Select Committee on Education and Employment Second Report

A NOTES OF MEETINGS IN BOSTON

Monday 11 October 1999

Dr Charles Desmond

Associate Chancellor for School and Community Collaborations, University of Massachusetts, Boston

Dr Neil Bruss

Dean of Arts and Sciences, University of Massachusetts, Boston

. Dr Desmond and Dr Bruss highlighted work that the University of Massachusetts, Boston (UMass Boston) had undertaken with public schools within Boston. This took the form of collaboration with schools and other community partners to promote school renewal and regeneration. The aim of the work was to achieve change "from the ground up", and was based in part on the report Breaking Ranks by the National Association of Secondary School Principals (USA) and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching in the 21^st Century. Dr Desmond noted that the report "embodies a vision developed primarily by high school principals. It draws strength and authority from the fact that it arises from the inside and does not descend on high schools from the outside".

2. Dr Desmond drew attention to the long-standing collaboration between UMass Boston and Dorchester High School. Dorchester High School was located in Dorchester, Massachusetts, a multi­ethnic, mixed­income community which was characterized by high incidents of crime, drug­related activity, urban blight and pockets of economic deprivation. The school had, at one point, lost its accreditation to teach within the public school system. (In a later meeting with the Sub-committee, the Superintendent of Boston Public Schools, Dr Thomas Payzant, acknowledged that he had been prepared to close the school if no improvements had been made.)

3. A number of community partners were working with Dorchester High School and UMass Boston. These included Bell Atlantic, the Trefler Foundation (a Boston-based philanthropic foundation), Boston Public Schools, Brown University and the Boston Plan for Excellence. The Trefler Foundation had donated $1 million to Dorchester High School, and a further $2 million to Boston public schools generally. Dr Desmond noted that extensive efforts had been made in recent years into addressing problems in elementary schools and was therefore pleased to see similar work undertaken with high schools. He felt that high schools could become key levers of change for all public schools.

4. Reforms at Dorchester High School were developed by a 'research team' comprising school staff, academics from UMass Boston and Brown University, and representatives of local community groups and employers. Dr Desmond noted that key to the reform of the school was the acceptance by all the school's staff of the principles outlined in Breaking Ranks. The school had conducted a self-assessment of its priorities, and evaluated whether the school actually took account of them in practice. The self-assessment exercise led to the school focussing on a reduced number of improvement initiatives. Curriculum reforms were made to ensure closer integration between curriculum objectives and the assessment systems used at the school. Greater use was made of pupil-level and school-level performance data for measuring improvements in standards. This was also related to improvements in the accountability mechanisms used by the school. Smaller 'learning communities' were also created within the school. Parents and pupils were consulted regularly, often through family literacy projects, English as a second language (ESL) initiatives and work with school nurses or student councils.

5. Dorchester High School had committed significant resources to renovation and to improvements in security and safety for staff and students ($3.5 million). Other improvements to the learning environment were made, notably to information technology facilities. Dr Desmond argued that innovations without sufficient resources to support them were likely to fail.

6. Dr Desmond argued that it was important to promote excellence in schools by creating dialogue within and between the teaching communities. UMass Boston had long-standing links with a number of high schools. Dr Desmond was firmly of the view that urban public universities should work with the school sector to improve the quality of education in their local schools. He argued that universities had had a "free ride for the last fifty years", and that, if necessary, universities which did not commit to this type of work should have some of their funding withdrawn. Conversely, additional funds should be made available to universities with extensive links to local schools.

Dr John Silber

Chancellor, University of Boston and former chairman, Massachusetts Board of Education

7. Dr Silber did not believe that charter schools per se would provide significant improvements to the public education system in the USA as not enough of them would be created to make this kind of difference. He believed that the real value of charter schools was in increasing competition between public schools and thus creating an impetus to raise standards. In this respect, he argued that only when coupled with the introduction of education vouchers would charter schools make a significant difference to the standard of public education. He noted that in Boston, however, this effect was negated, as public schools which lost students to charter schools were financially compensated over a three year period.

8. Dr Silber argued that, as entry to those charter schools that were over-subscribed was normally by simple lottery, entry to charter schools was not by selection, on either race or socio-economic grounds. He believed that across Massachusetts, charter schools admitted the same proportion of pupils entitled to free and reduced-cost school meals as public schools. He acknowledged that charter schools were likely to attract a higher proportion of 'aspiring parents' than public schools based in disadvantaged areas.

9. Dr Silber did not know of a single private company which was yet making a profit from managing schools in the USA. He noted that charter schools faced difficult financial challenges as they had to secure their own funds to build/lease premises to locate the school. This was not the case for public schools, as the school district provided funds for this. He concluded that charter schools were at a financial disadvantage, and it was likely that only those charter schools with a commercial sponsor would survive.

10. Dr Silber referred to the schools in the district of Chelsea, Massachusetts, the management of which had been taken over by Boston University, at the local school board's request. It had been necessary to give Boston University 'State agency' status in order for it to take on responsibility for running the schools in Chelsea. The schools in Chelsea had received commercial sponsorship of approximately $4 million under this scheme. Some universities, such as the Harvard Graduate School of Education, did not agree that a university should take on the running of public schools in this way, arguing that it was not appropriate for a university sector to assume management responsibility for institutions in the school sector.

11. Dr Silber expressed particular concern about the quality of teacher training in university departments of education. He noted that Standard Attainment Test (SAT) scores of students entering initial teacher training were generally declining (although SAT scores at Boston University were increasing), and were lower than most other university subjects. Dr Silber drew attention to examples of tests in literacy in which a high proportion of recently qualified teachers had achieved only very low scores. He wanted to see an increase in the number of graduate students teaching in public schools while undertaking their graduate studies. He also advocated alternative routes for entering teaching. He noted when Boston University were recruiting for the Chelsea schools, there had been many candidates whom he considered would have made effective teachers, but they had not been prepared to undergo the initial teacher training course in order to qualify as teachers. He felt that parents who were qualified to degree level, or former employees in 'down-sized' industries, would make good candidates for teaching. Dr Silber accepted that the salaries available for teachers were generally too low and noted that he had previously argued that the first $20,000 of salary be tax-exempt as a means of raising the average salary of teachers.

12. Dr Silber was impressed with the work of OFSTED and felt that external, independent evaluation of school performance was an important part of school accountability. He had hoped to contract with OFSTED to develop an evaluation framework for Massachusetts schools when he chaired the Board of Education, but this had not proved possible.

Professor Charles Willie

Harvard Graduate School of Education

13. Professor Willie expressed some skepticism about current assessment initiatives. He did not believe that they could accurately assess schools' contribution to pupil progress or value for money. He did not support the thesis promoted by many education commentators that students knew less than previous generations. He did not agree with the current "standards-based" school improvement agenda, preferring to see an emphasis on values which underpinned achievement, rather than on measuring of outputs.

14. Professor Willie noted the central role that segregation along racial lines had played in the history of US schooling. He argued that although most urban residential districts were segregated, it was not necessary to accept segregated schooling. He drew attention to research which showed students in all-black, poverty-concentrated schools had lower test scores than black students in multi-racial schools. Professor Willie believed that there was tension between viewing schools as a part of the local community, and the desire to move away from segregated schooling. He described attempts in Boston to provide students and parents with some degree of school choice, while ensuring that student enrollment at any one school was along racially segregated lines. As a result of his advice, three zones were created within the City, each containing approximately 20 elementary schools and 5 middle schools. Each zone had its own school improvement committee and superintendent and roughly similar levels of funding. Parents applied for up to five schools within their zone, ranking them in order of preference. The local authority then allocated school places based on parental preference, ensuring a broad racial mix. Professor Willie noted that over 90 per cent of parents were allocated places at their first or second choice of school.

15. Professor Willie did not believe that it was appropriate for Harvard to become closely involved with the direct management of schools, nor was it appropriate for university funds to be diverted to public schools. Harvard had had some involvement with public schools, but this had declined. He took the view that a far more important factor in raising school standards was the quality of school principals, and he felt that universities could play a more important role in developing management training for principals.

Joshua Solomon

Vice President for Business Development, Advantage Schools

16. Mr Solomon noted that Advantage Schools had been operating for four years. It was intended that Advantage charter schools would cover Kindergarten to Grade 12 (K-12, nursery through to age 18). New schools covered K-5 and would add a new grade each year until the full range of classes had been reached. Advantage schools would accept students up to Grade 6, but no students would be directly admitted into any Grades older than that. This was because Advantage felt that students older than Grade 6 would not fit in with Advantage's strict behavioural polices.

17. Advantage Schools did not operate admission criteria. If schools were oversubscribed, admission to the school would be on the basis of a random lottery (subject to preference for siblings and geographic advantage for parents in those States where this was allowed). Mr Solomon noted that critics of charter schools had opposed their development on the basis that they would select the "best" students. This had not proved to be the case, as admissions to charter schools were skewed to students from lower-income families. Advantage schools were generally popular and were often over subscribed. Re-enrollment rates, when students continued their registration at the school from one year to the next, averaged 96 per cent.

18. Mr Solomon noted that charter schools received only 60-90 per cent of the funding given to regular public schools, as they received no funding for buildings and maintenance. Large corporations such as Advantage Schools were in a position to raise debt to finance a programme of new schools across the US. It was intended that Advantage schools would be more efficient than public schools as a result of a central programme of administration, research and development for the entire group, rather than the "bureaucracy" costs of many school district boards. Efficiency savings would generate funds for debt repayment on the school building programme and a profit margin for the company.

19. Each Advantage school was intended to be an autonomous unit, with no transfer of funds from one to another. Although Advantage would not micro-manage each school, Advantage's central research and development team had established a detailed education philosophy. Most teaching took place in instructional groups. Instructional groups, not class sizes, were as small as 8­12 students. Home rooms (i.e. class size) were anywhere from 24 to 30 students in size. The overall student­to­teacher ratio was about 18:1.

20. Terms and conditions of teaching staff within Advantage schools were regarded as favourable. When an Advantage school first opened, teacher salaries were on a par with local schools. After the first year, salaries were based on merit pay. The structured education programme developed by Advantage meant that teachers did not have to prepare curriculum policies or lesson plans. This was seen as a trade-off for the longer school day and year operated by Advantage.

21. Mr Solomon noted that the policy operated by Massachusetts (and also Illinois) of financially compensating public schools if they lost pupils to charter school mitigated any beneficial effects from competition with charter schools. He did not believe this was helpful in raising standards, but acknowledged that it meant there was less resistance to starting up charter schools in these areas.

Jim Peyser

Chairman, Massachusetts Board of Education and Director, Pioneer Institute

Edward Kirby

Associate Commissioner (Massachusetts) for charter schools

Linda Brown

Director, Charter School Resource Centre, Pioneer Institute

22. Mr Peyser explained that the Pioneer Institute was a Massachusetts based think tank established to consider issues of public policy within the State, including education. The Institute was a key proponent of charter schools and had established the Charter School Resource Centre to promote and support the work of charter schools.

23. Mr Peyser argued that there was a growing tension, especially in urban areas, between 'equity' and 'excellence' in education. Various initiatives had been established to deal with equity: for example, de-segregation of schools, bi-lingual education for recent immigrants, federal funds for special education needs (Title 1 Funding). He believed that 30-40 years of emphasis on equity in education had produced "dismal" results. There was now a growing emphasis on excellence, focussing on two areas: standards-based reform and structural changes to the education system. Standards-based reform included the development of State-wide curriculum and assessment frameworks, notably the Massachusetts Curriculum and Assessment System (MCAS) a State-wide assessment system in reading, writing and English. From 2003, students were to be required to pass the MCAS in Grade 10 in order to graduate successfully from high school. Schools and local districts would be held accountable on the basis of the proportion of pupils passing the MCAS. Failure to reach targets of this kind could lead to State intervention.

24. Structural changes to the education system in Massachusetts were less advanced than standards-based reform. Initiatives included school-based management (similar to LMS in the UK), the development of 'pilot' schools within the public school system and charter school legislation. Mr Peyser noted that he was sceptical of school regeneration in which relatively large numbers of commercial partners worked with a single school. He believed that a wide range of different priorities from these partners would lead to an unfocussed agenda, reducing the level of improvement which might be made by the school. He did not believe that there was a single best approach to turning around failing schools. Most schools which had been regenerated seemed to have relied on strong leadership, ownership of the initiatives by all the partners in the school and a sense of shared values which underpinned reform. He felt there were two major issues which the State Board of Education had to tackle: "teacher-power" (the undue influence of the teaching profession on the system) and a financial system which consumed up to 50 per cent of funds in bureaucracy. He also accepted points made by Dr John Silber that initial teacher training needed significant reform and improvement, but noted that the State Board of Education had little influence in this area.

25. Mr Peyser argued that if a "critical mass" of charter schools were established, public schools would have to respond to the challenge. He believed that pilot schools (which remained within the public school system, but were subject to fewer State and district regulations than normal public schools) were a direct response to charter schools, and therefore proved their value. It was necessary to alter the education funding system so that funds more closely followed the student. He believed that education vouchers would be beneficial in this respect. Mr Peyser stated that the Massachusetts system of compensating public schools if they lost students to charter schools was a political compromise, designed to increase the acceptance of charter schools. He did not believe it was helpful.

26. Mr Peyser argued that charter schools in Massachusetts were subject to greater levels of accountability than public schools due to the nature of the charter school regulation. He was unsure of what would happen if a charter school's charter was not renewed or if it went bankrupt—he did not believe that the State would be responsible. In the event of closure or bankruptcy, students would have to be absorbed back into the public schools.

Tuesday 12 October 1999

Dr Thomas Payzant

Superintendent of Schools, City of Boston

27. Dr Payzant described himself as a strong proponent of choice in terms of the types of school that should be available, including charter schools, but he felt that it was important that there was a financial level playing field. He explained that charter school funding was based on the average level of funding per pupil—which included an element for special educational needs. He argued that, as charter schools enrolled a lower proportion of SEN students than public schools, they therefore did not have to commit the same level of funding to SEN provision as public schools (see paragraph 30 below). Dr Payzant drew attention to the requirement for a competitive tendering process for all contracts which involved public expenditure in excess of $10,000. He noted that in a strong economy it was difficult to use the tendering process to save significant levels of funding, and therefore this requirement often increased the cost of projects. It was a financial burden on both public and charter schools.

28. Dr Payzant noted that the issue of teacher contracts was important locally. He did not agree with Dr John Silber that a majority of teachers were sub-standard: most teachers were working far in excess of their contracts and were doing a good job, often in very difficult circumstances. There were procedures for removing underperforming teachers, but these were complex and subject to several levels of appeal, and were therefore little used. The State's school accountability procedures (using the MCAS assessment system) were a matter of some controversy, especially the link between teachers' performance and students' results. Dr Payzant noted that he was in favour of using "value-added" systems to measure teacher performance.

29. Improving performance in literacy was a key issue in Boston public schools. Some schools had developed literacy programmes using a balance of phonics and whole language approaches. Results in these schools had been encouraging. Literacy programmes in secondary schools were less well developed, but there was some work at the transition from elementary to high school (similar to Reading Recovery schemes). Boston public schools used home-school contracts with some success. Although these were not legally enforceable, they did help to establish levels of expectations for schools and for parents. Other initiatives included education and career links with local employers, family literacy projects and 'alternative schools' for students who were not succeeding in traditional public schools. School security was a big issue in some of Boston's schools, with gang activity, weapons in schools and drug availability all causing concern. Progress had been made, but much more was needed to ensure a safe learning environment.

30. Dr Payzant argued that although charter schools in Boston were racially diverse, they did not reflect the proportion of students with special educational needs. He believed that this was because parents who transferred their children to charter schools had a "poor experience" of the SEN provision they received there, and often subsequently returned their children to the public schools system. He noted that 250 students had left Boston Renaissance School to re-enroll in public schools across the city, including a high proportion of students with SEN statements.

31. Dr Payzant acknowledged that pilot schools in Boston were a direct response to the development of charter schools. These had the same freedoms as charter schools, except that teachers' terms and conditions were the same as other public schools within Boston.

32. Although he was in favour of choice, Dr Payzant argued against the use of education vouchers. He did not support the use of public funds being diverted to private (fee-paying) schools and was not persuaded that the economic model put forward by proponents of vouchers would allow for the needs of all students to be met. He felt there were particular problems in using the voucher system for students with special needs. He recognised that there was a growing political momentum for vouchers, responding to increasing dissatisfaction with urban public schools, but he was concerned that vouchers were a simplistic response to a complex set of problems.

The Sub-committee divided into two groups for school visits.

Burke High School

Dr Steven Leonard, Principal

33. The school was in a very bad situation when Dr Leonard took over as principal in 1995. The school was dirty, verminous, too hot and often without drinking water. The school had lost its accreditation, some staff were often late or absent (although there were also some serious and loyal staff) and there were serious discipline problems, with drug gangs having fights on the premises. In 1989, the School Board had reduced staff numbers while increasing the number of pupils on roll to 1,100, which had risen to 1,200 by 1995.

34. Dr Leonard persuaded the Mayor to visit the school in 1995; during the visit part of the ceiling had almost fallen on the Mayor, who then agreed to allocate generous funds for repairs to the building. Total renovation was carried out over the summer of that year. Dr Leonard persuaded the board to reduce the student roll to 650—this was partly achieved by the fact that parents were in any case withdrawing their children from the school, but he had also made it more difficult to get in. About 25 per cent of students spoke English as a second language and 25 per cent were classified as having some special educational needs—hence the need for the high staff:student ratio.

35. Dr Leonard explained that he had called the school staff together when he took over and had explained that if they wished to work for him, they would need to work harder, undergo additional training and be committed to the school and to his approach. By the end of the summer holiday, half the staff had left, allowing him to recruit new staff. To improve the school's performance, a plan was needed for its restructuring, including the right number (and quality of teachers), flexible support staff, better training for staff keeping discipline. It took two years to make the school a safe place to learn. Dr Leonard emphasized the importance of professional development in making a difference. Even so, he felt that he had not "got the academic side right" yet.

36. The school currently had 650-680 students with 65 teaching staff; together with non-teaching staff (counsellors, support staff, etc) there were 100 staff at the school. Mr Leonard argued that this high staff:student ratio was necessary to turn the school round. The cap on numbers had just been raised to 730, but there were still waiting lists for every grade.

37. Dr Leonard previously worked at the Boston Latin School but had volunteered to join a 'turnaround team' at English High School, a school in serious difficulties, which the team had improved. He had also worked at the King's School, staying there for eight years as principal and turning that round as well. He had obtained additional funding for turning the school round, in the same way that he had done for Burke High School. Although money was not the answer to a school's problems, it gave you the room to do what was necessary. Dr Leonard argued that it was not possible to turn schools round according to a standard formula: it had to be done on a school-by-school basis. In addition to his role as principal of Burke High School, he oversaw 12 other high, middle and elementary schools for the school board.

38. Dr Leonard explained that the school requested $2.2 million for developing its ICT facilities. The school board had only given $1.1 million, so he had raised additional cash from other sources such as charitable foundations.

39. A key issue was the sustainability of improvements over time. Dr Leonard noted the problem of maintaining improvement after the initial "turning round" of a school, especially when a school had several principals in quick succession. He had pledged that Burke would continue to succeed after he had left, and to this end he had trained his three assistant principals so that they could run the school in his absence without any falling-off in quality. He had been working to create "in-house capacity" through professional development of senior management. Overall, the school worked because a robust system was in place, but even a good system could not survive if too many of the key people left.

40. Dr Leonard emphasized that every student knew there was a member of staff in the school to whom they could go personally to discuss any problems. Funding was used to ensure that the inclusive approach to education worked, by allowing for high enough staff levels. Teachers did not undertake any administrative duties: their role was to concentrate on teaching, learning and planning. Dr Leonard went into classes, as did the assistant principals, to ensure that they knew how well teachers were doing. He looked for signs that the teachers had set a clear objective for the lesson and that the students were working towards it.

City on a Hill Charter School

Ann Connolly Tolkoff (teacher and co-founder of the school)

41. City on a Hill was a four grade high school with about 200 students, founded by two teachers. It was housed within the central Boston YMCA building.

42. Ms Connolly Tolkoff noted that charter schools in Boston had started as a financial movement more than anything else. There had been cuts to education funding as a result of limitations on property taxes (the main source of funding for schools). The variation in property values affected the funding of schools as well: for instance, the average per pupil spend in Brookline was $10-12,000 while in Chelsea it was only $4,100. This in turn led to large discrepancies in teachers' salaries. Charter schools appeared to offer an alternative way to obtain funding.

43. The 1993 Education Reform Act had aimed at re-distributing school funding against a background of a grass roots desire to reduce spending bureaucracy, especially education bureaucracy including support staff in schools and administrative staff. Ms Connolly Tolkoff noted that many voters did not have school age children and were therefore unsympathetic to calls for higher spending on schools. The Massachusetts approach was therefore to link increased funding with greater accountability: an emphasis on standards, testing, MCAS. Ms Connolly Tolkoff noted that when she first started teaching, she could do much as she liked as no-one was really watching what she did—she had not been accountable to anyone.

44. Massachusetts was regarded by Ms Connolly Tolkoff as having the most liberal charter law in the USA. Charter schools were being used as "research stations" for educational change. Many charter schools had been founded by groups of parents and two had been formed by groups of teachers, including City on a Hill. She had some concerns about charter school being run by for-profit companies. There were different kinds of charter schools: they could specialise in vocational education or SEN, for example. They did not a represent a 'one size fits all' solution. The taxpayer had a right to expect some common minimum standards across all the charter schools. City on a Hill paid particular attention to ensuring students learned about democracy and citizenship, as well as reading, maths, ICT and decision-making.

45. Partnership was important. Students were involved in their communities and the school had formed links with the local community partners, including the YMCA (whose gym they used) and the Museum of Science, whose state of the art facilities were used by chemistry students. The school also had a federal grant to train teachers in other schools to teach calculus.

46. Ms Connolly Tolkoff argued that its small size was of great importance. The optimum number of students was 200-225; currently it was 200. She would rather create new sites than expand the school. Large high schools (typically with 1,200 students) were "outrageous" for children, although large schools could be improved by creating smaller groups or academies within them. Also, as a small school, they were not perceived as a threat to the public schools as they took comparatively few pupils from the system. The smaller school size was also seen as being helpful for children with special needs. At City on a Hill, 15 per cent of students had special educational needs statements, roughly in line with the Boston average, although Ms Connolly Tolkoff felt that in fact, a larger proportion than this had some special needs. Parents would rather have their children in the mainstream classes at City on a Hill than statemented in mainstream public schools. Students might well behave better in a smaller school and smaller classes. The average class size in City on a Hill was 18, compared to the average of 27 in the Boston Public Schools.

47. The School Board did not give charter schools any capital funding so they had difficulty finding space for the school when they set it up. They received funding per pupil based on the average cost per pupil in the mainstream. This average included the (higher) cost of statemented pupils—the school prefers this to having a separate funding stream for children with SEN. The public schools had complained that this system gave the charter schools an unfair advantage. On the other hand, Ms Connolly Tolkoff argued that the formula for paying for students' transportation costs favoured the public schools over City on a Hill.

48. City on a Hill did not select pupils on academic ability. It held an annual ballot for all the places at the school. Some charter schools operated a mixture of 'first come first served', topped up by a ballot, or held occasional ballots to fill a few places. This meant that they could in effect select pupils informally. Ms Connolly Tolkoff argued that City on a Hill, by contrast, was genuinely non-selective.

49. Staff at City on a Hill did not have the same levels of financial and other support as those at Boston Renaissance, for instance. Teachers were paid more than the average for mainstream public schools in Massachusetts. 85 per cent of the budget was spent on staffing. Ms Connolly Tolkoff argued that it was not possible to keep good staff in a school unless they felt part of it. For this reason, she was not sure that the for-profit schools (such as those run by Edison) would succeed as it was difficult for teachers to feel loyalty to a company, rather than to their school or their city. She liked the fact that public schools were accountable to the whole public. This kind of accountability might be difficult to ensure in a voucher-driven system of private schools. As a taxpayer, she would be uneasy about her taxes being used to subsidize private schools. A school such as City on a Hill could help change the perceptions of high schools among parents who might otherwise send their children to private schools. She did not think this would not be the effect of a voucher system.

50. The school had five academic departments with three or four members of staff in each. Teachers worked flexibly: for instance, they prefer to teach groups of 16 pupils three times a day rather than 24 students twice a day. Ms Connolly Tolkoff argued that this was a sign of their commitment to the school.

51. The school's results were good: SATs were slightly higher than the average, MCAS scores were higher than any of the non-exam schools and all 22 graduates last year went on to college. But Ms Connolly Tolkoff also emphasised the importance of the school's civic mission: students in all four grades undertook internships. Boston Aquarium took 12 interns—the first high school interns it had ever taken—and this had led to it taking on some 400 interns from high schools across the city. Seniors worked in the community in various ways—for instance, some had worked with the Latino and Vietnamese communities and in a local hospital. The school assembly was like a 'town meeting' where students all had a voice about how the school was run. None of these activities contribute towards success in MCAS, but Ms Connolly Tolkoff felt that they were vital. Only by working in the real world could students learn about it.

52. Ms Connolly Tolkoff noted that charter schools were the only movement that had been supported by both the Governor and the leading Democrats in the previous 15 years. She felt that the funding system would be refined in due course. Many Democrats were committed to the public schools and the importance of improving schools in the inner city. It was possible that over four or five years, there might be a large increase in the number of charter schools.

53. She felt that pilot schools would not have happened with the creation of charter schools. They share some of the same features (such as greater school-based autonomy, more flexibility in the programmes the deliver and how they were structured). She hoped that the work under way at City on a Hill would be replicated in other public schools.

54. Ms Connolly Tolkoff felt some States were burdened with heavy educational regulations. She argued that the Education Code in California was so long that it acted as an impediment to any kind of change in the system. This had led to the creation of charter schools in the State, which she hoped would change the policy agenda.

---

---

Prepared 7 March 2000