DOCSLIB.ORG

IMPLEMENTING 15 ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS for HIGH QUALITY: a STATE and LOCAL POLICY SCAN July 29, 2016

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
IMPLEMENTING 15 ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS for HIGH QUALITY: a STATE and LOCAL POLICY SCAN July 29, 2016 IMPLEMENTING 15 ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS FOR HIGH QUALITY: A STATE AND LOCAL POLICY SCAN July 29, 2016 W. Steven Barnett, G.G. Weisenfeld, Kirsty Brown, Jim Squires, and Michelle Horowitz This report was supported with funding provided by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions in this report are solely those of the authors. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction In this report we explore the extent to which states (and several large cities) are positioned to provide high quality preschool education on a large scale. States and cities that are already doing so or that could do so with modest improvements offer opportunities for advocacy to advance access to high quality early education as well as for rigorous research on the outcomes of these programs. Research in such states and cities also could help to identify with more specificity the policies and conditions associated with strong educational outcomes for children. The framework for our assessment of state capacity consists of “15 essential elements” of high-quality pre-K identified by Jim Minervino based on a research review and case studies.1 Minervino concluded that all of these elements must be present to a considerable extent for high quality pre-K to be implemented at scale. From this perspective, each element should not be expected to contribute independently to pre-K effectiveness. We agree. However, we believe that our assessments of the extent to which each element is present in each state will be useful to those concerned with pre-K whether or not they fully agree with this perspective. We assessed 43 states, D.C. and three other large cities with established pre-kindergarten programs. Background: Public Programs and a Focus on Quality In the past 15 years, public spending on preschool programs for children ages 3 and 4 has increased substantially, particularly funding by state and local government. From 2000 to 2013, enrollment in Head Start at ages 3-5 grew modestly, despite population growth.2 Head Start enrollment at ages 3 and 4 remains around 10 percent of the population.3 Over the same period of time, enrollment in state funded pre-K more than doubled, with the greatest growth in enrollment at age 4. From 2002 to 2014, state pre-K enrollment rose from 14 percent to 29 percent of the population at age four and from 3 percent to 4 percent at age three.4 At a minimum, roughly 40 percent of 4-year-olds and 12 percent of 3-year olds now attend public programs. As some school districts and municipalities serve additional children not counted in state and federal programs total public enrollment is somewhat higher. Remarkably, despite the growth in public spending and enrollment, the percentage of children enrolled in a preschool at ages three and four has changed little since 2000, according to the Current Population Survey (CPS).5 Just less than 70 percent of 4-year-olds and a bit more than 40 percent of 3-year-olds attend some kind of preschool program regularly. Although Head Start and most state preschool programs target children in poverty, access to preschool education remains remarkably unequal even at age four where the most public support is available as can be seen in Table 1, below. 1 Table 1. Preschool enrollment (public and private) at age 4 by socioeconomic status (SES).6 Lowest 4th Quintile 3rd Quintile 2nd Quintile Top Quintile Quintile 50% 59% 68% 77% 83% One implication of these numbers is that serious inequality in access has persisted in the face of the expansion of public programs in recent years even though most public programs target lower-income families. This means that there is still a large job to be done with respect to increasing access, especially for the most disadvantaged children. The quality of these programs also remains a concern. The evidence is strong that only high quality preschool programs produce large and lasting gains in child development including academic success.7 Unfortunately, the extent to which quality has increased is unclear. Too many public programs appear to raise quality only modestly, and the quality of public programs is highly variable.8 The evidence on the quantity and quality of programs raises serious questions about public investments in preschool education, including state-funded pre-K. If a major goal is to enhance children’s learning and development in ways that increase later success in school and life, particularly for children from lower-income families, then substantial change is required.9 For preschool to have the desired impacts, public policy will have to better achieve two goals. The first is to provide more widespread and equitable access. The second is to ensure that this access is to high-quality programs. Our report seeks to identify the states and localities currently best positioned to attain these two goals and for each state the barriers and opportunities to attain those goals. Methodology Our process began by selecting states and a few cities for review. We excluded seven states that do not fund a state preschool program. We selected a few major cities that have implemented large-scale public programs that seek to provide high-quality preschool independent of their state’s programs for some time, San Antonio, Denver, and San Francisco. 10 A comprehensive review of all cities is not feasible given the number of cities, and we concluded that it would be too difficult to arrive at judgments about cities that have only recently developed programs. We excluded two major cities that have just begun major expansions--New York and Seattle--as these programs are too new to assess. In total we included 43 states, the District of Columbia, and three cities (listed in Table 2). The review evaluated the extent to which each state- or city-funded preschool program satisfied 15 “essential elements” found to characterize high-quality public preschool programs. In this executive summary, we list all 15 elements and the criteria we used to evaluate state implementation of each element as well as summarizing our findings. For each of the elements we made a judgment as to whether the criteria were fully met, partially met, or not met. Some elements were easily judged based on simple, clear 2 evidence that was readily available--for example, whether at least two adults must be present in a classroom. Others required difficult inferences based on complex evidence with considerable unknowns. In a few instances, we found that we could not determine with any confidence whether the criteria were met. Our summary of results necessarily presents less information and is less nuanced than the report’s full narrative. The full report describes the basis for our findings in individual reports for each state and city. These more detailed descriptions offer additional insights into the extent to which each element is present in a state or a city and, by inference, what may be necessary for that to change. For many states with multiple programs supporting public pre-K, each program was rated separately on a subset of the 15 essential elements within the state’s report: teacher requirements; class size and ration; hours/dosage; two adults in the room; special education and dual language support; child assessment; data driven decision making; and professional development. For each state (or program within a state) the report presents an overview of the state, a table listing our conclusions regarding each element, and the evidence that was the basis for our judgment on each element. The 15 elements are organized into three sections. The first is the “enabling environment” which includes two elements that were among the most difficult to assess: political will and the capacity of preschool’s administering agency to provide vision and strong leadership. The second is “rigorous, articulated early learning policies,” and it has eight elements, most of which were relatively straightforward to judge. The third is “strong program practices” and contains 5 elements. This last group of elements was the most difficult to assess, as they are rated based on actual implementation, and this requires information that is not always available. Each of the 15 essential elements is listed below. Enabling environment 1. Political will including support from political leadership and, more rarely, judicial mandates 2. A compelling vision and strong leadership from early learning leaders Rigorous, articulated, early learning policies 3. Well-educated (BA & ECE expertise) and well-compensated teachers (K-12 pay parity) 4. Adult-child ratio of at least 1:11 5. At least a full school day is provided to ensure adequate dosage 6. Two (or more) adult teaching staff in each classroom 7. Appropriate early learning standards for preschoolers 8. Effective curriculum that has systemic support 9. Strong supports for education of special needs children in inclusive settings 10. Strong supports for dual language learners Strong Program Practices 11. High quality teaching 12. Child assessments that are appropriate and used to inform instruction 3 13. Data-driven decision-making and independent evaluation 14. Professional development (PD) to improve individual teacher performance 15. Integrated systems of standards, curriculum, assessment, PD, and evaluation To evaluate the extent to which each state (or city)10 program had each of the 15 essential elements we reviewed public documents including, but not limited to, official information posted on the websites of state and local government. In addition, we interviewed key informants in each state. In many of the states, leaders in state agencies provided extensive assistance and clarification of our interpretations. Ultimately, the authors alone are responsible for all judgments in this report. Readers are advised to keep in mind that our assessments refer to a particular point in time.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Texas Teaching Commission Report: Recommendations for the Next
    2012 TEXAS TEACHING COMMISSION Recommendations for the Next Generation of Teaching Policy in Texas TABLE OF CONTENTS Letter From Chairman Moses And Vice-Chairman Nelson ......................................2 Texas Teaching Commission Members ....................3 Introduction Addressing Our Future And The Changing Nature Of Teaching In Texas ..........4 – 5 Organization Of The Report .....................................6 Teaching Continuum Recommendations Commission’s Foundational Elements And Recommendations .....................................7 – 9 Setting The Course For Great Teachers Section 1: Recruitment And Preparation ..10 – 14 Section 2: Hiring ........................................15 – 17 Supporting Professionals In Their Practice Section 3: Inducting ..................................18 – 20 Section 4: Evaluating .................................21 – 31 Section 5: Developing ...............................31 – 34 Cultivating Careers Section 6: Strategic Compensation ...........35 – 38 Section 7: Retention ..................................38 – 40 Aligning The Teaching Continuum .................41 – 42 Endnotes ...............................................................43 Appendix: Resources/Bibliography ................44 – 46 LETTER FROM CHAIRMAN MOSES AND VICE-CHAIRMAN NELSON As former Commissioners of Education, we have seen firsthand the power of great teaching and its impact on a child’s life. We are fortunate in Texas to have a dedicated group of over 300,000 individuals who have answered the call to become
    [Show full text]
  • Supporters of the GREAT Teachers and Principles Act
    Supporters of the GREAT Teachers and Principles Act • NewSchools Venture Fund • Kate Gagnon, Editor, Jossey-Bass • Chaouki Abdallah, Provost, University of New • Carlos A. Garcia, Superintendent, San Mexico Francisco Unified School District • Academy for Urban School Leadership • Deborah Gist, Commissioner, Rhode Island • Achievement First Department of Elementary and Secondary • Cami Anderson, Superintendent, Newark Public Education Schools • Jason Glass, State Director & Chief Learner, • Aspire Public Schools Iowa Department of Education • Baltimore City Public Schools • Peter C. Gorman, former Superintendent, • Black Alliance for Educational Options Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools • Boston Plan for Excellence • Green Dot Public Schools • Boston Teacher Residency • Jane Hannaway, Director, Education Policy • Brooke Charter Schools Center, The Urban Institute • Business Roundtable • Michael E. Hansen, Superintendent, Fresno Unified School District • Brook Byers, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers • Phyllis Hudecki, Secretary of Education for the • Capital Teaching Residency State of Oklahoma • Pamela S. Carroll, Dean, College of Education, Kevin Huffman, Commissioner, Tennessee Oklahoma State University • Department of Education • Center for American Progress Action Fund • IDEA Public Schools • Chalkboard Project • Johns Hopkins School of Education • Charter School Growth Fund • Marcus P. Johnson, Superintendent, Sanger • Chiefs for Change Unified School District • Citizen Schools • Jason Kamras, Chief, Office of Human Capital, • Civic Builders District of Columbia Public Schools • ConnCAN: Connecticut Coalition for • Joel Klein, former Chancellor, New York City Achievement Now public schools; senior advisor, News • DC Prep Public Charter School Corporation • John Deasy, Superintendent, Los Angeles • Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP) Unified School District • Leadership Public Schools • Democrats for Education Reform • Mastery Public Schools • DonorsChoose.org • MATCH Charter Public High School • Charlene Drew Jarvis, Senior Advisor, Jarvis Co.
    [Show full text]
  • The Lift Every Voice and Lead Toolkit: a Community Leader's Advocacy
    THE LIFT EVERY VOICE AND LEAD TOOLKIT: A Community Leader’s Advocacy Resource for K-12 Education UNCF Frederick D. Patterson Research Institute THE LIFT EVERY VOICE AND LEAD TOOLKIT: A Community Leader’s Advocacy Resource for K-12 Education Author: Meredith B.L. Anderson, Ph.D. Acknowledgments The author would like to thank Sekou Biddle, Naomi Shelton, Charles Thompson III, Krysten Reid, Kameelah Shaheed-Diallo, Jonathan Atkins, Ashley Miller, Brittany Harris and Ashley Kearny who provided great feedback on previous drafts and outlines. Bloomberg Philanthropies (www.bloomberg.org) generously funded the research for this brief. Suggested citation: Anderson, M.B.L. (2017). The Lift Every Voice and Lead Toolkit: A Community Leader’s Advocacy Resource for K-12 Education. Washington, D.C: Frederick D. Patterson Research Institute, UNCF. © 2017, UNCF. All rights reserved. Table of Contents Introduction ...................................................................3 Education Talking Points and Facts .............................5 10 Tips for Community Engagement and Advocacy ......8 Advocacy in Action ......................................................11 Sample Template for Writing an Elected Official ......13 Conclusion ...................................................................14 Appendix ......................................................................15 Quick Guide: K-12 Advocacy Checklist ......................17 Endnotes ......................................................................18 UNCF is elevating awareness
    [Show full text]
  • Who's Who in a Growing Education Reform Movement
    who’s who in a growing education reform movement who’s who in a growing education reform movement education reform a growing in who who’s who’s who in a growing education reform movement who’s who in a growing education reform movement education reform a growing in who who’s It’s no coincidence that as reform organizations proliferate the movement accelerates: the mission of such organizations is to build and mobilize a constituency for change. who’s who in a growing education reform movement education reform a growing in who who’s 3 History of the Advocacy Sector A CIVIC VOICE IN THE STATEHOUSE Prichard’s founders recognized that a … constituency made up of leading citizens … was essential to sustain any commitment to reform over time. A Nation At Risk who’s who in a growing education reform movement education reform a growing in who who’s 4 THE NEXT GENERATION EMERGES They brought fresh thinking to the reform movement, adopting strategies such as voter engagement and mobilizations tactics employed by … more sophisticated advocacy sectors. A MOVEMENT TAKES HOLD who’s who in a growing education reform movement education reform a growing in who who’s 5 who’s who in a growing education reform movement education reform a growing in who who’s 6 In states where we are seeing the biggest wins, a coalition of groups has been a crucial factor.
    [Show full text]
  • 2011 Annual Report
    2011 ANNUAL REPORT OUR MISSION IS TO ENSURE THAT ALL CHILDREN, REGARDLESS OF THEIR BACKGROUND, Dear Friend, GRADUATE FROM HIGH SCHOOL PREPARED FOR, AND WITH ACCESS TO, A COLLEGE EDUCATION. It has been an exciting year for Stand. With the launch of new Stand affiliates in Texas and Indiana, we are reaching more To make that happen, students than ever before. We have also accelerated our impact by helping to enact or implement legislation to improve staff and volunteers of Stand for Children teacher effectiveness in seven of our ten* state affiliates. Leadership Center, a 501(c)(3) public charity, and Stand for Children, Inc., We are particularly inspired by Stand’s renewed focus on helping students from the most disadvantaged backgrounds. a 501(c)(4) membership organization: Stand staff are actively engaging with parents and teachers in Three years ago, Stand set out to dramatically increase our organizational impact. We committed that districts like Chicago, Boston, Houston, Memphis, and by the end of 2011, we would play a key role in enacting education policies and investments at the state Indianapolis to uncover real problems and identify solutions and district levels to impact the lives of over 1.6 million children. We pledged to grow from four to ten Educate and empower parents, that work in those communities. states, and from 40,000 to 160,000 supporters. teachers and community members Thanks to hard work by our talented staff and volunteers, tremendous support from our National Boards, to demand excellent schools. We would like to take this opportunity to thank all of Stand’s staff, volunteers, and supporters for their relentless Advisory Boards, and other generous donors, we met and exceeded these goals.
    [Show full text]
  • A-234 (GSE) and HLE-349 (KSG)
    Version 1.1 UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs Department of Public Policy PP225: Education Policy and Educational Inequality, Fall 2014 Instructor: Prof. Meredith Phillips 6323 Public Policy Building 310-794-5475 [email protected] Office Hours: Mondays, 12:00-3:00 p.m., Public Affairs 6323 (Sign up on office door.) Class Meetings: Wednesdays, 2:00-4:50 p.m., Public Affairs 4357 Description: This class provides a broad survey of the literature on social class and ethnic disparities in academic success and the policies that might help reduce those disparities. Although we will focus on the U.S. educational system, you are welcome to write your final paper on a policy or policies that might improve educational outcomes for “disadvantaged” students abroad. Likewise, although we will focus on the pre-K through twelfth grade years (we simply do not have enough time to cover higher education, too), you are welcome to write your final paper on a policy or policies that might improve low-income students’ access to, or academic success in, college. Format: Class periods consist of a mix of lecture, discussion, and student presentations. Purpose: The course has three goals: 1. To introduce you to the major arguments for and against a number of education policies; 2. To help you learn how to evaluate the logic and evidence behind various policies; and 3. To help you learn to develop evidence-based, persuasive arguments. Prerequisites: In order to understand and evaluate the evidence in some of the lectures and readings, you will need to have a conceptual understanding of regression analysis and be able to interpret regression tables.
    [Show full text]
  • Child Care and Head Start Organizer's Toolkit 2005
    Child Care and Head Start Organizer’s Toolkit CHILDREN’S DEFENSE FUND 2005 For additional information contact the Early Childhood Development Division at (202) 628-8787 or [email protected] M I S S I O N The Children’s Defense Fund’s Leave No Child Behind® mission is to ensure every child a Healthy Start, a Head Start, a Fair Start, a Safe Start, and a Moral Start in life and successful passage to adult- hood with the help of caring families and communities. CDF provides a strong, effective voice for all the children of America who cannot vote, lobby, or speak for themselves. We pay particular attention to the needs of poor and minority children and those with disabilities. CDF educates the nation about the needs of children and encourages preventive investment before they get sick or into trouble, drop out of school, or suffer family breakdown. CDF began in 1973 and is a private, nonprofit organization supported by foundation and corporate grants and individual donations. We have never taken government funds. M O V E M E N T For more than 30 years, CDF has been building a movement that stands for children. This means leading the way through research, education, advocacy, and organizing. MEETING CHILDREN’S NEEDS Child Health Access to comprehensive, quality, affordable health care services for all children. Child Welfare & Mental Health Advocating for children who are abused, neglected, homeless, or suffer from emotional and other problems. Early Childhood Development Quality, affordable child care; pre-kindergarten programs; and after-school activities for working parents.
    [Show full text]
  • 2010 Annual Report Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick Signs “An Act Relative to the Achievement Gap”, the Landmark Education Reform Legislation
    Annual Report 2010 2 | 2010 Annual Report Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick signs “An Act Relative to the Achievement Gap”, the landmark education reform legislation. WHAt We STAnd FOR Empowering, entrepreneurial leadership We’re relentless in our drive to empower Stand volunteers and staff, and we continually push ourselves to innovate and improve in order to accomplish more and more for children who urgently need our help. Results for all children Every single child matters, and children’s lives and futures are being shaped right now. That’s why we maximize every day, every dollar, and Being the change we seek We show up. We speak up. We reach out. We vote. Active participation makes every person involved in Stand for Children to create a just society where our member-driven organization work and enables us to make our democracy all children get the excellent education and support they need to thrive. work for children. Bold independence In a political arena dominated by parties and adult focused special interest Direct and respectful communication We communicate directly and with respect at all times, which enables us to be groups, we’re non-partisan and child-focused. We fearlessly challenge the transparent, foster learning, and create long-lasting, accountable relationships. status quo in pursuit of solutions that help children thrive. MISsion STATEMENT MISsion STATEMENT Stand for Children is a 501(c)(4) Stand for Children Leadership membership organization that uses Center is a 501(c)(3) charitable the power of grassroots action to organization that develops leaders help all children get the excellent who use the power of grassroots public education and support they action to help all children get the need to thrive.
    [Show full text]
  • Addressing Indiana's Quiet Teaching Crisis
    Addressing Indiana’s Quiet Teaching Crisis: A Sensible Blueprint for Progress Three recommendations for the Indiana General Assembly based on the voices of Indiana’s teachers by Public Impact Executive Summary EACHERS ARE THE most important in-school factor for a child’s learning,1 and the effect of each teacher is long-lasting.2 With so much at stake for each child and our society T during the K–12 years, state leaders must make the teaching profession as attractive as possible to today’s workforce and organize it to produce the lofty outcomes we seek for students. To accomplish this, Indiana’s state leaders have taken steps in recent years to promote the creation of career ladders for teachers as well as yearlong residencies for teachers-in-training. The Indiana General Assembly’s efforts have promoted important concepts, but they have yet to establish funding to help districts, schools, and teacher preparation programs redesign existing models. In addition, educator salaries have fallen markedly in real terms, and the resulting disparity with competing states and comparable professions has contributed to higher turnover and a dwindling teacher candidate pipeline. Data about the teaching profession in Indiana make clear the potential for a full-blown public crisis unless policymakers take decisive action this year. Indiana teacher pay dropped 15 percent between 2000 and 2017 when adjusted for infl ation, moving from $59,986 to $50,554—and Indiana teachers earn 17 percent less than college graduates in other fi elds.3 As a result, Indiana’s pipeline of new teachers is drying up, with a 60 percent drop in individuals entering Indiana’s teacher preparation programs from 2008–09 to 2013–14.4 Ninety-two percent of Indiana districts struggle to fi nd qualifi ed candidates for teacher openings.5 This means that as a new school year begins, administrators become willing to hire anyone into remaining slots.
    [Show full text]
  • Full Text/PDF
    Natural Allies or Natural Enemies? The Evolution of Participant Self-interest in Community-based Organizations Michael Evans Miami University Abstract Diverse families are increasingly turning to community-based organizations (CBOs) as a means to further support their children‘s education. In particular, CBOs appear to be effective at mobilizing families that diverge from the so-called norm in order to influence educational change. Research indicates that these organizations can have a positive impact on student outcomes but as independent actors, their relationships with schools remain complicated since they operate outside of school and district control. In order to better understand the dynamic relationships that emerge between educators and diverse families in CBOs, this paper uses an ethnographic case study approach to explore the initial motivations for participation of members in three different CBOs and the process that they use to determine their shared actions. The findings revealed that while individuals‘ initial involvement was primarily based on self- interests, strong network ties, and perceived organizational effectiveness; the strategies and initiatives that were eventually implemented were more broadly defined and addressed larger systematic issues. In addition to offering diverse families an alternative means for engaging with schools, participants became committed to broader educational change making the potential for school and CBO partnerships more likely in the future. 21 Family involvement is widely accepted as a means for improving student outcomes across a variety of academic and social measures (Henderson & Mapp, 2002). As a result many district, state, and federal policies now require schools to work on improving family involvement efforts. Most schools have responded to these policy demands by continuing to pursue or revise traditional family involvement practices that focus on transactional interactions with families.
    [Show full text]
  • Education Reform from the Grassroots How and When Parents Can Shape Policy
    Education Reform from the Grassroots How and When Parents Can Shape Policy Michael Hartney July 2014 AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE Foreword heavily state and local affair, education politics is challenges, or the lessons they are learning about mobi- A a unique area of American civic life. Entrenched lizing parents in search of policy change. AEI Education interest groups tend to have an outsized impact on has been at the forefront of efforts to better understand mayoral races and school board elections, which this new phenomenon. endows them with substantial control over what hap- Two years ago I, along with Drew University polit- pens in schools and classrooms. And these elections are ical scientist Patrick McGuinn, released one of the often less competitive and suffer from low rates of voter first in-depth looks at parent organizing for edu- turnout. For school reformers seeking to improve the cation reform in Parent Power: Grass-Roots Activ- status quo by promoting standards and accountability, ism and K–12 Education Reform. We found, among teacher effectiveness, or school choice policies, these other things, that while parents who sent their chil- political dynamics paint a bleak picture: powerful inter- dren to schools of choice were ripe for mobilization, ests dominate local elections, and local elections dictate the mere act of choosing a school did not by itself the direction of school policy. make parents activists. Rather, ERAOs had to work Education reformers have long recognized these to equip parents with the necessary tools and training structural obstacles to change and have made real prog- to effectively lobby policymakers.
    [Show full text]
  • EDUCATION FINAL LAYOUT-7-30.Indd
    Appendix A Task Force Forums and Commissioned Papers ver the last 18 months, the Renewing Our Schools, Securing Our Future National Task Force on Public Education has examined the current state of America’s public education Osystem. The Task Force has sought to identify practices that contribute to American students’ uneven performance, areas in which important student needs are going unmet, and examples of excellence that are boosting student achievement. To do so, the Task Force held six public forums across the country and commissioned fi ve papers from leading education researchers, advocates and policymakers. Insights gained from these events and papers have informed the Task Force’s recommendations. Forum reports and copies of the commissioned papers are available online at: http://www.americanprogress.org/schools or http://www.ourfuture. org/issues_and_campaigns/education/ros_sof.cfm Public Forums Community Schools: Working Together to Address the Needs of All Children Portland, Oregon - August 27, 2004 This forum focused on community schools and highlighted Oregon’s Schools Uniting Neighborhoods (SUN) Initiative. Established to create stronger relationships between public schools and their larger communities, the SUN Initiative has shown success in providing needed services and programs for children, including in-school support teams and after-school programming, uniting communities around public schools and improving test score levels. Discussion ranged from partnerships and implementation, to cultural competency, to parental outreach and involvement. This forum provided a constructive conversation on the strengths and challenges of community schools and the need for strong relationships with local agencies, organizations and businesses. Speakers at this forum included: • Susan Castillo, Oregon State Superintendent of Public Instruction • Jonah Edelman, Executive Director, Stand for Children • Barbara Kienle, Director of Student Services, David Douglas School District • Diane Linn, Chair, Multnomah County Commission • Lolenzo T.
    [Show full text]