|
SUPPORT FOR URBAN SCHOOLS MISSING FROM
NJDOE SECONDARY PROPOSALS
The following testimony was presented
to the State Board of Education on April 15 by Stan Karp,
Director of ELCs Secondary Reform Project.
One year ago, the High School Redesign Steering
Committee released the NJ Steps report with recommendations
that formed the basis of the proposals now pending before
the State Board.
As Board members know, ELC has been critical
of these proposals, not because they propose higher standards
for all students, but because they have not been linked to
a credible plan to reach them. Without such a plan, tougher
graduation requirements and more high stakes tests are more
likely to reproduce the inequalities of the last century than
prepare all students for the new one.
The Department contends that mandating higher
standards will hold districts accountable for reaching them.
Yet, historically, the States system of standards and
tests has done little to close gaps in secondary achievement
& outcomes. Last year, 74% of general education students
in urban districts passed the language arts HSPA and only
56% passed math, compared to rates of 95% and 89% in other
NJ districts. Urban graduation rates and college participation
levels are well below state averages. Real dropout rates are
alarmingly high. Today there are nearly 100,000 young people
in NJ between the ages of 18-24 not in school & not working,
a number that rose over 33% between 2002 & 2006. [NJ High
School Graduation Campaign fact sheet, 2008]
Yet the Departments proposals do not
address the most pressing issue any statewide secondary reform
effort must face: How will reform help schools & students
that arent meeting current standards to meet tougher
ones?
The States ill-advised retreat from
Abbott commitments and the imposition of the SFRA will mean
major budget cuts in NJs largest urban districts. Yet
the Department insists "there is no reason to anticipate
that such curricular modifications would involve increased
expenditures for school districts." This assertion remains
unsupported by any study of what it will take to help all
students succeed at higher academic levels.
The real issue is creating the capacity to
deliver high academic standards to all students. In low performing
urban middle and high schools, this requires a challenging,
collaborative process to transform school climate, professional
practice, community relations and student engagement. The
Department insists that it seeks such "secondary transformation."
Yet the plans before you are all "rigor" with little
reform and no new resources. They focus almost exclusively
on course content requirements and end of course exams while
the reforms and resources needed to promote deep "secondary
transformation" are missing or weak.
The latest example is the personalized student
learning plans. These were originally proposed for all students
in grades 6-12 as a way to provide individualized support
for higher academic performance. Recently, theyve been
reduced to a poorly-supported pilot in 15 schools.
Even more relevant in this regard is the
Departments fading support for the Secondary Education
Initiative (SEI). Just a year ago, NJ Steps described
SEI as "a key secondary education redesign initiative
designed to improve teaching and learning in the states
lowest performing middle and high schools (grades 6 through
12)
.As part of this initiative, districts have been
working to create smaller learning communities within large
urban middle and high schools, implement rigorous curriculum,
and ensure that every student receives regular, personalized
attention from at least one adult professional. With the
implementation of a new school funding formula, this reform
will be expanded to all secondary schools in New Jersey."
[NJ Steps, p. 25 emphasis added]
Yet, over the past year, as the Department
rolled out its high profile campaign for "secondary transformation,"
support for SEI has virtually disappeared. Last June, the
SFRA regulations watered down SEI requirements. SEIs
well-attended network meetings were abruptly discontinued.
The consultant contracts to provide technical assistance to
districts were allowed to expire. Department personnel providing
implementation support for SEI were released or reassigned.
The district pilots designed to test and modify the reforms
were never conducted. A research and evaluation plan required
by regulation was never developed. The SEI Advisory Committee
was disbanded, while a new Secondary Advisory committee required
by the SFRA regulations was never convened.
This pattern reflects a familiar cycle of
"here today, gone tomorrow" reform initiatives that
begin with grand promise, but in the end, leave behind only
more standards, more tests and more of the same real gaps
in achievement and opportunity.
If the Board adopts these proposals, the
need for a targeted urban secondary reform initiative will
be more urgent than ever. The High School Redesign and NJ
HS Graduation campaigns have underscored the high costs of
secondary school failure. The Obama administration has made
reducing dropouts and increasing college participation national
priorities. Large increases in stimulus funds, Title I funds,
and innovation funds could be tapped for a renewed reform
effort. If the Department is really committed to a process
of "secondary transformation" that improves outcomes
for all students, we need initiatives that focus on the large
comprehensive high schools where the majority of our urban
secondary students are and will remain.
Accordingly, along with ELCs previous
recommendations of an opportunity to learn guarantee for students
before any new graduation tests are imposed, and a public
evaluation of the Phase I mandates before Phases II &
III are implemented, we urge the Board and the Department
to revive support for the Secondary Education Initiative,
convene the secondary advisory group required by the SFRA
regulations and to engage parents, community, educators, and
other stakeholders in a sustained effort to improve NJs
secondary schools for all its students and communities.
Prepared: April 16, 2009
Copyright © 2009 Education
Law Center. All Rights Reserved.
|