Blog RSS Updates
Twitter
Facebook
|
|||||||||||
<< Back to Ask the Expert Home
Building Capacity for High School Improvement at the State, District and School Level
Question 3: Working toward state policy alignment in support of high school transformation and elevating the value of the high school diploma has proven to be a difficult challenge for most states. What suggestions do you have for developing an approach which will build a cohesive policy framework in support of systemic school redesign for states? |
In my opinion, the process of aligning state policy to coincide with the goals of any state's secondary school redesign model, is the most complex and difficult step in leading and supporting the transformation of its high schools with a focus on student learning. Through an analysis of several states' current policy frameworks and discussions with SEA (State Education Agency) leaders and State Board Members relative to systemic high school reform, there is an indication that in many instances, policy misalignment may cause confusion in the LEAs and misunderstanding of state expectations for schools and what is required of students in terms of what they need to know and are able to do upon graduation. Though the policy coherence issue is not the fault of any one particular factor, many root causes are evident.
The most common reason for lack of policy alignment around high schools is the simple fact that "the state vision" for high school graduates and schools has evolved over time and has unfolded in stages. Different policy leaders have influenced the policy development such as legislatures, Governors, State Boards and Chiefs, leading to variability in both emphasis and philosophy. The effect of this multi-staged process often times conflicts with policy expectations and produces confusion for LEAs.
A second reason for policy misalignment is the absence of a clear vision and model for secondary school transformation at the state level. In the age where the state role for ensuring equal access and opportunity in terms of quality educational experiences intended to produce a much more even set of expectations for high school graduates, some states have been slow to clarify what those uniform statewide expectations are for all students. As in the case of policy development, the process for achieving design clarity requires a rigorous public engagement process which cannot and should not be avoided.
In other cases, policy expectations for high schools are either vague or so subsumed in other policies, that schools and LEAs are confused and actually "read" the policies to mean different things. Likewise, some states have not been able to achieve "policy integration" and have disconnected policy provisionswherein current regulations and statutes actually have conflicting messages. For example a state/federal accountability system may not be in one accord with its secondary school redesign provisions. Another example of this would be where the standards and assessment work of an SEA does not interface with the emerging philosophy of how students best manifest their learning in terms of assessments.
A sequence for states to follow in an effort to achieve a more cohesive policy framework addressing secondary school transformation would be as follows:
- Engage in an internal and external set of discussions with all key stakeholders to determine if there is clarity in a state's expectations for graduates and its "diploma system.”
- Simultaneously convene a team or workgroup to review ALL regulations, statutes and laws (or executive orders) which impact on secondary schools. Build a matrix or "map" of what that framework indicates in terms of expectations for schools and high school graduates.
- Use a gap analysis process to determine if there is congruence between the intended design/model for high school transformation and expectations for students (diploma) and what the policy matrix indicates.
- In the case where "old" or inconsistent policies exist which do not support the current model or philosophy, undertake a protocol for revision and precision.
- In the cases where there is lack of emphasis or support in the policy structure, use the appropriate process for developing the needed policy.
- Undertake a simultaneous process for matching policy "mandates" with both fiscal and human resources to ensure capacity and sustainability at both the SEA and LEA levels.
The National Association of State School Boards (NASBE) has currently developed a State Education Policies Review Worksheet and a High School Leadership Policy Self Assessment Tool in conjunction with the Council of Chief State School Officers, to help guide state policy makers in their policy work relative to secondary school transformation. While there are hundreds of valid ideas and strategies based on best practices and research for schools to draw from, achieving statewide systemic secondary school redesign is another entirely different matter. Getting to public policy agreement around secondary school transformation is also a civil rights issue when it comes to the state's responsibility of ensuring that all students have equal opportunity under the law. While LEAs may vary in their implementation strategies to achieve successful results, the ultimate responsibility lies with states to ensure the same expectations for all kids. In the case of low and under-performing secondary schools, it is in all likelihood the framework that will address the unevenness of implementation and resource allocation in the places that have already proven to lack the capacity to improve their high schools in any significant way. While public policy should reflect political and social contextual realities of the states, expectations set forth by educators and public officials should be transparent and understandable to all and at the same time reflect a comprehensive system of standards, supports and accountability measures.
The Council of Chief State School Officers
www.ccsso.org
The National Association of State Board Educators
www.nasbe.org
|
||||
