Minutes for July 30, 1997 Meeting

Home Overview Membership Timeline Meetings Background Resources

Members Present: J. Carethers, E. Comisso, P. Drake (Co-Chair), T. Diller (for K. Martinez), Y. Espiritu, D. Gutierrez , R. Gutierrez, S. Kirkpatrick, A. Marshall, D. Miller, H. Mehan, N. Spitzer (Co-Chair), J. Steindorf (Executive Secretary), M. Walshok, J. Watson, J. Woods Others Present: J. Bower, L. Hubbard, M. Kudumu, W. Kudumu, H. Levin, C. Lytle, S. Michaels, A. Parra, M. Swanson, R. Olson, M. Riel, A. Sutherland, D. Wulbert Members Absent: P. Gourevitch, D. Magde, A. Mansury Co-Chair Paul Drake reviewed the schedule of upcoming meetings and noted that beginning with the Task Force session set for August 6, 1997, through release of the committee's report and recommendations, all meetings of the Task Force will be closed, executive sessions; i.e., those sessions will be open only to the committee and staff to enable candid deliberations. External Experts The panelists who participated in the morning symposium were introduced: James Bower, Professor of Biology, Co-Director - The Caltech Pre-college Science Initiative, California Institute of Technology Henry Levin, David Jacks Professor of Higher Education and Economics, Director, Accelerated Schools Project, Stanford University Sarah Michaels, Professor of Education, Director - Hiatt Center for Urban Education, Clark University Alicia Parra, Deputy Director, The El Paso Collaborative for Academic Excellence, University of Texas at El Paso Mary Catherine Swanson, Founder and Executive Director, AVID - Advancement Via Individual Determination Initial discussion touched on the philosophical, functional, and organizational implications of intensifying UCSD's role in K-12 activities through programs located primarily on-campus versus efforts in the off-campus community. In light of the symposium focus on the importance of cooperative intra-community efforts to effect widespread advancement in the performance of K-12 students, Associate Vice Chancellor Mary Walshok suggested that the term outreach connotes unidirectional efforts by the University and might not be the best label to guide the Task Force's thinking about new programs. Instead, she suggested terminology emphasizing collaborative partnerships of an intellectual and institutional nature. Working with the community and with other institutions to co-develop the agenda for advancing K-12 was stressed. Professor Bud Mehan concurred, noting that words matter; for example, there is a difference between the terms outreach and partnership. Mehan also noted that the term Charter School might be inherently problematic for many because it is linked with negative views of the school voucher initiative movement and associated concerns that this movement could result in reduced financial support for public education. (Note that in 1994-95, the last year for which comprehensive national data are available, California's per pupil expenditure was 80% of the U.S. average. In that year, California spent an average of $4,724 per student -- or $1,170 less than the U.S. average of $5,894 -- or, for example, less than half of the average expenditure of $9,889 in New Jersey. California ranked 42nd in per-pupil expenditures among the 50 states and the District of Columbia.) Instead, Mehan suggested using a different label, perhaps "demonstration school" or "academy," to signify the application of research methods to detect more effective ways to educate underserved children. Mehan speculated that Charter School terminology may be unintentionally skewing (or confusing) considerations of functional program options with concerns about organizational matters. Professor Michaels also addressed the importance of collaborative efforts. She suggested that if the Task Force advances the idea of developing a UCSD sponsored school, then Charter aspects should be de-emphasized (even if the Charter structure provides the codified basis for establishing operations and securing funding). Alternatively, the school should be thought of as one element of an institutional partnership with other entities, a step toward systemic change. Michaels also advised creation of a center (or Organized Research Unit) on Pedagogy and Urban Education. Executive Director Swanson vigorously supported the call for collaboration, noting that teachers in San Diego are eager to work with involved UCSD faculty to extend their own effectiveness in K-12 classrooms. Swanson called for the development of a high school at UCSD, to ensure the convenient and effective involvement of UCSD faculty and students. She noted that a UCSD school would give county teachers a campus venue to glean from research on educational methods and curricula and then effect change in their secondary schools. Noting the importance of continuing the training of teachers who work with underserved students, she asserted that the establishment of a school at UCSD would inevitably result in cataloging teaching qualities and curricula components that would affect educators throughout San Diego and influence the delivery and content of subject matter. Specifying the importance of assessing and holding community schools accountable, and of involving key leaders from the broadest possible community spectrum to support K-12 improvements, Deputy Director Parra observed that the creation of an on-campus school almost seemed antithetical to the notion of community development. Parra cautioned the Task Force to guard against creating "contextualized artificiality." Suggesting that it might be possible to develop an on-campus program that would result in lessons portable to the community, she nevertheless stressed the importance of having teachers and researchers engaged in solving problems in the context in which they are occurring - in the schools within the community. Similarly, Professor Bower noted that rigorous research by the National Academy of Sciences has yet to provide evidence that Charter Schools typically result in generalized changes to public schools. Stressing reliance on research data indicating that about 90% of "pull-out" programs have yielded no transferable impacts, Bower asserted that the best way to affect public education and to increase the eligibility of underserved students would be to concentrate UCSD's efforts in "real" existing schools in "real" communities, with "real" students and "real" teachers, administered within "real" districts. Professor Levin applauded the creation of the Task Force as an indication that UCSD is taking a major step to extend its involvement in K-12 education. He defined three distinct goals influencing the Task Force: 1) improve K-12 education in San Diego, 2) produce more students in San Diego who become eligible to enroll at UC, and 3) enroll more underserved students at UCSD. Whether the outcome of the Task Force reflects sweeping efforts to change the public schools or entails the singular development of an experimental school or a relatively small scale project designed to generate students for UCSD, he urged modifying the existing system of incentives for faculty to become involved in K-12 education. In endorsing that viewpoint, Bower maintained that the capacity of universities to effect sustained, long-term changes in K-12 will be a function of affecting incentive structures. Bower also emphasized the importance of enhancing the pre- and in-service training of teachers to change the ways they teach, and cited the demonstrated success that resulted from Louisiana's statewide commitment to improve its K-12 teacher training programs. Prior to adjourning at 3:30 p.m., Co-Chairs Paul Drake and Nick Spitzer defined the fundamental dilemmas facing the Task Force: If a UCSD school for a subset of K-12 students advances, should efforts be focused on-campus or in the community, and at what level should students enter? Prepared by: Jeffrey A. Steindorf Executive Secretary