The Connecticut Plan: Academic and Personal Success for Every Middle and High School Student was unveiled by the State Board of Education at its October meeting. Comprehensive high school reform—conceptualized and developed over the past several years at the State Department of Education—now has a set of concrete proposals that can be put before the legislature for consideration.
With its heavy emphasis on mathematics, science and world language, coupled with a strategy to maximize the success of every single high school student starting with preparation in middle school, the plan holds promise for a generation of graduates far more ready for the challenges of the 21st century global environment.
Not surprisingly, the plan carries a pretty hefty price tag—a hurdle in good financial times and a formidable hurdle given the state’s current economy. New spending of any kind, education or otherwise, will be a tough sell to the General Assembly in the upcoming biennial budget deliberations. Ignoring that eight-hundred pound gorilla for a moment, here are a couple of other considerations for the proposal.
While the plan targets areas that are universally regarded as critical in today’s world, some might argue that there may need to be more content for those students not going on to higher education, but entering the economic market right after graduation. With or without any adjustments to the plan’s content, there are a few resource and costs that may require further inquiry before action on the plan is taken.
- The individual student success plans are an integral component of the proposal, and it has been estimated that a single added teacher in each middle and high school will be sufficient to staff this function. With building enrollments ranging from 200 to 2000 across the state, and without a clear picture of exactly how much time per student, and therefore how many students, one person will be able to serve, one FTE position per building may not suffice. If so, resources and costs for this critical activity would need to be increased.
- Staffing needs for the additional math, science, and world language sections, and increased guidance services may also be underestimated. Because of the specialized nature of the added classes, the potential cited in the plan for current staff with certification in those subjects—areas they may never have actually taught—to pick up a significant share of the workload may not be achievable. Costs for this component could vary considerably depending on how much of this capacity turns out to exist in each districts current staffing.
- The overall changes the plan calls for, and the pronounced emphasis on the increased use of technology, warrant a considerable commitment to professional development. Past initiatives have sometimes fallen short of goals because the professional development component lacked a full measure of commitment, or the funding was reduced or eliminated. Hopefully, this will not happen to this initiative.
These points are not offered as criticisms of the proposal, but rather recognize that The Connecticut Plan is too important and necessary a course of action to be undertaken with less than a full commitment. That means not only the right amount of resources to start the job, but a sustained commitment to get it right and keep it that way. To do otherwise would be a disservice to the effort, and to the students whose lives the plan is meant to improve.
So why is the plan to raise the % who graduate making more demands on those already in trouble trying to make it?
I like raising the upper reaches- but not pushing one size fits all- that just can not work for all the students we have who we want to make it through high school with an education enabling them to be ready for their future.
Pam–
I think a lot of us share your concern. As I noted in the original post, there may need to be some adjustments to the content so that those students not going on to higher education will benefit from the curriculum changes. But the real crux of the plan is the individual student success plans–designed to keep all students on a better track to graduation and to get there with a better set of skills. With or without the added credit requirement, we cannot continue to lose so many young people along the way, or have them eke through with no chance to make a successful transition to the economic world on whatever level they choose.
B
As a former BOE Chair and someone who looked at this plan closely during its conception, I strongly disagree with several of your points which I will attempt to clarify below.
1) I disagree with the notion that this plan will need substantial additional funding. The addition of student success plan should be accomplished within the guidance office assuming the school has approximately 1 guidance staff for each grade about grades 4 or 5 assuming about 200 students per grade. I would suggest the only addition would be a lower salary secretary to aid in the coordination. If the district does not staff their guidance accordingly then additional costs would have to be considered.
2) I doubt additional staff will be needed due to math, science and foreigh language requirements. Some new staff may be needed but that should be offset by the discontinuation of classes that may be currently offered if those math, science or foreign language courses are not offered now. Remember the number of students is finite and they takes only a certain number of courses. If the math,science and foreign language is additional then something has to give. Districts should be reviewed by the state to make sure these actions are taken. This is by far not a one-plan-fits all project. There is good latitude within the program to address differences among student populations while still providing them the basics they need to succeed in the future. If this plan makes more demands on a student, then the education they have been receiving is inferior to what they need. To me, the argument of increased demands only holds some of the disenfranchised down.
3) The increase use of technology has for the most part been implemented although in some districts it may have been done poorly. If that is the case, the professional development must be with the district administration. Teachers being hired should be required to have that componet already and existing teachers should have already been trained. If the teachers in the district require substantial professional development ( outside of curriculum development) then the district should be held to task. The state BOE should be able to provide assistance in the curriculum area to make sure the plan is implemented correctly.In my district this was started over 10 years ago and we have one of the lower cost per student expenses and excellent ratings for the students with over 90% of the graduates attending college. It can be done but it requires a strong superintendent that understands the reality of local finances and what it takes to educate a child and is able to weed out the priorities from what would be nice to have..
Overall, Board of Ed’s should be incorporated into the process to provide a balance of what is needed for the school while representing the tax payers interests. Too often this is not the case and it results in wasted costs within the district.