It is widely acknowledged that today's students will need to compete in a global economy that requires proficiency in science and technology. In an attempt to ensure that all Massachusetts students reach a minimal level of proficiency in these subjects, the class of 2010 high school students will have to earn a passing score on one MCAS science exam (biology, chemistry, physics, or technology/engineering) in order to receive a diploma. Results of national assessments show that while Massachusetts students score better in science than their peers in other states, there are disturbing gaps in the performance of certain sub-groups of students -- black and Hispanic students, students from low-income homes, English language learners -- who fail to meet proficiency standards at satisfactory rates. Indeed for all students, undeniable gaps exist in students' achievement, knowledge, expectations and comprehension of the needs of the future economy. Given that the state is now holding all students accountable for their performance in science, it is necessary to examine whether or not all students are receiving equitable opportunities to learn and succeed in science. This report seeks to identify concretely what top-performing schools do to support science instruction and to draw out considerations for policymakers at the district and state levels.

Themes across the Schools

The following is a description of greater opportunities to learn science that are present in top-performing schools, compared to low-performing schools:

• More science teachers.
• Well-prepared teachers.
• More teacher preparation time.
• Financial resources.
• Material resources.
• Options for placement in science courses.
• Real-world application.
• Enrichment opportunities in science.
• Science related partnerships with universities.
• Peer tutoring.

Policy Considerations

For school and district leaders:

• Encourage and support science-related professional development.
• Provide incentives for highly qualified science teachers to teach in your schools.
• Structure the school day to enable more teacher preparation time.
• Develop partnerships with neighboring universities.
• Institute peer tutoring programs.
• Institute formal remediation and academic support programs for students struggling in science.
• Look outside the school for people to lead extracurricular activities.
• Make well-equipped science classrooms a priority.

For state policymakers:

Providing additional resources and ensuring that all high school students in Massachusetts have opportunities to learn science and to achieve at high levels will require coordinated efforts by both state legislators and the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. The following are recommendations for consideration by both state legislators and the Department.

• Provide incentives for highly qualified science teachers to teach in low-performing schools.
• Provide incentives for science professionals to enter the teaching profession.
• Continue to support expanded learning time initiatives.
• Support enrichment opportunities for low-performing schools.
• Broaden current state-level science initiatives to encompass all grades from kindergarten through higher education.
• Provide a supplementary materials budget to under-resourced schools.
• Provide support for formal remediation and academic support programs for students struggling in science.

It is widely acknowledged that today's students will need to compete in a global economy that requires proficiency in science and technology. In an attempt to ensure that all Massachusetts students reach a minimal level of proficiency in these subjects, the class of 2010 high school students will have to earn a passing score on one MCAS science exam (biology, chemistry, physics, or technology/engineering) in order to receive a diploma. Results of national assessments show that while Massachusetts students score better in science than their peers in other states, there are disturbing gaps in the performance of certain sub-groups of students -- black and Hispanic students, students from low-income homes, English language learners -- who fail to meet proficiency standards at satisfactory rates. Indeed for all students, undeniable gaps exist in students' achievement, knowledge, expectations and comprehension of the needs of the future economy. Given that the state is now holding all students accountable for their performance in science, it is necessary to examine whether or not all students are receiving equitable opportunities to learn and succeed in science. This report seeks to identify concretely what top-performing schools do to support science instruction and to draw out considerations for policymakers at the district and state levels.

Themes across the Schools

The following is a description of greater opportunities to learn science that are present in top-performing schools, compared to low-performing schools:

• More science teachers.
• Well-prepared teachers.
• More teacher preparation time.
• Financial resources.
• Material resources.
• Options for placement in science courses.
• Real-world application.
• Enrichment opportunities in science.
• Science related partnerships with universities.
• Peer tutoring.

Policy Considerations

For school and district leaders:

• Encourage and support science-related professional development.
• Provide incentives for highly qualified science teachers to teach in your schools.
• Structure the school day to enable more teacher preparation time.
• Develop partnerships with neighboring universities.
• Institute peer tutoring programs.
• Institute formal remediation and academic support programs for students struggling in science.
• Look outside the school for people to lead extracurricular activities.
• Make well-equipped science classrooms a priority.

For state policymakers:

Providing additional resources and ensuring that all high school students in Massachusetts have opportunities to learn science and to achieve at high levels will require coordinated efforts by both state legislators and the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. The following are recommendations for consideration by both state legislators and the Department.

• Provide incentives for highly qualified science teachers to teach in low-performing schools.
• Provide incentives for science professionals to enter the teaching profession.
• Continue to support expanded learning time initiatives.
• Support enrichment opportunities for low-performing schools.
• Broaden current state-level science initiatives to encompass all grades from kindergarten through higher education.
• Provide a supplementary materials budget to under-resourced schools.
• Provide support for formal remediation and academic support programs for students struggling in science.

It is widely acknowledged that today's students will need to compete in a global economy that requires proficiency in science and technology. In an attempt to ensure that all Massachusetts students reach a minimal level of proficiency in these subjects, the class of 2010 high school students will have to earn a passing score on one MCAS science exam (biology, chemistry, physics, or technology/engineering) in order to receive a diploma. Results of national assessments show that while Massachusetts students score better in science than their peers in other states, there are disturbing gaps in the performance of certain sub-groups of students -- black and Hispanic students, students from low-income homes, English language learners -- who fail to meet proficiency standards at satisfactory rates. Indeed for all students, undeniable gaps exist in students' achievement, knowledge, expectations and comprehension of the needs of the future economy. Given that the state is now holding all students accountable for their performance in science, it is necessary to examine whether or not all students are receiving equitable opportunities to learn and succeed in science. This report seeks to identify concretely what top-performing schools do to support science instruction and to draw out considerations for policymakers at the district and state levels.

Themes across the Schools

The following is a description of greater opportunities to learn science that are present in top-performing schools, compared to low-performing schools:

• More science teachers.
• Well-prepared teachers.
• More teacher preparation time.
• Financial resources.
• Material resources.
• Options for placement in science courses.
• Real-world application.
• Enrichment opportunities in science.
• Science related partnerships with universities.
• Peer tutoring.

Policy Considerations

For school and district leaders:

• Encourage and support science-related professional development.
• Provide incentives for highly qualified science teachers to teach in your schools.
• Structure the school day to enable more teacher preparation time.
• Develop partnerships with neighboring universities.
• Institute peer tutoring programs.
• Institute formal remediation and academic support programs for students struggling in science.
• Look outside the school for people to lead extracurricular activities.
• Make well-equipped science classrooms a priority.

For state policymakers:

Providing additional resources and ensuring that all high school students in Massachusetts have opportunities to learn science and to achieve at high levels will require coordinated efforts by both state legislators and the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. The following are recommendations for consideration by both state legislators and the Department.

• Provide incentives for highly qualified science teachers to teach in low-performing schools.
• Provide incentives for science professionals to enter the teaching profession.
• Continue to support expanded learning time initiatives.
• Support enrichment opportunities for low-performing schools.
• Broaden current state-level science initiatives to encompass all grades from kindergarten through higher education.
• Provide a supplementary materials budget to under-resourced schools.
• Provide support for formal remediation and academic support programs for students struggling in science.

In the policy brief, Governing Change? Considerations for Education Policymakers, the Rennie Center examines models of education governance in other states and draws out lessons to help inform policy discussions in Massachusetts.

In 2007, the commonwealth had three divisions within the public education sector: the Department of Early Education and Care, the Department of Education, and the Board of Higher Education. The rationale for better integrating these divisions is that if public education is to be a seamless process that starts in pre-school and terminates at the post-secondary level, then the system might be more efficiently and effectively governed by a single, unified structure. While there is growing interest in creating an integrated governance structure, there is also concern. However appealing the benefits seem, the challenges, substantive and political, of dismantling the current bureaucracy and assembling a new system are significant.

The report presents case studies of four states that have engaged in the process of designing education governance systems that stretch from pre-school through graduate school and draws implications for consideration by Massachusetts policymakers.

Considerations for Policymakers

As policymakers contemplate changing the way education is governed in Massachusetts, this policy brief presents the following questions:

• What does the commonwealth hope to accomplish by changing to a P-20 governance structure?
• Who will be responsible for what? What will collaboration look like? How will the governance structure support collaboration and coordination between sectors?
• How will the commonwealth determine whether its new governance system has led to improvements in the quality of education in the early childhood, K-12 and postsecondary sectors?

When addressing these questions, this brief focuses on four areas of education policy that would require reform: (1) alignment of standards, curriculum and assessment; (2) data systems; (3) finance; and (4) accountability. Using these four policy areas as illustrations, we examine the potential of an integrated system and what ideal practices might look like in each area.
The policy brief was the subject of discussion at a public event on Friday, April 27, 2007 at the Omni Parker House Hotel.

With few exceptions, urban high schools that serve high proportions of low-income and minority youth are failing to meet the academic needs of their students, according to a new study released by the Rennie Center for Education Research and Policy at MassINC. Using a range of indicators, some of which include: attendance rates, drop-out rates, college plan data, and MCAS scores, Head of the Class: Characteristics of Higher Performing Urban High Schools in Massachusetts identifies just one Bay State high school as "high performing:" University Park Campus School in Worcester.

The report identifies eight other non-selective urban high schools that are on the road to success in helping their students achieve at high levels (the study's parameters were 50% minority and 45% low-income). The eight schools are:

• Academy of the Pacific Rim, Hyde Park, Boston
• Lynn Classical High School, Lynn
• Accelerated Learning Lab School (ALL), Worcester
• Media & Technology Charter High School (MATCH), Boston
• Boston Arts Academy, Boston
• Sabis International Charter School, Springfield
• Fenway High School, Boston
• Somerville High School, Somerville

The report details five common practices that were found across all nine schools:

• High standards and expectations: Administrators communicate high standards and expectations for students and teachers;
• A culture of personalization: Each school has been able to develop a culture that personalizes instruction, while offering significant supports for teachers and students;
• Small learning communities: Size is critical to students and teachers forming strong, trusting relationships, and the ability of teachers to respond to student needs;
• Data-driven curricula: These schools respond to data on student performance - including those that put a heightened focus on math and literacy; and
• Strong community relationships: Parents, corporate partners, and higher education institutions provide important supports.

The small number of schools identified in the report points to the existence of a persistent and far-reaching achievement gap, despite the important gains made in student learning since the Massachusetts Education Reform Act was passed in 1993. Educators and policymakers concerned about achieving high standards for all students in the Commonwealth need to attend to this stark disparity with urgency.

School choice is a highly controversial topic in Massachusetts' educational policy circles these days. In recent years, the Commonwealth has offered students and their families a variety of school choice options, but very little funding has been dedicated to studying the impact, availability and enrollment trends of school choice. As a result, policymakers are forced to shape a policy agenda based upon conjecture rather than evidence.

The Rennie Center for Education Research & Policy, with the support of the Boston Foundation, commissioned this school choice mapping research to fill the informational gap. With this study, prepared by the researchers at the University of Massachusetts' Center for Education Policy, we seek to provide independently gathered evidence to better inform policymakers and researchers and to draw attention to policy issues that require further attention and investigation. We believe that school choice will continue to play a central role in the education reform debate and that this initial mapping is essential to display and benchmark current school choice phenomena while providing a basis for future trend analysis.

This report describes the various school choice options in Massachusetts and details the extent to which each school choice option is available and exercised. School choice options that were examined include:

• Charter schools
• Private and parochial schools
• Inter-district school choice
• Home-schooling
• METCO
• Vocational options
• Intra-district school choice
• Special education programs

To the extent possible using current data, the report includes:

• Information on the national context;
• Statewide information on utilization of each of the options; and
• In-depth look at school choice dynamics in the metropolitan Boston area.

This report is intended to provide baseline data, rather than in-depth analysis of the status of school choice in Massachusetts. In addition, this report contains a policy brief that highlights the impact of trends in student enrollment and the availability of school choice in the Commonwealth.

School choice is a highly controversial topic in Massachusetts' educational policy circles these days. In recent years, the Commonwealth has offered students and their families a variety of school choice options, but very little funding has been dedicated to studying the impact, availability and enrollment trends of school choice. As a result, policymakers are forced to shape a policy agenda based upon conjecture rather than evidence.

The Rennie Center for Education Research & Policy, with the support of the Boston Foundation, commissioned this school choice mapping research to fill the informational gap. With this study, prepared by the researchers at the University of Massachusetts' Center for Education Policy, we seek to provide independently gathered evidence to better inform policymakers and researchers and to draw attention to policy issues that require further attention and investigation. We believe that school choice will continue to play a central role in the education reform debate and that this initial mapping is essential to display and benchmark current school choice phenomena while providing a basis for future trend analysis.

This report describes the various school choice options in Massachusetts and details the extent to which each school choice option is available and exercised. School choice options that were examined include:

• Charter schools
• Private and parochial schools
• Inter-district school choice
• Home-schooling
• METCO
• Vocational options
• Intra-district school choice
• Special education programs

To the extent possible using current data, the report includes:

• Information on the national context;
• Statewide information on utilization of each of the options; and
• In-depth look at school choice dynamics in the metropolitan Boston area.

This report is intended to provide baseline data, rather than in-depth analysis of the status of school choice in Massachusetts. In addition, this report contains a policy brief that highlights the impact of trends in student enrollment and the availability of school choice in the Commonwealth.