The Rostrum By DONALD G. GILL, State Superintendent of Education

Learning is the bottom line

MORE THAN a score of national reports and studies on education have captured the attention of the public and of society's key decisionmakers. The criticism offered by these reports is balanced in Illinois by many extraordinary accomplishments and success stories in our educational system. Nevertheless, it is important to examine what these criticisms do mean in our state in pinpointing areas where some reform would be beneficial. In Illinois, the national reports and ensuing attention have set the stage for discussion and action on research and recommendations for reform that preceded those reports by as much as two years.

The State Board of Education, since 1981, has conducted a thoughtful review of all requirements on elementary and secondary education. Of all the potential areas of improvement, perhaps the most important work, to date, addresses the critical issue of student learning.

For more than 100 years, the state has set down regulatory and statutory requirements that relate to the school curriculum. The state board's study of instructional program mandates concluded that the state undoubtedly had some kind of outcomes in mind, albeit unwritten, for virtually all curriculum requirements it imposed on schools during the last century or so. Consumer education, for example, was mandated to ensure that Illinois citizens would be more informed consumers. But, ironically, the law's logical and important purpose was not explicitly stated, a circumstance which applies to all the other curriculum requirements as well. Instead, the emphasis in law is placed on requiring that schools offer certain courses and that students take them, not on what students should learn as a result of their schooling opportunities.

Not only do state curriculum requirements fail to clearly state their purposes, they also show a curious and somewhat illogical range of flexibility. In some instances, the requirements allow no choice at all; they specify to the minute how much time must be devoted to what subject. In yet other instances, they allow so much flexibility that one may question the seriousness of their intent.

After review of all such instructional program requirements, several things became very apparent. Over the years, the zeal of past educational reformers and the ebb and flow of societal problems have combined to create a collection of requirements which lack consistency, are often arbitrary and do not clearly communicate their purposes. Once a law or regulation, they were seldom removed. Consequently, as new requirements were added or old ones expanded, it became virtually impossible to discern the relative priority the state was placing on them.

The State Board of Education, through its instructional program study, concluded that the quantity of coursework taken by students, as current laws and regulations stipulate, is not a sufficiently appropriate measure of student learning. Instead, the board recommended that a new set of requirements be created. They would, for the first time, identify the state's expectations for what students should learn and provide means for ensuring that those expectations are achieved.

The solution is to create learning outcome statements. These are to be clearly stated, broadly defined and relatively timeless statements of what the state believes students must at least know and be able to do as a consequence of their schooling. The proposed statements would not limit what schools do; in fact, it would be expected that local districts would identify additional expectations for students which represent their communities' goals and desires.

This past January, an 85-member committee, comprised of business executives, professional educators, local school officials and parents, was convened to develop proposed outcome statements for six fundamental areas of learning — language arts, mathematics, sciences, social sciences, fine arts, and physical development and health. Chaired by John Corbally, president of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and president-emeritus of the University of Illinois, the committee developed the statements, which should represent what the state believes is minimally necessary for an educated citizenry, and presented them to the state board at its March 22 meeting. Public hearings, committee discussions and deliberations by the full board are expected prior to final action on the proposed outcome statements.

The statements themselves are deceptively simple. They are no more than a few brief paragraphs and individual statements. Their virtue will lie in being succinct, yet containing language that will last over time. The proposed outcome statement for language arts, for example, is as follows:

Mastering the skills and knowledge associated with the language arts is essential for student success in virtually all areas of the curriculum. It is also a central requirement for the development of clear expression and critical thinking. The language arts include the study of literature and the development of skills in reading, writing, speaking, and listening.

40/May 1984/Illinois Issues

As a result of their schooling, students will be able to:

— read, comprehend, interpret, evaluate and use written material;

—  listen critically and analytically;

— write standard English in a grammatical, well-organized and coherent manner for a variety of puposes;

— use spoken language formally and informally to communicate ideas and information and to ask and answer questions;

—  understand the various forms of significant literature representative of different cultures, eras and ideas;

— understand how and why language functions and evolves.

Statements such as this one would portray the state's priorities for what its citizens should at least learn.

Local schools would be responsible for developing specific objectives, consistent with the outcome statements, that would address local needs and circumstances. And since local schools are in the best position to determine how the instructional program should be organized so students can meet the outcomes and objectives, they would also have the flexibility to determine what courses should be taught and when, what learning activities students should be involved in, and what other learning activities should be made available.

More important, for the first time, local schools would also be held accountable for student learning. The State Board of Education recommends that local districts be required to develop an assessment system, approved by the board, to determine if their students are in fact achieving the desired outcomes. That assessment information would serve a dual purpose. When used by local schools, it would pinpoint areas where curriculum changes might be needed to improve learning. When regularly reported to the public, the information would give local communities and the state a clearer picture of how well students are achieving and being served by schools.

This proposal for education reform, like many others being considered offers bold and innovative solutions to the state's education problems. And this particular effort, for the first time in the state's history, is directed at determining the baseline of priorities for education — the primary expectations that the state holds for its public schools and students — and setting them clearly in law.

May 1984/Illinois Issues/41