preparing for the big waves.

The challenges facing school leaders will only become larger. We need to keep our eye on the horizon and not be caught unprepared.

Recently I was visiting with my friend Steve, an Algebra teacher. Steve, who first introduced me to running in the ninth grade (cross country), took me running on the beach. We ran along the base of cliffs and noticed that folks were busy shoring up the deteriorating slopes.

Even though the surf looked great, and surfers were out in full force, the reality is big waves wash up against these cliffs several times a year. The residents were preparing as best they could, trying to be esthetically pleasing and environmentally sensitive in their efforts to "shore up" the sides of the cliffs.

As we ran along the beach, the waves looked small to me. But that was because they were not breaking close to shore. They were a ways out on the horizon.

We have a number of big waves heading our way as education administrators. Right now they look small only because they are off shore. But as they draw closer they will be larger. We need to be prepared.

I will briefly discuss three big waves heading our way, then offer suggestions for "surfing" them successfully.

Big Wave No. 1: Standards scores into the API

Beginning summer 2001, the scores on the language arts portion of the standards-based exam (previously termed the STAR augmented test) will become part of the base for future calculations for the Academic Performance Index. Mathematics, science and history/social science standards test results will be fed into the API beginning spring 2002. We do not know the weight that will be given to the scores. But as the API begins to incorporate multiple measures, especially the standards-based tests, the standards take on new importance.

The State Board of Education approved the English/language arts and mathematics academic content standards in late 1997. Science and history/social studies standards were approved in late 1998. Science will begin to be tested at grades five and/or eight, and history at grade eight, if new legislation is passed.

To this point, the API has consisted solely of SAT 9 scores. Tests given on the standards have not had meaningful consequences, causing some to conclude that little attention needs to be paid to the standards. How wrong that thinking is!

It takes our "system" of schooling years to align against a new measure. We need all the time we can get to prepare -- to review courses for alignment against state standards, to complete standards-based professional development, to install new standards-aligned instructional materials, and to actually teach the standards. If we don't, we will be hit by wave No. 1. And it will be followed by another big wave.

Big Wave No. 2: Standards scores reported by performance levels

The State Board of Education is setting performance levels by identifying "cut scores" on the standards exams. These cut scores will define levels of performance in categories, such as proficient, basic and below basic, or perhaps mastery and below mastery. Both individual scores and disaggregated groups of students (by gender, ethnicity and language) will be reported according to these performance levels. When this occurs, achievement against standards will quickly be very public.

Reporting of student achievement by performance levels could be a serious wake-up call for us. We could be doing fairly well on national comparative measures and not show as well on a measure that is criterion based.

We, as an educational community, have been asking for a rapid transition to a criterion-based system where the assessment package is based on the state academic content standards. We need to be working with our administrators and teachers to be prepared for this eventuality -- and working with our communities for the possibility that achievement scores may not be as high as we desire the first several years as we transition more fully to the standards-based system. Performance-level reporting may impact us more significantly than we can currently imagine.

And if the first two waves haven't gotten our full attention, there's the next one.

Big Wave No. 3: High School Exit Exam

The State Board of Education selected the first form of the test this fall; it will be modified by the results of the fall field test. Spring 2001 ninth-graders can voluntarily take the exam. In spring 2002, all 10th-graders are required to take the exam. Results are to be reported back to students and the district eight weeks from administration, making the 2002 administration a very public activity. Finally, according to law, no student can receive a diploma in 2004 without having passed the High School Exit Exam.

The HSEE is rigorous in math and language arts, and includes at least two written essays (persuasive argument, a story about another person, an analysis of a fictional story or an empirical essay or research report based on supplied facts).

The independent evaluator (HumRRo) selected by bid to analyze the spring 2000 field test concluded that the items were well aligned to state standards, and that the state had accomplished a lot in a short time span. But the evaluator also raised several areas of potential concern. I will note four.

One, California students did not perform as well with the writing portions as might be hoped.

Second, some schools had yet to fully align their courses against standards, leading to questions about the extent of instruction on the standards.

Third, some districts have not put in place support and remediation programs as required by law for students at risk of failing the exam. Funding is now available to create and implement programs that can uniquely meet the needs of our students.

Fourth, since much of the math on the test is based on the math standards and math instruction given in late elementary and middle grades, high schools and feeder schools need to articulate much more closely than has been the case in the past. No one segment of schooling can stand alone and have their students successfully pass the HSEE. "Graduation is everyone's business" is one unified district superintendent's rallying cry.

Equity and Opportunity to Learn

A big concern in other states (California is one of nearly 30 states implementing a high stakes graduation test) focuses on what is termed Opportunity To Learn (OTL) issues -- does every student have a fair and equitable chance to learn the standard? If the course content is not aligned with standards, or if instructional materials are not aligned to standards, or if instruction doesn't cover the standards, the district will be legally at risk because it did not meet OTL criteria.

Equity concerns, and a desire to close the achievement gap, should motivate us to work with our teachers and other colleagues to pay a lot of attention to OTL. As student progress is made increasingly public, not only for individual students but also for groups of students who may have historically not performed as well as others, there will be renewed emphasis on equity, and justifiably so.

One positive spin-off of the three waves discussed earlier is the attention that is necessarily drawn to the standards and to achievement across every spectrum of the student population.

How best to prepare

We can handle the big waves if we are prepared and we know the waves. To a surfer, being prepared means having quality, reliable equipment, good training and lots of practice.

A surfer's equipment revolves around a good board; our equipment starts with quality classroom materials. One area where we can now make a lot of improvement is in the alignment of instructional materials to state standards.

For more than a dozen years we did not have sufficient money to purchase the materials we needed -- students went without; teachers had to use photocopied material; support materials were in short supply. But now we have the money, and we have aligned materials we can purchase! The chart on page 31 summarizes the money in "the system" available to purchase instructional materials. We can fairly easily come up with about $90 per student in K-12, with additional monies for libraries and science materials.

INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS FUNDING -- 2000-01

The state has provided substantial ongoing and "one-time" categorical and general revenue funds either restricted for the purchase of textbooks and other instructional resources aligned to state content standards, or suggested that the funds be spent for this purpose depending on district and school priorities. A number of these fund sources are shown below (all dollar figures are approximate).

CORE RESOURCES                        Per Pupil         State Total

1. Instructional Materials
Fund (IMF) K-8                           $31.83        $131 million

2. Instructional Materials
Fund (IMF) 9-12                             $20       $33.8 million

3. Schiff-Bustamante
Standards-Based Core
Subject Instructional
Materials                                $42.79        $250 million
(AB 2041 and SB 264 -- also
referred to as AB 2519 funding and
materials)
[Funding is provided each year for
four years, 1999-2002 for a
total of $1 billion ]

* Adopted K-8 materials in mathematics,
language arts, and history/social
science
and aligned to state content standards;
science added Spring 2000; math to be
added January 12, 2001 and
posted at www.cde.ca.gov/cilbranch/
eltdiv/cdsmc.htm)

* For grades 9-12, local governing board
adopts a resolution that purchased
materials
align to state content standards for
four core subjects (language arts, math,
science
and history)

OTHER POTENTIAL SOURCES                Per Pupil        State Total

1. K-4 Classroom Library
Materials (for grade-level
appropriate materials --                $10.38          $25 million
non-textbook fiction and
nonfiction books and
periodicals)
(Requires districtwide
classroom library plan
approved by the local
governing board)

2. K-12 School Library Fund              $28.47        $158 million
(Requires district-wide
library plan approved by the
local governing board)

3. School Improvement and
Pupil Achievement Block
Grant                               $30(K-12)(*)       $180 million
(for instructional materials,       (minimum of
staff development at the            $10,000 per
school site, etc.)                     site)

(*) (Requires school site
council and distriper site)

4. Lottery Funds (K-12)                $117
                                  (unrestricted)(*)    $716 million
(*) (Priority use directed at
purchase of instructional           $6 (restricted)     $37 million
materials

5. English Language and
Intensive Literacy Program             $400            $250 million
                                   (EL students)(*)
(*) (Priority use for staff
and instructional materials)

In addition, district allocations from revenue limit funds, federal categorical programs (such as Title 1, Migrant Education and Pre-school/Child Care), High School Technology monies, Employee Performance Awards, Advanced Placement and High Achieving/Improving Schools monies can also be spent on instructional materials as determined by district and school priorities.

Source: Glen W. Thomas, September 2000

It is time to work with our teachers and our staffs to purchase and install new programs across the board for K-12. The State Board of Education in January 2001 will adopt numerous instructional programs in mathematics aligned to standards. They will be listed online at www.cde.ca.gov/ cilbranch/eltdiv/cdsmc.htm. Reading/language arts will be state reviewed and adopted no later than January 2002.

Let's not let this opportunity slip through our hands! Our teachers and our students need our leadership in this area.

Good surfers have to know the waves -- their speed, height and unique qualities. Professional development aligned to standards becomes a top priority for our teachers and other colleagues. We need to keep our eye on the horizon and not be surprised.

Smart surfers also don't go out alone. Companions are crucial in this important endeavor.

In many ways these are wonderful times for education -- with opportunities as never before, and possibilities to make the kind of progress that heretofore we have been unable to achieve or sustain.

Glen W. Thomas is executive director of the California County Superintendents Educational Services Association and serves on the High School Exit Exam panel. For nearly 10 years he was director of curriculum frameworks and instructional materials for the California Department of Education, and served as executive secretary for the State Curriculum Commission.