RE: Wow, what a great first day!!

Re Introductions
Topic: Student Learning( addition to an earlier posting)

I taught at Calexico High School math and Chemistry (1965-68); Substitute taught various junior and senior high schools 1972-73; Santana HS 1985; taught at all 7 San Diego CC either  math, physical science, or chemistry; Adult School 6 years- the Navy BOOST Program and in a special program with the Navy currently- a combined math-chemistry program; and SDSU academic skills, 1984-86; In addition  I have completed pre/post learning research at all of these levels and have done some longitudinal placement studies with SDSU chemistry over a 30 year period, 1972 to current. 

State Involvement: 1)Received a California Innovative CC Grant sponsored by John Vasconcellos(1978). This grant allowed ECC(part of SDCC) and me(software developed by Dr. LeRoy Lafferty, SDSU chemistry), the optical -reader computer technology for micro computer printouts on student competency in the class room. In other words,  what the K-12 system does now with it?s SAT -9 tests, ECC had in the classroom 20 years earlier!  I shared this technology and concept with Dr. Joseph Watson V, Chancellor at UCSD in 1978.  I believe some of this research was used in the development of the four level readiness math placement exams developed in the early 1980's by the UC system - and these exams are in current use throughout the California system at the K-12, CC, and university levels. However, this testing system is not truly diagnostic -prescriptive and not nearly as effective as this new test and norms are. This technology coupled  with a new type test developed, implemented at SDSU chemistry department and other innovations(16 innovations identifed/evaluated to date)   allows the instructor the ability to ?see, measure , monitor and predict student and class competency, just as an x-ray ?sees? a bone.  This new kind of test has five unique features- 1) diagnostic- prescriptive, 2) norm reference to the SAT(via Navy BOOST research) and grade equivalents(lower level exams); 3) keyed to national standards via a new type of textbook that is incremental and comprehensive; 4) referenced to college chemistry success via a ?College Expectancy Standard?(CES) given and evaluated 11 times at SDSU chemistry. This CES gives a reference points for entering students that defines what their test score would mean in terms of SDSU success. Since the test is diagnostic-prescriptive, students via academic program, textbook , or computer aided instruction can identify deficiencies and correct them and improves their success in college level courses.   This CES was also given and evaluated at four other San Diego CC with approximately similar,  equivalent norms resulting. 5) The next correlation(which I?m still working on) is to correlate this diagnostic-prescriptive tests to the Service ASVAB exams so that a student increase their opportunity in service related programs.  This service model, if fully implemented could solve the service?s quota system and provide them with better qualified people for their high expectance programs i.e.- nuclear power, medical tech programs, etc.- which positions are currently more difficult to fill.   

2) Contacted Steve Baldwin the 77th District State Assembly in the late 1980s or early 1990s. At the time he was chair of the education committee, I believe. He formally filed this research, in the State Assembly records.

3) Made a formal Presentation the CSU Board of Trustees 9/21/19/95 on the lack of Standards in the K-12 system.

4) Letter from Delaine Eastin?s Office dated 2/6/1996 thanking me for input on Evaluation ideas.

5) A series of 8 letters with much supporting research  sent to Ellen Moratti?s California K-12 Standards       Committee covering the dates 11/19/96 to 4/11/97. I may have given the committee the idea on how to correlate norm reference exams and a state competency exams, as I have been using this technique for 30 years. This process  allows a person to develop norms from diagnostic-prescriptive tests, so that a text can now be both norm reference and diagnostic-prescriptive.      

6)  Letter(March 12, 1999) from Delaine Eastin?s Office  thanking for suggestions for the STAR evaluation      model 

7) Two meeting with Dede Alpert, both at Mesa CC, one dated 10/30/2000 and the other after this date. My concern at both meetings was how both the California adult and CC systems funding has been depleted by inflation( i.e 300% change in inflation and 100% increase in funding) and how this result has negatively affected student achievement. For example, the funding for the CC was 1.2 times the K-12 system in the early 1970s and is now less than 0.45 the K-12 system. The result of this reduced funding is that adjunct instructors now make up 2/3 of the instructors. Adjunct instructors just teach and have no part in program development and generally teach all the entrance level classes. Therefore, the CC can not develop the ACADEMIC PROGRAMS to meet the needs of the entering students, who have less skills and are generally ETHNIC MINORITY. The research suggests that the adult schools and CC could possibly are the ?tools? to effectively address  the ?affirmative action? issue- if the funding and evaluation system was in place. At the CC adult school the situation is much worse as the funding is 1/4 the K-12 level and 90% of the instructors are part time. The result: In SDCCD with 50,000 adult students there are NO contract math or science instructors( since 1982) and no strong  academic programs nor any formal math and science classes- there is simple no money for instructors- but little learning as well. In addition possibly 80-90% of the adult school enrollment is ethnic minority. Since there is no formal outside evaluation of either the adult school or CC, no one ?sees? or ?cares to action? about this problem and trend. What is needed to address this problem effectively  are two changes: 1) increased funding AND 2) an outside formal evaluation process for  both systems!   It is interesting and significant that the increased taxes paid by better educated people and more productive workers will more than pay for the increased funding just as the GI Bill did after WW2.