TO ALL:  Ref. postings on Iowa info re: Hornbeck '90's plan to usurp local
control of schools under the guise of ensuring improvement on test scores,
on the Baltimore plan to take over poorly-performing schools (Hornbeck's
former districts):

I "remember" that Hornbeck was involved in pushing New York toward many
NCEE-type reforms which were going in nationwide, but I cannot come up with
researchable proof of this at the moment.  What is important is that Mario
Cuomo (also NCEE-tied) "commissioned" a task force on   NYS Educational
Structure, Policies and Practices which issued its delayed report in
limited numbers of copies in December 1993.  I have referenced it many
times since then on our loop and elsewhere, because no matter what turns up
in the way of education and/or health care, etc., references to current
"command and control society" news, almost all of it turns out to have been
either delineated or hinted at in the Mario Cuomo 1993 "Putting Children
First" task force report -- that caused such a minor tempest in Albany that
they soon began damage control and made some minor revisions.  (Copies of
the report which had been helpfully offered, suddenly became "all gone"
once it was known that they were going to people who pointed out to some
reporters and columnists some of the outrageous proposals in the report.

Regarding school takeovers, it was all in NYS as well as Iowa -- but with
little communication among non-educrats, it took a long time for people
nationwide to begin noticing they were not alone in finding the plans in
their schools.

This may be long, but it should be noted how the past is prologue to
everything that has come along -- and the Baltimore innovative plans to
take over poorly-performing schools is only part of the latest phase -- and
likely the final phase in likely taking over all schools from local
control. (Somewhere in past plans was stated the phasing out of school
boards...) It may seem that this extraction from the New York 1993 report
is overly long and takes a while to reach the paragraphs quoting plans to
take over underperforming schools, but the drumbeat of case-building in the
extracted sections of an overall, all-encompassing task force report, shows
how carefully the SYSTEM was to be built, and how much the SYSTEM was the
message, not the education.

All the following, except any extraneous comments in brackets [] is from
the 1993 NYS Putting Children First. Emphasis may be added by putting some
words in capital letters here: [Extracted material concerns school takeover
implications only, not complete excerpts of sections of the report referred
to]:

SYSTEMIC STATE Reform:

New York State should develop a MULTI-YEAR ACTION AGENDA to support
SYSTEMIC school reform, encompassing the PRINCIPLES of A New Compact For
Learning. [A New Compact for Learning was the name of the first testing of
the waters in NYS, regarding Goals 2000-type education.  The name has been
changed several times, all the principles have been retained, and others
have been added. All states have experienced the same succession of
re-naming, retaining agenda series of "innovative reforms."]

New York State NEEDS a plan to accomplish SYSTEMIC STATE reform.  The
Compact is ONLY THE BEGINNING. The Regents cannot progress towards the
GOALS of the Compact without ONGOING COORDINATION AND SUPPORT from the
Executive and the Legislature.  The ISSUES involved in school reform are
COMPLEX and TRANSCEND THE SCOPE OF THE REGENTS AUTHORITY.  For example, the
Regents ALONE cannot accomplish the COORDINATED DELIVERY of health and
social services that children need IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO LEARN.

In order to ALIGN resources and POLICY with school REFORM, the Commission
recommends that the Executive and the Legislature adopt a COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN in support of school reform. The PLAN should START by defining the
knowledge, skills, and CIVIC VALUES that children need to assume the
responsibilities of our democratic society and BECOME ECONOMICALLY
PRODUCTIVE.  It should identify BARRIERS to achieving these goals and SET
TIMEFRAMES for state and local GOVERNMENT to overcome them.  Accountability
and AUTHORITY need to be ALIGNED to attain the DESIRED OUTCOMES.

Further on:

To support SYSTEMIC STATE reform, New York State MUST RETHINK HOW EDUCATION
IS GOVERNED and foster an effective interrelationship between local
educators, REGIONAL SERVICES, State Education Department and OTHER AGENCIES
that provide support services to children.  NO SINGLE POLICY AND NO ONE
CONSTITUENCY will be ENOUGH TO TRANSFORM THE SYSTEM AS A WHOLE.  A NEW
system of governance that empowers THOSE CLOSEST TO CHILDREN with the
decision-making authority to affect change is required. [In the newest
reform plans, those closest to children is becoming far from parents, and
closer to agencies, regional services, etc.]

[Further]:  Accountability for Student Outcomes

In order to give MEANING to STATE goals for what children should know and
BE ABLE TO DO, accountability for high quality student OUTCOMES must be a
joint responsibility for the STATE and its local school districts.

New York State must provide the RESOURCES, support and AUTHORITY necessary
for local school districts to DEVELOP and ASSESS high standards for student
performances.

. . .As the state moves toward SYSTEMIC REFORM.. . .To be ACCOUNTABLE for
student PERFORMANCE, STATE policy makers and local practitioners must FIRST
set STANDARDS for PERFORMANCE that are linked to high quality curriculum,
instruction and ASSESSMENT.

The State Education Department has ALREADY proposed a system that will
REDESIGN the current curriculum and ASSESSMENT SYSTEM to include curriculum
frameworks and PERFORMANCE BASED ASSESSMENT.. . .Educators and local school
districts NEED to ACQUIRE the knowledge, skills and technology to INITIATE
this reform, AS PLANNED, BY THE YEAR  2000.

[Next paragraph describes how new frameworks have been providing guidelines
and applications in several states, including Calif., TX, Conn and Colo.]

As the PHILOSOPHY and KNOWLEDGE in curriculum DEVELOPMENT HAS CHANGED, so
has the basic premise of ASSESSMENT as a measure of student performance.. .
.Assessment that best meets the needs of students is linked to a DAY-TO-DAY
EVALUATION of their knowledge and PROBLEM-SOLVING SKILLS.  Testing
INDIVIDUAL STUDENTS at the local level should inform, PRESCRIBE and improve
teaching practice.  By ALIGNING CURRICULUM WITH the MEANINGFUL ASSESSMENT
OF CONTENT, knowledge application and thinking skills, teachers are ABLE TO
ADJUST INSTRUCTION TO MEET THE NEEDS OF A DIVERSE STUDENT POPULATION.

[Next refers to state reforms in VT, Calif.,  Conn., KY, Maryland and
Ariz., the NY State Curriculum and ASSESSMENT COUNCIL proposing a NEW
DIRECTION FOR TESTING..Two districts in the state were cited as already
implementing.]

New York needs an EFFECTIVE curriculum and TESTING program that both
informs THE PRACTICE OF TEACHING and MONITORS school and program quality.. . .

Ineffective and inefficient tests and testing PRACTICES should be
eliminated or REPLACED.

[The report then goes on to discuss how LONGITUDINAL studies are needed, so
they could go over data on children over the past 12 years....]

. . .In REVAMPING ITS ASSESSMENT practices, NY State must also be cognizant
of the NEED to collect LONGITUDINAL INFORMATION ON STUDENT POPULATIONS and
performance.  Superintendents have expressed concerns that the adoption of
performance-based testing should not ignore collection of longitudinal data
required to examine TRENDS in education.

[Next lengthy paragraph describes how the efficacy of the SYSTEM depends on
ability of educators to question results vis-a-vis discrepancies among
indicators' linking of resources to test results, etc.. .]

If testing is to drive the funding of programs, then the fairness of the
test AS IT APPLIES TO DIVERSE POPULATIONS is crucial.  If instead a VARIETY
of INDICATORS are used to EQUALIZE EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES, then testing,
not within its inherent limitations, has a role in providing information
that is consistent.

WHILE performance-based assessment and sampling techniques may hold promise
for THE FUTURE, many  educators lack the technology and TRAINING to
IMPLEMENT THIS PROPOSED PLAN.  If the state is to improve accountability
for student outcomes, RESOURCES must be allocated so that BOTH THE STATE
and local PRACTITIONERS can LEARN TO USE curriculum frameworks and DEVELOP
APPROPRIATE NEW ASSESSMENT PRACTICES.

Continued in PART TWO




Part Two of the excerpts from a section of the NYS 1993 Task Force Report,
Putting Children First, Educational Structures, Policies and Practices.

At the beginning of the section quoted in Part One, were key buried
sentences in the introduction, ahead of material quoted in Part One.  These
sentences should be brought in here as the intent builds beyond the
explanations of the need to change assessments. As in Part One, all
material which follows is directly quoted from the report.  Words
capitalized are done for emphasis here, any personal comments are in
brackets []

GOVERNANCE and Accountability [Note use of word "governance" which appears
all through Our Global Neighborhood, the UN Report]

"As reform efforts in New York State and ACROSS THE NATION INTENSIFY, it
has become increasingly clear to the Commission that SYSTEMIC CHANGE
requires more than "quick fix" policies and fragmented programs directed at
the SYMPTOMS of educational failure. Instead, solutions must FUNDAMENTALLY
OVERHAUL the INFRASTRUCTURES that support and SHAPE EDUCATION. [This may
give a clue as to why opposing education reform a piece at a time was never
intended to be successful?]

A New Compact for Learning [NYS first released version of reform] has
questioned the EFFICACY of existing state and local relationships.. ..the
involvement of the entire community in restrucuring and revitalizing
schools, does NOT COMPORT WELL with EXISTING STATE GOVERNANCE and the lack
of COLLABORATIVE MECHANISMS.

FRAGMENTED authority and multiple short-term and often CONFLICTING POLICY
GOALS provide little support for school improvement.  SYSTEMIC REFORM,
based on INNOVATION AND COLLABORATION, MUST INVOLVE THE POLICY-MAKERS AS
WELL AS AGENCIES WITH A STAKE IN THE WELL-BEING OF CHILDREN. [Now read this
next!:]  The STATE cannot be CREDIBLE in this endeavor without TRANSFORMING
ITS ORIENTATION TOWARDS GOVERNANCE.

[Think about that -- the state changing its orientation towards governance.
No local control ...]

....To accomplish the tasks outlined in this Report, we must RETHINK STATE
GOVERNANCE.

[The next quoted material is almost laughable.  Reminds one that the devil
is reputed to quote scripture for his own use...]

New York State should eliminate statewide group-administered tests PRIOR TO
THIRD GRADE.

The Commission observed that many elementary schools have already begun to
move toward ASSESSMENT PRACTICES which are tailored to the NEEDS OF YOUNG
CHILDREN.  Many schools have adopted qualitative-style report cards, IN
WHICH teachers describe students UNIQUE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES, rather
than assign them letter or number grades.  These same schools, however,
continue to administer standardized tests to large groups of children each
spring beginning in kindergarten.  Not only is this testing STRESSFUL FOR
CHILDREN, IT CONSUMES CONSIDERABLE TIME WHEN CHILDREN COULD OTHERWISE BE
ENGAGED IN INSTRUCTIONAL ACTIVITIES. [!!!] [It goes on to explain how such
testing is recognized as inappropriate, less reliable at that age, and USED
TO PLACE CHILDREN IN AN INFORMAL TRACKING SYSTEM IN WHICH EXPECTATIONS ARE
RAISED OR LOWERED FOR INDIVIDUAL CHILDREN. Says such testing has been
eliminated in Oregon, PA, Utah, Minnesota and Idaho.]

[Section on meeting Special Needs of Children lays groundwork for inserting
factors of race, language, tracking, socioeconomic status, emotional
differences, as justifying the need for replacing the then current system
as being insensitive..]  ...In order to be successful, students WILL
REQUIRE schools and EDUCATIONAL SUPPORTS SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT than those
in the past. [Goes on with references to funding and referrals needed.
Large following section focuses on varieties of special needs and how to
provide them with a  "student focused model of service delivery."]

[Note next "buried" reference to justify changing standards -- all the
while educrats were denying global and workforce agendas in the schools in
1993]

As standards change to meet the NEEDS OF A GLOBAL ECONOMY and the WORKFORCE
OF THE FUTURE, we must be cognizant of the EFFECTS of higher standards on
"all students." High standards for all students means providing the SUPPORT
REQUIRED to improve instruction; ENHANCING THE EQUITY in RESOURCES between
the HAVES and the HAVE NOTS'; and bridging the gaps in EXPERIENCE and
learning made wide by ECONOMIC, CULTURAL  AND COGNITIVE BARRIERS.  We can
CONTINUE TO DO THIS BY PIGEONHOLING STUDENTS in CATEGORICAL BOXES,
RESTRICTED BY PROGRAM MANDATES, OR we can commit our resoures toward a
responsive continuum of services that is flexible in serving ALL THOSE IN
NEED.

In creating new models for special education [which includes many, many
categories], restrictions on funds, certification and program need to be
examined...Students who have been excluded...because schools are UNWILLING
OR UNABLE   TO ADAPT TO THEIR DIVERSE NEEDS, are victims not beneficiaries
of special programs. ...[Syracuse and Johnson City, NY districts were
praised for having already developed models increasing appropriate access
to regular education programs. Hmmm.  Could this early earning of brownie
points for developing all needed appropriate access for special ed students
have any connection with the inexplicable influx of many non-English
speaking immigrants to Upstate NY, specifically in large numbers in Johnson
City schools?]

Support and Reward School Improvement and Innovation

[This outlines recommendations to pass out rewards to teachers, students,
schools and school districts; and the need for ADDITIONAL incentives for
quality and creation of NEW models.. Among the new models needed is what
appears to be another devil-quoting scripture technique, based on the
staggering number of Upstate New York Schools in 1999 which either have
shoved through or are demanding revotes to shove through huge centralized
schools -- see next quote!]

The STATE should establish a grant program to support the development or
adaptation of model school program designs.  The goal of this program
should be to foster SMALLER, MORE INDIVIDUALIZED AND CARING LEARNING
ENVIRONMENTS that allow stuents to learn, and aply knowledge to real world
problems through INTEGRATED curriculum.  The program should encourage
COLLABORATIONS with education, BUSINESS, CULTURAL AND SCIENTIFIC
INSTITUTIONS to provide enrichment programs for students.  Grant applicants
should be encouraged to develop innovative school GOVERNANCE models that
support collaborative and flexible work rules focused on the instructional
needs of the children. State mandates that interfere SHOULD BE WAIVED.

[Now, keep on reading, it IS building...]

INCENTIVES FOR PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT SHULD BE VIEWED AS A PROCESS OF MOVING A
DISTRICT TO THE NEXT LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE.

[Goes on to recommend extended school times and school years, integrating
health and social services AT THE SCHOOL SITE, for students AND FAMILIES,
eliminating class periods, graded classrooms; adding team teaching, peer
mentoring, adult mentoring, small team/group model schools, gifted
programs, youth apprenticeships OR OTHER SCHOOL TO WORK MODELS; new
curriculum geared to CULTURALLY DIVERSE THEMES, and, perhaps in a
throw-away-later offer, recommends developing voluntary intra- and
inter-district public school choice plans to give parents and students
freedom to choose among schools with different emphases.]

[Next could have foreshadowed the tighter monitoring and control to come:]

Developing new programs which integrate technology into the curriculum,
instruction and STUDENT ASSESSMENT PRACTICES of school districts.

[They then covered recommended funding for Magnet Schools, rewards for
Distinguished Education programs.  CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO SCHOOLS
WHICH SHOW CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT IN PERFORMANCE, PARTICULARLY THOSE WITH A
HISTORY OF POOR PERFORMANCE. New York at that time recommended that the
Board of Regents choose the schools, from those which SELF-NOMINATED
themselves, and they recommended that each district chosen should receive a
state award of $25,000 to be used at the discretion of the school to
enhance its programs and instruction.  Next they moved on to describe how
meeting criteria would be moved on next to flexibility, via waiving of the
mandates which brought them to the distinguished award category for
achievement!  It was compared to the SOUTH CAROLINA DEREGULATORY PROGRAM,
which WOULD BE PARTICULARLY USEFUL TO CREATE NEW MODELS OF EFFECTIVE
PRACTICE.  The report also recommended setting up a Distinguished EducaTOR
program, with $10,000 awards to each of up to 10 educators per year.]

Accountability for School Performance

The role of the State Education Department in assuring accountability in
education IS NOT CONFINED TO ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT PERFORMANCE.  Assuring
accountability also REQUIRES AN EVALUATION OF SCHOOL PERFORMANCE BASED ON
DELIVERY STANDARDS.  Thomas Sobol, [then] Commissioner of Education,
[affiliated with NCEE], states "we have schools which despite all we can do
under CURRENT LAW, year after year, just fail the kids for whom we are
responsible.  We can hold people up to the public and try to encourage them
but we can't DIRECT."

New York State Must Provide An Evaluation System for School Districts That
Supports Improvement At The Local Level

Evaluating SCHOOL DISTRICT PERFORMANCE requires examining a VARIETY of
factors that contribute to quality programs.  Under State regulation,
school districts are required to complete COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT REPORTS
(CAR) and DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH MANDATES through School Improvement
Reviews.  This process merely requires a district to self-report its
current status.  UNFORTUNATELY, this type of evaluation has not been enough
to improve schools quality in many districts. In 1992 NY State developed a
program to support and strengthen schools through School Quality Review
(SQR).  This effort, STILL IN THE PILOT PHASE, REPRESENTS A FOUR-YEAR
COLLABORATION BETWEEN THE BRITISH MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND THE CARNEGIE
FOUNDATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF TEACHING.  The SQR is intended to produce
the following OUTCOMES:

* An ANNUAL school self review and an ONGOING "CULTURE OF REVIEW" OR SELF
EXAMINATION WITHIN A SCHOOL; * Increase student achievement through
improving the quality of teaching and learning; and * To FOSTER PUBLIC
SUPPORT FOR SCHOOLS BY INCREASING CONFIDENCE IN THEM.

The School Quality Review program will be tested in 150 schools across the
state between '93 and '96.  Upon completion of the pilot phase, the PROCESS
is expected to be made available to ALL PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS.  In 1996,
a five-year cycle will begin; one fifth of the districts will be evaluated
annually. [Guess which ones, and how they were to be chosen??]  SED
envisions the review team will include peer and public representation, and
be COLLABORATIVELY MANAGED BY BOCES AND SED. [Note: BOCES was formerly the
Vo-Tech branch of education and was so almost phased out by attrition that
it was almost eliminated about this time.  Since then, following all
recommendations in the 1993 task force report, BOCES is well on the way to
being THE governing branch of education in New York State.]

An EXPANDED SQR and accreditation program COULD BE a new VEHICLE FOR
PROMOTING ON-SITE IMPROVEMENT PLANNING and enhancing school quality. [Goes
on to promote help by the process to improve local schools find out how to
improve and to "help" them plan EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT SOLUTIONS.]

The focus of the SQR program is to encourge a "strategic planning" approach
to school district EVALUATION. [Like TQM, and ISO 9000, and world-class
accreditation??]  School DISTRICTS, like students, would be REQUIRED to
develop portfolios.  School District Portfolios may include a variety of
accountability indicators which measure the effectiveness of schools and
districts in addressing the UNIQUE AND CHANGING NEEDS of their community.
{They] should support a COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW of  district needs, current
LEVELS of performance and PLANS FOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT.

This program should also CONSOLIDATE many of the COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND
TECHNICAL SUPPORT FUNCTIONS CURRENTLY CONDUCTED BY SED AND REGIONAL FIELD
SERVICE TEAMS.  School administrators suggested to the Commission that a
coordinated approach to oversight and self-review would allow for
problem-solving at the local level and prevent the inefficient use of
administrators and SED time caused by unrelated compliance reviews and
visitations.

KENTUCKY, NEW JERSEY, WASHINGTON AND SOUTH CAROLINA all provide
differential treatment and flexibility to districts based on performance.
Performance-based ACCREDITATION SYSTEMS should require that a variety of
OUTCOME MEASURES be used to determine SCHOOL QUALITY.  Districts should be
rewarded, supported OR SANCTIONED.  Districts SHOULD NOT BE JUDGED ON
ABSOLUTE LEVELS OF  PERFORMANCE, BUT RATHER BY THE VALUE ADDED TO SCHOOL
QUALITY IN THAT UNIQUE SCHOOL CONTEXT.  This approach encouraged districts
at ALL levels of performance to IMPROVE THEIR CURRENT PRACTICE.

New York State Should Develop a Continuum of INTERVENTION for school
districts, LEADING TO SCHOOL CLOSURE FOR DYSFUNCTIONAL SCHOOLS.

No effective remedies exist for chronic school failure.  Absent such
remedies, the compulsory education law, coupled with LOCAL DISTRICT
ATTENDANCE ZONES, will continue to penalize certain students by consigning
them to poorly performing schools which accept and tolerate failure
indefinitely.

While rewards for school district performance and the support of local
initiative are crucial for ENCOURAGING CHANGE, an INTERVENTION PLAN IS ALSO
NECESSARY. [Goes on to describe the then current Schools Under Registration
Review -- SURR. They describe how it was geared to encourage development of
restruction based on other schools' approved models, with suggested
inclusions of parent involvement, etc.]  To date [1993] the SURR program
only affects a small percentage of the low performing schools or
districts...level of state authority has been limited...

In contrast, Kentucky's Schools-in-Crisis program and New Jersey's
Five-year program offer differential strategies for school improvement.
These programs provide a continuum of INCREASED AUTHORITY for the
Commissioner of Education to INTERVENE with schools and districts that
demonstrate persistent and declining performance. [by what definition?]

ALTHOUGH TAKEOVER PROGRAMS REPRESENT A LAST RESORT OPTION, A CONTINUUM OF
STATE INTERVENTION FOR DEFICIENT SCHOOLS SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED.  This
continuum should include prescriptions for REQUIRED INTERVENTIONS such as
technical support, reallocation of funds necessary to implement the plan,
ON-SITE TRAINING and specific recommendations for improving professional
PRACTICE.  Choice in  alternative programs for students and ON-SITE
INTERVENTION WITH A LOCAL BOARD OF EDUCATION MAY ALSO BE REQUIRED.  The
continued inability to improve SHOULD RESULT IN THE REMOVAL OF
ADMINISTRATORS, AND ULTIMATELY THE CLOSURE OF THE SCHOOL.  State
INTERVENTION PLANNING should also include a PROCESS for community
involvement [which parts of the community?], parent participation
[appointed? volunteer?] AND REGIONAL EXPERTISE [what experts?]  TO REBUILD
THE SCHOOL COMMUNITY.

[All the above lengthy extractions should  give clues to national
influences, the gradual planning toward the end-outcome of state governance
increasing, of schools being mandated for not only meeting standards, but
continually improving regardless of achievements. Everything throughout the
1993 report reveals how thoroughly the reform movements were planned -- and
also reveals that grounding in academics was not of any concern to those
who brought forth the report. Process, Systems, Reporting, Assessment,
Diversity,     -- Money, Jobs-- Governance]

Joan Battey