/4+’; /A?’°r’:3 ; /i?,£7’7'Z J55 “‘ ii I I F"W Congressional Research Service The Library of Congress 86-911 EPW Washington, D.C. 20540 Government Publications Unil- AUG Oi 1994 wasmngwn umversity Libraries St. Louis, MO 53130 A REVIEW OF TIME FOR RESULTS: THE GOVERNORS‘ 1991 REPORT ON EDUCATION James B. Stedman Specialist in Education Education and Public Welfare Division September 26, 1986 C l bla [ill 7 (of ill, ilEs°l'ill'll 941 ll lliiilli 010- llll _summarizes the issues c ABSTRACT The National Governors’ Association has released Thne for Results: The Governors’/1991 Report on Education. The document is comprised of the reports from seven task forces formed by the governors. These reports focused on teaching, leadership and management, parent involvement and choice, readiness for school, technology in education, school facilities, and college quality. This review of Time for Results describes the background to the reports, onsidered by each task force, and lists the recommen- ‘t concludes with a discussion of selected issues, in- — CONTENTS ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..iii INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 THE REPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 Task Force on Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 Task Force on Leadership and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 Task Force on Parent Involvement and Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 Task Force on Readiness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..lO Task Force on Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..lZ Task Force on School Facilities . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..l5 Task Force on College Quality... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..16 OBSERVATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..l8 Not a Unified View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........l8 Common Elements Among the Task Force Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..l8 Controversial Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..2O CRS-iv Different From Previous Reform Reports . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..2l A REVIEW OF TIME FOR RESULTS: THE GOVERNORS’ 1991 REPORT ON#EDUCATION INTRODUCTION In August 1986, the National Governors‘ Association released Time for Results: The Governors‘ 1991 Report on Education. The document contains the reports of seven task forces formed by this association of all the governors in 1985. This wide ranging discussion of the condition of American education, lfrom early childhood education to collegiate instruction, offers recommenda- tions for action by the governors. Time for Results is one in the series of reports issued by diverse groups in recent years focusing on the condition of American education. Earlier reports include A Nation At Risk by the National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983) and Action for Excellence: A Comprehensive Plan to Improve Our Nation's Schools by the National Task Force on Education for Economic Growth, established by the Education Commission of the States (1983). 1/ The governors’ task forces focused on teaching, leadership and management, parent involvement and choice, readiness for school, technology in education, school facilities, and college quality. Among the various facets of each task I] For a detailed analysis of many of the reform reports preceding Time for Results, see Education Reform Reports: Content and Impact [by] James B. Stedman and K. Forbis Jordan, Congressional Research Service, Report No. 86-56 EPW, March 17, 1986. .CRS-2 force report were a review of the issues arising from each subject, recommenda- ' and a brief discussion of obsta- tions labeled the "Governors' Action Agenda,’ cles to the implementation of the action agenda. Time fer Results has attracted attention for a variety of reasons. It has been viewed as a sign that the Nation's governors will continue to address school reform in the future. Some of its recommendations have generated de- bate, particularly those focused on increasing parental choice among public schools, utilizing schools on a year-long calendar, and providing for direct State intervention in districts that fail to meet performance standards. The document has also been seen as endorsing career ladders for teachers. In ad- dition, there has been some discussion of the costs associated with some of activities endorsed by the individual task forces, such as a year-long school calendar and enhanced preschool and early childhood education programs. 2/ This review of Time for Results is divided into three sections. The Background section discusses the reasons the National Governors’ Association undertook the studies of education and reform, and how the Chairman of the Association characterized the report and its recommendations. The Report section presents a summary of the issues, recommendations and obstacles each task force report contains. Finally, the Observations section focuses on, among other items, the similarities and differences among the various task force reports, and the challenges the reports pose for education. 2! ‘See, for example, "New School Reforms Are Pushed," by David S. Broder, Washington Post, August 24, 1986; "Governors Learn Lesson on Schools," by Fred M. Hechinger, New York Times, August 26, 1986; "Educators View Gover- nors' Plan Skeptically," by Leslie Maitland Werner, New York Times, August 27, 1986; "Governors Urge Adoption of Performance-Based School Systems," by Steven Teske, Education Daily, August 26, 1986. CRS-3 BACKGROUND Time for Results is the product of a year long effort by the National Governors' Association, chaired by Governor Lamar Alexander (Tennessee), and co-chaired by Governors Bill Clinton (Arkansas) and Thomas H. Kean (New Jer= sey). It presents the individual reports from seven task forces established by the governors. This is not a consensus document presenting the recommendations of all the Nation's governors on the steps they are prepared to take to improve schools. Rather, it is, in Governor Alexander's words, Ta conversation among Governors with the rest of the world welcome to listen in." The document itself is in= tended to help build a consensus among all of the parties involved in school reform. Each task force report represents the views of the governors serving on that particular task force. Time for Results was prompted by concern about international economic competition and the consequences of poor academic performance of American youth. It also comes at a tine of major activity by States to reform schools. According to Governor Alexander, "[W]hi1e competition overseas is getting stiffer, getting results at home is getting harder--and more urgent--because children from loweincome, single—parent, and minority families are more likely to be poor, more likely to drop out of school and therefore, less likely to develop the strong skills needed to find and keep a good job." The Chairman concluded, "[T]he Governors are ready for some old-fashioned horse-trading. We'll regulate less, if schools and school districts will pro- duce better results . . . . We're not ready to bargain away minimum standards that some States are just now setting. But we have learned that real excel- lence can't be imposed from a distance." CRS-4 THE REPORT This section presents a description of the issues addressed by each task force, their recommendations for action, and the obstacles, if any, they anti- cipate might impede action on these recommendations. Task Force on Teaching The Task Force on Teaching, chaired by Governor Kean, identified quality and quantity as major issues that continue to affect teaching. The task force cited data from the Carnegie Forum on Education and Economy that, by 1991, the Nation will need 1.3 million new teachers. Quality aspects were addressed, in part through consideration of the relatively low Scholastic Aptitude Test scores of prospective teachers. The report highlighted many of the teacher- oriented reforms undertaken in recent years by the States, including financial aid for prospective teachers, increased teacher testing, higher salaries, and provision of alternative routes into teaching. Nevertheless, the task force noted that teachers feel they have been left out of the planning and implementation of reform. In addition, the task force observed that the teacher reforms to date have not addressed the overall organization of schools and its effect on teaching. Drawing on several of the national teaching reform reports issued during the past year (e.g., A Nation Prepared, Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy), the task force outlined what it characterized as "the consensus on what ought to be done next." According to the report, among the steps that. this "consensus" endorses are creation of a national board to define teacher standards; reform of teacher education so that it is in step with the school reform efforts; restructuring of schools, including creation of more than one "education leader" in each school; implementation of new compensation schedules CRS-5' providing opportunities for greater responsibility and compensation; and increased discretion for educators, administrators and parents to develop their own ways of meeting State and locally imposed standards. The task force report included the following recommendations: 3/ (1) "Convene a statewide panel to review the national teacher policy reports." The task force concluded that a lengthy review is not necessary, rather the process should be focused on identifying the appropri- ate agenda for action. (2) "Support the creation of a national board of pro- fessional teacher standards." The task force called for teachers and others to support the planning group convened by the Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy to develop the standards and procedures for such a national board. (3) "Develop state initiatives to encourage profes- sional school environments." The focus of this recommendation is on the creation of professional working conditions for teachers. Governors are asked to encourage the public to support action to create such environments in exchange for high performance by teachers, and to convene State education policymakers for assistance. In addition, Governors are urged to press for ways to link teacher incentives with student performance. (4) "Challenge the higher education community on teacher education." The task force recommended that Governors convene the State higher education leadership to identify what needs to be done and how gubernatorial action might assist. (5) "Build the case for sustained real dollar increases in education spending." (6) "Define and put in place a comprehensive teacher re- cruitment strategy." The task force observed that gov- ernors lack data about teacher supply and demand, and that they need to develop strategies for attracting and retain- ing teachers. E! For these and all other numbered recommendations presented in this paper, the material withiE—quotation marks is taken verbatim from each report. The additional discussion following some recommendations is based on the text of each report. CRS-6 (7) "Announce the end of emergency teaching licenses." Such licenses are granted to teachers teaching out of their fields in order to meet shortages. (8) "Listen to teachers, principals, board members, and others." (9) "Recognize outstanding teachers." The task force stated, "It is impossible to do too much of this." Among other actions, governors are encouraged to take steps to recognize the competence and professionalism of teachers through actions such as inclusion on more diverse State boards and panels. (10) "Establish a state intervention procedure for cases of education bankruptcy." The phrase "education bankruptcy" is applied to instances where local school systems repeat- edly fail to educate their children to acceptable stand- ards. The task force called on governors to initiate leg- islation that would control such a process of State inter- vention, providing for monitoring of districts, due process protection, time for correction, additional resources, State intervention, procedures for terminating State con- trol, etc} ' Among the obstacles the task force identified that could affect the adop- tion of these recommendations were the extent of reform already undertaken, tension between labor and management in schools, an absence of adequate data on supply and demand, the necessity of developing comprehensive responses to teacher problems, and the need to include teachers, school boards and admin- istrators in initiating new policies. Task Force on Leadership and Management This task force, chaired by Governor Clinton, observed that the recently ended "first wave" of reform set standards and expectations, and that the "second wave" now beginning will focus on reform of the process of schooling. Critical to this "second wave," according to the task force, will be school level leadership. That leadership faces a variety of challenges, including the growing presence in our schools of minority children, children from single CRS-7 parent families, and children from poor families. The task force proceeded from the premise that educators now have access to much more knowledge about creating effective schools. 3/ The report included the following recommendations: (1) "Begin a dialogue to determine the State's broad goals for education and identify ways for schools to achieve these goals.” (2) "Revise state selection and certification requirements to reflect the skills and knowledge needed by effective principals." Among the options offered to the governors are encouraging districts to identify teachers who have the potential for administration; developing principal assess- ment centers to identify those with leadership potential; raising the entry requirements for education administration programs; including clinical experience in all training and certifying procedures; and providing alternative routes to administrator certification. (3) "Match the content of State-approved educational admin- istration programs to the training needed by effective school principals." Options for the governors include con- centrating resources on only the excellent preparation pro- grams, and requiring faculty in administration education programs to return to administrative posts periodically. (4) "Develop a system to evaluate principals effectively and accurately." Among the options is creation of state- wide centers to perform evaluation or provide technical assistance. (5) "Provide inservice trainin to school administrators 8 through, for example, State-sponsored training centers or higher education institutions." (6) "Provide incentives and technical assistance to dis- tricts to promote school site management and improvement." (7) "Collect statewide information on the process and the outcomes of schooling." Among the kinds of information that the task force recomended should be collected are data evaluating the performance of principals. (8) "Reward principals and schools for performance and effectiveness." The task force called on governors to 3/ For an analysis of the research on creating effective schools, see The Effective Schools Research: Content and Criticisms [by] James B. Stedman, Congressional Research Service, White Paper 85-1122 EPW, December 18, 1985. CR8 -8 provide rewards for principals’ success, but also to hold them accountable for their performance. Other steps needed include career ladders for administrators, technical assistance for poorly performing schools, and replacement of poor principals. (9) "Highlight success by documenting and disseminating effective strategies and models." (10) "Be patient and remain committed." The task force warned that "school improvement takes time." Governors are encouraged to focus on successes achieved during the "first wave" of reform and set some goals that are achiev- able in the short term. This task force report offered no discussion of specific obstacles to hnplementation of its recommendations. Task Force on Parent Involvement and ghoice « This task force, chaired by Governor Richard D. Lamm (Colorado), posited that "you can increase excellence by increasing choice." Greater parental involvement, it is argued, will arise from the opportunity for greater choice within the public school systems of our States. Such involvement is important for improving children's academic performance. The report cited research showing that effective schools are schools with distinctive philosophies and missions, and that choice encourages the develop- ment of these kinds of distinctions among schools. The task force asserted that children attending schools chosen by their parents achieve more. Programs offering choice among schools, according to the report, must address the questions of how much funding is needed, how to avoid turning concern for accountability into excessive control, and how to address the need for access and equity. The report warned that choice might not succeed in achieving its objectives unless resources are provided to improve existing schools, student retention is required, and parents receive guidance. The CRS-9 report argued, "Choice programs should seek to bring together rather than isolate students from different racial and economic groups." The report included the following recommendations: (1) "Provide technical assistance to school districts and universities by encouraging instruction in effective parent-involvement techniques to be included in preservice and recertification training programs of all teachers and administrators." (2) "Create the climate for greater parent involvement." The reports offered several options including programs recognizing and rewarding exemplary parent involvement efforts. (3) "Provide incentives to school districts." Among the options presented are demonstration grants to districts willing to implement programs creating greater parent involvement in school management. (4) "Expand opportunities for students by adopting legis- lation permitting families to select from among kinder- garten to twelfth grade public schools in the State. High school students should be able to attend accredited public postsecondary degree-granting institutions during their junior and senior years." The task force stipulated that legislation establishing choice programs must require, among other things, that schools not discriminate on the basis of race or religion, that they provide due process to students and faculty, and that they test students and re- port progress to parents; that public funds cover all costs; that interdistrict choice be allowed unless it would disturb "court or legislatively mandated desegregation/ integration plans;" that districts have the freedom to de- termine the number of non-resident students they will admit; that greater choice be accorded teachers in select- ing schools and districts for teaching; etc. 2/ As obstacles to adopting parental choice plans, the task force identified the hostility that exists between parents and teachers, the attitude among ._4- A 2] In addition, the report states that, to implement this recommenda- tion, individual State departments of education must arrange the schedules under which schools and districts determine the availability of spaces for selection under the choice plan and dates by which choices must be made, establish the ways in which information on the choice plan will be dissemi- nated, prepare guidelines to govern teacher transfers, administer the funds appropriated for supporting choice, establish assessment mechanisms, etc. CRS-10 administrators that parents are incapable of exercising choice, and the fear among some that the choice plan for public education is an initial stage in an effort to extend greater public aid to private schools. The concern is that advocates of choice will ultimately promote choice, underwritten with public funds, among all elementary and secondary schools, whether public or private. Task Force on Readiness The task force, chaired by Governor Richard W. Riley (South Carolina) stated that the standard-setting efforts of the reform movement have generated concern among the governors that some youth will be unable to attain the higher standards, and will be casualties of this reform effort. In the report, a question being posed to the governors is how to address preschool children's educational disadvantage and enable them to meet the stronger standards throughout their educational careers. The report observed that this question is made more pressing by the changing demographics of school age children (increasingly minority, poor and from broken homes). Although, according to the task force, schools historically have been least successful with such children, there is research delineating the positive effects of quality inter- vention programs on these children. One example cited is greatly improved reading achievement associated with the initiation of several Federal programs--Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Head Start, and Follow Through. The task force made the following recommendations concerning school readiness: (1) "Provide in-house assistance for first-time, low-income parents of high-risk infants." Among other things, the task force called for programs to provide "infant stimula- tion" classes to parents and their "at-risk" infants. CRS-ll Assistance, it was urged, should be provided in infants‘ homes. (2) "Develop outreach initiatives using all community and religious organizations to assist young children who have only an absentee parent(s) or guardian(s) as his or her source of nurturance." (3) "Provide kindergarten for all 5-year-old children." The report also recommended smaller kindergarten classes. (4) "Provide quality early childhood development programs for at-risk 4-year-olds, and where feasible, 3-year-olds." Quality, according to the report, is represented by low class size and a focus on social development and academic readiness skills, when appropriate. (5) "Provide all interested parents of preschool children with information on successful parenting practices." The task force asserted that States can assist by providing free parenting resources and training. (6) "Stress continued improvement of developmental and educational programs in day care centers for preschool children. This includes improving staff development and inservice training, and providing for accreditation or sfinilar standards for day care centers." (7) "Develop State and local structures through which all agencies work together to provide appropriate programs for young children and their parents." The task force included recomendations for assisting "at-risk” elementary and secondary school students to meet the recently increased educational standards: (1) "Provide extra help in the basic skills for students who have major deficiencies." The report called for adequate funding of remedial and compensatory education programs, observing that "[r]esources do make a differ- ence." In addition, it was posited that there is a need for information on the achievement levels of students and on their retention rates. (2) "Develop incentives, technical assistance, and training for teachers and principals to employ effective school and classroom procedures and practices." The report states that how resources are used is as important as the level available. Q] 4% See footnote 4 on the effective schools research. CRS-12 (3) "Provide a challenging curriculum for all children." (4) "Provide valid and reliable assessment of student performance so students, parents, and teachers can work to correct deficiencies." (5) "Reward schools for making progress in educating all children, including at-risk children." (6) "Establish cooperative programs involving schools and homes so parents can learn how to support their children's teachers." (7) "Develop incentive programs or direct State aid to reduce class sizes of kindergarten and the lower grades." (8) "Establish alternative programs to work with high school students who have dropped out of school." (9) "Establish a mechanism for State intervention into school districts when progress is not being made with low- achieving students." The report recommended such "educa- tion bankruptcy" intervention only under "extreme condi- tions when multiple indicators of educational performance are below acceptable standards."» Technical assistance should be provided. Other actions might include removal of system administrators. The obstacles identified by the task force include the need for extensive information dissemination on readiness efforts, the fears of those currently providing services to "at risk" youth that they will come into competition with new efforts or will be subsumed in those efforts, the demand for space for man- datory kindergarten and voluntary preschool programs, resistance from parents and others to kindergarten for 5-year-olds, long term funding for preschool and inschool programs, need for consensus in the education community, and re- sistance to State intervention in districts. Task Force on Technology The task force, chaired by Governor John H. Sununu (New Hampshire), fo- cused on the uses of technology to enhance instruction in higher order thinking CRS-13 skills (such as problem solving), coaching and tutoring, data base manipula- tion, drill and practice, instruction of handicapped children, record keeping, and staffing practices. According to the task force, a lack of consensus about the best methods of technology's utilization in education adversely affects education as a market for hardware and software developers. The report recommended a series of activities that should be encouraged in all States: (1) "All school districts will develop written plans regarding the use of various technologies, prior to purchase of any equipment." (2) "All prospective teachers should learn about effec- tive and emerging uses of technology in their respective curriculum areas." This training could be provided through higher education programs, internships in schools with model technology programs, or training by technology providers. (3) "Every university teacher education department should develop relationships with as many schools that use tech- nology as possible, to bring together education profes- sionals of all levels to share ideas on the most effective use of technology, to use outstanding district administra- tors as adjunct faculty, and to provide internships for undergraduate and graduate college students." The task force recommended steps for which State technical assistance should be provided: (1) "Help school districts and schools write informed, appropriate plans on the use of technology. Such assistance could come from the State department of edu- cation, intermediate units, universities, and outstanding school- or district-based educators." (2) "Help school districts, schools, and universities develop and establish continuous training programs on the appropriate uses of technology and ways to incorporate it into their curriculum." (3) "Share data on costs and achievement from experiments being conducted within their respective States." (4) "Aggregate purchases and establish wider markets." CRS-14 The report also recommended that States provide financial assistance for the following: (1) "Encourage appropriate local district planning for the use of technology by providing financial support to help districts purchase equipment to implement the plan." (2) "Establish and improve training programs for educators about cost-effective ways to use education technology.” The task force requested that at least 10 to 20 percent of State funding for educational technology acquisition be used for training purposes. (3) "Encourage and assist school districts that are willing to experiment with ways to restructure school environments to increase educator productivity by using various forms of educational technology." (4) "Encourage greater cooperation among the States through the creation of consortiums and other technical assistance arrangements." The task force noted that the Federal Gov- ernment could be of assistance, but should participate as a partner in the effort. (5) "Establish independent institutes for research and demonstration of technology in education, modeled on the National Science Foundation (NSF)."' These organizations, according to the report, should be independent from higher education institutions and State departments of education. (6) "Recognize each State's most creative technology—using educators.” (7) "Make technology more available for students from low- income families." A key State role according to the task force is assistance to districts with serious resource problems. Among the obstacles to these recommendations that concerned the task force were a lack of knowledge about technology uses in education, the absence of the requisite resources for acquiring and maintaining the new technology, and a lack of incentives to utilize technology in schools. In addressing the need for information on ways to use technology effectively, the task force called for a joint effort by States, educational organizations and recognized neutral organizations" to maintain a data base delineating such effective uses. The CRS-15 Department of Education's Office of Educational Research and Improvement was cited as one such organization. Task Force on School Facilities This task force, chaired by Governor Ted Schwinden (Montana) identified its issues as prfinarily those arising from a perceived need to make fuller use of educational facilities. It argued that facilities are frequently under- utilized, that year-round school calendars are associated with higher achieve- ment and less vandalism of school property, and that changing demographics poses new questions for how to use facilities (e.g., increased labor force participation by women has increased the need for day care). The task force made the following recommendations: (1) "States should focus existing 'community education’ initiatives on the shared used of facilities., Particu- lar attention should be given to groups providing day care and latchkey services.” States could provide in- centives for districts with "shared-use” of facilities. Legislation permitting leasing of vacant space and ad- dressing insurance liability problems stemming from greater use of facilities could be enacted. (2) "States should encourage school districts to make more efficient use of school buildings, including the adoption of year-round school calendars." The report suggested that approval of the State department of education might be required for new school building. (3) "States should act to restore school buildings in which maintenance needs or safety improvements have been deferred." The estimated total repair costs, according to the report, would be $25 billion, an amount perhaps necessitating cooperation and planning among Fed- eral, State and local authorities. States should develop financing mechanisms that are sensitive to facility repair needs, and also should conduct an assessment of the condi- tion of all school buildings. CRS-16 (4) "States should establish policies regarding the dispo- sition of obsolete and excess buildings, based upon long- term goals and demographics, as well as the needs of adjacent districts for building space." (5) "To provide continuing, in-depth information and tech- nical assistance, states should encourage established edu- cation organizations to develop greater expertise in this field." The report noted that few data are gathered for the nation as whole. States should take action to address this need for data. The task force acknowledged that the tradition that the school year is from September to June, and that school buildings are for the exclusive use of children would pose a strong obstacle to its recommendations. Another obsta- cle, according to the report, is funding for lengthening the school calendar and making fuller use of facilities. Task Force on College Quality College quality, according to this task force chaired by Governor John Ashcroft (Missouri), shows signs of decline--reportedly students are poorly prepared and programs, particularly in the humanities, appear to be weakening. The high failure rate of recent college graduates on State tests for teacher candidates was cited. The task force criticized accrediting agencies for failing to hold institutions accountable for student performance. With regard to student performance, more assessment was called for. The task force recommended: (1) "Governors, State legislatures, state coordinating boards, and institutional governing boards should clearly define the role and mission of each public higher education institution in their states. Governors also should encour- age the governing boards of each independent college to clearly define their missions." CRS-17 (2) "Governors, State legislatures, coordinating boards, governing boards, administrators, and faculties should re- emphasize--especially in universities that give high pri- ority to research and graduate instruction--the funda- mental importance of undergraduate instruction." (3) "Each college and university should implement syste- matic programs that use multiple measures to assess undergraduate student learning. The information gained from assessment should be used to evaluate institutional and program quality. Information about institutional and program quality also should be made available to the public.” (4) "Governors, State legislatures, and statewide coordi- nating boards should adjust funding formulas for public colleges and universities to provide incentives for im- proving undergraduate student learning, based upon the results of comprehensive assessment programs. Independent colleges and universities should be encouraged to do likewise." The task force called for state funding formulas for higher education to include a factor reward- ing institutions successfully educating their students. (5) "Governors, state legislatures, coordinating boards, and governing boards should reaffirm their strong commit- ment to access to public higher education for students from all socio-economic backgrounds.” (6) "The higher education accrediting community should require colleges and universities to collect and utilize information about undergraduate student outcome. Demonstrated levels of student learning and performance should be a consideration in granting institutional accreditation." The task force observed that the obstacles to its recommendations included the gathering and coordinating of student assessment data, and costs associated with assessing student outcomes. In addition, faculty and administrators might be concerned that educational content will be driven by tests, that disadvan- taged students would suffer, that the curriculum would be narrowed, and that research activity in colleges would be curtailed. The task force concluded that faculty and_administrators must be involved in developing college quality- related activities. CRS-18 OBSERVATIONS This concluding section provides a series of observations on Time for Results, linking the disparate task force reports and placing the entire docu- ment in the broader context of previous reform reports. It is posited below that, while Time for Results does not present the governors’ unified view of reform, there are certain common elements among the various task force re- ports. In addition, there is a discussion of some of the document's poten- tially more controversial recommendations. Finally, it is noted that, taken as a whole, Time for Results differs significantly from many of the previous reform reports. Not a Unified View Unlike nearly all of the previous school reform reports issued in the past three years, Time for Results is not a consensus document. Rather, each task force report presents its own conclusions about the condition of American edu- cation in its particular subject area and offers its own set of recommendations for action by the Nation's governors. It is important to recognize that the Nation's governors do not all endorse every recommendation presented in the document. In addition, the recommendations differ in terms of their level of specificity--some offer relatively detailed steps that governors should take; others suggest broad objectives governors should seek to attain. Common Elements Among the Task Force Reports The task force reports in Time for Results do have certain elements in common. The reports generally start from the premise that reform efforts have CRS-19 already been undertaken throughout the country and that a second stage or "wave" of reform is beginning. The second stage apparently will be concerned less with goal and standard setting and more with the organization of schooling and the participation in reform of all actors in the educational process-- administrators, teachers, and parents, among others. Many of the reports appear to have been predicated on the assumption that the States are the ultimate authority for schools, and therefore have respon- sibility for how they function. Nevertheless, the reports posit that reform strictly directed and controlled from the top will be counterproductive. Concern about demographic changes underlies many of the task force re- ports. These changes, which include increasing minority representation among school age children, will challenge the current structure of the educational system and the utilization of educational resources. The second stage of reform must, it is argued, address this challenge. Although each task force addressed a somewhat different set of issues, certain approaches for dealing with educational improvement problems are common among the reports. These include the following: (1) There is a strong need for information on various educational issues and dissemination of the information gathered. This includes evaluation and assessment data on reform actions, and on the current performance of students, teachers, and administrators. (2) The governors can encourage and maintain improvement by recognizing and rewarding the performance of administrators and teachers, among others. (3) States should provide significantly more technical assistance to local school systems. (4) Governors should identify and reward exemplary projects and programs addressing educational problems and achieving improvement. CRS-20 Controversial Recommendations Time for,Results has prompted some debate because several of its recom- mendations for gubernatorial action pose significant challenges to the tra- ditional structure of our public school systems. The recommendations attract- ing the most attention in the media and among educators are the proposals that poorly performing schools be subject to State level intervention, that parents be accorded substantially more choice in the public schools their children attend, and that schools operate on a year-long schedule. Each of these recom- mendations would require a break with tradition. States typically have not intervened to the extent recommended in the management of specific school systems. Concerns that could be raised by this recommendation include the fairness of the standards against which school systems would be judged given potentially significant differences among the kinds of students enrolled in different systems; the adequacy of resources available to address the shortcomings that might trigger the State inter- vention; and, the process for terminating State control once it is assumed. In addition, the costs of such intervention are unknown. Although parents appear to be offered a greater degree of choice in public school systems at present, some observers express concern that mandating choice in all public systems and across school district boundaries may be a prelude to a choice system involving private schools. In addition, concern centers on the effects of such plans on school desegregation, particularly given the experi- ences with "freedom of choice" plans when school systems were first required to desegregate. To many observers, these plans were intended to perpetuate seg- regation because white students chose to attend schools with other white stu- dents, and few black students challenged the status quo by attending white CRS-21 schools. 1] In addition, that experience suggests that choices might be made on the basis of non-academic factors. Some school systems have utilized year-round school calendars, but the vast majority adhere to the traditional schedule providing a substantial summer vacation. Among the potential issues raised by this recommendation are those associated with its effect on family vacation plans, the tourism industry, and, in heavily agricultural areas, on farming. Extending the school year would also raise the costs of operating school systems. DIFFERENT FROM PREVIOUS REFORM REPORTS In addition to its not being a consensus document as was discussed above, Time for Results differs in other ways from many of the earlier school reform report. Its various task forces, cumulatively, took a broader perspective of the educational system, addressing preschool and early childhood education, elementary and secondary education, as well as, higher education. This com- prehensiveness is missing from most of the previous reports. The document contains recommendations that address the conditions neces- sary for furthering and sustaining reform, e.g., data collection and dissemi- nation. The task force report on leadership and management posited that reform will take time and that certain steps should be taken to maintain public inter- est and investment in the process in the interim. Finally, in the aggregate, the reports focused on a wider spectrum of participants in school reform-- parents, students, teachers, administrators, governors, etc. LHHRAHTY ~0F pp WASHINGTON u-rsnvsnsrrv err. LOUIS - M0- 1] See, for example, Must We Bus? [by] Gary Orfield, The Brookings Institution, 1978.