ML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> en through postsecondary. Moderators Helie and Ford introduced today's panelists and encouraged participants to explore the background to the Master Plan.

Panelist Alpert noted that the draft Plan represents the work of research across the country, close to 300 people informed the Joint Committee, and the current dialogue, town meetings and e-testimony are being considered for inclusion in the final plan. Panelist Shafer invited participants to get involved. She noted that upcoming legislative hearings and regional town hall meetings scheduled for public are listed on the Joint Committee website.

Participants represented a broad range of experience and interests: students and graduates of California's public education system, parents and grandparents, teachers and professors, and other education professionals. They cited a variety of reasons for participating such as the importance of life-long learning, recognizing students as unique individuals with specific needs and learning styles, and the importance of information competency. Some expressed concerns about deteriorating student outcome, reduced technical/vocational education, equitable funding of schools, use/misuse of standardized testing as a tool for accountability, and the low number of historically-excluded individuals who are eligible to apply to four year institutions.

Note: Postings that appeared on the Web site by 8:00 PM Pacific time are included in today's summary.

  1. What do you hope a Master Plan will mean for California education (pre-kindergarten-postsecondary)?

    It was noted that the draft Plan represents the work of research across the country, close to 300 people informed the Joint Committee, and the current dialogue, town meetings and e-testimony are being considered for inclusion in the final plan.

    Participants shared a great many hopes for the Master Plan. They would like to see a Master Plan that:

    One participant asked what a system would look like if teachers' and students' needs weren't seen as mutually exclusive. Could we have a system wherein a teacher's needs for professional growth and financial reward were seen in concert with a child's needs for a safe, caring, and challenging learning environment?

  2. How much influence can a state-level Master Plan have on education in classrooms across the state? There has been a postsecondary education plan since 1960. Has it made a real difference? In what ways? Can a Master Plan create a more "aligned" or "cohesive" education system, in which the parts work in a coordinated way?

  3. The draft Plan talks about accountability as an essential component to achieving the vision of a cohesive education system. What does accountability mean in such a complex system? Can a Master Plan create real accountability, so that someone is responsible when student achievement doesn't happen?

  4. After the Master Plan is written, how much influence will the public have on the process of putting it into effect?

While this summary contains the highlights from participants' comments, far more comprehensive information may be found in the individual postings.

Background summaries, daily topics, questions and background information are available from the Agenda page.

Tuesday, June 4th will focus on Student Learning.

I welcome your comments on the summaries.

Sally Hedman
Reporter

Agenda Pages
Background Student Learning Emerging Modes
Personnel Development Workforce Preparation School Readiness
Facilities & Finance Governance Wrap-up