In the Wells-Ogunquit Community School District we have been involved in restructuring for the last eight years. Our early efforts, financially supported by the Smart Family Foundation, concentrated on restructuring the workplace for teachers and improving instruction. We focused on team building, developing collaborative decision-making processes, and exploring new instructional strategies. This resulted in richer, more exciting classroom experiences for students, but did not necessarily increase academic achievement.
In the midst of our struggle to restructure our district, the State Department of Education released Maine's Common Core of Learning. Developed by a representative group of educators, community members, and business people from around the state, the Common Core described a model of education that blurred traditional subject area lines and moved toward an integrated framework for curriculum and instruction. Rather than “reading, 'riting and 'rithmetic,” the Common Core presented a set of outcomes divided into four transdisciplinary categories: The Human Record, Reasoning and Problem Solving, Communication, and Personal and Global Stewardship.
The Human Record included student understanding of history and the constructs of human thought and creativity as they have evolved over time. Reasoning and Problem Solving focused on the ability of students to use knowledge to reflect on their own process of learning. Communication developed the ability to use a variety of media, and Personal and Global Stewardship focused on the development of responsible citizens.
Our district's Curriculum and Instruction Committee believed Maine's Common Core of Learning could provide a starting point for the development of a more effective curriculum as well as a way to pull all of the district restructuring efforts under a common umbrella. Implementing the Common Core would lead to systemic, holistic change, requiring changes in all the elements that schools have traditionally treated as isolated segments, such as instruction, assessment, and scheduling. Knowing that teacher involvement was crucial for successful implementation of the new model, we began a process of education and discussion that eventually led to the adoption of the Common Core and a transformation of our school district.
Developing Support for Changing
Developing teacher ownership was especially important because the Common Core would challenge teachers' traditional model of curriculum development. We gave each teacher a copy and set aside four release day afternoons for a district-wide discussion of its implications for Wells-Ogunquit. We divided all district teaching and support staff into cross-grade, cross-disciplinary groups of 15. The Quality Circles model, adapted from the business community, allowed all participants an equal voice in problem solving. Asked to identify the knowledge, skills, and attitudes graduating students should possess, participants held in-depth discussions of the Common Core's outcomes and their relevance for students.
These initial meetings had mixed results. Some teachers were excited by the potential while others were overwhelmed by the magnitude of the changes required. Although no one disagreed with the outcomes, everyone recognized that the vision differed radically from traditional models for schooling. Furthermore, because no similar curriculum frameworks existed, teachers could not see what the Common Core would look like in practice; this exacerbated teacher apprehension.
Although administrators and members of the Curriculum and Instruction Committee recognized the concerns of teachers, consensus grew toward adoption. In spring 1991, the school committee formally adopted Maine's Common Core of Learning. That summer the superintendent set implementation for within five years.
What Does Implementation Mean?
Implementing the Common Core within five years is an enormous task with far-reaching ramifications. First, we translated the general outcomes into outcomes appropriate for our community and children. Next, we are developing performance-based authentic assessment measures for these outcomes, because traditional assessment measures are not sophisticated enough to measure the application and critical thinking skills reflected in the outcomes. Finally, changes in curriculum and assessment will require new instructional strategies for teachers as well as changes in the organizational structure and the daily routine of schools.
To build a collaborative work culture and ensure ownership of the project, we have actively involved teachers as colleagues and leaders in every phase of the project, even though this has required extensive resources and training in teamwork, group problem solving, inquiry, curriculum development, alternative assessment strategies, and instructional models. For help in creating a Center for Enhanced Learning to integrate the components needed for successful curriculum development and implementation, we sought and received funding from the Danforth Foundation.
To provide further resources for the project, we formed several partnerships. Pratt and Whitney, a division of United Technologies, agreed to provide training in team building and group problem-solving skills over a three-year period. Our district continues its membership in the Southern Maine Partnership, one of the original 12 sites in John Goodlad's Network for Renewing Schools, that provides support for a culture of inquiry throughout our region. And 15 consultants from Maine's Department of Education agreed to join the curriculum teams as equal participants with teachers, administrators, and community members.
Tailoring the Outcomes
Before establishing the teams that tailored the outcomes, standards, benchmarks, and authentic assessment measures for our district, our informal steering committee struggled with how to approach the task. Should we recommend beginning with the four transdisciplinary strands or should we approach these strands through the content areas? Beginning with traditional content areas might make developing integrated outcomes more difficult. On the other hand, because teachers had not initiated this project, their comfort level was important. We also considered beginning with only two or three of the content areas, but this would have reinforced content area isolation.
We decided to begin with the eight content areas. By starting with the familiar, we mitigated some teacher discomfort and preserved the essential skills and knowledge from the individual content areas that are needed to integrate the curriculum. We hope that the final product will respect the individual teacher's understanding of content pedagogy (Shulman 1987) and blend it into the outcomes, instructional strategies, and assessment.
To offset the danger that participants might approach the work with a traditional mind-set of goals and objectives, all teachers in the district participated in an afternoon session on developing outcomes in January 1992. Following this, we scheduled a release afternoon to allow all teachers to attend the first meeting of a committee of their choice. While continuing participation on a committee was voluntary, we hoped this meeting would generate interest in the project.
Next, each committee set its own work schedule for the spring and summer, charged with developing five to eight graduation outcomes in its content area as well as assessment standards for grades 4, 8, and 11. District money was available for summer work on the project. As the committees worked, we encouraged teachers to keep in mind the integrated nature of the project and to reinforce the four transdisciplinary strands within each content area outcome.
Although each committee progressed at a different pace, participants experienced similar challenges and difficulties. Trained to write behavioral objectives, participants struggled with the definition of an outcome. As the committees examined Maine's Common Core of Learning, they discovered that some of the outcomes listed were actually habits of mind, specific skills, benchmarks, or standards.
Questions arose: How can we limit ourselves to only five to eight outcomes? Will we lose track of essential skills and knowledge? Who will ensure that children can multiply and divide, write a persuasive letter, and identify the branches of their government?
The ambiguity of the task fostered rich discussion, and by referring throughout the process to the definition of outcomes as broad statements describing what students should possess upon graduation, each committee developed a set of outcomes that incorporated the essential skills and knowledge of its discipline.
Developing Assessments
Committees experienced new difficulties as they began their work on standards and assessments. Models developed elsewhere helped some committees; for example, the math committee referred to NCTM's Standards and the Vermont Portfolio Project. The science and language arts committees had more difficulties because the existing models still used the traditional framework. In addition, defining terms such as standards and benchmarks caused confusion. Not only did participants struggle with learning this new vocabulary, but even the reference literature seemed to use the terms inconsistently.
To address these difficulties, we instituted regular meetings with committee chairs. At one of these meetings, we resolved the problem of definitions; David Silvernail of the University of Southern Maine helped us compile a glossary of terms that we used to ensure consistency (see fig. 1). The definitions, however, did not resolve the philosophical differences between those who felt that the benchmarks were incremental steps toward meeting the outcomes and those who believed they were developmental indicators of the outcomes. This question was crucial because assessments would measure the outcomes at grades 4, 8, and 11. We had to resolve whether they would assess the outcome or the benchmark. After much discussion, we agreed that assessments measured the outcome, and developmental assessments indicated student progress toward the outcome.
Figure 1. Definitions from the Common Core of Learning Project
Student Outcome. A broad statement describing what students are expected to know and be able to do upon graduation. Example:
Graduates will be able to use language to communicate in order to understand themselves and others in the process of making sense of their world.
Assessment Criteria. The qualities, skills, attributes, and habits of mind that are looked for in an assessment; what is going to be assessed. Example:
The ability to express personal feelings in writing.
Assessment Standards. The values assigned to different levels of the qualities, skills, attributes, and habits of mind found through the assessment; how the work is judged. Example:
6= Students can use a variety of media to identify a social problem or issue in their own town, country, or the world, and analyze their connection with the problem.
5= Students can identify a social problem or issue and explain how it affects them.
4= Students can use a variety of media to explain how they solved a personal problem or dilemma.
3= Students can use a variety of media to describe a personal problem or dilemma.
2= Students can use a variety of media to communicate a story about themselves or others.
1= Students can use a variety of media to tell a story about themselves.
Benchmarks. The level of a student outcome that students are expected to achieve by a certain point in their K–12 school career. Example:
All 4th graders can use a variety of media to communicate a story about themselves or others.
Alternative (Authentic) Assessment. Tasks given to students so they may demonstrate achievement of the outcome. Example:
4th graders will create a storybook about their family.
—David Silvernail
In our new framework, assessment drives classroom instruction. Assessments will measure stated outcomes through authentic tasks that integrate the four interdisciplinary strands. Rather than tracking hundreds of discrete objectives for each grade level, the teacher must reflect upon what skills are needed to meet a specific outcome and use instruction as a rehearsal for those assessment tasks. Each assessment strategy will assess multiple outcomes and provide information about proficiency in several subject areas. For example, the following assessment strategy will assess five of the eight science outcomes: analyzing scientific information, using laboratory tools, utilizing the scientific method, contributing to a group, and using the basic themes of change. You are part of a research team for Consumer Reports magazine. Recently you have received a lot of questions about various scientific claims. Your task is to select a scientific claim and design an experiment to test it. You must analyze the claim for scientific accuracy and develop a presentation to share with the public. This strategy could also be used to assess language arts skills.
Moving Toward Integration
By January 1993, each content committee had written its outcomes, standards, and assessments. The committees created a total of 42 outcomes, which committee chairs are now integrating into the four transdisciplinary categories. Many of the outcomes overlapped, and as they are fine-tuned, we anticipate that 10–15 outcomes will result.
Committees are now sharing their work with all of the faculties in the district in order to help teachers who have not participated on the committees to develop ownership of the project. For example, the language arts committee recently presented its outcomes, benchmarks, and assessments to one of the two elementary school staffs during an afternoon workshop. Although most of the teachers felt the work of the committee accurately reflected their understanding of the content area, they had the opportunity to make changes to the draft.
Each committee is also piloting assessment tasks in the classroom. At least one assessment task per committee must be piloted prior to June 1993. Based on information from the pilots, the committees will reexamine their initial work.
The process of making Maine's Common Core of Learning our own has been time-consuming and agonizing. The ambiguity of the tasks and the lack of clear models occasionally engendered high levels of frustration. Leading others toward a goal that we did not always understand was especially difficult; however, the difficulties enhanced the sense of accomplishment as committees completed their initial drafts.
What began as a daunting task is nearing the end of its initial phase. The work of the individual committees provided new opportunities for leadership for teachers, provoked rich discussions about essential learning, and raised the level of conversation for all teachers in the district. Perhaps most important, the process brought us closer to a common understanding of what children should know and be able to do as a result of their schooling.
