STATE OF THE STATE

State grapples with ways
to measure what students learn

by Jennifer Davis

About the time school lets out this summer, the State Board of Education expects to decide just what Illinois' thousands of students should have learned. In fact, the board has spent two years creating content guidelines on such subjects as science and history for elementary and secondary schools.

School officials are drafting academic standards for the first time because our current education goals are too broad.

Coincidentally, that process is winding down as the debate over education reform is heating up in Springfield.

While Illinois' politicians promise to find a new way to fund schools, they continue to look for ways to hold educators more accountable for what they teach. Among the biggest critics are business leaders, who complain they're tired of teaching basic math and English to high school graduates.

"There is a general agreement that the [educational] system we've had for the last 100 years just doesn't serve us anymore," says Ray Schaljo, co-leader of the board's Academic Standards Project.

That's why some 200 educators spent more than a year Grafting preliminary curriculum standards. More than 28,000 people — primarily educators, but parents and business leaders, too — spent another six months reviewing draft guidelines.

The state already follows 34 "goals" designed to measure schools' performance. Part of the school reform legislation of 1985, the goals cover six key learning areas: language arts, mathematics, science, social science, fine arts and physical development and health.

Unfortunately, says Schaljo, the goals are so broadly written that every school district has interpreted them differently, leaving the state powerless to judge school performance with any degree of accuracy.

For example, one goal in teaching social science is that students should be able to "demonstrate a knowledge of world geography with an emphasis on the United States." The proposed standard for that goal is more specific: It would require students to understand the effects of geography on society; locate, describe and explain places, regions and features on the earth using geographic terms, methods and representations; analyze and explain characteristics and interactions of the earth's physical systems; and explain the historical significance of geography.

Legislators, dubious that the goals were being met, mandated the switch to standards. There was reason for concern: Lawmakers created an academic watch list in 1991 to track troubled schools. And, "not one school has ever been on it," says Schaljo.

It's unclear whether the watch list, which includes a range of penalties from funding cuts to removal of a local school board, will be kept or overhauled to fit the new standards.

"Consequences. Rewards. All of that will follow," says Schaljo.

"We've never had a uniform agreement on what students should know. Yet most people agree there are certain things kids should be able to do. For instance, compute. Everyone should be able to add, subtract, multiply and divide. So if we all kind of agree, why not just declare it ... and come to an agreement as to when these skills ought to be demonstrated."

Sounds like the local version of President Bill Clinton's call for national academic standards, one of many education reform proposals outlined in his February State of the Union address. Every child in America should be able to read by third grade, according to Clinton.

Clinton has not released specifics for national standards, but state officials aren't worried. Such standards are unlikely to be more stringent than the state's standards.

Yet they are more controversial. Opponents fear they might lead to a national curriculum and less local control over education.

"We already have a national curriculum, in a sense," says Robert Brennan, president of the National Council on Measurement in Education.

"Within any category [of learning] there are one, two or maybe three textbooks used nationwide. But if people are worried about the federal government imposing something strict, I don't think they should be. I don't foresee congressionally mandated content in our future. That would be a dramatic change from the traditional role federal government has played in education."

Illinois' standards also are not meant to regulate reading, writing and arithmetic, state officials promise.

"[These standards] will be the uniform target schools should be shooting

6 / April 1997 Illinois Issues

at," Schaljo says. "But the how you get there will still be totally under local control. It has to be flexible and in the hands of the local school and community because kids aren't the same [statewide]."

In short, Chicago kids are different from the kids in Cairo. And that's exactly why some fear the proposed standards.

"Basically, we're talking about one-size-fits-all for all school districts," says David Curtin, executive director of the Illinois Christian Coalition.

Members of Curtin's group believe Springfield will flood local school districts with paperwork, hindering them from setting their own (most likely higher) standards.

"These are not my concerns. This is what I've heard from school board officials."

Such widespread opposition from school boards is news to Wayne Sampson, executive director of the Illinois Association of School Boards.

Sampson's association is helping to draft the new standards — as are the Illinois Association of School Administrators, the Illinois Education Association, the Illinois Federation of Teachers, the Illinois Parent and Teacher Association and the Illinois Manufacturers' Association.

"I think there are probably a variety of stances," says Sampson, who has only heard a few complaints himself. "But school districts are being given quite a bit of latitude in how they achieve the standards. They've also been given a chance to react."

In fact, the state has given local districts considerable time to make suggestions for standards, which stand to hold schools more accountable.

The preliminary state academic standards proposed by the Illinois State Board of Education amplify and clarify the stated current goals for learning. Below are two examples: A 1985 state goal for English language arts: Understand how and why language functions and evolves. Read, comprehend, interpret, evaluate and use written material. Proposed state goal and standard: Read with understanding and fluency. A. Apply word analysis and vocabulary skills to comprehend text. B. Apply reading strategies to improve fluency and understanding. C. Demonstrate comprehension of a broad range of reading materials. A 1985 state goal for mathematics: Understand and apply geometric concepts and relations in a variety of forms. Use mathematical skills to estimate, approximate and predict outcomes and to judge reasonableness of results. Proposed state goal and standard: Analyze, categorize and draw conclusions about objects and spatial relationships using geometric methods and drawings, sketches, graphs, models, symbols, calculators and computers. A. Demonstrate and apply basic geometric concepts in one, two and three dimensions. B. Identify, describe, classify and compare relationships within and among one-, two- and three-dimensional figures. C. Construct convincing arguments and proofs to represent, transform and solve problems. D. Apply trigonometric properties to solve problems.

"A standards-based education system is sweeping the nation," Schaljo says. "It's part of the next evolution of education reform."

Virginia, for example, has adopted some of the most detailed standards in the nation to cover its core curriculum, according to the Education Commission of the States, a bipartisan group that helps state governments with education policy.

"It's all over the map, but, in one way or another, the majority of states are [looking at adopting standards]," says the commission's Kathy Christie.

And the move is historic. For as long as American children have been learning 2+ 2 = 4, our nation's education system has been "time-based."

"[Now] whatever you learn in 180 days, that's it," says Schaljo. "Our teachers are always struggling to keep up with their lesson plans and fit everything in. But if they don't, they don't. We know now the key is to move away from a time-based system to an achievement-based system."

A new focus on the knowledge and skills taught, regardless of time, could lead to serious talk about other education reforms, such as moving to year-round schooling.

Illinois got a late start, Schaljo admits, but "we've learned from other states' mistakes and catapulted ahead."

Not that we are close to being done. Tests must be revamped. Teachers must be taught. Agreement must be reached on ways to measure progress.

It's likely to be another two years before the state will be able to assess how well students are learning — and how well schools are teaching.

But finding a means to measure what students are learning is a long step toward accountability in education. By the time school opens again in the fall, educators will know whether lawmakers kept their end of the bargain on funding.

Illinois Issues April 1997 / 7