Conference on K-12 Public Education
Policy Issues in New England
February 6-7, 1997
Contents
Reflections
Executive
Summary
Sharing
Resources, Solving Problems
New
Regional Perspective
State
by State Issues
Process
Summary
Group
Reports
Equity
and Social Justice
Accountability
Professional
Development
Social
Change
Technology
Data
and Policy Analysis
Regional
Organizations
Eisenhower
Regional Alliance for Mathematic and Science
Education
New
England Association of Schools and Colleges
Northeast
and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory at Brown
University
Conference
Directory
Reflections
by
Rosalind E. Andreas
I found the time together
most valuable. In preparation, we could step back to
look at critical issues from our own institutional
perspective before leaving. There, we needed to
articulate our state perspective on focused issues and
then begin to think about regional perspectives,
resources and possibilities for collaboration. It also
became clear how different the region is from north to
south--how different the issues and challenges, but how
critical that we use our knowledge and strengths to help
the region face the pain and challenges in our
schools--be they urban or rural. I felt that the group
affirmed the importance of finding our "regional voice"
and using it to inform policy debates in the states as
well as at the regional level. Finally, I found it
invigorating to learn to know others, their work and to
be able to wrestle with practical ways in which we might
address critical questions regionally, recognizing that
none of us has the resources to be as effective
individually as we might in a consortium.
Rosalind Andreas is Special Assistant to the
Chair for Partnership
Development Programs and
Assistant Professor, University of Vermont
Executive
Summary
New England Land-Grant
Universities Collaborative Conference on Public
Education Policy Issues
The February 6-7 New
England Land-Grant Universities Collaborative Conference
on Public Education Policy Issues represented an
unprecedented collaborative endeavor to tap and share
some of the region's greatest creativity and resources.
Initiated by the education deans and sponsored by the
New England Council of Presidents, the conference was
extraordinary in that it involved and called for the
collective wisdom and commitment of faculty to provide
expertise and leadership in helping schools,
policymakers and society set workable agenda for
educational reform.
The conference had four
goals:
-Identify crucial issues facing K-12
education in the respective New England states
-Draw
the implications of these issues for colleges of
education
-Determine a regional perspective and
response
-Identify specific action steps
In
preparation, the participants identified some of the
predominant K-12 issues in their respective states,
setting a framework and providing a catalyst for a more
expansive examination and discussion.
Two days
of thoughtful deliberation, philosophical exchanges, and
probing questions by an interdisciplinary academic group
are not easily condensed to bullet points to align with
goals. The dialogue, the search for a common and
influential voice, and the personal and institutional
reflections were profound. It was a discourse that kept
leading back to the greatest shared strength, grounded
perhaps too quietly in the traditional roots of each
institution - the land-grant mission.
The unique
responsibility not only to teach, but to research and to
provide research-based service distinguishes the
nation's land-grant universities, offers clear
boundaries for decision making and presents a distinct
opportunity for being a persuasive force for educational
reform and policy. And, it was a recurring and guiding
theme for exploring issues and advancing collaboration.
Working in small groups and in plenary sessions,
the nearly 50 participants discovered much about the
differences, similarities and potential for cooperation
among their various institutions. Agreeing that equity
and social justice should be the guiding and pervasive
issue, the educators also identified technology,
professional development, accountability and social
change as major areas of emphasis. These five categories
encompass a broad and expanding range of issues that are
driving educational circumstances and change.
In
addition, the group pointed out the need for an extended
educational database as a resource to help define and
emphasize the significance of educational concerns and
interests to policymakers and the public.
The
final reports from groups pondering each of the
identified issues reflect a remarkable depth of insight
and experience, as well as a collaborative energy and
fresh ideas for pursuing answers and action.
It
was the beginning of discussions that will continue as
education deans and faculty on their respective
campuses, and the deans in their regional gatherings,
work together to further explore the issues, determine
priorities and consider the possibilities for regional
collaboration.
Sharing
Resources, Solving Problems
A personal
perspective by Neil Wylie
January 22, 1997
Anyone who lives in any of the six New England
states knows he or she is a New Englander. However, in
spite of our strong regional identity, it is remarkably
difficult to martial resources from throughout the
region to achieve solutions to any of our problems.
State governments almost always look inwardly, and there
are few regional mechanisms to permit them to share
resources across state lines. Because of our common
tradition of Yankee independence, we think we should be
able to solve most of our problems alone.
The
six Council of Presidents institutions represent the
flagship public campuses in each of their respective
states. Although they are the largest of the public
campuses, none of them is large enough to be able to
offer a complete range of policy research and other
services to their states. Our education deans have been
meeting as a group for a number of years. Now they want
to go beyond that, to see if by working collaboratively
they can improve the services they provide to their
states and to the region. By agreeing to build
mechanisms to share resources across state lines, they
hope some of the existing resource gaps can be filled.
I'm pleased that the deans of education have
taken an important first step toward increased regional
collaboration. By bringing some of their key faculty
members together, they will be able to assess the
potential for sharing resources and begin to build
mechanisms for increasing the level of service they
provide to their states and to the region.
If
they are successful, the quality of K-12 education in
every New England state will be improved.
Neil
Wylie is Executive Officer, New England Council of
Presidents
New Regional
Perspective Built on Land Grant Tradition
by Robert A. Cobb
New England's citizens
hold the value of local control most dear. We
steadfastly resist the notion that decisions about our
schools, our municipal services, or our taxes should be
made by people who don't live in our own communities.
Within any New England state, consensus is hard to come
by on almost any issue, as the differences among
communities are significant and people don't share a
common perspective on very many issues. And, when one
looks at the six states comprising New England, the
challenges to regional perspective become even greater.
For most, the demographic, economic and cultural
differences come into focus more readily than do the
similarities.
So with these countervailing
forces at work, is a regional perspective on problems
and issues possible at all? If regional perspectives are
achievable, can they then be translated into an action
agenda which calls upon states within the region to act
together in coordinated fashion? Can the six land grant
universities in New England serve as viable vehicles for
identifying and addressing the issues of greatest
importance for public education within the region? Is
there something unique about the mission of the land-
grants that makes them particularly suitable for this
kind of work?
Ultimately, can the New England
land-grants strengthen their influence in the policy
arena across the region? This describes, at least in
part, the context within which deans and faculty from
the colleges of education of the six New England
land-grant universities met February 6 -7 for the
purposes of exploring the possibilities of working more
closely together on an agenda of common need and
interest -- public education, from early childhood
through graduate school.
The six universities --
UMaine, URI, UConn, UVM, UMass and UNH -- each sent
their deans and several faculty from varied disciplines
to the New England Conference Center on the UNH campus
to examine the issues and the potential for
collaborative action. Moreover, the deans invited
representatives from entities whose primary reason for
being is to serve the region, i.e., the New England
Association for Schools and Colleges, the Northeast
Regional Laboratory at Brown University and the
Eisenhower Regional Alliance for Mathematics and Science
Education Reform.
This group of approximately 50
people spent two days identifying the issues facing
public education -- from pre-school to graduate school--
and determining what might be done about them. The
meeting was very ably facilitated by people from
UMaine's Margaret Chase Smith Center for Public Policy.
Why the land-grants? It is clear that these six
universities have responsibilities to our respective
states that other higher education institutions don't.
Our land-grant mission involves teaching, research and
service to our publics, and it is this tripartite
mission that sets this group of institutions apart. We
take seriously the obligation to serve the people of our
states through our teaching, research and service
efforts. We are in the schools regularly, interacting
with our K-12 colleagues and their students, studying
their issues, helping them to build their own abilities
to deal with these issues.
Historically, the
land-grant universities focused on solving problems
plaguing our agricultural producers. Since our creation
as land-grant universities under the terms of the
Morrill Act in the late 1800s, citizens have come to
expect us to identify pressing problems of both short
and long term consequence, to analyze and create
approaches for dealing with those problems, and to
ensure that the people within our states who need the
information, get it. Through the colleges and other
units such as the Cooperative Extension and the
Experiment Station, issues got addressed within the
university setting and the results got communicated to
those in the field.
In earlier times, the
function of feeding our population safely, efficiently
and effectively was of paramount importance, and the
universities became important partners in that work. As
the economic and social character of the region changed
over time, the work of the universities has shifted to
reflect these changes. Today, the education of all
people is as fundamental to the quality of our lives as
feeding them. It is this tradition that bonds these six
universities together and supports the notion that we
can act together to advance the interests of education
across the entire region.
The individuals who
convened at the New England Conference Center proved to
be a highly talented group who together built a
perspective that indeed is regional in scope. With a
diverse group, we nevertheless agreed on five key
educational issues for the region -- social change,
equity, accountability, professional development, and
technology, as well as underscoring the need for
regional policy analysis and data base construction.
Each of these issues got fleshed out in considerable
depth and breadth, and a number of research questions
and follow-up strategies were identified. The discussion
was spirited and the enthusiasm generated will fuel the
steps to follow. Most immediate of these steps calls for
the deans, after further discussions on our own
campuses, to meet again in early April to decide which
of the identified issues will be pursued first and
through what means.
In summary, the meeting has
accomplished some important beginnings.
-First,
the dialogue about education issues across New England
and the building of a less parochial, more regional
perspective has begun in a systematic way.
-Second,
bringing together faculty from each of the six campuses
has resulted in the establishment of new professional
relationships among us, and available telecommunications
technology is enabling us to sustain those working
relationships more easily.
-Third, the voice of the
New England land-grant colleges of education has already
been strengthened inasmuch as the NEASC, the Regional
Laboratory and the Eisenhower Regional Alliance have
stepped forward to assist our efforts with pledges of
funding and other services. They believe in what we're
doing.
-And fourth, it has raised the expectation
that, indeed, something important can and will happen
regionally as a result of these six strong institutions
joining forces. I look forward to the next steps.
Robert A. Cobb is Dean of the UMaine College of
Education and senior education dean of the New England
Land-Grant Universities
State-by State
Issues
In preparation for the
conference, deans and faculty of each institution were
asked to identify the predominant K-12 issues in their
respective states. Although the various university
groups approached the task in different ways, their
preliminary brainstorming and work helped establish a
framework and tone for broader dialogue and served as a
starting point for better understanding regional
similarities and differences. The Margaret Chase Smith
Center for Public Policy at the University of Maine
posed preliminary questions, reviewed the responses and
identified common themes which were used to launch
conversation and a process that evolved throughout the
conference.
Process
Summary
by Kathryn Hunt, Conference
Facilitator
Margaret Chase Smith Center for Public
Policy
The conference was divided into four
working sessions intended to accomplish several broad
tasks:
(1) Initiate and/or strengthen working
relationships among faculty, across disciplines and
schools
(2) Identify regional priorities, primarily
in PreK-12 education, but not excluding higher education
and lifelong learning
(3) Create a short-term action
agenda for participants to pursue in 1997 that
identified specific strategies for regional
collaboration on each of the prioritized issues as well
as sustaining/enhancing mechanisms for the consortium
itself.
Prior to the conference the faculty and
deans from each institution prepared a written statement
identifying the key issues facing PreK-12 education in
their respective states. This information was forwarded
to the Margaret Chase Smith Center for Public Policy,
integrated into one summarized handout, and presented
verbally as well as in writing to participants at the
beginning of the conference.
Day one of the
conference focused on identifying priorities and
developing shared definitions and understanding of the
issues (in terms of their implications on a statewide
and regional basis as well as the current state of
policy and practice). Participants began this process in
small groups with faculty and deans from each state
represented. Each group generated a list of regional
priorities and returned to the larger group for a
plenary session that entailed the formation of a
summarized list across all groups.
Participants
were asked to nominally rank the issues in terms of
three criteria:
(1) current importance/urgency
(e.g., amount of current public debate devoted to the
issue),
(2) regional implications (e.g., throughout
all of or portions of New England); and,
(3) level
of personal and collective interest and expertise. The
following top eight priorities were identified. They are
paraphrased in this summary and do not reflect the
breadth and depth of discussion related to each item.
Top eight priorities established through nominal
ranking procedure:
(1) Developing an
influential, regional voice
(2) School readiness
(capacity to work with diverse students who come from
varied environments)
(3) Early childhood programming
(4) Sharing optimal learning conditions among us
(research, best practices
(5) Regional policy
analysis and data base development
(6) Equity issues
(7) Moving from isolation to collaboration (in terms
of education training programs, PreK-12 schools, etc.)
(8) Regional study of the implications of
constitutional language (regarding school funding, etc.)
The evening of day one and remainder of day two
were intended to allow for focused discussion of these
eight, group-identified priorities. At the request of
participants, the categories were reconfigured to allow
for continuation of broader discussions. Groups formed
around the following areas: social change,
accountability, professional development, technology,
equity, and regional policy research. Participants
self-selected themselves into each of these topical
areas, giving attention to balance across states.
Participants reported out the results of their
small-group discussions on Friday morning. (See
write-ups from these smaller groups for content
information.) In general, every group identified
specific strategies for regional collaboration as well
as indicated an interest in continuing to build regional
relationships with one another.
In summation,
the process employed was intended to generate a set of
priority concerns reflective of the faculty and deans
present as well as to build relationships and foster a
desire to continue them beyond this conference. Feedback
from participants suggests that these broad goals were
accomplished. The process also was originally designed
to create an action agenda. The consensus among
participants was that they were not ready to do this
formally, although many identified informal strategies
they intended to pursue in a collaborative manner after
the conference.
GROUP
REPORT
Equity &
Social Justice
Reported by Bruce
Mallory, University of New Hampshire
Our group
of six (four states and good cross-section of interests)
quickly took the chosen topic and applied it as a tool
to reflect upon and critique our own (and others')
approaches to teacher and administrator education. In
the introductions, we were struck by the personal
stories that brought each of us to this topic, in both
very direct, lived ways and through more distant but
still powerful experiences. In the course of the
discussion, we connected issues/paradoxes/challenges
related to equity and justice to the four "corners" of
the loose model I had proposed and we raised policy and
data questions along the way.
For example, we
noted the dual equalizing and disequalizing potentials
of technology, as well as the possibilities of distance
learning as a tool for intercultural, interracial, and
geographic dialogue. We shared our goals that teachers
would become advocates, social critics, and public
leaders as well as public servants. We stressed the
importance of school administrators being able to use
extant data to help teachers apply what we know about
resiliency and the classroom culture, among other
knowledge bases.
Charlie (Rathbone) described
his struggles in creating an equitable higher education
climate as a precondition for preservice teachers to
understand what we are asking them to do. How many of
us, he asked, have ever met the parents of our students,
or done more than exchange a pleasantry even if we have
met them?
With respect to accountability and
measurement, Robert (Colbert) emphasized the
responsibility of the total community to assure equality
of opportunity, especially at school entry. Early
childhood programs and related community supports are
essential underpinnings of equity. This led us to
consider the need for more family-friendly (and
family-driven) schools to assure student success.
All of us are responsible for the present social
conditions, and for creating the changes that we agree
are needed if we are to achieve the principles of equity
and social justice. Charlie pointed at the potential for
social marketing to change people's attitudes and
behavior over time, and the need for us to be more savvy
about media as tool for school and community
improvement. Finally, we noted the importance of
creating and managing relevant data that can help us
assess our work in light of equity and social justice
criteria.
In our summary discussion in the final
10 minutes, we developed the list shared in the whole
group.
Here are the points minus the ones
touched on above:
1. Begin with ourselves (the
self-critique and program critique)
2. Professional
preparation programs must be constantly evolving in the
same way we expect schools to be evolving.
3.
School-family partnerships can evolve through early
childhood and related services.
4. We must know our
students better, including their backgrounds and their
own experiences with inequity and injustice.
5. We
must move from tolerance to acceptance of our diverse
students, and ask them to do the same with their
students.
6. An effective analysis of the challenges
of equity and social justice depends on asking the right
questions.
7. We must uncover the hidden curricula
in our own teaching and program requirements. Broader
visions are needed to help us keep from recreating the
way our programs have always been.
8. Related to the
above point, our reliance on western, Anglo models of
development and behavior keeps us from seeing and
working with our students in more differentiated ways.
9. Curriculum development needs to be more
future-oriented, to anticipate and thrive in the new
society that we are always moving toward.
10.
Regional exchanges involving faculty and students and
focused on understanding the diverse characteristics and
challenges of today's schools were cited as a means to
such curriculum development, notwithstanding the caution
that such experiences can be voyeuristic and token.
11. Finally, Barbara (Krysiak) reminded us to keep
our eyes on our goals. "The main thing is to keep the
main thing the main thing." While there are infinite
interpretations of this homily, we hope that the main
thing, the center, is our desire to create a more
equitable and just society, especially for those who
work, learn, and grow in public
schools.
GROUP
REPORT
Accountability
Reported by William E. Cross, Jr., University of
Massachusetts-Amherst
The Accountability group
re-worded its charge and looked at issues of quality
teaching and optimal learning contexts and situations.
We were concerned that "accountability" gets translated
into a single test score which inevitably becomes a show
and tell for middle class kids and a doomsday discussion
for working class and "minority" kids. We concluded that
when ever someone asks for accountability and standards,
we need information (a data base) that translates that
request into a multidimensional discussion of the key
sets of factors, circumstances, etc., which combine to
produce optimal learning and quality education, from the
perspective of educators at land-grant institutions. We
also envisioned a regional data base that helps us
"explain" in a dynamic and detailed fashion how
education "works," what is optimal education and
learning, and what characteristics define the best and
worst case scenarios for teachers, students, school
buildings, classrooms, teacher/student/parent
connections, etc. A year might be taken to "plan" the
data base. Data might be collected in all the regional
states. For any site, 70 percent of the data might be
predetermined in accordance with the needs of the
regional study, while 30 percent might be aligned with
the needs of a state or location, etc.
We also
discussed the need for a one- or two-year study on the
way educators interpret the education clauses of their
respective state constitutions. This could result in a
document that might give greater voice, if not balance,
to the discourse on the educational clauses. Finally, we
talked about the unique idea of creating a safe space
for union leaders to convene to discuss the way existing
contracts and contract negotiations enhance or end up at
odds with the equity objectives of the larger society.
Case studies might be researched and then presented in a
case-study format.
GROUP REPORT
Professional
Development
Reported by Janice Kristo,
University of Maine
The Professional Development
group discussed collaborative models already in place
within the New England states - mostly field-based
university/school programs. We also talked about the
audience for collaboration, what's doable, and
practical, and came up with five action steps:
1. Develop a technological networking system.
This would work as an "effective practices outreach
library" containing data on a variety of educational
topics that any consortium member could use when called
upon by school systems, legislators, etc., for
information. This project would lend itself to advancing
public understanding of what we do, and help us develop
a more proactive voice with policymakers, for example,
by being able to forwarding them "cutting edge"
materials on timely educational issues. The Regional Lab
might support such a project as it would require funding
and staffing.
2. Develop a faculty directory for
consortium members - sharing faculty exchanges,
expertise, etc. At this point, we don't have a handle on
the expertise in the region. Such a directory would be
valuable in sharing faculty expertise and interest, and
in considering possible faculty exchanges.
3.
Develop mini-sabbaticals. This opportunity would
encourage and enable faculty to work together on
regional projects.
4. Develop more opportunities for
face-to-face meetings. This would be a way to continue
the faculty conversations and networking opportunities
begun at this conference which could lead to some
exciting collaboration . Perhaps such future gatherings
could be coordinated with the Land-Grant deans'
meetings.
5. Review and re-emphasize the mission(s)
of the Land- Grant institutions. What differentiates the
service of Land-Grant institutions is our strong
research, and we need to re-establish that link with the
public.
We discussed the history of the
Land-Grants and the effectiveness of the Extension
program model. Extension educators are a recognized
presence in providing research-based information. Too
often, university faculty are known only as individual
educators and/or researchers by the audiences they
serve, not as employees and representatives of the
state's major research institution. Collaboration might
help strengthen that connection as well as the message
that Land-Grants support and carry out the research that
is the foundation of our service component.
GROUP REPORT
Social Change
Reported by Sandy Jean Hicks, University of Rhode
Island
The Social Change group posed two central
questions as it explored the many dimensions and
implications of social change.
1. How can we in
Higher Education act regionally on issues of social
change that affect all educational institutions?
2.
Are we reactive or proactive, victims of change or
instruments of change? The conclusion: We should be
instruments of change!
Things we should focus
on:
(I) Service delivery (How do we help
families?)
We feel that of the most powerful
ways to assist schools to deal with issues of social
change that impact children is to integrate services at
schools. This would require collaboration between
disciplines (social work, school psychology, teacher
education) to focus on the needs of children in general,
and the needs of individual children in particular.
Communication between the different service providers in
schools and real collaboration in order to assist
families is key toward providing the best possible
educational experience for children. This focus would
require that such collaboration needs to be modeled for
our trainees in the disciplines at universities and that
professional development and support needs to be
provided to those already out in schools and working
with children.
We can identify models:
a) for training such interdisciplinary teams
b) of full service schools
(II) Schools as a
Community (Consortium as a Community)
Schools are
not isolated from the community. What happens in a
community and beyond impacts the educational experience
of children. We need to be more involved with children
and families "pre" school. A child's family is often
viewed more as a deficit to learning rather than a
source of strength and support. Professionals need to be
trained to work with families in order to assist
children in their learning. We need to be more proactive
in providing children appropriate skills to work through
conflict. The focus needs to be on teaching children to
care so that schools become safer places to be.
We can identify models:
(a) that provide
training (e.g. Urban Field Center in Providence, RI)
(b) of regional organizations (e.g. Educators for
Social Responsibility)
(c) schools that reach out
past the K-12 model
Develop the New England
Center for Conflict Resolution and Peer Mediation (or
some such central agency) to take advantage of many good
regional efforts in this area.
(III) Reinventing
Schools (To reflect the needs of the individual in
society)
We need to consider ways of
personalizing schools in order to build on the strengths
of students while developing strategies to deal with
their weaknesses.
The goal is to encourage more
children to engage in their own learning processes as
well as stay in school. We need to examine different
models of schooling and schools.
Some
suggestions discussed were to consider the human scale
of schools, making them smaller (e.g. house plans).
Another suggestion was to take advantage of breaking
down the boundaries. For example, provide distance
learning opportunities so that students interested in
further exploration of a particular curriculum area are
not thwarted by the small number of others in their
school interested in the same area resulting in no
course offering. Distance learning would connect a
student in this situation with others in the region also
interested in this topic. The potential for distance
learning and other alternatives is untapped.
Last, we suggest that learning is life-long and
that our school facilities can be used for multiple
purposes aside from the traditional delivery of the
curriculum and could be great places for alternative and
expanded learning experiences for all age groups.
We can identify models of alternative schools
and schooling:
Develop regional communication
systems to share
Seek resources regionally
rather than competing against one another.
GROUP REPORT
Technology
Reported by Theodore M. Kellogg, University of Rhode
Island
The technology group tried to answer
questions that had been placed before us by the
facilitators. What is the current state of policy and
practice? The group agreed that this was a moment of
strong potential for support for technology. The Federal
government seems to be taking an active role to help
schools gain access, and this will provide opportunities
for the teachers we train to work in environments
rich(er) in technology.
Within the region there
are substantial differences in the schools' and
Colleges' efforts and progress in building technology
into their programs. Initiatives in Connecticut,
Massachusetts and Rhode Island are helping to move
technology along (Maine was not represented in our
group). What would a positive influence look like? This
question found participants searching for a variety of
answers. Some believed that one sign of success would be
web pages with lots of links. One suggestion was that
the regional lab might specifically try to identify
promising links for teacher education.
Another
view was that we would be successful if we built on each
others' skills and each of us did not engage in
recreating the same or similar materials. Yet another
view was shaped by the belief that because of the
evolving nature of technology we would have to
demonstrate a continuing awareness of new technological
applications as related to teacher education. Everyone
is agreed that we have a need to find a procedure to
recognize effective practices in schools and
universities (K-16).
What resources/supports are
necessary? No institution has enough technology or a
plan that ensures continuing investment in technology.
Each institution described hardware, software,
professional development, and courseware on applications
as needs. Tools that could assist in teacher education
may not exist at this time and may need to be created.
There was a desire to link the institutions together and
the realization that it will take time and energy to
make any links effective.
What are the regional
and state implications? We need a way to exchange
information on policies which have the best benefit for
all. The region did not put together a position on the
Universal Service component of the Telecommunication
act, but it was recognized that this act or policy
developed within our individual states might best serve
us all with a better exchange of information.
Telecommunication companies were seen as key players and
that policies that lead to K-16 and telecommunication
companies working for the same ends could be most
beneficial.
There was a strong desire to share
our successes, but no clear agreement on the method. We
did recommend that a contact technology person be
identified at each institution. There is a need for
institutional policy decisions.
The technology
makes CUE and credit delivery independent of
geographical boundaries. If a Rhode Islander takes a
University of Connecticut course, does he or she pay in-
or out-of-state fees? If a Rhode Islander takes a
distance education course from the University of
Massachusetts, does the offering institution have to be
approved under the Rhode Island Higher Education board?
There are many more of these questions and
concerns about who and how these types of questions will
be answered. How would you like to communicate and more
broadly relate to one another? There was general
interest in developing desktop-to-desktop
communications, including video, as soon as possible.
Lots of emerging technologies may make these types of
connections practical in the future. In what ways might
a consortium positively influence current trends in
policy and practice?
Most of our responses in
this category promoted increased communication
throughout the region and the linking to regional
resources. For example, two states - Connecticut and
Vermont - reported their experience with distance
education. One consequence of the discussion was an
awareness of the very different assumption each state
was making about what each considered to be a viable
distance education program. In order for a consortium to
function effectively for influencing regional K-12
education, how would it function? In order to have
effective use of technology it must become ubiquitous to
the K-16 environment in which we work.
Whatever
a regional consortium can do to toward making technology
use ubiquitous will advance our teacher training and the
education of students. (A comment during the reporting
section asked us to think of Pre-K rather than K as the
beginning level for specifying the range of our
concern).
GROUP REPORT
Data and Policy
Analysis
Reported by Herman W. Meyers,
University of Vermont
The Data and Policy
Analysis group considered data needs and uses and how a
regional consortium might effectively respond. If a
regional consortium were to exist, it might:
1.
Convene a coalition of policy stakeholders drawn from
representatives in each state of the following groups
(probably the presidents or CEO's):
Teachers'
Association or Union
Superintendents' Association
Principals' Associations
School Boards
Association
Town ManagersAssociation
Human
Services State Office
State Departments of Education
(Chiefs)
The purpose of this group would be to
support the development of coalitions of policy
stakeholders. A small group of planners should involve
the Northeast Lab in structuring the first seminar
around the needs of participants for policy development.
2. Help each of the land-grant institutions
build the capacity to do better policy analysis. By
structuring seminars for faculty across the institutions
the consortium might focus upon such topics as:
Data base construction
Dissemination
How to maintain advocacy for equity and retain
credibility as an independent data/information source
Institutions would need to support this effort
by identifying someone at each land-grant who would be
the contact person and convener of faculty who would
participate in the seminars (some of which might be
electronic). The rationale for this activity at each
institution would be the land-grant mission extrapolated
from agriculture to education policy research.
3.Conceptualize and build a "Virtual Policy
Center" in the context of the land-grant mission of all
the institutions. This center would focus on policy
analysis of regional educational problems like the
coming teacher shortage/capacity shortfall and regional
finance issues.
Regional
Organizations
Representative from major
school reform organizations attended the conference,
lent their expertise to the discussions, and explained
how they might assist in future regional projects.
The New England Association for Schools and
Colleges, the Northeast and Islands Regional Laboratory
at Brown University, and the Eisenhower Regional
Alliance for Mathematics and Science Education Reform
further explain their resources, services, and possible
support for collaborative initiatives.
Eisenhower Regional Alliance for
Mathematics and Science Education
by
Robert McLaughlin, co-director
The Eisenhower
Regional Alliance for Mathematics and Science Education
Reform is one of 10 USDOE-funded Eisenhower Regional
Consortia. It serves the northeast and islands region
(New England, New York, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin
Islands). Launched in October 1992, the Regional
Alliance has invested the majority of its resources in
making collaboration within and across states meaningful
and relevant to local and state educators' most pressing
needs as they seek to undertake math, science and
technology (MST) education reform.
The Regional
Alliance supports a statewide action team in each of the
region's nine states and islands, comprised of state and
local MST reform leaders. These state teams identify the
priorities for Alliance services.
The Alliance
also supports regional reform networks on equity, K-16
collaboration, classroom innovation in MST
curriculum/instruction/ assessment, and public
engagement.
It soon will launch a fifth regional
network on informal science education. Each regional
network is led by a steering committee of local, state
and national experts who determine how best to use
Alliance resources to meet evolving needs in the field.
Of greatest relevance to the consortium of New
England colleges of education, the Regional K-16 Network
is assisting the formation and strengthening of
statewide networks on professional development school
(PDS) partnerships, launching a new journal on PDS
strategies this year, and seeking funds to support local
action research by PDS practitioners.
Resources
which the Regional Alliance would be pleased to offer to
the regional consortium of colleges of education
include:
1. Free subscription to the existing
listserves it sponsors on K-16 collaboration (ra-ed-reform@hub.terc.edu)
and on PDS activity (ra-pds@hub.terc.edu).
2. Free creation of one or more listserves
customized to meet the needs of the consortium of
colleges of education. We have done this for a number of
organizations, including the Education Trust.
3.
Free assistance in Web publishing of materials related
to K-16 collaboration in general and/or related to MST
reform in particular.
4. Invitation to
participate in Alliance sponsored and co-sponsored
professional development opportunities -- e.g., the May
9-10, 1997 Regional PDS Conference being led by the
Massachusetts PDS Network in collaboration with the
Regional Alliance, NEASC, and the Regional Education
Laboratory at Brown University. It will be held at the
Holiday Inn in Worcester, Mass.
5. Invitation to
participate in Alliance sponsored statewide and regional
networking opportunities -- e.g., many of the nine
statewide action teams are now each making plans to hold
"state summits" to bring together key higher education
and K-12 educators to enhance statewide collaboration in
MST reform.
6. Invitation to submit articles for
publication in the PDS Journal, which will be
distributed in print and on the Web. The first two print
issues will be distributed for free, and thereafter at a
modest subscription fee to cover printing and mailing.
The journal will be oriented to the pragmatic concerns
of PDS practitioners and researchers.
For
further information, please contact either Mark Kaufman,
director, (617-547-0430, mark_kaufman@terc.edu
or
Robert McLaughlin, co-director
(802-223-0463,bob_mclaughlin@terc.edu)
Eisenhower Regional Alliance, TERC, based in
Cambridge, Mass.
New England
Association of Schools & Colleges, Inc.
by Eva I. Kampits, Director
School and College Relations
The New England
Association of Schools & Colleges, Inc. (NEASC) is
involved in facilitating information exchange,
encouraging regional program planning and supporting the
many educational initiatives in the region that focus on
improving and strengthening education across all levels.
As the oldest regional accrediting association, with an
office established to promote and support partnerships,
NEASC is in a singular position to assist consortia that
are intent on addressing both regional and national
issues of educational importance.
Thus, the
Office of School/College Relations (OSCR) is prepared to
support those tasks that a consortium of New England
Land-Grant universities might choose to undertake. A
preliminary list of opportunities follows:
1.
Coordinating/sharing/supporting a variety of
dissemination activities, ranging from workshops on
specific topics, publication in "Partners " (both hard
and on-line editions), to contributing to regional
data-sharing.
2. Working on identifying and sharing
resources for using technology in regional
collaboration, teaching, learning, problem-solving,
etc., including assisting in developing technology plans
or funding prospects.
3. Contributing, together with
other NEASC staff, to activities that concern how to
measure student success in K-12 with shared interest in
school-to-work, and other transition issues at all grade
levels. (Connections can be made to existing standards
for accreditation that are in place for the region).
4. Recommending organizations or contacts that can
provide shared information including list serves on a
variety of issues presented (e.g. equity and access to
education, professional development sites).
5.
Assisting in efforts to identify potential partners at
both the graduate level and K-12 to expand multicultural
opportunities.
6. Contribute to public information
phases of those tasks endorsed by the New England
Land-Grant University Deans or Presidents in their
commitment to providing a "voice for the
region."
Northeast and
Islands Regional Educational Laboratory at Brown
University
by Jennifer Wallace, Policy
Specialist
and Adie Becker, University Liaison
The Northeast and Islands Regional Educational
Laboratory at Brown University was pleased to be invited
to the recent gathering of New England Land-Grant
education deans and faculty. The role of higher
education in K-12 education reform is an area of great
interest to the Lab and the region we serve.
The
Northeast Lab is one in a network of 10 regional
laboratories, sponsored by the U.S. Department of
Education, working to promote knowledge-based school
improvement and ensure that those engaged in improving
education at the local, state and regional levels have
access to the best available knowledge from research and
practice.
The Lab serves Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island,
Vermont, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. It operates
as a consortium of Brown University and hunter College
at City University of New York, and is a carefully
crafted partnership of nine other regional organizations
that share a common vision of systemic reform and a
vigorous commitment to helping practitioners enhance
their capacity to achieve excellence and equity for all
learners. The Lab's applied research and assistance
efforts concentrate on:
1. Improving teaching,
learning and assessment
2. Building capacity,
leadership and partnership
3. Supporting
state/island systemic reform
4. Supporting urban and
rural school reform
5. Disseminating products to
promote systemic reform on a larger scale
More
specifically related to the New England Land-Grant
meeting, the Lab is interested in convening and
facilitating dialogue with higher education, state
departments of education, districts and schools about
key education reform-related issues.
Supporting
collaborative cross-region initiatives is a large part
of the mission and function of the Lab, and we have
developed successful processes for doing so. In
addition, we have plans for documenting and
disseminating learning about innovative partnerships
between institutions of higher education and schools, as
this is an activity of significance to educators in our
region.
Conference
Directory
(organized by discussion group
topics)
Professional
Development
Jan Kristo mailto:jan_kristo@voyager.umeres.maine.edu
Jim
Artesani artesani@maine.maine.edu
Bailey Jackson mailto:bailey.jackson@educ.umass.edu
Beverly
Nichols bnichols@zoo.uvm.edu
Janet Kulberg jkulberg@uriacc.uri.edu
Lenore Carlisle mailto:carlisle@educ.umass.edu
Richard
Clark rclark@educ.umass.edu
Brenda Powermailto:brenda_power@voyager.umeres.maine.edu
Judy
Kull mailto:jkull@christa.unh.edu
Technology
Portia Elliott pelliott@educ.umass.edu
Jill Tarule jtarule@zoo.uvm.edu
Scott Brown mailto:sbrown@uconnvm.uconn.edu
Ted
Kellogg mailto:tmk@uriacc.uri.edu
Steve
Smith soeadm06@uconnvm.uconn.edu
Gerry Crocker mailto:gac@christa.unh.edu
