Goals 2000 Five Year Master Plan
Goal 3 Table of Contents
Support Excellence & Accountability in all Schools
Line-Item 1: School and District Performance Standards
Line-Item 2: School and District Improvement Plans
Line-Item 3: Model and Underperforming Schools and Districts
Line-Item 4: Project PALMS
Line-Item 5: Dual Enrollment for High School Students
Line-Item 6: School-to-Work
Line-Item 7: Citizenship Education
Line-Item 8: Safe and Healthy Schools
Goal Three extends the system of performance standards and accountability to
the school and district levels. As with the first two goals, Goal Three begins
with a broad-based participatory process to define measurable standards of
performance. Because these standards will rely heavily upon the student
assessment system still under development [see Initiative #2], much of the
initial work remains to be done. Once established, the standards will identify
a common unit of measurement to evaluate school performance. The results of
this annual evaluation will be published in school profiles which will provide
vital feedback to parents, community members, school personnel, policy leaders,
and the media, about the progress each school is making.
Schools and districts that fail to make consistent progress towards the state
standards will be declared "underperforming" and receive addition assistance in
developing and implementing improvement plans. If, after two years, progress
is not made towards the performance standard, the state will appoint a receiver
who will have expanded authority to implement proven practices.
The state will assist all schools and districts in generating comprehensive
School Improvement Plans using the information in the school profiles to focus
on continuous improvement. Districts with approved Improvement Plans may be
eligible to receive additional state and federal funding and program
flexibility. In order for a school or district to have its plan approved, it
must show a strategic plan that links key elements to improving student
learning.
The state is responsible for evaluating school and district performance for
all publicly funded educational service providers. In addition to
traditionally constituted K-12 public schools and districts, the Board and
Department are responsible for setting standards and evaluating charter
schools, early childhood education programs, adult basic education programs,
county agricultural schools, and some private special education programs.
Initiative
# 20: School and District Standards and Evaluations
The single most important indicator of school performance will be the state
student assessment results [see Initiative #2]. School performance standards
will be developed for students' aggregate results, performance stratification,
and at-risk sub-groups. In addition, standards will be developed for such
important indicators as attendance, graduation rates, and school safety.
Initiative
# 21: School Profiles
Parents, community members, the media, and political leaders will be able
to evaluate schools and districts based on the same information that the state
uses. They will get this information through the new school profiles. These
profiles will be designed to make relevant data collected from schools on their
performance on all key indicators accessible.
Initiative
# 22: Early Childhood Education Program Standards and Evaluations
Over the next five years the Commonwealth will work with local agencies to
continue building a statewide infrastructure of early childhood education
providers [see Initiative #75]. As with all other publicly funded education
providers, performance standards will be defined to hold early childhood
education programs accountable. However, since young children's academic
performance cannot be reliably assessed, the Department will develop an
evaluation system that relies more heavily on program components.
Initiative
# 23: Adult Basic Education Program Standards and Evaluations
As the statewide system of adult basic education providers is established,
it will be essential that all such providers participate in regular
evaluations. Department staff will work with other related state agencies and
the Board of Education's Adult Education Advisory Council to develop and
implement this system.
Initiative
# 24
During the 1994-95 school year, the Commonwealth used Goals 2000 funding to
pilot comprehensive District Improvement Planning in seven districts. Over the
next four years a major focus of resources and attention will be placed on
supporting all schools and districts in developing and implementing
comprehensive Improvement Plans. Beginning in the summer of 1995, the Department will convene summer
institutes for District Change Teams. Each district will be encouraged to put
together a team that includes the superintendent, school committee chair,
teachers' union president, principals, and school council co-chairs. This team
will participate in workshops on all aspects of the Education Reform Act and
the three new federal programs (the Improving America's Schools Act,
School-to-Work, and Goals 2000). After a common base of information is
established, Teams will be exposed to various systemic change models such as
Project PALMS [see Initiative #27], the Coalition of Essential Schools,
Harvard's Project Zero, the Carnagie Turing Points project, and the Accelerated
Schools project. Before they leave the institute, Teams will be expected to
develop an action plan to involve the district's school councils and school
committee in the development of comprehensive Improvement Plans. Improvement Plans should address the following elements:
-
Improved Student Performance
- Bilingual Education
- Community Service Learning
- Drop-Out Prevention
- Elimination of "General Track"
- Gifted and Talented Programs
- School-to-Work
- Special Education
-
Improved Teacher Effectiveness
- Adult Resource Ratio
- Professional Development
Improved School Effectiveness
- Business and Community Partnerships
- Educational Technology
- Integration of Federal Programs
- Parent Involvement and Education
- School Structure
- Student Learning Time
- School-Based Management
- School Based Services
Over the 1995-96 school year, Department staff will work with selected
consultants and school change coaches to support schools and districts in
developing their Improvement Plans. Beginning the following year (1996-97),
the Department will begin to coordinate relevant grant programs into unified
block grants (seeking federal waivers where necessary) for all districts with
approved Improvement Plans. This strategy of simplifying the grant process to
support comprehensive improvement plans is closely aligned with the Federal
Goals 2000 and Improving America's Schools Act (IASA) initiatives.
Initiative
# 25: Exemplary Schools and Districts
Schools and districts that consistently evidence high performance will be
recognized as Exemplary Schools or Districts and will receive additional
resources to assist other schools in implementing successful practices.
Initiative
# 26: Underperforming Schools and Districts
Once the new school and district standards and assessment system are in
place [see Initiative #20], the Department will begin an annual evaluation of
schools and districts. Those that do not meet the established standards will
be declared "underperforming" and will be eligible for two years of additional
technical assistance from the Department. In developing a targeted assistance
program, the Department will draw on the best practices and strategies utilized
by schools and districts in developing improvement plans. After two years of assistance, underperforming schools and districts that
fail to make consistent progress towards to the state standards will be
declared "chronically underperforming" and have a state receiver appointed.
Receivers will have enhanced authority to hire and fire personnel and move
forward on a solid improvement plan.
Initiative
# 27
In 1992, the Commonwealth was awarded a five year, $10 million matching
grant from the National Science Foundation to support statewide systemic change
in math, science and technology. The innovations initiated by Project PALMS
(Partnership for the Advancement of Learning Mathematics and Science) have
paved the way for many of the essential components of the Education Reform Act. During the first two years of the grant, the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
established partnerships between participating school districts, businesses,
museums, and adult literacy centers to investigate best teaching practices and
to develop student content and learning standards. The resulting Curriculum
Frameworks in math, science and technology have served as a model for the other
five Massachusetts Frameworks [see Initiative #1] and curriculum frameworks in
other states across the nation. Now in its third year, PALMS has moved into its next stage of work,
integrating existing efforts with other Department initiatives, building
regional capacity to "scale-up" reforms from the initial model sites, and
continuing to pilot state-of-the-art educational practices. During its final
two years, PALMS will focus on making its reforms truly systemic by integrating
its work with state, regional, and district programs. By the fifth year, all
PALMS activities will either be integrated into other programs or consolidated
into a state center for math and science.
Initiative
# 28
One goal of Education Reform is to make the Commonwealth's schools
academically challenging to all students. Nonetheless, some high school
students who have essentially completed the curricular offerings can best be
served by college-level courses. To address this need, the Executive Office of
Education, in conjunction with the Higher Education Coordinating Council, has
developed a system in which the state will pay for tuition for qualified
students to take classes at a state or community college.
Initiative
# 29: School-to Work Programs
Massachusetts received one of eight Federal five-year grants to help build
a state School-to-Work system. The system will be established with a focus on
all students. Programs developed in the system will integrate academic and
vocational instruction, academic and work-based instruction, and secondary and
post-secondary education. Some of the essential elements of School-to-Work are
introduction to career development in K-8, involvement of all secondary
students in broad career clusters, and workplace experiences that could lead to
the Certificate of Occupational Proficiency [see Initiative #5]. Students in
School-to-Work programs will develop skills and occupational proficiencies
addressed in the Curriculum Frameworks and the Common Core of Learning [see
Initiative #1].
Initiative
# 30: Vocational-Technical School Restructuring
Between 1995 and 1998, the state will assist vocational-technical schools
in restructuring their curriculum to respond to the requirements of the new
workplace, the Education Reform Act, and the School-to-Work initiative.
Initiative
# 31: Mass Transition Initiative
In 1992 the Department was awarded a five year "systemic change grant" of
$438,000 per year from the U.S. Department of Education. The purpose of the
grant was to establish the Massachusetts Transition Initiative (MTI), a grant
program that provides school districts across the state with technical support
and funds to implement effective transition planning for students with
disabilities from school to adult life. In the first three years the program
has grown from 18 high schools to over 75 in 1995.
There is no substitute for first-hand experience to teach students about the
responsibilities of citizenship called for in the Common Core of Learning [see
Initiative #1]. The state will continue to play a role in assisting schools in
providing students with these experiences by supporting statewide networks for
community service and democratic participation. The challenge is to make the
experiences real and meaningful while connecting them with the school
curriculum. Although many of the experiences take place outside of the school
building, their importance is inherently curricular, not extra-curricular.
Initiative
# 32: Community Service Learning
Over the last few years, the state and federal governments have supported
schools in introducing meaningful community service learning experiences to
their curriculum. These programs combine the best examples of project-based
curriculum with a specific focus on community involvement. By connecting
students with their local community, these programs will help to develop
positive civic habits.
Initiative
# 33: Student Leadership and Participation
For over twenty years, Massachusetts has been the only state in the union
to provide students with elected representation on its State Board of
Education. By law, every high school elects two students to one of eleven
regional councils. In addition to monthly meetings and leadership training,
each regional council elects four students to the State Student Advisory
Council. The forty-four members of the State Council work with Department
staff on legislation and other important educational issues. Students from the
Student Advisory Council have participated as active members of the Commission
on the Common Core of Learning, the Commission on Time and Learning, the seven
Curriculum Frameworks Advisory Committees, and other educational committees.
The chair of the state council serves as a full voting member of the State
Board of Education. The challenge over the next five years will be to expand the impact of the
student advisory experience beyond the 700 students who participate on state
and regional councils. Efforts will be made to better connect the student
advisory council with local school councils and school committees as well as
with statewide programs such as the Hugh O'Brien Youth Leadership Foundation,
Student Government Day and other related programs and to work with MCET to use
telecommunications technologies [see Initiatives #72 & 73] to increase the
number of students who can participate in these programs.
In the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education's 1993 Youth Risk Behavior survey, one in
twenty Massachusetts students reported not going to school in the last thirty
days because they did not feel safe at or on their way to school. In the same
survey, one quarter of all high school students reported having sex before age
14 and over 6% reported having either been pregnant or caused a pregnancy
during high school.
Schools can create a positive learning environment only if students feel safe
and healthy. The state will support several programs to assist schools in
establishing a safe and healthy environment in which learning can flourish.
Initiative
# 34: Comprehensive Health Education
In November, 1992 Massachusetts voters approved a $.25 increase in the
excise tax placed on all tobacco products, earmarked for an anti-smoking public
information campaign and school-based comprehensive health education programs.
These funds substantially augment existing federal Drug Free Schools Grants in
supporting schools' efforts to increase healthy behavior. In the Fall of 1994,
an independent evaluation by the Boston University School of Public Health
showed positive results in reducing student risk behaviors as a direct result
of the programs instituted by schools funding through the Comprehensive Health
Protection grants. Added to this effort will be the soon-to-be released Comprehensive Health
Education Curriculum Framework [see Initiave #1].
Initiative
# 35: Safe and Violence-Free Schools
One in five Massachusetts high school students have reported carrying a
weapon in the last thirty days. Half that number brought their weapon to
school. Standards for school safety will be developed as part of the school
performance standards. Schools will be assisted in improving the relative
safety of their environment through a series of planning grants, state
programs, and program grants. Successful programs will continue to be
identified and expanded.
Initiative
# 36: Educational Alternatives for Chronically Disruptive Students
One of the most important things that schools, districts, and the state can
do to increase the general safety and health of each school is to find
alternatives for students who are not well served by the normal school
approach. For the most disruptive of students, this may mean requiring the
student to attend a school that focuses on their unique needs. Most schools
are not prepared to focus adequate attention on these students. Those that do,
frequently find that the drain of attention that these few students require
makes it difficult to balance the needs of other students as well.
Initiative
# 37: After School Programs
As part of each school and district's improvement plan [see Initiative
#24], all school should attempt to make full use of their facilities. Pilot
programs will be supported to encourage schools to develop after-school
programs.
[ previous | next ]
[ table of contents ]
last updated: May 15, 1995
|
State Government · State Services 
