SRN LEADS/Stanford University: School Redesign Network — Leadership, Equity & Accountability in Districts & Schools
college knowledge forum
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
3 – 6:30 p.m.
City Arts and Technology High School
San Francisco, CA
The purpose of the College Knowledge Forum is to explore strategies for using the evidence from the Envision Schools graduation portfolio to inform both post-secondary admission policy and practices as well as to study the relationship between portfolio performance and success in the first year of college.
Reflections on the College Knowledge Forum
Ray Pecheone asks for a response / reflection on your participation in this event. We are interested in learning about how the presentation and discussion that followed may have informed your thinking about redesigning high schools, preparing students for the work of college, the policy issues related to building stronger connections between the K-12 system and higher education, and/or the use of portfolio assessment as evidence of students’ preparation for college in the admissions process. We are also open to your thoughts and suggestions for next steps and strategies.
Reflections on the day:
First, I’d like to say that the time we spent together was worthwhile, informative, and well structured. I really enjoyed seeing a student portfolio and listening to the student discuss his work and learning in the 4 years he has been in the program. I like the informed comments by the speakers planned for the day, and I truly enjoyed the dialogue we had at the end. Overall, seemed like a very good day.
The presentation gave me a sense of “Advancing the Vision” of what could be and what we can achieve, if we put our minds to it. The day also provided a sense of the potential that is out there, if we just learn to tap into it. I also had a sense of the institutional obstacles that we have created and are loath to let go. It is ironic that the very systems that were supposed to help us be more efficient and effective (i.e. the A-G requirements) can also be the same systems that keep us from being efficient and effective in a rapidly changing democratic system of education.
Redesigning High Schools
The issue of redesigning high schools is very pertinent
and difficult to tackle. High schools used to be places that
kids who did not fit in, dropped out of. Nowadays, kids who do
not fit in often find themselves dealing with the criminal justice
system at a very young age. To change this trend, high schools
need to be more responsive to student needs, societal demands, and
workforce changes. It appears to be a case by case, school by
school, teacher by teacher enterprise to be able to make a difference
in high schools today. I applaud the efforts of the Envision
schools, and feel that I would like to have more information of how
it works, why it works, with whom it works with, and when it does not
work, why. I’d like to visit a school, get a sense of what is
being achieved, who is being served, and how it makes a difference
and for whom it is making a difference. My sense is that engaging
students always makes a difference, however, I am also aware that there
is not a one size fits all system.
Preparing Students for the Work of College
This, to me, is an alignment issue. Our data in the CSU tells us that it takes one year for most CSU’s to remediate almost 90% of all incoming freshman, who are not special admits, to be college ready:
http://www.asd.calstate.edu/remrates/05-06/systemwide.htm
This information suggests that the students have the requisite skills, the willingness to learn and succeed, and the capacity to be successful, we just have not aligned what is expected to what is taught. I think the Envision schools are doing a much better job in this direction. It appears as if the alignment issue is one that the system, as a whole, needs to address. In this vein, it would be nice for UCOP to examine what is expected in the A-G requirements and if we are serving our high schools students with having requirements that do on address what I required in college as a “requirement” for getting into college.
I also think the work the CSU is doing in EAP with the ERWC is very cutting edge and likely to yield some telling results that will enable us to see how alignment can make a difference in how we remediate or define remediation. As we move forward with this work, we are setting the stage for best practices that can have an impact all across the board.
Policy Issues Related to Building Stronger Connections Between the K-12 System and Higher Education
I’m not sure of the policy issues on a large scale. There are access and accountability concerns that will be the policy issues that drive political decisions. However, as Mead enlightened us, it only takes a small group of individuals to change the world; in fact, it is the only thing that ever has. I think a small group, working their circle of influence, does not need to be too concerned about the greater issues. We start with building relationships and finding common ground…and keep the vision alive, anyway we can, advancing the vision with those who are ready to accept it.
Use of Portfolio Assessment as Evidence of Students’ Preparation for College in the Admissions Process
This one is tricky and I think should be looked at another way…how can we use the admissions process to validate the portfolio work we are doing, or how can we get our portfolios to fit into “their A-G Structure.” It appears as if asking the question of using portfolios in the admission process is going to lead to obstacles and roadblocks, however, if we change the conversation, we can talk about, how do we get A-G Special Approval for our portfolios? And, then we bring the alternative into the world they know, understand, and are comfortable with. AVID followed an alternative process with UCOP, and maybe understanding what they did and how they did it, would give the opportunity to have the conversation about what is possible. For example, having each section of a portfolio “count” as one of the A-G components…without having the requisite seat time or traditional Carnegie units associated with it.
Now that the Envision Schools have completed portfolios, a process for collecting information and providing feedback, it may be nice to convene the powers that be at UCOP and have the conversation about the possibilities…
Final Reflections/Next Steps
Overall, the day was very helpful and very useful, although I did think our time together was too short. I think I would have preferred a longer afternoon…(i.e. starting at 1:00 or all day). A longer afternoon would have allowed us to get into small groups, make sure everyone had a chance to have their “voice” heard, and to provide the opportunity for more interaction.
For next steps, I think I’d like to see 2 things, 1) an opportunity for a larger group to get together in a computer lab and see the students work first hand (with a variety of samples) and to discuss, question, and interact with the portfolios in a more dynamic, less static way. This way, participants could get a real sense of what is possible, what was produced, and how to aid in implementation efforts. Additionally, it would provide an opportunity to really discuss how this can be used in admissions processes and to what end.
This leads to my second suggestion. That a small group of individuals get together to discuss the college admission process and what it takes to help students be college ready rather than just college eligible, how to use the existing UCOP structure to get special dispensation (i.e. AVID) for those who are college ready, and to look critically at the admissions process and decide if that is the place where to put leverage. Maybe showing that students who are “portfolio savvy are more college ready” rather than just college eligible, is the direction to go, since both principals appear to say that “college eligible” was not their biggest concern, but looking at college ready was a greater concern.
Clearly, the conversation needs to be continued and I think the work started is very promising and potentially, the way of the future…if we can show we are reaching those hard to reach students and providing, not only college readiness, but also, work readiness skills.
Agenda
Purpose: to explore strategies for using the evidence from the Envision Schools graduation portfolio to inform both post-secondary admission policy and practices as well as to study the relationship between portfolio performance and success in the first year of college.
3:00pm Welcome
Bob
Lenz; CEO and Co-Founder, Envision Schools
Ray Pecheone;
Stanford University
3:20pm Overview
of ESGP
Kyle
Hartung
Director,
City Arts & Tech High School
3:30pm Interactive Session
Student & Teacher/Advisor
with Forum Participants
4:15pm System
Supports
Jeannette
LaFors, Ray Pecheone, Ruth Chung Wei
5:00pm Panel
Discussion
David
Stern & David Conley (with Jeannette LaFors)
5:30pm Plenary
Discussion
Forum
Participants
6:15pm Closing
Bob
Lenz
Matt Alexander
June Jordan HS, Co-Founder
San Francisco
Joan Bissell
Associate Director of Teacher Education and Public
Policy
Office of the Chancellor
California State University
Linda Carstens
Director, SRN LEADS Network
Stanford University School of Education
Kristin Charles
Associate Dean of Grants and Resource Development
City College of San Francisco
Mitchell D. Chester
Senior Associate Superintendent
for Policy and Accountability
Ohio Department of Education
Zee Cline
Associate Director of Teacher Education and Public
Policy
Office of the Chancellor
California State University
David T. Conley
Professor
University of Oregon
Neal Finkelstein
Senior Research Scientist
WestEd, CA
Stan Heffner
Associate Superintendent
Center for Curriculum and Assessment
Ohio Department of Education
Grace Hoagland
Director of Leadership Initiatives
Stanford University School of Education
Jeri Howland
VP for Development & Marketing
Envision Schools
Steve Jubb
Executive Director
The Bay Area Coalition for Equitable Schools (BayCES)
Olivia Ifill - Lynch
Director of Professional Learning
Stanford University School of Education
Paul LeMahieu
Director of Research and Evaluation
National Writing Project
UC Berkeley
Susan Meyers
Dean
SJSU, College of Education
Nina Moore
University of California Office of the President
Educational Relations
Peter Ross
Doctoral Candidate
Stanford University School of Education
David Stern
Professor
UC Berkeley Graduate School of Education
Cheryl Z. Tibbals
Director of the State Leadership Center
Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO)
Jeff
Thompson
Vice-President of Learning Programs
Foundation for California Community Colleges
Mark Triplett
Program Manager
San Francisco Education Fund
Terrence Willett
Director of Research
Cal-PASS
Sue Wilbur
Director of Admission
UC Office of the President
Mark Wilson
Professor
UC Berkeley Graduate School of Education
time to think
Summer institutes at Stanford give participants precious time to learn, exchange ideas with colleagues and simply to think. As one previous event participant put it, "The issues and theories raised here were so right on to my roles as an educational leader. You all gave me a chance to slow down, research, reflect, and put names on things so I can re-organize. This made me accept ownership and reinforced my own personal commitment to doing whats best for children. After a very rugged year, this felt like being on a retreat. I know this will impact me professionally and personally for the remainder of my life and career. The experience was truly priceless for me."
© 2007 SRN LEADS
