Schools for the 21st Century – Testimony by Roxanne Sitler
April 17, 2010
FOUNDATION FOR EDUCATION REFORM
Roxanne Sitler
In summary, what we have presented to you, for your consideration, is just a small part of a much bigger story – a story which is fully revealed within the pages of this manuscript. As citizens, what we discovered in researching Schools for the 21st Century, is that the success of this program has, in our estimation, been grossly exaggerated, even to the point of misrepresentation. As revealed in an earlier quote, those inside the project stated that the improvements in student learning, their success, could not be measured or quantified. Therefore, the statement in the final report which states that C21 kids are performing above the academic level of traditional schools must be questioned as to its validity and reliability.
You might be tempted to brush all this off as insignificant, but, given the fact that this program was used as a pilot, not only for the State of Washington, but for the entire nation, it would be wise to look into these concerns further. Again, this project was important, not only to the foundation of education reform here in our state, but was also influential at the national level. In order to support that statement, I will read just a few of the many quotes from 21st Century Reports and national documents which indicate that this project did indeed pilot a state and national philosophy of education reform. 1993 Full Report to the Legislature State Board of Education Letter.
“We believe that the Schools for the 21st Century program has played a key role in educational restructuring throughout the state and has been a catalyst for significant changes, such as the movement towards outcome-based education, site-based management, and the passage of the Education Reform bill of 1992.”
Page 5, “Since 1987, Washington has made a sizable investment in the Schools for the 21st Century Program. With the passage of the School Reform bill of 1992 and its plan for transitioning to locally-based decision making and outcome-based education by 1998, the state is now well positioned to make good use of its Schools for the 21st Century resources. The next years are the time for final reporting and for dissemination of the most effective accomplishments of the Schools for the 21st Century projects. Therefore, a process must be developed to establish a statewide network to link these projects with other schools at varying stages of educational reform. The State Board of Education recommends mentor relationships under current levels of funding as the most effective and cost efficient way of accomplishing this.”Page 130, “Compared with restructuring schools and districts across the country, Washington provides many of the cutting edge examples of changes in school culture, organization, and practice” (Jane David-NCEE as part of a report to the Governor’s Council on Reform and Funding).
1993 Report to the Legislature – Executive summary
Page 5, “It is interesting to note that with passage of the 1992 Education Reform Bill (SSB5953), other districts will have the opportunity to request similar waivers, and the entire state will transition toward outcome-based education.” 1995 Final Report to the Legislature Page 5, “What we have learned from the Schools for the 21st Century projects will continue to provide firsthand educational restructuring information to the state as it moves ahead with systemwide reform under ESHB 1209 in 1993 and ESHB 2950 in 1994.”
1995 Final Report – Executive summary
Page 10, “Policymakers and educators across the country have been following the nation’s first and most far-reaching of the school restructuring initiatives. Included in the complete Report to the Legislature on the Schools for the 21st Century Program are reports written about the program by the following: Jane David of National Center on Education and the Economy, Peter Holly of Gheens Academy for Educational Research in Louisville, Kentucky, Geoff Southworth of Cambridge Institute of Education in England, additional reports from Policy Research Associates in Washington DC and SRI and Associates in Palo Alto, CA…”
The Seattle Times – July 9, 1991
“President Bush has announced a new education initiative based on a program borrowed from a source some Washington teachers might question – Gov. Booth Gardner. Bush yesterday said he would ask corporate leaders to raise between $150 million and $200 million to finance a school program based on Gardner’s Schools for the 21st Century…good ideas are at work out there in the state of Washington”, Bush said in the White House Rose Garden after a meeting with Lt. Governor Joel Pritchard and school officials from Edmonds and Bellevue. Bush’s national schools campaign called America 2000 was announced in April.”
America 2000, An Education Strategy, George Bush, Track II, For Tomorrow’s Students: A New Generation of American Schools, Strategy:
“We will unleash America’s creative genius to invent and establish a New Generation of American Schools…A number of excellent projects and inspired initiatives already point the way. These include Washington State’s Schools for the 21st Century…the mission is to help create schools that will reach to National Education Goals and the World Class Standards…Governors will work within their own states to develop strategies for restructuring their education system in order to achieve the goals.” (Note: This refers to the Design Teams which were chosen by Bush’s New American Schools Development Corporation. Washington state signed into an agreement with Marc Tucker’s NCEE design team, National Alliance for Restructuring Education – as noted earlier, Tucker was a consultant to Governor Gardner’s staff at the time of the writing of the Schools For the 21st Century Legislation)
Resource Document
Page 76 & 77, “This venture will provide an extensive support infrastructure for state-wide reform in the form of nested site-based development. The nesting will take place in seven state-wide regional clusters within which individual school sites and school districts will form what we like to refer to as the implementation zone….Networking will be a key feature of this initiative – both within and across the regional clusters…..These sites, ably supported by the internal facilitators, will provide the ‘front-line’ for implementation of reforms initiated at the State and Federal levels, e.g. Goals 2000.”
I believe these statements present the irrefutable evidence that this pilot has had widespread impact on the present reality of education reform. Clearly, here in our state, the intention was to use the information learned and the practices of those themes common to the pilot projects, as a basis for restructuring our statewide system. Shouldn’t we be asking ourselves the question of why the pilot schools, which were deep into the philosophies of the paradigm shift of education restructuring, didn’t do any better on an assessment which was supposedly designed to assess so-called authentic learning? Washington’s new 4th grade assessment is a performance-based assessment. As noted previously, the consultants and those stakeholders of C21 projects stated their belief that standardized testing does a poor job of measuring what children should know and be able to do; what children should be like – the essence of their definition of student learning. And yet, by an assessment tool specifically designed to measure this definition of learning, Schools for the 21st Century scored lower, as a whole, than did more traditional schools whose exposure to reform practices has been less comprehensive.
I would say we need to ask some hard questions here. The theories and philosophies of education, upon which we are securing our future, are failing by measurable standards. After studying the reports on the Schools for the 21st Century, we have concerns about what we see is meant by student learning and we have concerns about how success is defined and measured. Semantics are critical, definitions are critical – knowing exactly what is meant by increased student learning and knowing how that learning is measured is fundamental to the issue. Citizens, for the most part, have the basic understanding that student learning is about academic achievement in the traditional sense. They do not understand this paradigm shift – this shift which is presented wholly in Peter Holly’s report – this report that never saw the light of day. It’s in here; this is the place where you find the truth of what is meant by student learning. Few have ever seen it, including those who were supposed to have considered its contents.
Our fear is that, like so many reports that have gone before it, it will sit in the archives, gathering dust while education restructuring goes on, undisturbed in its implementation. Considering the little bit of this that we have been able to pare down for you, we respectfully encourage you to undertake a full investigation into this matter of education restructuring in the state of Washington. As you know, education takes over 50% of the entire state budget but, more importantly, education lays a foundation for all of our futures. To allow restructuring to continue without answering some of the obvious questions and concerns raised here tonight, would seem like rather careless stewardship. Do we not owe it to the citizens of this state, and our children to make sure that we know NOW if we are making a costly mistake, a mistake that costs not only in terms of dollars – but even more importantly, a mistake from which children may never recover. Thank you for allowing us to come before you tonight – we have appreciated this opportunity afforded us by the Senate Education Committee. We thank you for your time and your attentiveness.
FOUNDATION FOR EDUCATION REFORM
Roxanne Sitler
In summary, what we have presented to you, for your consideration, is just a small part of a much bigger story – a story which is fully revealed within the pages of this manuscript. As citizens, what we discovered in researching Schools for the 21st Century, is that the success of this program has, in our estimation, been grossly exaggerated, even to the point of misrepresentation. As revealed in an earlier quote, those inside the project stated that the improvements in student learning, their success, could not be measured or quantified. Therefore, the statement in the final report which states that C21 kids are performing above the academic level of traditional schools must be questioned as to its validity and reliability.
You might be tempted to brush all this off as insignificant, but, given the fact that this program was used as a pilot, not only for the State of Washington, but for the entire nation, it would be wise to look into these concerns further. Again, this project was important, not only to the foundation of education reform here in our state, but was also influential at the national level. In order to support that statement, I will read just a few of the many quotes from 21st Century Reports and national documents which indicate that this project did indeed pilot a state and national philosophy of education reform. 1993 Full Report to the Legislature State Board of Education Letter.
“We believe that the Schools for the 21st Century program has played a key role in educational restructuring throughout the state and has been a catalyst for significant changes, such as the movement towards outcome-based education, site-based management, and the passage of the Education Reform bill of 1992.”
Page 5, “Since 1987, Washington has made a sizable investment in the Schools for the 21st Century Program. With the passage of the School Reform bill of 1992 and its plan for transitioning to locally-based decision making and outcome-based education by 1998, the state is now well positioned to make good use of its Schools for the 21st Century resources. The next years are the time for final reporting and for dissemination of the most effective accomplishments of the Schools for the 21st Century projects. Therefore, a process must be developed to establish a statewide network to link these projects with other schools at varying stages of educational reform. The State Board of Education recommends mentor relationships under current levels of funding as the most effective and cost efficient way of accomplishing this.”Page 130, “Compared with restructuring schools and districts across the country, Washington provides many of the cutting edge examples of changes in school culture, organization, and practice” (Jane David-NCEE as part of a report to the Governor’s Council on Reform and Funding).
1993 Report to the Legislature – Executive summary
Page 5, “It is interesting to note that with passage of the 1992 Education Reform Bill (SSB5953), other districts will have the opportunity to request similar waivers, and the entire state will transition toward outcome-based education.” 1995 Final Report to the Legislature Page 5, “What we have learned from the Schools for the 21st Century projects will continue to provide firsthand educational restructuring information to the state as it moves ahead with systemwide reform under ESHB 1209 in 1993 and ESHB 2950 in 1994.”
1995 Final Report – Executive summary
Page 10, “Policymakers and educators across the country have been following the nation’s first and most far-reaching of the school restructuring initiatives. Included in the complete Report to the Legislature on the Schools for the 21st Century Program are reports written about the program by the following: Jane David of National Center on Education and the Economy, Peter Holly of Gheens Academy for Educational Research in Louisville, Kentucky, Geoff Southworth of Cambridge Institute of Education in England, additional reports from Policy Research Associates in Washington DC and SRI and Associates in Palo Alto, CA…”
The Seattle Times – July 9, 1991
“President Bush has announced a new education initiative based on a program borrowed from a source some Washington teachers might question – Gov. Booth Gardner. Bush yesterday said he would ask corporate leaders to raise between $150 million and $200 million to finance a school program based on Gardner’s Schools for the 21st Century…good ideas are at work out there in the state of Washington”, Bush said in the White House Rose Garden after a meeting with Lt. Governor Joel Pritchard and school officials from Edmonds and Bellevue. Bush’s national schools campaign called America 2000 was announced in April.”
America 2000, An Education Strategy, George Bush, Track II, For Tomorrow’s Students: A New Generation of American Schools, Strategy:
“We will unleash America’s creative genius to invent and establish a New Generation of American Schools…A number of excellent projects and inspired initiatives already point the way. These include Washington State’s Schools for the 21st Century…the mission is to help create schools that will reach to National Education Goals and the World Class Standards…Governors will work within their own states to develop strategies for restructuring their education system in order to achieve the goals.” (Note: This refers to the Design Teams which were chosen by Bush’s New American Schools Development Corporation. Washington state signed into an agreement with Marc Tucker’s NCEE design team, National Alliance for Restructuring Education – as noted earlier, Tucker was a consultant to Governor Gardner’s staff at the time of the writing of the Schools For the 21st Century Legislation)
Resource Document
Page 76 & 77, “This venture will provide an extensive support infrastructure for state-wide reform in the form of nested site-based development. The nesting will take place in seven state-wide regional clusters within which individual school sites and school districts will form what we like to refer to as the implementation zone….Networking will be a key feature of this initiative – both within and across the regional clusters…..These sites, ably supported by the internal facilitators, will provide the ‘front-line’ for implementation of reforms initiated at the State and Federal levels, e.g. Goals 2000.”
I believe these statements present the irrefutable evidence that this pilot has had widespread impact on the present reality of education reform. Clearly, here in our state, the intention was to use the information learned and the practices of those themes common to the pilot projects, as a basis for restructuring our statewide system. Shouldn’t we be asking ourselves the question of why the pilot schools, which were deep into the philosophies of the paradigm shift of education restructuring, didn’t do any better on an assessment which was supposedly designed to assess so-called authentic learning? Washington’s new 4th grade assessment is a performance-based assessment. As noted previously, the consultants and those stakeholders of C21 projects stated their belief that standardized testing does a poor job of measuring what children should know and be able to do; what children should be like – the essence of their definition of student learning. And yet, by an assessment tool specifically designed to measure this definition of learning, Schools for the 21st Century scored lower, as a whole, than did more traditional schools whose exposure to reform practices has been less comprehensive.
I would say we need to ask some hard questions here. The theories and philosophies of education, upon which we are securing our future, are failing by measurable standards. After studying the reports on the Schools for the 21st Century, we have concerns about what we see is meant by student learning and we have concerns about how success is defined and measured. Semantics are critical, definitions are critical – knowing exactly what is meant by increased student learning and knowing how that learning is measured is fundamental to the issue. Citizens, for the most part, have the basic understanding that student learning is about academic achievement in the traditional sense. They do not understand this paradigm shift – this shift which is presented wholly in Peter Holly’s report – this report that never saw the light of day. It’s in here; this is the place where you find the truth of what is meant by student learning. Few have ever seen it, including those who were supposed to have considered its contents.
Our fear is that, like so many reports that have gone before it, it will sit in the archives, gathering dust while education restructuring goes on, undisturbed in its implementation. Considering the little bit of this that we have been able to pare down for you, we respectfully encourage you to undertake a full investigation into this matter of education restructuring in the state of Washington. As you know, education takes over 50% of the entire state budget but, more importantly, education lays a foundation for all of our futures. To allow restructuring to continue without answering some of the obvious questions and concerns raised here tonight, would seem like rather careless stewardship. Do we not owe it to the citizens of this state, and our children to make sure that we know NOW if we are making a costly mistake, a mistake that costs not only in terms of dollars – but even more importantly, a mistake from which children may never recover. Thank you for allowing us to come before you tonight – we have appreciated this opportunity afforded us by the Senate Education Committee. We thank you for your time and your attentiveness.