A researcher's view of the Master Plan, K-U

A researcher's view on the Master Plan, K-U

About the Education master plan: Too many good ideas, too many problems, and not sufficient funding.

Here are six closing points and a discusion on the States Master Plan, K-12

1) The Master Plan should be continuos, repeating each 5 years, with years ending with a 5 or "0"

2) The social Promotion issue must be addressed, by tracking the student specific skills and textbook levels, K- community college. Students in K-12 should be advanced by both attendance, and textbook level certification SEPARATELY with the final "TEXTBOOK LEVEL" certification stamped on the K-12 diploma.

3) Research suggests that the first several years sets the tone for student success or failure. The two years kindergarten or not allowing students to start academics until age of seven seem like reasonable solutions to address this dilema

4) For students desiring to improve this textbook level certification the adult school and CC would have similar certifications.  However to accomplish this in the adult school and CC, the funding must be returned to the 1970 levels so that there are the contract instructors to complete this certification       process.

5) Using the  GI bill example, the increased taxes paid by the better educated public will more than pay for the additional funding expenses required to implement this certification process, K- CC. The adult and CC are the most effective learning/$ institutions in any state.

6) This Master Plan idea is so important to all aspects of society. However, very little has been said about this Master Plan idea and its importance to everyone in the medias.  This concept and importance must be reported more completely to the public- for their interest, input and support- the tax-payers should know what they are paying for and why, This gives them an opportunity to do both!  

Here are more details of these six ideas on the Master Plan on Education K-U..

1) Since the K-U Master Plan idea is so important, but  covers so many ideas, levels, technology and people, why not make the plan on ongoing evaluation every five years with years ending with a five or zero. This five years replication and analysis gives every one in education and the public  the time to plan for the next Master Plan. In addition, this time frame gives us the opportunity to evaluate from the last plan what worked effectively  and what did not - and why. With the new communication link of the Internet and e-mail, each of us now has a large,  new contact system to interact with others having similar concerns. This five year period allows these communication links to develop and expand. Then educators will look forward to the next plan and will have the time to organize their people to best utilize the best ideas most suited to their educational needs. Of most importance is the development of model programs, which can be discussed and replicated by others, where appropriate. As with this master plan, specific industries and foundations  will willingly fund the next  master plan, as so many new ideas are generated, which need the help of industry and foundations to develop, implement and evaluate.  This five year replication is  a "win-win" concept that everyone should support and lessons the need to address all the educational issues at this time.  This incremental, long term approach seems very logical and the most effective method to give everyone a voice in the California Master Plan, K-U. 

2) Educational research, NAEP and other-which I can supply if desired, suggests that the only real ACADEMIC   issue is social promotion K-U, i.e. advancing the student to the next academic level based upon demonstrated achievement. The only educators who can control "social promotion" LEGALLY is the teacher, so the only real solution is to develop for the teachers the "tools" to address this social promotion issue more effectively.  The State could provide the district, school,  class room teacher, and parent with the specific printout type information on the student performance in each discipline and academic level. In other words there must be a master file on student performance documented to define the specific competency level of the student. This should be done for grades K-12, ADULT, AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE.  Therefore student performance becomes important for all students. To accomplish this, all that is needed is to advance the student by textbook level achievement, INDEPENDENT of age- just as colleges have been doing for centuries. Currently students in K-12 know that they will be promoted to the next level regardless of their performance.  There is nothing wrong with this type of K-12 student thinking! Student should be promoted to the next level by ATTENDANCE, BUT SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO ADVANCE BY ACHIEVEMENT BY TEXTBOOK LEVEL PERFORMANCE.  In other words, give the student a choice to advance by achievement beginning in first grade.  Then stamp on the student's diploma what academic level achieved. Since the low performing student and graduate  still has the OPTION to attend the adult school or CC to advance this textbook level achievement standard, there is no stigma about not advancing in K-12.  This just gives the student the CHOICE to advance by achievement.  Industry would then only need to ask the student  what textbook level did you achieve. This intustry interaction will be the driving force to make this process work.

Finally, since this testing process is only one form of this evaluation process to the next textbook level, the individual teacher needs other evaluation processes to meet this textbook level advancement need. 

3) If you examine research OR discuss student performance with experienced K-3 instructors, student success even at the college level relates very much to student readiness in elementary school. NAEP research clearly suggests that by 4th grade(or even possibly by first grade) student college success can be fairly well predicted from elementary student success. The current approach to meet this elementary success  seems to be on early, pre-school-education programs.  However, decades of early education USA  research- that I have seen- suggests that this emphasis on early education LONG TERM  benefit seems very inconclusive and a better and more effective approach is needed.

Two approaches are the two year kindergarten or do not allow students to start academics until age o0f 7, as does Switzerland and several Scandianian countries do. 

4) Since the adult schools and the Community colleges are an important link to this certification process, the funding for the both the adult school and the community colleges would have to be returned to their 1970 levels.  This certification to the adult-CC levels will require  the funding/student in the community college to be double and   funding for the adult school to triple.

5) Why implementation of  this proposal may cost the State taxpayers  nothing   Since each person that moves from a $10,000 taxable income to $40,000 will pay more than $160,000 in increased Federal and State taxes over a 30 year working lifetime,  the investment will payoff big time for everyone, including the taxpayers. This additional  tax difference does not include sales, property and other taxes. In addition, the negatives such as crime, drugs use, high teen pregnancy rates, etc.  all relate inversely to  education attainment and income. Question:   Can we afford NOT to educate students?

6) This Master Plan idea is so important to all aspects of society. However, very little has been said about this Master Plan idea and its importance to everyone ion the various medias.  This concept and importance must be reported more completely to the public- for their interest, input and support- the tax-payers should know what they are paying for and why, This gives them an opportunity to do both!