What can be done to reconnect disconnected youth

Just recently revisited Building a Learning Agenda Around Disconnected Youth. This excellent paper:

• Summarizes the findings of evaluations of programs to help connect dropouts with education and/or employment, noting that "[m]ost second-chance programs for youth have never been formally evaluated for effectiveness. Moreover, because the programs are often run by small community-based organizations, the most rigorous evaluation methods are probably not feasible or appropriate in many cases."
  
• Develops a continuum of intervention strategies to help those ranging from the "least unconnected" to the "most disconnected" youth, and
  
• Identifies areas of unmet need.

One of the best things about this paper is that it makes clear for a policy (rather than advocacy) audience that at-risk students or disconnected youth are a diverse group, with widely ranging levels of skill and motivation, and that a one-size-fits-all approach to re-engaging these young people in education or the workforce will not work. In reviewing education legislation so far this session, however, it's disappointing that few if any measures seem to build off the findings of this report. Are there in fact new state policies that have been informed by this report's thoughtful findings? Are the findings perhaps driving local efforts that are not necessarily on the state policy radar screen? Or must more be done to bring these critical and actionable findings to a state policymaker audience?

In case you missed it: ECS report on STEM

Shameless plug: In February, ECS released a short report on science, technology, education and mathematics (STEM) education that touches upon:

• Recent research (both on the need for improved STEM outcomes and on approaches to increase STEM degree completion among black and Hispanic students)
• Examples of approaches to advance STEM through public/private partnership (i.e., with limited to no state funds)
• The silent "T" and "E" in STEM education--and ways states are meaningfully incorporating technology and engineering in STEM at the K-12 level.
  

One study highlighted in the report found that Hispanic and Black students in Florida's class of 1997 who completed Chemistry II or Physics II in high school were as likely or more likely than their White peers to complete a four-year degree in a STEM field--but that 24 Black and 24 Hispanic students in the Class of 1997--for the entire Florida cohort--had completed these classes. Numbers these low beg the question (at least for me) of whether these students were all in one school or one district. At any rate, the study points to one approach that may increase, and increase the diversity of, the STEM workforce.

More interesting research and STEM public/private approaches were identified that were not incorporated into the February report--hopefully these will be reported out in a future ECS publication.

High school science: Which courses are "rigorous"?

I received an interesting call today from a high school science teacher in a state that has increased its graduation requirements in science in recent years. The state board in this state has set about determining which science courses meet the criteria of "rigorous" for purposes of fulfilling unit requirements in this subject--and this teacher was surprised and dismayed that some subjects she teaches--including AP Environmental Science--did not make the cut.

Her concerns did raise the question of how states striving to ensure rigor in high school graduation requirements in science determine which courses are "rigorous". Of course, there is the heavily-cited research identifying a correlation between high school coursetaking in lab-based biology, chemistry and physics and subsequent entry into and completion of a baccalaureate degree within a reasonable period of time. Yet not all courses approved by such states as "rigorous" seem to fit into the categories identified in the research, while others explicitly intended to bring students to college readiness--such as AP science courses--are not wholesale included in the definition of "rigor" in every state.

Transparency by state-level entities regarding the process used to define rigor among high school courses may result in greater buy-in from teachers, students and parents that the path to greater rigor in high school graduation requirements--in science as well as in other subject areas--is the right path to tread.

Cost of anti-bullying measures?

I have been asked more than once what costs are associated with anti-bullying policies. The answer: it varies greatly depending on the type of policy enacted.

Some state policy components are no- to low-cost:

• Establishing a statewide definition of bullying (or requiring local boards to establish a definition of bullying)
• Requiring all incidents of bullying to be reported to administrators and parents (and providing immunity to those who report in good faith)
  
• Requiring administrators to investigate incidents of bullying
• Informing all students and parents of the district/state anti-bullying policy and of disciplinary actions to be taken against those found to be bullying

Some state policy components are of moderate cost:

• Requiring the department of education to review districts' anti-bullying policies (for those states with a large number of districts, this may be a high-cost policy component)
• Requiring data collection and annual reporting on bullying incidents in the state (again, for those states with a large number of districts, this may become a relatively higher-cost component)
  
• Identifying research-based bullying prevention and intervention programs, and disseminating those to districts
• Making available technical assistance to districts in adopting and implementing anti-bullying measures

Some state policy components may come with a relatively higher price tag:

• Requiring all school staff to undergo bullying prevention training
• Requiring bullying prevention education in K-12 schools
• Requiring conflict resolution efforts to be adopted in all schools statewide.

What constitutes a comprehensive anti-bullying policy? Such a policy need not be high-cost. ECS' comprehensive state-level anti-bullying policy (from this 2005 report--to be updated later this year) includes the following components (I've added the related cost category each component would typically under):

• Defines bullying (including cyberbullying) (LOW- TO NO-COST)
  
• Prohibits bullying by students (LOW- TO NO-COST)
• Informs students and others of anti-bullying policy (LOW- TO NO-COST)
• Enables students and parents to report bullying incidents (LOW- TO NO-COST)
• Requires teachers and other school staff to report bullying incidents (LOW- TO NO-COST)
• Provides immunity to those reporting bullying incidents and protection from reprisal, retaliation or false accusation against victims, witnesses or others with information regarding a bullying incident (LOW- TO NO-COST)
• Requires administrators to investigate reported incidents (LOW COST)
• Encourages or requires bullying prevention education in schools (MODERATE COST--HIGH COST IF REQUIRES ALL TEACHERS TO UNDERGO BULLYING PREVENTION TRAINING BEYOND CURRICULUM PREP TRAINING)
  

Georgia: Soft skills certification

Enrolled Georgia legislation described in my P-20 blog post today proposes encouraging changes to improve college-readiness--but also looks at workplace readiness.

H.B. 186, which is currently pending the governor's action, authorizes the Governor's Office of Workforce Development to establish certification in soft skills, which may include, but not be limited to, skills relating to punctuality, ability to learn, and ability to work in a team, as a discrete and complementary component to the current WorkKeys assessment used in the state. The legislation authorizes and encourages the office of workforce development to work with the department of education and the board of technical and adult education to facilitate coordination with high schools so that high school students can attain certification in soft skills and work readiness.

Many surveys of high school students indicate they would like to know how what they're learning in school applies to the "real world", while employers complain that young adults lack the soft skills needed to be successful in the workplace. This legislation offers an intriguing approach to provide both high school students and employers with what they are looking for.

STEM: The power of business/high school partnerships

A piece that ran in today's Honolulu Star Advertiser speaks to the potential of business partnerships with public schools to improve STEM capacity. Nolan Kawano, the president of the Public Schools of Hawaii Foundation describes the substantial investment the foundation has recently made in Roosevelt High School in Honolulu to build a new science lab, provide training for math and science teachers at the high school and its feeder elementary and middle schools, and Good Idea Grant program that offers annual grants to teachers to promote innovative learning in the classroom.

Kawano notes, "The sum of all the parts is too large in terms of effort and cost for any organization to implement at all of the public school complexes in Hawaii, as a renovation of science labs statewide alone will run in the tens of millions of dollars. But if one business together with the state Department of Education could adopt a school complex, along with PSHF's supporting Good Idea Grant program, the enormous task becomes manageable."

Utah: "Mission based funding" for postsecondary institutions

In a time of scarce economic resources and increasing postsecondary enrollments at all levels, performance-based funding has become a hot topic among state policymakers. In this vein, Utah legislation enacted last month creates "mission based funding" for postsecondary institutions.

Under S.B. 97, the state board of regents is directed to establish mission based funding, which includes enrollment growth and up to three strategic priorities. Each institution's strategic priorities, which must be approved by the board, must be designed to improve the availability, effectiveness or quality of higher education in the state. Each institution's president must, in turn, establish institutional initiatives aligned with the strategic priorities, and allocate the institution's mission based funding to the initiatives.

At the same time that the board of regents recommends mission based funding to the legislature, it must also recommend means to address funding inequities for institutions with similar missions.

S.B. 97 also requires all institutions and the board of regents to report to the Higher Education Appropriations Subcommittee on the use of the previous year's mission based funding, including performance outcomes relating to the strategic initiatives. Hopefully those reports will be made public--if so, it will be interesting to see the degree to which this approach positively impacts, as the bill states, "the availability, effectiveness or quality of higher education" in Utah.