June 5: Emerging Modes

Panelists

• Bernard R. Gifford, CEO, The Distributed Learning Workshop
• Theodore R. Mitchell, President, Occidental College
• Richard A. Navarro, Dean of the College of Education and Integrative Studies, (CEIS), California State Polytechnic University
• John Vasconcellos, State Senator
• Mary Tobias Weaver, State Director of Adult Education, California Department of Education

Discussion Questions

1. What is your vision of how technology could be used to facilitate student achievement at all levels, pre-kindergarten through postsecondary?

   • What should the role of the state be in achieving this vision?
   • What are the pros and cons of public-private collaboration in this area?

2. What role should the state play in non-traditional forms of education? For example, should the state:

   • decide which models should be used and under what circumstances?
   • set accountability standards school districts must meet, when they decide to use such models?
   • encourage and publicize research regarding which models are effective or ineffective in which situations?
   • encourage use of models that have demonstrated effectiveness?

3. Should students be able to "test out" of requirements for degree or certificate programs?
   What role should colleges and universities play in this area? For example, should they:

   • be in the business of certifying sets of skills no matter whether those skills were acquired formally or informally?
   • allow students to test into certification programs, to make entry into programs more open?
   • follow standards set by the State or by private industry, or determine their own standards?

Background for the Discussion

1. The draft Plan mentions technology throughout as important to quality education, but recommendations in the draft Plan cover only two specific areas. Recommendation 26 suggests support for "ongoing professional development of all staff in technology applications, to ensure they have the skills to help students develop the technology skills and knowledge needed for lifelong achievement and success." Recommendation 53 says "The State should take the lead in developing educational technology partnerships that include the public, private, non-profit, and for-profit sectors" and comments that it should "actively encourage collaboration between public educational institutions and private employers, particularly in the area of technology." In addition, a Commission on Technology in Learning is developing a state Technology Master Plan with recommendations for providing access to technology for K-12 students and teachers.

2. Many are interested in experimenting with non-traditional forms of educational programs and delivery, such as charter schools, small schools, magnet schools, distributed learning/distance education, home schooling, and others.

3. The draft Master Plan suggests that there should be multiple methods for gauging student achievement. For example, testing knowledge and skills prior to and following instruction can determine the degree of student achievement relative to what has been presented. Currently, there are many certification programs that allow students to gain specific sets of skills to meet their personal and professional goals. However, prospective students may already have acquired some or all of these skills outside the formal education system. One possibility is that tests could be developed to identify what is already known, so that certification could be awarded when the missing skills have been acquired.

Related Issues

The topics under Emerging Modes are related to several cross-cutting issues; the links below lead to pages on this site that give more information in selected areas.

• Equity
• Technology
• Professional Personnel

Working Group Report and Recommendations

Emerging Modes of Delivery, Certification and Planning were addressed by one of the Working Groups convened by the Joint Committee to develop a Master Plan for Education.

Links

• Report of the Working Group: searchable copy of the report, with recommendations.
• Analysis by Joint Committee Staff: summarizes Working Group recommendations, mentions relationships to reports of other committees, and gives comments including pending questions raised by the recommendations.
• Public Testimony
  • California School Boards Association
  • California Teachers Association

Results

• New technologies for improved educational delivery.
• Enhanced delivery of adult education.
• Data systems and better tools for anticipating and modeling change.

Goals Addressed

The Group organized its work around the charge of the Joint Committee to identify:

• Ways emerging information technologies can facilitate more efficient and effective distribution of education services, and more cost-effective facility use.
• Best teaching and learning practices from emerging organizational forms, such as charter schools and community partnerships, and to explore how these practices can best be replicated.
• Methods for certifying learner competencies - highly responsive to learner needs and permitting customization of student educational plans to help achieve educational goals.
• Long-term remedies for ongoing systems planning, for modeling reform alternatives, and for short and long range forecasting of educational change.
• Identifying ways to better coordinate the administration and delivery of noncredit and adult education.

The Group further adopted overarching principles it believed should be applied to efforts to transform California's education system: (1) equity and access, (2) flexibility to meet learner needs, (3) quality and accountability, and (4) coordination, cooperation and planning for a seamless delivery system.