A Framework for State Policymakers: Ensure All Students Are College- and Career-Ready

The Center for Innovation & Transformation in Education

A FRAMEWORK FOR STATE POLICYMAKERS: ENSURE ALL STUDENTS ARE COLLEGE- AND CAREER-READY

A F

ram

ewor

k fo

r Sta

te P

olic

ymak

ers:

Ensu

re A

ll St

uden

ts a

re C

olle

ge- a

nd C

aree

r-Rea

dy

2

listen to others’ ideas, and be able to take a problem assigned by a professor or work supervisor, analyze it, and develop a solution or propose a range of options for solving the problem. Without question, those are the skills we want to see in our workforce and in our higher education institutions.

Unfortunately, those skills often are overlooked as our schools try to cram information into students’ heads that they will later be asked to regurgitate on standardized multiple choice tests. Barbara Chow, in The Quest for Deeper Learning, has noted, “The real world rarely offers us multiple-choice questions. Employers clamor for staff members who can solve problems by designing their own solutions and then telling co-workers how they did it. To thrive in an in-creasingly complex and dynamic world where routine manual and cognitive tasks are being assumed by machines, those emerging from school must be able to think analytically, find reliable information, and communicate with others.”

Deeper learning is directly linked to college- and career-readiness. It achieves this by shifting the focus of education to one in which students:• Master core academic content;• Develop the ability to think critically and solve

complex problems;• Work collaboratively;• Communicate effectively; and• Learn how to learn, such as through self-directed

learning.We will have created a system of education for the

21st century when we have schools that are student-cen-tered, that are given the flexibility to innovate and the resources to do so; when students are taught how to apply knowledge and solve complex problems, not just be repositories of information; and when students learn real-life skills they can use later in life. This framework provides critical policy options to help create an educational system in which all students receive a rich education and complete high school with the skills they need to succeed in college and the workforce.

Deeper learning provides a dramatic shift in the way we teach our young people. It focuses on helping them learn how to learn, not just helping them acquire or access information. Deeper learning involves a personalized approach to education, one that discards the stale one-size-fits-all model. It provides a robust and engaging, student-centered learning environment, tailored to meet the needs and learning style of each pupil. Personalized education not only helps motivate students when they feel empowered over their work, it also turns them into active rather than passive learners. This is the kind of education that better prepares our students to be college- and career-ready when they graduate from high school, and possess the skills that will lead them to meet the demands for the jobs of the 21st century.

U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan has noted. It’s a simple message, but consider for a moment what those five words mean in the context of the education many, perhaps most, students receive. If it’s true that “we are what we learn,” what does it say that many of our children are learning essentially the same content in substantially the same way as their parents and grandparents? They are 21st century students who are still receiving a 20th century education.

Walk into a typical classroom in most schools to-day and you’re likely to see instruction and learning taking place. The question is, what kind of learning is it? Traditionally, the focus of education has been on the acquisition of knowledge. While knowledge is and always will be a critical foundation to higher-level thinking, it is not an end in itself. As our society and economy have turned the page and begun a new chapter—one marked by staggering and constant innovations in technology and the need for more students with postsecondary credentials, one in which the U.S. faces heightened competition for business from developing countries in a worldwide market-place—it is clear we need our students to be more than warehouses of knowledge and information. We must bring our educational system up-to-date so students also can apply knowledge and solve complex problems. They must be able to work not only inde-pendently, but also with each other; they also need to be able to communicate ideas effectively. In short, to be successful in today’s world, every student must graduate from high school college- and career-ready.

For some, college- and career-readiness is an expectation that every student will finish high school, able to complete a two- or four-year college degree or certificate, prepare for a specialized trade or join the workforce. Every state has developed its own definition of what it means to be college- and career-ready. Many of them stress that students will have the knowledge and skills to enroll and succeed in credit-bearing courses at postsecondary institutions without the need for remedial course-work. These definitions, however, require answers to a more basic and direct question: What are the specific skills students must possess to be college- and career-ready? We refer to them as deeper learning outcomes. We believe when students have mastered deeper learning they will, in fact, have the skills and knowledge to succeed in a world that is changing at an unprecedented pace.

What is Deeper Learning?Think about the skills students must have to

succeed in postsecondary education or to earn a decent living. They should be good problem solvers, be able to share their knowledge with others and

FOREWORD

“We are what we learn,”

A Framew

ork for State Policymakers: Ensure All Students are College- and Career-Ready

3

A Policy ImperativeIn March 2012, The Council of State Govern-

ments’ Center for Innovation and Transformation in Education, or CITE, with support from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, appointed a Deeper Learning Focus Group comprised of state legislators, leaders of state boards and departments of education, educators and other experts in the field of education policy. Their charge was simple: Advise which policies and practices need to be in place to support the kind of deeper learning outcomes just described. During multiple meetings, the members provided a policy and practice framework that provides legislators and other state policymakers a menu of options to create schools where deeper learning takes place. The attached framework is the product of their work.

They unanimously agreed that deeper learning skills are vital to increase college- and career-read-iness. Consider this: By 2018, approximately two-thirds of all jobs in the U.S. will require some postsecondary education. That doesn’t mean they will necessarily require a four-year degree. The new norm, however, requires some education beyond high school. Many students leave high school, diploma in hand, but are unprepared for postsecondary educa-tion. Roughly 40 percent of all college students—and 60 percent of students at community colleges—are required to take at least one remedial course because they lack the skills for credit-bearing coursework.

There is an imperative to change course, to develop statewide educational systems that provide students an education that does more than fill their minds with information. We need schools that truly make students deeper learners. This framework provides policy options to accomplish this goal in five broad categories:1. Curriculum and Instruction2. Teacher and Leader Effectiveness3. Assessment Systems4. Accountability5. Use of Time

No state can adopt all of the measures contained in this framework overnight. This document does not reflect an all-or-nothing approach to educational policymaking related to deeper learning. Each state is unique. Not all states have the same need for dramatic reforms in the same areas. Not all states have the capacity to adopt all the recommendations contained in this document immediately. Whether policymakers pursue a comprehensive and aggres-sive agenda that involves adopting many of the recommendations contained in this framework, or opt to address college- and career-readiness through a different timeline, they should carefully review each recommendation and consider its impact on creating an educational system in which deeper learning outcomes become the norm rather than a

concept considered extraordinary in today’s educa-tional environment. Consequently, this framework is offered as a list of options policymakers can consider and pursue, where appropriate, in educational areas where they believe the reforms are needed most, based on their own unique needs and in consultation with education leaders in their states.

A Line of SightThe type of learning the focus group recommends

in this framework is already happening. The seeds to deeper learning have been sown in many schools throughout the nation and have begun to take root. Individual schools and entire school networks, both charter and non-charter alike, are introducing many of the visionary policies and practices recommended in this framework. Running through these schools are some common threads: critical thinking, communica-tion, collaboration and directing one’s own learning.

Many of these issues involve a basic, yet critical, understanding of the roles of every policymaker or stakeholder. For example, as state legislators, what must you do to enact policies that will drive deeper learning outcomes in your states? What about executive branch education policymakers, including K-12 and postsecondary education leadership, as well as local school district administrators, principals, teachers, students and their parents? What is the role of the business community?

Answering these questions requires a vision, a line of sight. Within this context, the term refers to determining a fixed outcome, an objective—in this case, it involves ensuring all students graduate from high school with the knowledge and skills needed to be successful in college and the workforce. Policy-makers and stakeholders must create a vision of what they want their students to accomplish before they can devise the best course of action to get there.

One point is clear: The way America’s schools have approached education in the past is not adequate for teaching children skills they need in the 21st century. As state legislators, your constituents rely on your leadership, enacting policies that will result in the kind of educational system that will produce students who graduate college- and career-ready. The inescapable conclusion is that we face high levels of dissatisfaction with educational outcomes in this country. Parents want and expect better schools for their children; the business community insists on a better-prepared workforce. Higher education leaders complain students are not adequately prepared for the rigors of postsecondary education. The status quo is no longer acceptable. This framework provides you with critical policy options to create an educational system in which all students receive a rich education and complete high school with the skills they need to succeed in college and their careers.

A F

ram

ewor

k fo

r Sta

te P

olic

ymak

ers:

Ensu

re A

ll St

uden

ts a

re C

olle

ge- a

nd C

aree

r-Rea

dy

4

Tamara MaxwellEnglish Language Arts Instruction ConsultantWisconsin Department of Public Instruction

Rep. Lisa MeierNorth Dakota House of Representatives

Scott PalmerManaging PartnerEducationCounsel LLC

Rachel PeckhamLearning Strategist, R.O. Gibson Middle SchoolLas Vegas

Rep. Sondy Pope-RobertsWisconsin House of Representatives

Steve PoundChairmanMaine Board of Education

Rep. Karen RohrNorth Dakota House of Representatives

Angela RomansSenior Adviser on Education, Office of the MayorProvidence, R.I.

Scheherazade SalimiSenior Adviser, Office of the Deputy Mayor for Educa-tion, Washington, D.C.

Marty SmithAssistant SuperintendentFairfax County, Va., Public Schools

Anne SommersDirector of Legislative Affairs and OutreachNational Council on Disability

Rep. Jeff ThompsonIdaho House of Representatives

Janet WaughKansas Board of Education

Erin WheelerPrincipal, Clairemont Elementary SchoolDecatur, Ga.

Emilie AmundsonAssistant Director, Content and Learning TeamWisconsin Department of Public Instruction

Linda ArchambaultPrincipal, R.O. Gibson Middle SchoolNational Middle School Principal of the Year Las Vegas

Sen. Vivian Davis FiguresAlabama Senate

Rep. Sara GelserOregon House of Representatives

Valerie GreenhillChief Learning OfficerEdLeader 21

Bill HarrisonChairmanNorth Carolina Board of Education

Scott HartlPresident and CEOExpeditionary Learning

Martez HillExecutive DirectorNorth Carolina Board of Education

Terry HollidayCommissionerKentucky Department of Education

Denise LinkChairpersonCleveland Municipal School District

Susan LusiSuperintendentProvidence, R.I., Public School District

Monica MartinezEducation StrategistMartinez Education Consulting

Abbe MattsonExecutive Director, Explore Knowledge AcademyLas Vegas

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS }The staff at The Council of State Governments’ Center on Innovation and Transformation in Education wishes to thank the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation for its generous support that made this framework possible. We also thank the following individuals who have served on our Deeper Learning Focus Group and whose recommendations, advice and guidance have served as the foundation for this document:

A FRAMEWORK FOR STATE POLICYMAKERS: ENSURE ALL STUDENTS ARE COLLEGE- AND CAREER-READYCURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION }In his book, How We Think, noted philosopher and education reformer John Dewey wrote that learning is “learning to think.” Dewey advocated for an educational structure that strikes a balance between delivering knowledge while also taking into account the interests and experiences of the student. That was in 1902.

Still, more than a century later, the foundation of our K-12 education system is, in many places, rooted in the acquisition of knowledge. Teachers still stand in front of the class and lecture, dictating to their students what they should write down, memorize and be able to regurgitate on tests. Research often involves students writing a paper based on the research conducted by others, rather than conducting their own primary research to solve a problem. The U.S. education system has not reached the point when authentic learning, which engages students in the multidisciplinary problem solving and critical thinking that researchers and experts use every day, is the norm in classrooms. That must change.

Although content knowledge is an important foundation for higher-level skills such as analysis and application, it is not an end in itself. In order to prepare today’s students for college and careers, policymakers must change the very fabric of teaching and learning. Although many educators may find it difficult to adjust to new delivery methods, effective teaching must be adapted to address a personalized approach to education. The focus of education must be on training young minds to think, to solve complex problems. These are skills students must master to be

successful in their personal lives, in future studies and in careers. This type of instruction requires teachers to enter the world of the students, rather than expect students to enter the teacher’s world. Educators must see the material to be learned from the student’s viewpoint— what the student wants to do, know and experience. This will be different for every student. It requires an individualized approach to teaching. So while all students are expected to become proficient in the same core academic standards, there are an infinite number of ways to help students master those expectations.

The policies contained in this section are designed to create an individualized learning environment where students will learn to solve problems, analyze, apply information, work collaboratively and com-municate effectively—all skills that will make them more productive members of society and improve their academic performance in postsecondary education.

The recommendations begin with implementing rigorous, college- and career-readiness academic standards that clearly state what students should know and be able to do at each grade level. They call for a student-centered approach to learning through new opportunities in and outside the classroom. In essence, this framework subscribes to the belief that students can learn anywhere, anytime—that intern-ships and authentic research can be the best ways for students to learn the skills they need to be college- and career-ready.

A Framew


5

• States should allow the State Board of Educa-tion to waive state regulatory requirements – except those relative to the health, safety or rights of students - for schools that are implementing innovative practices. The state department of education should be respon-sible to monitor schools and ensure they are accountable for meeting a defined set of identified benchmarks and outcomes. Schools will be allowed to submit an application for flexibility if they can show a commitment from parents, community, staff and leadership.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT• States should fund and provide resources for

teachers and leaders to receive embedded, collective and high-quality continuous and on-going professional development opportunities that include personalized learning, differenti-ated instruction, inclusive strategies, the use of technology, project-based learning, authentic research, and other strategies to prepare stu-dents for college and careers.

USE OF DATA• States should develop a comprehensive and

integrated statewide longitudinal student data system, including subpopulations, to provide valid and reliable information to assist edu-cators, policymakers and the public to track and assess college- and career -readiness to continuously improve curriculum, instructional practices, teacher preparation and develop-ment.

TECHNOLOGY• States should ensure that schools have ade-

quate infrastructure, including broadband, accessible hardware, software, adaptive technology and power, for personalized and deeper learning.

STANDARDS • States should adopt college- and career-read-

iness standards such as the Common Core State Standards, require schools to align their curriculum and provide resources and support to districts to implement with fidelity to deep-er learning outcomes.

INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES• States should require schools to incorporate

deeper learning principles into instructional strategies that develop critical thinking, prob-lem solving, communication, collaboration, and self-directed learning, in the natural pro-gression from kindergarten to twelfth grade. Schools shall provide all students multiple op-portunities to build and apply knowledge and participate in authentic research, group and individual projects, internships, community service, and other engaging learning experi-ences both inside and outside the classroom.

• States should require schools to create a process to develop and monitor individual learning plans that are aligned with college- and career-standards. Such plans will be created by the students in consultation with their parents and advisors after comprehensive planning and goal setting.

• States should mandate early diagnosis and intervention and provide proper interventions and supports as appropriate throughout the K-12 experience in order to reduce remedia-tion.

FLEXIBILITY• States should allow flexibility to districts

and schools to adopt instructional resources aligned to the Common Core State Standards that accelerate and deepen student’s learning through attention to their individual needs.

State policymakers and local school districts should adopt and implement high academic standards and instructional practices that engage and prepare all high school graduates for college and careers so they leave with deeper learning outcomes.

A F

ram

ewor

k fo

r Sta

te P

olic

ymak

ers:

Ensu

re A

ll St

uden

ts a

re C

olle

ge- a

nd C

aree

r-Rea

dy

6

Recommendation }

A Framew


7

of helping you to get to the point where your kids are successful?’”

Kentucky’s flexibility statute allows districts, with state approval, to modify their calendars. They can change how funding is used. In the case of the small Eminence Independent School District, with slightly more than 700 students in grades K-12, it has allowed a redesign of the way it teaches students. Eminence responded with a student-centered approach to learning it calls, “School on Fire.”

Superintendent Buddy Berry said he wants Eminence “to be the most innovative school district in America.” He said state policies stood in the way of that, but House Bill 37 removed those barriers, giving him the authority to try new ways to achieve mastery for all students. All classes at the high school meet on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. Tuesdays and Thursdays are used for interventions, connec-tions and enrichments. Simply put, those days allow teachers to differentiate between students. Those who have mastered academic content can move forward. Teachers work with students needing additional help.

“The School on Fire model was the framework of innovation for reinventing education,” Berry said. “We didn’t want a Band-Aid fix. We wanted to redesign, recreate students, teachers, administrators, parents, to work together to create a model of what next-generation learning looks like.”

Other features of Eminence’s School on Fire initiative include:• Providing all high school students with laptop

computers to promote anytime, anywhere learn-ing;

• Making a school bus Wi-Fi accessible so that students who attend Bellarmine University in Louisville can complete assignments during the 90-minute round-trip bus ride;

• Personalizing learning with student choice in electives, personalized student goals and a person-alized learning environment in all classes;

• Creating an adviser/advisee mentor program;• Developing student performance-based assess-

ments that include standards-based grading and project-based learning.

KENTUCKY GIVES LOCAL DISTRICTS POWER TO INNOVATE

39 states plus the District of Columbia, charter schools are changing the tapestry of public education with innovations. These charter schools are exempt from many laws and regulations that apply to traditional public schools, while being accountable for improved student achievement. Kentucky is one of 11 states without charter schools. Because of a law enacted by the General Assembly in 2012, however, the state’s public school districts have the same power to petition the state Department of Education for flexibility, or waivers, from laws that in many cases prevent them from being innovative as a charter school in other states.

Since the legislature enacted House Bill 37, three school districts, including Jefferson County, the state’s largest school district, have been granted flexibility from state laws and regulations. “We wanted to pro-vide a vehicle for any school or district in Kentucky to stretch the boundaries, break the box; to think outside, way outside the box,” Kentucky Education Commissioner Terry Holliday said. “We’re very much results-oriented. If a district can figure out a way that more kids can graduate college- and career-ready and have the skills they need to succeed in a new global competition, why shouldn’t we encourage innovation?”

Kentucky state law does not permit charter schools. House Bill 37 in many ways resembles legislation authorizing charter schools. “It’s the kind of legislation you tell people in five or 10 years you hope you don’t need. It becomes the rule instead of the exception so we don’t need districts of innova-tion,” David Cook, the director of innovation at the Kentucky Department of Education said. Cook said he typically is asked to break down policy barriers that stand in the way of allowing local schools to innovate. “I can’t create innovation for districts; nobody at the Department of Education can do that. But we certainly can say, ‘What’s getting in your way

A F

ram

ewor

k fo

r Sta

te P

olic

ymak

ers:

Ensu

re A

ll St

uden

ts a

re C

olle

ge- a

nd C

aree

r-Rea

dy

8

TEACHER AND LEADER EFFECTIVENESSStudies show the most important factor in a student’s academic achievement is the quality of his or her teacher. Even if policymakers enact and implement the actions recommended in this framework to make instruction more individualized and authentic; even if they redesign assessments to measure a child’s knowledge and abilities using multiple formats and improve accountability systems; even if policymakers change how time in the school day and school year is used—none of it ultimately will have much of an impact without highly skilled, qualified and effective teachers in every classroom and school leaders who ensure these policies and practices are implemented with fidelity.

Highly effective teachers are a determining factor in a student’s future success, according to a research study released in 2012 by economists at Harvard and Columbia universities. That study concludes having a good fourth-grade teacher makes a student more likely to go to college and less likely to get pregnant as a teenager. The report also says students of highly skilled teachers will earn more money over their lifetimes than those with average or poor teachers. This study is merely a snapshot of the important role teachers play in their students’ achievement.

Being an effective teacher involves much more than being masters of their subject areas. There’s more to being a high-quality teacher than being dedicated, well-organized and willing to put in long hours—al-though each of these qualities is an important charac-teristic of a highly qualified teacher. Effective teachers need the skills to deliver a lesson in a variety of ways, tailoring instruction to the needs and learning styles of each child. Effective teachers must be innovative, able to craft lessons that challenge students to think in new ways and to solve complex problems.

These skills often don’t come naturally. Ensuring teachers and school leaders are highly qualified and effective will require improving teacher preparation in education programs at the colleges and universities that train future educators. It will involve new state licensure requirements to ensure only teachers and school leaders who are well-qualified will be placed in critical positions. It will require ongoing profes-sional development to safeguard that all educators understand how to teach using methods with which they may otherwise be unfamiliar.

Finally, state leaders must take a hard look at their policies regarding evaluations and use these evaluations in decisions regarding awarding tenure and recall of teachers who have been laid off. Many existing evaluation systems do not provide school leaders and local school district officials the kind of information that enables them to make informed decisions about whether a teacher is performing at a proficient level or better. Without this information, principals or district leaders often cannot intervene with an improvement plan or dismiss teachers or school leaders who are not competent.

A 2009 report published by The New Teacher Proj-ect, titled “The Widget Effect,” surveyed the teacher evaluation systems in 14 large American school dis-tricts and found 98 percent of teachers were evaluat-ed as satisfactory. Based on such findings, many have characterized classroom observation as a hopelessly flawed approach to assessing teacher effectiveness. Ensuring teachers and school leaders are effective will require a new approach to evaluation, holding those who do not meet minimum standards for the profession accountable. Only when our schools are replete with highly qualified and competent teachers and administrators can other meaningful measures to improve student achievement take place.

A Framew


9

deeper learning aligned with college- and career-readiness goals.

• States and districts should require the use of performance-based contracts as a means of retaining highly effective teachers.

• States should require educators to demon-strate their mastery of teaching the Com-mon Core State Standards to all learners and innovative pedagogies that develop deeper learning through completion of a professional portfolio in order to renew their professional licenses.

• States should create career pathways to reward educators who deepen and reflect on their own learning and show high proficiency in helping all students achieve deeper learning outcomes.

LEADERSHIP AUTHORITY• States should give school leaders the ability to

build local capacity through decision making in hiring and personnel management.

LICENSURE AND CERTIFICATION• States should allow for alternative licensure

and certification to expand highly-qualified teachers in the classroom.

• States should more carefully monitor certifi-cation providers to ensure that prospective teachers enter the classroom with the skills needed to support all students to graduate from high school and ensure those graduates are college- and career-ready.

• States should revise teacher certification as-sessments to ensure highly-qualified educa-tors master content and utilize deeper learning principles in the classroom.

ACCOUNTABILITY AND MONITORING• States should improve accountability mea-

sures for Institutes of Higher Education and utilize an outcomes-based funding model through monitoring of graduates from col-leges of education.

• States should incentivize Institutes of Higher Education to hold university-based pre-service providers accountable for success of teachers in the classroom.

PRE-SERVICE PROGRAMS• States should develop more rigorous teacher

pre-service programs connected with high academic standards so teachers enter the classroom prepared to guide all students to deeper learning outcomes.

• States should require that prospective educa-tors are prepared to teach using new teaching methods and assessments to ensure students achieve the deeper learning outcomes they need to be college- and career-ready. Pre-ser-vice teachers must participate in intense field-work, a long term practicum, such as clinical models or residencies, or a supervised intern-ship as a prerequisite to licensure. Pre-service teachers also must receive training to support the diverse range of learners they will encoun-ter including students with disabilities and English Language Learners.

LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT• States should create a high-quality educational

leadership development system, including master teachers and mentoring, induction pro-grams, and collegial networks, in addition to leadership skill training and ensure that they have a fundamental understanding of deeper learning principles.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT• States should require that teachers and leaders

receive ongoing, high-quality, relevant and effective professional development including research on how students learn, personal-ized learning, new technologies for teaching and learning; innovative teaching methods; inclusive practices and the latest specialized knowledge in the subject area taught.

EVALUATION• States should require schools and districts to

adopt teacher and school leader evaluation models which are valid and research-based, that incorporate measures of student achieve-ment (including more than a single standard-ized test), and include demonstrations of teacher and leader performance that reflects

State policymakers should articulate a comprehensive set of professional standards to ensure teachers and school leaders are adequately prepared to help students achieve deeper learning outcomes. Teach-er training, licensure, evaluation and professional development should align to state standards.

Recommendation }

A F

ram

ewor

k fo

r Sta

te P

olic

ymak

ers:

Ensu

re A

ll St

uden

ts a

re C

olle

ge- a

nd C

aree

r-Rea

dy

10

to the same standards as veteran teachers when it comes to teacher leadership. So our mentors are out there not only supporting them, but also encouraging and enabling them to use their own areas of expertise to be leaders in the school.”

Each beginning teacher in North Carolina is required to develop a professional development plan in collaboration with his or her principal and mentor teacher. The plan is to be based on the state’s Professional Teaching Standards and must include goals, strategies and assessment of the beginning teacher’s progress in improving professional skills. The state strongly recommends the following for all new teachers:• Assignment in the area of licensure;• Mentor assigned early, in the same licensure area

and in close proximity;• Orientation that includes state, district and school

expectations;• Limited class preparations;• Limited non-instructional duties;• Limited number of exceptional or difficult stu-

dents; and• No extracurricular assignments unless requested

by the beginning teacher.New teachers are observed four times in each of

the first three years by the principal and/or mentor. State policy requires formative assessment confer-ences to be held regularly to reflect on the progress of the beginning teacher in meeting the established goals.

The law also requires mentors to receive training and ongoing professional development. Local school districts may use programs developed by the state Department of Public Instruction, use other pro-grams or develop programs of their own.

NORTH CAROLINA SUPPORTS FOR BEGINNING TEACHERSAssigning experienced teachers to provide guid-ance and support to novice teachers gives valuable professional development for both new and veteran teachers. If developed and implemented effectively, mentoring programs help novice teachers face their new challenges. Furthermore, research shows well-de-signed mentoring programs also lower the attrition rates of new teachers. A study of new teachers in New Jersey, for instance, found that the first-year attrition rate of teachers trained in traditional college programs without mentoring was 18 percent, whereas the attrition rate of first-year teachers whose induc-tion program included mentoring was only 5 percent.

Many states have created induction programs for beginning teachers. North Carolina has had a teacher induction program since the mid-1980s. Beginning in 1998, all new teachers were required to complete a three-year induction that includes a formal orienta-tion, mentor support, observations and evaluation prior to the recommendation for continuing standard professional licensure. Teachers with three or more years of appropriate experience are exempt. The North Carolina Board of Education developed specific standards for the Beginning Teacher Support Program in 2010.

“There’s sometimes a disconnect between what happens in the teacher ed programs and what they find when they get to the real world,” said Cindi Rigsbee, a regional facilitator for the program. “So, our induction program is a transition for these beginning teachers.”

Rigsbee said the Beginning Teacher Support Program helps develop teacher leadership even among new teachers. “Beginning teachers are held

A Framew


11

ASSESSMENT SYSTEMSMany schools evaluate student performance using

the same outdated assessments given to their parents. Pen-and-paper tests with true/false, multiple choice, matching and essay questions have been used so long they have become the fabric of educational testing in the U.S. But they are antiquated and fail to give teachers, students and parents an accurate measurement of college- and career-readiness skills. They often result in students chasing a grade but fail to measure whether the student can apply what he or she has learned. In short, traditional assessments do not measure mastery and do little more than provide a snapshot of a student’s knowledge on a subject.

Today’s learning environment requires a balanced and multidimensional system of assessments. Con-sider for a moment the purpose of assessments. They provide feedback to support, guide and improve the teaching and learning processes and results. They also provide evidence to determine whether intended learning targets have been achieved at predetermined levels. Student assessments should not be given primarily to generate and assign a grade. And yet, traditionally, that is precisely how they have been used.

In order to provide students, teachers and parents a more complete image of an individual’s perfor-mance, schools must adopt a balanced and multidi-mensional approach. This does not mean eliminating pen-and-paper tests, but it does require schools to supplement them with other measures of student learning. One model that is becoming more common is performance-based assessments, which evaluate what students are able to do, not simply how much they know.

Performance assessments require students to thoughtfully use knowledge and skills to gen-

erate a product, performance or some form of process-oriented communication. This type of assessment measures the application of knowledge and understanding—doing. Performance tasks can represent complex demonstrations of understanding that show what students know and can do in mean-ingful contexts. Such assessments require students to generate, rather than choose or reproduce, a response. Performance tasks are structured activities requiring multiple responses to challenging questions or problems.

Relate this to learning in the real world. Seldom does an employer evaluate an employee with a pen-and-paper test. Businesses expect workers to be able to perform their duties at high levels. Workplace evaluations tend to assess employees on the quality of the work performed, not on how much or how little they can recite about a subject. Today’s educa-tional system must prepare students for college and careers by creating the same expectations.

These assessments should have an authentic purpose and audience. An authentic assessment evaluates students’ abilities in “real-world” contexts. They require students to apply and demonstrate skills and knowledge to tasks or projects likely to be encountered in adult life. Learners must be able to use more complex, higher-order thinking skills. They must reason, problem-solve or collaborate with others to produce individual responses.

Accomplishing this will require educators to construct new assessments that measure these higher level skills. Teachers will need quality professional development and appropriate resources to help them construct these multidimensional assessments and use them to provide feedback and guide instruction.

A F

ram

ewor

k fo

r Sta

te P

olic

ymak

ers:

Ensu

re A

ll St

uden

ts a

re C

olle

ge- a

nd C

aree

r-Rea

dy

12

GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS • States should adopt progress and graduation

requirements, including a culminating demon-stration experience involving a substantial project, internship or portfolio focused on core subjects with a presentation to panel.

TECHNOLOGY• States should ensure schools have adequate

and appropriate technological infrastructure, including broadband, accessible hardware, software, adaptive technology and power, related to the assessment of personalized and deeper learning.

ALIGNMENT WITH POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION• States should require alignment between the

preK-12 system and postsecondary education to determine a common measure for place-ment into credit-bearing coursework for the collegiate freshmen year based on standard-ized assessments.

• States should require postsecondary institu-tions to include alternative competency-based transcripts and credentials in their admissions criteria for placement into credit-bearing coursework for the freshmen year.

SCHOOL CULTURE AND CLIMATE• States should provide resources to schools to

assess and improve school culture and climate which presumes competence of all students to learn and excel.

ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT PROGRESS• States should require districts to develop for-

mative and summative assessments of deeper learning knowledge, skills and dispositions in all classes. In collaboration with colleagues, teachers must utilize assessments of student progress that include student goal-setting, reflection, evaluation and record-keeping.

• States should require a variety of assessments to include standards-based performance assessments with authentic purpose and audience and align assessments to individual student needs that support to deeper learning outcomes.

• States should adopt, fully fund and implement standardized summative assessments aligned with deeper learning outcomes for all stu-dents.

SHOWING MASTERY• States should replace traditional point-based

grades with standards-based grading that measures students’ proficiency on well-defined course objectives. Students must receive systematic and extensive feedback on assign-ments to ensure success.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT• States should require that educators receive

professional development on the design, use and analysis of performance-based formative and summative assessments for improving instruction and the provision of feedback to all students.

State policymakers should offer flexibility for districts to develop multiple measures of student learning as evidence for course credit, promotion and graduation.

Recommendation }

A Framew


13

transcript, standardized test scores, a writing sample, resumé and Fifth Year Plan.

Before students graduate, they must reflect on the collection of experiences, both in school and outside it, and organize the information in a port-folio. Students then lead an oral presentation of the information to a panel of adults. This panel includes each of the following:1. Significant adult - Someone with a vested interest

in the student’s well-being, such as a parent or guardian;

2. Community member - Typically a mentor, an employer, religious leader or someone who has some knowledge in the student’s interests or career pathway; and

3. Teacher/adviser - The student’s teacher/adviser or a designee.

4. Peer (optional) - The student may invite a peer to serve on the presentation panel as a fourth member.During the oral presentation, each student must

provide evidence that the culminating project: • Has built on high school experiences;• Has included a Fifth Year or future plan; and• Reflects an understanding of self, the student’s

needs, interests and skills.The Wenatchee School District requires students

to answer all three questions or they will be asked to make adjustments and try again before being allowed to graduate. A significant focus of the culminating project is self-reflection, one in which students analyze their experiences throughout high school to begin planning for the future.

Although not adopted, Senate Bill 5501, filed during the 2013 legislature, would have exempted several groups of students from completing a culminating project for graduation. Those who would be exempt under the bill’s provisions included students who earn at least one year of college coursework through dual enrollment, those who participated in an international baccalaureate program, students with at least four AP courses, and students earning a skill certificate in a career and technical education program.

CULMINATING PROJECT REQUIRED FOR GRADUATION IN WASHINGTONGraduating from high school in Washington requires more than earning a certain number of academic credits in core subjects and electives. Public Law WAC180-51-061 requires all high school students to complete a culminating senior project. This project is intended to make students think analytically and integrate their knowledge and experiences—those in school as well as outside it—in order to solve problems. As part of the culminating project, students are required to demonstrate essential skills through reading, writing, speaking, production and/or performance.

To complete the project, students may write a re-search paper, work with a mentor in school or in the community, present to a community or peer panel, develop a portfolio of work or create a multimedia presentation. The actual process, outcomes and criteria are set by school districts, so what students are required to do to meet this requirement varies from one district to another. The state requires each district to have a culminating project management system to support students and staff, as well as policies to handle special circumstances, such as students who transfer into the district and parental challenges to the projects. Districts also may include the community in project planning, support or feedback. The state also requires a Fifth Year Plan as a graduation requirement. This requires students to create an educational plan that includes what they expect to do the year following graduation.

As an example of a district policy for culminating projects, the Wenatchee Public School District in central Washington assigns a teacher/adviser when students enroll in high school. Throughout high school, they build an ongoing collection of their best efforts in school, work, family and community experiences. Each graduating senior is required to assemble a portfolio that includes an academic

A F

ram

ewor

k fo

r Sta

te P

olic

ymak

ers:

Ensu

re A

ll St

uden

ts a

re C

olle

ge- a

nd C

aree

r-Rea

dy

14

interim performance targets—annual measurable ob-jectives—that go beyond reading and math achieve-ment. Finally, most waiver states have replaced the either-or approach of labeling schools as making or not making adequate yearly progress with complex performance indexes that will be used to determine schools’ progress and identify struggling schools for interventions.

In the future, accountability systems must be updated to ensure schools are preparing students for college and careers. Determining whether a school is accomplishing this goal involves much more than end-of-year test scores. That is why new account-ability models must be created that are based on multiple measures of student success. These should include performance-based assessments, and student internships and/or portfolios that provide policymak-ers with a more acutely detailed and comprehensive method to determine student achievement.

Improved longitudinal data systems will be a key element of any accountability system. Every state in the nation is rethinking how education data can be collected, housed, analyzed, accessed and used more effectively. As state and federal accountability and re-porting requirements grow in scope and as decisions about how, when and where to allocate new educa-tion resources are increasingly being determined on the basis of the best available data, states must create and maintain high-quality data systems.

ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEMSThe much-maligned No Child Left Behind Act,

known as NCLB when Congress reauthorized the El-ementary and Secondary Education Act in 2001, was intended to hold schools accountable for achieving and maintaining student progress, particularly among groups of students who have been ignored in the past. Although the emphasis on closing the achievement gap is commendable, critics contend the NCLB bar for stu-dent achievement was set unrealistically high, requiring 100 percent of students must reach the proficient level or above in math and reading by 2014.

While there is universal agreement that some form of accountability is necessary, the tide of public opinion supports the concept that states, not the federal government, should be responsible for ensur-ing schools meet accountability mandates. A waiver process to exempt states from the accountability provisions under NCLB has enabled states to design their own accountability policies. These policies depart substantially from those in NCLB. While they address many criticisms of NCLB, they tend to be more complex and multifaceted, less transparent and less uniform across states than the policies they are replacing, according to a policy brief prepared by The Center on Education Policy.

Nearly all the waiver states have replaced the NCLB goal of 100 percent student proficiency on state tests by 2014 with other learning goals. Many waiver states also have established a wider range of

USE OF DATA• States should create a statewide comprehen-

sive and effective student information system to provide schools, districts and stakeholders (including students, parents, businesses and communities) with accurate, transparent data, disaggregated by subpopulation and regard-less of school setting, regarding student per-formance on multiple assessment measures as well as school and district performance levels.

COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMS• States should develop an accountability sys-

tem that evaluates schools and districts on col-lege- and career- readiness measures, includ-ing but not limited to mastery in core subjects, annual student growth, closing achievement gaps among all student groups, attendance and improved graduation rates.

• States should include measures of student per-formance to include demonstrations of mas-tery of deeper learning, including a culminat-ing project involving a substantial project(s), internship or portfolio with a presentation to a panel.

State policymakers should amend accountability systems to use multiple measures to assess the success of individual schools and school districts, with a focus on achieving desired deeper learning outcomes.

Recommendation }

A Framew


15

Metric Elementary Middle High

Achievement 25% 25% 20%Growth 50% 50% 20%Subgroup Growth 25% 25% 10%

Graduation 35%

Subgroup Graduation

15%

measures of college- and career-readiness. Schools receive ratings based on five metrics:

achievement, growth, subgroup growth, graduation rate and subgroup graduation rate. Under the new model, achievement scores account for only 20 percent of a high school’s rating and 25 percent in elementary and middle schools. A breakdown can be seen below:

The Council of Chief State School Officers is promoting Next Generation Accountability for schools. It lists the following eight elements in a model accountability system:1. Performance goals for all schools and districts

aligned to college- and career-ready standards;2. Measures of student outcomes on a variety of

indicators, including those of both status and growth;

3. Initial annual determinations of schools and districts focused on student outcomes, including disaggregation of data by student subgroup;

4. Timely, actionable, accessible data reported to all stakeholders, including outcome and richer data to drive continuous improvement;

5. Deeper diagnostic reviews, used as appropriate, to better link accountability determinations to meaningful supports and interventions;

6. Classification systems that meaningfully differen-tiate between schools and districts and direct the provision of supports and interventions;

7. Supports and interventions that build district and school capacity for sustained improvement and target the lowest performing schools for signifi-cant interventions; and

8. Innovation, evaluation and continuous improve-ment in the accountability systems over time.

OREGON ADOPTS NEXT GENERATION ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEMA state accountability system provides evidence that public schools are providing a quality education that prepares students to succeed beyond high school graduation. The problem rests with the best method to determine a school or school district’s effective-ness fairly and accurately. Since the implementation of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, better known as No Child Left Behind and common-ly referred to as NCLB, critics have united behind what they consider an unfair system for determining adequate yearly progress. Among other objections, critics have assailed NCLB for putting schools on a must-improve list for inadequate results with just one group of students, typically special education students or those learning English as a second language. Many educators also have complained about the impor-tance placed on test scores in determining whether a school is succeeding or failing. Many educators believe an improved accountability system needs to be more comprehensive, including multiple measures of student success, not just one based on test scores.

Two actions occurred in 2011 that served as cata-lysts for Oregon to overhaul its accountability system. Oregon’s legislature in 2011 enacted House Bill 2289, which called for appointing a task force to develop improved accountability measures for Oregon public schools. Also, in August 2011, U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan approved a plan to allow states to apply for waivers from NCLB, essentially granting them flexibility from federal accountability rules that states considered too strict. In July 2012, the U.S. Department of Education granted Oregon’s waiver request, which served as a springboard to im-plementation of the state’s more comprehensive Next Generation Accountability system. As part of the federal waiver application, Oregon developed a new accountability system that uses multiple measures to rate schools.

Oregon has established what it terms a 40-40-20 goal. By 2025, 40 percent of adults in Oregon will have earned a bachelor’s degree or higher; 40 percent will have earned an associate degree; and 20 percent will have earned at least a high school diploma. The new Oregon Report Card, mandated by lawmakers in 1999, has been redesigned for fall 2013 to incorporate

A F

ram

ewor

k fo

r Sta

te P

olic

ymak

ers:

Ensu

re A

ll St

uden

ts a

re C

olle

ge- a

nd C

aree

r-Rea

dy

16

independently, and to learn at a faster pace. This en-courages them to become more engaged and to take ownership of their studies. When students realize there is no reward for doing more than the minimum required to earn an academic credit, many often will only do what it takes to earn a credit.

When students earn academic credits under existing seat time requirements without mastering the content, they often graduate from high school without the skills needed to be college- and ca-reer-ready. This is one reason more than one-third of all students at public four-year universities and more than 40 percent of all community college students must take at least one remedial education class. They earned enough credits to graduate from high school and believed they would be college- and career-ready as a result. Consequently, many are surprised to learn their high school diploma is not a gateway to a college education, but a dropping-off point to addi-tional coursework to master skills they should have mastered in high school. Competency-based learning would require students to demonstrate mastery to earn a credit, not merely meet arbitrary seat time requirements.

According to the National Governors Association, 36 states have policies that provide school districts and schools with some flexibility for awarding credit to students based on mastery of content and skills as opposed to seat time. Nevertheless, some barriers need to be addressed to implement a meaningful system of competency-based credits. NGA points out, for instance, that many states have policies that prohibit or restrict alternative methods of awarding credit. An NGA report points out that in nearly all states, rigid funding formulas work against school districts and schools that want to implement flexible policies for awarding credit.

USE OF TIME The Carnegie unit was adopted in the early 1900s

to standardize and ensure the quality of high school education. Through that system, students accumu-late academic credits after spending a minimum number of hours in a particular class. For more than a century, it has remained the measuring stick that demonstrates students have invested an amount of time warranting the credit associated with learning. The Carnegie unit also allows consistency when a student transfers from one school to another. A uniform system, such as the Carnegie unit, provides some assurance that someone who transfers from one school has met the same learning time benchmarks as students at the new school.

The Carnegie unit, however, is widely viewed by critics as an impediment to flexibility. Not all students learn at the same pace. Some require more time to master a subject; others require less time. Yet under traditional seat time requirements, every student is required to meet a fixed number of hours in class, regardless of whether he or she has mastered the content. High achieving students who have demonstrated competency are typically required to remain in the same class until they have met a predetermined number of hours. New systems are being developed, however, that will enable students who master content to receive an academic credit and move on to the next level without being required to sit in a class while the teacher covers material they have already learned. Even the Carnegie Foundation, which created the credit hour, has announced it is re-examining the concept in light of new thinking on competency-based learning.

Competency-based learning is widely viewed as an incentive for students to work outside class,

A Framew


17

time for teachers to work together to create common assessments, analyze student data, and improve and differentiate instruction.

• States should allow for extended school days, a longer school year, an annual alternative calen-dar, as well as other extended learning oppor-tunities, within minimum state requirements. Flexibility should be given to allow for differ-entiated instruction and multi-age classrooms, as developmentally appropriate, for individual continuous progress and academic support as developmentally appropriate.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT• States should encourage schools to include

time in the school day and year for teachers’ professional development, including observ-ing other classes, meeting with instructional coaches and collaborating in professional learning communities.

• States should set aside a percentage of the school year which should be devoted to school-based, teacher-directed professional development or collaborative planning after creation of an effective professional develop-ment plan based on teacher needs.

AWARDING CREDIT• States should award educational credit for

learning inside and outside the classroom based on demonstrated mastery rather than seat time. Students will receive credit for shared courses online, virtual opportunities, shadowing in the community or participating in an internship or work-based learning.

INCREASING OPPORTUNITIES• States should expand opportunities for

students to earn college credit while in high school, such as Advanced Placement courses, early college, middle college and dual credit partnerships with postsecondary institutions and trade organizations.

• States should provide seamless routes to col-lege to students who achieve early competen-cy on college- and career-readiness standards.

FLEXIBILITY• States should provide flexibility to schools to

utilize schedules that enable team teaching, project-based learning, work-based learning and interaction with the community and the world. Schools should create schedules that provide

State policy makers should develop strategies to maximize school time for student learning, teacher development, creating a culture of high expectations, analysis of student data, and expanding experi-ences that prepare students for success in college and careers.

Recommendation }

A F

ram

ewor

k fo

r Sta

te P

olic

ymak

ers:

Ensu

re A

ll St

uden

ts a

re C

olle

ge- a

nd C

aree

r-Rea

dy

18

half of the projected new jobs in that state require college-educated workers. That report, however, also indicates the state relies on immigration of skilled workers to fill most of those jobs.

In 2005, New Hampshire became the first state to eliminate the Carnegie Unit, replacing it with compe-tency-based learning. The state Board of Education required local school districts to assess students based on their mastery of course content. It also authorized districts to use expanded learning oppor-tunities, or ELOs, such as independent study, summer and after-school programs, to enable students to be able to learn in a way that best meets their learning styles and enables them to receive credits when they can demonstrate competency.

The Minimum Standards for School Approval state that local districts must have a competency assessment process and defined course level compe-tencies in place for all public high schools. They also state that credit toward graduation is to be awarded based on student demonstration of mastery of these course level competencies. The department requires local districts to develop and implement a plan and method of assessing course level competencies. Furthermore, districts are expected to review and evaluate those plans regularly for effectiveness.

In emphasizing the need for flexibility and auton-omy for local school districts to implement compe-tency assessments, the state has granted authority to local districts to: • Identify or develop high school course competen-

cies;• Decide on appropriate competency assessment

methods; and • Define sufficiency—identifying necessary and

sufficient evidence for students to demonstrate mastery.While the Minimum Standards for School Approv-

al require defined course level competencies and a competency assessment process, they do not mandate either the content of the course level competencies or the grading method used with the process, which are left to local school districts.

NEW HAMPSHIRE PIONEERS NEW MEASURE FOR STUDENT LEARNINGThe Carnegie Unit has been the standard mea-surement for student achievement for more than a century. Under that system, students are awarded credit based on the amount of time spent successfully taking a course. This yardstick often is referred to as seat time. Typically under the Carnegie Unit, students receive one credit when they complete 120 hours in a subject. That would be the equivalent of a course that meets four or five times per week for 45-60 minutes for 36-40 weeks. Now, even the Carnegie Foundation, the unit’s creator and its namesake, has announced it is rethinking whether there might be better ways to measure student learning.

Instead of measuring learning by the amount of time spent in a class, there is a growing movement to use an updated system based on measuring student mastery, or competency, of academic content. In other words, students receive academic credit when they are able to demonstrate they have mastered content regardless of the amount of time they spend in class. Some students could receive credit in less time than under the Carnegie Unit; other students might require more time. Supporters say compe-tency-based learning results in greater flexibility, allowing students to progress as they demonstrate they have mastered academic content, regardless of time or place. Competency-based education can create multiple pathways to graduation, make better use of technology, support new staffing patterns that take advantage of teacher skills and interests and use learning opportunities outside school.

Competency-based strategies provide flexibility in the way credit can be earned or awarded, and provide students with personalized learning opportunities. In New Hampshire, as in most states, a gap exists between the need for workers with college degrees and certificates and the number of available workers who have them. According to a report by the New Hampshire Department of Education, more than

A Framew


19

DEFINITIONS }} ANNUAL STUDENT GROWTH: The change in

student achievement for an individual student between one school year to the next. A State may also include other measures that are rigorous and comparable across classrooms.

} ANYTIME, ANYPLACE LEARNING: The act of awarding students academic credit for their learn-ing, even if it occurs outside the school building or outside the school day. Examples can involve taking digital courses outside the school day and school building. It can also include internships, field opportunities and mentoring.

} AUTHENTIC PURPOSE AND AUDIENCE: Tasks that are useful and engaging activities; an episode of learning for the student. Teaching to such tasks have student concentrate on worthwhile skills and strategies as they learn and practice how to apply important knowledge and skills for authentic pur-poses. These projects most closely mirror those of everyday life and might focus on an actual problem students encounter in which they are assigned to devise a solution.

} AUTHENTIC RESEARCH: Research that closely resembles the way students will be expected to use their knowledge in the real world.

} CAREER PATHWAY: Career pathways are intended to increase student academic achievement by attracting and retaining talented teachers. Teachers are recognized and compensated for their excel-lence and are motivated to perform at increasingly higher skill levels. Pathways promote and support the professional development of teachers and require a different way of evaluating and compen-sating teachers. Rather than advancing on a salary schedule as a result of seniority and educational credits, teachers are paid according to their level of skill attainment and demonstrated student aca-demic progress. Programs support and encourage collaboration and teamwork, and provide opportu-nities for leadership and professional growth, with teachers participating in higher-level instructional responsibilities within their districts.

} CERTIFICATION ASSESSMENT: An examination de-signed to measure the knowledge and competency of a prospective teacher as licensure requirement. Several certification assessments are available, the most widely accepted being PRAXIS and National Evaluation Series. Other assessments are available based on subject-area specialties.

} COMPETENCY-BASED TRANSCRIPT: An alternate form of a school transcript, documenting the scholastic achievement of a student participating in a non-conventional, project-based learning environment. Because students’ proficiency-lev-els are often assessed using mastery other than traditional letter grades, postsecondary insti-tutions must have a way to determine whether the student’s high school performance meets its entrance requirements.

} CORE SUBJECTS: Under No Child Left Behind, the term “core academic subjects” means English, reading or language arts, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and govern-ment, economics, arts, history, and geography.

Every state has developed its own defini-tion of what it means to be college- and career-ready. Many emphasize students should leave high school with knowl-edge and skills to enroll and succeed in credit-bearing postsecondary education without the need for remedial coursework. Some state definitions go further: Arkansas, for instance, states, “All students in every Arkansas classroom will be engaged daily in rigorous learning experiences that build on students’ talents, challenge their skills and understandings, and develop their ability to reason, problem solve, collaborate and communicate. Students will monitor their own learning and direct their thinking to become productive and contributing team members. Students will grapple with complex texts and problems, construct viable arguments, and persist until solutions are identified and substantiated. Through these learning experiences, students will be confident in their preparation for success in their post-school lives, including college and career.”

} COLLEGE- AND CAREER-READINESS

A F

ram

ewor

k fo

r Sta

te P

olic

ymak

ers:

Ensu

re A

ll St

uden

ts a

re C

olle

ge- a

nd C

aree

r-Rea

dy

20

} CULMINATING DEMONSTRATION PROJECT: An assessment, sometimes used as a graduation requirement, that typically involves an inde-pendently designed project or compilation of a portfolio representing the student’s work. Culmi-nating Demonstration Projects are sometimes referred to as capstone projects, portfolios or senior design.

what students know and do not know so that adjustments can be made in a timely fashion. Summative assessments are designed to measure student mastery following a sustained period of instruction. Summative tests include state standardized assessments, end-of-unit or chapter tests, and end-of-term or final exams.

} INDIVIDUALIZED LEARNING PLAN: ILPs are tools created by schools with support from school counselors and parents to define students’ personal interests and goals related to their career and postsecondary education and to plan what courses to take and what activities to participate in during high school to further their interests and achieve their goals. Many states have adopted policies that require all high school students to develop and maintain an individualized learning plan in order to make schools more personalized and improve student outcomes. Individualized Learning Plans should not be confused with Individualized Educa-tional Program (IEP) which is mandated by the Federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

} INNOVATION ZONE/INNOVATION SCHOOL/INNO-VATION DISTRICT: Policies enabling a school, a collection of schools, or a school district to obtain waivers from state statutes or regulations to implement new approaches designed to bring about improved results. Waivers would be granted through a process to be determined through legislative action and would provide flexibility to schools and/or districts from a set of statutes or regulations that can include, but not be limited to, instruction, assessments, staffing and use of time.

} INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCES: Any materials provided by educators to students, either in print or digital format, as a means of instructional delivery.

} INTERNSHIP: A learning experience associated with a school program in which a student partic-ipates in a form of supervised training, typically associated with career training or preparation.

} LONGITUDINAL STUDENT DATA SYSTEM: A system capable of tracking data related to student, educator and school performance over a period of years. These systems provide a data source to track students’ progress from grade to grade, to determine the effectiveness of certain educational programs, to identify consistently high-achieving and low-performing schools and to evaluate teach-er preparation programs among other features.

Used as an umbrella term for the skills and knowledge that students must possess to succeed in 21st century jobs and civic life. At its heart is a set of competencies students must master in order to develop a keen un-derstanding of academic content and apply their knowledge to problems in the class-room and in the workforce. They include: 1) Mastering core academic content; 2) Acquir-ing, applying and expanding knowledge; 3) Thinking critically and expanding complex problems; 4) Communicating effectively; 5) Working collaboratively; and 6) Learning how to learn.

} DEEPER LEARNING

The act of enabling individual schools and local school districts to apply for waivers from state statutes and regulations that serve as barriers to the implementation of innovative and transformative practices.

} DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION: Tailoring instruction to meet individual student needs. Whether teachers differentiate content, process, products, or the learning environment, the use of ongoing assessment and flexible grouping makes this a successful approach to instruction. At its most basic level, differentiation consists of the efforts of teachers to respond to variance among learners in the classroom.

} FLEXIBILITY

} FORMATIVE AND SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENTS: Formative assessments are a range of formal and informal assessments that are part of the instruc-tional process to improve student achievement and attainment. They are designed to provide teachers and students with information about

A Framew


21

} PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT, EMBEDDED: Embedded professional development includes teacher learning that is grounded in day-to-day teaching practice and is designed to enhance teachers’ content-specific instructional practices with the intent of improving student learning. It is primarily school or classroom-based and is in-tegrated into the workday, consisting of teachers assessing and finding solutions for authentic and immediate problems of practice as part of a cycle of continuous improvement. Embedded PD is a shared, ongoing process that is locally rooted and makes a direct connection between learning and application in daily practice, thereby requir-ing active teacher involvement in cooperative, inquiry-based work. High-quality PD also is aligned with state standards for student academ-ic achievement and any related local educational agency and school improvement goals.

} PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT - HIGH QUALITY: The No Child Left Behind Act provides a detailed set of 21 standards for “high-quality professional development.” Some of the charac-teristics of these standards include: • Teacher understanding of effective in-

structional strategies that are strategies for improving student academic achievement or substantially increasing the knowledge and teaching skills of teachers;

• Training for teachers and principals in the use of technology so that technology and technol-ogy applications are effectively used in the classroom to improve teaching and learning in the curricula and core academic subjects in which the teachers teach;

• Activities that involve the forming of part-nerships with institutions of higher education to establish school-based teacher training programs that provide prospective teachers and beginning teachers with an opportunity to work under the guidance of experience teachers and college faculty;

• Instruction in the use of data and assessment to inform and instruct classroom practice;

• Giving teachers, principals and administrators the knowledge and skills to provide students with the opportunity to meet challenging State academic content standards and student aca-demic achievement standards;

• Are developed with extensive participation of teachers, principals, parents, and administrators;

• Providing follow-up training to teachers who have participated in activities that are designed to ensure that the knowledge and skills learned by the teachers are implement-ed in the classroom; and

} OUTCOMES-BASED FUNDING: A model by which postsecondary institutions are funded in full or part based upon meeting a defined set of standards, typically including meeting completion goals. One possible use of outcomes-based funding could be to base funding to colleges of education based on the performance of their graduates.

} PERFORMANCE-BASED CONTRACT: An alternative to the standard method of teacher compensation which is based entirely on degree attainment and experience. Under performance-based contracts, sometimes referred to as merit-pay, a portion of teacher’s compensation is determined by other factors, including student achievement or accepting hard-to-staff positions.

Strategy characterized by the definition of learning objectives and expected achieve-ment level; a design that permits as many students as possible to achieve objectives to specified level, and the assignment of grades based on achievement of objectives at speci-fied level. Once students have demonstrated mastery of specified learning goals, they are able to proceed to the next chapter, unit, or grade. It is marked by achieving outcomes rather than meeting seat time requirements. This concept is also sometimes referred to a competency learning or proficiency learning.

} MASTERY LEARNING

Personalized Learning, also referred to as student-centered learning or individualized learning, recognizes that each student has his or her own learning style, unique gifts, interests, aspirations, and challenges to learning, and supports each student to learn in his or her own unique way. Personalized Learning is a blended approach to learning that combines the delivery of education both within and beyond the traditional classroom environment. This model fosters a collabora-tive partnership between the teacher, parent, student and school that designs a tailored learning program for each student according to the needs and interests of each individual student. Personalized learning is considered a critical component in achieving deeper learning outcomes.

} PERSONALIZED LEARNING

A F

ram

ewor

k fo

r Sta

te P

olic

ymak

ers:

Ensu

re A

ll St

uden

ts a

re C

olle

ge- a

nd C

aree

r-Rea

dy

22

} STANDARDS-BASED GRADING: A measurement of students’ proficiency on well-defined course objectives. A criterion is established for standards of what every student or child is expected to know, and a score is set compared to these benchmarks rather than a ranking compared to a norm.

} STANDARDS-BASED PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENTS: is a form of testing that requires students to perform a task rather than select an answer from a ready-made list. For example, a student may be asked to explain historical events, generate scientific hypotheses, solve math problems, converse in a foreign language, or conduct research on an assigned topic.

} STUDENT CHOICE: In a student-centered learning environment, the student is given flexibility in determining not only what to study but how and why that topic might be interesting based on high academic expectations. Choice leads to deeper learning and understanding, increased responsibility and accountability for the student, and interdependence between the teacher and learner. This shift requires the teacher to become a facilitator of learning and serves as a resource and demands involvement and participation from the student.

} TECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE: The integrated framework upon which a school or school sys-tem’s digital networks operate. This infrastruc-ture includes data centers, computers, computer networks, Database Management devices, power, broadband and a regulatory system.

} VIRTUAL OPPORTUNITIES: The use of technology makes knowledge accessible and learning portable at any point in the day. The Internet and abundance of devices offering web-based services – from laptops to eReaders to Smart phones – allows students to learn at their own pace, in any location and at any time. With digital learning and virtual opportunities, school doesn’t conform to a traditional school day or in a traditional school setting. Technology can extend learning through the day and throughout the year. It can give students the ability to spend more or less time on a subject . Digital learning can ensure struggling students get the extra time needed to master material as well as accelerate learning for high achieving students.

} WORK-BASED LEARNING: Provides students with opportunities to discover things they can’t learn in a classroom. Work-based learning includes internships, mentoring, and apprenticeships in the community and credit is provided for these experiences..

• As a whole, are regularly evaluated for their impact on increased teacher effectiveness and improved student academic achievement, with the findings of the evaluations used to improve the quality of professional development

} PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES: A professional learning community is an ongoing process used to establish a school-wide culture that develops teacher leadership explicitly focused on building and sustaining school improvement efforts. Generally, PLCs are composed of teachers, although administrators and support staff routinely participate. In some schools, PLCs are extended to community members and students, as appropriate. Through participation in PLCs, teachers enhance their leadership capacity while they work as members of ongoing, high-performing, collaborative teams that focus on improving student learning.

} PROFESSIONAL PORTFOLIO: A cumulative body of work that might include any or all of the following components: A reflective statement, a statement of previous teaching responsibilities, supporting documents and a statement of future teaching goals. The portfolio helps school admin-istrators identify prospective teachers possessing skills aligning with the needs of the position for which they are being considered.

Project Based Learning is an instructional approach built upon authentic learning activities that engage student interest and motivation. These activities are designed to answer a question or solve a problem and generally reflect the types of learning and work people do in the every-day world outside the classroom. Project Based Learning produces deeper learning outcomes as well as mastery of content. These skills include communication and presentation skills, organization and time management skills, research and inquiry skills, self-assessment and reflection skills, and group participation and leadership skills.

} PROJECT-BASED LEARNING:

A Framework for State Policymakers: Ensure All Students Are College- and Career-Ready

Documents

Transcript of A Framework for State Policymakers: Ensure All Students Are College- and Career-Ready