortines, Superintendent,
San Francisco Unified School District; Chester
E. Finn, Jr., Vanderbilt University; Keith
Geiger, President, National Education
Association; U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R) Utah,
Committee on Labor and Human Resources;
David Kearns, U.S. Department of Education
(former CEO, Xerox Corporation); Roger B.
Porter, The White House; Lauren Resnick,
University of Pittsburgh; Roger Semerad, RJR
Nabisco; Albert Shanker, President, American
Federation of Teachers; and Marshall S. Smith,
Dean, School of Education, Stanford University.
NCEST’s final report in January 1992 advocated
the establishment of national standards and
exams, with heavy reliance on “bottom-up
initiatives” from professional organizations such
as the National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics (NCTM). NCEST is important
because, unlike the National Education Goals
Panel, it has congressional authorization and
participation, so it expands the coalition beyond
the governors and Bush administration.

New Standards Project

The New Standards Project (NSP) is funded
by the Pew Memorial Trust and the MacArthur
Foundation and is charged with building a
national consensus for educational standards in
five core subject areas (mathematical problem-
solving, hands-on science, expository writing,

complex reading, and synthesis/analysis). NSP
is co—directed by Marc Tucker of the National
Center on Education and the Economy and
Lauren Resnick of the University of Pittsburgh.
NSP is also designing high-stakes examinations
intended to be compatible with national
standards. The first subject area test to be
developed will probably be in mathematics using
the NCTM standards regarded by many as
world-class quality.

National Assessment of Educational
Progress

Since the 1970s, the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) has conducted
periodic national assessments of student
achievement in core subject areas. NAEP is
funded by the federal government and overseen
by a component of the U.S. Department of
Education. The federal contractor is the
Educational Testing Service (ETS), which
supplies NAEP with subject matter trends for its
reports. NAEP is not based on curricular stan-
dards or frameworks such as are envisioned for
the high-stakes individual pupil exam by the
National Education Goals Panel, National
Council for Education Standards and Testing, or
New Standards Project. NAEP is not meant to
guide classroom syllabi and therefore its long-run
future in “world-class high-stakes” exams is
uncertain. In the short run, it will continue as an
overall measure of educational attainment at the
national and state levels, but will not be an exam
each pupil takes. NAEP will be used to compare
state performance and provide impetus for state
curricular reform.

U.S. Labor Department Secretary’s
Commission for Achieving Necessary
Skills

This activity, known as SCANS, produced a
report outlining the skills necessary for meeting
the demands of! the U.S. workplace. These
workplace skills also provide guidance for pupil
exams but are not entirely compatible with the
concepts emphasized by New Standards Project
or National Assessment of Educational Progress.
SCANS stresses group work, oral communi-
cation, and interpersonal skills, but these skills
are not featured, at least so far, by NAEP or
NSP. Group skills, for example, are difficult to

combine with individual high-stakes examina-
tions. These contradictions will need to be
reconciled as policy debates continue.

New American Schools Development
Corporation

The New American Schools Development
Corporation, known by the acronym NASDC, is
a board composed primarily of big U.S.
businesses that will fund several “break the
mold” school experiments. All grantees must
address “world-class” standards in the core
subject areas specified in National Education
Goals Panel and National Council for Education
Standards and Testing. NASDC hopes to
provide $200 million in privately funded school
experiments between 1992 and 1996, and will
commit at least $25 million in 1992 for design
teams.

America 2000

This is President Bush’s proposed strategy to
improve U.S. education by the year 2000. The
proposal combines a series of federal, state, and
private initiatives designed to meet the previously
mentioned six national Education Goals. Most
relevant to this analysis is the president’s support
for world-class standards, high—stakes testing,
federal funding for break-the-mold schools
developed by NASDC, and a continuation of
NAEP. “America 2000” also includes a heavy
press for “choice” extending to public and private
schools. However, this issue will be fought out
at the state rather than the federal level unless
there is a change in Congress to Republican
control.

National Board for Professional
Teaching Standards

The National Board of Professional Teaching
Standards (NBPTS), based in Detroit, Michigan,
has a 63-member board (two-thirds teachers) that
will begin in 1994 to certify teachers nationally.
NBPTS certification assessments will be based
on the ability of teachers to teach the curriculum
envisioned by the New Standards Project and
National Assessment of Educational Progress.
NBPT S views certification as appropriate solely
for teachers with five or more years of
experience. State and local education agencies

Nationwide Influences on California Education Policy

will be urged to reward teachers who pass
NBPTS assessments and become “board
certified.” NBP’I‘ S assessments will be different
from any current teacher evaluations and will
feature the ability to adapt subject matter to
diverse students. NBPTS assessments will
stress teachers’ knowledge of their students and
demonstrated ability to cooperate with other
teachers to improve local schools.

Neighborhood Schools Improvement Act
(Two Bills Pending in Congress)

These bills provide grants to states to be used
for state systemic reform plans. Specifically,
HR 3320 specifies federal aid shall be used to
“develop innovative reform plans which include
state achievement goals, a means for developing
or adopting high quality, challenging curricular
frameworks and coordinated curricular materials,
professional development strategies, and assess-
ment instruments.” HR 3320 has bi-partisan
Congressional support, but is opposed by the
Bush administration which views it primarily as a
Democratic alternative to America 2000.

IMPLICATIONS FOR STATE POLICY

These nationwide efforts may not result in all
their intended outcomes or be as well integrated
as the list above implies. However, it is likely
that the general direction of all these initiatives
will result in new nationwide and state policies
by the end of the decade. Probably, the “national
exam” will not be a single exam but rather an
examination to which state pupil assessment
systems could be anchored. The National Board
for Professional Teaching Standards is likely to
have the most immediate impact because it does
not require development of the other national
reform strategy components as prerequisites.
Among other decisions, states will need to de-
termine whether to recognize and reward board—
certified teachers by 1994.

There is opposition to these national
strategies—focused, for example, on the imprac-
ticality and cost of national exams. Nevertheless,
the political momentum behind these national
reform efforts is impressive and growing. The
political support for national changes is not solely
top-down, but rather stems from all directions,
including business, professional associations

Nationwide Influences on California Education Policy

(NCT M), universities, and local school districts.
As evidence of broad-based support, the January
1992 recommendations of the National Council
for Education Standards and Testing for national
standards and exams was supported by both the
American Federation of Teachers and the
National Education Association, as well as by the
National School Boards Association.

The widest political disagreement concerns
the federal role for meeting world-class standards
and providing equity for all students. The view
of most elected Republicans is that the federal
role is limited to “keeping score” on progress
toward the national goals and providing research
and development. Many elected Democrats
contend that the federal government should play a
major role in funding state and local operations,
especially for school readiness, finance equity,
and the disadvantaged. After a protracted battle,
the 1992 National Council on Education
Standards and Testing report concluded that these
functions are the responsibility of state and local
education agencies. This political conflict over
federal funding of school operations will likely
intensify as more federal funds are made
available for reallocation from defense cuts.

States need to monitor these developments
carefully while keeping in mind that state
curricular policy developed in the 1980s is quite
similar to the orientation of these nationwide
forces. Califomia’s new state assessment, for
example, includes revamped curricular frame-
works and individual testing, and is compatible
with the high—stakes pupil outcomes.

Components of the national strategy can
mesh productively. Standards, curriculum
frameworks, and exams do form a nice package.
State policy, therefore, needs to keep the inter-
relationships of these strategies in mind rather
than merely look at them as discrete, independent
reform efforts. Moreover, the developmental
costs for these national efforts need not be borne
by the hard-pressed state budgets, but rather can
rely on foundations, businesses, and federal
appropriations.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CALIFORNIA

California state education policy will be
shaped in many ways by these nationwide
influences. California does not have a statewide
goal-setting process or any specific education
targets that it is trying to reach. Should
California adopt the national goals without any
supplementation for the unique California
context?

California has an implicit set of education
standards embodied in its subject matter cur-
ricular frameworks. However, these standards
are not yet explicitly linked to a state exam or
assessment. California’s new student assess-
ment program is at least three years away. Once
in place, the new system is likely to be closely
aligned to national exams since California leaders
such as State Superintendent Honig and
California Assessment Program Director Dale
Carlson are key players in the nationwide
coalition. Francie Alexander, who headed
California curriculum frameworks development
in the 19805, has moved to the US. Department
of Education where she is leading a similar
national effort.

California may also be an early proponent of
the National Board for Professional Teaching
Standards. Superintendent Honig is on the
board. The board’s Vice Chair is Claire Pelton, a
San Jose Unified School District teacher. The
teacher evaluation system that resulted from SB
813 in 1983 is not based on the sophisticated
new concepts featured in NBPT S assessments.
Simulations, portfolios, and demonstration teach-
ing exercises, critical features of national board
certification, no doubt will influence state and
local policies. The national board’s vision of
“what teachers should know and be able to do”
may also have a significant impact on California
teacher preparation and induction.

California school districts have responded
enthusiastically to the NASDC request for
proposals for “break-the-mold” schools. Con-
sortiums have been formed to spur large-scale
innovative changes.

California also would benefit substantially
from the pending bills in Congress (52 and
HR 3320) that stress systemic reform.
California has an overall state policy vision that

includes the element of systemic reform, but
many of these elements are implemented in a
partial manner only. Conceptualization of the
entire systemic process is sound and exemplary.
But the implementation has faltered because of
insufficient political consensus and a consequent
lack of resources. This shortfall is particularly
acute with respect to staff development and
preservice teacher education.

New federal aid in 82 or HR 3320 could, at
least partially, fill these gaps. Investment even to
reach the teachers who want to teach the new
state frameworks is woefully inadequate, and
time and resources need to be invested to convert
the skeptics as well.

Superintendent Honig has been able to
envision the many interlocking parts of systemic
reform. However, the dispute between the state
superintendent and former governor George
Deukmejian led to a gubernatorial veto of the
crucial California Assessment Program,
shattering the state’s accountability system. The
state’s staggering pupil enrollment growth—in
excess of 200,000 students a year—has stretched
the state’s resources for education “basics” and
consigned reform initiatives to the fiscal back-
ground. California school districts are frequently
so hard-pressed to contend with enrollment
growth and limited—English-proficient (LEP)
students that little time or resources are left to
implement the state’s reform vision.

Then there is the issue of preservice and
inservice training. The state department of
education has not had sufficient leverage over
teacher preparation, especially in the California
State University (CSU) system. (The University
of California prepares only a small percentage of
new teachers, while CSU accounts for between
60 and 70 percent.) In addition, there are some
effective state staff development institutes and
local programs, but these reach only a small
percentage of teachers. Most local staff develop-
ment programs are not even aligned with the
state’s curricular efforts. The state’s large-scale
academy for prospective principals, however, is
well designed to help with leadership in systemic
reform, especially in the curricular area.

Finally, state education department staff has
been reduced drastically since 1989, a condition
which has eroded the state’s leadership capacity.

U.C. BERKELEY LIBRARIES

MW... WM a llllllllllllllllllllml

Cllclla'l7l376

The state superintendent has been under fire from
conflict of interest allegations concerning his
wife’s consulting firm, drawing time and atten-
tion away from reform efforts.

 

Nevertheless, California is “inching for-
ward” and making progress on systemic reform.
The curriculum frameworks drive the education
dialogue in the state. The recession has slowed
but not stopped this process. A crucial priority is
to focus on the missing elements in the
implementation of systemic reform—primarily
building teacher and school—site decision-making
capacity. The subject matter frameworks and
texts are in reasonable condition to support
successful change. The testing system is un-
certain. A small school-based decision-making
restructuring program ($8 million) will become
operational in 1992—93. California has been a
leader in school-linked social services and this
remains a priority of Governor Wilson, who
hopes to expand this effort in 1992—93 with $40
million in operational grants to local schools and
social service agencies.

These components of a systemic reform
package for California's schools undoubtedly
would result in greater reform progress if they
were fully implemented. However, current
concerns for awesome enrollment growth,
shrinking real resources, and political contro—
versy are overshadowing important successes
that have been made. These conditions hold the
prospect for impeding the additional future
changes that are badly needed.

Michael W. Kirst is a Professor in the School of
Education, Stanford University, Stanford, California,
and a co-director of PACE.

This Policy Brief was produced with Apple Macintosh Ilcx
computers and an Apple LaserWriter llntx printer. The
equipment was donated to PACE by Apple Computer, Inc.

The following policy briefs will be available from PACE at a cost of $5.00 each, prepaid. Please make
checks payable to the Regents of the University of California. Send your requests to PACE, School of
Education, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720. For a complete list of PACE publications, call
the PACE office at (510) 642-7223 or (510) 643-7349.

The Efiects of State Control on School Finance in California, by Larry Pious (Winter 1991)
California School Finance in the ’90s, by Allan Odden (Winter 1991—92)

School-linked Services, by Michael Kirst (Winter 1991—92)

Nationwide Influences on California Education Policy, by Michael Kirst (Winter 1991—92)
Vocational Education: Entering the Reform Era, by Gerald Hayward (Winter 1991—92)
Student Assessment, by Richard Shavelson (Winter 1991—92)

Education Reform and Labor-Management Relations, by Julia Koppich (Spring 1992)
Accountability, by James Guthrie (Spring 1992)

Decentralized Management, by Gerald Hayward and Julia Koppich (Spring 1992)
Education Reform and the New School Finance, by Allan Odden (Spring 1992)

 

Policy Analysis for California Education Non-Profit Org.
School of Education US. Postage
3659 Tolman Hall PAID

University of California Berkeley, CA
Berkeley, CA 94720 Permit No.1