1 / 7

HOW CAN STATE POLICY IMPROVE THE INSTRUCTIONAL CORE?

HOW CAN STATE POLICY IMPROVE THE INSTRUCTIONAL CORE?. Richard F. Elmore Harvard University Education Commission of the States National Forum on Educational Policy Nashville, TN July 2009. THE INSTRUCTIONAL CORE.

Anita
Download Presentation

HOW CAN STATE POLICY IMPROVE THE INSTRUCTIONAL CORE?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. HOW CAN STATE POLICY IMPROVE THE INSTRUCTIONAL CORE? Richard F. Elmore Harvard University Education Commission of the States National Forum on Educational Policy Nashville, TN July 2009

  2. THE INSTRUCTIONAL CORE • Principle #1: Increases in student learning occur only as a consequence of improvements in the level of content, teachers’ knowledge and skill, and student engagement. • Principle #2: If you change one element of the instructional core, you have to change the other two. • Principle #3: If you can’t see it in the core, it’s not there. • Principle #4: Task predicts performance. • Principle #5: The real accountability system is in the tasks that students are asked to do. • Principle #6: We learn to do the work by doing the work. • Principle #7: Description before analysis, analysis before prediction, prediction before evaluation. CONTENT STUDENT TEACHER TASK PREDICTS PEFORMANCE

  3. IMPROVEMENT PROCESSES [C] [A] P/Q [B] T SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT

  4. A WELL-DESIGNED IMPROVEMENT SYSTEM • High-level performance targets, benchmarked to international standards • 360-degree assessments of quality and learning • Content standards keyed to “inflection points” in content areas • Market-based support systems • School-site planning as a basis for external accountability • Preferred provider arrangements for per-service training • Focused intervention on “clearing cases” • Model curricula and lesson support at the instructional unit level

  5. PROBLEMS WITH EXISTING ACCOUNTABLITY SYSTEM • No empirical basis for existing performance requirements • The system produces more cases than it can clear • Over-investment in testing and sanctions, underinvestment in human resources • Over-emphasis on summative, under-emphasis on formative assessment • Stakes borne by students, not adults • Clutter, clutter, clutter, clutter

  6. THE WAY FORWARD-- STATES • Focus on infrastructure, comparative advantage, NOT regulatory enforcement • Invest ONLY in those activities where the state has a clear comparative advantage, eliminate the rest • Infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure– go to Australia and Canada, do not pass go • Eliminate all vestiges of monopoly on preparation of teachers and administrators • Develop preferred provider models for districts to use in hiring practitioners • Guidance: curriculum units, formative assessments, 360 evaluation models, international benchmarking

  7. QUESTIONS ABOUT THE STATE ROLE • IS THERE A “STATE” ROLE, GIVEN THE REGULATORY LOAD OF NCLB? • WHAT IS THE CONDITION OF STATE INFRASTRCTURE TO SUPPORT SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT? • CAN EXISTING INSTITUTIONS RESPOND TO THE DEMAND FOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT SUPPORT? • IS THERE A POLITICAL CREDIT IN RE-ORIENTING THE STATE ROLE? • IS THERE A WAY TO LIMIT REGULATORY OVERLOAD AT THE SCHOOL LEVEL?

More Related