Bridging the K-12/Postsecondary Divide With a Coherent K-16 System

This Policy Brief originates from a conference held at Stanford University titled, “Education Reform into the Millennium: The State Legislatures’ Role in Building a Consensus for Systemic Change.” The conference, which was held from September 30 to October 2, 1999, was sponsored by the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Consortium for Policy Research in Education, the Education Commission of the States, and the Institute for Educational Leadership. It was funded by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement of the U.S. Department of Education. Fifty-three legislators and representatives from 15 states attended the conference. The presenters included an array of educators, scholars, and policy analysts. American education has long been characterized by a profound disjuncture between K-12 and postsecondary education—two systems that often act independently and at crosspurposes from one another. This is hardly a new insight. In 1969, Michael Usdan, currently the president of the Institute for Educational Leadership, and others published Education and State Politics, which scrutinized the lack of connection between segments of the educational system. And in 1985, Harold Hodgkinson, formerly of the Institute for Educational Leadership, published All One System, in which he argued that the nation’s graduate schools were dependent in part on the quality of its kindergarten programs. In the past, discussions about the unhealthy divisions between the two educational systems mostly fell on deaf ears. But recently there has been a heightened recognition on the part of policymakers, educators, and legislators as to just how inefficient and even harmful these gaps have been. Over a dozen states and at least 35 communities have started or are planning to start cross-system collaborations

Systemic Reform in Practice: Merck Institute for Science Education

MISE began partnering with four school districts — three in New Jersey and one in Pennsylvania — in 1993. The success that the partners have had in improving instructional practice in science is anchored in the belief that to make lasting improvement in teaching and, consequently in learning, one must work systemically on multiple domains of the district and school culture at the same time. MISE invited four school districts to come together to build a professional community in science, a community which valued teacher expertise and invested in the continued professional learning for teachers, a community that worked together to improve teaching and learning in science. MISE worked with its partners to create their own professional communities , to build their capacity to support the continuous improvement of teaching, and to align their policies and resources with their shared vision of good practice

State and Districts and Comprehensive School Reform

In this policy brief, we discuss implications of the use of school-level reform designs for state and local policymakers. The more schools choose such reforms, the more is being learned about the importance of the state and local roles in facilitating appropriate matches between designs and schools and in supporting design-based improvement over time. In the Fall of 1997, Congress authorized competitive grants to provide up to $50,000 per year per school for the use of comprehensive reform models. Beginning in July, 1998, Title I schools will be eligible for$120 million of the funds provided; non-Title I schools may compete for $25 million. The Comprehensive School Reform Development Program (CSRD), also known as the “Obey-Porter” program for its Congressional sponsors, provides funds for states to use in competitive grants to local school districts that submit applications specifying which schools will participate and the reform programs they will implement. States and localities must demonstrate their ability to select “only high quality, welldefined, and well-documented comprehensive school reform programs,” provide technical assistance and support, and evaluate the effects (U.S. Department of Education, 1998). In discussing implications for the state and local role, we draw on lessons from the experience of designers and educators working with New American Schools (e.g., Odden, 1997a; Odden, 1997b) and on emerging findings from current CPRE studies of capacity-building interventions and their scale up. We also draw on findings about successful school-based reform that are relevant whether or not schools are working with a national reform network. Home-grown reform models also need state and local support, and they would be eligible for assistance under the CSRD program as long as they employed research-based components that have been replicated successfully; were comprehensive and supported by stakeholders; used technical assistance from an entity, such as a university, with experience in providing support to comprehensive school reforms; and were carefully evaluated against measurable goals

Tribal Colleges: An Introduction

Tribal Colleges were created over the last 30 years in response to the higher education needs of American Indians, and generally serve geographically isolated populations that have no other means of accessing education beyond the high school level. They have become increasingly essential to educational opportunity for American Indian students, a status they have achieved in a relatively brief period of time. Tribal Colleges are unique institutions that combine personal attention with cultural relevance, in such a way as to encourage American Indians—especially those living on reservations—to overcome the barriers in higher education