Edu-TrendsTrends in K-12 Education and their Predicted Impact on

Worker Competencies in 2005-2010

September 30, 2001

ByJoshua Baron

Edward A. FriedmanBeth McGrath

Stevens Institute of TechnologyCenter for Improved Engineering and Science Education

"High-Performance" Work Organizations

Educational Trends

"High-Performance" Work Skills

Acknowledgements

The authors of this report wish to thank:

Drew Gitomer, Senior Vice President, Research & StatisticsEducational Testing Service

Jerry MacArthur Hultin, Dean, WJH School of Technology ManagementStevens Institute of Technology

Arthur Melmed, Research Professor, School of Public PolicyGeorge Mason University

Cindy Miles, Vice President & COOThe League for Innovation in the Community College

Mark Milliron, Executive DirectorThe League for Innovation in the Community College

Karen Smith Executive DirectorU.S. Tech Corps.

for their insights, perspectives and input into the conceptualization and development of this report.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................4

I Introduction............................................................................................................................9

II 21st Century High Performance Work Skills........................................................................11Digital-Age Literacy........................................................................................................12Communication and Interpersonal Skills........................................................................13Inventive Thinking/High-Productivity Management......................................................14Learning and Knowledge................................................................................................15

III Trends in Educational Reform and Their Impact in the Workplace....................................17Background......................................................................................................................17Standards and Accountability..........................................................................................18Core Curriculum Content................................................................................................25New Cognitive Learning Theories..................................................................................27New Instructional Practices.............................................................................................30Technology......................................................................................................................34Teacher Quality...............................................................................................................38Literacy: English and Basic Skills...................................................................................41School-Based Management.............................................................................................44Class Size Reduction.......................................................................................................47Parent Involvement..........................................................................................................50Federal Policy and Politics..............................................................................................52

IV Conclusions and Recommendations.....................................................................................55

Case Study: The Bergen County Academies...............................................................................57

Case Study: Caledonia Elementary School.................................................................................60

References...................................................................................................................................62

3

Executive Summary

The U.S. Department of Education’s seminal 1983 report, A Nation at Risk, is seen by many to be the “wake up call” to Americans on the need to “generate reform of our educational system in fundamental ways…”1 citing more than a dozen indicators of erosion of the quality of the U.S. educational system. The SCANS2 Report, nearly a decade later, further elaborated the actions and outcomes required of schools, citing necessary skills such as creative problem-solving, putting knowledge to work, adaptability, facility with technology, ability to work in teams, and a passion for lifelong learning. These reports emphasized the importance of conceptual understanding, problem-solving abilities, and the process of learning rather than memory recall of a finite set of facts. A Nation at Risk, SCANS and other reports focused America’s efforts for the first time on the “outputs” of education—the skills and competencies possessed by exiting students—rather than the inputs (the teaching process, the curriculum, the number of days, etc.) to the system.

Today, a number of public and private organizations3 have issued similar calls to action. The term “21st century Skills” is now used to describe the competencies required of workers. These include:4

Digital Age Literacy- basic, scientific, mathematic, and technological literacies; visual and information literacies; cultural literacy and global awareness;

Inventive Thinking/High-Productivity Management- Adaptability/ability to manage complexity; curiosity, creativity, and risk taking; higher order thinking and sound reasoning; ability to prioritize, plan, and manage for results; effective use of real-world tools; relevant, high-quality products;

Effective Communication/Interpersonal Skills- teaming, collaboration and interpersonal skills; personal and social responsibility; interactive communication;

Learning and Knowledge- just-in-time learning; curiosity to become lifelong learners and teachers; knowing how to learn; use of instructional technology.

This report looks at a number of important trends in education that may affect the outputs of the educational process. It attempts to forecast and make predictions of those that are likely to have a significant impact on student outcomes during the period in question, 2005-2010; those that may have an impact past 2010; and those that are likely to have a negligible impact on student outcomes in the foreseeable future. It is important to recognize that these impact predictions are 1 National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). “A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform.” A Report to the Nation and the Secretary of Education, U.S. Department of Education, p 1. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/2 Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (1991). “What Work Requires of Schools, A SCANS Report for America 2000.” U.S. Department of Labor, p 2. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://wdr.doleta.gov/SCANS/whatwork/whatwork.pdf 3 U.S. Department of Labor. “Futurework.” Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.dol.gov/asp/futurework/welcome.html The CEO Forum School Technology and Readiness Report (June 2001). “Key Building Blocks for Student Achievement in the 21st Century.” The CEO Forum on Education and Technology. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.ceoforum.org/downloads/report4.pdf 4 These categories were adapted from those developed by Cheryl Lemke, of the Metiri Group for the North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, U.S. Department of Education www.ncrel.org/engauge/skills/indepth.htm

4

based on current information and their rate of momentum in today’s society and today’s educational system. Upon examination, it is clear that the U.S. educational system is an organic, dynamic, complex, and interdependent system in which changes in one input can dramatically affect outcomes in other areas.

The single factor in today’s educational system that is most likely to have an impact upon students’ 21st century workplace skills and competencies in the 2005-2010 period is:

Technology - It is promoting new modes of student communication and collaboration with peer groups, experts and researchers; provides increased access to previously-inaccessible content and information; requires students to evaluate, synthesize, and prioritize content from a variety of sources; and enables more sophisticated analysis, problem-solving, and creation of new products. Home use of technology and the Internet has reached near saturation levels within affluent communities, making technology use and its consequences for communication, collaboration, research, and other habits of work and mind, an assumed skill among this demographic group.

Other trends likely to have an impact upon students’ 21st century skills in the 2005-2010 period include:

The Standards, Accountability, and Testing movement, which began in earnest in the late 1980’s, has had a major impact on the body of knowledge that states and local school districts prescribe for their students; however, assessment of student achievement is not aligned with standards. As a result, many states test students on mastery of specific content rather than on higher-order thinking, critical analysis, and other 21st century workplace skill sets. Although a large percentage (78%) of public secondary schools report that content standards are used to guide instruction, only one in 10 report using all 10 recommended strategies that support comprehensive educational reform.5 This trend has increasing momentum and may affect student competencies by the end of this decade and beyond.

Research confirms the conventional wisdom that Parental Involvement affects student achievement. Federal programs such as Title I, increasing numbers of state mandates, and new public-private partnerships are underscoring the need and providing new strategies to increase productive parental involvement, particularly among urban and disadvantaged groups, in education. The consequences of these federal and local efforts are likely to begin to appear by the end of the decade.

Educational trends whose effects will either (a) not be understood until 2020 or beyond or (b) are predicted to have a negligible impact on students’ 21st century skills include:

Spurred by comparative studies of U.S. student achievement against that of other developed countries, the Core Curriculum Content movement (strengthening the

5 Celebuski, C., Farris, E. & Burns, S. (project officer). (May 1998). “Status of Education Reform in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools: Principals’ Perspectives,” U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. NCES 98-025, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs98/98025.pdf

5

curriculum, particularly in science and mathematics, to include more depth of understanding of rigorous content) is receiving great attention. However, its effects are not likely to be realized until 2020 or beyond.

Teacher Quality, or the under-preparation of teachers in their subject area knowledge, particularly at the secondary level and in the areas of science and mathematics, is an issue that is not likely to be a major factor in creating 21st century skills in students in 2005-2010. While a number of federal, state, and local efforts are in progress to improve teacher preparation, the sheer size of the challenge mitigates against its resolution in this time frame. Of the approximately 3 million U.S. teachers, less than one percent are currently certified by a national teacher certification board. Hence, teacher quality will not significantly change the outlook for 21st century worker skills for the period in question.

New Cognitive Learning Theories and New Instructional Practices are increasingly being implemented in classrooms throughout the U.S. Educational researchers now categorize some 50 or more theories of learning, and most have associated recommendations for optimizing student learning through new modes of instruction. While many of these theories and practices show promising results, efforts are fragmented and scattershot, and not likely to show significant impact on the totality of students who will eventually enter the workplace in 2005-2010.

In 2000, more than one third of job applicants lacked basic skills in reading and mathematics, according to the American Management Association. Literacy Programs, such as Head Start and President Bush’s new Reading First and Early Reading First initiatives, are likely to receive increased federal and private support in the near term. While these programs are expected to have an impact for children currently enrolled in PreK-3, their effects will not be realized in the workplace until 2020 or beyond.

Educational trends, such as Class Size Reduction and School-Based Management, are also unlikely to impact students’ 21st century skills until well beyond 2010. While research shows positive effects of reduced class sizes for primary and elementary grades, its implementation is costly and problematic and, therefore, it is unlikely to be a determining factor of 21st century skills in the next decade. Similarly, school-based or site-based management (in essence, transferring decision-making authority and accountability from school districts to the individual schools) is a trend that has gained in popularity and is shown by some research to positively impact upon student achievement. Research, however, is inconclusive, and the actual practice of SBM is sometimes found to have detrimental effects on teaching and learning.

Federal Policy and Programs with regard to education change as often as every four to eight years with the election of new officials and bureaucrats with their own vision of how the educational system should perform. The current rhetoric surrounding education emphasizes accountability, testing, flexibility, and choice; in essence, holding schools accountable for improving student achievement—as measured by scores on standardized tests—in return for greater authority and flexibility to design and implement successful

6

programs. Given that there are 16,000 independent school districts in the country, the impact of even the most effective policies and programs will not likely be realized until well after this decade.

In light of these predictions and with the recognition of increased competition by employers for skilled IT workers in the coming decade, the recommendations of the authors of this report are for NIMA to prepare to create and invest in substantial on-the-job and external training and retraining programs. Such programs must recognize that non-traditional or underrepresented groups will comprise a larger percentage of prospective new hires; that these groups and the traditional pool of employees will require remediation in some basic skills and basic content knowledge; will need to be have a greater appreciation for geography and cultural diversity; will require a second language or third language to be fully-productive; will need to possess the tools of analysis, higher order thinking skills, and critical evaluation and synthesis of information from a variety of sources; will need to collaborate and work effectively as a team; and will need to know how to learn, through just-in-time learning and through traditional and non-traditional means.

Ubiquitous use of technology is the only assumption employers can make regarding an entering workforce in 2005-2010. Its use in school, while still at an immature stage in a majority of the K-12 sector, combined with near saturation levels of technology and Internet use at home, is transforming the way students communicate, work, research, and socialize. Technology facilitates progress and achievement in all of these worker competencies; therefore, NIMA is urged to create a workplace in which technology both facilitates and is integral to the learning process and to the work environment.

An overview of these trends and their potential impact on the workplace is presented in flowchart form in Figure 1 on the following page.

7

8

I Introduction

Testing, standards, accountability and many other phrases, all part of the new rhetoric of education reform, are spoken today within every echelon of society, from school board members to the President of the United States. To decipher these expressions is to gain insight into the trends that are present in education today and their potential for changing the workplace as we know it. This report, Edu-Trends, will discuss the trends that have gained momentum over the last two decades, the promise they hold for change in the process and outcomes of education, and the possible impact these changes will have on the workplace of the future.

Before looking toward the future, this report must turn to the past to understand the driving force behind current educational trends. Similar to the launch of Sputnik in 1957, which marked the beginning of the last great effort to change how America’s youth are educated, the OPEC oil embargo of 1973 and the development of a revolutionary new product, the personal computer, two years later denote "a boundary line" that defined new territory for the emerging global society.6 The first event "made it unmistakably clear that our nation's economic future was no longer ours alone to decide" and that globalization and interdependence would shape the workplace needs of the future.7 The dawn of the personal computer revolution "altered both the speed with which work is done and its very nature," forever changing the way millions carry out their jobs.

As the nation entered this new territory it saw a shift in the competitive elements of the industrial economy from an emphasis on low prices to an emphasis on high quality. This shift, which is symbolized by the dramatic changes in the automobile industry in the mid- to late-1970's, drove the need for a new type of work organization that embodied new strategies and environments. This “high performance” work organization, upon which countries such as Japan and Germany had depended for years, is "relentlessly committed to excellence, to product quality, and to customer service."8 The enabling component that is central to moving from the industrial "assembly line" model to that of high performance is decentralized control that is achieved through increased worker autonomy. The consequence of this shift is that front line workers are given the responsibility for solving "a host of problems as they arise, rather than waiting for their supervisors to solve them."9 This seemingly small but dramatic shift in how work is organized means that "the ranks of middle management and many support functions are thinned out…"

6 Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills7 Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills, p 28 Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills, p 39 Marshall, R. & Tucker, M. (1992). “Thinking For a Living,.” Basic Books, NY, p 38

Knowledge, learning, information and skilled intelligence are the new raw materials of international commerce and are today spreading throughout the world…if only to keep and improve on the slim competitive edge [Americans] still retain in world markets, we must dedicate ourselves to the reform of our educational system for the benefit of all…[as] learning is the indispensable investment required for success in the "information

age" we are entering - A Nation At Risk, April 1983

9

In the agrarian and industrial ages, employers often viewed education as a luxury for their workers. Today, in contrast, employers want their workers to learn. Knowledgeable workers with cutting-edge information and skills are a competitive advantage that few organizations can do without and survive. - Cindy Miles, Vice President & COO, Mark Milliron, Executive Director The League for Innovation in the Community College

creating large productivity gains through cost reduction as well as dramatic improvements in quality.10

What’s the connection, then, between past economic changes and the current educational trends and their associated impact on the future workplace? The answer is now self-evident. The fundamental economic shifts of the 1970's created a need for new work strategies and environments that are embodied by high performance work organizations. The key to implementing these new strategies and creating new environments was a new work force that had 21st century high performance work skills. The U.S. "education system, modeled on industrial organization, was crafted to supply the work force that the industrial economy needed…"11 and not the work force that the global economy today demands. Thus, the economic changes of the past 30 years are in fact driving the need for a new educational system--one that can instill 21st century workplace skills in the next generation of workers (see Figure 1 on page 8).

Let us return now to the quote that opens this report. It is excerpted from the seminal 1983 U.S. Department of Education report, A Nation at Risk, which is seen by many as the initiating event for today's educational reform movement. A Nation at Risk, along with many other reports that followed, was a call to arms for educators, policy makers and the American public to address a growing crisis in education that was placing the nation at risk in an ever more global economy. The educational trends seen today are largely a consequence of America's response to this report and the critical need to produce citizens that possessed 21st century high performance work skills. The fundamental question that this report will attempt to answer is: are these educational trends on track to meet this vital national goal in the 2005-2010 time period, or will America’s workplaces continue to be staffed with industrial-era workers with industrial-era skills?

10 Marshall, R. & Tucker, M., p 3811 Marshall, R. & Tucker, M., p xvii

10

II 21st Century High Performance Work Skills

To begin to answer this question, this report will attempt to construct a model explaining the interconnected nature of current educational trends and their impact on the skills and competencies of workers in the 2005-2010 time period.

As noted in the introduction, fundamental shifts in world economics in the mid-1970's set in motion a dramatic series of changes in the underlying structure of how businesses operated. Prior to this time, and even in many companies today, the basic structure was based on the "Taylorist work organization" in which all production work was broken "down into very simple tasks that could quickly and easily be learned by someone with little education."12 This model, which was the cornerstone of the assembly line and mass production methods made famous by Henry T. Ford, was the brainchild of Frederick Winslow Taylor. Taylor saw this process as a way to take maximum advantage of the large numbers of unskilled immigrants that were pouring into the country in the late 1800's and the dawn of the 1900’s. This approach of scientific management "made the front-line workers part of the largest and richest middle class the world had ever seen."13 It is no surprise, then, that during this time America built one of the world's largest and most powerful "education systems that was perfectly matched to the needs of the Taylorist workplace."14

Herein lies the connection between the workplace and educational system; since one was built to serve the other, a substantial shift in the demands in the workplace requires an equally substantial change in the educational system that supports it.

The new corporate structure that emerged in the 1970's combined "technology and people in new ways" that allowed them to produce high quality products at low cost,15 but at the same time made the present educational system nearly obsolete. This new structure required a new type of worker because it transferred basic decision-making away from middle management and put it in the hands of the front line worker. In the new model, decisions had to be "made closer to the front line and [drew] upon the abilities of workers to think creatively and solve problems."16 Compared to the Taylorist organization, this new high performance workplace required vastly different skills from its workers. Instead of being "assigned one task, to be repeated with 'machine-like efficiency' countless times during the day"17 workers had to be "comfortable with technology and complex systems, skilled as members of teams, and with a passion for continuous learning."18

This chasm that separates the Taylorist from the high performance work organization is the same giant gap that exists between the last century’s educational system and the new model that current educational trends are striving to create. To understand the impact that these reform efforts may have on workers in 2005-2010 requires an understanding of this new model for 12 Marshall, R. & Tucker, M., p 513 Marshall, R. & Tucker, M., p 1014 Marshall, R. & Tucker, M., p 1215 Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills, p ii16 Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills, p ii.17 Marshall, R. & Tucker, M., p 518 Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills. p ii

11

In a Digital Age the basic abilities to comprehend and focus, to ferret out what is important, will remain as fundamental needs. Literacy is not just being able to have input and output of information, but the ability to analyze and organize. - Drew Gitomer, Senior Vice President, Research & Statistics Educational Testing Service

The workplace of tomorrow will demand innovation and creativity from its workers as they strive to create new products and services in an ever growing global economy. Central to these demands will be "knowledge creation" as workers will need to constantly push the productivity envelope as they compete with the rest of the world. - Jerry MacArthur Hultin, Dean, WJH School of Technology Management, Stevens Institute of Technology

education and the skills it is attempting to deliver to a new high performance workplace. It is also necessary to examine the extent to which each of these educational trends will be successful in achieving its aims, and over what period of time incremental gains may be realized.

Let us begin by discussing the new 21st century work skills that are needed in high performance workplaces. Then, based on these identified skills, this report will review the most important and prevalent educational trends and make predictions as to their efficacy in instilling these skills among those entering the workforce in 2005-2010. These 21st century skills can be organized into four broad categories:

Digital-Age Literacy Communication and Interpersonal Skills Inventive Thinking/High-Productivity Management Learning and Knowledge19

Digital-Age Literacy

Digital-Age Literacy is a general term to describe the new basic knowledge and proficiencies that high performance workers will need in order to be successful. These new basic skills replace the "three R's," reading, writing and arithmetic, that met the needs of the Taylorist workforce for decades and are still often cited as the core elements of today's educational system. From the description that follows, one thing is certain: the new literacy of the digital age is anything but basic.

Whereas functional literacy--the ability to read, write, listen and speak--has always been valuable, these skills will be essential to the 21st century worker and will form the foundation of the new Digital-Age Literacy. Upon this foundation, workers will need to add new skills such the ability to "decipher meaning and express ideas through a range of media" using an "expanding array of technologies."20 This new "visual literacy" will mean that workers will need to analyze and interpret such things as graphs and charts and use computer-based visualization tools to better understand raw data and information.

19 These categories of 21st century work skills are partly based on the U.S. Department of Education’s North Central Regional Education Laboratory’s Engauge 21st Century Skills report, written by Cheryl Lemke, Metiri Group. They have been adapted and modified for the purposes of this report.20North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. “21st- Century Skills, An In-depth Look at the 21st-Century Skills. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.ncrel.org/engauge/skills/indepth.htm

12

Digital-Age Literacy also includes "scientific and mathematical literacy." This is more than being able to add, subtract and multiply or being able to name nine planets. It means being able to apply scientific and mathematical thinking "to investigate, explore, estimate, systematize, and visualize phenomena across" many disciplines.21 Digital-Age Literacy also means having a "competency in computers, networks and applications" and understanding how to apply these skills in practical situations.22 This "technological literacy" includes being able to select the appropriate technology for the job at hand and then apply it to solve a specific problem. Finally, it also requires remaining current in an ever-changing technological environment in which advances in technology occur on a daily basis.

Digital-Age Literacy also encompasses new worker competencies that were once held by a small fraction of workers but will now be needed by all.23 These include "information literacy" and "global awareness." Information literacy deals with finding, evaluating and making use of information appropriately, a skill set that becomes increasingly vital as technology has "sped up and broadened the access to information for workers and business[es]."24 Searching strategies, critical document analysis, and source evaluation are all part of this new skill set that will be as important to the information worker of the future as basic literacy was to the assembly line worker of old.25 Finally, with "globalization comes the necessity of knowing, understanding, and appreciating other cultures."26 The 21st century worker will need this new "global awareness" as he/she taps into communication technologies that transcend political boundaries and will eventually give rise to a truly global workforce.27

Communication and Interpersonal Skills

Since the first Toyota was spotted on U.S. highways, American firms have been envious of the quality products produced by Japanese manufacturers. As U.S. industrial leaders sought to understand how Japanese firms were able to produce such high quality products at low costs, they quickly learned that the key element was in how firms organized on a fundamental level. For example, in the U.S., quality control was the responsibility of specialized management departments, while in Japan quality control was primarily the job of "work teams" made up of front line workers.28 These largely autonomous front line work groups "perform the industrial engineering functions…, control the pace of the assembly line" and work the kinks out of the production process, "deciding among themselves what to do, how to do it and when."29 This use of front line work teams, which is a fundamental element of almost every aspect of the Japanese company, "is the most important single factor in the success of the Japanese economy."30 As U.S. firms begin to transition from Taylorist to high performance work organizations, they will have to adopt this same fundamental use of work teams. It will be vital that 21st century workers

21 North Central Regional Educational Laboratory 22 North Central Regional Educational Laboratory 23 North Central Regional Educational Laboratory 24 Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills, p 6925 North Central Regional Educational Laboratory 26 North Central Regional Educational Laboratory 27 North Central Regional Educational Laboratory 28 Marshall, R. & Tucker, M., p 5529 Marshall, R. & Tucker, M., p 5530 Marshall, R. & Tucker, M., p 56

13

While workers will need to be prepared for on the job support such as just-in-time training, it will not be useful for acquisition of deeper knowledge or skill. Real knowledge about complex phenomena will still need to be provided in preparation for the world of work. - Drew Gitomer, Senior Vice President, Research & Statistics Educational Testing Service

Successful execution of larger projects that come in under-budget and ahead-of-time will be highly desirable. This will require workers to work effectively in large virtual organizations that span the world's continents and cultures. Interpersonal and communication skills will be key to this aspect of the future workplace. - Jerry MacArthur Hultin, Dean, WJH School of Technology Management, Stevens Institute of Technology

have the communication and interpersonal skills needed to operate effectively in such an environment.

Obviously the "ability to interact smoothly with others and to work together to"31 achieve a common goal is a big part of working effectively as a team, especially when that team is made up of a diverse set of individuals with different backgrounds and cultural norms. But cooperation is only part of the skill set that is needed to create effective and autonomous work teams. Another critical element is the "individual's and group's ability to devise a strategy to divide a task into pieces based on the strengths of the individuals, yet ensure that each has a clear sense of the entire project…"32 Since not all workers will have all the necessary skills to perform their "piece" it is also important that they are capable of teaching one another.33 Rather than working as individuals, the team must work together "to bring the performance of the whole group up to a high standard."34

Technology impacts on how workers communicate and work together. Clearly, revolutions in electronic communication (e.g., e-mail, World Wide Web, chat, etc.) are creating a networked society and workforce that can interact in once unimaginable ways. Interactive communication

"can play a key role in the ease with which individuals and groups collaborate,"35 but also requires new skills if it is to be used effectively. The "etiquette" and nuances that are often unique to a specific communication medium must be mastered, otherwise the technology can interfere with rather than enhance the collaboration. For example, digital collaboration, such as the sharing of electronic documents in virtual workspaces,

"requires a greater attention to detail than is necessary in face-to-face interactions."36

Inventive Thinking/High-Productivity Management

As workers take on more responsibility and decision-making authority in the workplace, they will have to become more "inventive thinkers." Inventive thinking covers a broad array of skills and deals with the ability to think rationally and creatively to solve problems, manage complex issues, and adjust and adapt to an ever-changing environment.

Workers in the high performance work organization are themselves part of an inherently complex system that reflects the "interconnectedness" of today's world. This new environment requires workers to take into account contingencies, anticipate change, and understand the interdependencies within the

31 North Central Regional Educational Laboratory 32 North Central Regional Educational Laboratory 33 Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills34 Marshall, R. & Tucker, M., p 5535 North Central Regional Educational Laboratory 36 North Central Regional Educational Laboratory

14

What we know is that learning with technology, if done well, can help students and faculty connect with quality educational content, with rich context, and with each other while it also provides a means for offering better service and support for learning. - Cindy Miles, Vice President & COO, Mark Milliron, Executive Director The League for Innovation in the Community College

As the number two civilian leader in the Department of the Navy I have come to realize that all workers will also have to be lifelong learners as they enter the workplace of tomorrow. - Jerry MacArthur Hultin, Dean, WJH School of Technology Management, Stevens Institute of

system itself.37 The ability to adapt to and manage complexity requires a new type of worker-thinker who is "able to plan, design, and manage in new ways…"38 A key skill for this new "inventive thinker" is the ability to think creatively; to use imagination to develop new and original ideas, to "reshape goals in ways that reveal new possibilities, [and] … to combine ideas or information in new ways."39 To counterbalance this creative management is the need to concentrate on the main objective of a project, keeping "an eye on the outcomes so as to guide and align all facets of the project towards" the end goal. This illusive combination of creative thinking and goal-oriented management will be an essential skill in the high performance workplace of tomorrow.

Equally important in managing complexity are higher-order thinking skills that allow worker-thinkers to solve problems through sound reasoning and decision-making. Workers will need to think logically and draw conclusions based on available information and known rules or principles. Based on these conclusions, they can then make informed, insightful decisions that positively affect job performance.40 Finally, technology is playing an increasing role in the lives of inventive thinkers. They must be technologically literate so that they can evaluate the technology that is available and select the tool that is best suited to enhance their problem-solving abilities. Furthermore, they will need to apply the tool they have selected to "real-world situations in ways that add significant value."41

Learning and Knowledge

"Without lifelong learning, [high performance worker's] skills will become rapidly dated."42 Whether it is learning new technologies, how to solve new problems, or developing field-specific skills in specialized applications, the 21st century worker's education will never come to an end. Learning will also take on many news forms. In many high performance work organizations "the primary mode of instruction…is discussions run by the foreman" or peer-to-peer learning among work team members.43 Technology will also play a growing role as companies begin to "train their workers more efficiently and effectively with new learning technologies."44

Curiosity is the "fuel for lifelong learning" that drives a "desire to know" in all of us.45 Future workers will need to maintain their inquisitiveness and constantly strive to stay current and informed. This may happen over long periods of time or take the form of "just-in-time" 37 North Central Regional Educational Laboratory 38 North Central Regional Educational Laboratory 39 Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills40 North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. “21st-Century Skills.” Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.ncrel.org/engauge/skills/indepth.htm 41 North Central Regional Educational Laboratory 42 National Commission on Excellence in Education 43 Marshall, R. & Tucker, M., p 55-5644 Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills, p 7045 North Central Regional Educational Laboratory

15

learning. Either way, having a drive for learning over one’s lifetime is only part of the equation; knowing how to learn is equally as important. To know how to learn simply means comprehending how to use "efficient learning techniques to acquire and apply new knowledge and skills."46 These techniques may include understanding one’s own and others’ learning styles, knowing what learning strategies to employ in different situations, and using technology-based learning systems. These "lifelong learning skills" will be just as important in the workplace of tomorrow as they are in the universities of today.

The demands of the high performance workplace require a new breed of worker. Needed will be people who are inventive thinkers who possess an array of scientific, mathematical, information, visual, cultural and technological knowledge; and who can draw upon these capabilities to solve real world problems, develop innovative ideas, and manage complex systems. The high performance workplace is one of teams and collaboration. The knowledge worker must understand how to work in diverse groups, leveraging the strengths of the individual while working as one to achieve a common goal. Finally, the 21st century high performance worker must never stop learning or teaching as new knowledge and understanding will be the keys to a future that has yet to be imagined.

For almost two decades the American educational system has been striving to meet the demands of the new high performance workplace by implementing a range of “reform strategies” to instill these skills in the next generation of workers. This effort has been immense, but fragmented, and has aimed to restructure and reform an educational system that operates essentially as 16,000 independent units and has developed over time to serve a different type of workplace. This report will now review the educational trends of the past two decades, recount their successes and failures, and assess how American society is turning this great vessel named public education around to face a new horizon.

46 Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills

16

III Trends in Educational Reform and Their Impact in the Workplace

"We report to the American people that while we can take justifiable pride in what our schools and colleges have historically accomplished and contributed to the United States and the well-being of its people, the educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and a people."47

Background

This quote from the 1983 U.S. Department of Education report, A Nation at Risk, marked the beginning of the largest effort to reform public education in the United States since the launch of Sputnik in 1957. Many of its findings remain central in today's public debates over how to improve student achievement and the educational system in general. More importantly, the recommendations made in this report, almost two decades ago, are mirrored in the educational reform efforts that are seen in many U.S. schools today. Among its most notable recommendations were:

1. The need to strengthen graduation requirements by requiring specific courses and content for all students.

2. Schools, colleges, and universities need to adopt more rigorous and measurable standards and higher expectations, for academic performance and student conduct.

3. Improve the preparation of teachers or to make teaching a more rewarding and respected profession.

4. Citizens across the Nation hold educators and elected officials responsible for providing the leadership necessary to achieve these reforms.

These recommendations from 20 years ago are now clearly marked trends in educational reform efforts and, whether positive or negative, will most likely have a significant impact on the workplace of tomorrow. These issues and trends include:

1. Standards and Accountability2. Core Curriculum Content3. New Cognitive Learning Theories4. New Instructional Practices5. Technology6. Teacher Quality7. Literacy: English and Basic Skills8. School-Based Management9. Class Size Reduction10. Parent Involvement11. Federal Policy and Politics

47 National Commission on Excellence in Education

17

Standards and Accountability

Overview

A Nation at Risk made a resounding call for tougher education standards for "academic performance and student conduct" that can still be heard today throughout all sectors of public education. The first substantial move to address this recommendation came in 1989 at the Education Summit organized by then President George Bush and the National Governor's Association. The President and Governors agreed to a set of six goals that they pledged would be achieved by the year 2000. Two of these goals called for competencies in core subject areas that all students would be able to achieve.48 This important Education Summit led eventually to the Goals 2000: Educate America Act in 1994, which in part funded the development and implementation of State content standards,49 or detailed definitions of what students should know in core subjects by certain grades, typically 4th, 8th and 12th. At the same time, most of the nation's subject matter organizations, such as the National Council of Teacher of Mathematics, began to establish standards in their respective disciplines. Some even received discretionary funding from the U.S. Department of Education to develop these standards.50

Over the last decade, states have invested enormous energy and political capital in standards-based reform efforts.51 Today, 49 states have academic standards, most modeled from the national standards that resulted from the Education Summit and its effects. States are placing these standards at the center of their educational reform efforts. In basic terms, these "standards define the desired results of schooling"52 by describing "what students should know and be able to do in core subjects at critical points in their education career."53 To those outside of the world of education, the need for standards may seem surprising, as many assume that these have been commonplace in U.S. public schools for decades. This is just not the case. The "idea that there exists a coherent plan for teaching content within the local district, or even within the individual school, is a gravely misleading myth."54 Besides defining a coherent educational plan, more challenging standards also have the potential to raise expectations and thus impact on student achievement. "There is ample evidence to suggest that when students are encouraged to work with challenging content…they will make far greater progress than those students who receive basic skills instruction."55 Without clear definitions of what students should understand, it 48 Marzano, R.J. & Kendall, J.S. “The Fall and Rise of Standards-Based Education.” A National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE) Issues in Brief. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.mcrel.org/products/standards/fallrise.pdf 49 U.S. Department of Education (1998). “Goals 2000: Reforming Education to Improve Student Achievement.” Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/G2KReforming/g2ch1.html 50 Marzano, R.J. & Kendall, J.S.51 Education Week on the Web (January 2001). “Seeking Stability for Standards-Based Education,” Vol. 20, No. 17, p 8-9 Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.edweek.org/sreports/qc01/articles/qc01story.cfm?slug=17exec_sum.h20 52 Thomas F. Fordham Foundation. “Standards, Testing & Accountability.” Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.edexcellence.net/topics/standards.html#anchor1100364 53 Thomas F. Fordham Foundation 54 Marzano, R.J. (1998). “Models of Standards Implementation: Implications for the Classroom.” Report prepared for the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.mcrel.org/products/standards/models.pdf 55 ERIC Digests (1993). “Standards for Student Performance.” ERIC Digest, Number 81. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed356553.html

18

should be no surprise that schools have struggled to create a workforce that has the necessary 21st

century skills and aptitude to succeed in a high performance work environment.

Most supporters believe that standards alone will not succeed in creating a new educational system aimed at producing high performance workers unless they are tied to accountability. For accountability to be an effective mechanism, there is an associated requirement for student assessment, to determine if schools, teachers and students are meeting the standards. Understandably, the outcomes of these assessments must be associated with consequences if progress is to be achieved. Schools that consistently fail to meet the standards often face "interventions." Teachers whose students consistently fail to meet the standards often need to engage in professional development to improve their skills. Finally, students who fail should not be promoted until they have mastered the knowledge at the previous level.56 This combination of standards and accountability form the cornerstone of one of today's most significant educational reform efforts.

Why is the new standards movement viewed by many as the key to education reform? For the first time the U.S. is setting "output standards" instead of "input standards." In the past, schools have set standards that "define the inputs into the process of education" (e.g. number of school days) but have said nothing about the outcomes.57 This phenomenon has led to a system that many believe promotes mediocrity as teachers and administrators are only responsible for following the rules laid out in the "input standards" and not for the end results. The new standards that are being established across the country focus on student outcomes or the "output" of the education system. By setting such standards and creating accountability among those responsible for meeting them, it is believed that the education system as a whole can be improved, dramatically altering the quality of the end product. This straightforward approach to improving education by employing a system of standards, testing and accountability is considered by many in education as "one of the most powerful options for school reform."58 Because of the current stature that the interrelated trends of standards, accountability, and testing hold in the world of education reform, it is important to understand the implications they hold for the workplace of the future. This leads to the question, “How successful will the standards movement be?”

States are establishing rigorous standards, testing students, teachers and schools to measure them against these standards, then setting consequences if standards are not met. In theory, this straightforward approach to upgrading the educational system seems as if it will meet with certain results. However, as this report will elucidate, U.S. education is a fragmented, complex and interdependent system and one component depends upon and has implications for all others.

Predicting the effects of the standards movement turns out to be more difficult than it first appears. One of the primary reasons for this is the simple fact that the "details of state policies and practices vary so widely"59 that obtaining hard and direct evidence that the standards

56 Thomas F. Fordham Foundation 57 Marshall, R. & Tucker, M., p 144.58 Marzano, R.J. & Kendall, J.S.59 Olson. L. (January 2001). “Finding the Right Mix.” Education Week on the Web, Vol. 20, No. 17, p 12 –20. Retrieved from World Wide Web:http://www.edweek.org/sreports/qc01/articles/qc01story.cfm?slug=17intro.h20

19

"Everyone always says that their tests are aligned with their standards," remarks Lauren B. Resnick, the director of the Learning, Research, and Development Center at the University of Pittsburgh, which worked with Achieve on the alignment studies. "Well, enough! We now know that they're not."

movement is making a difference is nearly impossible. This should really not come as much of a surprise as educational trends of this magnitude take long periods of time to impact on the system as a whole. To some extent the reform movement is still in an experimental phase where states and school systems are moving in many different directions as they seek to learn about best practices and implement them. The U.S. has reached a "crucial juncture" where the "vast majority of states have been working diligently on policies related to standards-based changes" but "some large pieces of the puzzle are still missing."60 Over the next five to 10 years states and school systems will be struggling to deal with these pieces as they work to complete the standards and accountability puzzle. By understanding these issues, one can then gain a better understanding of the future of this trend and the variables that will determine the end results.

Since 1989, states have varied tremendously in the approach they have taken and speed at which they have developed standards in core content areas. As a result, the quality of the state standards that have been produced have varied more than most would like.61 Over the past five years a series of reviews have been conducted by well-established groups such as the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, Achieve, and the American Federation of Teachers. They found that many of the early standards were vague,62 promoted less than rigorous content and knowledge,63 were not as challenging as compared to other countries, and were "too exhaustive to provide sufficient guidance to teachers or test developers."64 In the most recent reviews by these same organizations, all have found that the "overall quality of the state standards continues to improve."65 In fact, "more states have become more serious about their responsibility to identify the essential knowledge and skills that today's students must master in order to be contributing citizens and workers in the new millennium."66 That said, "many states…still do not have standards that satisfy…requirements for clarity, specificity, and being firmly grounded in content."67 Clearly, states are moving in the right direction but many are still in the "experimental" phase of establishing meaningful standards. Over the next decade, the quality of state standards will be an important benchmark to monitor as it will provide a measure for how successful the standards movement may be and the impact it may have on the future workplace.

Another significant piece of the standards and accountability puzzle that is hotly debated today and an important indicator of the future success of the movement is that of standardized testing. In order for there to be accountability associated with the standards, there must be some form of testing to determine if students are meeting the standards. At present, all 50 states "test how well

60 Olson. L. (January 2001). “Finding the Right Mix.”61 Eds. (January 2001) “Gaining Ground.” Education Week on the Web,” Retrieved from World Wide Web, Vol. 20, No. 17, p 33-40. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.edweek.org/sreports/qc01/articles/qc01story.cfm?slug=17achieve.h20 62 Finn Jr., C., Petrilli, M.J. & Vanourek, G. (November 11, 1998). “The State of State Standards: Four Reasons Why Most Don't Cut the Mustard.” Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.edexcellence.net/library/mustard.html63 American Federation of Teachers (1999). “Making Standards Matter 1999.” AFT.Org. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.aft.org/edissues/standards99/Findings.htm#Making 64 Eds. (January 2001). “Gaining Ground.” 65 American Federation of Teachers 66 Thomas B. Fordham Foundation (January 2000). “The State of State Standards.” Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.edexcellence.net/library/soss2000/2000soss.html#Summary67 American Federation of Teachers

20

their students are learning and 27 hold schools accountable for results…"68 But there are serious questions concerning the design of these tests, their effectiveness in measuring standards, and undesirable practices that can sometimes develop as a result of their use.

In order for accountability to work, the assessments that are used must be aligned with the standards that they are proposing to measure. "But creating such alignment between state standards and state tests has been a challenge; it requires time and expertise and can be costly."69 This discrepancy between the standards and the tests that are being used to measure students’ progress could undermine the entire standards movement. Although states often report that their assessments are in alignment "studies by Achieve, a nonprofit group based in Cambridge, Mass., that promotes standards-based school improvement, have found that state tests do not sufficiently match their standards."70 The extent of alignment between standardized tests and the content standards will be an important benchmark to monitor in determining the potential impact that the standards and accountability movement may have on the future workplace.

The design of early state assessments relied heavily on the use of multiple choice questions as they "can easily be coded onto machine-scannable sheets for rapid scoring..." and thus significantly reduced the cost associated with administering the exams.71 "Even when well-constructed…[multiple choice tests] are limited in terms of the educational objectives, subject areas, and outcomes they can be crafted to address."72 In general, this limits the test to measure "low-order thinking skills" and thus presents barriers to measuring some of the 21st century work skills that the standards are promoting. There is some positive news. Over the "past decade, many states have expanded their testing programs to incorporate a better mix of multiple-choice and open-ended questions that can probe students' grasp of higher-level skills."73 But much more remains to be done to improve the design of these test as "few have invested in assessments that use student portfolios or extended-performance tasks"74 which "some consider more “authentic” or better aligned with ambitious new goals for education than fill-in-the-blank or multiple-choice questions."75 Part of the reason why states have not adopted more "authentic" measures is because "reliability was significantly lower than with traditional multiple-choice tests."76 The other reason is simply cost. An "authentic" test can cost four to six times as much to administer than one that uses only multiple-choice questions. Over the next five years it will be important to monitor the progress that educators and testing experts make in developing new assessment methods that can better measure students progress towards meeting the standards.68 Education Week on the Web (January 2001). “Seeking Stability For Standards-Based Education,” Vol. 20, No. 17, p 8,9. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.edweek.org/sreports/qc01/articles/qc01story.cfm?slug=17exec_sum.h2069 Education Week on the Web. (September 26, 2001). “Assessment.” Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.edweek.org/context/topics/issuespage.cfm?id=4170 Cizek, G.J. (October 1998). “Filling In the Blanks: Putting Standardized Tests to the Test," Fordham Report, Vol. 2, No. 11, p 27. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.edexcellence.net/library/cizek.pdf 71 Cizek, G.J., p 2772 Cizek, G.J., p 2773 Olson, L. (January 2001). “Overboard on Testing?” Education Week on the Web, Vol. 20, No. 17, p 23-30. Retrieved from Word Wide Web: http://www.edweek.org/sreports/qc01/articles/qc01story.cfm?slug=17test.h20 74 Olson, L. (January 2001). “Overboard on Testing?”75 Committee for Economic Development. Research and Policy Committee (2000). “Measuring What Matters, Using Assessment and Accountability to Improve Student Learning.” Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data, p 876 Committee for Economic Development, p 9

21

Evidence "suggests that, without a better balance, the current emphasis on test scores is leading to some undesirable practices…" and is "driving instruction to focus on the wrong content."77

"Teachers may…shift instructional time to concentrate more on the subjects that are tested, devise exercises that mirror test formats and expectations, and work with their students on such test-taking skills as filling in the bubbles on multiple-choice questions."78 This power of mandated tests to drive and influence classroom instruction is sometime called "measurement driven instruction" (MDI) by assessment experts. "Abundant research on the phenomenon of MDI has documented that teachers' efforts may go beyond the desired effects of emphasizing certain educational objectives to narrowing the curriculum to focus almost exclusively on a limited set of knowledge or skills."79 This phenomenon has raised serious concerns about the use of standardized tests as the results could in fact negate the positive impact of standards in general if teachers end up focusing on test-taking skills instead of those that are aligned with the needs of the 21st century workplace. Because of this, it will be essential to monitor this issue to see if a better balance between standards and testing can be found.

Relevance to the Future Workplace

“For the United States to retain international leadership, its education system must develop and implement education standards at internationally competitive levels for its entire student population."80 This statement from a 1993 report on the state of the standards movement reflects the close connection between it and the attainment of 21st century high performance work skills. In a sense, the standards movement is a direct attempt to instill these new and vital work skills in all students. Because of this connection, the standards movement holds great potential for creating a new generation of high performance workers who have the skills needed to compete in the new global economy.

But what type of skills do the standards actually promote? In general, standards "promote the development of the knowledge, skills, and habits including the ability to integrate knowledge and skills from multiple subjects and apply them to the solution of real-world problems."81 Beyond this, they also encourage82:

77 Olson, L. (January 2001). “Overboard on Testing?” 78 Olson. L. (January 2001). “Finding the Right Mix.” 79 Cizek, G.J., p 2980 Wurtz, E. & Malcom, S. (1993). “Promises to Keep: Creating High Standards for American Students.” Report on the Review of Education Standards from the Goals 3 and 4 Technical Planning Group to the National Education Goals Panel, p iv. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.negp.gov/Reports/promises.pdf 81 Wurtz, E. & Malcom, S., p 13.82 National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). “Principles and Standards for School Mathematics, Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://standards.nctm.org/National Science Education Standards. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/nses/html/

"What happens is it becomes very clear that you have to teach to the test," says Eva Morris, who teaches pre-algebra at South Park Middle School in Corpus Christi, Texas.

"The bad thing is that a lot of it is short-term memory," she contends. "A lot of it is not going to be life-enhancing. There's not enough time for enrichment. And there's also not enough time for review because there's

22

Less teacher-centered and more student-centered learning that results in students becoming self-directed learners. (Learning and Knowledge)

Less passive learning and more active, exploratory and inquiry-based learning that leads to a conceptual understanding of the subject matter. (Digital-Age Literacy)

Less individual and isolated learning and more collegial and collaborative learning that is part of a team effort. (Communication and Interpersonal Skills)

Less emphasis on student acquisition and memorization of facts and more on compiling, organizing, analyzing and synthesizing information in order to draw conclusions and make generalizations. (Digital-Age Literacy, Inventive Thinking and Management)

Less processing of skills out of context and more processing within authentic real-world scenarios that leads to improved critical thinking and problem solving skills. (Inventive Thinking and Management)

There are now content standards for all major core subject areas, including: mathematics, science, social studies, English and language arts, and technology. Beyond the general linkages between the standards and the 21st century work skills mentioned above, one can also find many specific connections within the subject-specific standards as well. For example, the National Educational Technology Standards call for students to know more than just the basic operations and concepts associated with technology. They also require students to:

use technology tools to enhance learning, increase productivity, and promote creativity. use productivity tools to collaborate in constructing technology-enhanced models, prepare

publications, and produce other creative works. use telecommunications to collaborate, publish, and interact with peers, experts, and other

audiences. use technology to locate, evaluate, and collect information from a variety of sources. use technology tools to process data and report results. evaluate and select new information resources and technological innovations based on the

appropriateness for specific tasks. use technology resources for solving problems and making informed decisions. employ technology in the development of strategies for solving problems in the real

world.83

Similar alignment between subject-specific standards and the 21st century high performance work skills can be found in almost all of the national core curriculum content standards. Thus, it is valid to conclude the successful implementation of standards and associated accountability measures could indeed lead to a significant change in worker skills in the future.

Trend Analysis: Impact Prediction for 2005-2010

International Society for Technology in Education (2001). National Education Technology Standards. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/nses/html/ 83 International Society for Technology in Education (2000). “National Educational Technology Standards for Students, Connecting Curriculum and Technology.” Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://cnets.iste.org/index2.html

23

The standards and accountability movement holds much potential for reforming the U.S. public education system and, more importantly, promoting the development of 21st century workplace skills. Although this movement may still be considered to be in the experimental stage, one can already see the impact it is having on schools and educators. For example, in 1998 almost "two-thirds of principals (64 percent) reported that their content standards in any subject changed to a moderate or great extent in the last three years."84 More recently, in 2001, of those teachers who said that their curriculum was more demanding, "more than six in 10 attributed the change to statewide academic standards."85 Although "trends in student performance are mixed," as measured by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), "there have been some improvements in mathematics and science performance."86 These all seem to point towards a positive impact by this trend.

Will the standards and accountability movement really make a difference in the workplace of the future? There is insufficient data to definitively answer this question; however, there is compelling initial evidence that it will have significant impact on the U.S. educational system in general and be a driving force behind the development of the much needed 21st century workplace skills in today's students. Over the coming years it will be vital to monitor some of the key issues outlined above, such as the quality of the standards and the assessments that are used to measure student progress towards them, in order to predict the outcome of this important trend.

84 U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics, p iii85 Education Week on the Web (January 2001). “Seeking Stability for Standards-Based Education.”86 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement (2001). “The Condition of Education 2001,” p iv. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/2001072.pdf

24

Core Curriculum Content

Overview

The subjects that students learn and how well they learn them has been a topic of great national concern. Since the former Soviet Union launched its Sputnik satellite in October 1957, the Congress of the United States has been debating national testing programs at all grade levels. In 2001, the President has made this issue a policy priority.

The sense of urgency regarding student performance and the quality and rigor of the curricula in mathematics and science have been of particular concern because of the dismal achievement of U.S. students in comparison with students from other developed countries. The Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS) compared students from various countries who were enrolled in 4th, 8th and 12th grades.87 U.S. students performed reasonably well at the 4th grade level and progressively worse in grades 8 and 12. The performance in 12th grade physical science was among the lowest levels of all participating countries.

It appears that there are many factors contributing to these results. These include inadequacies in the curriculum, teaching methods, and teacher preparation, among other factors of school organization and cultural values. There are ongoing studies of the TIMSS results and efforts to conduct additional tests in the participating countries. Of special concern – given the fact that U.S. students perform comparatively worse after the 4th grade, is the curriculum and its implementation in the middle school years. It appears that the mathematics and science curricula taught in most other countries in those years is more demanding and stimulating than that taught in the U.S.

In 1999 there was a repeat of the 8th grade testing, referred to as TIMSS-R,88 in mathematics and science involving 38 countries. In mathematics, the United States scored higher than 17 countries, was on par with scores in seven countries, and scored lower than 14 countries. In science, the U.S. score was higher than 18 countries, on par with scores of five countries, and lower than the scores of 14 countries. Australia outperformed all other countries in both mathematics and science. Canada, Netherlands and the Asian countries of Japan, Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan significantly outperformed the U.S. in both areas.

In response to these and related signals that U.S. education in mathematics and science was not up to the challenge of sustaining a competitive high tech workforce in a global economy, efforts began in the early 1990’s to create higher academic standards. These efforts of the National Governor’s Conference, the National Research Council, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, state departments of education and others, to create detailed criteria for education in mathematics and science have been extraordinarily vigorous. However, emphasis has been on standards as guidelines; they do not present specific, detailed curriculum content.

87 Third International Mathematics and Science Study. “About TIMSS and TIMSS-Repeat.” Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://timss.bc.edu/TIMSS1/AboutTIMSS.html 88 Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://nces.ed.gov/timss/timss-r/index.asp

Since the U.S. Constitution explicitly places responsibility for education with the states, Americans abjure national programs. This attitude is in sharp contrast with that of other developed countries and all of the countries that outperformed the U.S. in TIMSS. There have been efforts to change the content of courses in mathematics and science through initiatives of national organizations, most notably the National Science Foundation (NSF). However, new curricula such as those produced with support and encouragement of NSF then need to compete in the marketplace for adoption by schools. Many forces are at work, including sales and marketing practices of large textbook publishing companies, in that competitive environment.

There are some examples of change and innovation. The Internet provides a route for introduction of new courses that incorporate high standards. The U.S. Department of Education has supported an innovative project developed by Bob Tinker and the Concord Consortium known as Virtual Classroom89 in which high schools exchange courses they have created via the Web. Without large-scale teacher training and mandates from school systems to adopt innovative curricula, however, change will be quite limited.

An important effort to create wide scale improvement in curriculum implementation is the Equity 200090 project of The College Board to enroll all students in a group of urban school systems in academically sound courses in algebra. With funds from major corporations and from NSF, more than $20 million have been expended on this effort since 1990.

The project was based on research findings that when low-income and non-white students successfully study algebra and geometry, they then have opportunities to attend college and to succeed in college at rates that are about the same as higher income and white students. The project was developed over a six-year period in 700 schools enrolling nearly 500,000 students. The pilot cities were Fort Worth, Milwaukee, Nashville, Providence, San Jose and Prince George’s County, Maryland. The program is now being implemented at more than 33 sites in 22 school districts.91

An example of the impact of this program can be seen in Milwaukee where the enrollment of ninth graders in Algebra I or a higher-level mathematics course increased from 31 percent in 1991 to 99 percent in 1999. The completion rates have increased over this same period from 25 percent to 55 percent. However, Milwaukee is still faced with the fact that 47 percent of the students who enroll do not pass the course by the end of the ninth grade. A comprehensive program in Milwaukee is continuing in order to seek higher passing rates for all students.92 Their experience to date has led the entire community to endorse the concept of Algebra for All. It is believed that success in such a program depends upon active involvement and development of higher expectations by teachers, administrators, guidance counselors and parents. Through Equity 2000, Milwaukee has introduced teacher training programs, as well as programs for administrators, guidance counselors and for parents. Since this was an inclusion program and not

89 Hsi, S. & Tinker, R. “Realizing The Educational Promise of Technology.” The Concord Consortium. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.concord.org/library/model.html 90 The College Board (September 15, 2001). “Equity 2000: A Systemic Education Reform Model, A Summary Report 1990-2000.” Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.collegeboard.org/sls/equity/html/section2.html91 The College Board 92 Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation. “Equity 2000 Evaluation.” Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.mdrc.org/Education/Equity.htm

26

a curriculum development program, they did not need to create new teaching materials or compete with textbook publishers.

In contrast with such a comprehensive and coordinated effort to improve student study of more rigorous curricula content, the New York State Board of Regents has taken a path of mandating greater student achievement, without creating the mechanisms that effectuate that result. By 2005 all of the state’s students will be required to pass five Regents Exams – in English, math, American history, world history and science – in order to graduate.93 As of the spring of 2001, only the English and mathematics requirements had been phased in. Of the students who entered New York City high schools in 1997, 39 percent had not taken or passed the English test as of the fall of 2000 and 44 percent had either not taken or passed the mathematics test.94 Given that many students fail at least one year of high school (35 percent fail ninth grade alone), many students will have multiple opportunities to retake the exam over a five-year period. There is clearly a struggle to implement these higher standards and more rigorous curricula. During this phase-in period of the program, the cut off scores for passing have been reduced to 55 percent and is scheduled to rise to 65 percent in 2005.

Trend Analysis: Impact Prediction for 2005-2010

Experience with these New York State Regents policies demonstrates that simply having higher standards and new testing programs will not bring about higher achievement. Efforts like those that support Equity 2000 are needed in order to achieve new levels of academic competence on the part of large numbers of students. But even with the support programs of Equity 2000, there are serious unmet needs. Improving curriculum content at middle and high schools undoubtedly requires changing behavior and attitudes about learning from the earliest years.

While steady progress is being made in establishing more rigorous curricula for a broad segment of the student population, it will be many years before significant results will be realized. New Cognitive Learning Theories

Overview

It must be recognized by all concerned with education that teaching is an “artful process.” There is no general theory of mental process or of learning. Unfortunately, many individuals persist in seeking a “magic bullet” that will solve all educational problems and lead to creation of ideal schools.

While there is no comprehensive theoretical understanding of learning, there are many individual insights that have been gained. Cognitive scientists continue to add to the body of knowledge about the learning process and to apply this knowledge to classroom practice. Since the theoretical understanding tends to be piecemeal and is often general, the melding together of a comprehensive strategy must be left to experienced and talented practitioners. Just as a conductor

93 New York Times (May 14, 2001). “Holding Firm to State Standards.” 94 New York Times (November 10, 2000). “Most Seniors Pass Regents Exam With a Lower Cutoff Score.”New York Times (October 13, 2000). “Most Eighth Graders Fail State Math Test.”

27

of an opera knows a great deal of musical theory but must rely ultimately on intuition and understanding that cannot be verbalized, successful teachers orchestrate their lessons using intellectual knowledge combined with human creativity and sensitivity.

With these caveats in mind, it is instructive to examine a framework for education that has gained substantial support from cognitive scientists and which is summarized in a recent publication of the National Research Council entitled, “How People Learn – Brain, Mind, Experience and School.”95 The book presents three key findings from cognitive science, on which instructional practice should be based. These principles have a strong research base to support them. These are:

1. Students come to the classroom with preconceptions about how the world works. If their initial understanding is not engaged, they may fail to grasp the new concepts and information that are taught, or they may learn them for purposes of a test but revert to their preconceptions outside the classroom

2. To develop competence in an area of inquiry, students must: (a) have a deep foundation of factual knowledge, (b) understand facts and ideas in the context of a conceptual framework, and (c) organize knowledge in ways that facilitate retrieval and application.

3. A “metacognitive” approach to instruction can help students learn to take control of their own learning by defining learning goals and monitoring their progress in achieving them.

The first principle challenges teachers to create interactions that reveal student misconceptions. The second principle challenges school systems to adopt rigorous curricula and clear, well-organized textbooks. And the third principle requires a learning environment in which discussion and student presentations place the process of learning, itself, in perspective.

How these various precepts are implemented cannot be precisely proscribed. There are numerous methods and systems being developed and explored. For example, Computer Supported Intentional Learning Environments (CSILE) facilitates collaboration and metacognition by providing students with computer held databases of their work and that of their peers. Through interaction with computers, students engage in inquiry, reflection, discussion and opportunities to gain feedback about their conjectures and ideas. This approach is an example of a method that is promising, but does not provide an unambiguous road to educational achievement. While the fundamental cognitive principles are clear, the systems that have been developed to implement them generally require additional research and exploration.

A rare example of a cognitive system that has led to implementation of classroom instructional strategies that have been demonstrated as highly effective is the Adaptive Control of Thought-Rational (ACT-R) system96 of Professor John Anderson of Carnegie Mellon University. This system involves active learning with feedback that modifies internal perceptions and action plans. The ACT-R system provides the basis for several Intelligent Tutoring Systems that have

95 National Research Council (2000). “How People Learn – Brain, Mind, Experience, and School.” National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.96 Anderson, J.R., & Reder, L.M. (1999). “The Fac Effect: New Results and New Theories.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128, 186-197.Anderson, J.R., & Reder, L.M. (1999). “Process, Not Representation: Reply to Radvansky.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128, 207-210

28

been developed by Anderson and his colleagues. These include the Geometry Proof Tutor, instructional systems for the learning of programming languages and an Algebra Cognitive tutor. These Intelligent Tutoring Systems monitor how students solve highly structured problems and provide appropriate feedback regarding what it is that the students are doing that is correct and what it is that they are doing that is incorrect. Clear gains in performance – when compared with traditional teaching – have been observed for these three applications of geometry, programming and algebra. While this is a significant achievement, its applicability seems to be limited to learning environments that are highly structured and for which the vast majority of student intermediate responses in problem solving can be identified and analyzed.

A promising strategy for instruction based upon cognitive theory is that of the Triarchic theory, which was developed by Professor Robert Sternberg and his colleagues at Yale University. The Triarchic theory posits that human intelligence involves the application of information-processing components to experience in order to adapt to, shape, and select environments. Metacomponents (e.g., problem definition, strategy formulation) plan, monitor, and evaluate problem solving; performance components (e.g., inference, application) actually do the problem solving; and knowledge-acquisition components (e.g., selective encoding of information, selective combination of information) learn how to solve the problems in the first place. Intelligence comprises three aspects: analytical, creative, and practical. Analytical skills are used when individuals analyze, compare and contrast, critique, judge, and evaluate. Creative skills are used when individuals create, invent, discover, explore, and suppose. Practical skills are used when individuals use, apply, implement, and put into practice. (For details on the theory, see Sternberg 1997a, 199997.) Most everyday tasks require some combination of these three skills, and hence, good instruction likewise should require students to learn how to combine these three skills in their thinking98. Research conducted by the Sternberg group shows that students who are triarchically instructed improve in their achievement, even when achievement is measured by straightforward multiple-choice memory assessments. These improvements have been found with rural, suburban, and urban children, and with children of all socioeconomic levels across the curriculum. It is believed that triarchic instruction: (a) enables students to capitalize on their strengths; (b) enables students to compensate for or correct weaknesses; (c) emphasizes elaborative rather than maintenance rehearsal of information; (d) enables students to encode material in at least three ways rather than just in one; (e) stimulates actual disciplinary thinking with higher fidelity than does traditional instruction, and (f) motivates students more highly than does traditional instruction because it is more varied and engaging. Because analytical, creative, and practical skills all operate on a knowledge base stored in long-term memory, teaching to these skills enhances rather than replaces memory-oriented learning. Memory is at the base of all learning, as one cannot think analytically, creatively, or practically if one has no knowledge with which to think.

97 Sternberg, R.J. (1997a). “Successful Intelligence.” New York: PlumeSternberg, R.J. (1999). “The Theory of Successful Intelligence.” Review of General Psychology, 3, 292-316.98 Sternberg, R.J., & Grigorenko, E.L. (2000). “Teaching for Successful Intelligence.” Chicago, IL: Skylight.

29

Relevance to the Future Workplace

Research on cognitive theories will continue to elucidate those elements that improve learning capabilities. New knowledge of the ways in which learning can be optimized, by tapping in to practical, analytical, and creative domains of intelligence, and by understanding how students solve problems and synthesize feedback, will undoubtedly have implications for the 21st century skill development that workers in 2005-2010 will require.

Trend Analysis: Impact Prediction for 2005-2010

While there is steady progress in gaining understanding of the learning process, a comprehensive theory of learning does not exist and may not be a realistic possibility. The understanding and insights that are evolving are leading to valuable teacher resources like the Algebra Cognition Tutor. New tools are also evolving to take advantage of interactive and visual learning opportunities. The path from understanding cognition, to the development of new classroom resources, to the widescale implementation of these methods is a process that, if successful, takes about a decade. While research is moving forward in the field of cognition science, impact on the workforce will not be significant in the timeframe of 2005 to 2010.

New Instructional Practices

Overview

The education reform movement that began in the 1980’s after the release of A Nation at Risk spawned a great deal of experimentation and research into new methods of instruction. Educators and education researchers implemented thousands of new programs aimed at positively affecting student achievement and learning capabilities in the ways called for by this report. Since the 1980’s, the federal government has sponsored billions of dollars worth of new programs and research initiatives to identify and disseminate effective instructional practices. A typical compendium contains approximately 50 various learning theories, many with corresponding instructional strategies designed to optimize learning according to the theorists’ view.99 One such theory, for example, is Howard Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences, which holds that there are a number of distinct forms of intelligence that each individual possesses in varying degrees. Similar to the Sternberg Triarchic theory of intelligence, described in the previous section, Gardner proposes seven primary forms: linguistic, musical, logical-mathematical, spatial, body-kinesthetic, intrapersonal (e.g., insight, metacognition) and interpersonal (e.g., social skills). According to Gardner, the implication of the theory is that learning/teaching should focus on the particular intelligences of each person. For example, if an individual has strong spatial or musical intelligences, they should be encouraged to develop these abilities. Gardner points out that the different intelligences represent not only different content domains but also learning modalities. A further implication of the theory is that assessment of abilities should measure all forms of intelligence, not just linguistic and logical-mathematical.100

99 Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://tip.psychology.org/theories.html 100 Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://tip.psychology.org/gardner.html

30

As Gardner and others have developed theories of learning, so, too, have educators and researchers developed instructional strategies to optimize learning in the context of these learning theories.Educational experts categorize teaching strategies into four broad categories or models:

Mastery Model-connecting new information with prior knowledge; collecting and organizing information; and practice and repetition all play a part in the mastery model and in making learning memorable;101

Understanding Model-developing students’ analytical thinking abilities and encouraging them to formulate concepts and generalizations;102 the teacher’s role is to probe, ask questions about students’ answers, clarify and maintain a high level of curiosity and interest in how students think, their reasoning, and how they organize their thoughts;103

Self-Expressive Model-focuses on creative and divergent thinking; students transform and apply knowledge in new and different ways, including in real-world applications; students are challenged with problems for which they are to generate solutions and which require curiosity, insight, imagination, and metaphorical thinking104

Interpersonal Model-focuses on acquiring knowledge and practicing skills through personal sharing, individual and social awareness, group-focused learning, and students’ prior experience and knowledge;105 teachers who use cooperative learning strategies are employing the interpersonal model.

Much of the current practice of educational reform taking place in classrooms today emphasizes instructional approaches that do not remotely resemble classrooms of previous decades. The image of quiet classrooms with rows of children listening intently to the single voice of a teacher, copying down notes from a blackboard, and speaking only after being called upon, has given way, in reform-oriented classrooms, to classrooms organized with groups of children working cooperatively to solve real-world problems, using technology, producing real products, and relating their learning to real-world situations. Phrases such as student-centered learning, inquiry-based learning, use of authentic tasks, cooperative learning, and hands-on/minds-on learning are various descriptors associated with reform-oriented classrooms. While a number of labels may describe reform-oriented classrooms, their shared vision of teaching and learning involves the student as an active participant in constructing knowledge, emphasis on depth of understanding of important concepts rather than on mere memorization, multi-modal forms of stimuli for learners, and emphasis on authentic, real-world problem-solving that requires interdisciplinary connections and collaboration among various members of a team.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science’s Project 2061, “Science for All Americans” in its chapter on Effective Learning and Teaching, provides a useful summary of the tenets of reform-oriented teaching and learning. It emphasizes that learning is not necessarily an outcome of teaching and that student learning is heavily influenced by existing ideas. Doing

101 Mosston, M. (1990). The Spectrum of Teaching Styles from Command to Discovery. New York: Longman102 Costa, A., & Lowery, L.F. (1989). “Models of Effective Teaching - Techniques for Teaching Thinking.” Pacific Grove, CA: Critical Thinking Press & Software.103 Silver, H., Hanson, J.R., Strong, R.W., & Schwartz, P.B. (1996). “Models of Effective Teaching - Teaching Styles and Strategies. Woodbridge, NJ: The Thoughtful Education Press.104 Silver, H., Hanson, J.R., Strong, R.W., & Schwartz, P.B. (1996). 105 Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., Holubec, E. (1994). “Nuts and Bolts of Cooperative Learning.” Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

31

science, using tools (including computers and calculators, but also common hand tools, probes, electrical meters, and others) to understand science and nature is as important as “knowing the right answers.” It promotes active, team-based problem-solving activities in which students build on existing knowledge, explore content in depth, and make connections to history, social studies, language arts, mathematics, and other subjects to learn science in context. 106 AAAS’s beliefs about good science teaching are consistent with the efforts promoted by the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Education to positively affect classroom practice to improve student achievement and capabilities.

Relevance to the Future Workplace

As detailed in the previous section on Standards and Accountability, these new instructional approaches that emphasize student-directed, active, collaborative, conceptual understanding that puts learning in the context of authentic, real-world tasks, have tremendous implications for the workers of 2005-2010. In reform-oriented classrooms that effectively practice these instructional strategies, students will be ready to engage in continuous, self-directed learning, to search for, process, evaluate, and make sense of data and information from a variety of sources; have more thorough understanding of subject matter; and will be able to utilize a variety of tools, including computers, the Internet, scanners, productivity tools, as well as scientific instrumentation and devices, to learn and to develop creative solutions to real world problems. These school-based experiences will be critical to developing the skills necessary for the high performance workplace of 2005-2010.

Yet a key question remains: in what percentage of classrooms are these instructional approaches taking place and to what extent? This is a far more difficult question to answer. A 1998 survey of the National Center for Education Statistics found that only one in 10 secondary school principals were using all 10 of a set of recommended reform-oriented instructional strategies.107 Further, in schools throughout the country today, there is a tremendous tension between implementing hands-on, student-centered activities that promote depth of understanding, critical thinking, analysis, and collaboration and the “high stakes testing” that is used to measure the success of schools. “Teaching to the test” often replaces what many educators believe to be superior instruction due to pressure from school boards, state agencies, and new federal accountability (incentives and disincentives) programs that require substantial gains on standardized test scores administered at the fourth and eighth grades. In a test preparation mode, teachers are often forced to abandon more engaging and innovative instructional strategies in order to drill students in a specific set of facts and problems. Many educators lament that this type of instruction is the antithesis of the type of reform they believe will achieve the student competencies required by the 21st century workplace, but must follow the directives of authorities to implement such “drill” programs. “Most critics of high-stakes testing… focus on the practice legacy of testing, the ways in which testing creates perverse incentives against good teaching. The consequence of statistical accountability systems will be the narrowing of purpose for schools, impatience with reform, and the continuing erosion of political support for publicly funded schools…”108

106 Project 2061. Science for All Americans Online. “Chapter 13: Effective Learning and Teaching.” Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.project2061.org/tools/sfaaol/Chap13.htm107 U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics.108 Dorn, S. (January 1998). “The Political Legacy of School Accountability Systems.” Education Policy Analysis Archives, Vol. 6, No. 1, ISSN 1068-2341. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://olam.ed.asu.edu/epaa/v6n1.html

32

As of the 2000-01 school year, all 50 states test students to determine what they have learned and 45 states publish “report cards” on individual schools, based largely on test scores. More than half the states publicly rate their schools, or at least identify low-performing ones. And 14 states have the legal authority to close, take over, or replace the staff in schools they have identified as failing. States are increasingly holding students accountable for performance. In 2000, 18 states required students to pass a test in order to graduate from high school. Three states tie student promotion to test scores and four others are planning to do so. Some states and districts are also attempting to tie teacher evaluations and pay to students’ scores on state tests. But many educators and teachers’ unions contend that too many factors contributing to student performance are outside their control.

Critics also argue that the focus on “high-stakes testing” will narrow and impoverish the curriculum, encourage cheating, and fall most heavily on poor and minority students, who traditionally have done least well on standardized exams. Opponents of such testing also complain that states have rushed to hold students accountable before they’ve put in place the curriculum, instruction, teacher training, and other resources that would enable young people to meet the higher standards. In some places, concerns about the results of high-stakes testing have produced a backlash. In California, Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio, and other states, grassroots opposition campaigns are encouraging parents to keep their children home on test days.109 Yet, President Bush’s Education Plan states, that accountability measures will receive renewed emphasis in his administration: “Increase Accountability for Student Performance: States, districts and schools that improve achievement will be rewarded. Failure will be sanctioned. Parents will know how well their child is learning, and that schools are held accountable for their effectiveness with annual state reading and math assessments in grades 3-8.”110

Trend Analysis: Impact Prediction for 2005-2010

Given the tension between “teaching to the test” in order to show progress on standardized tests and more innovative instructional approaches which many educators believe are superior forms of instruction, combined with the uncertain political environment surrounding accountability and its consequences for types of classroom instruction being delivered, it is unlikely that new instructional approaches will have a significant impact on the workforce of 2005-2010. For high achieving schools that do not fear disincentives from state and federal funding programs, there will clearly be a continuation of reform-oriented instructional practices. However, in the nation’s disadvantaged school systems, the battle between reform-oriented instruction and test preparation is being played out each school year. This is a particularly important population that must be recognized because of the anticipated shortage (estimates range from 300,000 to 3 million vacancies) of skilled IT workers in the near term. The nation’s employers must therefore look to previously-underrepresented groups to fill these jobs; the impact of new instructional strategies on these groups and other students is not likely to make a significant difference in their 21st century stills by 2005-2010.

109 Education Week on the Web (September 26, 2001). “Accountability.” Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.edweek.org/context/topics/issuespage.cfm?id=49110 Education Commission of the States (2001). “President George W. Bush’s Education Plan.” Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/22/85/2285.htm

33

Technology

Overview

A previous NIMA report, TECHFORCE 2010, reviewed the status of computer and Internet access in U.S. schools and noted that in 1998-99, 90.4 percent of schools had Internet access in at least one location in their school building; 84 percent of all public K-12 schools had LANs, and 64 percent had WANs.111 It stated that the percentage of households with children at home and with income of $75,000 or more possessing a home computer was 87% in 1997, and that the acceleration of home use of Internet and email is expected to reach nearly saturation levels within the next five years among households in this target group.112

TECHFORCE reviewed research on the use by teachers and students of computers and the Internet for educational purposes, noting that the vast majority of use of computers by teachers with students was for basic applications such as word processing and spreadsheets (70%) and only 28% of use was for advanced applications such as email correspondence with experts.113 It further analyzed several advanced applications of technology among early adopter schools as predictors of more widespread use patterns, noting use of authentic, real-world databases in innovative mathematics and science classrooms; global telecollaborative activities on multidisciplinary topics; and applications of visualization tools, multimedia, and use by a representative sample of high-end technology-using teachers.114

The report also discussed the cognitive implications of technology use on student outcomes and competencies, describing applications such as use of tutorial software for remediation of basic skills, at one end of the spectrum, and use of tool (sometimes call productivity tool) software to engage students in problem-solving and critical thinking.115

It briefly described programs such as the federal E-Rate program, which allocated nearly $9 billion in federal funds between January 1998 and June 2001,116 and state and local programs designed to decrease the student to Internet-capable-computer ratio in schools and classrooms, and showed that these programs are having a significant impact on urban schools with low income populations, in effect, closing the “Digital Divide.” This phenomenon, it was noted, is an important trend to follow, in light of the accelerating competition for skilled, high tech workers. All employers must be prepared to consider the recruitment of groups who have been underrepresented in high tech fields.

To complete the picture of the effect of technology on the workforce and workplace in 2005-2010, it is necessary to also look at society in more general terms and at the “extracurricular”

111 Baron, J., Friedman, E., & McGrath, E. (2000), “Techforce 2010: Envisioning the Technological Workforce of the Future.” Hoboken, NJ: CIESE, Stevens Institute of Technology 112 Baron, J., Friedman, E., & McGrath, E.113 Baron, J., Friedman, E., & McGrath, E.114 Baron, J., Friedman, E., & McGrath, E.115 Baron, J., Friedman, E., & McGrath, E.116 Puma, M.J., Chaplin, D.D. & Pape, A.D. (2000). “E-Rate and the Digital Divide: A Preliminary Analysis From the Integrated Studies of Educational Technology (2000).” Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/eval/elem.html#technology

34

uses of technology by those entering the workforce during this period. The average American sends at least one email a day and obtains at least one weekly news story from the Web.117 Americans now spend an average of almost nine hours per week online, visiting an average of nine sites.118 The 88 million members of the “baby boom echo generation” who are just beginning to participate in higher education, have “grown up with technology as a large part of their everyday life and have little empathy for those who fear, resent, or resist information technologies. To this generation, resisting information technologies is like being afraid to use a toaster or a washing machine.”119

Relevance to the Future Workplace

Technology’s role in helping to create high performance workers is three-fold. Its demonstrated benefits include:

1. Improving Student Achievement:a. Improved student achievement on standardized tests, as demonstrated by the West Virginia Basic Skills/Computer Education program implemented 10 years ago; by the Union City Project Explore project; and the Pump Algebra Tutor Project.120

b. Increased application and production of knowledge for the real world, through simulations, micro-computer-based laboratories, and video to connect instruction to real-world problems and phenomena. Studies have shown that students who use these tools outperform others who used more traditional methods alone.121

c. Increased ability to promote achievement for special needs students, including learning disabled, low achieving, special education, and gifted students. A four-year study on SAT-1 performance showed that disabled students who used an integrated technology-rich curriculum gained 89 points in combined verbal and math scores.122

d. Increased access to information increased knowledge, inquiry, and depth of investigation.123

2. Developing 21st Century Skills a. Improving basic skills, a prerequisite for Digital Age Literacy: Studies have shown that students who wrote to real audiences via the Internet and email gained marked

117 Milliron, M. D. & Miles, C. L. (November/December 2000). “Education in a Digital Democracy: Leading the Charge for Learning About, With, and Beyond Technology.” Educause, p 53118 Milliron, M. D. & Miles, C. L., p 53119 Milliron, M. D. & Miles, C. L., p 54120 The CEO Forum School Technology and Readiness Report121 The CEO Forum School Technology and Readiness Report Goldman, S.R., Petrosino, A.J., Sherwood, R.D., Garrison, S., Hickey, D., Bransford, J.D., & Pellegrino, J. (1996). “Anchoring Science in Multimedia Learning Environments.” In Vosnladou, D., De Corte, E., Glaser, R., and Mandl, H. “International Perspectives on Design of Technology-Supported Learning Environments.” Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. 122 Bain, A., Ross, K. (1999). “School Reengineering and SAT-1 Performance: A Case Study.” International Journal of Education Reform, 9 (2), 148-153.123 The CEO Forum School Technology and Readiness Report

35

improvements in their persuasive writing abilities both on and off the computer;124 the incorporation of a hypertext discussion area into students’ homework routine raised achievement over traditional discussion and text-based homework; and 68 percent of students reported that the hypertext tool increased the active engagement time spent on homework, a strong indicator of improved learning.125

b. Improved digital age literacy skills (e.g., technological, cultural, global awareness): Speaking, reading, listening, and writing; scientific literacy and scientific thinking; mathematical thinking and the relationship between mathematics and technology; and technological literacy, including competence in use of computers, networks, and digital content. The pervasive use of computers and the Internet, as well as other technology, enables students to access vast resources of information throughout the world, learn more about different cultures, immediately access scientific, geographical, social, cultural, historical and primary-source information, that is relevant, authentic, and current.126

c. Improved inventive thinking skills, including creativity, problem-solving, higher order, and sound reasoning: Use of digital content challenges teachers and students to become engaged in real world problems, search for, synthesize, and evaluate data and information from a variety of sources and perspectives, come up with creative solutions based on a multitude of inputs (rather than just a textbook), and arrive at their own conclusions supported by evidence.127

d. Improved effective communication and interpersonal skills: Technology fosters these high performance worker competencies by facilitating access to scientists, researchers, experts, and peers around the globe with varying views of society; by promoting group work and collaboration with team members in remote locations; and by enabling students to hone their writing and presentation skills through editing and presentation software.128

e. Improved productivity skills: Products (reports, presentations, web pages, etc.) can be evaluated, revised, and improved, allowing students to be increasingly creative and to refine their own work. Using productivity tools such as word processing software, spreadsheets, presentation software, collaboration tools, email, and web page development tools, students learn to operate in a K-12 setting in the ways many workers are and will increasingly be called upon to operate in the high performance workplace.129

124 The CEO Forum School Technology and Readiness ReportNix, C.A.G. (1998). “The Impact of E-mail Use on Fourth Graders’ Writing Skills.” Dissertation Abstracts International, 60/03-A (Order No. AAD99-21889). 125 The CEO Forum School Technology and Readiness ReportBain, A., Ross, K. 126 The CEO Forum School Technology and Readiness Report 127 The CEO Forum School Technology and Readiness Report 128 The CEO Forum School Technology and Readiness Report Bransford, J. (ed) (1999). “How People Learn.” National Research Council.129 The CEO Forum School Technology and Readiness Report

36

3. Benefits for Parent/Community and School Communication, Collaboration and Productivity – Engaging Parents and the Community in Education-Technology also has the capability and has demonstrated benefits in improving student achievement by improving effectiveness and communication for and among educators, administrators, parents and the community. Technology helps teachers increase their own efficiency in handling routine administrative tasks as well as in searching for and preparing lessons; increases teachers’ feelings of professionalism and motivation; provides opportunities for sharing and communication of best practices and breaks down barriers of isolation; and is a tool for teacher professional development.130 Similarly, administrators benefit from improved ability to make data-driven decisions; to define student objectives and measure performance against them; to manage district/school business practices; and to improve communication with key constituencies.131

TECHFORCE 2010 highlighted a number of studies that have documented technology’s positive impact on parent involvement in education, including a 1,000% growth in volunteerism of Roosevelt-Edison Charter School, Colorado Springs, CO as a result of placing computers in nearly all 650 homes. One important consequence of this computer access has been that teachers post homework on the Internet and send messages to parents about their children’s academic progress.132 Other benefits of technology for parents and the community include increased corporate and community involvement in education; increased collaborations between K-12 and higher education; and increased technology awareness among disadvantaged parents.133

Trend Analysis: Impact Prediction for 2005-2010

Technology is the single most important factor that is expected to have a significant impact on the workforce of 2005-2010. In one meta-analysis that examined the impact of technology on student learning, researchers found increased teacher-student interaction, cooperative learning, and most important, problem-solving and inquiry capabilities among students who were using technology.134 They also found certain technologies could facilitate access to a range of resources and then help them to store, reshape, and analyze this information; enabled them to become hypothesis-testers, with the result that the knowledge that was acquired could be used more effectively.135 These student outcomes, combined with the demonstrated value of technology on teachers and parents, confirm technology’s significant role in defining the skill set possessed by workers in 2005-2010.

Teacher Quality

130 The CEO Forum School Technology and Readiness Report, p 10131The CEO Forum School Technology and Readiness Report, p 11132 Baron, J., Friedman, E., & McGrath, E., p 40133 The CEO Forum School Technology and Readiness Report, p 11134 Valdez, G., McNabb, M., Foertsch, M., Anderson, M., Hawkes, M. & Raack, L. “Computer-Based Technology and Learning: Evolving Uses and Expectations,” North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.ncrel.org/tplan/cbtl/toc.htm 135 Jonassen, D. H., & Reeves,T. C. (1996). Leaning With Technology: Using computers as Cognitive Tools. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology  (p 693-719). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

37

While there is no reason to believe that teachers are any less compassionate and interested in their students than earlier, there is reason to suspect that, on average, they are less able academically than previously. - Arthur Melmed, Research Professor, School of Public Policy George Mason University

Overview

As the United States strives to prepare students who can be effective in a high performance work environment, it is re-examining the preparation and qualifications of its teachers. It is obvious that teachers are unable to effectively teach topics that that they have never studied or know only superficially. The type of education that is needed in a high performance workplace is more sophisticated and requires mastery of more complex knowledge and thinking skills than in past years. This points to a need for teachers to be academically talented and to have taken rigorous programs in high school and in college. Too often, this is not the case. In particular, a high performance workforce participant must have strong preparation in mathematics and science. It is discouraging to note that most teachers have especially limited backgrounds in those domains of knowledge.

Studies of the academic qualifications of those entering the teaching profession find that they typically have lower scores on standardized tests (such as SAT or ACT) than their peers. In a 1992-93 study of college graduates, of those who majored in education, only 14 percent were in the top quartile, while 28 percent were in the bottom quartile. This compares with humanities majors whose scores are recorded at 31 per cent in the top quartile and 21 percent in the bottom quartile. Exceeding both of these groups are mathematics/computer/natural science graduates who rank at 37 percent in the top quartile and 13 percent in the bottom quartile.136

Fortunately, that same study found that by 1997, 45 percent of practicing teachers were graduates who had not majored in education and that that cohort was of higher quality, with 35 percent having been in the top quartile and only 13 percent in the bottom quartile.

Given the high attrition rate among beginning teachers, the real test of quality is that of the group who are still teaching after several years. Of those still teaching in 1997, 27 percent were in the bottom quartile and 16 percent were in the top quartile. The percentages of those who left the profession had reversed, with 27 percent in the top quartile and 16 percent in the bottom quartile, meaning that those teachers with stronger academic backgrounds left the teaching profession.

In addition to scores on standardized tests, another critical factor in evaluation of teacher quality is their subject matter expertise, particularly in mathematics and science. A number of studies have concluded that the single greatest factor in student achievement, after taking into account race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status, is teacher subject matter preparation.137

136 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, p 68. 137 Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). “Solving the Dilemmas of Teacher Supply, Demand, and Standards: How We Can Ensure a Competent, Caring, and Qualified Teacher for Every Child.” National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.tc.edu/nctaf/publications/solving.pdf Goldhaber, D. D. & Brewer, D.J. (1996). “Evaluating the Effect of Teacher Degree Level on Educational Performance.” National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs97/97535l.html

38

A study of 8th grade students from 38 countries who participated in the Third International Mathematics and Science Study – Repeat (TIMSS-R)138 revealed that while 41 percent of the U.S. students were taught mathematics by teachers who had a bachelor’s or master’s degree in mathematics, 71 percent of the international group had teachers with that level of subject matter study.

Comparisons of 8th grade students who studied science showed that 13 percent of the U.S. teachers had bachelor’s or master’s in physics compared with 23 percent of the international teachers. The international teacher group had substantially more preparation in chemistry while the groups were similar in their biological science study.

These numbers demonstrate a significant gap between international teachers and U.S. teachers in their preparation in physical science. Many believe the biggest weakness in science education for U.S. students is at the middle school. In most other countries, rigorous curricula are in place that students begin to learn the fundamentals of physical science. Such curricula are difficult to implement in the U.S. since middle school teachers have extremely weak background in physical science. Most U.S. teachers have studied biology as their science requirement and possibly some chemistry, but rarely do they study physics. Since physics is at the core of most electronics, computer, automation and other technology development, it is difficult or impossible for U.S. students to obtain the rigorous preparation necessary to go into those fields.

There are two important factors that are not included in the international comparison cited above. That study is merely looking at enrollment levels in various areas of mathematics and science. It does not examine the content of those majors, nor the content of the pre-college education in science and mathematics of U.S. teachers compared with teachers in other countries.

In most industrial and developed countries, all students study significantly more mathematics and science than students in the U.S. It is common for all students to study physical science in secondary school along with mathematics at a level that is up to or including calculus. Most secondary school graduates who to on to become teachers in these other countries have likely engaged in such study.

This is not the case in the U.S. Here less than 25 percent of secondary school graduates have taken a course in physics. In Eastern European countries, such as Bulgaria, all individuals who would be going on to become teachers study physics as well as calculus in secondary school. It is also the case that most graduates of academic secondary schools in developed, industrial countries study more mathematics and physical science than teachers who have graduated from colleges in the U.S.

The previous study also fails to analyze the content of those college programs. In the U.S., a B.S. graduate in mathematics will have typically taken about 10 or 12 semester hours of mathematics, while his or her counterpart in an Eastern European country such as Bulgaria will have studied approximately 30 hours of specialized mathematics courses.

138 National Center for Education Statistics, p 69

39

An issue related to teacher quality is the projected teacher shortage in the coming decade. Current projections predict that two-thirds of the nation’s teaching force will retire in the next 10 years. While efforts to improve teacher quality will persist, the sheer volume of teachers that will be needed may have an impact on the quality of the teaching force.

Relevance to the Future Workplace

It is clear that in trying to develop higher order thinking skills in mathematics and science, teachers who have deeper subject matter knowledge can be much more involved in conducting challenging inquiry efforts and problem-solving explorations than teachers who do not have such background.

While U.S. teachers lag significantly behind their international peers in subject matter knowledge, particularly in fields of mathematics and physical science, there are promising efforts to remedy this situation. One is a trend to require future teachers to major in a subject matter discipline in college and then pursue teacher certification through an additional year of teacher education study or a master’s degree in education. While more teachers are following this path, it is also the case that there is a great deal of attrition by novice teachers within their first three years in the classroom. Those who leave are often the better qualified and better prepared – who have more options open to them in the workplace.

Another positive trend is the emergence of a national program to establish a high quality certification process for teachers. The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) was established in 1987 and began providing certification for teachers in 1993/94. There are now 19 separate certificates available in fields that are applicable to 90% of the teaching population. During the 2000/2001 academic year, there were more than 13,000 candidates who were seeking certification.

One of the five key propositions upon which certification is based states that, “Teachers Know the Subjects They Teach and How to Teach Those Subjects to Students.” Included in the explanation of that proposition is the statement that:

“Physics teachers know about the roles played by hypothesis generation and experimentation in physics; mathematics teachers know the modes of justification for substantiating mathematical claims.”

40

In expanding upon the need for subject matter knowledge by elementary teachers, NBPTS states:

“…they have an understanding of science that allows them to present basic precepts to their students and introduce them to the joy of discovering – and thinking about – the natural world of which they are a part.”

Trend Analysis: Impact Prediction for 2005-2010

Given that there are about 3 million teachers in the United States and that less than one percent of these are now certified by NBPTS or likely to be trained in the next several years, this trend is one that will not have significant impact on the workforce that will be available in 2010.

Literacy: English & Basic Skills

Overview

In 2000 more than one-third of job applicants lacked basic skills in reading and mathematics, according to the American Management Association.139 While this report from 1,627 firms yielded a rate that was a few percentage points more favorable than the previous year, it was still within one percentage point of the 1998 results (34.1% in 2000 versus 35.5% in 1998). This is a dismal figure and there are no signs of a trend for improvement.

In 1998 the National Institute for Literacy found that as many as 44 million American adults perform at the lowest of five levels of literacy.140 In examining results in the 50 states, it found that illiteracy rates varied from a low of 11 percent to a high of 30 percent. The correlation between illiteracy and poverty was striking. Forty-three percent of U.S. adults with the lowest literacy skills live in poverty, compared with four percent of those with the most advanced literacy skills.

One may hope that the situation among adults is changing rapidly as well-educated graduates emerge from the nation’s schools. Unfortunately, this is not the case. According to a 1999 report from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, only about one-quarter of American students can write at a proficient level, exhibiting “solid” academic performance and “competency over challenging subject matter.”141

The National Adult Literacy Survey conducted in 1993 showed that while 40 percent of the workforce lacked basic literacy skills, an astonishing 52 percent of high school graduates were

139 American Management Association (1987). “One Third of Job Applicants Flunked Basic Literacy and Math Tests Last Year, American Management Association Study Finds.” Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.amanet.org/press/amanews/bjp2001.htm140 Stein, S. (January 2000). “Equipped for the Future Content Standards: What Adults Need to Know and Be Able to Do in the 21st Century.” National Institute for Literacy Publication. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.nifl.gov/lincs/collections/eff/standards_guide.pdf141 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). “Results from the 1998 Writing Assessment.” Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/writing/results1998.asp

41

similarly lacking in such skills. Among college graduates, there were still 16 percent with inadequate skills.142

Clearly, a great deal needs to be done to equip the American population with the literacy and other basic skills needed for a high performance workforce. Progress has been made in defining those basic skills and in outlining the kinds of education and training that will empower workforce participants with the needed abilities. The National Institute for Literacy provided such a framework in January, 2000. Their “Equipped for the Future” (EFF) standards are grouped into four categories as follows:143

1. Communications Skills – Read with Understanding; Convey Ideas in Writing; Speak so Others Can Understand; Listen Actively; and, Observe Critically.

2. Decision-Making Skills – Use Math to Solve Problems and Communicate; Solve Problems and Make Decisions, and Plan.

3. Interpersonal Skills – Cooperate with Others, Advocate and Influence; Resolve Conflict and Negotiate; and, Guide Others.

4. Lifelong Learning Skills – Take Responsibility for Learning; Reflect and Evaluate; Learn Through Research; and, Use Information and Communications Technology.

Relevance to the Future Workplace

These National Institute for Literacy standards have been elaborated by NIFL in a fashion that allows educators to develop focused programs to address these skills. One example is the effort of the Sweetwater Union School District in California in its English as Second Language (ESL) classes for adult learners. In a pair of intermediate ESL classes for native Spanish speaking adults, the teachers arranged various interactions between the two classes in order to promote two of the standards. These were working together and resolving conflict. Through this approach both communications skills and interpersonal skills were being addressed simultaneously.

The development of language skills is in a special category, since such skills start to develop almost at birth. At a very early stage, infants are able to distinguish all the sounds of human language. In a recent National Research Council analysis of reading skill development, Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children,144 the authors state that even though children are babbling and producing other non-speech sounds, they are already tuned into the spoken language that is being produced around them. They further report that language development during the early pre-school years has great impact on future language development. It is startling to note that academic success, as defined by high school graduation, can be predicted with reasonable accuracy by knowing someone’s reading skill at the end of grade 3!

142 Reder, S. “The State of Literacy in America – Synthetic Estimates of Adult Literacy Proficiency at the Local, State and National Levels.” National Institute for Literacy Publication. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.nifl.gov/reders/reder.htm143 National Institute for Literacy. “Equipped for the Future Content Standards – What Adults Need to Know and Be Able to Do in the 21st Century.” Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.nifl.gov/lincs/collections/eff/standards_guide.pdf144 Snow, C.E., Burns, M.S., & Griffin, P. (Eds). (1998). “Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children.” National Academy Press

42

In early childhood, children develop familiarity with the use of language, they establish a functional vocabulary, they experience the cultural context of the use of written materials, and they learn about complex relationships among words and ideas as they are read to and engaged in conversations. The use of language to convey abstract ideas and the use of symbols to represent information are all part of a child’s experience prior to entering school. Not only are children developing knowledge, but physically their bodies are developing new capacities and neurological development is taking place in their brains.

These early development processes are complex. Acquisition of new vocabulary is not a simple linear serial process as taking additional words onto a list. Rather the child is redefining semantic representations of words already in their vocabulary and the relationships among those words. Grammatical awareness is also developing. Children under two show sensitivity to word order and the structure of simple sentences. By the time that children enter kindergarten, they have become capable of constructing larger sentences that display ever-increasing complexity.

This linguistic sophistication among preschool children provides them not only with a base for learning new knowledge but with tools that increase their ability to secure new knowledge through their own initiative. Children are able to engage in more complex information exchanges with adults. They can articulate thoughts about abstract concepts and they are better able to organize the information that they already possess.

Research has also shown that children as young as three are developing metalinguistic skills in which they not only use language, but think about language and its structure. Included in this metacognitive development is an understanding of the representational role of words. For example, young children think that “snake” is a longer word than “caterpillar” until they appreciate the fact that the word is distinct from the object to which it refers.

Trend Analysis: Impact Prediction for 2005-2010

The research cited above and that is still evolving points to a need for attention to reading development early in life. A corollary may be that intervention later in life is exceedingly difficult. There certainly are no panaceas on the horizon for dramatic changes in reading and basic skills development in American society for those who will be joining the workforce in 2010. It is encouraging that national policy is moving strongly in directions that take cognizance of these realities in human development.

The federal government has not only been supporting programs like Head Start that deal with early childhood learning development, and such programs are likely to receive increased funding and support in the future. President Bush has announced both “Reading First” and “Early Reading First” initiatives that focus on PreK-2 reading strategies. Likewise, states are mandating their own programs. In the state of New Jersey, for example, a mandate has recently been handed down by the state’s supreme court to require public schooling for 3 and 4 year olds in the state’s 30 most economically disadvantaged cities. These programs are the result of awareness that basic skills development must start in the early years.

43

School-Based Management

Overview

Just as American industry had, in the mid-1970’s, recognized that shifting decision-making closer to the factory floor reaped unprecedented gains in the Japanese auto industry, so, too, did U.S. schools look toward this business model as a remedy for widely perceived school failures. The K-12 education parallel to this high performance workplace has become known as “site-based management” or “school-based management (SBM).”145 By the 1980’s the organization and management of schools and school districts were seen to be too top-heavy with middle-level administrators who were too far removed from the “end product” – the students.146 Definitions of SBM vary, but common elements include: a delegation of authority from central administration and middle management to individual schools; a shared decision-making model involving various stakeholders; and a facilitative leadership at the school level.147 In practice of SBM, then, on-site administrators--often in collaboration with teachers, sometimes with parents and other invested members of the community as well--become responsible for the distribution of money, allocation of resources, changes in instructional programs, school calendar, and school day.148 Proponents of SBM describe advantages of teachers, principals, and students having a sense of ownership and the freedom to go about achieving their goals. They say that by allowing those in schools to make decisions, educators are better able to meet the needs of their students, thus improving their schools. High involvement means high performance. SBM can also increase accountability. Blaming the central office for lackluster academic results is no longer an option if educators in the school are directly responsible for that school's performance.149

But researchers caution against taking the business model too far in the educational arena. They question applying an industrial model to education because teachers differ significantly from factory workers. Conway and Calz note that one constant regarding shared decision-making is increased worker satisfaction. But, they note, satisfaction is not the same as productivity.150 In the worst-case scenario, SBM takes decision-making power out of the hands of able administrators and puts it into in the hands of a group of arbitrary and contentious amateurs.151

Reviews of the efficacy of SBM are mixed. The U.S. General Accounting Office, in a study of 10 cities implementing SBM, found that it led to important instructional changes in schools, including all-day kindergartens, extended day programs, special education programs, and gifted and talented programs.152 Holloway (2000) contends that “current research suggests that site-

145Education Week on the Web (August 7, 2001). “School-Based Management.” Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.edweek.org/context/topics/issuespage.cfm?id=18 146 Education Week on the Web (August 7, 2001). “School-Based Management.”147 Levey, J., & Acker-Hocevar, M. (1998). “Site-Based Management: Retrospective Understandings and Future Directions.” ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 428 439148 Education Week on the Web (August 7, 2001). “School-Based Management.” 149 Education Week on the Web (August 7, 2001). “School-Based Management.”150 Conway, J., & Calz, F. (December 1995/January 1996). “The Dark Side of Shared Decision Making.” Educational Leadership, 53, 45–49.151 Education Week on the Web (August 7, 2001). “School-Based Management.” 152 Education Commission of the States (August, 1994). “Education Reform: School-Based Management Results in Changes in Instruction and Budgeting.” Education Commission of the Stations. Retrieved from World Wide Web:

44

Keeping current in one’s field, and even more importantly, gaining knowledge in two or three other fields during various stages of ones career, will be the education challenges that workers will face. - Jerry MacArthur Hultin, Dean, WJH School of Technology Management, Stevens Institute of Technology

based management can be an effective tool to empower stakeholders in bringing about meaningful changes in teaching and learning. These changes will come about, however, only through the establishment of a clearly articulated vision and through the work of administrators and teachers who have adequate time and training to implement the process fully.”153 Some of the key barriers to SBM’s effectiveness include: failure by schools to fully appreciate and implement SBM processes; lack of definition/clarity about the scope and depth of authority of the school management team; inadequate time for school management team to communicate on important issues; lack of training of school management team on school improvement issues and actions; reluctance by principals to power sharing; and preoccupation with procedural issues and federal, state, and district mandates which obscure substantive discussion on decisions affecting educational outcomes.154

Yet, combined with other elements of a “holistic” reform agenda and appropriate and ongoing training for decision-makers, SBM has attracted many proponents. Former Superintendent of the Houston, TX, Independent School System, and now Secretary of Education Rod Paige said in an editorial in November, 2000: “We understand that the real work of a school system is what happens in classrooms and schools. So we decentralized management and made the individual school the basic unit of accountability and improvement. Principals were authorized to make their own decisions about hiring, teaching methodologies, and whether to engage ‘Big Bug’ pest control. The only condition was that they and their staffs had to work in teams.”155 Paige cites a 20 percentage point gain between 1995 and 1999 in the number of students passing the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills; a reduction, to 2.8 from 6.3 percent, in the dropout rate; and a substantial narrowing in the performance gap between minority and nonminority students. Paige notes that SBM is one of many actions the Houston system has taken to reform its educational system, but notes that it has been an integral part of the “holistic approach.”

Relevance to the Future Workplace

Workers in 2005-2010 will be called upon to behave in new and different ways than their predecessors. They will be required to engage in lifelong and just-in-time learning; to operate and cooperate effectively as part of a diverse team who may not possess all the required expertise necessary to solve problems and make decisions; to identify, synthesize, and evaluate data and information from a wide variety of sources; in effect, to become high performance workers in a high performance workplace.

What will be their model for such behavior? Will they look toward the practices of schools that implement SBM?

Education Reform: School-Based Management Results in Changes in Instruction and Budgeting 153 Holloway, John H. (April, 2000). “The Promise and Pitfalls of Site-Based Management.” Educational Leadership, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Vol. 57, No. 7. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.ascd.org/readingroom/edlead/0004/holloway.html 154 Holloway, John H.155 Paige, Rod (November, 2000). “No Simple Answer” Education Week on the Web. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=10paige.h20

45

The most current research on SBM estimates that between 1980 and 1990, one-third of the nation’s nearly 16,000 independent school districts had implemented some form of SBM.156 And since then, nearly 20 states have passed legislation permitting charter schools, whose very definition includes shared decision-making.157 In addition, at least five states--Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, North Carolina, and Texas--have mandated some form of participatory decision-making at every school. And hundreds of districts in other states are engaged in the process. Large urban school systems such as Chicago, Miami, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Rochester, N.Y., have taken steps toward site-based management. 158

However, the question one must ask is, are these schools practicing SBM effectively and with the desired outcomes? Do SBM schools operate as “high performance workplaces?” Do these changes in school governance result in the desired impact on teaching and learning and yield students who are better prepared to deal with the complexity of the workplace of the 21st century?

Trend Analysis: Impact Prediction for 2005-2010

Clearly, some schools implementing SBM are showing positive effects on student outcomes. Theodore Sizer’s Coalition of Essential Schools (CES), is a group of more than 1,000 schools practicing elements of school-based management along with other reform principles.159 (See sidebar on Bergen Academy.) Coalition Schools, along with other “whole school reform” models, when implemented fully and effectively, promise and document results in positively affecting student achievement. Co-nect Schools, a whole school reform model being implemented in thousands of schools across the U.S., cites independent research where schools in Memphis, TN and Cincinnati, OH implementing the Co-nect model made substantial achievement gains on statewide assessments, as compared to control groups.160 However, research studies in Kentucky and across the country fail to provide empirical evidence of any connection between SBM and student achievement or the teaching and learning process.161

While, in theory, SBM may imbue in teachers a greater appreciation for the multi-faceted 21st century skills that are required of their students, in practice, SBM often leads to staggering bureaucracy and administrative impediments to efficient education. A recent interview with a science supervisor from a large, urban, disadvantaged school district, painted a dismal picture of the effects of SBM on hiring practices:

156 David, J. (1995, December/1996, January). “The Who, What, and Why of Site-Based Management.” Educational Leadership, 53, p 4–9.157 Holloway, John H. 158 Education Week on the Web (August 7, 2001). “School-Based Management.” 159 Coalition of Essential Schools. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.essentialschools.org/aboutus/aboutus.html 160 Co-nect. “Results That Count.” Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.co-nect.com/results/re-indep.htm 161 Lindle, J.C. “2000 Review of Research on the Kentucky Education Reform Act, University of Kentucky, p 277-306. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://www.ecs.org/ecsmain.asp?page=/html/issue.asp?issueid=111 Leithwood, K. & Menzies, T. (May 1998). “Forms and Effects of School-Based Management: A Review.” Educational Policy

46

“Two weeks into the school year, we have four vacancies in the science department. It is not that there were no qualified candidates. I saw dozens of resumes come across my desk, and I personally interviewed several, including a former chemical biologist who wanted to make a transition—and a difference—by working in urban education. The problem is that these candidates had to be interviewed by so many layers of our district, from the principal, the science supervisor, someone in the superintendent’s office, and then by the school management team, comprised of a doctor at a local hospital, the school nurse, and several teachers who know nothing about the science curriculum, and whose schedules are totally impossible to coordinate! By the time anyone ever got back to the person, and if their paperwork wasn’t lost, they’d already signed a contract and probably received a signing bonus from another district. And the end result is that the classes of those four science teachers who were not hired are sitting in study hall when they should be learning science!”162

One may conclude, then, that SBM is one element of a multi-faceted, systemic, and holistic set of reforms that shows promise to positively affect student performance, but inappropriate implementation of SBM principles may in fact be detrimental to education. Available research does show positive impacts on school personnel, that may be an intermediate outcome necessary before terminal goals (positive gains in student achievement and transitions to high performance workers of the future) are realized. However, the impact of SBM in the near-term (2005-2010) in the workplace may be negligible.

Class Size Reduction

Overview

Reducing class sizes below the level of 25 or more students, particularly in the primary grades, is a trend that has gained in popularity in recent years by educational stakeholders at the local, state, and government levels. Conventional wisdom dictates that a lower student-to-teacher ratio will result in fewer discipline problems, greater personal attention, and ultimately, higher achievement levels. Since the mid-1980’s 20 states have launched initiatives to reduce class sizes. In FY 1999, initiated by a call from President Clinton, a bipartisan Congressional effort appropriated $1.2 billion in federal funds (augmented by $2.3 billion in states’ funds) to reduce class sizes to no more than 18 students.163 As a result of these initiatives, 29,000 new teachers were hired, resulting in reduced class sizes for 61,000 additional classrooms, with a total effect on 1.7 million children and 23,000 schools.164

Research, for the most part, supports the benefits of smaller class sizes. Though not all studies have shown definitive achievement gains, most point to certain advantages. One of the earliest and most widely cited studies on the benefits of smaller classes derives from a statewide study begun in Tennessee in the late 1970s. This study found that the learning gains students make in classes of 13 to 17 students persist long after the students move back into average-size classes. Further, the Tennessee researchers found, poor and African-American students appeared to reap 162 Interview with Glenn Karenda, Science Supervisor, East Side High School, Paterson, NJ on Sept. 20, 2001.163 U.S. Department of Education (September, 2001). “The Class-Size Reduction Program: Boosting Student Achievement in Schools Across the Nation, A First-Year Report.” Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/ClassSize/class.pdf 164 U.S. Department of Education

47

the greatest learning gains in smaller classes. After kindergarten, the gains black students made in smaller classes were typically twice as large as those for whites.165 Of note, however, is a 1999 independent report contradicting the findings of this earlier study. Hanushek argues that no evidence that smaller class sizes actually result increased student achievement in the Tennessee STAR experiment.166

The Council of Great City Schools found that class size reduction has become an “essential ingredient” in urban districts’ efforts to accelerate student gains, ensure quality teaching, and improve low-performing schools in cities including Denver, Fort Worth, New York City, Philadelphia, and others.167 The U.S. Department of Education reports that the greatest gains result in reduced class sizes in Grades K and 1.168

Cost and implementation issues, however, are frequently cited as major obstacles to realizing the benefits of class size reduction. In its review of California’s class size reduction initiative, the CSR Research Consortium found that the program yielded small gains in student achievement, but it also created a shortage of qualified teachers throughout all grades, especially those serving minority and disadvantaged students.169

Major findings of this comprehensive study include:

Teacher qualification levels declined at all grade levels K-12, but the greatest decline was in the elementary grades

Decline in teacher qualifications was greatest in schools serving mostly disadvantaged students

Reduced class size provided more individual instruction, but not different curriculum A small improvement in third grade achievement persisted into fourth grade Special populations fared worst under class size reduction.170

A Wisconsin Policy Research Institute study cited some similar findings and concluded that the state “needs to reexamine its ‘impetuous rush’ to lower class sizes and think instead about improving the quality of its teachers.”171 The report found that smaller classes of about 15 students helped a small population of students – namely, those in kindergarten and African-

165 Mosteller, F. (1995). “The Tennessee Study of Class Size in the Early School Grades.” A “Future of Children” report, The David and Lucile Packard Foundation. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.futureofchildren.org/ 166 Hanushek, E.A. (May 1999). “Some Findings from an Independent Investigation of the Tennessee STAR Experiment and from Other Investigations of Class Size Effects,” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 167 Reducing Class Size: A Smart Way to Improve America’s Urban Schools, Council of Great City Schools, Oct. 2000; retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://www.ecs.org/ecsmain.asp?page=/html/issue.asp?issueid=111 168 Hertling, E., Leonard, C., Lumsden, L. & Smith, S.C. (2000). “Class Size: Can School Districts Capitalize on the Benefits of Smaller.” ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, Policy Report, Number 1169 CSR Research Consortium. “Class Size Reduction in California: The 1998-99 Evaluation Findings.” Retrieved from World Wide Web: www.classize.org/summary/98-99/index.htm 170 CSR Research Consortium 171 Hruz, Thomas (September, 2000). “The Costs and Benefits of Smaller Classes in Wisconsin, A Further Evaluation of the SAGE Program.” Wisconsin Policy Research Institute, Vol. 13, No. 6. Retrieved from World Wide Web: www.wpri.org/Reports/Volume13/Vol13no6.pdf

48

American students. Beyond that, the report said, the cost of class-size reduction "is not justifiable."

Relevance to the Future Workplace

The most relevant connection between smaller class sizes and preparing a future workforce that is prepared to be productive in high performance workplaces is in the area of literacy—that is, in areas of reading, speaking, and writing. Since the available research points to the greatest gains of smaller class sizes in the primary grades and among disadvantaged students, class size reduction initiatives have the most promise in helping to increase the capabilities and the pool of currently underperforming students in achieving basic literacy. By increasing achievement levels of students who perform at satisfactory levels and above on basic tests of literacy – President Bush notes that 70% of inner city fourth graders are unable to read at a basic level172 – a fundamental element of the multi-faceted digital literacies required by the high performance workplace will be in place for significantly increased numbers of the population.

Trend Analysis: Impact Prediction for 2005-2010

Although numerous research studies have been conducted on the effects of smaller class sizes, it is difficult to state definitively that this factor will have any significant effect on educational achievement for future employees in the high performance workplace. The U.S. Department of Education’s evaluation of class size reduction is incomplete. Only since FY 1999 has there been substantial federal support for smaller classes, while implementation issues, such as hiring and training sufficient numbers of certified teachers and providing adequate facilities for newly-created classes, remain impediments that continue to hamper class size reduction efforts. “When smaller class sizes are implemented, in conjunction with teachers well trained in effective teaching practices, strong curricula, only then will researchers be able to determine the extent of effectiveness of reducing class sizes on student achievement.”173 It is unlikely, then, that this trend will have any substantial effect on workers entering the workforce in 2005-2010. However, if the practice of reducing class sizes continues, expands, and shows evidence of efficacy, students in the primary and elementary grades in the next 10 years are likely to be most positively affected, thereby potentially increasing the pool of workers possessing adequate literacy skills to advance in the educational system and become high performing workers. The effects of this trend may not, as a result, be known or realized until 2020 or beyond.

172 Education Commission of the States (2001). 173 Hertling, E., Leonard, C., Lumsden, L. & Smith, S.C.

49

Parent Involvement

Overview

Thirty years of research confirms that family involvement is a powerful influence on children's achievement in school (Eagle, 1989; Henderson & Berla, 1994; U.S. Department of Education, 1994; Ziegler, 1987). When families are involved in their children's education, children earn higher grades and receive higher scores on tests, attend school more regularly, complete more homework, demonstrate more positive attitudes and behaviors, graduate from high school at higher rates, and are more likely to enroll in higher education than students with less involved families. For these reasons, increasing family involvement in the education of their children is an important goal for schools, particularly those serving low-income and other students at risk of failure.

Increasing family involvement in children's education is also an important goal of the U.S. Department of Education’s Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), designed to enable schools to provide opportunities for low-income and low-achieving children to acquire knowledge and skills contained in challenging standards developed for all children. Title I is the largest federal program supporting elementary and secondary education.174

Six states recently passed legislation requiring schools to adopt stronger parent involvement programs;175 countless other programs are in place through specialized funding from the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Education, and private foundations.

While some schools have retained traditional methods such as yearly back-to-school nights, parent-teacher conferences, and fundraising activities, many districts have made parents essential members of school governance. In such districts, PTA meetings operate more like staff meetings, where important decisions about instruction and operations are made.176 Many schools serving low-income families have made particularly strong efforts to help families become involved. Additionally, efforts such as “Family Tools & Technology,” “Family Math,” “Family Science” and others promote after-school programs to bring parents into the educational process to a greater extent.

One illustration of the positive effect of parent involvement is the Parents as Learning Partners program (PLP) implemented in the Los Angeles Unified School District. This multi-year program was aimed at helping parents and teachers improve children’s academic progress through communication, parenting practices, and learning at home. Strategies included professional development for teachers, workshops for parents, and school services, such as voice mail. By comparing 3rd grade classrooms in PLP and non-PLP schools, Quigley (2000) found that teachers in PLP schools were more likely to participate in professional development on parent involvement and more likely to use voicemail to communicate with parents than counterparts in non-PLP schools. The PLP program also showed positive benefits in the beliefs

174 “Family Involvement in Children’s Education” (October 1997). U.S. Department of Education publication. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/FamInvolve/execsumm.html 175 Education Commission of the States (August, 1994).176 Education Week on the Web (2001). “Hot Topics.” Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://www/edweek.org

50

of both teachers and parents in the value of parent involvement in school. Quigley also found that PLP students were more likely than other students to complete their math homework than non-PLP students (though homework completion rates were similar for other subject areas) and that PLP students scored 4.5 percentile points higher in reading on the Stanford Achievement Test-9th Edition than non PLP students. No significant differences were found for math or language arts scores of the two groups.177

Other examples of successful parent involvement programs, such as Chicago, which is providing “parent checklists” to assess their level of involvement; the Total Village Project, implemented in rural West Virginia; and the Teacher-Parent Partnership for the Enhancement of School Success in rural South Carolina, show promising results from the implementation of targeted, research-based parent involvement programs.178

Amid such confirmations of the value of parent participation in children’s education, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) joined with the Advertising Council, Eastman Kodak, Inc., and others in August 2001 to launch a three-year, multi-million dollar campaign to promote and provide support for parent involvement by blacks and Hispanics in education. The campaign acknowledges that minority students often earn lower test scores than their white counterparts and that the structure of the family has changed dramatically, especially in urban and disadvantaged neighborhoods. Programs will include public service announcements in English and Spanish, parent liaisons, parent workshops, and other types of instructional and support programs to educate teachers and parents about meaningful and effective involvement strategies.179

Relevance to the Future Workplace

Like other inputs into the educational system, the issue of parental involvement is an important factor in determining student competencies. One study found that three factors over which parents have enormous control—student absenteeism, variety of reading materials in the home, and the amount of television watched—accounted for nearly 90 percent of the differences in student test scores.180 The connection between parent involvement and the competencies of future workers in a high performance work environment is abundantly clear; it has ramifications for all spheres of the high performance worker, from literacy to continuous learning, to use of technology for information gathering and communication, to interpersonal skills and multi-cultural appreciation.

Trend Analysis: Impact Prediction for 2005-2010177 Quigley, D.D. (November 2000). “Parents and Teachers Working Together to Support Third-Grade Achievement: Parents as Learning Partners (PLP) Findings,” CSE Technical Report 530, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, Center for the Study of Evaluation, University of California. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.cresst96.cse.ucla.edu/CRESST/Reports/TECH530REV.PDF 178 Maynard, S. & Howley, A. (June 1997). “Parent and Community Involvement in Rural Schools.” ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools, EDO-RC-97-3. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.ael.org/eric/digests/edorc973.htm 179 Reid, K.S. (September 5, 2001). “Black, Hispanic Parents Urged to Support Education.” Education Week on the Web, Vol. 21, No. 01, p 3. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.edweek.org/ew/newstory.cfm?slug=01naacp.h21 180 Education Week on the Web (September 6, 2001). “Parent Involvement.” Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.edweek.org/context/topics/issuespage.cfm?id=12

51

What is not so clear, however, is the extent to which parent involvement will have a significant impact upon capabilities of workers in 2005-2010. Various studies show contradictory results in the level of participation of parents among various groups: urban, rural, and suburban. It is reasonable, to hypothesize, however, that those groups who have traditionally had a strong level of parent involvement will continue to do so. It is also reasonable to hypothesize that the myriad federal, state, and public-private initiatives and funding programs that have been initiated to spur more parent involvement in urban, rural, and disadvantaged communities will have a positive impact on student achievement. However, these forecasted gains may not be realized until the latter part of this decade and beyond. Therefore, one may conclude that parental involvement will be a slight-to-moderate factor in creating a high performance workforce in 2005-2010.

Federal Policy and Politics

Overview

The national political rhetoric surrounding education changes at least every eight years, and sometimes as frequently as every four years. Along with the rhetoric, programs, spending, and priorities change to a greater or lesser degree. During the Clinton administration, progressive ideas such as increased and integrated use of technology, (through federal programs like the Technology Innovation Challenge Grants and the PT3—Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology) along with an $8.63 billion E-Rate funding package, as well as the effort to reduce class sizes, were all federal priorities.

In its first year of office, the rhetoric of the Bush administration appears to be accountability, choice and flexibility, and local control. In his 2001 “Blueprint for New Beginnings: A Responsible Budget for America’s Priorities,”181 President Bush cites four pillars for the administration’s education agenda:

Encouraging States to raise standards;

Holding schools accountable for improving student achievement;

Restoring local control; and

Empowering parents with choices from before schooling begins to college and beyond.

The Blueprint and associated budget claims a total increase of 10 percent, to $20.6 billion, in 2002 in federal dollars allocated to education over spending in the previous fiscal year. It stresses flexibility in spending and program implementation by States, in return for greater accountability; it emphasizes autonomy and local control by schools and districts, also in return for greater accountability; and it promotes expanded choices by parents to improve options and opportunities for their children.

The Bush education plan has six major components:

181 U.S. Department of Education Budget News (February 2001). “A Blueprint for New Beginnings, A Responsible Budget for America’s Priorities,” The White House. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/usbudget/blueprint/budtoc.html

52

1. Reading First-a five-year $5 billion investment in K-3 reading programs and the reform and transition of the Head Start program, which emphasizes pre-reading and numeracy skills, to the U.S. Department of Education.

2. Closing the Achievement Gap through Accountability-including States’ flexibility in directing federal funds in exchange for greater accountability as measured by publicly reporting on standardized tests in grades 3-8; funding incentives and disincentives, respectively, for states that improve and decline in their overall achievement levels; consolidation of numerous federal programs into five major, flexible categories; and strengthening educational technology programs to boost student achievement.

3. Increased Parental Options-including requiring states to publish information on school performance (school “report cards”); increased school choice options, including transferring out of failing schools and using Title I funds to seek private school alternatives to public education; providing seed capital to assist in start-up costs for charter schools; increasing tax benefits for school expenses K-16 and college savings plans.

4. Improving Teacher Quality-consolidating and increasing federal funding and programs to $2.6 billion to improve teacher quality and ensure accountability; increasing student loan forgiveness programs from $5,000 to $17,500 for math and science majors who teach those subjects in high need districts for five years; increasing funding to $30 million to expand the “Troops-to-Teachers” program; providing tax incentives for teachers for up to $400 of classroom expenses; and supporting inter-state, inter-agency, and school and university partnerships aimed at improving science and math education.

5. Restoring School Safety and Promoting Character Development-streamline the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and 21st Century Community Learning Centers; require schools to measure and report on school safety and allow students to transfer out of the most dangerous schools; enact several programs to identify and prosecute students carrying weapons, to increase teacher protection, and to enable teachers to control their classrooms through limiting meritless lawsuits against them; triple federal funding for character education; expand faith-based after school programs; and promote safe, high-quality, educationally-sound after school care.

6. Modernizing Schools for Native Americans and Military Schools-increase funding and eliminate backlog for repairs and modernization of schools serving these populations.182

Analysis and Predictions

Harvard University Professor Richard Elmore observes a “seismic shift” in recent political attitudes about education. The states’ role has shifted from providing and monitoring inputs to schooling to one of setting student learning standards and monitoring school performance. State and local political leaders now routinely discuss performance on statewide tests and international

182 U.S. Department of Education Budget News (February 2001).

53

comparisons. The overriding signal is that “schools should become more focused on results for students, and that state policies should focus on accountability for student learning.”183

It is unclear at this stage how the Bush administration’s education agenda will be played out in Congress. Nearly annual attempts by Republicans in Congress to consolidate some programs and turn them into block grants to states have failed in the past. What is noteworthy, however, is that numerous federal programs that have documented success, such as the Federal Eisenhower Programs to promote increased teacher professional development and student achievement in science and mathematics, may be dismantled and replaced with state-run programs. The consequences of this shift is likely to be a loss of momentum, a gap in inter-state collaborations and a waste of national-level expertise in areas of educational innovation and research-based programming. The federal education agenda that ultimately emerges from Congress and its consequences on research, best practice, and innovation will undoubtedly have an impact on the classrooms of students who will be in the workplace in 2005-2010. Federal calls for greater accountability may push more teachers to abandon reform-oriented instructional strategies in favor of test preparation drills. However, given the decentralization and fragmentation of the American educational system, with 16,000 separate policy-making units, it may be a decade before the effects of the Bush education agenda is felt in classrooms around the country. By that time, there may be a pendulum swing in the educational rhetoric surrounding school reform and school success. Therefore, federal policy and politics are expected to have a negligible effect on student outcomes and competencies in the period in question.

183 Wurtz, E., (December 1999). “National Education Goals:  Lessons Learned, Challenges Ahead.” National Education Goals Panel

54

There is no doubt that technology will continue to top the list of movements influencing workers and the workplace in 2005-2010. The ability to use technology will be increasingly tied to an individual’s success in the workplace and quality of life, as well as to a robust economy that is able to grow. - Karen Smith Executive Director U.S. Tech Corps.

IV Conclusions and Recommendations

It is clear from the studies that have been reviewed and cited in this report that a high performance workplace requires knowledge and skills that are currently possessed by no more than 25% of Americans who enter the workforce each year. When examining the various initiatives and trends that are evolving in pre-college education, it is clear that only one is likely is likely to show results within a 2005-2010 time frame. That most powerful change agent is technology.

The reason for this situation is apparent. Other trends and initiatives such as standards, accountability, testing, curriculum, parental involvement, teacher quality, applications of new cognitive theories, modifications in school organization and management, etc., all involve changes in human and organizational behavior. In the United States, with its adherence to local control of school systems and the resulting existence of 16,000 separate local educational authorities, there is little coherence and scant opportunity for coordinated systematic change.

The standards movement is one example of a widely accepted approach to change, but it is implemented with vast differences in different constituencies. Furthermore, there is no clear pathway from a standard to a curriculum that implements that standard and to the existence of teachers that have the background and knowledge needed for effective instruction based upon a particular standard.

To date, the nation has abjured the introduction of uniform testing of academic attainment. In cases where testing is introduced, teachers tend to “teach to the test” in a fashion that rarely leads to significant learning. One of the few national testing programs that is grounded in solid understanding is the Advanced Placement Program of the College Board. This program encourages high level learning, but its impact is limited to those students who are already the highest achievers.

Even if there were a national consensus on curricula, meaningful standards, and the most appropriate cognitive learning models, it would take many years to prepare teachers who could implement such approaches. The rate of change of human performance in a field like teaching is slow. It requires years of learning, practice, critical review, revision and the building of communities of teachers and learners with shared visions. Such changes all take considerable time.

Even in a corporate setting, changes of this sort are lengthy. The Motorola corporation embarked upon a program of educational development in support of a high performance workplace in the 1980’s and found that the company had underestimated by a decade in the time scale that was needed to achieve its goals. Eleven years after the company began the process of re-training employees in “21st century high performance work skills,” the education and training budget had exploded from an initial $7 million to $120 million a year184

184 Marshall, R. & Tucker, M.

55

The Web as we know it fast became the most quickly adopted "disruptive" technology in history. Disruptive technologies are those innovations that have a dramatic impact on how the whole of society works, plays, and learns. - Cindy Miles, Vice President & COO, Mark Milliron, Executive Director The League for Innovation in the Community College

In contrast with the challenges noted above, new applications of technology in education can take hold in a matter of a few years. Outstanding software, such as the Cognitive Algebra Tutor, Geometer’s Sketchpad, or the use of real-time data from the Internet, can all be utilized in classrooms and have impact on student learning within a few years, if school systems are prepared to adopt these innovations. Once technology-based curriculum materials have been developed, it is a matter of training teachers and working with school administrators on implementation in ways that support the curriculum and standards of a particular school system. While this is still a daunting undertaking, it is far more straightforward and manageable than introducing a restructuring of a school’s organization and educational philosophy. It also compares favorably to creation and implementation of a new textbook, which is typically a decade-long process of creation, revision, teacher training and implementation.

Beyond the use and integration of technology in schools’ curricula, home use of technology—particularly the Internet—is changing the way students communicate, collaborate, conduct research, and create products representing their learning achievements. The ubiquitous use of the technology in the home will have a dramatic impact upon workforce entrants’ competencies in 2005-2010.

It is therefore the case, that aside from improvements that might be forthcoming from innovations that use technology, there will be little change in the workforce that emerges in the 2005-2010 time frame. While just-in-time training may be useful for skills and procedures that will be needed in the workplace, the real need will be for in-depth continuing education. The greatest challenges in the high performance workplace will be mastery of complex analysis, the ability to obtain and organize large amounts of information, and the ability to work collaboratively and cooperatively with diverse co-workers. These skills will be lacking among many who seek employment. NIMA and other high performance workplace employers will need to develop effective educational programs that prepare entry level employees and which continue to upgrade and improve the abilities and capacities of the ongoing workforce.

56

Case Study: The Bergen County Academies

In examining trends in education that prepare students for a high performance workplace, it is useful to examine a very high-end example. An extraordinary school was developed in Bergen County, New Jersey. The Academy for the Advancement of Science and Technology (AAST) was founded in 1992 as a public magnet high school for students throughout Bergen County, an affluent suburban community in northern New Jersey. It is a comprehensive, college preparatory school that has a heavy emphasis on student-centered project work.

The Academy for the Advancement of Science and Technology is one of seven specialized academies that are co-located in Hackensack, New Jersey. The other Academies are also selective. They include specialized programs in Engineering Design, Business and Computer Technology, and Medical Science Technology, among others.

The AAST learning environment has strong research orientation and comprehensive integration of technology throughout its diverse programs. A core focus on science, mathematics, and technology is maintained, while simultaneously nurturing programs in the humanities and the arts. Public service and community affairs are other components of this multi-faceted learning environment.

AAST is a member of the Coalition of Essential Schools,185 founded by Ted Sizer of Brown University. The Coalition is dedicated to open school environments in which there is shared decision making and heavy orientation on student-initiated learning plans. AAST is also a member of the National Consortium of Specialized Secondary Schools of Mathematics, Science and Technology.186 This group of elite schools are the pace setters in the United States for the study of mathematics and science. There are about 50 such schools and the Consortium includes the special schools for mathematics and science for the states of North Carolina and Illinois as well as the Stuyvesant High School and Bronx High School of Science in New York City. Within that Consortium, AAST may very well have the greatest infusion of technology throughout its programs.

All students study four years of mathematics, three years of a foreign language, three years of physics, chemistry and biology. Three years study in the sciences is pursued simultaneously. There are also courses in computer technology, the humanities and the arts. A hands-on, project-oriented approach to learning is pursued throughout.

The academic program has an extended number of days and an extended number of hours per school day. There are 185 days in the school year compared with the usual

185 Coalition of Essential Schools. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.essentialschools.org/ 186 National Consortium of Specialized Secondary Schools of Mathematics, Science and Technology. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.ncsssmst.org/

57

number of 180. The school day extends from 8AM to 4:30PM, which is 1.5 hours longer than typical school days. The school year is divided into three trimesters and structured for in-depth study. There are about 300 students enrolled, who are selected through entrance exams and personal interviews. Students are chosen who not only have high academic ability, but who are thought to have personalities that are suited to the social and cultural characteristics of the Academy. Approximately 45 percent of the students are female and 55 percent are male.

The faculty of the Academy are highly qualified and highly motivated for their work in this unique environment. Many faculty have backgrounds in college teaching with 35% holding doctoral degrees. All but 10% of the faculty possess Master’s degrees.

The three years of study in the three areas of science are pursued during the first three years at the Academy, thus providing time in the senior year for internships and for study of advanced subjects and project work. Many research projects are pursued through internship programs with outside organizations. Some students work at laboratories of nearby universities or corporate research centers. The Academy itself has established advanced research facilities in selected areas, where publishable studies take place, sometimes in collaboration with university scientists.

A prime example of such a facility is the Electronic Information, Data Visualization and Fabrication Center which houses a wide range of computer hardware and software to enable students to engage in sophisticated data visualization tools as well as state-of-the art Computer Aided Design software. The Academy also has a rapid prototyping facility that allows construction of polymer models of 3-dimensional objects that are created via computer design activities.

Another 3-dimensional computer activity is pursued in the Academy’s BioVisualization program in which research is conducted in collaboration with museums. In this research, artifacts from the Smithsonian Museum have been analyzed and compared using 3-dimensional computer techniques.

There are active programs in a number of areas of science including biological research in the fields of immunology and neuroscience. A project from the area of environmentalscience illustrates the depth and complexity of some of the Academy’s student projects.

Students in 1997 conducted an Environmental Science project on the Superfund. They examined whether the Superfund was a government boondoggle or an expensive necessity. The project was a complex multidisciplinary effort that included legal, economic, social, scientific, technological and risk analysis aspects of Superfund implementation. The students studied the history of the law and its implementation and collected information about environmental damage. They also reviewed the costs of litigation surrounding this law. The students visited a Superfund site in northern New Jersey near the vicinity of their school, which had soil that was contaminated with radioactive thorium as well as other chemicals. The site was that of a large chemical company that was operating at that location since 1898. They reviewed the actions that

58

were taken to remediate the location and their impact on the local community. A general analysis was conducted of the kinds of chemicals that contaminate toxic waste sites and their consequences for the health of local populations. The students concluded that the Superfund program needed more efficient management, organization, and allocation of resources in order to justify its continuation.

This example illustrates a project that includes components of science, economics, health and other fields of study and which results in decisions about public policy.

The Bergen Academies are structured to provide education for unusual students who are academically talented and highly motivated to pursue research in fields of mathematics, science and technology. While these institutions are not viable models for general high school education, they do demonstrate what is possible as an ultimate manifestation that embodies all of the characteristics of education for a high performance workplace. Such institutions can serve as research and development schools that can help other schools. They can also serve as training centers for teachers who could work in more standard schools. An open question is the extent to which a Bergen Academy approach to education can be incorporated in a standard high school. There are many piecemeal attempts throughout the U.S. to utilize technology-based, project-oriented approaches, but at this time, this question cannot be answered

59

Case Study: Caledonia Elementary School

The first thing that strikes you when you enter Ms. Foster's sixth grade classroom is that she's not teaching her class! Instead, one of her students is in the front of the room summarizing what he learned the day before and how it helped him complete the homework assignment. Amazingly, these students aren't using a blackboard as their primary instructional tool but a new technology called a "SmartBoard." This combination whiteboard, projection system and computer allows the students to present digital content in an interactive fashion while controlling everything from the front of the classroom. They can even annotate what they are displaying by writing on the SmartBoard and capturing what they have written digitally. This can then be saved as a PowerPoint file and emailed to all of the other students at the end of class.

Across the hall Mr. Ridge is teaching science to his fourth graders. Students are in groups working together to investigate a curious science question that surfaced the day before when they were studying wildlife from around the world. Mr. Ridge had asked the students to use a web site called AfriCam that provides real time images from various animal sanctuaries all over Africa. While studying these real time images, students had seen several pictures of a Barn Owl in its natural habitat. Upon returning later in the day they discovered that an egg had appeared in its nest! This had prompted many questions about this interesting bird, so that night Mr. Ridge gathered a number of web-based resources about the bird and added them to his own web site. This was what the students were now preparing to explore so they could learn more about the bird they had observed online. There was so much to study that the students had broken into groups and each team had taken a different area to study. Each group planned on presenting what they discovered at the end of the lesson so that the other students to could learn from each other. (See Mr. Ridge's Project web page at: http://www.geocities.com/theridgefiles/owl1.html)

Caledonia Elementary School is not a high-end private school. It isn't a special magnet school that attracts the best students and best teachers, nor is it located in a wealthy suburban school system. Instead, it is in the heart of the East Cleveland City School District where the median household income is under $20,000 a year and close to 75% of the students are enrolled in a federal free or reduced lunch program.187 This may

187 2001 ODE Interactive Local Report Card. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://ilrc.ode.state.oh.us/default_real.asp

60

seem surprising given the level of technology use and reform-based initiatives that are taking hold in this anything-but-typical elementary school.

Given these impressive observations one would expect to find that this school would be labeled a "success." Surprisingly, according to the school's scores on the "state proficiency exams," nothing could be further from the truth. Since 4th grade testing first

began in 1997 the number of students passing all five profiency exams (mathematics, citizenship, reading, writing, and science) have steadily dropped from a high of 17% to a present low of only 4%.188 Scores have fluctuated from one year to another on any one specific exam, rising some years and falling in others. These dismal scores alone seem to paint a confusing picture of a school that is failing in every sense of the word. This is in sharp contrast to the picture one quickly

develops upon entering the school and seeing the powerful educational programs that are being implemented by innovative and creative educators. Students are engaged and excited about learning, are working in teams, and using technology as tools to enrich their learning experiences. This one example illustrates the complex challenge of providing students with 21st century skills in their K-12 education experience, as well as the risks of using standardized tests alone as the measure of school success. Policy makers and school administrators must proceed with caution as they attempt to tie greater accountability to school test scores. Balance and wisdom are needed as the nation meets the challenges of reforming education, providing students with 21st century skills, and effectively measuring student achievement.

188 2001 ODE Interactive Local Report Card

61

REFERENCES

2001 ODE Interactive Local Report Card. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://ilrc.ode.state.oh.us/default_real.asp

American Federation of Teachers (1999). “Making Standards Matter5 1999.” AFT. Org. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.aft.org/edissues/standards99/Findings.htm#Making

American Management Association (1887). “One Third of Job Applicants Flunked Basic Literacy and Math Tests Last Year, American Management Association Study Finds.” Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.amanet.org/press/amanews/bjp2001.htm

Anderson, J.R., & Reder, L.M. (1999). “Process, Not Representation: Reply to Radvansky.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128

Anderson, J.R., & Reder, L.M. (1999). “The Fac Effect: New Results and New Theories.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128

Bain, A., Ross, K. (1999). “School Reengineering and SAT-1 Performance: A Case Study.” International Journal of Education Reform, 9 (2)

Baron, J., Friedman, E., & McGrath, E. (2000), “Techforce 2010: Envisioning the Technological Workforce of the Future.” Hoboken, NJ: CIESE, Stevens Institute of Technology

Bransford, J. (ed) (1999). “How People Learn.” National Research Council.

Celebuski, C., Farris, E. & Burns, S. (project officer). (May 1998). “Status of Education Reform in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools: Principals’ Perspectives,” U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. NCES 98-025, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs98/98025.pdf

CEO Forum School Technology and Readiness Report (June 2001). “Key Building Blocks for Student Achievement in the 21st Century.” The CEO Forum on Education and Technology. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.ceoforum.org/downloads/report4.pdf

Cizek, G.J. (October 1998). “Filling In the Blanks: Putting Standardized Tests to the Test," Fordham Report, Vol. 2, No. 11. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.edexcellence.net/library/cizek.pdf

Coalition of Essential Schools. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.essentialschools.org/

Coalition of Essential Schools. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.essentialschools.org/aboutus/aboutus.html

College Board (September 15, 2001). “Equity 2000: A Systemic Education Reform Model, A Summary Report 1990-2000.” Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.collegeboard.org/sls/equity/html/section2.html

Committee for Economic Development. Research and Policy Committee (2000). “Measuring What Matters, Using Assessment and Accountability to Improve Student Learning.” Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data.

Co-nect. “Results That Count.” Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.co-nect.com/results/re-indep.htm Conway, J., & Calz, F. (December 1995/January 1996). “The Dark Side of Shared Decision Making.” Educational Leadership

Costa, A., & Lowery, L.F. (1989). “Models of Effective Teaching - Techniques for Teaching Thinking.” Pacific Grove, CA: Critical Thinking Press & Software.

62

CSR Research Consortium. “Class Size Reduction in California: The 1998-99 Evaluation Findings.” Retrieved from World Wide Web: www.classize.org/summary/98-99/index.htm

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). “Solving the Dilemmas of Teacher Supply, Demand, and Standards: How We Can Ensure a Competent, Caring, and Qualified Teacher for Every Child.” National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.tc.edu/nctaf/publications/solving.pdf

David, J. (1995, December/1996, January). “The Who, What, and Why of Site-Based Management.” Educational Leadership, 53.

Dorn, S. (January 1998). “The Political Legacy of School Accountability Systems.” Education Policy Analysis Archives, Vol. 6, No. 1, ISSN 1068-2341. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://olam.ed.asu.edu/epaa/v6n1.htmlEds. (January 2001) “Gaining Ground.” Education Week on the Web,” Retrieved from World Wide Web, Vol. 20, No. 17. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.edweek.org/sreports/qc01/articles/qc01story.cfm?slug=17achieve.h20

Education Commission of the States (August, 1994). “Education Reform: School-Based Management Results in Changes in Instruction and Budgeting.” Education Commission of the Stations. Retrieved from World Wide Web: Education Reform: School-Based Management Results in Changes in Instruction and Budgeting

Education Commission of the States. “President George W. Bush’s Education Plan.” Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/22/85/2285.htm

Education Week on the Web (2001). “Hot Topics.” Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://www/edweek.org

Education Week on the Web (August 7, 2001). “School-Based Management.” Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.edweek.org/context/topics/issuespage.cfm?id=18

Education Week on the Web (January 2001). “Seeking Stability for Standards-Based Education,.”Vol. 20, No. 17. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.edweek.org/sreports/qc01/articles/qc01story.cfm?slug=17exec_sum.h20

Education Week on the Web (September 26, 2001).. “Accountability.” Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.edweek.org/context/topics/issuespage.cfm?id=49

Education Week on the Web (September 6, 2001). “Parent Involvement.” Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.edweek.org/context/topics/issuespage.cfm?id=12

Education Week on the Web. (September 26, 2001). “Assessment.” Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.edweek.org/context/topics/issuespage.cfm?id=41

ERIC Digests (1993). “Standards for Student Performance.” ERIC Digest, Number 81. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed356553.html

Family Involvement in Children’s Education (October 1997). U.S. Department of Education publication. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/FamInvolve/execsumm.html

Finn Jr., C., Petrilli, M.J. & Vanourek, G. (November 11, 1998). “The State of State Standards: Four Reasons Why Most Don't Cut the Mustard.” Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.edexcellence.net/library/mustard.html

Goldhaber, D. D. & Brewer, D.J. (1996). “Evaluating the Effect of Teacher Degree Level on Educational Performance.” National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs97/97535l.html

63

Goldman, S.R., Petrosino, A.J., Sherwood, R.D., Garrison, S., Hickey, D., Bransford, J.D., & Pellegrino, J. (1996). “Anchoring Science in Multimedia Learning Environments.” In Vosnladou, D., De Corte, E., Glaser, R., and Mandl, H. “International Perspectives on Design of Technology-Supported Learning Environments.” Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Hanushek, E.A. (May 1999). “Some Findings from an Independent Investigation of the Tennessee STAR Experiment and from Other Investigations of Class Size Effects,” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis.

Hertling, E., Leonard, C., Lumsden, L. & Smith, S.C. (2000). “Class Size: Can School Districts Capitalize on the Benefits of Smaller.” ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, Policy Report, Number 1

Holloway, John H. (April, 2000). “The Promise and Pitfalls of Site-Based Management.” Educational Leadership, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Vol. 57, No. 7. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.ascd.org/readingroom/edlead/0004/holloway.html

Hruz, Thomas (September, 2000). “The Costs and Benefits of Smaller Classes in Wisconsin, A Further Evaluation of the SAGE Program.” Wisconsin Policy Research Institute, Vol. 13, No. 6. Retrieved from World Wide Web: www.wpri.org/Reports/Volume13/Vol13no6.pdf

Hsi, S. & Tinker, R. “Realizing The Educational Promise of Technology.” The Concord Consortium. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.concord.org/library/model.html

International Society for Technology in Education (2000). “National Educational Technology Standards for Students, Connecting Curriculum and Technology.” Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://cnets.iste.org/index2.html

International Society for Technology in Education (2001). National Education Technology Standards. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/nses/html/

Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., Holubec, E. (1994). “Nuts and Bolts of Cooperative Learning.” Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

Jonassen, D. H., & Reeves,T. C. (1996). Leaning With Technology: Using computers as Cognitive Tools. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (p 693-719). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Levey, J., & Acker-Hocevar, M. (1998). “Site-Based Management: Retrospective Understandings and Future Directions.” ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 428 439

Lindle, J.C. “2000 Review of Research on the Kentucky Education Reform Act, University of Kentucky, p 277-306. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://www.ecs.org/ecsmain.asp?page=/html/issue.asp?issueid=111

Leithwood, K. & Menzies, T. (May 1998). “Forms and Effects of School-Based Management: A Review.” Educational Policy

Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation. “Equity 2000 Evaluation.” Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.mdrc.org/Education/Equity.htm

Marshall, R.. & Tucker, M. (1992). “Thinking For a Living,.” Basic Books, NY

Marzano, R.J. & Kendall, J.S. “The Fall and Rise of Standards-Based Education.” A National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE) Issues in Brief. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.mcrel.org/products/standards/fallrise.pdf

Marzano, R.J. (1998). “Models of Standards Implementation: Implications for the Classroom.” Report prepared for the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from World Wide

64

Web: http://www.mcrel.org/products/standards/models.pdf

Maynard, S. & Howley, A. (June 1997). “Parent and Community Involvement in Rural Schools.” ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools, EDO-RC-97-3. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.ael.org/eric/digests/edorc973.htm

Milliron, M. D. & Miles, C. L. (November/December 2000). “Education in a Digital Democracy: Leading the Charge for Learning About, With, and Beyond Technology.” Educause, p 53

Mosston, M. (1990). The Spectrum of Teaching Styles from Command to Discovery. New York: Longman

Mosteller. F. (1995). “The Tennessee Study of Class Size in the Early School Grades.” A “Future of Children “ report, The David and Lucile Packard Foundation. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.futureofchildren.org/

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). “Results From the 1998 Writing Assessment.” Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/writing/results1998.asp

National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). “A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform.” A Report to the Nation and the Secretary of Education, U.S. Department of Education, p 1. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/

National Consortium of Specialized Secondary Schools of Mathematics, Science and Technology. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.ncsssmst.org/

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). “Principles and Standards for School Mathematics, Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://standards.nctm.org/

National Institute for Literacy. “Equipped for the Future Content Standards – What Adults Need to Know and Be Able to Do in the 21st Century.” Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.nifl.gov/lincs/collections/eff/standards_guide.pdf

National Research Council (2000). “How People Learn – Brain, Mind, Experience, and School.” National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

National Science Education Standards. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/nses/html/

New York Times (May 14, 2001). “Holding Firm to State Standards.”

New York Times (November 10, 2000). “Most Seniors Pass Regents Exam With a Lower Cutoff Score.”

New York Times (October 13, 2000). “Most Eighth Graders Fail State Math Test.”

Nix, C.A.G. (1998). “The Impact of E-mail Use on Fourth Graders’ Writing Skills.” Dissertation Abstracts International, 60/03-A (Order No. AAD99-21889).

North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. “21st- Century Skills, An In-depth Look at the 21st-Century Skills. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.ncrel.org/engauge/skills/indepth.htm

North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. “21st-Century Skills.” Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.ncrel.org/engauge/skills/indepth.htm

Olson, L. (January 2001). “Overboard on Testing?” Education Week on the Web, Vol. 20, No. 17, p 23-30. Retrieved from Word Wide Web: http://www.edweek.org/sreports/qc01/articles/qc01story.cfm?slug=17test.h20

65

Olson. L. (January 2001). “Finding the Right Mix.” Education Week on the Web, Vol. 20, No. 17, p 12 –20. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.edweek.org/sreports/qc01/articles/qc01story.cfm?slug=17intro.h20

Paige, Rod (November, 2000). “No Simple Answer” Education Week on the Web. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=10paige.h20

Project 2061. Science for All Americans Online. “Chapter 13: Effective Learning and Teaching.” Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.project2061.org/tools/sfaaol/Chap13.htm

Puma, M.J., Chaplin, D.D. & Pape, A.D. (2000). “E-Rate and the Digital Divide: A Preliminary Analysis From the Integrated Studies of Educational Technology (2000).” Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/eval/elem.html#technology

Quigley, D.D. (November 2000). “Parents and Teachers Working Together to Support Third-Grade Achievement: Parents as Learning Partners (PLP) Findings,” CSE Technical Report 530, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, Center for the Study of Evaluation, University of California. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.cresst96.cse.ucla.edu/CRESST/Reports/TECH530REV.PDF

Reder, S. “The State of Literacy in America – Synthetic Estimates of Adult Literacy Proficiency at the Local, State and National Levels.” National Institute for Literacy Publication. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.nifl.gov/reders/reder.htm

“Reducing Class Size: A Smart Way to Improve America’s Urban Schools,” Council of Great City Schools, Oct. 2000; retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://www.ecs.org/ecsmain.asp?page=/html/issue.asp?issueid=111

Reid, K.S. (September 5, 2001). “Black, Hispanic Parents Urged to Support Education.” Education Week on the Web, Vol. 21, No. 01, p 3. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.edweek.org/ew/newstory.cfm?slug=01naacp.h21

Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (1991) “What Work Requires of Schools, A SCANS Report for America 2000.” U.S. Department of Labor, p 2. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://wdr.doleta.gov/SCANS/whatwork/whatwork.pdf

Silver, H., Hanson, J.R., Strong, R.W., & Schwartz, P.B. (1996). “Models of Effective Teaching - Teaching Styles and Strategies. Woodbridge, NJ: The Thoughtful Education Press.

Snow, C.E., Burns, M.S., & Griffin, P. (Eds). (1998). “Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children.” National Academy Press

Stein, S. (January 2000). “Equipped for the Future Content Standards: What Adults Need to Know and Be Able to Do in the 21st Century.” National Institute for Literacy Publication. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.nifl.gov/lincs/collections/eff/standards_guide.pdf

Sternberg, R.J. (1997a). “Successful Intelligence.” New York: Plume

Sternberg, R.J. (1999). “The Theory of Successful Intelligence.” Review of General Psychology, 3, 292-316.

Sternberg, R.J., & Grigorenko, E.L. (2000). “Teaching for Successful Intelligence.” Chicago, IL: Skylight.

Third International Mathematics and Science Study. “About TIMSS and TIMSS-Repeat.” Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://timss.bc.edu/TIMSS1/AboutTIMSS.html

Thomas B. Fordham Foundation (January 2000). “The State of State Standards.” Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.edexcellence.net/library/soss2000/2000soss.html#Summary

66

Thomas F. Fordham Foundation. “Standards, Testing & Accountability.” Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.edexcellence.net/topics/standards.html#anchor1100364

U.S. Department of Education (1998). “Goals 2000: Reforming Education to Improve Student Achievement.” Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/G2KReforming/g2ch1.html

U.S. Department of Education (September, 2001). “The Class-Size Reduction Program: Boosting Student Achievement in Schools Across the Nation, A First-Year Report.” Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/ClassSize/class.pdf

U.S. Department of Education Budget News (February 2001). “A Blueprint for New Beginnings, A Responsible Budget for America’s Priorities,” The White House. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/usbudget/blueprint/budtoc.html

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement (2001). “The Condition of Education 2001,” p iv. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/2001072.pdf

U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics

U.S. Department of Labor. “Futurework.” Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.dol.gov/asp/futurework/welcome.html

Valdez, G., McNabb, M., Foertsch, M., Anderson, M., Hawkes, M. & Raack, L. “Computer-Based Technology and Learning: Evolving Uses and Expectations,” North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.ncrel.org/tplan/cbtl/toc.htm

Wurtz, E. & Malcom, S. (1993). “Promises to Keep: Creating High Standards for American Students.” Report on the Review of Education Standards from the Goals 3 and 4 Technical Planning Group to the National Education Goals Panel, p iv. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.negp.gov/Reports/promises.pdf

Wurtz, E., (December 1999). “National Education Goals:  Lessons Learned, Challenges Ahead.” National Education Goals Panel

67