Schools for the 21st Century – Testimony by Cris Shardelman
April 17, 2010
THE LAW
Cris Shardelman
History:
It is imperative that the background of the Schools for the 21st Century be understood, as it is the foundation for America 2000 which became Goals 2000 and education reform as we have come to know it under HB1209 here in the state of Washington. Time does not permit us to cover the subject in-depth.
SSB 5479, authorizing the Schools for the 21st Century, passed in May 1987. This legislation, proposed by then Governor Booth Gardner was heavily influenced by the much publicized report of Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy (CFEE), A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the 21st Century. Mark Tucker (head of CFEE) later reorganized as the National Center on Education and the Economy, was a consultant to Governor Gardner at the time of the writing of the 21st Century legislation. Tucker is known to have consulted on the writing of legislation, both state and federal. As reported in the Seattle Post Intelligencer, Tucker testified before the House Education Committee in February 1987.
Requirements of the law and its purpose:
The stated purpose of the Schools for the 21st Century was to foster change in the state common school system and to develop model school programs to improve student performance through additional money, 10 extra days per year for staff, and the very controversial temporary waiver of certain state statutes, administrative rules and waivers of federal regulations in order to develop new methods and procedures.
The legislation established a ten member Governor’s Task Force on the Schools for the 21st Century. Brian Benzel of the Edmonds School District was appointed the chair of the task force. Benzel would, during the course of the pilot program, become a member in other state and national education reform programs including the National Education Goals Panel, the National Alliance for Restructuring Education (a design team of the National Center on Education and the Economy under which Washington became a site partner), National Council on Educational Standards and Testing, the Governor’s Council on Education Reform and Funding known as GCERF and the Commission on Student Learning. While Benzel was head of the Governor’s Task Force on Schools for the 21st Century, a school in his district was chosen, on the recommendation of the Task Force, to be a 21st Century site.
Who was affected:
In the first round of funding, in the 1988-89 school year, 21 projects were chosen to be 21st Century sites through a competitive grant process. Although not specifically outlined in the legislation, all 21 projects submitted applications that held common strands. In the second round of funding, the 1990-91 school year, 12 more projects were added, bringing the total number of projects to 33, covering 27 school districts, 111 schools, and 52,106 children. The pilot project ended June 30, 1994, having expended $20.7 million.
How projects were selected, funded and monitored:
The state board of education was to review and select the projects for grant awards, monitor and evaluate the schools for the twenty-first century pilot projects. In addition, the Governor’s Task Force on Schools for the 21st Century was to recommend projects for approval to the state board. The application for funding required schools or districts to include, among other things, (RCW 28A.100.038) (1) an enumeration of specific activities to be carried out as part of the pilot school project, (6) the evaluation and accountability processes to be used to measure school-wide student and project performance…
Under RCW 28A.100.042 (3), the school pilot projects, initially funded for two years, could be extended for a total period not to exceed six years. Continued funding was contingent on a positive evaluation and on sites submitting an annual report to the State Board of Education. In addition, reports were to be delivered to the state legislature by the state board of education on the progress of the pilot by January 15 of each odd-numbered year. Approval of pilot projects could be modified or terminated for funding purposes, due to unsatisfactory evaluation results or a school districts failure to comply with the terms of the district’s application.
In 1992, SSB 6220 added additional requirements to the legislation, mandating that a final report be provided to the legislature on January 15, 1995, which would answer two essential questions: Has student performance increased? If so, what factors caused the increase?
In addition, this RCW allowed the state board and the Superintendent of Public Instruction to contract for an independent evaluation of the schools. Beginning in January 1993, the state of Washington began paying Peter Holly, of Cambridge, England, for work on the final report, due January 15, 1995. Considering that Holly had worked with the Schools for the 21st Century since 1989, one has to question how independent any evaluation completed by Holly could have been. The 1993 Report to the Legislature (pg. 88) indicates that Holly was involved with schools in Washington state prior to the implementation of the 21st Century program.
Common Restructuring Strands Funded:
Although not specifically mandated in the legislation, common themes emerged in the 21st Century grant applications. According to the 1989 Report to the Legislature, “Common themes among the projects include staff development, enhanced use of technology, international education, outcome based education, and reorganization of the delivery system for such programs as special education, Chapter 1, and the Learning Assistance Program.”
Key among these themes is international education, exemplified by the I*EARN program established and supported by the Copen Family Foundation. I*EARN is an acronym for International Education And Resource Network. The purpose of I*EARN is to link American students directly with their peers in other parts of the world, creating international joint projects. Key program coordinator was John Anderson, also coordinator for the Schools for the 21st Century. In addition to the I*EARN telecommunication project, Schools for the 21st Century, as a program, is involved in two international partnerships, the School of the 21st Century project in Moscow and the China National Institute for Education Studies/Haidian Education Bureau in Beijing.
Three years prior to the breakup of the Soviet Union, Mr. Copen signed an agreement with the Soviet Academy of Sciences; a similar agreement was entered into with the People’s Republic of China. The purpose of both contracts is, “to exchange best ideas, practices, and instructional materials”;”to exchange information and research between students, teachers, administrators, and scholars…particular emphasis on the school change process, innovative teaching trategies…”; and “To actively seek to establish exchanges of teachers and students in partner schools.” John Anderson traveled to Moscow to help in the planning of the 21st Century project there, which was to be a laboratory for continuing educational research. Was this what the legislature intended to fund?
Another key theme, common to the projects, is outcome based education. Known as mastery learning in the 1970’s when it was implemented—and ultimately failed—in the Chicago schools, it has achieved new status under the name of outcome-based education. Currently, OBE is known as performance-based, competency-based and standards-based education. Chief promoter of this concept of education based on outcomes, is Dr. William Spady, who, in 1984, successfully submitted a proposal to then Secretary of Education Terrence Bell for a grant which would eventually bring OBE to “all schools of the nation.” (overheads) On this first overhead, we see the letter of intent as evidence that Bill Spady worked with SPI Burningham of Utah to, “put outcome-based education in place, not only in Utah but in all schools in the nation.”
This next overhead shows how OBE results can be altered, “(w)e want to 1) screen out those schools which do not possess defining OBE characteristics or which cannot provide evidence of substantial improvement in student achievement.” (pg. 15 of application). The last overhead, is from the proposal (pg. 4) and speaks to the results of three OBE projects. Number 3 states, “The Center School in New Canaan, Connecticut, where for the last eight years in a row, about 60% of the sixth graders score at the 99th percentile on the MAT, some complete Algebra 1, and virtually no students in the entire school of 300 score below grade level.” You might ask, “How is the school doing now?” In an interview with investigative reporter Jayna Davis, on Oklahoma TV4, Spady was asked to name a successful class where students learned mathematics without textbooks, through real life experiences. He stated that there was an elementary program called Outcome Based Mathematics that was, ” developed by a friend of mine when he was Principal in his school in Connecticut, and he and his staff put this curriculum in.” When asked if the school was New Canaan, he stated that it was. Jayna Davis then went on to ask if the school was still open. His reply, “not the…the school’s been closed for ages. The school is a parking lot.” When asked why, Spady’s response was, “declining enrollment.” The reporter finally asked, “Was it an OBE school?” Spady’s answer, “Yes it was…the closure didn’t have anything to do with the effectiveness of OBE.”
I have this video here tonight and would be happy to make it available for anyone interested in viewing this short segment. William Spady’s success or failure is important because he became a consultant to at least one of the 21st Century sites, which, in its application, outlines its outcome-based orientation. That school district was Yakima. Yakima also consulted with Johnson City Central School District, Johnson City, New York. The failure of Johnson City has since been more than adequately documented.
From page 7 of the 1995 Executive Summary on the Report to the Legislature, we find the list of the seven major restructuring strands used in 21st Century Schools. All of the projects contain at least some of the features listed under each of these seven strands. (Overhead). They are:
- Collaborative Skills Cooperative Learning, Peer and Cross- Age Tutoring, Advisor/Advisee Programs, Peer Coaching, Team Teaching, Collaborative Planning, Shared Decision Making/Site-Based Management,
- Alternative Assessment Portfolios, Performance -Based Assessment, Peer Evaluation, Action Research
- Outcome-Based Education Quality Schools, Outcomes Driven Development Model, Mastery Learning
- Structural Change Latchkey Programs, Multiage Class/Upgraded School, Alternative Scheduling, Options to pull-Out, Early Childhood Education, Class Size
- Partnerships Business, Parent/Community, College/University, Interagency
- Technology Telecommunications, Networked Computers, Local Area Networked Computers, Video Production
- Curriculum Change Global Awareness/Pacific Rim, Integrated Curriculum, Thinking Skills, Project-Based Learning, Math Manipulatives, Learning Styles, Whole Language
These were the reform components/strands used in the pilot schools of 21st Century sites. To conclude this segment, we have looked at the law and its stated purpose, and looked at, to a minor degree, what that law brought to the State of Washington under the 21st Century pilot. The question remains, did the program meet the requirements of the law? As a pilot, was it successful?
Cris Shardelman
History:
It is imperative that the background of the Schools for the 21st Century be understood, as it is the foundation for America 2000 which became Goals 2000 and education reform as we have come to know it under HB1209 here in the state of Washington. Time does not permit us to cover the subject in-depth.
SSB 5479, authorizing the Schools for the 21st Century, passed in May 1987. This legislation, proposed by then Governor Booth Gardner was heavily influenced by the much publicized report of Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy (CFEE), A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the 21st Century. Mark Tucker (head of CFEE) later reorganized as the National Center on Education and the Economy, was a consultant to Governor Gardner at the time of the writing of the 21st Century legislation. Tucker is known to have consulted on the writing of legislation, both state and federal. As reported in the Seattle Post Intelligencer, Tucker testified before the House Education Committee in February 1987.
Requirements of the law and its purpose:
The stated purpose of the Schools for the 21st Century was to foster change in the state common school system and to develop model school programs to improve student performance through additional money, 10 extra days per year for staff, and the very controversial temporary waiver of certain state statutes, administrative rules and waivers of federal regulations in order to develop new methods and procedures.
The legislation established a ten member Governor’s Task Force on the Schools for the 21st Century. Brian Benzel of the Edmonds School District was appointed the chair of the task force. Benzel would, during the course of the pilot program, become a member in other state and national education reform programs including the National Education Goals Panel, the National Alliance for Restructuring Education (a design team of the National Center on Education and the Economy under which Washington became a site partner), National Council on Educational Standards and Testing, the Governor’s Council on Education Reform and Funding known as GCERF and the Commission on Student Learning. While Benzel was head of the Governor’s Task Force on Schools for the 21st Century, a school in his district was chosen, on the recommendation of the Task Force, to be a 21st Century site.
Who was affected:
In the first round of funding, in the 1988-89 school year, 21 projects were chosen to be 21st Century sites through a competitive grant process. Although not specifically outlined in the legislation, all 21 projects submitted applications that held common strands. In the second round of funding, the 1990-91 school year, 12 more projects were added, bringing the total number of projects to 33, covering 27 school districts, 111 schools, and 52,106 children. The pilot project ended June 30, 1994, having expended $20.7 million.
How projects were selected, funded and monitored:
The state board of education was to review and select the projects for grant awards, monitor and evaluate the schools for the twenty-first century pilot projects. In addition, the Governor’s Task Force on Schools for the 21st Century was to recommend projects for approval to the state board. The application for funding required schools or districts to include, among other things, (RCW 28A.100.038) (1) an enumeration of specific activities to be carried out as part of the pilot school project, (6) the evaluation and accountability processes to be used to measure school-wide student and project performance…
Under RCW 28A.100.042 (3), the school pilot projects, initially funded for two years, could be extended for a total period not to exceed six years. Continued funding was contingent on a positive evaluation and on sites submitting an annual report to the State Board of Education. In addition, reports were to be delivered to the state legislature by the state board of education on the progress of the pilot by January 15 of each odd-numbered year. Approval of pilot projects could be modified or terminated for funding purposes, due to unsatisfactory evaluation results or a school districts failure to comply with the terms of the district’s application.
In 1992, SSB 6220 added additional requirements to the legislation, mandating that a final report be provided to the legislature on January 15, 1995, which would answer two essential questions: Has student performance increased? If so, what factors caused the increase?
In addition, this RCW allowed the state board and the Superintendent of Public Instruction to contract for an independent evaluation of the schools. Beginning in January 1993, the state of Washington began paying Peter Holly, of Cambridge, England, for work on the final report, due January 15, 1995. Considering that Holly had worked with the Schools for the 21st Century since 1989, one has to question how independent any evaluation completed by Holly could have been. The 1993 Report to the Legislature (pg. 88) indicates that Holly was involved with schools in Washington state prior to the implementation of the 21st Century program.
Common Restructuring Strands Funded:
Although not specifically mandated in the legislation, common themes emerged in the 21st Century grant applications. According to the 1989 Report to the Legislature, “Common themes among the projects include staff development, enhanced use of technology, international education, outcome based education, and reorganization of the delivery system for such programs as special education, Chapter 1, and the Learning Assistance Program.”
Key among these themes is international education, exemplified by the I*EARN program established and supported by the Copen Family Foundation. I*EARN is an acronym for International Education And Resource Network. The purpose of I*EARN is to link American students directly with their peers in other parts of the world, creating international joint projects. Key program coordinator was John Anderson, also coordinator for the Schools for the 21st Century. In addition to the I*EARN telecommunication project, Schools for the 21st Century, as a program, is involved in two international partnerships, the School of the 21st Century project in Moscow and the China National Institute for Education Studies/Haidian Education Bureau in Beijing.
Three years prior to the breakup of the Soviet Union, Mr. Copen signed an agreement with the Soviet Academy of Sciences; a similar agreement was entered into with the People’s Republic of China. The purpose of both contracts is, “to exchange best ideas, practices, and instructional materials”;”to exchange information and research between students, teachers, administrators, and scholars…particular emphasis on the school change process, innovative teaching trategies…”; and “To actively seek to establish exchanges of teachers and students in partner schools.” John Anderson traveled to Moscow to help in the planning of the 21st Century project there, which was to be a laboratory for continuing educational research. Was this what the legislature intended to fund?
Another key theme, common to the projects, is outcome based education. Known as mastery learning in the 1970’s when it was implemented—and ultimately failed—in the Chicago schools, it has achieved new status under the name of outcome-based education. Currently, OBE is known as performance-based, competency-based and standards-based education. Chief promoter of this concept of education based on outcomes, is Dr. William Spady, who, in 1984, successfully submitted a proposal to then Secretary of Education Terrence Bell for a grant which would eventually bring OBE to “all schools of the nation.” (overheads) On this first overhead, we see the letter of intent as evidence that Bill Spady worked with SPI Burningham of Utah to, “put outcome-based education in place, not only in Utah but in all schools in the nation.”
This next overhead shows how OBE results can be altered, “(w)e want to 1) screen out those schools which do not possess defining OBE characteristics or which cannot provide evidence of substantial improvement in student achievement.” (pg. 15 of application). The last overhead, is from the proposal (pg. 4) and speaks to the results of three OBE projects. Number 3 states, “The Center School in New Canaan, Connecticut, where for the last eight years in a row, about 60% of the sixth graders score at the 99th percentile on the MAT, some complete Algebra 1, and virtually no students in the entire school of 300 score below grade level.” You might ask, “How is the school doing now?” In an interview with investigative reporter Jayna Davis, on Oklahoma TV4, Spady was asked to name a successful class where students learned mathematics without textbooks, through real life experiences. He stated that there was an elementary program called Outcome Based Mathematics that was, ” developed by a friend of mine when he was Principal in his school in Connecticut, and he and his staff put this curriculum in.” When asked if the school was New Canaan, he stated that it was. Jayna Davis then went on to ask if the school was still open. His reply, “not the…the school’s been closed for ages. The school is a parking lot.” When asked why, Spady’s response was, “declining enrollment.” The reporter finally asked, “Was it an OBE school?” Spady’s answer, “Yes it was…the closure didn’t have anything to do with the effectiveness of OBE.”
I have this video here tonight and would be happy to make it available for anyone interested in viewing this short segment. William Spady’s success or failure is important because he became a consultant to at least one of the 21st Century sites, which, in its application, outlines its outcome-based orientation. That school district was Yakima. Yakima also consulted with Johnson City Central School District, Johnson City, New York. The failure of Johnson City has since been more than adequately documented.
From page 7 of the 1995 Executive Summary on the Report to the Legislature, we find the list of the seven major restructuring strands used in 21st Century Schools. All of the projects contain at least some of the features listed under each of these seven strands. (Overhead). They are:
- Collaborative Skills Cooperative Learning, Peer and Cross- Age Tutoring, Advisor/Advisee Programs, Peer Coaching, Team Teaching, Collaborative Planning, Shared Decision Making/Site-Based Management,
- Alternative Assessment Portfolios, Performance -Based Assessment, Peer Evaluation, Action Research
- Outcome-Based Education Quality Schools, Outcomes Driven Development Model, Mastery Learning
- Structural Change Latchkey Programs, Multiage Class/Upgraded School, Alternative Scheduling, Options to pull-Out, Early Childhood Education, Class Size
- Partnerships Business, Parent/Community, College/University, Interagency
- Technology Telecommunications, Networked Computers, Local Area Networked Computers, Video Production
- Curriculum Change Global Awareness/Pacific Rim, Integrated Curriculum, Thinking Skills, Project-Based Learning, Math Manipulatives, Learning Styles, Whole Language
These were the reform components/strands used in the pilot schools of 21st Century sites. To conclude this segment, we have looked at the law and its stated purpose, and looked at, to a minor degree, what that law brought to the State of Washington under the 21st Century pilot. The question remains, did the program meet the requirements of the law? As a pilot, was it successful?