Search

This case study is part of a broader research project examining state policies and governance structures that span K-12 and postsecondary education. The New York Board of Regents oversees all education in the state and has been in place for over 200 years; this lends the regents' office a legitimacy and tradition unlike any other state education governance structure in the nation. This report explores how connected New York's education policies and reforms are across pre-K, K-12, and postsecondary education (called PK-16), with a focus on state-level initiatives, governance, and related structures. Aside from research conducted in New York City, this project did not explore these issues in relation to local or regional issues. The New York field research was conducted in May 2004. The main research questions included the following: (1) To what extent is PK-16 reform perceived as a state policy concern? What are the incentives and disincentives for improved connections? (2) What are the main goals and objectives of current state-level PK-16 reforms? Who is responsible for developing and implementing those changes? and (3) What have been the main successes and failures to date? In presenting the findings, this report first describes the context of PK-16 reform and governance in New York. It then presents a summary of major PK-16 reforms, an analysis of PK-16 challenges, and a concluding overview of the opportunities for PK-16 reform in New York. The New York Interview Protocol is appended. (Contains 35 endnotes.) [For "The Governance Divide: A Report on a Four-State Study on Improving College Readiness and Success. National Center Report #05-3," see ED508097. For the Oregon case study, see ED508101. For the Florida case study see, ED508098. For the Georgia case study, see ED508099.]

This case study is part of a broader research project examining state policies and governance structures that span K-12 and postsecondary education. Georgia was the first state to have state and regional P-16 councils, and its regents' office in the University System of Georgia oversees a variety of projects that focus on connecting K-12 and postsecondary education. The Georgia field research was conducted in September 2003. Two central questions that this report seeks to answer are: (1) What types of governance structures and related policies enable, or create difficulties for, P-16 reforms? (2) How necessary is a P-16 governance framework in order to create and institutionalize P-16 reform? To examine these questions and issues, this report describes the history of and context for P-16 reform and governance in Georgia. It then presents a summary of major P-16 projects and policies, and an analysis of the state's major P-16 accomplishments and challenges. The report concludes with thoughts about the present and future of P-16 reform in the state. The Georgia Interview Protocol is appended. (Contains 23 endnotes.) [For "The Governance Divide: A Report on a Four-State Study on Improving College Readiness and Success. National Center Report #05-3," see ED508097. For the Florida case study, see ED508098. For the New York case study, see ED508100. For the Oregon case study, see ED508101.]

This report, supported by case studies in Florida (ED508098), Georgia (ED508099), New York (ED508100), and Oregon (ED508101), identifies and examines policy options available to states that are interested in creating sustained K-16 reform. The findings move the K-16 agenda forward by proposing a set of state policy levers that can be used to create meaningful changes for students. In addition, this report identifies the role of other factors-- such as leadership and state culture and history--in implementing and sustaining K-16 reforms within states. The findings of this research demonstrate the real challenges--and opportunities--that states face as they seek to improve transitions between high school and college. This report provides state leaders with real-world policy choices, showing the kinds of steps several states have taken, and the implications of these policy decisions over time. The report also offers recommendations to help states transform ad hoc approaches into sustained action and institutionalized, long-term K-16 reforms. Every state needs to increase the percentage of students who complete high school and finish some form of postsecondary education; existing governance structures and policies cannot meet this overwhelming need. For most states, these structures and policies must be revised in significant ways. As the findings reveal, the responsibility for reform cannot be carried by one sector, but rather must be shared across systems to reach common ground, focusing on improving K-12 and postsecondary education for all students. "Education Performance in Four States" is appended. (Contains 54 endnotes and 1 figure.)

This paper discusses the 21st century urban school superintendency, noting new challenges for urban superintendents. Currently, schools are much larger, media coverage is extensive, racial minorities settle most often in the city, and cities cope with vast social problems. School boards have an enormous effect on the success or failure of superintendents. The composition of school boards in many cities has changed significantly. In most urban districts, school boards are more diverse and representative of changed demographics. The old corporate paradigm of school board service is no longer operable in most urban school systems. One of the advantages of the earlier trusteeship boards was their interlocking political and economic connection with the city's power structure. Efforts were made to reconnect schools with the aforementioned power brokers with mixed success. A new politics of education preempted traditional school leadership, with business and political leaders increasingly pushing for standards and accountability measures. A new leadership model evolved with stronger mayoral involvement and employment of noneducators as superintendents. Urban school superintendents were held responsible for improving education. Cities are now rethinking the urban superintendency. Strategies used to improve urban school governance include increasing mayoral involvement; altering the selection and composition of school boards; appointing nontraditional superintendents; increasing involvement of business leaders; and creating new teaming arrangements. (SM)

This booklet is one of a series of reports addressing the most critical issues confronting state boards of education throughout the United States. Each report attempts to present a concise, informative review and analysis of the best and most current information available on one of these critical topics. This booklet focuses on the role of state boards of education in political issues affecting education. Section 1 contains a brief overview and summary of the booklet; section 2 presents a review and analysis of the political role of state boards of education by Michael D. Usdan; section 3 presents a number of action alternatives recommended by the staff of the National Association of State Boards of Education; and section 4 contains footnotes and a brief annotated bibliography prepared by the author of section 2. (Author/JG)

With physical facilities in every neighborhood offering unique citizen access, public schools must be major players in collaborative initiatives to provide more flexible, comprehensive, and coordinated services to needy children and families. School board leadership will be vital to any efforts to develop alternative governance structures and/or closer intersector collaborations, including integration of current education functions into general-purpose government. (MLH)

The history of the partnership between the Atlanta schools and their community is presented as a guide for other school systems. One of the most valuable lessons to learn from it is keeping lines of communication open and clearly assessing strengths and weaknesses at every stage of development. (MD)

If the growing proportion of special-needs students is to receive the benefits of expanded and integrated social support systems, educational leaders must coordinate school activities with other community services. The situation calls for a radical reconfiguration of public service financing, with rewards for those who effectively coordinate education and related human services. Support from political and business communities should be encouraged. (MLH)