FinalReportoftheRhodeIslandUrbanEducationTaskForce ... · Patrick McGuigan, the Providence Plan. Several Task Force members served as working group chairs, volunteering additional

BuildingOur FutureAn Agenda for Quality Urban Educationin Rhode Island

October 2009

Final Report of the Rhode Island Urban Education Task Force

BuildingOur FutureAn Agenda for Quality Urban Educationin Rhode Island

October 2009

Final Report of the Rhode Island Urban Education Task Force

October 2009

Produced by the Annenberg Institute for School Reform at

Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island

Copies of this report and additional information about the

work of the Rhode Island Urban Education Task Force are

accessible at www.annenberginsititute.org/UETF

Contents

v Acknowledgments

vii Members of the Rhode Island Urban Education Task Force

1 Introduction to the Task Force Report

7 RecommendationsIntroduction to the Recommendations ............................................................................. 7

1. Pre-Kindergarten Education .......................................................................................... 9

2. Early Literacy .................................................................................................................. 12

3. Expanded Learning Time ............................................................................................. 17

4. Multiple Pathways for Student Success ...................................................................... 23

5. Statewide Educator Quality Development System .................................................. 31

6. Innovation for Successful Schools ............................................................................... 39

7. Educator Collaboration ................................................................................................. 42

45 Supplements to the Recommendations1S. Pre-Kindergarten Education ...................................................................................... 45

2S. Early Literacy ................................................................................................................ 47

3S. Expanded Learning Time ........................................................................................... 50

4S. Multiple Pathways for Student Success .................................................................... 60

5S. Statewide Educator Quality Development System ................................................ 62

7S. Educator Collaboration ............................................................................................... 73

76 About the Task Force and Its WorkA1. Task Force Participants and Advisors ....................................................................... 76

A2. Task Force Meetings and Events .............................................................................. 79

B1. Profile for Rhode Island and the Core City Districts ........................................... 80

B2. District Profile for Central Falls ............................................................................... 82

B3. District Profile for Pawtucket .................................................................................... 83

B4. District Profile for Providence .................................................................................. 84

B5. District Profile for Newport ...................................................................................... 85

B6. District Profile for Woonsocket ................................................................................ 86

B7. Comparative Data on the Urban Core Districts ................................................... 87

B8. Student Mobility Analysis ........................................................................................... 90

C1. Educators’ Forum ........................................................................................................ 92

C2. Community Perspectives ............................................................................................ 96

Final Report of the Rhode Island Urban Education Task Force v

The work of the Rhode Island Urban Educa-tion Task Force would not have been possiblewithout the generous financial contributions ofthe Nellie Mae Education Foundation and theRhode Island Foundation. We are also gratefulto the Wallace Foundation and Bank of Amer-ica for their support.

We extend our sincere thanks to the followingpeople for their dedication in steering the workof the Task Force: Janet Durfee-Hidalgo,Rhode Island Governor’s Office; David Abbott,Rhode Island Department of Education; War-ren Simmons, Ellen Foley, Michael Grady, andDavid Sigler, Annenberg Institute for SchoolReform at Brown University; Elizabeth BurkeBryant, Rhode Island KIDS COUNT; andPatrick McGuigan, the Providence Plan.

Several Task Force members served as workinggroup chairs, volunteering additional time andenergy to develop the recommendations andaction steps. We thank Tom Brady and SharonContreras, Providence Public Schools; SarahCahill, Rhode Island Afterschool Plus Alliance;Rosanna Castro, formerly of Brown University;John Simmons, Rhode Island Public Expendi-ture Council; and Ron Wolk, the Big PictureCompany. Elaine Budish, RI KIDS COUNT,and Elizabeth Jardine, Rhode Island Depart-ment of Education, stepped in to chair theMultiple Pathways working group when theirchair made a transition.

Many local leaders participated in workinggroups and in Task Force meetings, addingconsiderable expertise and needed perspectives.While they are too numerous to mention here,we have listed them in appendix A1. We aregrateful for their support and input.

Our National Advisory Panel was made up ofsome of the best minds working in educationreform today, including Barnett Berry, Center

for Teaching Quality; Rick Hess, AmericanEnterprise Institute; Milbrey McLaughlin,Stanford University; Charles Payne, Universityof Chicago; Jesse Register, MetropolitanNashville Public Schools; and Paul Reville,Massachusetts Department of Education.

We received research support from the memberorganizations in the Research Collaborative;particular thanks to Elaine Budish of RhodeIsland KIDS COUNT, who developed the sta-tistical profiles of each of the Task Force cities,and Rebecca Lee of the Providence Plan, whoanalyzed data on student mobility. Several otherindividuals and organizations provided analysisand support: Young Voices developed and ana-lyzed a survey of students in Pawtucket andCentral Falls. Students from Brown’s TaubmanCenter and Urban Education Policy Program,including Nick Vockerodt, Steven Glass, JamesHuang, Stefanie Mach, and Priya Mahajan,attended meetings, gave feedback, and con-ducted analyses.

Staff of the Annenberg Institute dedicatedthemselves to the work of the Task Force.Carol Walker provided thorough and efficientadministrative support, organizing the manyevents and meetings. Kathy Hardie managedthe chair’s schedule. Margaret Balch-Gonzalezand Tracie Potochnik provided valuable staffsupport to the working groups. Susan Fisher,Margaret-Balch Gonzalez, Mary Arkins, andHaewon Kim edited, designed, and publishedthe preliminary and final reports. Amy Ritten-house designed the Web site.

Elliot Krieger, Rhode Island Department ofEducation; Amy Kempe, Governor’s Office;and Al Dahlberg, Brown University, providedvaluable communications advice to the TaskForce.

Acknowledgments

vi Building Our Future: An Agenda for Quality Urban Education in Rhode Island

Several organizations partnered with the TaskForce to develop community and constituentforums. We thank the Rhode Island YoungProfessionals, an auxiliary of the Urban Leagueof Rhode Island; the Providence PublicSchools; NeighborWorks Blackstone RiverValley; the Woonsocket After School Coalition,the Woonsocket Education Department, andthe Woonsocket Parent Advisory Council;CHisPA and Progreso Latino; the RhodeIsland Federation of Teachers and Health Pro-fessionals; the Central Falls Teachers’ Union,the Pawtucket Teachers’ Alliance, the Provi-dence Teachers Union, and the WoonsocketTeachers Guild; and the Newport Public Edu-cation Foundation, the Alliance for a LivableNewport, and the Newport Public Schools.

Jonny Skye Njie, Ina Anderson, Erika Read,and Tehani Collazo played an important rolein designing and organizing the communityforums. Students who were part of the Wood-lawn Community Development Corporation’sTune-In Youth Media Group, Scott Lapham,students from RiverzEdge Arts Project inWoonsocket, and Victor Ramos skillfully pro-duced videos and photos documenting three ofthe forums. And we are deeply grateful to themore than 450 people who attended the com-munity forums, provided feedback, and partici-pated in our deliberations.

The new Commissioner of Education, Debo-rah Gist, arrived at a point in our process whenmost of the recommendations had been com-pleted. Still, she took part in our final TaskForce meeting, engaged in the material deeply,and provided thoughtful comments. We thankher for her recent participation and for herfuture leadership in the critical areas we haveidentified in the report.

Finally, the Task Force wishes to thank Gover-nor Donald L. Carcieri for his vision of devel-oping a statewide solution to the challenges of

urban education in Rhode Island. We werehonored to be part of the process to develop anagenda for urban education in our belovedstate; now we commit ourselves to supportingthe implementation of the ideas herein.

Final Report of the Rhode Island Urban Education Task Force vii

John H. AmbrogiSuperintendentNewport Public Schools

Chace BaptistaCo-DirectorYoung Voices

David BeauchesneDirector, Education and Community PartnershipsRhode Island Philharmonic Orchestra andMusic School

Thomas BradySuperintendentProvidence Public Schools

Elizabeth Burke BryantExecutive DirectorRhode Island KIDS COUNT

Sarah CahillExecutive DirectorRhode Island Afterschool Plus Alliance

Anna Cano-MoralesSenior Community Philanthropy OfficerThe Rhode Island Foundation

Robert CarothersFormer PresidentUniversity of Rhode Island

Rosanna CastroFormer MemberProvidence School Board

Sharon ContrerasChief Academic OfficerProvidence Public Schools

Angus DavisMemberRhode Island Board of Regents forElementary and Secondary Education

Hans DellithSuperintendentPawtucket Public Schools

Richard DiPardoPresidentWoonsocket Teachers Union

Ray DiPasqualePresidentCommunity College of Rhode Island

Roger EldridgeInterim DeanRhode Island College

Donnie W. EvansFormer SuperintendentProvidence Public Schools

Robert Flanders, Jr.ChairmanRhode Island Board of Regents forElementary and Secondary Education

Gordon FoxState Representative and House Majority LeaderRhode Island General Assembly(represented by Beth Cotter)

Sarah FriedmanDirectorThe Learning Community Charter School

Jo Eva GainesChairpersonNewport School Board

Members of the Rhode Island Urban Education Task Force

viii Building Our Future: An Agenda for Quality Urban Education in Rhode Island

Frances GalloSuperintendentCentral Falls School District

Robert GerardiSuperintendentWoonsocket Education Department

Patrick McGuiganExecutive DirectorThe Providence Plan

Peter McWaltersFormer Commissioner of EducationRhode Island Department of Education

Brandon MeltonSenior Vice PresidentLifespan Corporate Offices

Teresa Paiva WeedPresident of the SenateRhode Island General Assembly(represented by Robert Kalaskowski)

Lawrence PurtillPresidentNational Education Association/RhodeIsland

Sandra PowellDirectorRhode Island Department of Labor andTraining

Marcia RebackPresidentRhode Island Federation of Teachers andHealth Professionals

Rev. Brian Shanley, O.P.PresidentProvidence College

Rev. William ShawPresidentMinisters Alliance of Rhode Island

Warren Simmons, ChairExecutive DirectorAnnenberg Institute for School Reform,Brown University

John SimmonsExecutive DirectorRhode Island Public Expenditure Council

Steven SmithState RepresentativeRhode Island General Assembly

Paul SprollProfessor and Department Head, Art and DesignEducation

Rhode Island School of Design

O. Rogeriee ThompsonAssociate JusticeWashington County Superior Court

Ronald WolkChairman of the BoardThe Big Picture Company

Final Report of the Rhode Island Urban Education Task Force 1

For the majority of the twentieth century,Rhode Island’s families and communitiesthrived on an economy driven by textile andjewelry manufacturing and fishing. By the closeof the century, however, financial services,trade, health, and education had replaced man-ufacturing and fishing as the strongest sectorsof the state’s economy. In 2001, for instance,financial services made up $10.9 billion of thegross state product, while manufacturing’s con-tribution declined to $4.1 billion.

From the publication of A Nation at Risk in1983 to, more recently, Tough Choices or ToughTimes (National Center on Education and theEconomy 2008), our nation’s leading econo-mists, educators, and business, political, andcivic leaders have predicted that the U.S. edu-cational system’s failure to produce studentsequipped to participate in the new global econ-omy would have dire economic and social con-sequences. According to the New Commissionon the Skills of the American Workforce:

[This economy] is a world in which a veryhigh level of preparation in reading, writ-ing, speaking, mathematics, science, liter-ature, history, and the arts will be an indis-pensable foundation for everything thatcomes after for most members of theworkforce. It is a world in which comfortwith ideas and abstractions is the passportto a good job, in which creativity andinnovation are the key to the good life, inwhich high levels of education – a verydifferent kind of education than most ofus have had – are going to be the onlysecurity there is. (NCEE 2008, p. 7)

Moreover, in a digital age, this different kindof education increasingly involves electroniclearning that allows students and their teachersto access knowledge and solve problems byinteracting with other learners and informationsources from around the globe. Digital learn-ing as a cornerstone for twenty-first-centuryeducation and work stands in stark contrast tothe typical twentieth-century school, in whichlearning centered on printed texts as the cen-tral tool and on classrooms and/or libraries asthe major setting for knowledge developmentand use.

Unfortunately, too many of our classroomsthroughout Rhode Island and our nation stillresemble twentieth- rather than twenty-first-century learning environments. And the lim-ited technology available is often used to createelectronic texts and workbooks rather thanportals to knowledge and learners around theworld.

Our collective failure to redesign our state’sand our nation’s educational system to respondto the new world of learning and work hasforced many companies to outsource high-skilljobs overseas, leaving whole communities andfamilies behind in their wake. The warningsigns of our collective failure are all around usand have become increasingly acute in the lastyear.

• Rhode Island has one of the highest unem-ployment rates in the country (ProvidenceJournal, September 18, 2009).

• Rhode Island has the highest proportion ofchildren living in poverty compared to otherNew England states (2009 Rhode Island KIDSCOUNT Factbook).

Introduction to the Task Force Report

We need to do better, particularly now with globalization and technology.No single constituency can do it alone. Collaboration is a prerequisite for change.

Adam Urbanski, April 30, 2009, Task Force Educators’ Forum

2 Building Our Future: An Agenda for Quality Urban Education in Rhode Island

• Rhode Island is the lowest-ranking NewEngland state in overall child well-being(2009 RI KIDS COUNT Factbook).

• Rhode Island has the second-lowest propor-tion of college-educated workers of any NewEngland state (Crissey 2009).

These statistics present our community with aclear choice: support the educational status quoand continue our downward spiral, or create afuture as great as our state’s past by transform-ing our public schools so that they produceyoung people who can strengthen our econ-omy, our families, and our communities.

The Importance of Our Urban CoreSuch a transformative agenda should be pur-sued by every school and community in ourstate. But, as a small and densely populatedstate, our economic and civic futures are highlylinked to the health of our core cities: Provi-dence, Central Falls, Newport, Pawtucket, andWoonsocket. And no factor is more importantto the health of these cities – and hence thestate – than education (see profiles of RhodeIsland and the cities in appendices B1–B6).

As noted in the Rhode Island Public Expendi-ture Council (n.d.) publication Cities Count, “by2020, one in five members of the state’s work-force will have come from the State’s urbancore school systems.” Currently, outcomes forstudents in those cities are improving, butremain unacceptably low. Only about half ofelementary and middle school students fromthese communities achieved proficiency in the2007-2008 assessment in English language arts,compared with about 77 percent in the restof the state. Math achievement in these urbandistricts also lags behind the rest of the state,with only three or four in ten students reachingproficiency in the urban areas, comparedwith about seven in ten students in the rest of

the state. And the graduation rate in RhodeIsland’s urban districts is 61 percent, comparedwith 74 percent in the state as a whole (see fig-ure 4 in appendix B7).

Despite making up just under a third of thestate’s public school population, students in thecore districts make up a large majority of thestudents who are characterized as English lan-guage learners and as low income. The coredistricts also have a high rate of student mobil-ity – 44 percent in 2007-2008, compared with14 percent for the rest of the state – and con-tain more than two-thirds of students in thestate who qualify for the reduced-price or freelunch program (for details, see appendicesB7–B8).

Our current system of urban public educationis not a worthy vessel for children and youth inour urban core, nor for the many dedicatededucators who work with them. In the wordsof Peter Cookson (2009), “just as the BerlinWall fell in 1989, the wall of conventionalschooling is collapsing before our eyes.”Redesigning the current system to fit the needsof the twenty-first century will require vision,bold action, and an approach that harnesses thestate’s political, educational, social, and civicresources. It will require a technical blueprint,but one that also recognizes that reformrequires concerted political, social, and culturalchange.

The Work of the Urban Education TaskForceTo address these many challenges, GovernorDonald Carcieri created the Urban EducationTask Force in January 2008 and charged us towork with multiple stakeholders to forge a planto generate action and the political will neededto take the first steps toward its implementa-tion. In response to this charge, the Task Forceassembled twenty-six leaders from education,business, labor, cultural institutions, youth


England Association of Schools and Colleges.The Central Falls School District and theLearning Community Charter School havedeveloped the Growing Readers Initiative,which links Central Falls elementary schoolswith supports and strategies implemented atthe Learning Community. The model embedsprofessional development in the school day andhelps teachers to use data to inform instruc-tion. At the Captain Hunt School, where theprogram has been in place the longest, the pro-portion of students scoring at or above thebenchmark on kindergarten reading assess-ments grew by 38 percent from September toMarch 2009.

This fall, Providence opened two new state-of-the-art education facilities to serve the city’smiddle and high school students. The Careerand Technical Academy opened to 400 newhigh school students who will work within ninedifferent technical centers. The Nathan BishopMiddle School reopened to welcome 250 sixth-graders from across the city following a three-year, $35 million renovation that included theaddition of state-of-the-art instructional tech-nology. Finally, a partnership between theschool district, the Providence After SchoolAlliance (PASA), and the mayor’s office isworking to build a seamless system of rigorousand rich out-of-school learning opportunitiesfor middle and high school students through itsafter-zones model. This year, PASA received agrant from the Charles Stewart Mott Founda-tion to extend the afterschool model to more ofthe city’s youth.

The Urban Collaborative Accelerated Program(UCAP) is an independent public school thatserves 140 seventh-, eighth-, and ninth-gradersfrom the cities of Providence, Central Falls,and Cranston. All UCAP students enter theschool having been retained in grade at leastonce. In addition to an accelerated academic

organizations, and faith institutions; our workwas guided by a group of six national resourceexperts representing different perspectives onreform. The Task Force’s views and recom-mendations were also informed by local expertsserving on Task Force working groups (seeappendix A1) and by several public forums andmeetings with key constituents such as teach-ers, students, parents, and community and civicleaders from across the five core urban com-munities. We also convened forums in New-port and Woonsocket to glean concerns andrecommendations specific to those communi-ties (see appendix A2).

We heard consistently about participants’ frus-trations with the disconnect between theirschools and their district central offices; withterritorial politics and poor communicationthat divide school from community, parentsfrom teachers, and teachers from principals andtheir school district leaders; and with the lackof consultation with teachers, parents, and stu-dents about policies that affect them. Theyurged not just new policies from their publicservants, but the creation of new cultures andpractices that would foster trust and engage-ment in public education (see appendixC1–C2). In the midst of these criticisms, wealso heard and saw a foundation for hope andsuccess through our local best-practice visitsand our conversations with students, teachers,and parents who are building partnerships tocreate twenty-first-century schools.

On Our Way to Twenty-first-Century SchoolsThere are many promising examples of innova-tions already in place in our urban communi-ties across the state.

Since 2007, Central Falls High School and theUniversity of Rhode Island have engaged in acollaboration designed to address the persist-ently low rate of student achievement, and theschool now has full accreditation from the New


experience, UCAP students receive the sup-ports and opportunities, both in school andout, needed to succeed in school, college, theeconomy, and broader society. A recent evalua-tion of the effectiveness of the UCAP programreported positive effects for UCAP students inboth their future high school performance andrate of graduation.

The Pawtucket School Department has part-nered with the Rhode Island School of Design,the Sandra Feinstein-Gamm Theatre, andFusionworks Dance Company, among otherpartners, to create the Walsh School for Per-forming Arts. Students can participate in pro-grams focused on visual arts, theater, dance,and music combined with a rigorous course ofacademic study. Several of the faculty workjointly with the Walsh School and as artistswith the partner organizations.

The Newport Public Schools works closelywith local community partners to improve stu-dent achievement in Newport. The NewportPublic Education Foundation, an organizationled by local community and business leaders,has helped to fund local literacy activities andexcellence grants and to raise funds for the dis-trict. Positively Newport Schools is becomingan important community voice organizing forcitywide commitment to public education.

The Woonsocket School Department has cre-ated the Feinstein E-learning Academy, wherestudents who are behind in their schoolwork orwho are at risk of dropping out can earn creditstoward graduation. Housed at the WoonsocketArea Career and Technical Center, the e-learn-ing Academy offers a unique combination ofonline curricula and in-person, teacher-ledinstruction. Enrollment is flexible and gearedtoward the needs of the student. Some visit theAcademy after school, some are enrolled for a

more typical school day, and others workremotely and only visit the center for testing.

The Rhode Island Mayoral Academies (RIMA)is the oversight organization for a new type ofpublic charter school in the state. Workingwith Cumberland Mayor Daniel McKee anda coalition of Rhode Island mayors and townadministrators, civic groups, business leaders,and policy makers, RIMA is creating the sup-ports and flexibility needed to attract successfulcharter-management organizations to runschools and develop innovations in instructionacross the state, including the authority todevelop their own salary schedules and healthand retirements benefits packages. The firstmayoral academy – Democracy Prep of Black-stone Valley – opened at the end of August2009 with seventy-six kindergarten studentsand will eventually serve students in grades K–8. It is run by a charter-management organiza-tion that leads a middle school in Harlem thatis ranked among the top schools in New YorkCity.

And as this report goes to press, we havereceived news that the national AmericanFederation of Teachers has made a grant fromits new Innovation Fund to be shared by theRhode Island Federation of Teachers andHealth Professionals and the New York StateUnited Teachers. The grant will be used toestablish a multidistrict approach to morerigorous and meaningful teacher evaluation,reflecting the understanding that an effectiveevaluation system includes multiple indicatorsand incorporating, among other plans, a peerassistance and review component.

Building Our FutureWe can build on these and numerous othersuccesses by marshaling the will and resourcesneeded to redesign our public education sys-tems as systems to support innovation andenhance efficiency and effectiveness. In the


following report, the Urban Education TaskForce puts forward recommendations inseven areas that will create the infrastructure,collaboration, and culture to build the kindsof schools Rhode Island needs to thrive in thetwenty-first century. This ambitious endeavorrequires business, government, labor, K–12 andhigher education, the faith institutions, andcommunity groups to seek common ground tobuild upon and to sustain our effort over time.

This endeavor also will require us to shiftfrom a culture enamored with differences andconflict to one that seeks unity around sharedvalues and strategies. Despite a diversity ofideologies, experiences, and backgrounds, themembers of this Task Force reached consensusaround a core set of action steps. The onlyexceptions to this consensus are included ascomments from the Rhode Island Federationof Teachers and Health Professionals at the endof the Educator Quality recommendation.

The Task Force process was not perfect – someworking groups were not as inclusive as others,member engagement varied, and some con-stituent voices undoubtedly went unheard. Butthe experience of the last eighteen months hastaught us that differences are obstacles that canbe overcome when multiple stakeholders cometogether over time to engage in dialogue,examine research and best practice, and worktoward a common goal – creating an educationsystem that builds our community’s future.

Warren SimmonsExecutive Director, Annenberg Institute forSchool Reform at Brown UniversityChair, Rhode Island Urban Education TaskForce

ReferencesCookson, Peter W., Jr. 2009. “What Would

Socrates Say?” Educational Leadership 67 (Sep-tember):8–14.

Crissey, Sarah R. 2009. Education Attainment inthe United States: 2007. Washington, DC:U.S. Census Bureau.

National Center on Education and the Econ-omy. 2008. Tough Choices or Tough Times: TheReport of the New Commission on the Skills ofthe American Workforce. Executive Summary.Washington, DC: NCEE.

Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council.n.d. Cities Count: Connecting People and Placesfor the Future of Rhode Island. Providence:RIPEC.


Introduction tothe Recommendations

Governor Donald L. Carcieri formed theRhode Island Urban Education Task Force in2008 and charged it with developing specificrecommendations for consideration by theGovernor and the General Assembly on waysto strengthen and transform urban education inthe Ocean State. The Task Force first met inJanuary 2008 and met as a plenary group ninetimes over the next eighteen months.

Initially, the Task Force was divided into threesubcommittees: Community Engagement,Human Capital Development, and SystemsInnovation. These three subcommittees devel-oped a total of seven preliminary recommenda-tion areas that were issued in a report to theGovernor in December 2008. Working groupswere then formed around each of the sevenareas, and local specialists from outside of theformal Task Force membership were engagedto provide their expertise. Each working groupwas charged with adding detail to the recom-mendations and developing specific actionsteps. Funding from the Nellie Mae EducationFoundation allowed working groups to alsobring in experts from outside the state topresent new ideas andreview work, as well asto support communityforums in which variousconstituencies couldprovide feedback. For-mal meetings and eventsof the Task Force arelisted in appendix A2.

The Task Force wasspecifically not chargedwith addressing

statewide education funding. However, TaskForce members emphasized that improving theequity of state funding is essential to improvingeducation in the state. Currently, Rhode Islandis the only state in the country that does notdispense its basic education aid on a predictableformula that incorporates the number and char-acteristics of each district’s students. Sucha formula is particularly important in thesechallenging economic times.

From the beginning, the Task Force empha-sized the need for a set of recommendationsthat, as a whole, would provide a statewideagenda for improving urban education frompre-kindergarten through high school.Through its subcommittees, working groups,and public forums, the Task Force addressedthree aspects of such an agenda:

• Attending to the specific learning needs ofour state’s children

• Improving learning supports and opportuni-ties

• Developing the infrastructure and ways ofworking to spur innovation and continuousimprovement

The figure below illustrates how the recom-mendation areas fit together to create a com-

Recommendations


prehensive agenda for urban education inRhode Island. The pre-kindergarten, early lit-eracy and multiple pathways recommendationsattend to the specific learning needs of ourstate’s children. The expanded learning timeand educator quality recommendations arefocused on helping to improve learning sup-ports and provide additional learning opportu-nities. The innovation and collaboration rec-ommendations (which encompass the researchcomponent) address key infrastructure needsand the new ways of working that will fostercontinuous improvement in our urban districtsand the state as a whole.

Taken together, these recommendations canfundamentally change outcomes for RhodeIsland’s children. We urge their implementa-tion in the same spirit that they were devel-oped: collaboratively and with great hope forRhode Island’s future.


1 Pre-Kindergarten Education

The Urban Education Task Force recommendslaunching a high-quality pre-kindergarten pro-gram in Rhode Island, starting with a pilot pro-gram in 2009 and continuing with full imple-mentation after the pilot, giving priority tochildren in communities with low-performingschools and low literacy performance in fourthgrade.

IntroductionResearch has consistently shown that three-and four-year-olds who attend a high-qualitypreschool are more successful in kindergartenand beyond – both academically and socially.Several longitudinal research studies haveshown that providing access to high-qualitypreschool is one of the most cost-effectiveinvestments government can make. Momen-tum is building across the country to improveaccess to high-quality preschool programs.Many states have launched major pre-K educa-tion initiatives in recent years. Until recently,Rhode Island was one of only twelve stateswithout a state-funded pre-K program.

Participation in preschool education has beensteadily increasing during the past decadefor young children from middle- and upper-income families. Nationally, 66 percent offour-year-olds and more than 40 percent ofthree-year-olds were enrolled in a preschooleducation program in 2005. However, enroll-ment in pre-K remains highly unequal. Manyof the children who might benefit the mostfrom pre-K participation do not attend. Fami-lies with modest incomes (under $60,000) havethe least access to preschool education.

The quality of preschool education is criticallyimportant. Only high-quality programs pro-duce lasting positive outcomes for children.High-quality pre-K classrooms are staffed by

a well-educated, appropriately compensatedteacher and teaching assistant with a smallgroup of children (twenty or fewer). Teachersuse a variety of teaching strategies to engagechildren in carefully designed, play-basedlearning opportunities to foster developmentof language, literacy, math, and social skills.

Pre-K benefits children, their families, andtheir communities. From improved academicoutcomes to the economic savings for schoolsand states, the benefits of high-quality pre-Kare irrefutable. The following summary of thebenefits of pre-K from the national organiza-tion Pre-K Now, funded by the Pew CharitableTrusts, highlights some of the research findingsabout the positive impact of high-quality pre-Keducation (see appendix 1S for sources andmore detail).

Successful Students• Children who attended a pre-K program had

higher high school graduation rates(Chicago).

• Pre-K helped children do better on standard-ized tests as fourth-graders (Michigan).

• Pre-K reduced grade repetition as fifth-graders (Maryland).

• Pre-K reduced the number of children placedin special education (Chicago).

Responsible Adults• Pre-K reduced crime and delinquency at age

eighteen (Chicago).

• Pre-K lowered rates of teen pregnancy(North Carolina).

• Forty-year-olds who attended pre-K hadhigher rates of employment, higher wages,and more stable families (Michigan).


Stronger Communities• Every dollar invested in high-quality pre-K

saves taxpayers up to seven dollars in reme-dial and special education, welfare, and crimi-nal justice services, according to a number ofstudies.

• Pre-K improves efficiency and productivityin the classroom in areas such as followingdirections, problem solving, and joining inactivities, all of which allow teachers to spendmore time working directly with children andless on classroom management.

Promising Work under way in Rhode IslandIn 2007, RIDE and Rhode Island KIDSCOUNT formed a Pre-K Exploration Com-mittee that brought early childhood leaderstogether to review research and best practicesfor pre-K in other states and to share ideason how to launch a pre-K program in RhodeIsland. In June 2008, the Rhode IslandGeneral Assembly passed the Rhode IslandPre-Kindergarten Act, which directs RIDEto engage in a planning process for a RhodeIsland pre-K program, including a pilot/demonstration pre-K program and plans forscaling up the program after the pilot stage iscompleted. During fall 2008, the Commis-sioner of Education appointed a Pre-K Plan-ning Committee to do additional work todesign the components of the pre-K programin keeping with the required elements set forthin the law.

The core premises for the pre-K program,based on RIDE’s recommendations and thePre-Kindergarten Act, are as follows:

• Pre-K enrollment will be voluntary (childrenwill not be required to attend).

• Pre-K will be offered in a variety of settings,including childcare, Head Start, and publicschools (this is referred to as a mixed-delivery-system model).

• Rhode Island’s pre-K program will start witha high-quality pilot pre-K project and expandover time.

• The ultimate goal is universal pre-K for allthree- and four-year-olds; however, the pro-gram will provide pre-K for children in thehighest-need communities first (those withhigh concentrations of low-performingschools).

• Pre-K programs need a consistent and stablefunding stream sufficient to meet quality stan-dards. Several states fund pre-K through theirstate education-aid funding formulas.

• Rhode Island’s pre-K program quality stan-dards will meet or exceed the pre-K standardsof the National Institute for Early EducationResearch, including a lead teacher with a BAand specialized training in early childhoodeducation and an assistant teacher with aCDA or equivalent.

• Children aged four will be enrolled in thepilot.

The Pre-K Planning Committee completed itswork in December 2008 and sent its recom-mendations on pre-K program design for thepilot Pre-K Demonstration Program to theCommissioner for consideration by RIDE. Thetarget date for the launch of the DemonstrationProgram was set for fall 2009.

The Governor included $700,000 in fundingfor the Pre-K Demonstration Program in hisFY2010 budget, and the General Assemblyincluded this funding in the budget that waspassed in June 2009. In addition to this funding,the Providence and Central Falls school depart-ments contributed additional Title I stimulusfunding in order to add three additional class-rooms. RIDE put forth a request for proposalsfor the Pre-K Demonstration Program andreceived over twenty proposals from a variety


of possible program sites, including childcarecenters, Head Start programs, and schools andchose sites for the first pre-K demonstrationclassrooms in July 2009. These pre-K class-rooms began operations in fall 2009 and areserving more than 100 children from urban andurban-ring communities. To ensure that theDemonstration Program meets high qualitystandards, the National Institute for Early Edu-cation Research will conduct anevaluation.

Recommendations, Action Steps, andPartner ResponsibilitiesRECOMMENDATION Move beyond the Demonstra-tion Program to implement pre-K in Rhode Islandusing a mixed-delivery system (childcare, HeadStart, schools).

Priority should be given to children in com-munities with low-performing schools andlow literacy performance in fourth grade,given that high-quality pre-K is a core educa-tional strategy for closing the achievementgap that appears at kindergarten entry.

The Task Force recommends that pre-Kprograms be designed to address the needsof English language learners. Task Forcemembers note that to close the achievementgap it will also be important to start interven-tions at birth, including high-quality infant/toddler childcare, health care, and childdevelopment services. The Task Force alsosupports progress toward full-day kinder-garten in Rhode Island’s school districts as arelated strategy.

Moving forward, it will be important to buildgreater support for the work already going onin Rhode Island on this issue and to use com-munications and other avenues to increasepolitical support for this work.

Accountability and SustainabilityWe will know if this work is successful basedon the evaluations of the Pre-K DemonstrationProgram that will be conducted by the NationalInstitute for Early Education Research, alongwith ongoing evaluations to measure the gainsthat participating children make in terms oflanguage, literacy, early numeracy, and socialand emotional development. RIDE will beresponsible for the ongoing monitoring of thiswork, in partnership with Rhode Island KIDSCOUNT and other community partners.

The federal government will provide new fund-ing opportunities for early education in theform of Early Learning Challenge Grants thatare expected to provide $10 billion in new fed-eral funding to states over the next ten years tosupport state efforts to expand early learningopportunities, especially for low-income anddisadvantaged children. This will be an impor-tant new funding stream to support RhodeIsland’s efforts. Another federal funding oppor-tunity is Title I dollars from the AmericanRecovery and Reinvestment Act that can beused to fund pre-K in Title I school districts.Thirteen states fund pre-K through a mecha-nism within their state education funding for-mulas, and the Task Force recommends that,as Rhode Island adopts a funding formula, amethod for funding Pre-K be included.


2 Early Literacy

The Urban Education Task Force recommendsthe implementation of a comprehensive systemof supports for K–3 literacy, with a focus onEnglish language learners.

IntroductionIn 2005, Rhode Island adopted a pre-kinder-garten to grade 12 comprehensive literacy pol-icy that emphasizes the need for differentiatedinstruction to meet the needs of each learner.As part of the policy, Rhode Island emphasizedfour key elements:

• Strong literature, language, and comprehen-sion instruction that includes a balance oforal and written language

• Explicit and systematic instruction of phone-mic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary,and comprehension skills

• Ongoing assessment that informs teachingand ensures accountability

• Proven intervention programs that providesupport for students at risk of failing to learnto read

Implemented effectively, these policies help toensure that not only do children learn to readand write, but they also comprehend a varietyof texts. Comprehension, not just rote skills, isthe overarching goal.

The Task Force supports this policy andbelieves it should serve as the foundation forour literacy efforts. However, additional sup-ports and guidance must be provided to ensureliteracy success for all students. This support isparticularly critical at the earliest grades andfor English language learners: research hasshown that children who are not fluent readersand writers by grade three are much morelikely to drop out of high school (Snow, Burns& Griffin 1998; full references in appendix 2S).

In our information-based economy, the conse-quences of limited literacy skills and droppingout are much more dire than they were in thepast.

To augment our current policies, we mustacknowledge that second-language literacy dif-fers from native-language literacy in importantways. For English language learners (ELLs),the background knowledge students bring tothe classroom differs greatly. ELLs draw onfirst-language skills and experiences to breakinto English, and they continue to draw uponthe home language when they need to, evenat advanced stages of literacy development,to facilitate reading and writing in English(August & Shanahan 2006, Riches & Genesee2006). For ELLs, comprehension is even morecritical. According to the National LiteracyPanel on Language-Minority Children andYouth (August & Shanahan 2006), comprehen-sion must be given priority to ensure that stu-dents see reading and writing as meaningfuland functional activities. Skills and strategiesneed to be taught in a meaningful context,not in decontextualized, rote ways devoid ofmeaning.

Because of the large proportion of English lan-guage learners in the five cities that are thefocus of this Task Force, we feel the state musttake an active role in providing specific sup-ports for this population of students. And whilewe have focused in these recommendations onthe role educators must play to support earlyliteracy, it is important to note that the respon-sibility is not theirs alone. As a state, we mustalso support parents, libraries, colleges anduniversities, community centers, and hospitalsas partners in early literacy development.


Recommendations, Action Steps, andPartner ResponsibilitiesThe Task Force believes that universal pre-kindergarten is an essential step toward earlyliteracy. We support the development of thepilot program that is already under way in ourstate and urge the state to move forward asdescribed in our recommendations for Pre-Kindergarten Education. It is our hope that thepre-kindergarten pilot will support providers’efforts to include students’ home languages ininstruction in order to ensure a strong oral-lan-guage foundation in kindergarten.

Along with universal pre-kindergarten, theTask Force recommends the following actionsbe taken to improve early literacy in urbanareas throughout the state.

RECOMMENDATION Develop a comprehensive,guaranteed, viable early literacy curriculum andmandate its use in districts in corrective action.

There are no easy answers or quick solutionsfor optimizing reading achievement. Butthere does exist an extensive knowledge basethat articulates the skills students must learnin order to read well. These skills providethe basis for sound curriculum decisionsand instructional approaches for all students.The five critical components of readingas defined by the National Reading Panel(2000) include: phonemic awareness, phonicsinstruction, reading fluency, vocabulary, andreading comprehension. When working withEnglish language learners, the importance offirst-language learning to second-languagelearning is also critical. A comprehensive lit-eracy curriculum should utilize a multi-tieredapproach, including a strong core programwith differentiated instruction and intensiveintervention.

By making this comprehensive literacy cur-riculum “guaranteed and viable” (Marzano2003), the Commissioner of Education couldensure that – no matter who teaches a givencourse or grade level specific topics, skills,concepts, and strategies will be addressedand that this content can actually be coveredin the time available. Guaranteed and viablemeans that every teacher in every classroomat every school is providing consistent, high-quality instruction to every child every day.A guaranteed and viable curriculum pro-motes coherence, consistency, and equityacross a system.

Action StepsShort-term�The five urban districts should develop a

comprehensive curriculum for early liter-acy, guided by the above description ofgood early literacy instruction and supportsand based on Rhode Island grade-levelexpectations, Rhode Island Early LearningStandards, PK–12 literacy policy, and theWIDA Consortium’s English LanguageProficiency Standards for English Lan-guage Learners. This curriculum wouldbuild on ongoing efforts to develop curric-ula in the five urban districts, with anemphasis on sharing existing work and bestpractices. Partners developing the curricu-lum would also address the following areas:- Maintaining high expectations for allstudents

- Instructing students based on their devel-opmental needs

- Monitoring progress- Developing growth models- Using data for assessment and decisionmaking


Long-term�Upon completion of this curriculum, each

district in corrective action should have aviable curriculum. This can be achievedwithout legislative intervention; it is withinthe current power of the Commissioner.

RECOMMENDATION Strengthen oral-languagedevelopment to support early literacy.

Research on brain development has identi-fied a clear connection between early learn-ing experiences and later success. Traditionalschooling is important, but so is exposure tobooks and stories at home, as well as experi-ences that expand children’s real-worldknowledge (such as trips to parks, zoos, andmuseums) and opportunities to interact withlanguage by talking with peers and adults,singing songs, and drawing and writing.These experiences are critical to children’sdevelopment and serve as the foundation forliteracy.

A lack of vocabulary is a huge barrier to read-ing proficiency. One of the most persistentfindings in reading research is that the extentof students’ vocabulary knowledge relatesstrongly to their reading comprehension andoverall academic success (see Baumann,Kame’enui & Ash 2003).

Hart and Risley (1995) identified a “30million–word gap” in language experiencebetween three-year-olds in professional fami-lies and those in families who receive publicassistance. The effect of this early gap inwords heard grows exponentially throughoutschooling (Stanovich 1986). Therefore, it isimperative that we focus on oral languageand vocabulary in pre-kindergarten and inthe early grades.

The Governor, the Board of Regents, and

the PK–16 Council should emphasize andpromote the importance of verbal interaction– that is, just plain talking – between childrenand adults. It is the foundation of literacy.Adults in homes, community centers, librar-ies, and schools should encourage childrento ask questions, discuss ideas, describe theirlikes and dislikes, etc. As a first step, on astatewide basis, this can be accomplishedthrough public service announcements thathelp people to understand the relationshipbetween language development and later lit-eracy development and the important role offirst-language development in the ability toread, speak, and write in a second language.

Action StepsShort-term�The Governor should engage a public rela-

tions partner to develop early literacy pub-lic service announcements to appear on tel-evision and radio, on buses, and in librariesand community centers. The public serviceannouncements should be printed/broad-cast in multiple languages and should high-light the importance of talking with chil-dren to expand their oral-language baseand background knowledge.

Long-term�Professional development on early literacy

is weak statewide. The Commissionershould consider bringing Rhode Island’surban communities together with theregional education collaboratives and otherexperts to share resources to support cross-district or statewide early literacy activities,such as developing library programs likeEvery Child Ready to Read, in multiplelanguages. These activities would be devel-oped in partnership with schools, libraries,hospitals, and community centers andwould seek to educate and provide servicesto parents and children that emphasize therelationship between first-language learn-


ing and second-language development andthe importance of verbal interactionbetween children and adults in literacydevelopment.

RECOMMENDATION Develop expertise in teachingemergent literacy.

The latest research about effective literacypractices for English language learners indi-cates that the components of effective read-ing instruction that are critical for all earlylearners – phonemic awareness, phonics,oral-language fluency, vocabulary, text com-prehension, and writing – also benefit ELLs,but with necessary adaptations. Such adapta-tions include extensive vocabulary instructionand oral English language development, cog-nate connections, and the explicit instructionof idioms and words with multiple meanings.

High-quality instruction is one of the bestinvestments our state can make to ensure thatall our students develop sound literacy skills.Classroom teachers should be proficient inteaching beginning readers and writers andspecifically prepared to work with ELLs.Beyond the basics of English phonologyand grammar and of competence in readinginstruction, certified teachers should berequired to know the basics of first- and sec-ond-language acquisition and understandcultural diversity from a positive, additiveperspective. The current requirements forpreparing teachers to teach reading anddiverse learners need to be strengthened andguaranteed.

Action StepsShort-term� In their review of licensing policy, RIDE

and the Board of Regents should reviewcurrent certification requirements for Ele-mentary and Early Childhood teachers andrecommend how expertise in teaching

English language learners to read and writecan be incorporated into the requirements.This might include additional pre-servicecoursework for the initial Certificate of Eli-gibility for Employment or the incorpora-tion of professional development on Eng-lish language learning in the IndividualProfessional Development Plans (or I-Plans) of those seeking a Professional Cer-tificate.

�Requirements for recertification, as well asfor alternate certification, in Elementaryand Early Childhood Education shouldalso be reviewed in a similar manner.Renewal of a Professional Certificate mightbe predicated on teaching English languagelearners or on participating in specific pro-fessional development related to emergentliteracy or to appropriate use of assessmentdata.

Long-term�The Commissioner should consider bring-

ing Rhode Island’s urban communitiestogether to explore sharing resources tosupport cross-district or statewide profes-sional development efforts on early literacy.Ongoing school- and district-based profes-sional development planned specifically tosupport the curriculum (as recommendedearlier) should be required of all educatorsengaged in early literacy instruction andshould adhere to the principles of profes-sional development outlined in appendix2S.

� Since this commitment to professionaldevelopment is a considerable investmentin individuals as well as teams of educatorswho work together, adequate support forand stability in staffing individual schoolsshould be a very high priority. As much as


possible, staffing for early literacy shouldbe guided by the description in appendix2S. When coaches, teachers, specialists,and assistants have the opportunity to col-laborate and grow expertise in a commonpractice, their students are provided withconsistent instructional methods and objec-tives from year to year. This reduces theconfusion that results from frequent shiftsin teaching approaches and permits stu-dents to focus on learning to read and writerather than on changing routines in theclassroom.

�Because of the relationship between pre-service preparation and the quality ofinstruction, higher-education institutionsthat prepare teachers should be engagedto build pre-service and in-service profes-sional development opportunities in earlyliteracy.


3 Expanded Learning Time

The Urban Education Task Force recommendsthat Rhode Island launch an expanded learningtime initiative in the five urban school districtsand implement it through a partnershipbetween the Governor’s office, RIDE, andappropriate Rhode Island community-basedorganizations, with targeted technical assis-tance from the National Center on Time andLearning.

IntroductionThe Task Force seeks to strengthen and trans-form the educational opportunities availableto students in Rhode Island’s urban core com-munities. Expanded learning time (ELT) isan overarching strategy, going beyond whatRhode Island already offers its young people,to change the way that students learn. Withinthis overarching strategy, other redesign strate-gies described in the other recommendationscan be addressed and implemented. We believethat ELT can help to align the other recom-mendations of the Task Force to ensure maxi-mization of effort and impact (see figure onpage 7).

In the past several decades, expectations forwhat children and youth must know and beable to do to be successful have changed dra-matically. With higher learning standards inplace for today’s students, the traditional schoolcalendar has proven to be inadequate, particu-larly for students who are most in need. Thesestudents face many barriers to learning andhave limited access to enrichment opportuni-ties outside of school. Support for expandedlearning time has grown in recent years asschools across the United States have tested avariety of promising models and experienced,in many cases, improved student achievement.

An expanded learning time initiative means notjust extending time, but providing high-quality,engaging, enriching learning opportunitiesduring that time. It is more time well used, whichhelps students, teachers, community-basedorganizations, and families in many ways.

• Students Provides enhanced academics andenrichment activities that are critical to thehealthy development of the whole child.

• Teachers Provides the time for high-qualityprofessional development and the time toteach in a way that deepens the curriculumand/or connects learning to real-world appli-cations.

• Community-based organizations Enhancesand solidifies meaningful partnerships withschools and potentially serves more students.Rhode Island has a rich array of high-qualityafterschool and summer programs run bycommunity-based organizations, whichenables us to build from a strong foundationon their work. If community and school pro-fessionals were to cross-fertilize their knowl-edge and their educational and youth devel-opment strategies, the learning experiencesfor our children could be extraordinarily rich.

• Families Many families have working parentswho need their children engaged in high-quality activities until they come home fromwork.

The additional time can also be used to focuson topics that are critical but have not receivedthe time necessary, including STEM (science,technology, engineering, and math) efforts.More time allows for the inquiry-based andproject-based learning inherent in science.

Afterschool and summer programs are success-fully expanding learning by offering new anddifferent ways of learning that build on youthdevelopment principles. The proven after-school approach to learning, which is necessaryto the success of any effort to expand learning


opportunities, embraces the following prac-tices:

• Engaging, relevant activities are often proj-ect-based, community-based, or both and aredesigned to increase student motivation tolearn.

• Linkages are made to the school day, butcontent is delivered in different ways byapplying school-day lessons to real-worldsettings.

• Academic instruction is designed to meet theneeds, abilities, and learning styles of stu-dents and provide them with a better chanceto succeed.

• Student choice is built into the programdesign.

• Partnerships among schools and CBOs areessential because they bring new and diverselearning opportunities (see appendix 3S).

• Students have opportunities to work bothindependently and in groups and to assumeleadership roles.

• Communication between families andschool-day staff is ongoing.

• Youth development practices model positivebehavior management strategies that moti-vate youth and adults to work and learntogether.

Partnerships with community-based organiza-tions also help to alleviate any undue burdenon teachers alone to implement an ELT initia-tive. (See appendix 3S for a listing of sampleRhode Island community- and school-basedorganizations that could join the ELT initiativepartnership.)

Expanded learning time can serve as a modelfor unifying afterschool and in-school learning.See appendix 3S for a diagram from the Pro-gram for Afterschool Education and Researchat Harvard representing visually the evolutionof the relationship between afterschool and thetraditional school day.

Research shows that English language learners(ELLs) can benefit from ELT (see appendix3S). Currently there is not enough time to pro-vide ELL students with all the support theyneed – particularly those older students whoarrive in the tenth through twelfth grades. ELTcould greatly benefit these students as well.

Current Work in Rhode IslandThe Task Force believes it is important to rec-ognize and build on structures that alreadyexist in Rhode Island, including the ProvidenceAfter School Alliance (PASA), RIDE’s Child-hood Opportunity Zones and 21st CenturyLearning Centers, full-service communityschools, the Rhode Island Afterschool PlusAlliance, the Woonsocket Afterschool Coali-tion, successful Rhode Island charter schoolmodels, and related initiatives already underway in some of the core urban districts. Aspartnerships between schools and community-based organizations are central to the conceptof ELT, model design must consider how torecognize and integrate existing and emergingorganizations that can provide supports in arange of areas.

Task Force members feel strongly that in addi-tion to academic supports, it will be critical toinclude a focus on the arts, recreation, andsocial services to address a variety of youthdevelopment needs. Special consideration mustalso be given to developing structures and sup-ports for addressing the needs of English lan-guage learners and special education students.(Descriptions of existing related work underway in Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and NewYork City are in appendix 3S.)


Recommendations, Action Steps, andPartner ResponsibilitiesRECOMMENDATION Implement expanded learningtime at demonstration sites selected through a vol-untary, competitive proposal process.

Administered by RIDE, the ELT School-Community Grants will be distributed com-petitively to Rhode Island communities forthe purposes of planning for ELT in the formof longer school days and/or school years.Preference will be given to those districtsthat consider a comprehensive restructuringof the entire school day and/or year to maxi-mize the use of the additional learning time;to districts with high poverty rates; to dis-tricts with a high percentage of students notachieving proficiency as reported throughthe New England Common AssessmentProgram; and to districts that incorporatepartnerships with afterschool programs,community-based organizations, and institu-tions of higher education as part of theirELT initiative.

RECOMMENDATION Ensure that the planning andimplementation process is inclusive.

ELT requires that the planning and imple-mentation be inclusive of all stakeholders.Participants in Massachusetts ELT work(described in appendix 3S) noted the particu-lar importance of working with union repre-sentatives early and often in the planning andimplementation. In Rhode Island, the stake-holders include, but are not limited to: unionrepresentatives, principals, teachers, commu-nity-based and school-based afterschool andsummer programs, and other communitypartners, including businesses, higher educa-tion, parents, youth, legislators and legisla-tive staff, the Governor’s office, and RIDE.

RECOMMENDATION Include a series of key designcomponents in the ELT initiative that have beenadapted from successful models to the RhodeIsland context.

These components include voluntary partici-pation; input from youth; partnershipsbetween community-based organizationsand the highest-needs schools and districts;equitable funding between the school and itspartners; and creation by candidate schoolsof a detailed implementation plan, includingstaffing, breakdown of use of time with spe-cific goals and actions, data systems, a cross-sector planning team, identification of suit-able partners, and inclusion of academicand enrichment activities for students andprofessional development for adults. Detailsof these key components are included inappendix 3S.

RECOMMENDATION Target specific age ranges withappropriate learning opportunities.

Expanded learning opportunities definedbroadly can be effective for students ingrades K–12; the specific details of the imple-mentation will vary according to the age ofthe students targeted. For the type of ELTstructure we describe in this recommenda-tion, preliminary research has shown that thegreatest impact has been seen at the elemen-tary and middle school levels. Expandedlearning for high school students will, bynecessity, look different because of issues sur-rounding work schedules, athletics, and otherafterschool commitments that high schoolstudents typically have more than youngerstudents. Expanded learning opportunitiesfor high school students will more likelyinvolve internships and apprenticeships thattie their academic, in-school learning withreal-world, relevant employment (possiblyfor high school graduation credit), dualenrollment, and other examples of learning


beyond the classroom. Given the potential ofELT to help older ELL students who enterhigh school from other countries, the TaskForce recommends that elementary, middle,and high schools (including charter schools)all be eligible to apply for a planning grant.

RECOMMENDATION Implement the ELT initiativeat the state level initially by hosting it through apublic-private partnership that is governed by aStatewide Expanded Learning Steering Committee,in order to maximize capacity and efficiency andensure that this initiative is a catalyst for changeand not a one-time project. The Task Force recom-mends that this public-private partnership includethe Governor’s office, RIDE’s Office of Middle andHigh School Reform, and the Rhode Island After-school Plus Alliance.

The Steering Committee will develop a five-year strategic business plan for the initiative.The composition of the Steering Committeewill include but not be limited to: RIDE, theGovernor’s office, legislators and legislativestaff, Rhode Island Federation of Teachers,the Annenberg Institute for School Reform,higher education, the Board of Regents,superintendents, principals, teachers, RhodeIsland Afterschool Plus Alliance, ProvidenceAfter School Alliance, community-based andschool-based afterschool providers, funders,Rhode Island Association of School Commit-tees, and youth.

In addition to the Steering Committee, eachschool participating in the planning processwill implement its own local design team(composition of these teams is describedunder Key Components in appendix 3S).

RECOMMENDATION Engage the Rhode Islandhigher-education community in the ELT initiative.

University students, faculty, and staff arealready active educators in many out-of-school-time programs in Rhode Island. Forexample, Brown University has over eightyoutreach programs; the University of RhodeIsland has an intensive partnership withCentral Falls; Rhode Island College trainsmost of the state’s teachers; and Johnsonand Wales has significant service-learningrequirements. Providence College hasadopted an AfterZone campus in Providencemiddle schools supplying over fifty studentvolunteers each year, office space, researchsupport, and facilities access to the over 200middle school youth in that particular After-Zone. Colleges and universities in this stateare a resource in the learning of our childrenand youth and there are many ways theycould be even more of a resource, particu-larly within an ELT initiative.

RECOMMENDATION Allocate specific roles andresponsibilities to the partnering organizations inthe public-private management structure accord-ing to the functional needs of the ELT initiative.

These roles will be more fully fleshed out inpartnership with the Steering Committee,but we include some illustrative examples inthis section. In addition, due to the nature ofpartnerships, some roles and responsibilitieswill be shared. See appendix 3S for a pro-posed timeline for these activities.

Statewide Expanded LearningSteering Committee• Develop a five-year strategic business plan

for the ELT initiative.

• Provide overall oversight of the ELTinitiative.

• In partnership with school ELT teams,RIDE, and an external evaluator, developa three- to five-year evaluation plan with


short-, mid-, and long-term academicand youth development outcomes, aswell as process outcomes for planningand implementation.

RIDE• Manage the administrative components of

the ELT initiative, including the requestfor proposal process, planning, and imple-mentation process.

• In partnership with the Steering Commit-tee, identify and contract with appropriatetechnical assistance providers and evalua-tor(s).

Governor’s Office• Participate on Steering Committee.

• Assist in the development of policy, sharingof results, and fundraising.

Rhode Island Afterschool Plus Alliance• Serve as the liaison for community-based

and school-based afterschool and summerprograms working with ELT schools.

• In partnership with the technical assistanceproviders, offer joint professional develop-ment for community-based and school-based teachers at ELT schools on bothyouth development principles and integra-tion of academic standards into experientiallearning.

• Partner with the Steering Committee,management agencies, evaluator, and tech-nical assistance providers to share results,fundraise, and develop policy.

RECOMMENDATION Offer ongoing technical assis-tance and professional development to both thelocal participating schools and the Steering Com-mittee to ensure that practice and policy areresponsive to best practice.

The Steering Committee, in partnershipwith the public-private partnership managingthe initiative, will facilitate the selection of

technical assistance and professional develop-ment providers. Targeted technical assistancewill be provided by appropriate organizationswith the requisite expertise, including theNational Center on Time and Learning, theAfter-School Corporation, and others to bedetermined based on local site and state need.

The technical assistance during the first yearwith schools conducting their planning willinclude, but not be limited to:

• four to five training sessions for planningschools (e.g., overview of planning process,setting a vision for a new school day, assess-ing student and school needs, identifyingschoolwide academic focus, developingredesign plans and budgets, etc.);

• supporting district and union leadershipdiscussions and negotiations to ensurecommunication and coordination with thegoal of reaching negotiated agreements;

• policy development.

Accountability and SustainabilityEvaluationThe Task Force recommends that a compre-hensive evaluation of the ELT initiative be con-ducted by a highly qualified outside evaluator.The specific outcomes will be defined by thelocal sites during the planning process, in part-nership with the Steering Committee, but willinclude both academic and youth developmentoutcomes. In any work around outcomes, it isessential that the goals and outcomes be alignedwith intentionality to the actual design of theprogram: hence, the importance of developinga logic model for the work. The Steering Com-mittee will work during the first planning yearto develop a logic model and outcomes for theinitiative in partnership with an external evalua-tor and the planning teams at the schools that


receive planning grants. The Task Force rec-ommends that the goals and outcomes of theELT initiative be aligned and integrated withthe Board of Regents’ goals for student achieve-ment and with RIDE’s goals, outcomes, andindicators for its school redesign work.

The Task Force recommends that participatingschools in an ELT initiative have the followingbroad categories of outcomes, to be determinedin detail through a logic-modeling process withthe Steering Committee, an external evaluator,and the planning teams at the ELT schools(adapted from Forum for Youth Investment2008, p. 3; full reference in appendix 3S):

• Youth-level outcomes Academic and youthdevelopment outcomes

• Program-level outcomes Characteristics thatdescribe and demonstrate the value of high-quality ELT programming, including activitycharacteristics and structural features

• System-level outcomes Characteristics of well-coordinated systems that lead to improvedquality, scale, and sustainability

The Task Force also recommends that a processand outcome evaluation be conducted, assessingboth the process implementation strategies andthe quantitative outcomes,and that the evaluation be based on a growthmodel rather than an annual cohort model.Task Force members feel strongly that thedesign of the logic model and outcomes beappropriate and realistic and that there needs tobe enough funding allocated for a comprehen-sive evaluation by an external evaluator.

Required Resources andFundraising Strategy• Planning grants $5,000–$20,000 per district

• Implementation funding Based on best-practiceresearch, the annual per student amount willmost likely be in the range of $1,300 to$1,800

• Technical assistance and support $35,000 forthe first planning year

• Evaluation [to be determined]

• Secured and potential funding sources TheFY2010 state budget includes $100,000 forRIDE to implement an ELT initiative, begin-ning with planning grants for the 2009-2010academic year. The National Center onTime and Learning is looking for partnersnationally to implement ELT initiatives,and Rhode Island has been considered as apotential partner site. If Rhode Island quali-fies, federal support for the initiative may beavailable through American Recovery andReinvestment Act Race to the Top competi-tive funds and pending legislation. Privatefoundations have also expressed interestin supporting ELT in Rhode Island. TheStatewide Expanded Learning SteeringCommittee will develop and implement afundraising plan.


4 Multiple Pathways forStudent Success

The Urban Education Task Force recommendsimplementing a number of steps to create mul-tiple pathways to graduation and postsecondarysuccess for young people, such as partnershipswith adult education programs, access to APcourses, and courses offered at nontraditionaltimes.

IntroductionRhode Island is facing a crisis of completion inour urban districts. The Rhode Island urbandistrict dropout rate is 26 percent, comparedwith a statewide rate of 16 percent. Students inall racial and ethnic groups in urban districtshave high dropout rates, ranging from 24 per-cent of Black students to 29 percent of NativeAmerican students. Rhode Island data showthat male students, low-income students(receiving free or reduced-price meals), stu-dents receiving special education services, andEnglish language learners are particularly likelyto drop out (see figures 4 and 5 in appendix4S). National research shows that teen parentsand youth in the foster care system are alsomore likely to drop out than their peers.

Students’ need for engaging curriculum,involvement with at least one concerned adult,and a path to opportunity begins in the middlegrades. Intervening with students who arestruggling in the middle grades and who areidentifiably at risk for low academic achieve-ment and for dropping out is both less expen-sive and more effective than later remediation.Both struggling students and those who requiregreater academic challenges or a clear careerpath need to be engaged early on. Studentinvolvement in the process of career explo-ration and choosing their personal pathways iscritical to this work. Ideally, an individual grad-

uation plan commences in the sixth grade, sothat levels of support and individualized path-ways can be designed before the student beginshigh school.

A proficiency-based education system likeRhode Island’s focuses on knowledge andskill development for high school graduation,college preparation and readiness, and employ-ment and career success. The multiple path-ways approach includes, but goes beyond,academic proficiency to provide a variety ofopportunities and supports for students, partic-ularly those who are struggling in the tradi-tional system, so that all students can graduatefrom high school and enter meaningful post-secondary education, training, and/or workopportunities.

The Rhode Island education system is goingthrough a time of re-envisioning and reform.Urban districts are implementing wide-scalemiddle and high school reform efforts in col-laboration with RIDE. It is critical to supportthese efforts at the state and local levels, as it isonly through ensuring that the highways ofeducation (our traditional schools) are effectivethat we can ensure that all students have thepotential and equal opportunity for success. Inaddition to this work, it is necessary to create asafety net for our urban students who are mostat risk of dropping out of school through thecreation of core alternative pathways.

The U.S. Department of Education has identi-fied essential elements of dropout preventionand treatment that include the use of data, per-sonalization of the school environment, and thedevelopment of alternatives for students whoare not succeeding in or who have trouble par-ticipating in traditional schools (Dynarski et al.2008; see appendix 4S). None of this can beaccomplished without professional develop-ment for teachers and administrators on howto support students every step of the way tograduation.


Promising Work under way in Rhode IslandRIDE and Rhode Island’s urban districts arecurrently implementing middle and highschool personalization efforts based on theBoard of Regents’ new middle and high schoolregulations and the new Basic Education Pro-gram (BEP) regulations. These regulationsprovide for a number of “prevention” mecha-nisms, including small learning environments,connections with at least one responsible adult,and academic supports for struggling studentswho remain within the comprehensive school.

The BEP also requires that each local educa-tion agency (LEA) implement a systematicproblem-solving approach to address studentissues that may interfere with success. Thisapproach uses teams that analyze data on stu-dent attendance, disciplinary actions, grades,and course completion. These teams thendevelop LEA-specific interventions targeted atidentified student needs, including interven-tions both in and out of school as part of stu-dents’ Individual Learning Plans. Moving for-ward, efforts that include strategies to increaseparent and community involvement will becritical to the success of this work.

Recommendations, Action Steps, andPartner ResponsibilitiesBased on state and national data and researchon promising practices to support student edu-cational success, the Task Force offers the fol-lowing recommendations to address the needsof Rhode Island’s urban students.

Using Data to Intervene EarlyNational research has identified the risk factorsthat can best predict whether students will dropout of high school. Schools and districts candecrease dropout rates by having systems in

place to comprehensively identify a majority ofthose at risk for dropping out and then imple-ment multiple strategies to support each stu-dent on their path to graduation. This includespreventative interventions for at-risk popula-tions, as well as recovery programs for popula-tions that are off-track for graduation. Accord-ing to the National High School Center(www.betterhighschools.org), the followingindicators have been identified as the mostvaluable for identifying who is most likely todrop out:

• poor grades in core subjects

• low attendance

• failure to be promoted to the next grade

• disengagement in the classroom, includingbehavioral problems (e.g., a poor final behav-ior grade for the year)

RECOMMENDATION Support districts in creatingearly warning systems that can be used to identifymiddle school and high school students at risk ofdropping out. Provide tailored supports to stu-dents identified using the early warning systemand track these students to ensure that they getback on track for graduation within a reasonableamount of time.

RIDE and its partners should use the build-ing blocks that exist in the RIDE data ware-house and the district information systems todevelop this model and train local educatorsand administrators in using the early warningsystem. The early warning system can beused to identify many students who are atrisk of dropping out as early as sixth gradeand those who are struggling with the transi-tion from eighth to ninth grade.

Action Steps

� Identify which districts are already usingearly warning systems.


�Develop a protocol in which RIDE cansupport districts in implementing earlywarning systems and monitor their success.

�Create opportunities and incentives for dis-tricts to collaborate in the development ofearly warning systems.

�Ensure that these data follow the child ifand when the child transfers schools.

Alternatives for Studentsin the Middle GradesAll students deserve high-quality and enrichingmiddle grade experiences, and most middle-level students do not need intensive interven-tions and alternative settings as much as tar-geted and thoughtful supports based on studentneeds and risk factors. For students who doneed more intensive supports, access to appro-priate alternatives to the traditional junior highand middle school models becomes essential.Note that alternative middle-level models arenot limited to behavior programs, but can alsoprovide a variety of academic and other sup-ports to struggling students in grades 6through 8.

Aggregate data already show that middle-levelstudents in urban districts are performing lesswell, have been held back more, and are inschool less frequently than suburban studentsin Rhode Island, putting them at increased riskof becoming dropouts. On any given day, anaverage of almost 10 percent of urban studentswere absent (see appendix 4S).

RECOMMENDATION Develop more alternativesto the traditional middle school and junior highschool models so that all children have reasonableaccess to schools that are built around the needsof students who are “exceptions to the rule” andare struggling in their schools.

Developing more alternatives could beaccomplished by expanding access to educa-tional models with proven track records of

increasing student success at the middle level,with a focus on building on local successesand existing programs, and by exploringemerging national models that have success-fully worked with struggling students in themiddle grades. These alternatives could bedeveloped through the Innovation Zone,described in section 7.

Action Steps

�Expand access to the Urban CollaborativeAccelerated Program (UCAP), an accelera-tion program for urban middle school stu-dents from participating Rhode Island dis-tricts who are at risk of dropping out due tograde retention. UCAP accelerates stu-dents who are behind in school to get themback on track for timely graduation withstudents their age, allowing students ingrades 7, 8, and 9 to complete three years’worth of work in two school years.

�Explore the use of expanded learningtime models (see the recommendationson expanded learning time), other out-of-school-time programs such as the Provi-dence After School Alliance, models suchas City Year, and programs such as theCollege Crusade that can support studentlearning at the middle level.

� Support cross-district and regional conver-sations about increasing access to alterna-tive middle-level models for urban studentsin Rhode Island.

�Explore public and private funding optionsat the local, state, and federal levels forexpanding access to alternative middleschool models for urban students in RhodeIsland.


Multiple Pathwaysfor High School StudentsAll students in Rhode Island deserve timelyaccess to opportunities for a meaningful highschool education that fits their individualneeds. Due to the critical importance of a highschool diploma for accessing future educationalopportunities and for meaningful workforceparticipation, students most at risk of droppingout of high school are of particular concern.Urban students are more likely than studentsfrom more affluent districts to struggle inschool and are the primary focus of the work ofthe Task Force. While eventually all students inRhode Island will have access to multiple path-ways to high school completion, it is critical tostart by ensuring access to multiple pathwaysfor the students who need them most.

Youth in Rhode Island’s urban core are strug-gling; more than a quarter (26 percent) of stu-dents in the class of 2008 in Rhode Island’surban districts dropped out of high school.Studies show that students leave high schoolbefore completion because they are notengaged (often due to limited access to chal-lenging curricula or lack of connection with atleast one concerned adult in the school), havepoor attendance, face other barriers to aca-demic success (like English-language difficul-ties or special education needs), have behaviorproblems or family responsibilities that inter-fere with participation in traditional schoolmodels, and/or have fallen significantly behindin their course work. English language learnerspose a particular challenge for the urban dis-tricts where they are concentrated, as theyoften need intensive academic assistance as wellas cultural assimilation supports and basic Eng-lish language instruction (see appendix 4S).

During the 2008-2009 school year, 12 percentof urban ninth-graders in Rhode Island weretwo or more grades below normal for their

age, 9 percent of tenth-graders were over agefor their grade, 5 percent of eleventh-graderswere over age, and 6 percent of twelfth-graderswere over age. Research has shown that stu-dents who are retained in school or who havetrouble achieving the necessary credits to stayon schedule for graduation are more likely thantheir peers to drop out (Kennelly & Monrad2007; National High School Center at AIRWeb site; full references in appendix 4S). Mod-els that help these students stay in school, catchup on credits, and graduate on time with theirpeers are essential for assisting a large group ofurban students to complete high school suc-cessfully.

We also know that the adult education systemis experiencing growth in its population ofyoung adults: from fiscal year 2007 through fis-cal year 2008, there was an increase of 15 per-cent in the number of students between theages of sixteen and twenty-four. In the currentprogram year, young adults represent 31 per-cent of all learners enrolled in Adult BasicEducation programs. These programs meet asmall fraction of the need, as there are 14,975individuals age eighteen to twenty-four inRhode Island who lack a high school creden-tial. Finally, in 2008, 75 percent of all GEDgraduates were between the ages of sixteen andtwenty-four.

Rhode Island’s urban districts are involvedin essential reform efforts to make all highschools places where rigorous learning, growth,and exploration take place, regardless of thestudent demographics. The state should con-tinue to support this process, continuing tomaintain the focus on personalizing learningand the learning environment for all students,universal access to college preparatory curric-ula (including AP courses and dual enrollment


opportunities), and access to approved careerand technical education aligned with industrystandards.

The Rhode Island BEP regulations have laidthe groundwork for the creation of multiplepathways through the requirement that eachdistrict establish alternative programs in part-nership with community agencies that includestrategies differing from traditional programs.Districts are also required to work with RIDEto ensure that older English language learnerswho cannot graduate with their cohort haveage-appropriate English as a second languageopportunities through approved high-qualityprograms.

Nationally, there are a number of models ofsuccessful alternative pathways for studentswho struggle in traditional high schools andwho would benefit from non-traditional educa-tional opportunities (including the New YorkCity Department of Education’s Office of Mul-tiple Pathways and Vermont’s Department ofEducation High School Completion Model).Developing these types of alternatives to tradi-tional high schools for Rhode Island studentswho may be struggling and for those whowould otherwise benefit from a diverse array ofhigh school options will increase the number ofRhode Island youth who graduate from highschool prepared to succeed in post-secondaryeducation and the workforce.

The following recommendation envisions arange of recuperative and restorative strategiesfor in- and out-of-school youth. These pro-grams could function across urban districts,thus focusing resources and creating targetedstrategies for those individuals in each districtwho could benefit from these approaches.

RECOMMENDATION Develop a Multiple Pathwaysfor Student Success Initiative at RIDE, in consulta-tion with the Rhode Island Office of Higher Educa-tion and the Rhode Island Department of Laborand Training. The initiative should build on thenew BEP elements that address multiple pathwaysand will be responsible for supporting, coordinat-ing, and monitoring state and district efforts todevelop key alternative high school opportunitiesfor Rhode Island’s urban students who are strug-gling in the traditional high school system. The ini-tiative will also be responsible for developing aresearch-based “on track to graduation” measurethat can be applied to each district and monitoredannually.

Multiple-pathways alternative high schoolmodels will be most successful if they areembedded in existing district structures and ifthey develop cross-system capacity to providewrap-around supports for students at greatestrisk of dropping out. Potential modelsinclude:

• statewide or regional Newcomers Academyor other programs to help older Englishlanguage learners and newcomer youthlearn English and achieve meaningful highschool credentials;

• alternative completion models for studentswho have too few credits to complete highschool in a timely manner and for studentswho have family or personal obligationsrequiring them to attend school duringnon-traditional hours or study with flexibletiming.

The development of these models can bebased on the New York City Departmentof Education transfer schools for over-age,under-credited students, as well as on theVermont high school completion model thatallows students to access a menu of servicesprovided both by their districts and by localadult education agencies (see appendix 4S).


Also, the initiative could explore opportuni-ties for providing high school credit to stu-dents who take advantage of distance learn-ing and e-learning opportunities.

Action Steps

� Investigate private foundation and grantfunding and investment from the Gover-nor’s Workforce Board Rhode Islandthrough its Youth Development Commit-tee to support this initiative at RIDE andthe work of the districts in implementingthese alternatives. Explore existing statemodels for funding these types of alterna-tive schools when they are regional orcross-district partnerships (e.g., state-operated schools like the MET, charterschools, or educational collaboratives).

� Meet with urban district leadership to pri-oritize the elements of this work and todevelop an action plan for creating morehigh school alternatives in Rhode Island.

�Explore Rhode Island and additionalnational promising practices that can beused as a basis for this work going forward,such as:- Diploma Program at Aquidneck IslandLearning Center: A credit recovery modelwhere students missing one or two yearsof credit can focus on those courses andreceive a Rogers High School diploma.

- Providence Career and Technical Acad-emy Second Day for Learning Initiative:Out-of-school youth will have access tothe new academy and to GED prepara-tion services.

- Woonsocket Feinstein E-Learning Acad-emy: An individualized credit recoveryprogram with online courses.

- The Check and Connect Model: Devel-oped in Minnesota with a focus on dis-trictwide high school dropout preventionprogramming.

Access to Collegeand College PreparationCollege access and preparation is the mainpathway to student success. The unequalexpectations in our urban schools about whoshould attend college deprive many of ouryouth (particularly urban youth) of the oppor-tunity to attend post-secondary institutions.A statewide commitment to the idea that allstudents deserve the right to equal access andopportunity for higher education is essential toensuring that all students in our state graduatefrom high school prepared for higher educa-tion and the workplace with the tools andinformation they need to make college a realityin their lives.

Rhode Island has recently joined in a partner-ship with other New England states to formthe New England Secondary School Consor-tium. Goals of the Consortium include increas-ing state graduation rates to 90 percent,decreasing the dropout rate to less than 1 per-cent, increasing the percentage of students whoenroll in college to 80 percent, and reducingthe percentage of college students who needremedial courses in college to 5 percent. Toreach these ambitious goals, Rhode Islandneeds to work together with the other statesand start immediately with a commitment toincreasing college access for all students inRhode Island, including those in urban districtswho traditionally are less likely to attend post-secondary education institutions.

Any college access work in Rhode Islandshould build upon existing efforts and organi-zations, including supporting the work beingdone through the Rhode Island Office ofHigher Education Early College Access initia-tives, such as:

• summer dual enrollment scholarships toexpose high school students to college cur-riculum early;


• financial support for high school studentsenrolled in college courses taught at the highschool through the Rhode Island CollegeEarly Enrollment Program;

• highlighting opportunities at the CommunityCollege of Rhode Island such as the HighSchool Enrichment program or RunningStart;

• focusing on comprehensive programs such asthe Pathways to College program, a summercollege experience between the Universityof Rhode Island and Central Falls HighSchool, or the Pathways through Collegeprogram, a model designed to offer highschool seniors the opportunity complete fif-teen to thirty credits toward college whilesimultaneously completing high school grad-uation requirements.

We must also encourage ongoing collaborationand communication between the Office ofHigher Education and RIDE, particularlyencouraging the development of shared policyto direct these efforts. This work should alsouse the resources available through the Way toGo Rhode Island Web portal administered bythe Rhode Island Higher Education AssistanceAuthority.

RECOMMENDATION Create a statewide collegeaccess working group which would include, atminimum: RIDE, the Rhode Island Office of HigherEducation, representatives from school districts,educators, public and private higher-educationinstitutions, the Rhode Island School CounselorsAssociation, college access programs, college dis-ability support services programs, communityorganizations working on college access issues,and students and their families to develop andcoordinate a post-secondary access agenda forthe state.

This working group would be tasked withaddressing issues that include, but are notlimited to:

• improving professional developmentrelated to post-secondary education formiddle and high school staff to give themthe tools to help students to access higher-education opportunities after graduation;

• increasing student access to financial prepa-ration information to help them plan forways to make college a reality;

• improving communication and access toinformation about accessing higher educa-tion in urban communities to better informparents and youth (many of whom maybe the first generation in their families toattend college) about college opportunity,access, and success;

• building on efforts that already exist andwork with families, community-basedorganizations, and school staff to createcollaborative structures that supportschools in providing all students withaccess to college;

• setting goals and monitor progress on indi-cators of college access (including, but notlimited to PSAT registration and SAT feewaivers requested and used by low-incomestudents, college application and matricula-tion rates, access to advanced placementand other college preparatory coursework).

Action Step

�Create a statewide college access workinggroup, identify funding, and appointchair(s) to convene the group.


Accountability and SustainabilityIn meetings with district representatives,college access specialists, community-basedproviders, advocates, and staff from RIDE andthe Rhode Island Office of Higher Education,it became clear that the conversations aroundthe topic of reducing the dropout rate andimproving student success have only juststarted to happen on a statewide scale, in largepart due to the Task Force efforts. The initialgroundwork laid in the development of theserecommendations will provide a roadmap forfuture dropout prevention work and will helpRhode Island to build a public education sys-tem where all students graduate from highschool ready to take the next steps in theireducational and professional lives.

The next steps for Rhode Island in developingmeaningful strategies and interventions toassist all students to be successful throughouthigh school and into life beyond include devel-oping more-specific action steps, identifyingwho is responsible for taking on this work, anddeveloping benchmarks to track success andenable educators and those in local communi-ties who partner on this work to continuallyimprove the educational opportunities offeredto Rhode Island’s urban students.

The opportunity to address some of thesequestions was an essential element of theRhode Island Dropout Prevention Summit,sponsored by the America’s Promise Alliance aspart of a national initiative to improve educa-tional outcomes for youth. The Rhode Islandsummit was held on October 8, 2009, and wasconvened by Rhode Island KIDS COUNT.(More information on the summits at <www.americaspromise.org/Our-Work/Dropout-Prevention.aspx>)

As identified in each of the above recommen-dations, there are promising Rhode Islandefforts in all of these areas that can be used asbuilding blocks for moving forward with thiswork.

More needs to be done to identify fundingopportunities that can support the develop-ment of each of these components of the work.The following funding opportunities should beexplored: federal Department of Educationgrants; federal American Recovery and Rein-vestment Act (stimulus) funds, including Raceto the Top funds; federal and Rhode IslandDepartment of Labor and Training funds; pri-vate foundation funding; funding from RhodeIsland businesses as part of investing in thefuture Rhode Island workforce; and realloca-tions of existing state and local education fund-ing to prioritize critical elements of this work.


5 Statewide Educator QualityDevelopment System

The Urban Education Task Force recommendscollaboration within and across districts toimprove educator quality by implementinginnovative models that differentiate careerpaths for teachers and provide more profes-sional growth and evaluation opportunities.

IntroductionIn the private sector, human capital is generallydefined as the accumulated value of an individ-ual’s intellect, knowledge, experience, compe-tencies, and commitment that contributes tothe achievement of an organization’s vision andbusiness objectives. When this idea is appliedto K–12 education, the “business objective,”or bottom line, is student achievement and,more broadly, the development of young peo-ple into productive members of our participa-tory democracy. In public education, humancapital – or, perhaps more appropriately, educa-tor quality – refers to the knowledge and skillsets of our educators that directly result inincreased levels of learning and positive out-comes for students. In short, we are talkingabout their talent level – what teachers, princi-pals, and administrators know and are ableto do.

Given this definition, human capital manage-ment in a comprehensive educator qualitydevelopment system refers to how an organiza-tion tries to acquire, increase, and sustainthe talent level of educators over time. Morespecifically, it refers to the entire continuum ofactivities and policies that affect educators overtheir work life at a given school district. Thisrange of activities includes pre-service/prepara-tion and licensure; recruitment and selection;hiring and induction; placement and reassign-ment; professional development, mentoring,and support; and evaluation, career advance-

ment, compensation, and the removal of inef-fective educators (see examples of human capi-tal management frameworks in appendix 5S). Ahuman capital approach – here referred to as acomprehensive educator quality developmentapproach – to a problem like recruiting, devel-oping, and retaining high-quality educators inurban schools involves districts and states coor-dinating efforts around each component of thecontinuum for maximum effect.

Given the time constraints of the Task Force’slife, the focus of attention in this area was onthose activities or continuum components thatmost impact the pre-existing and fairly stableworkforce of Rhode Island’s urban districts.Key areas with the most potential to help cur-rent educators improve and, through thatimprovement, positively impact student learn-ing and outcomes were identified as evaluation,professional development, and ongoing sup-port. The extent to which states and districtsare effective in these focus areas has a directeffect on whether they can attract and keephigh-quality new teachers. Moreover, successin these areas also impacts how well states anddistricts are able to provide specific feedback topreparation programs on how to produce thesort of educators these states and districts need,how well they are able to identify and recog-nize their most effective educators, and, ulti-mately, how they deal with those who arechronically ineffective. In this sense, theseareas form a foundation for the reform ofother areas of educator quality development.

Several important components of the educatorquality continuum (including recruitment andteacher preparation) are not dealt with directlyin this document. However, in the long-termrecommendations that follow, the Task Forceproposes ideas for addressing these other edu-cator quality development elements at a future


date. We hope that state-level action in theareas identified by the Task Force will assist theurban districts’ efforts to create individualized,comprehensive educator quality developmentstrategies that take advantage of specific districtstrengths and acknowledge specific districtweaknesses.

At the core of these recommendations is theconviction that a shared conception of whateffective instruction looks like and how wemeasure it in actual teachers is the cornerstoneof all urban educator quality initiatives. Webelieve that this conception is multifaceted,involving professional standards of practice inareas such as content knowledge, pedagogy,classroom management, and family engage-ment; a code of ethical conduct; and evidenceof student learning and progress. We alsobelieve that a variety of metrics are necessary toaccurately and fairly assess the performance ofan educator against this conception, rangingfrom classroom observations and evaluationconferences to formative classroom assess-ments, student portfolios, and classroom arti-facts to subjective and objective evidence ofstudent learning. A commitment to this com-plicated picture of effective instruction is nec-essary for real educator quality developmentreform to work.

Current Rhode Island ContextTo fully understand these recommendations, itis important to be aware of some state-specificcontexts.

State Policy and Regulatory IssuesRhode Island has put in place the foundationalbase to develop an evaluation system for alleducators that will be based on the RhodeIsland Professional Teaching Standards(RIPTS) and the Rhode Island Standards forEducational Leadership. Both sets of standards

were adopted by the Board of Regents for Ele-mentary and Secondary Education and arebeing used in some districts to pilot the use ofnew evaluation systems. In the fall of 2009, theRegents will accept public comment on the“Educator Evaluation System Framework” thatwill detail the standards and criteria necessaryfor every district evaluation system (see appen-dix 5S). In addition, Rhode Island’s new Com-missioner of Education has recently releasedher vision for the state’s education system,“Transforming Education in Rhode Island.”Central to the agenda accompanying this visionis her plan to ensure educator excellence. Therecommendations in this report articulate adirection that is in many ways similar to theCommissioner’s agenda; to the extent they do,they should be viewed as an affirmation of thatwork which has gained momentum since theinception of the Task Force.

While the development and adoption of thesestandards at the state level are important firststeps, the following recommendations suggestways in which the state might play an evenlarger role in evaluating and developing educa-tor quality than in the past. In 2008, RhodeIsland continued to score near the bottom inprominent national rankings of how statessupport and regulate teacher quality (seeappendix 5S). These recommendations are inpart designed to address some of the problemsidentified in those national report cards, andit is the opinion of the Task Force that thesenational reports should continue to guidereform within and beyond the scope of theserecommendations.

Fiscal IssuesWhile some aspects of a statewide educatorquality development system should have rela-tively low, or even no, costs associated withthem, others certainly will. Given the currenteconomic downturn in Rhode Island and thelack of state funding currently available for ini-tiatives in this area, these recommendations


attempt to balance low-cost action or changesto regulatory policy with the piloting of prom-ising practices that can potentially be fundedwith federal grants or outside foundation fund-ing. The hope is that these policy changes andstate pilots will inform and shift the RhodeIsland conversation about what state programsand/or functions have the greatest potential topositively impact educator quality. Once imple-mented, the intent of these recommendations isto produce data that will indicate where fundsshould be allocated to support statewide educa-tor quality as the state emerges from its currenteconomic struggles.

Recommendations, Action Steps, andPartner ResponsibilitiesThe Task Force offers three short-term recom-mendations that will address critical aspects ofeducator quality development in Rhode Islandand lay the foundation for four long-term rec-ommendations in this area moving forward.

Short-termThe Task Force has engaged in a concertedeffort to research similar educator qualitydevelopment systems in other states, closeconsideration of the individual componentsof the system in Rhode Island, and a review ofthe best practices around each nationally. Asa result, the Task Force makes the followingrecommendations.

RECOMMENDATION Require the regular, substantiveevaluation of all teachers – both tenured and non-tenured – with evidence of instructional effective-ness as a major evaluation criterion. This regularevaluation should be based upon the multifacetedconception of instructional effectiveness laid outabove and involve both the RI Professional Teach-ing Standards and evidence of student learningand progress.

The Task Force believes that educatorsshould be continuously growing and improv-ing and that regular evaluation of individualeducator’s strengths and weaknesses shoulddrive this growth process. In line with theseviews, the Task Force recommends that fullsupport be given to the Board of Regents’and RIDE’s work on the Educator EvaluationSystem Framework, along with its proposedrequirements of regular evaluation of allteachers and the use of instructional effec-tiveness as a driving criterion in those evalua-tions. The Task Force supports the articula-tion of a multifaceted view of instructionaleffectiveness that looks at a teacher’s per-formance against the RIPTS rubric duringobserved lessons and in professional practice,as well as at evidence of student learning andprogress.

At this point, local district leaders – in part-nership with local union leaders – shoulddetermine what objective and subjectiveevidence of student learning and progressshould be used. After an evaluation of value-added data in Rhode Island and the consider-ation with teachers of what, if any, role theunions can play in providing evidence ofstudent learning and progress in readingand math, the question of the appropriatemetrics should be revisited at the state level.Along with this, the issue of how we measurestudent learning and progress in subjectsother than reading and math must also bereviewed. Above all, the implementation ofthis recommendation depends on gettingwide, cross-stakeholder agreement on indica-tors and on how we measure student learningand progress and determine teacher effect onthem. Without widespread concurrence thatthe ways we measure are both fair and accu-rate, other reforms based on the assumptionthat we can accurately identify those teacherswho are the most effective are destined tofail.


RECOMMENDATION Ensure the enhancement ofthe current RIDE data-collection system to allowfor the collection of all data needed to attemptteacher value-added data analysis.

According to a 2003 study by the RANDCorporation, “value-added modeling (VAM)is a collection of complex statistical tech-niques that use multiple years of students’test score data to estimate the effects of indi-vidual schools or teachers.” While it is widelyheld that there are limitations to what value-added data can and cannot tell us aboutteacher quality, there is also evidence to sug-gest that it may be valuable – in conjunctionwith other measures of effective instruction –in identifying growth areas for educators,contributing to a multifaceted view of educa-tor quality, helping educators tailor instruc-tion to the actual needs of students, and driv-ing district- and state-level reform of qualitydevelopment systems (more on the Randstudy of VAM appears in appendix 5S).While Rhode Island has the two critical com-ponents of a longitudinal data system neededto collect and analyze value-added data, itcurrently does not perform either of thesefunctions. Deriving whatever value this datacan provide requires that Rhode Island firstcollect and review it.

The relative value and reliability of this datawill drive how it is used in the future andwhat role it can play alongside a frameworkof professional teaching standards, classroomobservations, formative assessments, andother tools to evaluate and support our edu-cators. While VAM is not the only way wecan measure student learning and progress,it would be an important one if it could bedone accurately. Every effort should be madeto secure the federal, private, or state fundingto make the necessary enhancements to the

existing data infrastructure, explore potentialvalue-added models, create a user-friendlyinterface for accessing this data, and engagethe various stakeholders in a conversationabout what these data can tell us and howthey should be used.

RECOMMENDATION Pursue national funding oppor-tunities to pilot several currently available modelsintegrating educator evaluation, support, and pro-fessional development in Rhode Island’s urban dis-tricts.

The Task Force recognizes that the stateis moving deliberately in each of the areasmentioned above, as well as in the overallendeavor to define what effective teachinglooks like and how it is measured. Toedify and inform these efforts, the stateshould pilot one or more nationally provenmodels that integrate elements such as job-embedded professional development, usingdata to drive instruction, teacher leadership,evaluation based on multiple measures, andpeer coaching. Done well, these sorts ofpilots can help Rhode Island make sure thereforms chosen to be enacted at scale in theurban districts and across the state are repre-sentative of national best practices andinformed by the cutting-edge innovationembodied in these models.

Currently, there are unique opportunities tosecure external funding for existing nationalmodels that integrate educator evaluation,ongoing support, and professional develop-ment that could inform Rhode Island’s ownefforts to create systems with this sameintegration. The American Federation ofTeachers’ Innovation Fund, the U.S. Depart-ment of Education’s Teacher Incentive Fund(TIF), and the opportunities represented bythe current work of organizations like theGates Foundation and the Ford Foundation


make it evident that there are unique oppor-tunities to pilot new work around educatorquality. In a time when new state or localfunding for significant reform is unlikely,Rhode Island must take advantage of externalopportunities to foster new work aroundeducator quality that can inform its ongoingefforts to improve in the areas identified pre-viously.

Specifically, the Task Force recommendsthat Rhode Island apply for federal support,such as a TIF grant, to pilot the TAP Systemfor Teacher and Student Advancement inthe five urban districts. In addition, the TaskForce recommends that Rhode Island secureAFT and/or private foundation funding topilot some variation of peer assistance andreview (PAR) programs currently imple-mented in places like Toledo, Ohio (addi-tional details in appendix 5S).

Research in the fields of both private sectormanagement and education (see appendix 5S)tells us that to truly build a better educatorprofession, we need

• consistent performance-based accountabil-ity with clear performance standards;

• constructive ongoing support;

• regular opportunities for professionalgrowth and peer collaboration;

• a substantive career path with multiplecareer options that become available whenindividuals exhibit excellence and/or spe-cific skills sets (e.g., exceptional teacherswith coaching skills might be teacher/men-tors, while teachers with substantial tech-nology knowledge might have a hybrid roleas a teacher/tech coordinator);

• compensation and incentives in addition tosalary that are somehow linked to the wayindividuals and groups perform and distin-guish themselves.

TAP and PAR programs stress these ele-ments and integrate them into a cohesive,building-level program. The Task Force rec-ommends a concerted, coordinated state/local effort to introduce these programs tospecific schools and teachers. This effortshould include local school district leader-ship, local and state-level labor leaders,RIDE, and any appropriate external organi-zations. Assuming the willing participation ofparticular schools and their staffs, the TaskForce further recommends that the statelaunch a cross-district pilot in an effort toinvigorate the dialogue around the issues ofevaluation, professional development, andongoing support necessary to inform RIDE’swork in these areas.

In the following section we address how theresults of these pilot programs and the stateand local collaboration necessary to imple-ment them can be used to inform RhodeIsland’s efforts to establish its own EducatorEvaluation System Framework that inte-grates these elements and to implement itin an effective way with districts.

Long-termThe limited scope of the recommendationsput forth in this report should not be taken toimply that additional reforms are not necessary.Rather, the Task Force encourages the Boardof Regents, RIDE, and the urban districts tofinalize a plan for proposing additional reformsthat build on what is accomplished and learnedfrom the implementation of the short-termrecommendations and address the componentsof the educator quality development contin-uum system that were not dealt with there(e.g., teacher and school leader preparation,educator compensation, school leader profes-sional development). This plan should include


not only recommendations for when certaincomponents of the system are piloted, evalu-ated, revised, and brought up to scale, but alsoa clear timeline that lays out future legislativeand fiscal actions needed if the system is to befully implemented. Moreover, these reformsshould be developed in conjunction with theteachers they will be designed to support. Withthese stipulations in mind, the Task Forcemakes the following recommendations.

RECOMMENDATION Provide full support for RIDE’scontinuing work with school districts, their unions,and other partners to develop the Rhode IslandProfessional Teaching Standards and to createmodel evaluation tools and guides for districts thatdetail how to use the RIPTS in the evaluationprocess. Further, Rhode Island unions and theteachers they represent in the urban districtsshould continue to be consulted throughout thisdevelopment process.

While a balance between state and local dis-trict decision making is important in all areasof educator quality development, the TaskForce supports RIDE’s work to create aseries of statewide performance standardswith accompanying model evaluation toolsand evaluation processes that build on theRIPTS framework. As these further tools andprocesses are developed, and as RIDE pilotsthem in different districts, the Task Forcerecommends that RIDE, the Regents, localdistricts, and their unions together review theextent of RIDE’s role in this area and decidejointly on a role that is appropriate and possi-ble for RIDE to play. This review of RIDE’srole should involve considering whetherRIDE has the capacity and authority to

• develop extensive evaluation processrequirements statewide;

• establish a statewide rubric for educatoreffectiveness combining the RIPTS withobjective measures of student achievement;

• train local district evaluators;

• ensure inter-rater reliability;

• collect aggregated evaluation data to helpdistricts and schools tailor professionaldevelopment and ongoing support.

To the extent such a joint review indicatesthat RIDE has the capacity and support nec-essary to play any or all of these roles effec-tively, it should do so. However, where areview of RIDE’s role indicates that certainfunctions are best left to the local districts,RIDE should examine how it can best sup-port the local education agencies in perform-ing them. Undergirding all of these efforts isthe continuing need to engage Rhode Islandeducators in the process of creating thesenew tools and processes to ensure the invest-ment of those whom these tools are designedto support, as well as the practicality neces-sary to make these tools useful.

RECOMMENDATION Create a cross-stakeholderpanel to develop research-based, statewide stan-dards and best practices for professional develop-ment and to advocate for the restoration of statefunding for professional development.

The panel structure and process used todevelop the Professional Teaching Standardswas a comprehensive and inclusive effort thatresulted in a set of research-based standardsfor teaching with wide support from all rele-vant stakeholders. The Task Force recom-mends establishing a similar panel structureand process with the goal of developing a setof state standards for professional develop-ment that would build on RIDE’s work onevaluation and the iPlan to drive how indi-vidual districts support their teachers. Sucha structure and process would ensure that


professional development would be practical,useful, and focused across the state.

Moreover, the Task Force recommends thatthis body incorporate learning and experi-ences from the potential program pilots men-tioned above, as well as from educators innon-pilot schools, into the conversationabout how to best structure support for thestate’s teaching workforce. This body wouldalso lead the advocacy effort to secure state-level funding for research-based professionaldevelopment, the establishment of regularfeedback opportunities for teachers on thetype of professional development offered,and the discussion about how to regularlyassess the efficacy of professional develop-ment delivered statewide by the districts andunions.

RECOMMENDATION Review and revise teacher cer-tification, including the Certificate of Eligibility forEmployment (CEE), the Professional Certificate(PC), and the requirements for each.

RIDE and the Board of Regents are cur-rently conducting a thorough review oflicensing policy in the state. The Task Forcesupports the Commissioner’s efforts to add amore rigorous cutoff score for the PRAXIS Ibasic skills test to the state-articulatedrequirements for obtaining the CEE andconsider the possibility of strengthening therequirements and time necessary for advanc-ingfrom the CEE to the professional certificate.Specifically, the Task Force recommendsconsidering new requirements for advancingfrom one license to the other that includeproviding evidence of student learning andprogress as well as the consideration of alonger period of time before advancementthat would allow for significant evidence col-lection and professional development beforethe professional license is awarded.

RECOMMENDATION Provide full support for RIDE’sand the Board of Regents’ efforts to prioritize edu-cator quality development and their work to craft acomprehensive, long-term agenda to maximizestate support for increasing educator quality.

The recommendations in this report endorsethe solid start to augmenting the state’s role inensuring high-quality educators in RhodeIsland’s urban schools and classrooms that iscurrently under way. However, a more thor-ough review of all components of the educa-tor quality development continuum and howthe state can best impact them is necessaryto keep this work moving forward. Focusingfirst on educator evaluation, professionaldevelopment, and ongoing support will laythe foundation necessary for consideringthe reform of other components, includingeducator preparation, compensation, andaccountability that rely inextricably on howwe define, measure, and nurture teachereffectiveness. For example, once Rhode Islandhas determined an evaluation rubric for effec-tive teaching and metrics for evaluating teach-ers against this rubric, it can use this model todetermine how to

• reform teacher preparation programs;

• recognize and/or compensate the mosteffective educators (as identified by a com-prehensive evaluation process) and schoolstaffs;

• hone any statewide alternative-route pro-grams or recruitment efforts to screen forcharacteristics of effective educators asdefined by the state;

• incentivize the most effective teachers toteach in schools with the lowest-performingstudents.


To ensure the effectiveness of such a review,it is incumbent upon RIDE and the Board ofRegents to meaningfully engage local districtleadership, union leadership, institutions ofhigher education, and principals and teachersin the work of planning and instituting sub-stantive reforms in areas ranging fromteacher preparation reform to incentivizinghighly effective teachers to stay in the class-room to creating hybrid roles for teachers toeducator accountability and alternative com-pensation structures. It is the hope of theTask Force that the pilot programs recom-mended in the previous section will producea new type of dialogue around these issues,driven by the real experiences of RhodeIsland educators who have participated inthese programs. The data and experiencesgenerated through quality pilots shouldprove invaluable in considering how to buildscalable initiatives designed to maximize edu-cator quality moving forward.

Comment on the Recommendationsfrom the Rhode Island Federation ofTeachers and Health ProfessionalsThe Rhode Island Federation of Teachers andHealth Professionals, AFT, AFL-CIO, concurswith the recommendations of the Urban Edu-cation Task Force with the following commentsand cautions:

• Student assessments are neither valid norreliable in measuring teacher effectiveness. Itis currently politically correct to discuss usingvalue-added models for purposes of teacherevaluation and compensation. There is noevidence that teachers perform “better”because of monetary incentives. Further,teachers will not put their basic salaries at riskso that some individuals will benefit to thedetriment of others.

• Teacher labor should be included in any dis-cussions of further recommendations affect-ing educator quality.

• Advancement in certification status shouldnot hinge on evidence of student learning,particularly if this phrase is a proxy for stu-dent test scores. The CEE is a certificate ofeligibility to be employed. It makes no senseto extend the timeline for conversion to aProfessional Certificate from a CEE. Perhapsthe suggestion here is that there be a newkind of certificate precedent to the Profes-sional Certificate. Certification and licensureshould not be conflated with employmentdecisions that an employer might make.

• The Rhode Island Federation of Teachersand Health Professionals does not agree withthe recommendation that “full support begiven to the Board of Regents’ and RIDE’swork on the Educator Evaluation SystemFramework.” The Regents’ proposal calls foreducators to be evaluated annually. Webelieve that this is unfeasible, given districtand school leadership capacity. Further, newteachers should be evaluated often beforebeing tenured and then after tenure be put ina three-year cycle for evaluation unless thereis cause to make evaluations more frequently.Student-achievement assessment scoresshould not be used in teacher evaluationunless valid and reliable.


6 Innovation for SuccessfulSchools

The Urban Education Task Force recommendsthat RIDE, the urban districts that are thefocus of the Task Force, charter school leaders,including the League of Charter Schools, themayoral academies and charter school direc-tors, work collaboratively to develop the infra-structure and policies that will support innova-tive practices in our schools. We describe hereboth a Center for Innovation and a Zone ofInnovation as starting points for catalyzing andspreading educational innovations.

IntroductionThe call for innovation in public education hasgrown steadily louder in recent years as deter-mined efforts to improve schools have hadminimal success. Innovation is a fundamentallydifferent way of doing things that results inconsiderably better, and usually different, out-comes. Both “better” and “different” requirechange that is meaningful and substantial.

Recommendations, Action Steps, andPartner ResponsibilitiesBelieving that innovation is critical to theimprovement of education in Rhode Island,the Task Force is recommending a plan to dis-seminate innovations already under way inRhode Island from one school to others and tocreate new and innovative schools in CentralFalls, Newport, Pawtucket, Providence, andWoonsocket.

A Supportive InfrastructureInnovative practices are occurring in many ofour urban schools in Rhode Island – in publicschool districts, in independent schools, and inthe charter system. Unfortunately, they occurin isolation, with very little support for sharingthem with other schools and classrooms. Wecannot expect innovation to spread like a fad;rather, we must be intentional about creatingopportunities for educators to learn from eachother and providing the supports to incubatereform.

RECOMMENDATION Develop a Center for Innova-tion led by RIDE, which would help identify,develop, support, and spread innovative educa-tional efforts in Rhode Island's urban districts andthroughout the state.

RIDE, in collaboration with state leaders,school district and school board leadership,charter school leaders, educators, and otherpartners should develop the Center for Innova-tion, which would serve the following pur-poses:

• Monitor innovative educational effortsthroughout both the state and the countryand communicate them widely to schools,community-based organizations, and thepublic. The Center would disseminateinformation about successful programs andpractices through the media, through con-vening, and through publishing. In addi-tion, the Center would facilitate coopera-tive efforts among institutions of highereducation, government agencies, commu-nity-based organizations, and school dis-tricts to evaluate and disseminate programsand practices in the new, innovativeschools.


• Reach out to educators, community groups,and innovative school models (in-state andnational) to help stimulate proposals fornew, fundamentally different schools.

• Commission research to identify high-priority unmet student learning needs.

• Ensure that high-quality technical assis-tance and other public and nongovernmen-tal support is available to assist districts andnew-schools developers create high-qualityproposals, while providing appropriateoversight to ensure high-quality schools.

• Continually review and make recommenda-tions for both legislative and non-legis-lative improvements in the state’s new-schools initiatives, including recommenda-tions for changes in the provisions for self-governed district schools.

Action Steps

�The Center for Innovation would notrequire a significant state appropriation,but some start-up funding would beneeded. Longer term, the Center wouldbe expected to raise a significant share ofits budget from the private sector and rele-vant federal sources.

�The Commissioner for Elementary andSecondary Education would direct thiseffort under the direction and governanceof the Board of Regents, thereby providingexperience and continuity in achieving theCenter’s mission and carrying out its princi-pal activities.

A Zone of InnovationThe process of innovation is most fruitful whenit takes place in an environment that supportschallenges to key assumptions about the worldand the way it operates.

RECOMMENDATION Enact legislation as soon aspossible to create a Rhode Island “Zone of Inno-vation” – which would initially include CentralFalls, Newport, Pawtucket, Providence, andWoonsocket – that provides a policy environmentin which school districts and educational entrepre-neurs are encouraged to create new, differentschools.

The creation of new, innovative schools ismore than an end in itself. In addition toproviding a diversity of educational opportu-nities to students, the new legislation isintended to promote innovation and changethroughout the five urban districts andbeyond. New schools can exert positive influ-ence on existing schools; they can be a much-needed research and development arm forthe conventional system. Innovation meanstrial and error, risk and reward. Either way, itprovides lessons to existing schools. Its suc-cesses, especially, have the potential to serveas powerful examples of ideas, policies, andpractices that influence student learning.

The heightened awareness in foundationsand the federal government of the impor-tance of innovation in education bodes wellfor obtaining grants to fund a Zone of Inno-vation. But swift and dramatic action will beessential in competing for those dollars.

The new schools would be of two types:newly created charter schools and self-governing district schools.


NEWLY CREATED CHARTER SCHOOLS

Thirteen charter schools have been openedunder Rhode Island’s charter law. Additionalcharter schools in the urban districts canprovide models for self-governing districtschools and provide an incentive for schooladministrators and school committees to cre-ate new district schools.

Action Steps

�As soon as possible, the existing charterlaw should be amended to remove the capon the number of new charter schoolsthat can be created in these districts andstatewide. In addition, the state should pro-vide start-up funding, technical assistance,and, when possible, physical facilities.

�Rhode Island charter school studentsare funded separately from other publicschools. Because the state lacks a fundingformula based on student enrollment, addi-tional state funding must be provided tocharter schools, on top of what is alreadyallocated to traditional schools and dis-tricts. As the state builds a funding formulafor all students, legislative leaders shouldconsider a base state allocation that goes tothe school or district that a student attends.

SELF-GOVERNING DISTRICT SCHOOLS

Most charter schools in Rhode Island areindependent of the school districts in whichthey operate. New, self-governing schoolscould be created by the districts themselves.

School districts already have the authority toclose poorly performing schools and replacethem with new, innovative schools, but therehas been little incentive or public supportfor such action. The new legislation recom-mended here would include incentives to

encourage districts to create new schools thatwould have the same privileges enjoyed bycharter schools and would be part of theZone of Innovation.

Action Steps

�Creation of self-governing district schoolswould require the collaboration andapproval of school committees, districtsuperintendents, and teacher unions.

� Self-governing district schools could becreated new or by converting poorly per-forming schools.

�The district would request proposals fromvarious sponsors to create or convertschools. The district would set the termsof the agreement in a contract with theschool sponsors, and that contract couldbe terminated for cause.

KEY SUPPORTS FOR INNOVATIVESCHOOLS

Action Steps

� Role of Center for Innovation Just as an orga-nization’s application for a charter to starta new school must be approved by RIDE,applications for a self-governing schoolwould require the approval of the state.The Center for Innovation could screenand evaluate applications for charter orself-governing schools and make recom-mendations to the Board of Regents. Addi-tionally, the Center for Innovation couldsupport schools in the Zone of Innovationto attract new teachers.

� Open Enrollment The new legislationshould provide that students in the fiveurban districts would be free to attend anycharter or self-governing school in theZone of Innovation where space is avail-able. Where applications exceed availableseats, the school would be required toadmit by lottery.


7 Educator Collaboration

The Urban Education Task Force recommendscreating new capacity for cross-district andpartner collaboration to harness the state’s fullpotential for progress. In addition to achievinggreater efficiency of resources and a sharedsense of accountability for outcomes, this newcapacity would further drive progress in thecritical areas of curriculum, instruction, assess-ment, and educator quality.

IntroductionOver the past eighteen months the Task Forcehas studied promising efforts by the five urbanschool districts, charter and alternative schools,community partners, the regional collabora-tives, and RIDE to improve student and schoolsuccess. In our consultations with urban educa-tion leaders throughout the state, we haveheard them express interest in working morecollaboratively across school district lines todevelop effective strategies, practices, and solu-tions to the challenges facing urban communi-ties.

• District leaders made the following obser-vations:� Superintendents would be willing to collab-

orate across district lines on commoneducational priorities such as English lan-guage learners, high school redesign, com-munity partnerships, parent engagement,provided the time and resources are justi-fied by the intended end result.

� Superintendents recommended that theTask Force examine existing models ofcross-system collaboration operating inother states and urban districts.

� RIDE should be centrally involved in anycollaborative effort, given the likelihoodthat the outcomes of any collaboration willbe of interest to other school systems, withpossible implications for state policy.

� The Research Collaborative, a partnershipcomposed of nonprofit research and policycenters, should continue to function as aresource to the cross-district collaborativeeffort by providing data analysis, documen-tation, evaluation, and promising-practiceresearch.

• The regional collaboratives expressed interestin lending both capacity and expertise in abroad-based effort to advance the goals ofthe Task Force.

• Several participants in discussions with lead-ers of charter schools and alternative schoolsexpressed interest in collaborating with theircounterparts in traditional districts in areas ofmutual interest (mentioned specifically wereeducator quality and parent involvement).

• The Research Collaborative has completedresearch and policy analysis at the request ofthe Task Force, including a study of studentmobility completed by the Providence Plan,funded in part by a grant from the RhodeIsland Foundation (see appendix 7S).

Active members of the Research Collaborativeare Rhode Island KIDS COUNT, the Provi-dence Plan, the Annenberg Institute for SchoolReform and the Urban Education Policy Pro-gram at Brown, the Northeast Regional Lab atEducation Development Center, and RhodeIsland Public Expenditure Council. In June,representatives of the Research Collaborativeattended a national conference in Chicagodesigned to promote approaches to researchcollaboration modeled after the Consortium onChicago School Research. Representativesfrom nineteen urban areas attended the meet-ing and are making plans to form a professionalnetwork that could be a source of technicalsupport for the emerging Research Collabora-tive here in Rhode Island.


izations – have expressed the willingness towork together to reverse persistently lowtrends in urban school performance noted inthe introduction to this report. Elements ofthe new capacity that needs to be developedinclude planning and implementation support,fundraising, community engagement and out-reach, research and data analysis, communica-tions, and reporting.

In response, we propose the following short-term objectives and action steps to launch suchan effort over the next six months.

RECOMMENDATION Create an Urban EducationConsortium, serving as a public-private partner-ship, that would be endorsed by the Governor,the Board of Regents, the General Assembly, andthe Commissioner of Education but would be sup-ported by private donors and governed by anindependent advisory board.

The Consortium would be established toundertake the following proposed responsi-bilities:

• Serve as an ongoing voice for fundamentaleducation reform in the state through evi-dence-based advocacy and by building theknowledge and political will needed to takeon tough changes in policy and practice.

• Monitor and support the efforts of the edu-cation agencies, their partners, and thebroader community to implement the TaskForce recommendations and new prioritiesestablished by the Regents, RIDE, and thedistricts.

• Produce an annual report on the stateof urban education in Rhode Island thatfocuses on one or more of the recommen-dations, as well as on the overall perform-ance of urban students.

• Conduct public forums to engage andmobilize various constituencies and share-holders (students, educators, administra-

Current Rhode Island ContextThere are some notable examples of educatorcollaboration in Rhode Island, such as thepromising partnership between Central FallsPublic Schools and the Learning CommunityCharter School. Also, the mission of the fourregional collaboratives is to serve the collectiveinstructional and non-instructional needs ofmember districts. However, substantial collab-oration among educators across district linesor between traditional districts and chartersremains rare and episodic.

The main conclusion of the Task Force’s fact-finding stage is that there is both interest andwillingness on the part of educators for morepurposeful, organized, and sustained collabora-tion. This dovetails with the need for moreefficient use of resources in these challengingeconomic times and the renewed interest ofboth the federal government and foundationsin cross-sector partnerships to support urbaneducation reform.

Recommendations, Action Steps, andPartner ResponsibilitiesIn the latter stages of its work, the Task Forcehas grappled with the challenge of sustainingthe cross-sector (e.g., education, business,labor, community-based organizations, arts andcultural institutions) dialogue and partnershipthe Task Force helped to create, while shiftingthe focus from developing a plan to monitoringand supporting its implementation. And whilewe recognize that RIDE and the districts aremaking impressive strides, we firmly believethat it will take concerted and aligned supportfrom all major stakeholders and partners tocreate the will and capacity to transform ourschools and enhance outcomes for all students.

As noted above, education stakeholdersthroughout the state – in the urban districts,RIDE, charter and alternative schools, highereducation, and business and community organ-


tors, business leaders, parents, union lead-ers, elected officials, partner organizations,funders, higher education leaders, etc.) andto channel their concerns and aspirationsinto constructive action.

Two co-chairs, accomplished and committedleaders representing the business and educa-tion communities, would lead the proposedorganization. As a consortium, the organiza-tion would operate with a small staff, solicitgrants to support its work, and draw on theexpertise of a core group of partner organiza-tions such as the Providence Plan, KIDSCOUNT, the Annenberg Institute forSchool Reform, Young Voices, and theRhode Island After School Plus Alliance,among others. Leadership of the Consortiumwould help to determine the Consortium'srole in relation to the Center for Innovationmentioned in the recommendation on Inno-vation for School Success.

Action Steps

�Convene a cross-sector design team fromexisting Task Force members and others todevelop parameters for this new entity – itsmission and bylaws, a collaborative gover-nance structure, a funding mechanism, anda staffing plan.

�Develop a work scope that addresses themost urgent priorities of the Task Force.

�Convene a team, in conjunction with theUrban Education Consortium, to pursueexternal core funding from national foun-dations (Gates, Ford, Carnegie, Broad, andNellie Mae, among others) to support theimplementation of the Task Force recom-mendations and the organizational capacityneeded to support them.

RECOMMENDATION Expand the existing ResearchCollaborative to provide the required analytic andresearch support to implement the Task Force rec-ommendations.

To date, the Research Collaborative has pro-vided a range of technical support to theTask Force, including analysis of student andschool performance data, documentation ofstudent mobility between schools and dis-tricts, promising practice scans, documenta-tion and analysis of constituency engagementforums, and production of model programprofiles. We recommend that the ResearchCollaborative acquire institutional partnerswith the capacity to support the implementa-tion of Task Force recommendations (seeappendix 7S).

The Research Collaborative could providethe following types of services in support ofwork in the field:

• Documentation and evaluation of pilotprojects

• Development of planning and implementa-tion tools

• Dissemination of evidence-based promisingpractices

• Construction of a value-added data system(see the recommendation on a StatewideEducator Quality Development System)

• Development of performance standardsand indicators

• Assistance to RIDE with rollout of the lon-gitudinal data system

• Training of end users in the state’s vastdata-warehouse collection

Action Steps

�Recruit new member organizations tothe Research Collaborative to meet thetechnical and substantive needs to supportimplementation of the recommendationand action steps outlined in the precedingrecommendation.

�Develop a Research Collaborative workscope based on the previous action step.

� Secure funding for the Research Collabo-rative (see next recommendation).


Supplements to the Recommendations

1S Pre-KindergartenEducation

Pre-K benefits children, their families, andtheir communities. From improved academicoutcomes to the economic savings to schoolsand states, the benefits of high-quality pre-Kare irrefutable. The following summary of thebenefits of pre-K from the national organiza-tion Pre-K Now, funded by the Pew CharitableTrusts, highlights some of the research findingsabout the positive impact of high-quality pre-K(Gayl, Young & Patterson 2009).

Successful Students• Pre-K increases high school graduation rates.

Chicago children who attended a pre-K pro-gram were 29 percent more likely to graduatefrom high school than their peers who didnot have pre-K. (Source: Chicago Longitudi-nal Study)

• Pre-K helps children do better on standardizedtests. Michigan fourth-graders who hadattended pre-K passed the state’s literacy andmath assessment tests at higher rates thantheir peers who had no pre-K. (Source:“State Efforts to Evaluate the Effects of Pre-Kindergarten,” Yale University Child StudyCenter)

• Pre-K reduces grade repetition. Maryland fifth-graders who attended pre-K were 44 percentless likely to have repeated a grade than theirpeers who did not attend pre-K. (Source:“State Efforts to Evaluate the Effects of Pre-Kindergarten,” Yale University Child StudyCenter)

• Pre-K reduces the number of children placed inspecial education. Among Chicago children,those who attended pre-K were 41 percentless likely to require special education serv-ices than their peers who did not attend.(Source: Chicago Longitudinal Study)

Responsible Adults• Pre-K reduces crime and delinquency. Chicago

children who did not attend pre-K were 70percent more likely to be arrested for a vio-lent crime by age eighteen than their peerswho had been pre-K participants. (Source:Chicago Longitudinal Study)

• Pre-K lowers rates of teen pregnancy. NorthCarolina children who attended pre-K wereless likely to become teen parents than theirpeers who did not attend pre-K (26 percentvs. 45 percent). (Source: Carolina Abecedar-ian Project)

• Pre-K leads to greater employment and higherwages as adults. Forty-year-old adults inMichigan who attended pre-K as childrenwere more likely to be employed and had a33 percent higher average income than theirpeers who did not have pre-K. (Source:High/Scope Perry Preschool Project)

• Pre-K contributes to more stable families. Forty-year-old adults in Michigan who attendedpre-K as children were more likely to reportthat they were getting along very well withtheir families than their peers who did notattend pre-K (75 percent vs. 64 percent).(Source: High/Scope Perry Preschool Proj-ect)


Stronger Communities• Every dollar invested in high-quality pre-K saves

taxpayers up to seven dollars. Pre-K results insavings by reducing the need for remedialand special education, welfare, and criminaljustice services, according to a number ofstudies. (Sources: “The Economics of Invest-ing in Universal Preschool Education in Cal-ifornia,” RAND Corporation; High/ScopePerry Preschool Project)

• Pre-K improves efficiency and productivity in theclassroom. Children who attended pre-K atHead Start centers had more advanced skillsin areas such as following directions, problemsolving, and joining in activities, all of whichallow teachers to spend more time workingdirectly with children and less on classroommanagement. (Source: “The Head StartFamily and Child Experiences Survey,” U.S.Department of Health and Human Services)

ReferencesGayl, C. L., M. Young, and K. Patterson. 2009.New Beginnings: Using Federal Title I Funds toSupport Local Pre-K Efforts. Federal PolicySeries (September). Washington, DC: Pre-KNow, Pew Center on the States. Avaliable fordownload at <http://preknow.org>

See also:Chicago Longitudinal Study,<www.waisman.wisc.edu/cls>

Carolina Abecedarian Project,<www.fpg.unc.edu/~abc>

High/Scope Perry Preschool Project,<www.highscope.org/Content.asp?Con-tentId=219>


2S Early Literacy

Principles of Professional Development• High-quality professional development must

connect to student learning goals that are clearand accepted by all. Professional developmentcontent is aligned with state literacy standardsand district curriculum. Teachers focus ontheory and practice underlying pedagogicalcontent knowledge.

• Professional development involves active learn-ing for teachers. Teachers make connectionsfor what they are learning in professionaldevelopment to classroom instruction.

• Professional development is embedded in thecontext of work in schools and classrooms.Teachers collaborate with instructional lead-ers such as principals, literacy coaches, andmentor teachers. Teachers are engaged incontinuous and reflective processes of diag-nostic teaching.

• Professional development is continuous andongoing. Teachers need adequate time toengage in meaningful activity embeddedin the daily routine of the school over anextended period of time. Long-term goal:teachers, with the support of literacy special-ists, will continue to reflect on practice afterthey have participated in extended profes-sional development.

• Professional development is based on an ongo-ing and focused inquiry related to teacher learn-ing, student learning, and best practices in earlyliteracy instruction. Active participation in pro-fessional development must be focused oninquiry and analysis related to their teaching.Through this process, the teacher makes suc-cessive intentional shifts in teaching based onthe analysis of what students need to know,what instruction will support the students indeveloping knowledge or skill, and what thestudents learned through instruction.

• Coherence is evident in all aspects of the pro-fessional development. A systemic view inwhich professional development is seen aspart of a focused effort on improving studentlearning is essential. District and buildingadministrators agree on a course of action,focus resources (funding, technical resources)on that course, and then allow the necessarytime for positive outcomes. All the stake-holders – state department of education, uni-versity pre-service and in-service programfaculty, and district and building administra-tors – are willing to work together for coher-ence across the professional developmentsystem.

Prepared by the UETF Working Group on EarlyLiteracy

Adequate Staffing to Support Early LiteracyStaffing that ensures the best preparation forchildren in the early stages of literacy learningneeds to support differentiated instruction thatresponds to the great variation in student pro-files and proficiency. First among the require-ments to adequately support differentiatedinstruction is a small student-to-teacher ratio.This can be accomplished by having a cadre ofprofessionals and assistants supporting literacyinstruction.

Classroom teachers should be proficient inteaching beginning readers and writers andspecifically prepared to work with English lan-guage learners. Beyond the basics of Englishphonology and grammar and of competence inreading instruction, certified teachers shouldbe required to know the basics of first- and sec-ond-language acquisition and understand cul-tural diversity from a positive, additive perspec-tive. The current requirements for preparingteachers to teach reading and diverse learnersneed to be strengthened and guaranteed.


Reading specialists and literacy coaches shouldbe part of the core faculty where literacyinstruction begins. The role of the specialist iscritical in supporting differentiated instructionby analyzing frequent assessment data to moni-tor progress in decoding and comprehensionthat, in turn, informs appropriate instruction tobe delivered to small groups of readers. Spe-cialists are also critical for ongoing, embeddedprofessional development that supports bothnew and veteran teachers in excellent literacyinstructional practices. Especially for early lit-eracy learning, occupational therapists are alsocritical members of the educational team. Thecoordination required between gross and finemotor skills and conceptual development takesplace in the early stages of learning to read andwrite.

All districts should implement paraprofessionaland volunteer training. Paraprofessionals andvolunteers should not be used to supplantinstruction. Along with specialists and theclassroom teacher, they should participate in awell-articulated safety-net system based on fre-quent assessments leading to early recognitionof potential problems as well as differentiatedinstruction/intervention made possible by uti-lizing all relevant adults in literacy instructionand practice.

All members of the literacy team would benefitfrom having cross-cultural understanding toprovide culturally relevant curriculum andinstruction and to support communicationbetween home and school contexts.

Ongoing school- and district-based profes-sional development planned specifically to sup-port the instructional model should be requiredof all educators engaged in early literacyinstruction. Since this is a considerable invest-ment in individuals as well as teams of educa-tors who work together, stability in staffing

individual schools should be a very high prior-ity. When coaches, teachers, specialists, andassistants have the opportunity to collaborateand grow expertise in a common practice, theirstudents are provided with consistent instruc-tional methods and objectives from year toyear. This reduces the confusion that resultsfrom frequent shifts in teaching approachesand permits students to focus on learning toread and write rather than on changing rou-tines in the classroom.

Prepared by the UETF Working Group on EarlyLiteracy

ReferencesAugust, D., and T. Shanahan (eds.). 2006.Developing Literacy in Second-Language Learn-ers: Report of the National Literacy Panel onLanguage-Minority Children and Youth. Flo-rence, KY: Routledge.

Baumann, J. F., E. J. Kame’enui, and G. Ash.2003. “Research on Vocabulary Instruction:Voltaire Redux,” in J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. R.Squire, and J. Jensen (eds.), Handbook ofResearch on Teaching the English LanguageArts (2nd ed.), pp. 752–785. Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.

Hart, B., and T. R. Risley. 1995. MeaningfulDifferences in the Everyday Experience of YoungAmerican Children. Baltimore: Brookes, p.198.

Marzano, R. J. 2003. What Works in Schools:Translating Research into Action. Alexandria,VA: Association for Supervision and Curricu-lum Development (see chapter 3, “A Guaran-teed and Viable Curriculum”).

National Reading Panel. 2000. Teaching Chil-dren to Read: An Evidence-based Assessment ofthe Scientific Research Literature on Reading andits Implications for Reading Instruction. NIHPublication No. 00-4769. Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office.


Riches, C., and F. Genesee. 2006. “Literacy:Crosslinguistic and Crossmodal Issues,” in F.Genesee, K. Lindholm-Leary, B. Saunders,and D. Christian (eds.), Educating EnglishLanguage Learners: A Synthesis of Research Evi-dence, pp. 109–175. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Snow, C. E., M. S. Burns, and P. Griffin. 1998.Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Chil-dren. Washington, DC: National AcademyPress.

Stanovich, K. E. 1986. “Matthew Effects inReading: Some Consequences of IndividualDifferences in the Acquisition of Literacy.”Reading Research Quarterly 21, pp. 360–407.


3S Expanded Learning Time

The Expanded Learning Time (ELT) WorkingGroup worked for six months to develop theaction plan described in the full report for anexpanded learning time initiative in RhodeIsland. This action plan is based on the originalELT recommendation submitted to the Gover-nor in December 2008, the subsequent researchon best practices, and outreach to Rhode Islandand regional stakeholders. Because it is criticalto the success of such an initiative to include allstakeholders from the beginning, the member-ship of the Expanded Learning Working Groupwas broad and inclusive (see the end of this sup-plement for a complete list of members).

The Working Group held mini-conferenceswith Massachusetts 2020 and the After-SchoolCorporation in New York City, both of whichhave instituted versions of expanded learningtime. Representatives of the ELT WorkingGroup and Massachusetts 2020 have met withalmost all of the core urban superintendentsand some union representatives in RhodeIsland. The Working Group visited an ELTmiddle school in Massachusetts and held aforum on ELT for community-based organiza-tions on June 15, 2009. The group also con-ducted outreach with legislators and legislativestaff.

ELT: Not Just an Add-OnA movement has been growing to see ELT asan integral part of the school day, with clearacademic and youth development benefits,rather than as an “add-on.” As Robert Stonehilland colleagues (2009, p. 9) observe:

From the education leaders of the NewDay for Learning Task Force to the signa-tories to the Broader, Bolder Approach to

Education statement to President-electBarack Obama, there is growing momen-tum in the education policy arena to edu-cate the children and youth of the UnitedStates in more intentional and alignedways. This momentum is creating a rangeof increasingly integrated educationapproaches at multiple levels, includingthose that rethink the use of time acrossthe school day and year, such as expandedlearning opportunity models. At the sametime, increased investments in afterschooland summer learning over the past decadehave resulted in a substantial evidencebase about the academic, social, health,and other benefits of afterschool pro-grams and have created a strong case thatthey are important pathways to learning,particularly when they work with schoolsto support student success. Yet, too often,these supports continue to be seen as“add-ons,” not integral to in-school edu-cation efforts.

And as Melissa Lazarin (2008, p. 1) notes:

Expanded learning time . . . can be partic-ularly beneficial for ELLs [English-lan-guage learners]. . . . Time plays a uniquerole in the educational career of the Eng-lish-language learner. Time affects thefacility of learning a new language and thelikelihood of high school graduation,especially among immigrant ELLs in highschool.


The Importance of Partnershipsamong Schools and Community-BasedOrganizationsThe diagram below, from the Program forAfterschool Education and Research at Har-vard, prepared in 2002, demonstrates the evo-lution of the relationship between expandedlearning time and the traditional school day. Asthe diagram shows, partners move from operat-ing as separate entities with separate goals andoutcomes to working in conjunction with oneanother to create an expanded learning systemwith a shared vision, mission, and outcomes.

At the heart of successful expanded learn-ing opportunities are sound, sustainablepartnerships among afterschool andsummer program providers and schoolsworking together to support learning.Although partnership development doesnot happen overnight, over time, effectivepartnerships move from being transac-tional to transformative in nature. (Enos& Morton 2003)

Five principles support movement toward trans-formative, sustainable school-afterschool/summer partnerships (adapted from Stonehillet al. 2009, pp. 13–14):

• a shared vision for learning and success,including academic, social, and emotionalsuccess;

• blended staffing models that enable crossoveramong school, afterschool, and summer staff;

• school-afterschool/summer partnerships atmultiple levels within the school and district;

• regular and reciprocal collection, sharing, andcommunication about information on studentprogress;

• intentional and explicit contrast betweenschool and afterschool environments.

Specifically, partnerships with afterschool andsummer learning can help schools to

• provide a wider range of services and activi-ties, particularly hands-on learning enrich-ment and arts activities that are not availableduring the school day;

Source: Program for Afterschool Education and Research, Harvard, 2002


• support transitions from middle to highschool;

• reinforce concepts taught in school;

• support students who struggle with classroominstruction by offering alternative ways tolearn and interact with educators and peers;

• engage students in fun at school, enhancingthe learning experience throughout the dayand preventing dropout;

• improve school culture and communityimage through exhibitions and performances;

• gain access to mentors and afterschool staff tosupport in-school learning.

Partnerships with schools can help afterschooland summer programs to

• gain access to and recruit groups of studentsmost in need of support services;

• improve program quality and staff engage-ment;

• foster better alignment of programming tosupport a shared vision for learning;

• maximize resource use such as facilities, staff,data, and curriculum;

• develop targeted strategies to engage youthwith attendance and discipline issues.

Finally, strong school-afterschool/summerpartnerships benefit students in important waysbeyond academic support. They can

• provide continuity of services across the dayand year;

• facilitate access to a range of learning oppor-tunities;

• share information about specific students tobest support individual learning.

Implementation of the ELT Initiativein Rhode IslandFollowing are further details regarding imple-mentation of the ELT recommendations.

Key Components• Participation in the ELT initiative is volun-

tary.

• Input from youth on the design of the newlearning day is critical.

• Applications must be submitted by partner-ships between at least one community-basedorganization and a public school/district(including charter schools) with high-povertyrates; and/or districts with a high percentageof students not achieving proficiency asreported through the New England Com-mon Assessment Program.

• Funding will be appropriately and equitablydivided among the participating school andits partners and will include alignment ofexisting afterschool funds at the schools par-ticipating in ELT.

• Sites will be expected to use data for continu-ous improvement.

• To qualify to participate in the ELT initiative,applicants must meet the following guide-lines.� Applications must contain, but not be lim-

ited to, the process the district and its part-ners will use to create a collaborativeexpanded learning time implementationplan, the stated intent to add no less than300 hours to the current school schedulefor all students in participating schools, therationale for expanded learning timeincluding specific goals and outcomes, thedata system that will be used to collect rele-vant data, and the anticipated budget.


� Schools must demonstrate how they willmeaningfully include partnerships withhigh-quality community partners, includingafterschool and summer programs, higher-education institutions, arts and culturalinstitutions, businesses, and other youthdevelopment organizations that have theexperience and capacity to serve as a part-ner in a comprehensive ELT program.

� Applicants must demonstrate how theexpanded learning time will include anappropriate mix of additional time spenton: 1) academics; 2) enrichment opportuni-ties such as small-group tutoring, music,arts, sports, and project-based experientiallearning; and 3) time for teacher prepara-tion and/or professional development,including joint professional developmentwith community-based partner staff.

� Planning/design teams must include teach-ers, union representatives, principals, par-ents, community-based partners, andyouth, who together share responsibility forensuring ELT’s success.

� Applicants must demonstrate a staffingstructure that includes teachers from theparticipating school and staff from partnercommunity-based organizations and/orstaff from an existing school-based after-school program partner; a full-time or part-time site coordinator (could be a CBOemployee or school employee); and at leastone school employee who devotes a portionof the day to ensuring high educationalgoals, standards, and alignment. Staff-to-student ratios may vary, but average 1:10to 1:15.

Proposed Timeline• Fall 2009 Design and release request for pro-

posals for ELT planning grants

• Late October/early November 2009 Proposalsdue

• November 2009 Demonstration sites selectedfor planning

• November 2009 Assemble design teams andmap planning process

• Ongoing Communicate with youth, teachers,parents, and community partners

• Ongoing Schedule periodic meetings withunions and community

• Ongoing Provide technical assistance

• Ongoing Secure additional funding

• November–December 2009 Identify cleargoals, priorities, and desired outcomes forELT redesign

• December 2009–January 2010 Prepare pre-liminary ELT plan to submit to RIDE

• February–April 2010 Map out details such asstaffing, budget, schedules, etc.

• February–May 2010 Establish any necessaryunion/district labor agreements for staffingELT

• April–June 2010 Prepare final ELT plan tosubmit to RIDE

• July 2010–June 2011 Implementation ofdemonstration sites

Examples of Potential PartnerOrganizationsPlease note: A more comprehensive list is avail-able in the Rhode Island Afterschool PlusAlliance database <www.afterschoolri.org>.

• YMCAs

• YWCAs

• Boys and Girls Clubs

• Providence After School Alliance


• Woonsocket After School Alliance (collabo-ration of several organizations)

• Newport County Collaborative for Youth

• New Urban Arts

• Newport Community School

• 21st Century Community Learning Centers

• Child Opportunity Zones

• Rhode Island Afterschool Plus Alliance

• Mt. Hope Learning Center

• Traveling Theater

• Apeiron Institute

• Save the Bay

• Volunteers in Providence Schools

• Rhode Islanders Sponsoring Education

• Capital City Community Centers

• Institute for the Study and Practice ofNonviolence

• Urban League of Rhode Island

• City Year Rhode Island

• Girl Scouts of Rhode Island

• Rhode Island 4-H/University of RhodeIsland Cooperative Extension

• Big Sisters of Rhode Island

• Newport Art Museum

• Kids First

• Dorcas Place

• Plan USA

• Rhode Island Mentoring Partnership

• Rhode Island State Council on the Arts

• Public libraries

• John Hope Settlement House

• AS220

• Providence City Arts for Youth

• Washington County Coalition for Children

• Youth Pride

Promising Work under WayThe Task Force believes it is important to rec-ognize and build on structures that alreadyexist in Rhode Island. There are also successfulprograms in Massachusetts and New York thatcan serve as models to adapt to the RhodeIsland context.

Rhode Island

RIDE: Graduation Requirements and BasicEducation Program Regulations

Rhode Island is on the cutting edge of second-ary school redesign, looking to broadeninstructional delivery and definition of studentsuccess, all without compromising quality andstandards. Clear progress toward meaningfulsecondary school redesign is currently happen-ing in Rhode Island. Our transition away fromtraditional Carnegie units to a more individual-ized, competency-based assessment of studentsuccess is highly conducive to the integrationof expanded learning opportunities into theoverall assessment process.

RIDE has also just finalized the new BasicEducation Program (BEP) regulations. Thereare several provisions that speak specifically toexpanded learning opportunities and engage-ment with community-based organizations.The BEP regulations call for local educationagencies to “develop a system for the provisionof a broad array of high-quality expandedlearning opportunities that will strengthenschool engagement, support academic success,and expand all students’ educational experi-ences.”


District Initiatives

In all of the five core Rhode Island urbandistricts, there are robust afterschool and sum-mer programs already working closely withthe schools. These partnerships represent astep along the way in the evolution towardenhanced collaboration and integration intoa fully redesigned and expanded learning day.In Newport at the elementary level, thereare an extended school-day program and anextended school-year program that focus onspecial education students. At the middle andhigh school levels in Newport, there is a com-prehensive Community School model in place.Central Falls, beginning with the 2009-2010academic year, will be implementing anexpanded day for all sixth-graders.

Community-Based Initiatives

In addition to district initiatives, there are sev-eral community-based initiatives under way inRhode Island.

NEW DAY FOR LEARNING INITIATIVE

The New Day for Learning initiative in Provi-dence is a partnership between ProvidencePublic Schools, the mayor’s office, and theProvidence After School Alliance. The purposeof this three-year initiative is to build uponProvidence’s afterschool and school systemsto design and implement a seamless day forlearning that redefines how, where, and whenstudents learn so they can complete RhodeIsland’s new graduation requirements and suc-ceed in the twenty-first century. New Day forLearning (2009) describes its vision:

New Day for Learning is not a curricu-lum or one-size-fits-all program; it’sa twenty-first-century vision for learningthat builds on a foundation of core

academics by leveraging communityresources to incorporate strategies such ashands-on learning, working in teams, andproblem-solving. Before-[school], after-school, and summer programs are a few ofthe places in and out of the classroom thatare already using these learningapproaches to engage students andincrease their chances for success.

If we want our students to excel academi-cally, explore careers, and develop the rig-orous knowledge and skills necessary tothrive in today’s global society, we need tostart thinking and talking about educationdifferently. Imagine all students every-where fully engaged in learning.

A unique and promising feature of this new ini-tiative is the hiring of a director of expandedlearning. The director of expanded learningopportunities is employed by the ProvidenceAfter School Alliance (PASA); is housed at theProvidence School Department; and reportsdirectly to the superintendent, with oversightfrom the executive director of PASA, themayor, and the PASA board of directors. Formore information, see <www.mypasa.org>or <www.edutopia.org/new-day-for-learning-two>.

21ST CENTURY COMMUNITYLEARNING CENTERS

The 21st Century Community Learning Cen-ters are federally funded through the U.S.Department of Education, Title IV, Part B,and administered by RIDE. The purpose ofthe funds is to provide resources for out-of-school-time programs, especially afterschooland summer programs, for students in high-poverty, low-performing schools. There areprograms in Central Falls, Pawtucket, Provi-dence, Woonsocket, Newport, Cranston,North Kingstown, and West Warwick. Pro-grams operate for ages K–12; there are sixty-


five school/community sites serving about15,000 students. Each program operates as apartnership between a school(s) and a commu-nity partner (community and/or faith-basedorganizations). The fiscal agents includeschools, districts, and community-based organ-izations.

CHILD OPPORTUNITY ZONES

Managed by RIDE, Child Opportunity Zones(COZs) are school-based or school-linked fam-ily centers that provide services and supports tostudents and their families to promote schoolsuccess and academic achievement. There areten COZs throughout Rhode Island targetinghigh-poverty neighborhoods, including centersin Bristol/Warren, Central Falls, Cranston,Middletown, Newport, North Kingstown,Pawtucket, Providence, Westerly, andWoonsocket. COZs work to address the educa-tion, health, and social service needs of chil-dren, youth, and families to reduce barriers tolearning and promote positive outcomes.

RHODE ISLAND AFTERSCHOOL PLUSALLIANCE

The Rhode Island Afterschool Plus Alliance(RIASPA), a statewide policy intermediaryorganization, is in the process of implementingtwo projects that incorporate elements ofexpanded learning time.

• Expanded Learning Opportunities and HighSchool Graduation Credit The Nellie MaeEducation Foundation and the Charles Stew-art Mott Foundation, in partnership withRIASPA and RIDE, released a request forproposals (RFP) for planning grants for upto two pilot sites to devise methods ofattributing credit toward high school gradua-tion to students who participate in high-qual-ity expanded learning opportunities, includ-ing afterschool and summer programs. For afull copy of the RFP, please visit <www.after-schoolri.org>.

• Rhode Island Summer Learning DemonstrationProject Managed by RIASPA and funded bythe Nellie Mae Education Foundation, theRhode Island Summer Learning WorkingGroup has been working to identify bestpractices around summer learning. Theirgoal is to mitigate summer learning loss ofunderserved learners through the provisionof programming that connects the bestaspects of in-school summer programs withthe best aspects of community-based enrich-ment and experiential summer learning. Totest their theories, the working group willsupport pilot summer learning projectsamong partners who� implement effective ways to link summer

programming with public schools tocreate a seamless system of education thataddresses summer learning loss through theuse of high-quality, engaging, experientialsummer programs;

� design programs that integrate learningwith engaging, experiential, project-basedactivities in ways different from the regularschool day.

Massachusetts ELT InitiativeThe Massachusetts Department of Education,in partnership with Massachusetts 2020, a pri-vate nonprofit organization, began implemen-tation of an expanded learning time initiativein 2006. There are now twenty-six schools intwelve districts participating in the program,serving well over 5,000 students. Schools thatare accepted in the program receive state fundsof $1,300 per child to implement an expandedschedule. Partnerships between schools andcommunity-based partners are so critical thatMassachusetts 2020 recently encouraged jointproposals from ELT schools and external


organizations for multi-year, integrated school-community partnerships meant to enrich theexperiences of students, teachers, partneringorganizations, and families.

School-Level Design Principles

• Significantly more school time: at least 300more hours per year (e.g., two hours per day)

• All students participate

• Balanced use of expanded time: redesign addstime for: 1) core academics; 2) enrichment;and 3) teacher planning and professionaldevelopment

• Redesign planning process: small schoolredesign teams – including teachers, adminis-trators, union representatives, school part-ners, and parents – create data-drivenredesign plans

• Partners to expand opportunities: schoolsencouraged to partner with communityorganizations, businesses, higher-educationinstitutions, art and cultural organizations,and health institutions to expand opportuni-ties for students

Policy-Level Design Principles

• Voluntary school participation

• Technical assistance for redesign and imple-mentation

• Public financing: implementation fundedwith public money, ideally through a statepolicy framework, to ensure future sustain-ability and connections to the broader reformagenda

• Per child allocation: figure depends on localfactors and the amount of added time (inMassachusetts, $1,300 per student)

• Evaluation and continuous improvement:constant review of data to ensure continuousimprovement and learning

Results

• Students have shown promising gains inachievement.� Two years of data show students across the

Cohort 1 ELT schools achieved higherrates of proficiency compared to their his-torical performance in all three subjectareas.

� Students in middle grades (sixth througheighth) performed especially well, with sixof the seven ELT schools with middlegrades narrowing the achievement gap withthe state in math and five of the seven inEnglish Language Arts.

� Several middle school grades in a numberof schools posted particularly impressivegains, narrowing the achievement gap byat least 50 percent in just two years.

• Students express high satisfaction, particu-larly because of expanded enrichment pro-grams (music, arts, drama, apprenticeships,physical fitness, etc.) and more hands-onlearning opportunities. There are over 150partner organizations that support theenrichment programming.

• Parents and teachers are highly satisfied.� Parents see academic gains for their chil-

dren and more engaged learning.� Teachers are able to enhance their teaching

and believe students are learning more.

New York City ELT InitiativeThe After-School Corporation (TASC) and theNew York City Department of Education arejust completing the first year of a three-year,privately funded ELT initiative in ten elemen-tary and middle school sites throughout thecity.


Core Elements of TASC ELT Model

• The principal leads the school’s ELT pro-gram. The principal includes ELT in theschool’s vision, sets the expectation that it ispart of the school day, and recognizes thatthe community-based organization offeringenrichments is part of the school community.

• A lead community-based organization (CBO)provides learning opportunities for studentsthat are diverse, varied, and engaging. A full-time site coordinator works with a diversestaff (e.g., teachers, CBO staff, AmeriCorpsCorps service members) to offer students avariety of academic and enriching hands-onactivities across a range of topics.

• Students in ELT/NYC have 30 percent morelearning time. Most programs run from 3:00to 6:00 p.m., five days per week.

• CBO and school teachers and administratorscollaborate and communicate. An ELT plan-ning team develops and maintains a collabo-rative plan, and school and CBO staff mem-bers communicate regularly about day-to-dayissues. A school staff member who is desig-nated as an education liaison ensures conti-nuity between day school and CBO-ledactivities.

• ELT program meets cost and sustainabilitymodels. Overall cost of the ELT/NYC pro-gram is $1,600 per student for more than 300students, and $1,800 per student for fewerthan 300 students.

Leadership and Staffing

• Ten participating schools, grades K–8

• At least half the school population or 300 stu-dents participate in each school (currentlystudent participation is voluntary)

• 30 percent more learning time for students

• Principal has financial and programmaticleadership

• The school and community organizationwork in partnership; community partnermanages at least 50 percent of budget

• Full-time CBO site coordinator

• School staff assigned to ELT

• Diverse staff (e.g., ethnicity, age, professionalaffiliation, experience)

• Low adult to student ratios

Approach

• Additional time aligned to school’s cultureand goals

• Rigorous, child-centered learning experi-ences used to support academic achievementand twenty-first-century skills

• Shared planning time and professional devel-opment for all staff

• Engages parents as partners

• Expands learning through new experiencesnot offered during the traditional school day

Expanded Learning Time Working GroupMembersSarah Cahill, Executive Director, Rhode Island

Afterschool Plus Alliance; Chair of WorkingGroup

Jackie Ascrizzi, Manager, 21st Century Com-munity Learning Center Initiative, Office ofHigh School Reform, RIDE

Margaret Balch-Gonzalez, Staff Editor/Research Analyst, Annenberg Institute forSchool Reform

Rosemary Burns, Office of Middle and HighSchool Reform, RIDE


Colleen Callahan, Rhode Island Chapter,American Federation of Teachers; Boardof Regents

Anna Cano-Morales, Rhode Island Founda-tion; Board of Regents; Chair of CentralFalls School Board

David Cedrone, STEM Education ProgramManager, Governor’s Office

Tehani Collazo, Director of Educational Out-reach, Department of Education, BrownUniversity

Beth Cotter, Senior Policy Analyst to RhodeIsland House Majority Leader Gordon Fox

Lynn D’Ambrose, Senior Program Officer,Nellie Mae Education Foundation

Janet Durfee-Hidalgo, Education Policy Advi-sor to Governor Carcieri

Frances Gallo, Superintendent, Central FallsSchool District

Jim Hoyt, CEO, Boys and Girls Club of Paw-tucket

Robert Kalaskowski, Policy Analyst, RhodeIsland Senate Policy Office

Scott Mueller, Rhode Island Association ofSchool Committees

Julie Nora, Principal, International CharterSchool, Pawtucket

Hillary Salmons, Executive Director, Provi-dence After School Alliance

Roy Seitsinger, Director of Middle and HighSchool Reform, RIDE

Jane Sessums, President, Central Falls TeachersUnion

ReferencesEnos, S., and K. Morton. 2003. “Developing a

Theory and Practice of Campus-CommunityPartnerships.” In Building Partnerships forService Learning, edited by B. Jacoby, pp.20–41. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Forum for Youth Investment. 2008. Speaking inOne Voice: Toward Common Measures for OSTPrograms and Systems. Washington, DC: FYI.

Lazarin, M. 2008. A Race against the Clock: TheValue of Expanded Learning Time for English-Language Learners. Washington, DC: Centerfor American Progress. Available for down-load at <www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/12/ell_report.html>

New Day for Learning. 2009. A Vision forthe Future of American Education: How theRecovery Act Can Help State Leaders RealizeIt. Washington, DC: New Day for Learning.Available online at <www.newdayforlearning.org/docs/NDL_Overview_and_State_ARRA_Recommendations.pdf>

Stonehill, R., P. Little, S. Ross, L. Neergaard,L. Harrison, J. Ford, S. Deich, E. Morgan,and J. Donner. 2009. Enhancing School Reformthrough Expanded Learning. Naperville, IL:Learning Point Associates and Collaborativefor Building After-School Systems. Availableonline at <www.learningpt.org/pdfs/Enhanc-ingSchoolReformthroughExpandedLearn-ing.pdf>


4S Multiple Pathways forStudent Success

The Multiple Pathways for Student SuccessWorking Group was made up of district repre-sentatives, college access specialists, commu-nity-based providers, advocates, and staff fromRIDE and the Office of Higher Education.This supplement expands on the rationale,data, and best-practice models from outsideRhode Island that were mentioned in the Rec-ommendations section of the full report.

The Crisis of Completion in Rhode IslandThe U.S. Department of Education’s PracticeGuide on Dropout Prevention lists six recommen-dations for reducing dropout rates (Dynarski etal. 2008):

• Use data systems to help identify students athigh risk of dropping out.

• Provide academic support and enrichment toimprove academic performance.

• Implement programs to improve students’classroom behavior.

• Personalize the learning environment andinstructional process.

• Provide rigorous and relevant instruction tobetter engage students in learning and pro-vide the skills needed to graduate and to servethem after they leave school.

Low Proficiency and Attendance inMiddle SchoolData from Rhode Island show that middle-grade students in urban districts are perform-ing less well, have been held back more, andare in school less frequently than suburbanstudents in Rhode Island, putting them atincreased risk of becoming dropouts.

• In Rhode Island, 45 percent of eighth-gradersin urban districts performed at or above theproficiency level on the 2008 state assessmentsfrom the New England Common AssessmentsProgram, compared with 74 percent of stu-dents in the remainder of the state. The urbanmiddle school attendance rate during the2007-2008 school year was 91 percent, com-pared with 95 percent in the remainder ofthe state (Source: RIDE).

The Challenge of English LanguageLearners in High SchoolEnglish language learners pose a particularchallenge for urban districts, where they areconcentrated, as they often need intensive aca-demic assistance as well as cultural assimilationsupports and basic English language instruction.

• During the 2006-2007 school year, therewere 2,468 English language learners inRhode Island urban public schools in grades9–12. Of these students, 20 percent came tothe United States during the 2005-2006 or2006-2007 school years. There were 318 stu-dents who arrived during the 2005-2006school year and 170 who arrived duringthe 2006-2007 school year. Of students whoarrived during the 2006-2007 school year,58 percent attended Providence schools,22 percent attended Pawtucket schools, 14percent attended Central Falls schools, 4 per-cent attended Woonsocket schools, and 2percent attended schools in Newport (Source:RI KIDS COUNT).


National Best-Practice Models forAlternative PathwaysIn addition to the work that is already goingon in Rhode Island (see recommendation 4of the full report), there are a number ofnational models of successful alternative path-ways for students who struggle in traditionalhigh schools and who would benefit from non-traditional educational opportunities. Thesemodels include the New York City Departmentof Education’s Office of Multiple Pathways andVermont’s Department of Education HighSchool Completion Model.

Vermont High School CompletionProgramIn 2007, the Vermont legislature created a highschool completion model for out-of-schoolyouth. As of spring 2009, this program wasalso available to in-school youth. The student,parent(s), home district, and local adult educa-tion agency collectively create a personalizedprogram for high school completion thatbest addresses the need of that youth. Theyselect from a “menu” of offerings at the home,school, adult education provider, and otherentities (e.g., local training programs, gyms forphysical education credit, community serviceprojects). As the student completes each pieceof the menu, the provider is compensated forthat service. The plan could include creating acareer plan and specific courses. The programis showing evidence of success. Approximately50 percent of the enrolled individuals gradu-ated with a high school diploma or GED in2008, at an approximate cost of $5,000 perstudent.

New York City Transfer SchoolsThe New York City transfer schools are small,academically rigorous, full-time high schoolsfor students who have been enrolled in high

school for at least one year and lack sufficientcredits to graduate on time. The schools are apartnership between New York City Depart-ment of Education principals and teachers andcommunity-based organizations, who providecase management and internship experiences.Students at these schools have the opportunityto accelerate their learning and make up creditstoward graduation. The schools are funded bythe Department of Education and the Depart-ment of Labor through the Learning to Workinitiative.

ReferencesDynarski, M., L. Clarke, B. Cobb, J. Finn, R.

Rumberger, and J. Smink. 2008. Dropout Pre-vention: A Practice Guide. NCEE 2008–4025.Washington, DC: National Center for Edu-cation Evaluation and Regional Assistance,Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Depart-ment of Education. Available for downloadat <http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides>

Kennelly, L., and M. Monrad. 2007. Approachesto Dropout Prevention: Heeding Early WarningSigns with Appropriate Interventions. Washing-ton, DC: American Institutes for Research,National High School Center. Available fordownload at <www.betterhighschools.org/topics/DropoutWarningSigns.asp>


5S Statewide Educator Quality Development System

Examples of Human Capital Management Frameworks

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

and Challenges

FIGURE 1

Urban Education Task Force: Human Capital Management Continuum

Source: Annenberg Institute for School Reform


Source: Wurtzel, Judy, and Rachel Curtis. 2008. “Human Capital Framework for K-12 Urban Education:Organizing for Success.” Working Draft (July). Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.

FIGURE 2

Aspen Institute Framework


Sources for National Rankingsof How States Supportand Regulate Teacher QualityNational Council on Teacher Quality. 2008.State Teacher Policy Yearbook: What States CanDo to Retain Effective Teachers – Rhode Island.Washington, DC: NCTQ.

Education Week. 2008. “Quality Counts 2008:Tapping into Teaching.” Special issue, Educa-tion Week 27, no. 18 (January 10).

FIGURE 3.

The New Teacher Project Framework

RAND Corporation Study of Value-AddedModelingThe 2003 RAND Corporation study citedis Evaluating Value-Added Models for TeacherAccountability, by D. F. McCaffrey, J. R. Lock-wood, D. M. Koretz, and L. S. Hamilton.Another report that lays out the pros and consof value-added models is “Teacher Quality inEducational Production: Tracking, Decay, andStudent Achievement,” by Jesse Rothstein,Princeton University and National Bureau ofEconomic Research, May 2009 (forthcomingin the Quarterly Journal of Economics 125:1[February 2010]).

Source: The New Teacher Project. 2009. TNTP Framework for Teacher Effectiveness. New York: TNTP.


The Rand report explains that there are at leasttwo reasons why VAM has attracted growinginterest: 1) VAM holds out the promise of sep-arating the effects of teachers and schools fromthe powerful effects of such non-educationalfactors as family background, and this isolationof the effects of teachers and schools is criticalfor accountability systems to work as intended.2) VAM studies purport to show large differ-ences in effectiveness among teachers. If thesedifferences can be substantiated and causallylinked to specific characteristics of teachers, thepotential for improvement of education couldbe great. The Rothstein report and an accom-panying Education Week article explains thatwhile the attraction to VAMs is obvious, thereare issues with the data.

Comprehensive Educator Quality Programsvs. Performance-Based CompensationThe U.S. Department of Education’s TeacherIncentive Fund (TIF) grant program has com-mitted significant new federal resources toincreasing teacher effectiveness. The programincludes increased funding for teacher per-formance compensation reform and differenti-ated pay for new roles and responsibilities.

Systems such as the TAP System for Teacherand Student Advancement, an initiative of theNational Institute for Excellence in Teaching,and peer assistance and review (PAR) alsoinclude a performance-based compensationand/or evaluation component – but only as onepart of a comprehensive system designed toattract, develop, motivate, and retain effectiveteachers.

TAPThe TAP system focuses on integrating evalua-tion, support and professional development, acareer ladder for teachers, and the use of datato drive professional development and instruc-tional strategies. It seeks to create an environ-

ment with powerful and sustained opportuni-ties for career advancement, professionalgrowth, teacher accountability, and competitivecompensation. The goal is to enable effectiveteachers to advance professionally and earnhigher salaries, as in other careers, withoutleaving the classroom to become administra-tors.

The system comprises four components:

• Multiple career paths Powerful opportunitiesfor new roles and responsibilities, and com-mensurate pay

• Ongoing applied professional growth Contin-uous, job-embedded professional develop-ment during the school day focused on spe-cific teacher and student needs

• Instructionally focused accountability Fair andmeaningful evaluations based on clearlydefined, research-based standards

• Performance-based compensation Salaries andbonuses tied to roles and responsibilities,instructional performance, and value-addedstudent learning gains

The program was introduced in 1999 and hasbeen implemented in areas such as Chicago,New Orleans, South Carolina, and Texas. Itcurrently impacts more than 7,500 teachers and85,000 students.

For more information, see<www.tapsystem.org>.

Source: TAP. 2009. TAP, The System for Teacher and StudentAdvancement: A New Direction for Success. Santa Monica,CA: National Institute for Excellence in Teaching, TAP.

PARPeer assistance and peer review was first intro-duced into collective bargaining by teachersunions in the early 1980s. The American Fed-eration of Teachers and the National EducationAssociation (1998) describe PAR as follows:

Peer assistance and peer review are actu-ally two distinct functions. Peer assistanceaims to help new and veteran teachers


improve their knowledge and skills. Sucha program links new teachers – or strug-gling veteran teachers – with consultingteachers who provide ongoing supportthrough observing, modeling, sharingideas and skills and recommending mate-rials for further study. Peer review addsone significant element to peer assistance– the consulting teachers conduct formalevaluations and make recommendationsregarding the continued employment ofparticipating teachers. . . .

In a peer review process, the local unionshares responsibility with the school dis-trict for reviewing teacher performanceand making recommendations to the dis-trict administration about continuingemployment of teachers receiving peerassistance. The final employment decisionconcerning continued employment, how-ever, is made by the district administrationand the board of education. Nonetheless,the recommendations of the joint affiliate/school district governing body should beroutinely accepted by the school districtor the program does not truly perform apeer review function. In both peer assis-tance and peer review, the local affiliate isresponsible for ensuring that all aspects ofthe process are fair and equitable to par-ticipating teachers.

Peer review programs should not be put inplace without peer assistance programs,according to the union associations.

PAR programs vary from district to district insome ways, but share a number of features. AllPAR programs

• are created through collective bargaining orjoint affiliate/school-district agreements;

• require a focus on improving teaching sharedby teachers and administrators;

• involve joint decisions by teachers andadministrators;

• provide assistance to new and/or veteranteachers at risk of termination due to poorperformance and/or to veteran teachers vol-untarily seeking to improve their teachingpractice;

• have a process for identifying and trainingoutstanding teachers to provide peer assis-tance, and, in a peer assistance and reviewprogram, peer evaluation;

• have resources dedicated to implementingthe program.

Source: American Federation of Teachers and National Educa-tion Association. 1998. Peer Assistance and Peer Review: AnAFT/NEA Handbook. Prepared for “Shaping the ProfesssionThat Shapes the Future: AFT/NEA Conference on TeacherQuality,” September 25–27. Washington, DC: AFT and NEA.

Private Sector Management andEducation Research on PerformanceBarrier, M. 1996. “Improving Worker Per-

formance,” Nation’s Business (September).

Danielson, C. 1996. Enhancing ProfessionalPractice: A Framework for Teaching. Alexan-dria, VA: Association for Supervision andCurriculum Development.

Elmore, R. F., and D. Burney. 1997. Investingin Teacher Learning Staff Development andInstructional Improvement in CommunitySchool District #2, New York City. New York:National Commission on Teaching andAmerica’s Future.

Hawley, W. D. 1985. “Designing and Imple-menting Performance-Based Career LadderPlans,” Educational Leadership 43, no. 3:57–61.

Odden, A. 2000. “New and Better Forms ofTeacher Compensation Are Possible,” PhiDelta Kappan 81, no. 5:361–366.


RIDE’s Educator Evaluation System Framework

Source: Rhode Island Department of Education







7S Educator Collaboration

Shortly after the appointment of the UrbanEducation Task Force in January 2008, theAnnenberg Institute for School Reform atBrown University convened a statewide collab-orative of local organizations to provideresearch, technical assistance, and analyticsupport to the work of the Task Force.

The Research Collaborative currently includessix member organizations: Rhode Island KIDSCOUNT, the Annenberg Institute for SchoolReform and the Urban Education Policy Pro-gram at Brown University, the ProvidencePlan, the Rhode Island Public ExpenditureCouncil, and the Regional Educational LabNortheast and Islands (at Education Develop-ment Center). The Rhode Island Departmentof Education has provided data to supportanalyses conducted by the Collaborative.

A grant from the Nellie Mae Education Foun-dation (the main source of funding for the TaskForce) included a $20,000 allocation for thework of the Research Collaborative. Additionalsupport from the Rhode Island Foundationallowed the Collaborative to expand its workscope over the final phases of the Task Forceand to fund a critical analysis of student mobil-ity and its consequences for the five urban dis-tricts.

Role and Work ofthe Research CollaborativeThe role of the Research Collaborative hasbeen to fulfill specific requests from the TaskForce and its subcommittees and workinggroups. The major types of activity haveincluded:

• Prepare secondary data analysis of student,school, and community indicators for theurban districts.

• Produce promising-strategy briefs in keyareas of reform.

• Document all meetings and communityforums and synopses of expert testimony andcommunity input.

• Prepare preliminary and final reports.

During its first ten months of work, theResearch Collaborative produced two install-ments of a Task Force Resource Guide, whichincluded the following analyses and researchproducts.

1. Population Indicator Profiles for Rhode Islandand the Five Urban Districts Rhode IslandKIDS COUNT prepared population pro-files for each of the five districts participat-ing in the Task Force, along with a stateurban-aggregate table. Profiles featuredindicators of student population, perform-ance, and teaching. (These profiles areincluded in appendix A.)

2. Presentations by the National Advisors to theTask Force Summaries of individual presen-tations of six leading national educationreformers at several meetings of the TaskForce were prepared for its members. Theadvisors were:

• Barnett Berry, Center on Teacher Quality

• Frederick Hess, American EnterpriseInstitute

• Milbrey McLaughlin, Stanford University

• Charles Payne, University of Chicago

• Paul Reville, Secretary of Education,Commonwealth of Massachusetts

• Jesse Register, Superintendent, Metropoli-tan Nashville Public Schools


3. Information from the October 4 CommunityForum The Collaborative documented acommunity forum sponsored by the Sub-committee on Public Engagement, in part-nership with Rhode Island Young Profes-sionals, on October 4, 2008. The purpose ofthe forum was to seek public comment andinput on the major strands of work beingundertaken by the Task Force. The docu-mentation included:

• Agenda and information on featuredspeaker and panelists

• Summary of presentation by the featuredspeaker, Dr. Charles Payne, the Frank P.Hixon Professor in the School of SocialService Administration, University ofChicago

• Synthesis of themes from previous com-munity engagement efforts

• Summary of feedback from facilitated“table discussions” among communityparticipants

4. Promising Strategy Briefs The Collaborativeprepared snapshots of promising strategiesfor the Task Force subcommittees in the fol-lowing specific areas:

• Alternative Routes to Certification: TheAmerican Board for Certification ofTeacher Excellence

• Teacher Competency Programs: Teachfor America

• The Diverse Provider Model: ThePhiladelphia Experiment

• Teacher Residencies: The Boston TeacherResidency Program

• Community-Based Support Systems: TheHarlem Children’s Zone

• Initiatives in Human Capital: Denver'sProfessional Compensation System forTeachers

• Early Childhood Education: Evaluatingthe Benefits

• State Investment in Early Education:Oklahoma Universal Pre-K Program

• Early Childhood Curriculum: Pre-KMathematics Curriculum

5. Memorandum on Warren Simmons’s ProgressBriefing with Governor Carcieri Task Forcechair Warren Simmons sent a memorandumto all Task Force members summarizing hismeeting with the Governor on October 17,2008, to brief him on the progress of theTask Force.

6. Mobility Analysis Led by the ProvidencePlan, the Collaborative prepared an analysisof student mobility in Rhode Island, includ-ing data on the effects of mobility on per-formance, relative cohort stability rates, andmobility rates of English language learners,as well as suggested discussion questions(included in appendix B8).

Possible Role for the Collaborative beyondthe Work of the Task ForceThe initial funding of the Research Collabora-tive has tested its viability as a source of techni-cal support and capacity building to state andlocal education agencies beyond the immediatework of the Task Force. Similar entities inChicago, New York, and Boston have con-tributed to the overall civic capacity in theircommunities by helping inform citywidereform strategies in their local communities.To cite one example, the Consortium onChicago School Research has, for nearly twodecades, been a major source of independenteducational research and evaluation in that city.


Local circumstances in Rhode Island also attestto the need for a research collaborative. Therelatively small size of our local educationagencies limits the resources any single districtcan devote to research and evaluation, andwhat capacity exists is consumed by the admin-istration of accountability obligations, whichcontinue to increase. Informally, the Annen-berg Institute has learned from district leadersthat a Research Collaborative would be a val-ued addition, both for the capacity issues notedabove and for the importance of having a “thirdparty” conduct some studies.

The Research Collaborative could expand onthe types of analysis conducted by school dis-tricts and the broader community. For exam-ple, there is currently no reliable mechanismfor reporting to Rhode Island high schools onhow their recent graduates are performing incolleges or universities. In partnership withRIDE, the Collaborative could offer the tech-nical wherewithal to inform the design of sucha system. Part of the role of a Research Collab-orative could also include working directly withdistricts to build capacity in new techniquesand best practices for providing data as a toolfor teachers and school leaders. Finally, theCollaborative could be the training ground forthe next generation of education policy analystswho are currently graduate students in ourmember institutions.


A1 Task Force Participantsand Advisors

The following people supported the work ofthe Task Force by participating at its meetings,serving on its focus-area working groups, orproviding background research.

David AbbottOffice of the CommissionerRhode Island Department of Education

Andy AndradeOffice of the CommissionerRhode Island Department of Education

Ina AndersonRhode Island Young Professionals

Jackie AscrizziOffice of Middle and High School ReformRhode Island Department of Education

Dawn AugustHighlander Charter School, Providence

Mary-Paz AveryRegional Educational Laboratory Northeastand Islands

Abu BakrPlanning Services and ProfessionalDevelopment

University of Rhode Island

Margaret Balch-GonzalezAnnenberg Institute for School Reformat Brown University

Vanessa BekkoucheMaking Connections Providence

Elaine BudishRhode Island KIDS COUNT

Rosemary BurnsOffice of Middle and High School ReformRhode Island Department of Education

Colleen CallahanRhode Island Federation of Teachers

David CedroneRhode Island Economic DevelopmentCorporation

Nancy CloudFeinstein School of Education and HumanDevelopment

Rhode Island College

Tehani CollazoDepartment of EducationBrown University

Lynn D’AmbroseNellie Mae Education Foundation

Robert DeBloisUrban Collaborative Accelerated Program

Terry DeenySchool of EducationUniversity of Rhode Island

Susan DellFeinstein School of Education and HumanDevelopment


Ashley DenaultRhode Island Public Expenditure Council

Paula DominguezLegislative Council/ResearchState of Rhode Island

Janet Durfee-HidalgoOffice of the GovernorState of Rhode Island

About the Task Force and Its Work


Linda FilomenaParent Advisory CouncilWoonsocket Education Department

Ellen FoleyAnnenberg Institute for School Reformat Brown University

Julie FrancisWoonsocket Education Department

Paula Jo GainesOffice of Educator Quality and CertificationRhode Island Department of Education

Jessica GeierDepartment of External AffairsRhode Island Board of Governors for HigherEducation

Michael GradyAnnenberg Institute for School Reformat Brown University

Susanne GreshnerRhode Island Public Expenditure Council

James R. Hoyt, Jr.Boys and Girls Club of Pawtucket

Elizabeth JardineOffice of Adult and Career and TechnicalEducation

Rhode Island Department of Education

Elliot KriegerOffice of the CommissionerRhode Island Department of Education

Tanja Kubas-MeyerMaking Connections Providence

Rebecca LeeThe Providence Plan

Sharon LeeOffice of Middle and High School ReformRhode Island Department of Education

Josephine LouieRegional Educational Laboratory Northeastand Islands

Rachel MellionGeorge J. West Elementary School,Providence

Scott MuellerRhode Island Association of SchoolCommittees

Jonny Skye NjieConsultant

Julia NoraInternational Charter School, Pawtucket

Colleen O’BrienOffice of Assessment and InstructionRhode Island Department of Education

Tracie PotochnikAnnenberg Institute for School Reformat Brown University

Erika ReadDepartment of Labor and TrainingState of Rhode Island

Delia Rodriguez-MasjoanLatino College Access Coalition

Robert RudeFeinstein School of Education and HumanDevelopment


Hillary SalmonsProvidence After School Alliance

Roy SeitsingerOffice of Middle and High School ReformRhode Island Department of Education

Jane SessumsCentral Falls Teachers Union


Paula ShannonK–12 Teaching and LearningProvidence Public Schools

David SienkoOffice of Diverse LearnersRhode Island Department of Education

David SiglerAnnenberg Institute for School Reformat Brown University

Kenneth SwansonOffice of Diverse LearnersRhode Island Department of Education

Rebecca TingleffEducation and Community PartnershipsRhode Island Philharmonic Orchestra andMusic School

Polly UlichnyDepartment of EducationBrown University

Christian VargasDorcas Place

Nick VockerodtUrban Education Policy ProgramBrown University

Peg VottaOffice of the CommissionerRhode Island Department of Education

Carol WalkerAnnenberg Institute for School Reformat Brown University

Ray WatsonRhode Island Young Professionals

Kenneth K. WongDepartment of EducationBrown University

National Advisory Panel to the Task ForceThe following nationally recognized educationexperts met with and advised the Task Force oncurrent trends in education and on their partic-ular areas of expertise.

Dr. Barnett BerryPresident and CEOCenter for Teaching QualityHillsborough, North Carolina

Dr. Frederick HessResident ScholarAmerican Enterprise InstituteWashington, DC

Dr. Milbrey McLaughlinProfessor of Education and Public PolicyStanford UniversityStanford, California

Dr. Charles M. PayneFrank P. Hixon ProfessorSchool of Social Service AdministrationUniversity of Chicago

Dr. Jesse RegisterSuperintendentMetropolitan Nashville Public SchoolsNashville, Tennessee

Paul RevilleSecretary of EducationCommonwealth of MassachusettsBoston, Massachusetts


A2 Task Force Meetingsand Events

The following list includes the formal meetingsto which the full Task Force was invited. Itdoes not include meetings of the subcommit-tees or working groups, each of which metthree to ten times over the course of eighteenmonths.

2008January 31 Full Task Force Meeting

March 28 Full Task Force Meeting

June 25 Full Task Force Meeting

September 30 Full Task Force Meeting

October 4 Community Forum

November 6 Community-Based Organiza-tions Leaders Meeting

November 13 Full Task Force Meeting

December 20 Report on PreliminaryRecommendations

2009January 30 Full Task Force Meeting

March 4 Educator Quality Mini-Conference

March 16 Expanded Learning TimeMini-Conference

March 23 Site Visit, Umana MiddleSchool Academy, East Boston

March 27 Full Task Force Meeting

March 28 Woonsocket CommunityForum

April 2 Educator Quality Mini-Conference

April 18 Latino Forum

April 30 Educators’ Forum

May 13 Newport Community Forum

May 15 Full Task Force Meeting

June 5 Multiple Pathways Mini-Conference

June 15 Expanded Learning TimeMini-Conference

July 29 Full Task Force Meeting

October 7 Educator Quality Mini-Conference

October 27 Report on FinalRecommendations


B1 Profile for Rhode Islandand the Core City Districts

Student Population Indicators• Child Population – 247,822 children under age

18 lived in Rhode Island in 2000, 91,945 ofwhom lived in the core cities.*

• Pre-K to 12 Enrollment – 144,537 studentswere enrolled in Rhode Island public schoolsin the 2007-2008 school year, 47,964 ofwhom were in core city districts.

• Children in Poverty – In 2000, 41,162 childrenunder age 18 were living in poverty in RhodeIsland, 30,744 of whom were living in thecore cities.

• Single-Parent Families – In 2000, 30% ofRhode Island children lived in single parentfamilies, compared with 47% of children inthe core cities.

• English Language Learners – There were 7,427English Language Learners in Rhode Islandpublic schools in the 2007-2008 school year,5,637 of whom were in core city districts.ELL students in Rhode Island spoke morethan 80 different languages in 2007-2008, themajority speaking Spanish.

• Special Education – There were 26,100 stu-dents with disabilities in Rhode Island in the2007-2008 school year, 9,365 of whom werein the core cities.

• Teen Births – Between 2003 and 2007, therewere 5,664 births to teen girls ages 15-19 liv-ing in Rhode Island, 3,950 of which were inthe core cities.

• Student Mobility – The Rhode Island studentmobility rate for the 2007-2008 school yearwas 16%, compared to 26% in the core citydistricts.

• Minority Enrollment – 31% of students inRhode Island public schools were minoritiesin the 2007-2008 school year, compared with69% in core city districts.

Education Indicators• Full-day Kindergarten – 58% of Rhode Island

public school kindergarteners attended full-day programs in the 2008-2009 school year,compared with 95% of kindergarteners incore city districts.

• 4th Grade Reading Skills – 68% of 4th gradersscored at or above proficiency in reading inRhode Island in 2008, compared with 52% ofstudents in the core city districts.

• 4th Grade Math Skills – 63% of 4th gradersscored at or above proficiency in mathematicsin Rhode Island in 2008, compared with 45%of students in the core city districts.

• 8th Grade Reading Skills – 65% of 8th gradersscored at or above proficiency in reading inRhode Island in 2008, compared with 45% ofstudents in the core city districts.

• 8th Grade Math Skills – 53% of 8th gradersscored at or above proficiency in mathematicsin Rhode Island in 2008, compared with 33%of students in the core city districts.

• % of Seniors Taking the SATs – 57% of RhodeIsland seniors took the SATs in 2008, com-pared with 53% of seniors in the core citydistricts.

• High School Graduation and Dropout Rates –74% of Rhode Island high schools students inthe 2008 graduating class graduated on-timein four years and 16% of the class droppedout. The remaining 10% of students com-pleted their GEDs within four years or

* Core cities are those with greater than 15 percent childpoverty rates according to the 2000 Census. These include:Central Falls, Newport, Pawtucket, Providence, West War-wick, and Woonsocket.


remained enrolled in high school for morethan four years. In the core city districts,61% of students graduated on-time in fouryears, 26% dropped out, and the remaining13% either completed their GEDs withinfour years or remained enrolled in highschool for more than four years.

• Per Pupil Expenditures – The general educa-tion per pupil annual expenditure for instruc-tion and instructional support in RhodeIsland is $7,246.

Teacher Indicators• Long-term Teachers – 15% of Rhode Island

teachers report being in the field of educationfor more than 25 years.

• New Teachers – 2% of Rhode Island teachersreport being in the field of education for lessthan one year.

• Teacher Mobility – 29% of Rhode Islandteachers report being in their current build-ing for 3 years or less.

• Professional Development Expenditures – The2008 professional development expenditureper pupil in Rhode Island was $207.

Sources: Rhode Island Department of Education and the 2009Rhode Island KIDS COUNT Factbook


• % of Seniors Taking the SATs – 38% of CentralFalls seniors took the SATs in 2008.

• High School Graduation and Dropout Rates –52% of Central Falls high schools students inthe 2008 graduating class graduated on-timein four years and 29% of the class droppedout. The remaining 19% of students com-pleted their GEDs within four years orremained enrolled in high school for morethan four years.

• Per Pupil Expenditures – The general educa-tion per pupil annual expenditure for instruc-tion and instructional support in CentralFalls is $6,065.

Teacher Indicators• Long-term Teachers – 16% of Central Falls


• New Teachers – 1% of Central Falls teachersreport being in the field of education for lessthan one year.

• Teacher Mobility – 27% of Central Falls teach-ers report being in their current building for3 years or less.

• Professional Development Expenditures – The2008 professional development expenditureper pupil in Central Falls was $313.


B2 District Profile forCentral Falls


18 lived in Central Falls in 2000.

• Pre-K to 12 Enrollment – 3,338 students wereenrolled in Central Falls public schools in the2007-2008 school year.

• Children in Poverty – In 2000, 2,210 childrenunder age 18 were living in poverty in Cen-tral Falls.

• English Language Learners – There were 728English Language Learners in Central Fallspublic schools in the 2007-2008 school year.

• Special Education – There were 793 studentswith disabilities in Central Falls in the 2007-2008 school year.

• Teen Births – Between 2003 and 2007, therewere 338 births to teen girls ages 15-19 livingin Central Falls.

• Student Mobility – The Central Falls studentmobility rate for the 2007-2008 school yearwas 27%.

Education Indicators• Full-day Kindergarten – 100% of Central Falls

public school kindergarteners attended full-day programs in the 2008-2009 school year.

• 4th Grade Reading Skills – 48% of 4th gradersscored at or above proficiency in reading inCentral Falls in 2008.

• 4th Grade Math Skills – 39% of 4th gradersscored at or above proficiency in mathematicsin Central Falls in 2008.

• 8th Grade Reading Skills – 34% of 8th gradersscored at or above proficiency in reading inCentral Falls in 2008.

• 8th Grade Math Skills – 27% of 8th gradersscored at or above proficiency in mathematicsin Central Falls in 2008.


• % of Seniors Taking the SATs – 52% of Paw-tucket seniors took the SATs in 2008.

• High School Graduation and Dropout Rates –57% of Pawtucket high schools students inthe 2008 graduating class graduated on-timein four years and 26% of the class droppedout. The remaining 17% of students com-pleted their GEDs within four years orremained enrolled in high school for morethan four years.

• Per Pupil Expenditures – The general educa-tion per pupil annual expenditure for instruc-tion and instructional support in Pawtucket is$6,014.

Teacher Indicators• Long-term Teachers – 17% of Pawtucket teach-

ers report being in the field of education formore than 25 years.

• New Teachers – 2% of Pawtucket teachersreport being in the field of education for lessthan one year.

• Teacher Mobility – 26% of Pawtucket teachersreport being in their current building for 3years or less.

• Professional Development Expenditures – The2008 professional development expenditureper pupil in Pawtucket was $157.


B3 District Profile forPawtucket


18 lived in Pawtucket in 2000.

• Pre-K to 12 Enrollment – 8,530 students wereenrolled in Pawtucket public schools in the2007-2008 school year.

• Children in Poverty – In 2000, 4,542 childrenunder age 18 were living in poverty in Paw-tucket.

• English Language Learners – There were 871English Language Learners in Pawtucketpublic schools in the 2007-2008 school year.

• Special Education – There were 1,392 stu-dents with disabilities in Pawtucket in the2007-2008 school year.

• Teen Births – Between 2003 and 2007, therewere 641 births to teen girls ages 15-19 livingin Pawtucket.

• Student Mobility – The Pawtucket studentmobility rate for the 2007-2008 school yearwas 24%.

Education Indicators• Full-day Kindergarten – 84% of Pawtucket


• 4th Grade Reading Skills – 58% of 4th gradersscored at or above proficiency in reading inPawtucket in 2008.

• 4th Grade Math Skills – 50% of 4th gradersscored at or above proficiency in mathematicsin Pawtucket in 2008.

• 8th Grade Reading Skills – 52% of 8th gradersscored at or above proficiency in reading inPawtucket in 2008.

• 8th Grade Math Skills – 35% of 8th gradersscored at or above proficiency in mathematicsin Pawtucket in 2008.


• % of Seniors Taking the SATs – 57% of Provi-dence seniors took the SATs in 2008.

• High School Graduation and Dropout Rates –63% of Providence high schools students inthe 2008 graduating class graduated on-timein four years and 26% of the class droppedout. The remaining 11% of students com-pleted their GEDs within four years orremained enrolled in high school for morethan four years.

• Per Pupil Expenditures – The general educa-tion per pupil annual expenditure for instruc-tion and instructional support in Providenceis $6,248.

Teacher Indicators• Long-term Teachers – 13% of Providence


• New Teachers – 1% of Providence teachersreport being in the field of education for lessthan one year.

• Teacher Mobility – 35% of Providence teach-ers report being in their current building for3 years or less.

• Professional Development Expenditures – The2008 professional development expenditureper pupil in Providence was $544.


B4 District Profile forProvidence


18 lived in Providence in 2000.

• Pre-K to 12 Enrollment – 24,180 students wereenrolled in Providence public schools in the2007-2008 school year.

• Children in Poverty – In 2000, 18,045 childrenunder age 18 were living in poverty in Provi-dence.

• English Language Learners – There were 3,615English Language Learners in Providencepublic schools in the 2007-2008 school year.

• Special Education – There were 4,565 stu-dents with disabilities in Providence in the2007-2008 school year.

• Teen Births – Between 2003 and 2007, therewere 2,211 births to teen girls ages 15-19 liv-ing in Providence.

• Student Mobility – The Providence studentmobility rate for the 2007-2008 school yearwas 28%.

Education Indicators• Full-day Kindergarten – 100% of Providence


• 4th Grade Reading Skills – 47% of 4th gradersscored at or above proficiency in reading inProvidence in 2008.

• 4th Grade Math Skills – 40% of 4th gradersscored at or above proficiency in mathematicsin Providence in 2008.

• 8th Grade Reading Skills – 41% of 8th gradersscored at or above proficiency in reading inProvidence in 2008.

• 8th Grade Math Skills – 28% of 8th gradersscored at or above proficiency in mathematicsin Providence in 2008.


• % of Seniors Taking the SATs – 60% of New-port seniors took the SATs in 2008.

• High School Graduation and Dropout Rates –66% of Newport high schools students in the2008 graduating class graduated on-time infour years and 22% of the class dropped out.The remaining 12% of students completedtheir GEDs within four years or remainedenrolled in high school for more than fouryears.

• Per Pupil Expenditures – The general educa-tion per pupil annual expenditure for instruc-tion and instructional support in Newport is$8,056.

Teacher Indicators• Long-term Teachers – 14% of Newport teach-

ers report being in the field of education formore than 25 years.

• New Teachers – 1% of Newport teachersreport being in the field of education for lessthan one year.

• Teacher Mobility – 33% of Newport teachersreport being in their current building for 3years or less.

• Professional Development Expenditures – The2008 professional development expenditureper pupil in Newport was $149.


B5 District Profile forNewport


18 lived in Newport in 2000.

• Pre-K to 12 Enrollment – 2,175 students wereenrolled in Newport public schools in the2007-2008 school year.

• Children in Poverty – In 2000, 1,267 childrenunder age 18 were living in poverty in New-port.

• English Language Learners – There were 62English Language Learners in Newport pub-lic schools in the 2007-2008 school year.

• Special Education – There were 434 studentswith disabilities in Newport in the 2007-2008school year.

• Teen Births – Between 2003 and 2007, therewere 134 births to teen girls ages 15-19 livingin Newport.

• Student Mobility – The Newport studentmobility rate for the 2007-2008 school yearwas 22%.

Education Indicators• Full-day Kindergarten – 100% of Newport


• 4th Grade Reading Skills – 53% of 4th gradersscored at or above proficiency in reading inNewport in 2008.

• 4th Grade Math Skills – 54% of 4th gradersscored at or above proficiency in mathematicsin Newport in 2008.

• 8th Grade Reading Skills – 69% of 8th gradersscored at or above proficiency in reading inNewport in 2008.

• 8th Grade Math Skills – 51% of 8th gradersscored at or above proficiency in mathematicsin Newport in 2008.


• % of Seniors Taking the SATs – 43% ofWoonsocket seniors took the SATs in 2008.

• High School Graduation and Dropout Rates –60% of Woonsocket high schools students inthe 2008 graduating class graduated on-timein four years and 28% of the class droppedout. The remaining 12% of students com-pleted their GEDs within four years orremained enrolled in high school for morethan four years.

• Per Pupil Expenditures – The general educa-tion per pupil annual expenditure for instruc-tion and instructional support in Woonsocketis $5,139.

Teacher Indicators• Long-term Teachers – 14% of Woonsocket


• New Teachers – 2% of Woonsocket teachersreport being in the field of education for lessthan one year.

• Teacher Mobility – 29% of Woonsocket teach-ers report being in their current building for3 years or less.

• Professional Development Expenditures – The2008 professional development expenditureper pupil in Woonsocket was $309.


B6 District Profile forWoonsocket


18 lived in Woonsocket in 2000.

• Pre-K to 12 Enrollment – 6,166 students wereenrolled in Woonsocket public schools in the2007-2008 school year.

• Children in Poverty – In 2000, 3,494 childrenunder age 18 were living in poverty inWoonsocket.

• English Language Learners – There were 275English Language Learners in Woonsocketpublic schools in the 2007-2008 school year.

• Special Education – There were 1,455 stu-dents with disabilities in Woonsocket in the2007-2008 school year.

• Teen Births – Between 2003 and 2007, therewere 469 births to teen girls ages 15-19 livingin Woonsocket.

• Student Mobility – The Woonsocket studentmobility rate for the 2007-2008 school yearwas 24%.

Education Indicators• Full-day Kindergarten – 100% of Woonsocket


• 4th Grade Reading Skills – 53% of 4th gradersscored at or above proficiency in reading inWoonsocket in 2008.

• 4th Grade Math Skills – 48% of 4th gradersscored at or above proficiency in mathematicsin Woonsocket in 2008.

• 8th Grade Reading Skills – 43% of 8th gradersscored at or above proficiency in reading inWoonsocket in 2008.

• 8th Grade Math Skills – 29% of 8th gradersscored at or above proficiency in mathematicsin Woonsocket in 2008.


B7 Comparative Data on the Urban Core Districts

2005 2006 2007 2008

Central Falls 34.1 38.7 43.8 47.0

Newport 47.0 50.5 50.4 60.8

Pawtucket 45.4 47.4 52.5 55.8

Providence 30.0 37.2 39.1 45.2

Woonsocket 38.6 42.6 46.1 54.5

Rest of State 68.9 72.2 74.1 76.9

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Percentp

roficien

tora

bove

FIGURE 1

NECAP Results in Reading, grades 3–8



CentralFalls Newport Pawtucket Providence Woonsocket STATE

Proportionof State

Child Population 5,531 5,199 18,151 45,277 11,155 247,822 34.4%

Public School Enrollment 3,481 2,258 8,667 25,012 6,286 147,407 31.0%

Children on Free/Reduced Lunch 2,210 1,267 4,542 18,045 3,494 41,162 71.8%

English Language Learners 827 60 980 3,947 300 7,920 77.2%

Special Education 814 495 1,391 4,743 1,509 27,345 32.7%

Minority Enrollment 85.0% 49.0% 56.0% 88.0% 42.0% 31.0% 72.0%

Student Mobility 40.0% 31.0% 32.0% 28.0% 22.0% 18.0% —

High School Graduation Rate 46.0% 60.0% 48.0% 58.0% 54.0% 70.0% —

Per Pupil Expenditure $11,277 $11,812 $9,364 $10,239 $8,797 $9,736 —

FIGURE 3

Demographic Profile of Students in RI Urban Districts vs. State

Source: 2008 Rhode Island KIDS COUNT Factbook

2005 2006 2007 2008

Central Falls 21.1 29.1 31.6 33.1

Newport 40.2 44.1 42.5 49.8

Pawtucket 38.9 40.1 42.4 43.3

Providence 23.6 31.4 28.5 32.8

Woonsocket 32.3 33.7 34.8 40.3

Rest of State 59.9 62.6 62.7 66.3

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Percentp

roficien

tora

bove

FIGURE 2

NECAP Results in Math, grades 3–8



Student GroupCohortSize

GraduationRate

DropoutRate

% CompletedGED

% Stillin School

Central Falls 305 52% 29% 2% 16%

Newport 192 66% 22% 3% 9%

Pawtucket 717 57% 26% 6% 11%

Providence 2,379 63% 26% 2% 9%

Woonsocket 492 60% 28% 3% 9%

All Urban* Students 4,385 61% 26% 3% 10%

All Rhode Island Students 13,163 74% 16% 3% 7%

Student Subgroup(for All Urban* Districts)

CohortSize

GraduationRate

DropoutRate

% CompletedGED

% Stillin School

Native American 38 50% 29% 3% 18%

Asian 202 66% 26% <1% 7%

Black 855 62% 24% 2% 13%

Hispanic 1,878 61% 27% 2% 10%

White 1,412 61% 26% 5% 9%

Special Education 1,029 44% 35% 3% 18%

Regular Education 3,356 67% 23% 3% 7%

English Language Learners (ELLs) 808 56% 30% 1% 13%

Non-ELLs 3,577 63% 25% 3% 9%

Low-Income 3,598 59% 27% 3% 11%

Higher-Income 787 71% 21% 3% 5%

Female 2,220 67% 23% 3% 7%

Male 2,165 55% 29% 3% 13%

FIGURE 4

Four-Year Cohort Graduation Rates for the Class of 2008 by City

FIGURE 5

Four-Year Cohort Graduation Rates for the Class of 2008 by Demographic Groups


*Urban districts in this analysis are Central Falls, Newport, Pawtucket, Providence, West Warwick, and Woonsocket.


*Urban districts in this analysis are Central Falls, Newport, Pawtucket, Providence, West Warwick, and Woonsocket.


B8 Student Mobility Analysis



C1 Educators’ Forum

The Rhode Island Urban Education TaskForce held a forum for educators and adminis-trators on April 30, 2009, to gather their feed-back and perspectives on the preliminaryrecommendations of the Task Force. TheAnnenberg Institute for School Reform organ-ized the forum in conjunction with the RhodeIsland Federation of Teachers and HealthProfessionals, the Central Falls Teachers’Union, the Pawtucket Teachers’ Alliance, theProvidence Teachers Union, the WoonsocketTeachers Guild, and the Providence SchoolDepartment.

The forum was held at Jorge Alvarez HighSchool in Providence. Approximately eightyeducators and administrators were in atten-dance (the majority were teachers). Participantsrepresented a variety of educator organizationsand schools across grade levels and cities,including:

• Jorge Alvarez High School, Providence

• Robert L. Bailey Elementary School,Providence

• Calcutt Middle School, Central Falls

• Classical High School, Providence

• Flora Curtis Elementary School, Pawtucket

• Alan Shawn Feinstein School, Central Falls

• Edmund W. Flynn Elementary School,Providence

• Charles Fortes Elementary School,Providence

• Hope Highlands Elementary School,Cranston

• Joseph Jenks Junior High School, Pawtucket

• Robert F. Kennedy School, Providence

• Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ElementarySchool, Providence

• Margaret I. Robertson School, Central Falls

• Rhode Island Federation of Teachers

• Gilbert Stuart Middle School, Providence

• Textron Chamber of Commerce Academy,Providence

• Samuel Slater Junior High School, Pawtucket

• Veterans Memorial Elementary School,Central Falls

• Roger Williams Middle School, Providence

• Woonsocket High School

• Woonsocket Middle School

The forum provided an opportunity for educa-tors to hear a presentation about the work ofthe Task Force, give feedback on the prelimi-nary recommendations, and share the chal-lenges they face in urban districts, as well astheir needs. The forum also included a keynoteaddress by American Federation of Teachersvice president Adam Urbanski and a panelmade up of union leaders from Central Falls,Pawtucket, Providence, and Woonsocket.

Summary of Union Leaders PanelPanelists were asked to address the followingquestions:

1. What do you see as the major challengesfaced by urban districts? Give an example ofsomething the union has done to addresschallenges and/or improve conditions.

2. What is one recommendation you wouldlike the Task Force to make?

The panel identified several challenges aroundworking conditions. Teachers do their best inspite of the physical deterioration of buildingsand lack of books and basic school supplies; thisyear, teachers had to spend their stipend forextra materials to buy paper. They have tech-nology, but the old buildings can’t support it.

The panelists put forth several recommenda-tions for the Task Force, including a three-year mentoring program for new teachers andteachers at risk; professional development for


principals; and involving teachers in designingprofessional development. They suggested thatinstead of focusing on creating better teachers,it would be more productive to have a conceptof creating a more attractive teaching positionthat would treat teachers as professionals.

Summary of Small-Group DiscussionsSmall-group discussions then focused on thefollowing questions:

1. What are your challenges and needs as anurban educator?

2. Which recommendations that you heardtoday resonate with you? What’s missing?What should be added?

Challenges and NeedsEducators cited many challenges around thefollowing themes.

Curriculum development and changes Partici-pants pointed to a “lack of coherence, vigor,and relevance in curriculum,” the lack of acoordinated curriculum, and a misalignmentbetween the curriculum and assessment.

Unions and management Teachers mentionedthat there is a lack of teacher voice on manylevels: in the administration, in professionaldevelopment, and in their own classrooms.They reported that there is “too much top-down management” and expressed frustrationthat “opinions are not valued – there is a fearof repercussions.”

School culture and climate Teachers mentionedan “absence of trust and collaboration amongstudents, teachers, administrators, and par-ents.” Poor communication between these par-ties was also cited. “Lack of student motiva-tion” and “little support from parents” are seenas issues.

Societal issues that impact urban schools Issuesmentioned include poverty, mobility, poornutrition, and lack of medical care.

Deteriorating physical plant of schools Teachersmentioned leaky ceilings, cracked masonry, andinadequate ventilation, as well as outdated tech-nology and inadequate facilities.

Early childhood students Teachers of these stu-dents face challenges that include students com-ing into kindergarten who are not ready tolearn and not enough emphasis on preschoolprograms. Kindergarten teachers reported alack of respect.

Other challenges Among those mentioned werea lack of financial resources and issues of equity– across gender, special needs, and betweenurban and suburban students.

Corresponding needs Areas mentioned includedmaterials and physical plant, curriculum, union/management, parent engagement, and profes-sional development. Calls were made for moresupplies, a consistent curriculum, more teachervoice in establishing programs that work, betterparent engagement, and “model” professionaldevelopment.

PrioritiesSeveral of the Task Force recommendationsresonated with the educators. Priorities withinthe recommendations included: ExpandedLearning Time, Multiple Pathways, andStatewide Pre-K. K–3 Literacy and InnovationZone were also mentioned.

Expanded Learning Time• Expanded learning time: pre-K, summer

school, enrichment, pre-school

• Tailored to the needs and interests of eachchild

• Enrichment activities

• Engaged by community members and parentsas well as teachers

• For those who need it, not all, to maximizetime, equity, quality – different, not more ofthe same


Multiple Pathways• Multiple pathways that take student interest

into account when developing and adminis-tering curriculum

• Schools for overage/under-credited students

• Programs other than college bound

• Alternative programs for chronically disrup-tive students

Statewide Pre-K• Mandatory pre-school for three- and four-

year-olds

• Pre-K for all students, especially for urbandistricts with equitable funding

Other priorities mentioned not in reference tothe recommendations included paying atten-tion to English language learners, creating thecapacity to compete with charter schools, andequal treatment between schools.

What’s Missing and What Should Be AddedParticipants also identified what they felt wasmissing in the Task Force preliminary reportand recommendations. The biggest thingseen as missing is a fair funding formula andresources to implement the recommendationsof the Task Force.

In the discussion around the Educator Per-formance Management System, they reporteda lack of teacher voice (including librarians,nurses, and teachers) and specific criteria in therecommendations around labor managementdiscussions. There was also a request that whenworking with new reforms to “give new ideastime to work: do not judge us on an idea thathas just started.”

Also missing was a reference to the physicalplant and learning environments of the schoolsand a way to address deteriorating buildings.

In terms of curriculum, there should be anemphasis on math, science, and technology.The importance of smaller class size was alsomentioned. There was a suggestion that “earlyliteracy and numeracy need to be tied togetherand to provide services in both from Pre-Kto 3.”

Parent involvement and parent/teacher com-munication were also seen as missing. Partici-pants mentioned the need for “parentalaccountability in the form of volunteerism,involvement in school functions, etc.” Addi-tionally, there should be a “connection to com-munity: teachers should know the students,parents, issues of family and gain adult buy-in.”

Final Thoughts and EvaluationsOverall, the educators and administrators whoattended the forum expressed satisfaction withhaving a forum to share and discuss their chal-lenges and needs in the urban school districts.Evaluations collected rated overall effectivenessof the forum at 4 to 5 on a scale of 1 to 5, with5 being excellent. Participants reported that themost effective part of the forum was the tablediscussions and the opportunity to share withtheir colleagues. Several reported that theywould have liked even more time for table dis-cussions. Others reported a realization that“they are not alone” and that it was “eye open-ing to hear others are experiencing the samechallenges as our district.”

The evaluations also reflected a desire for theTask Force to help teachers with implementingthe recommendations. “Please give urbanteachers more opportunities for input andplease give us help in implementing recom-mendations.” Some respondents offered somefurther recommendations for the Task Forceparticularly around being sure to includeteacher voice. “It is wise for them [the TaskForce] to seek feedback from the people in the


trenches.” “Value the expertise of teachers! Letus in on curriculum and professional develop-ment choices! We are the ones that know whatthe kids need.”

In terms of the funding issue, commentsincluded: “Urge the Governor to insist on afair funding formula, since so many aspects ofthe recommendations can be addressed withproper funding.” “Good ideas without ade-quate resources mean nothing!”

Finally, the teachers requested proper follow-up from the forum. With regard to teachervoice: “ Will the teacher voice requested todaybe heard? How will we know? What follow-up will there be?” They also would like toincluded in the future work: “Continue theconversation – keep teachers involved as theyare ultimately the force of change.” “Thanksfor listening.”

Summary compiled by Ina Anderson, RhodeIsland Young Professionals and public engagementconsultant


C2 Community Perspectives

A series of forums to elicit community feed-back and perspectives on the preliminary rec-ommendations of the Task Force were heldbetween October 2008 and May 2009 (see fig-ure below).

The following summaries reflect communityinput across the community forums in refer-ence to each of the task force recommenda-tions. The recommendations that elicitedthe most responses were Multiple Pathways,Educator Performance Management System,Expanded Learning Time, and Cross-SystemCollaborations. The recommendations forstatewide Pre-K, K–3 Literacy, and an Innova-tion Zone received fewer comments; thosebrief comments are also reflected in thissummary.

There were numerous responses from theforums that referred to issues that the commu-nity would like the Task Force to pay attentionto that are not related to the preliminary rec-ommendations. These are summarized in thesection “Other Perspectives” below.

Comments on the Task ForceRecommendationsEducator Performance ManagementSystemComments regarding this recommendationrevolved around issues regarding teachers,including teacher performance and evaluation,accountability, and professional development.There was a call for “vested engagement byteachers.” Participants also spoke to the barri-ers and challenges faced by the urban districts.These included socio-cultural factors such aspoverty and diversity, as well as concerns aboutthe physical conditions of schools. A desire fortrust on the part of teachers, students, andadministrators was expressed.

Performance and Evaluation Implement betterteacher selection and evaluation with a consis-tent statewide education performance manage-ment system; reward effective teachers andhold all teachers across the system accountable;reward good teachers within the pay structureand consider merit pay and changes in teacher

October 4, 2008 Coming Together to Build Bet-ter Schools: Urban Educationfor the 21st Century

Providence 150 parents, youth, commu-nity members and leaders,and civic leaders

November 6, 2008 Community Leaders Meeting Providence 50 community-based organi-zation leaders

March 28, 2009 Woonsocket CommunityForum

Woonsocket 25 parents, youth, and com-munity and civic leaders

April 18, 2009 Latinos Coming Together toBuild Better Schools: UrbanEducation for the 21st Century

Providence 60 Latino and other parents,youth, community membersand leaders, and civic leaders

May 13, 2009 Newport Community Forum Newport 50 parents, youth, and com-munity and civic leaders

UETF Public Engagement Meetings


contracts; make sure teachers aren’t discourag-ing high expectations; define criteria for meas-uring teacher performance.

Some teachers work more than others,[doing more than what is required ofthem] and they get the same salary asteachers that are not as effective. Someteachers have a lack of passion for teach-ing. They are protected by unions; some-times they hurt as much as teach students.

Professional Development Teachers should meetthe skills and needs of current students andshow a willingness to adapt; there should bediversity training for teachers and staff andincentives for teacher professional developmentaround language instruction (vouchers); a sys-temwide teacher mentoring network should beset up to help implement new curriculum.

Multiple PathwaysParticipants responded positively to this rec-ommendation. A desire was expressed for stu-dents to have school-to-world connections out-side of the typical school structure. MultiplePathways were also viewed as a way to addressdiscipline issues and dropout rates. Reformaround Multiple Pathways should be student-centered and all avenues of opportunity shouldbe open to all students.

School-to-world connections for students Thereneed to be pathways and opportunities to con-nect school work with the outer world of jobs,college, and skills, including opportunitiesother than college bound programs andexpanded career pathways to adult learningand higher education.

Discipline and students at risk Provide alterna-tive programs for the chronically disruptive,with less focus on suspension as discipline,more programs for over-age/under-creditedstudents, and a recognition of different learn-ing types of students to avoid mislabeling; paymore attention to students’ opinions and makeuse of peer intervention.

Cross-System CollaborationsParticipants responded that communicationand cooperation are essential for Cross-SystemCollaborations. Collaborations must be “sys-temic and multi-level” in order to “movebeyond programmatic changes.”

Cooperation Find commonalities among suc-cessful schools, increase cooperation betweenschool and the state and interagency collabora-tion, and increase school-to-business and com-munity partnerships. “We are not maximizingthe resources that business can provide.”

Address barriers to cross-system collaborationssuch as the disconnect between schools and thedistrict, territorial politics and school boards,and lack of data collection tools and technologyin the classrooms.

Communication An integrated plan is needed toincrease communication and informationexchange in schools and among the all urbancommunities.

Another perspective from Adam Urbanski,keynote speaker at the Educators’ Forum: “Weneed to do better, particularly now with global-ization and technology. No single constituencycan do it alone. Collaboration is a prerequisitefor change, a precondition. Collaborationmeans working together for the same commondenominator.”

Expanded Learning TimeResponses to this recommendation refer to thequality of ELT activities and suggestions forthose activities. Forum participants noted thatthere are currently too few after-school pro-grams. It was also mentioned that community-based organizations are “doing good after-school work” and connections can be madebetween schools and CBOs. Questions arose


about whether or not ELT would be manda-tory and part of graduation requirements, andwhether or not teachers would be paid over-time.

Goals of ELT Define the premise and implica-tions of the extended day. Students need qualityeducation, not just to be kept in school longer.

Activities Involve internships, pay older stu-dents to tutor younger kids, include arts, music,dance, theater, and electives.

K–3 Literacy InstructionParticipants expressed concerns about studentreadiness to learn. There was recognitionof barriers to early literacy, including second-language barriers, social and home issues,and school absences. It was suggested that“early literacy and numeracy need to be tiedtogether.”

Pre-KParticipants responded that pre-K should bea priority within the Task Force and that itshould be statewide and mandatory.

Innovation ZoneParticipants responded positively to this rec-ommendation. Suggestions included creating aclearing house for sharing ideas and best prac-tices and creating the capacity for innovationsand leadership at the building level.

Other PerspectivesThere was a wide range of comments fromparticipants that did not specifically relate tothe recommendations of the Task Force. Thethemes of parent and community engagement,school climate, trust, and communication wereprevalent across all of the forums. In addition,the question of funding and resources wasconsistently raised. There was also a set ofcomments referring to systemic issues at thedistrict level around curriculum and graduationrequirements.

Parent and Community Engagementand InvolvementParticipants in the community forums men-tioned parent engagement and involvementas a top issue for them in the schools. Thiswas one of the themes that emerged mostconsistently across the forums. Specifically,there were calls for “cultivating strong parentinvolvement” in the schools for better studentoutcomes. A desire was expressed for principalsto be “flexible and open to interact with par-ents and teachers and students.” There wasmention of “cultivating a welcoming andengaging culture for parents.” One participantshared a vision where “parents are called regu-larly with student updates and the timingof parent conferences works for all parents.Schools are welcoming and language accessi-ble. Parents can easily volunteer in schools.”Another suggested that “principals be evaluatedon parental engagement and that there areconsequences.”

Communication Better communication isneeded between the community and theschool.” Provide more information to parentsabout what they can do to contribute. “Parentsshould be viewed as stakeholders in a companyand be briefed throughout the year by schooland district staff. Meetings should be staggeredto allow parents with tight schedules atten-dance options.” Create ways for teachers toreach out to parents.

Student-parent connection If the students aregoing to be involved, the parents should alsobe engaged. Regular parent conferences shouldbe available and schools should try to provide amore welcoming and hospitable environment,in which parents are comfortable. Parentsshould motivate their children to do better.


Children were treated better when parentswere involved. “The school should offer itsfacilities to parents and families when school isnot in session.”

Training and Empowerment for FamiliesParticipants also said it was important to create“pathways for parents to become part of thefabric of their children’s education.” One par-ticipant remarked that “we need systems toimprove parent and family engagement.” Theneed was expressed for empowering parents toengage at the school level so that parents canreinforce what is happening in schools andvice versa, and more support and training forparents to support their kids and help themengage with schools.

Communication and TrustParticipants identified a need for greater com-munication between schools, principals, teach-ers, parents, and the community. They alsocalled for communication to be more consis-tent and in the proper language of the parents.A request was made to “make sure mailingshome from school are in the correct language.”There were also calls for activities that allowparents and teachers to interact and provideaccess to teacher and high school leaders, aswell as greater accessibility to principals forparents. Suggestions included regular emails,phone calls, and even door-to-door organizingof parents and home visits.

Ongoing conversation Convene an honest con-versation; keep having conversations like theseforums.

Trust Set a table of trust: “When we gettogether to know who is there to help andwho has a resource to provide, we can createtrust.” Hold trust-building workshops.

Respectful communication “Engage parentsbased on their cultural and language competen-cies”; address language barriers in communica-tion. “Parents need centers, places and inter-preters, so they can learn about the schoolsystem, and the forms they need to fill out.”“At schools there are not translators forSpanish-speaking parents, and the ones that dohave them . . . the parents feel the translatorsare talking down to them.”

State–District ResponsibilityThere were many issues brought up whichhave deep systemic roots and cannot beaddressed without participation from thestate and the district.

Politics Several comments argued that politicshas come to dominate education policies andmust be curbed. There was a call for “goodleadership and less politics” and to “focus onthe necessities of our students and not payattention to what our politicians say.”

More equitable funding and resource allocation“Address inequalities both within urban dis-tricts and between suburban schools.” Highestneed should have the most funding. Equitablestatewide educational funding formula isneeded with better allocation of resources.More money is needed. “Funding fuels all!”Students need more financial support: “Equalaccess to SATs in terms of cost”; “the collegefinancial support system is not well known.”

Equity High standards, equal access, and equalengagement for all. Equalize race, class, andsocial differences; equal rights for special needskids.

Diversity Increase number of minority teachersand administrators in schools through stateor district policy: “hire within urban” and“diversify teachers to reflect the community.”Invest in urban educators, have minorityrepresentation.


Curriculum and StandardsParticipants agreed that schools need to raisethe bar and move to a curriculum that is morechallenging, both in breadth and depth, and toensure that the curriculum is taught in chal-lenging and hands-on ways that are relevantto young people’s lives and future careers.

School Climate and CultureComments addressed changing the schoolculture to be more welcoming for studentsand making the schools a positive learningenvironment that would “celebrate success”and “believe in our kids.” Suggestions include:“make children feel valued,” “changing apa-thetic culture,” and “create a student-firstculture.”

Violence “Increase true safety in school andbetween students outside of school.”

Respect A need for people to understand andrespect the culture of the schools. “Culture isacademic and social and can include commu-nity, parents youth, CBOs and youth workers,school classroom, district, teachers.”

Student-first culture Promote and foster studentand youth voice.

Accountability Create a culture of accountabil-ity. A “lack of ‘It takes a village’ mentality” wascited.

Relationships with AdultsThere were several comments on the issue ofcurrent relationships between teachers and stu-dents. Many dealt with creating trust and hon-esty. Others pointed out that teachers need todiscuss with the students the “why” of school-ing: “talk to our children about what they needand how they view school.” The most resound-ing theme was to have a secure channel of com-munication between the two constituencies.

Each student needs an adult they can trust andhave positive contact with, caring adults withpositive attitudes and higher expectations,and good communication between adults andstudents.

Summary of Other PerspectivesTop issues mentioned were funding and parentengagement. There were many references toschool culture, trust, communication, andmeaningful relationships between studentsand adults. There was also significant mentionof issues around equity and diversity.

Overall, a desire for action was expressed:“More action and less talk!” Finally, partici-pants in the forums wondered, “What are theaction steps that are going to be taken? What’sthe follow-up and how?”

Summary prepared by Ina Anderson, Rhode IslandYoung Professionals and public engagement consult-ant, and Nick Vockerodt, graduate student, UrbanEducation Policy Program, Brown University

For more information about this report, contact:

Annenberg Institute for School ReformBox 1985, Brown UniversityProvidence, Rhode Island 02912

401•863•7990

www.annenberginstitute.org

Documents

FinalReportoftheRhodeIslandUrbanEducationTaskForce ... · Patrick McGuigan, the Providence Plan. Several Task Force members served as working group chairs, volunteering additional